Cynefin Foundations – Learning Journal – Module 1

A learning journal containing my ah-ha moments, puzzles and learning notes as I complete the Cynefin Foundations Online course

Module 1 Topics:

  1. Welcome & Overview
  2. Positioning the approach of anthro-complexity
  3. Complexity Theory and managing in complexity
  4. Exercises and Practice

3 Ah-ha Moments:

  • Five Things – You can only manage five things in a complex system (see notes below). In particular I was intrigued by constraints and how different constraints respond to failure.
  • Problem of Intermediation – There is a tendency by senior managers to treat complex problems as ordered. My learning is that this is driven by Intermediation. Senior Management are often far removed from the realities of teams. Complexity is hidden and they only see the world through order in power points, steering committees etc. More disintermediation is needed so that Senior Managers can be exposed to complexity to help shift away from everything appearing like an ordered problem. Managers need experience complexity in order to embrace it.
  • Goal Setting – You cannot drive a complex system to a specific goal but you can experiment  towards a sense of direction. I had learned through systems thinking that systems have implicit goals. In particular that you can define a system optimisation goal. Now i’m starting to question that thinking. A complex system has a disposition or sense of direction but it cannot have a specific, fixed goal.

2 Unanswered Questions:

  • If complex systems are dispositional, how do you identify the systems disposition?
  • What examples of constraints exist within organisational systems?

1 Next Step:

  • Perform Constraint Mapping within my Organisational System to understand better the different types of constraints that exist (See notes below)

Learning Notes:

Pitfalls with Systems Thinking

  • It is different from Anthro-Complexity (Cynefin)
  • It is driven by an engineering mindset
  • It has value to limits
  • It can create a belief that systems can be controlled if we just understand it enough.
  • It can drive measurements which has negative effects.
  • It can lead to retrospective coherence
  • It can confuse correlation and causation

You can only manage five things in a complex system

  1. Constraints – containers, connections, context free, context specific (https://vimeo.com/128934608)
  2. Identity – Different identities in various contexts (husband vs employee) – Identity is an orientation. Identity highlights important of linkages
  3. Affordances – designing the environment and allowing others to make that design a reality. We talk about self-organising teams but we need to enable the ability to adopt it. If people don’t believe it will work they won’t do it, or just token adopt it. Diversity fits into affordances. Diversity is essential in complex systems. Tiger teams – three people with diverse backgrounds to tackle a complex problem
  4. Assemblages – a type of strange attractors – there is a pattern but not pathway used twice. Example: people get swept away in a story
  5. Attractors – you cant create them but you can catalyse them. Bounce the ball at a children’s party. The attractor might fail. If it works you want to amplify. If it fails you want to dampen

Constraint Types:

  • Resilient – survives changed (salt marsh)
    • Permeable – salt marsh
    • Mutating – Case law system – law can change over time
    • Dark(Emergent) – You can see impact but you can’t find cause – taboo
  • Robust – survives unchanged (sea wall) – catastrophic failure
    • Fixed – sea wall
    • Elastic – exercise band
    • Tethers – climbing rope
  1. Identify those which we can change
  2. Identify those which can be changed by other actors
  3. Complete a risk assessment on our and/or other actor changes
  4. Identify constraint changes that will minimise risk
  5. Commence parallel safe-to-fail experiments based on the above
Unique aspects of Human Systems:
  • We make decisions based on patterns
  • We create and maintain multiple identities
  • We ascribe intentionality and cause where none necessarily exist
  • We have learnt how to structure their social interactions to create order

Characteristics of Complex Systems (Professor Cilliers)

  1. Consist of a large number of elements that in themselves can be simple.
  2. The interactions are nonlinear.
  3. many direct and indirect feedback loops.
  4. Complex systems are open systems — they exchange energy or information with their environment — and operate at conditions far from equilibrium.
  5. Complex systems have memory, not located at a specific place, but distributed throughout the system. Any complex system thus has a history, and the history is of cardinal importance to the behavior of the system.
  6. Since the interactions are rich, dynamic, fed back, and, above all, nonlinear, the behavior of the system as a whole cannot be predicted from an inspection of its components.
  7. Complex systems are adaptive. They can (re)organize their internal structure without the intervention of an external agent.

Heuristics for complexity

3 Questions to ask (to focus)

  1. What can i change? Only 5 things (e.g. Constraints)
  2. How can i monitor the impact of change? Foolish to change without ability to monitor
  3. Where can i amplify or dampen result of change?

3 ways to manage

  • Work in the small (Reduce granularity) – Focus on smaller experiments and see how they interact
  • Involve Diverse thinking (Distribute cognition) – example: sense-making – Involve many diverse perspectives for insights
  • Access Raw Data – Reduce layers between raw data and decision makers – Remove managers. Don’t summarise. Summarisation looses raw understanding.

3 things to avoid

  • Retrospective Coherence – Hindsight doesn’t lead to foresight. Don’t use statements about the past to predict the future
  • Risk with Systems Thinking – Looking back at what the system is doing today won’t predict what will happen in future
  • Premature Convergence – People jump to solutions too quickly
  • Pattern blindness – Gorilla experiment

Much research in management science makes a basic error in logic in assuming that because successful companies have certain types of organizational structure, strategic process or whatever, that the assumption of those organization structures or strategic processes by another company will lead to that company being successful. This is the confusion between properties and qualities taught in 101 philosophy: just because I see a Frenchman wearing glasses it does not follow that all Frenchmen wear glasses and even less so that if I put on glasses I will become French!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s