DECISION MAKING

A Leader’s Framework for

Decision Making
by David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone
FROM THE NOVEMBER 2007 ISSUE

I n January 1993, a gunman murdered seven people in a fast-food

restaurant in Palatine, a suburb of Chicago. In his dual roles as an
administrative executive and spokesperson for the police department,
Deputy Chief Walter Gasior suddenly had to cope with several different
situations at once. He had to deal with the grieving families and a frightened
community, help direct the operations of an extremely busy police
department, and take questions from the media, which inundated the town
with reporters and film crews. “There would literally be four people coming at
me with logistics and media issues all at once,” he recalls. “And in the midst of
all this, we still had a department that had to keep running on a routine basis.”

Though Gasior was ultimately successful in juggling multiple demands, not all
leaders achieve the desired results when they face situations that require a
variety of decisions and responses. All too often, managers rely on common
leadership approaches that work well in one set of circumstances but fall short
in others. Why do these approaches fail even when logic indicates they should
prevail? The answer lies in a fundamental assumption of organizational theory
and practice: that a certain level of predictability and order exists in the world.
This assumption, grounded in the Newtonian science that underlies scientific
management, encourages simplifications that are useful in ordered
circumstances. Circumstances change, however, and as they become more
complex, the simplifications can fail. Good leadership is not a one-size-fits-all
proposition.

We believe the time has come to broaden the traditional approach to

leadership and decision making and form a new perspective based on
complexity science. (For more on this, see the sidebar “Understanding
Complexity.”) Over the past ten years, we have applied the principles of that
science to governments and a broad range of industries. Working with other
contributors, we developed the Cynefin framework, which allows executives
to see things from new viewpoints, assimilate complex concepts, and address
real-world problems and opportunities. (Cynefin, pronounced ku-nev-in, is a
Welsh word that signifies the multiple factors in our environment and our
experience that influence us in ways we can never understand.) Using this
approach, leaders learn to define the framework with examples from their own
organization’s history and scenarios of its possible future. This enhances
communication and helps executives rapidly understand the context in which
they are operating.

