El progreso auténtico y la realización de los valores más altos

The Cynefin framework was developed to help leaders recognize the context of their organizational challenges so that they could design the most appropriate leader responses. In local law enforcement, leaders face challenges that range from the simple across the spectrum of complicated and complex to the chaotic. While simple challenges

require simple interventions, they can also breed complacency. Complex challenges are characterized by many moving parts, high stakes with disproportionate consequences, and a cause and effect relationship influenced by past actions and institutional memory (Snowden, 2007). The Cynefin framework suggests that in the complex context, leaders encourage discussion, debate, diversity of opinion, and ensure that conditions support the development of best practices rather than mandate results. “Because outcomes are unpredictable in a complex context, leaders need to focus on creating an environment from which good things can emerge, rather than trying to bring about predetermined results and possibly missing opportunities that arise unexpectedly” (Snowden, 2007).

In the simple context, the facts are known and undisputed. A simple context assumes clear communication, shared understanding, and shared goals. Clear relationships between cause and effect are expected in the simple context. For every question in the simple context, there is a right answer but, not likely more than one right answer. When problems arise in the simple context, line level workers are often able and expected to address them. Mangers are needed to ensure rule adherence and find ways to improve efficiency. Speed, efficiency, uniformity, predictability, and stability are the positive attributes of the simplex context when things are running smoothly. The negative effects of a smoothly operating simple context are complacency, rote response, lack of innovation, and an over reliance on experience rather than learning. The simple context can easily become past focused and leaders can fall into micro management. While micro management can diminish trust and the incentive to innovate, standard operating procedures, functional bureaucracy, and hierarchical leadership are well suited to guide processes to successful conclusion in the simple context.

In the complicated context, the relationship between cause and effect remains strong but, is less clear. For every question, there can be more than one right answer but, no question is unanswerable. In the complicated context, analysis is required to take the known information and determine the unknown root of the problem. In the complicated context, non objective elements such as subjective values can influence decision making.

While decision makers endeavor to apply root cause analysis to singular and often interrelated problems, the information required to perform that analysis is often difficult

and will require the assistance of subject matter experts. Experts can become bogged down in entrenched and territorial thinking to the detriment of problem solving. When this occurs, new sources of input, additional scanning, and collaboration are required.

Decisions in the complicated context take more time to arrive at and will often involve a deliberative process and consensus. While hierarchy can be adhered to in the complicated context, flexibility and innovation are beneficial.

In the complex context, decision makers are working with even more significant challenges. The complex context is characterized by imperfect information, and an unclear understanding of cause and effect. In this context it is likely that there is no historical context from which to make predictions. Challenges in the complex context are likely challenges that have never been seen before. This is the context where innovation is not just beneficial but required. Rigid adherence to standard operating procedures here will almost certainly result in failure. This is the context famously described by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when he stated in 2002, “There are things we do not know we don’t know.” Where standard operating procedures are insufficient, and innovation is required, the best management plans rely on experimentation. Patterns can be discerned over time that lead to more effective predictions but these processes require greater time and more acceptance of failure. Rule based culture, hierarchy, and bureaucracy are not as effective in the complex context as openness, flat structures, and value based goals that are broadly shared. Management plans that rely on experimentation must accept that there will be setbacks and that each setback is a learning opportunity. Management must foster conditions that support innovation and avoid setting conditions that judge success only by predetermined results. While targets cannot be objectively defined in this context, the shared values and culture of an organization can have positive influence on achieving outcomes that are beneficial. These values can be expressed effectively in super ordinate goals and simple barriers that guide performance rather than direct it.

In the chaotic context there is a sense of urgency. Failure to act is likely to result in dire consequences and there is no opportunity for deliberation or incremental change.

The primary responsibility of management in a chaotic context is to restore order and

stop the ongoing harm. Command and control mechanisms are effective in a crisis and those receiving direction are often eager for it. Over reliance on command and control models however can interfere with learning from the crisis and thus diminishing the likelihood of repeating it. Crisis management in the chaotic context must be seen as a temporary solution only. Successful management in the chaotic context will bring about a transition to one of the other contexts and management must adapt to that change. Heroic leaders who successfully guide an organization through a crisis can become over reliant on crisis management techniques to the long term detriment of the organization. The context of disorder emerges when multiple leaders with varying agendas vie for prominence in a complex or chaotic context. No solutions can derive from the context of disorder. Disorder can only be diminished when a focal leader is agreed upon or when the complex problem is broken down into various parts, the context of which can be seen and addressed in terms of one of the other four contexts.

The Cynefin framework was designed to help leaders not only identify in which context they were operating but also, to help describe the management techniques most suited to that context. The framework however is not static. Leaders must develop systems that allow for transition across the various contexts because no organization can expect to remain in one context permanently. The framework is graphically represented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Cynefin Framework (From Snowden & Boone, 2007)

The literature on strategic management establishes the following basic principles that are relevant to the research questions this thesis addresses. Good leadership matters.

It is incumbent on SLTLE leaders to develop and successfully implement strategic management plans that guide and shape the efforts of their organizations. The expectancy theory applies to leaders as much as it does to subordinates. Properly applied leadership as expressed in effective strategic management has a correlation to improved performance. Improved SLTLE performance has a correlation to positive outcomes both in the leader subordinate exchange and beyond. Good planning involves a mixture of adaption, synthesis, collaboration, the ability to overcome obstacles, and an adherence to shared values. This knowledge combined with what can be learned from the various existing SLTLE strategic management plans provides a solid foundation for developing the next adaption of SLTLE strategic management.