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research

Understanding Projects Agency has applied the
Complexity framework to counterterrorism, and it
Complexity is more a way of is currently a key component of
thinking about the world than a
Singapore’s Risk Assessment and
new way of working with
mathematical models. Over a Horizon Scanning program. Over time,
century ago, Frederick Winslow the framework has evolved through
Taylor, the father of scientic
hundreds of applications, from helping
management, revolutionized
leadership. Today, advances in a pharmaceutical company develop a
complexity science, combined new product strategy to assisting a
with knowledge from the
Canadian provincial government in its
cognitive sciences, are
transforming the eld once efforts to engage employees in policy
again. Complexity is poised to making.
help current and future leaders
make sense of advanced
technology, globalization,
intricate markets, cultural
change, and much more. In
short, the science of The framework sorts the issues facing
complexity can help all of us
leaders into five contexts defined by
address the challenges and
opportunities we face in a new the nature of the relationship between
epoch of human history. cause and effect. Four of these—simple,
A complex system has the complicated, complex, and chaotic—
following characteristics: require leaders to diagnose situations
It involves large numbers of and to act in contextually appropriate
interacting elements. ways. The fifth—disorder—applies
when it is unclear which of the other
The interactions are
four contexts is predominant.
nonlinear, and minor changes
can produce
disproportionately major Using the Cynefin framework can help
consequences.
executives sense which context they
are in so that they can not only make
The system is dynamic, the
whole is greater than the sum better decisions but also avoid the
of its parts, and solutions problems that arise when their
can’t be imposed; rather,
preferred management style causes
they arise from the
circumstances. This is them to make mistakes. In this article,
frequently referred to as we focus on the first four contexts,
offering examples and suggestions
emergence about how to lead and make
. appropriate decisions in each of them.
Since the complex domain is much
The system has a history, and more prevalent in the business world
the past is integrated with
the present; the elements than most leaders realize—and requires
evolve with one another and different, often counterintuitive,
with the environment; and
 evolution is irreversible. responses—we concentrate particularly
on that context. Leaders who
Though a complex system
understand that the world is often
may, in retrospect, appear to
be ordered and predictable, irrational and unpredictable will find
hindsight does not lead to the Cynefin framework particularly
foresight because the useful.
external conditions and
systems constantly change.
Simple Contexts: The
Unlike in ordered systems Domain of Best Practice
(where the system constrains Simple contexts are characterized by
the agents), or chaotic
stability and clear cause-and-effect
systems (where there are no
constraints), in a complex relationships that are easily discernible
system the agents and the by everyone. Often, the right answer is
system constrain one
self-evident and undisputed. In this
another, especially over time.
This means that we cannot realm of “known knowns,” decisions
forecast or predict what will are unquestioned because all parties
happen.
share an understanding. Areas that are
little subject to change, such as
One of the early theories of
complexity is that complex problems with order processing and
phenomena arise from simple fulfillment, usually belong here.
rules. Consider the rules for the
ocking behavior of birds: Fly to
the center of the ock, match Simple contexts, properly assessed,
speed, and avoid collision. This require straightforward management
simple-rule theory was applied and monitoring. Here, leaders sense,
to industrial modeling and
production early on, and it categorize, and respond. That is, they
promised much; but it did not assess the facts of the situation,
deliver in isolation. More
recently, some thinkers and categorize them, and then base their
practitioners have started to
response on established practice.
argue that human complex
systems are very different from Heavily process-oriented situations,
those in nature and cannot be such as loan payment processing, are
modeled in the same ways
often simple contexts. If something
because of human
unpredictability and intellect. goes awry, an employee can usually
Consider the following ways in identify the problem (when, say, a
which humans are distinct from borrower pays less than is required),
other animals:
categorize it (review the loan
They have multiple identities
documents to see how partial
and can uidly switch
between them without payments must be processed), and
conscious thought. (For respond appropriately (either not
example, a person can be a accept the payment or apply the funds
respected member of the
community as well as a according to the terms of the note).
terrorist.) Since both managers and employees
have access to the information
They make decisions based necessary for dealing with the
on past patterns of success
situation in this domain, a command-
and failure, rather than on
logical, denable rules. and-control style for setting
parameters works best. Directives are
They can, in certain straightforward, decisions can be
circumstances, purposefully
easily delegated, and functions are
change the systems in which
they operate to equilibrium automated. Adhering to best practices
states (think of a Six Sigma or process reengineering makes sense.
project) in order to create Exhaustive communication among
predictable outcomes.
 Leaders who want to apply the managers and employees is not usually
principles of complexity science
required because disagreement about
to their organizations will need
to think and act differently than what needs to be done is rare.
they have in the past. This may
not be easy, but it is essential in
Nevertheless, problems can arise in
complex contexts.
simple contexts. First, issues may be
incorrectly classified within this
domain because they have been
oversimplified. Leaders who constantly ask for condensed information,
regardless of the complexity of the situation, particularly run this risk.

Second, leaders are susceptible to entrained thinking, a conditioned response

that occurs when people are blinded to new ways of thinking by the
perspectives they acquired through past experience, training, and success.

Third, when things appear to be going smoothly, leaders often become

complacent. If the context changes at that point, a leader is likely to miss what
is happening and react too late. In the exhibit “The Cynefin Framework,” the
simple domain lies adjacent to the chaotic—and for good reason. The most
frequent collapses into chaos occur because success has bred complacency.
This shift can bring about catastrophic failure—think of the many previously
dominant technologies that were suddenly disrupted by more dynamic
alternatives.

The Cynen Framework

The Cynen framework helps Leaders need to avoid micromanaging
leaders determine the
and stay connected to what is
prevailing operative context so
that they can make appropriate happening in order to spot a change in
choices. Each domain requires context. By and large, line workers in a
different actions. Simple and
simple situation are more than capable
complicated contexts assume
an ordered universe, where of independently handling any issues
cause-and-effect relationships that may arise. Indeed, those with
are perceptible, and right years of experience also have deep
answers can be determined
based on the facts. Complex insight into how the work should be
and chaotic contexts are done. Leaders should create a
unordered—there is no communication channel—an
immediately apparent
anonymous one, if necessary—that
relationship between cause and
effect, and the way forward is allows dissenters to provide early
determined based on emerging warnings about complacency.
patterns. The ordered world is
the world of fact-based
management; the unordered Finally, it’s important to remember
world represents pattern-based that best practice is, by definition, past
management.
practice. Using best practices is
The very nature of the fth common, and often appropriate, in
context—disorder—makes it
particularly difcult to simple contexts. Difficulties arise,
recognize when one is in it. however, if staff members are
Here, multiple perspectives discouraged from bucking the process
jostle for prominence, factional
even when it’s not working anymore.
leaders argue with one another,
and cacophony rules. The way Since hindsight no longer leads to
out of this realm is to break
down the situation into
constituent parts and assign
 each to one of the other four foresight after a shift in context, a
realms. Leaders can then make
corresponding change in management
decisions and intervene in
contextually appropriate ways. style may be called for.

Complicated Contexts: The

Domain of Experts
Complicated contexts, unlike simple
ones, may contain multiple right
answers, and though there is a clear
relationship between cause and effect,
not everyone can see it. This is the
realm of “known unknowns.” While
leaders in a simple context must sense,
categorize, and respond to a situation, those in a complicated context must
sense, analyze, and respond. This approach is not easy and often requires
expertise: A motorist may know that something is wrong with his car because
the engine is knocking, but he has to take it to a mechanic to diagnose the
problem.

Because the complicated context calls for investigating several options—many

of which may be excellent—good practice, as opposed to best practice, is more
appropriate. For example, the customary approach to engineering a new cell
phone might emphasize feature A over feature B, but an alternative plan—
emphasizing feature C—might be equally valuable.
Another example is the search for oil or mineral deposits. The effort usually
requires a team of experts, more than one place will potentially produce
results, and the location of the right spots for drilling or mining involves
complicated analysis and understanding of consequences at multiple levels.

Entrained thinking is a danger in complicated contexts, too, but it is the

experts (rather than the leaders) who are prone to it, and they tend to
dominate the domain. When this problem occurs, innovative suggestions by
nonexperts may be overlooked or dismissed, resulting in lost opportunities.
The experts have, after all, invested in building their knowledge, and they are
unlikely to tolerate controversial ideas. If the context has shifted, however, the
leader may need access to those maverick concepts. To get around this issue, a
leader must listen to the experts while simultaneously welcoming novel
thoughts and solutions from others. Executives at one shoe manufacturer did
this by opening up the brainstorming process for new shoe styles to the entire
company. As a result, a security guard submitted a design for a shoe that
became one of their best sellers.

Another potential obstacle is “analysis paralysis,” where a group of experts hits

a stalemate, unable to agree on any answers because of each individual’s
entrained thinking—or ego.

Working in unfamiliar environments can help leaders and experts approach

decision making more creatively. For instance, we put retail marketing
professionals in several military research environments for two weeks. The
settings were unfamiliar and challenging, but they shared a primary similarity
with the retail environment: In both cases, the marketers had to work with
large volumes of data from which it was critical to identify small trends or
weak signals. They discovered that there was little difference between, say,
handling outgoing disaffected customers and anticipating incoming ballistic
missiles. The exercise helped the marketing group learn how to detect a
potential loss of loyalty and take action before a valued customer switched to
a competitor. By improving their strategy, the marketers were able to retain far
more high-volume business.

Games, too, can encourage novel thinking. We created a game played on a

fictional planet that was based on the culture of a real client organization.
When the executives “landed” on the alien planet, they were asked to address
problems and opportunities facing the inhabitants. The issues they
encountered were disguised but designed to mirror real situations, many of
which were controversial or sensitive. Because the environment seemed so
foreign and remote, however, the players found it much easier to come up
with fresh ideas than they otherwise might have done. Playing a metaphorical
game increases managers’ willingness to experiment, allows them to resolve
issues or problems more easily and creatively, and broadens the range of
options in their decision-making processes. The goal of such games is to get as
many perspectives as possible to promote unfettered analysis.

Reaching decisions in the complicated domain can often take a lot of time,
and there is always a trade-off between finding the right answer and simply
making a decision. When the right answer is elusive, however, and you must
base your decision on incomplete data, your situation is probably complex
rather than complicated.

Complex Contexts: The Domain of Emergence

In a complicated context, at least one right answer exists. In a complex
context, however, right answers can’t be ferreted out. It’s like the difference
between, say, a Ferrari and the Brazilian rainforest. Ferraris are complicated
machines, but an expert mechanic can take one apart and reassemble it
without changing a thing. The car is static, and the whole is the sum of its
parts. The rainforest, on the other hand, is in constant flux—a species becomes
extinct, weather patterns change, an agricultural project reroutes a water
source—and the whole is far more than the sum of its parts. This is the realm of
“unknown unknowns,” and it is the domain to which much of contemporary
business has shifted.

Most situations and decisions in organizations are complex because some

major change—a bad quarter, a shift in management, a merger or acquisition—
introduces unpredictability and flux. In this domain, we can understand why
things happen only in retrospect. Instructive patterns, however, can emerge if
the leader conducts experiments that are safe to fail. That is why, instead of
attempting to impose a course of action, leaders must patiently allow the path
forward to reveal itself. They need to probe first, then sense, and then
respond.
There is a scene in the film Apollo 13 when the astronauts encounter a crisis
(“Houston, we have a problem”) that moves the situation into a complex
domain. A group of experts is put in a room with a mishmash of materials—bits
of plastic and odds and ends that mirror the resources available to the
astronauts in flight. Leaders tell the team: This is what you have; find a
solution or the astronauts will die. None of those experts knew a priori what
would work. Instead, they had to let a solution emerge from the materials at
hand. And they succeeded. (Conditions of scarcity often produce more
creative results than conditions of abundance.)

Another example comes from YouTube. The founders could not possibly have
predicted all the applications for streaming video technology that now exist.
Once people started using YouTube creatively, however, the company could
support and augment the emerging patterns of use. YouTube has become a
popular platform for expressing political views, for example. The company
built on this pattern by sponsoring a debate for presidential hopefuls with
video feeds from the site.

As in the other contexts, leaders face several challenges in the complex

domain. Of primary concern is the temptation to fall back into traditional
command-and-control management styles—to demand fail-safe business plans
with defined outcomes. Leaders who don’t recognize that a complex domain
requires a more experimental mode of management may become impatient
when they don’t seem to be achieving the results they were aiming for. They
may also find it difficult to tolerate failure, which is an essential aspect of
experimental understanding. If they try to overcontrol the organization, they
will preempt the opportunity for informative patterns to emerge. Leaders who
try to impose order in a complex context will fail, but those who set the stage,
step back a bit, allow patterns to emerge, and determine which ones are
desirable will succeed. (See the sidebar “Tools for Managing in a Complex
Context.”) They will discern many opportunities for innovation, creativity, and
new business models.

Chaotic Contexts: The

Tools for Managing in a Domain of Rapid Response
Complex Context In a chaotic context, searching for right
Given the ambiguities of the answers would be pointless: The
complex domain, how can
relationships between cause and effect
leaders lead effectively?
are impossible to determine because
Open up the discussion.
they shift constantly and no
Complex contexts require
manageable patterns exist—only
more interactive
communication than any of turbulence. This is the realm of
the other domains. Large unknowables. The events of September
group methods (LGMs), for
11, 2001, fall into this category.
instance, are efcient
approaches to initiating
democratic, interactive, In the chaotic domain, a leader’s
multidirectional discussion
immediate job is not to discover
sessions. Here, people
generate innovative ideas patterns but to stanch the bleeding. A
that help leaders with leader must first act to establish order,
development and execution then sense where stability is present
of complex decisions and
strategies. For example, and from where it is absent, and then
“positive deviance” is a type respond by working to transform the
of LGM that allows people to
 discuss solutions that are situation from chaos to complexity,
already working within the
where the identification of emerging
organization itself, rather
than looking to outside best patterns can both help prevent future
practices for clues about how crises and discern new opportunities.
to proceed. The Plexus
Communication of the most direct top-
Institute used this approach
to address the complex down or broadcast kind is imperative;
problem of hospital-acquired there’s simply no time to ask for input.
infections, resulting in
behavior change that lowered
the incidence by as much as Unfortunately, most leadership
50%. “recipes” arise from examples of good
crisis management. This is a mistake,
Set barriers. and not only because chaotic
Barriers limit or delineate situations are mercifully rare. Though
behavior. Once the barriers the events of September 11 were not
are set, the system can self-
regulate within those immediately comprehensible, the crisis
boundaries. The founders of demanded decisive action. New York’s
eBay, for example, created mayor at the time, Rudy Giuliani,
barriers by establishing a
demonstrated exceptional
simple set of rules. Among
them are pay on time, deliver effectiveness under chaotic conditions
merchandise quickly, and by issuing directives and taking action
provide full disclosure on the
to reestablish order. However, in his
condition of the
merchandise. Participants role as mayor—certainly one of the
police themselves by rating most complex jobs in the world—he
one another on the quality of
was widely criticized for the same top-
their behavior.
down leadership style that proved so

Stimulate attractors. enormously effective during the

 Attractors are phenomena catastrophe. He was also criticized
that arise when small stimuli
afterward for suggesting that elections
and probes (whether from
leaders or others) resonate be postponed so he could maintain
with people. As attractors order and stability. Indeed, a specific
gain momentum, they
danger for leaders following a crisis is
provide structure and
coherence. EBay again that some of them become less
provides an illustrative successful when the context shifts
example. In 1995, founder because they are not able to switch
Pierre Omidyar launched an
offering called Auction Web styles to match it.
on his personal website. His
probe, the rst item for sale, Moreover, leaders who are highly
quickly morphed into eBay, a
remarkable attractor for successful in chaotic contexts can
people who want to buy and develop an overinflated self-image,
sell things. Today, sellers on becoming legends in their own minds.
eBay continue to provide
When they generate cultlike adoration,
experimental probes that
create attractors of various leading actually becomes harder for
types. One such probe, them because a circle of admiring
selling a car on the site,
supporters cuts them off from accurate
resonated with buyers, and
soon automobile sales information.
became a popular attractor.
Yet the chaotic domain is nearly
Encourage dissent and
always the best place for leaders to
diversity.
impel innovation. People are more
Dissent and formal debate
open to novelty and directive
are valuable communication
assets in complex contexts leadership in these situations than
because they encourage the they would be in other contexts. One
emergence of well-forged
 patterns and ideas. A “ritual excellent technique is to manage chaos
dissent” approach, for
and innovation in parallel: The minute
instance, puts parallel teams
to work on the same problem you encounter a crisis, appoint a
in a large group meeting reliable manager or crisis management
environment. Each team
team to resolve the issue. At the same
appoints a spokesperson who
moves from that team’s table time, pick out a separate team and
to another team’s table. The focus its members on the opportunities
spokesperson presents the for doing things differently. If you wait
rst group’s conclusions
while the second group until the crisis is over, the chance will
listens in silence. The be gone.
spokesperson then turns
around to face away from the
second team, which rips into Leadership Across Contexts
the presentation, no holds Good leadership requires openness to
barred, while the
change on an individual level. Truly
spokesperson listens quietly.
Each team’s spokesperson adept leaders will know not only how
visits other tables in turn; by to identify the context they’re working
the end of the session, all the
in at any given time but also how to
ideas have been well
dissected and honed. Taking change their behavior and their
turns listening in silence decisions to match that context. They
helps everyone understand
also prepare their organization to
the value of listening
carefully, speaking openly, understand the different contexts and
and not taking criticism the conditions for transition between
personally. them. Many leaders lead effectively—
though usually in only one or two
Manage starting conditions
and monitor for emergence.
Because outcomes are domains (not in all of them) and few, if
unpredictable in a complex
any, prepare their organizations for
context, leaders need to
focus on creating an diverse contexts.
environment from which
good things can emerge,
rather than trying to bring
about predetermined results Decisions in Multiple
and possibly missing Contexts: A Leader’s
opportunities that arise Guide
unexpectedly. Many years Effective leaders learn to shift
ago, for instance, 3M their decision-making styles to
instituted a rule allowing its match changing business
researchers to spend 15% of environments. Simple,
their time on any project that complicated, complex, and
interested them. One result chaotic contexts each call for
was a runaway success: the different managerial responses.
Post-it Note. By correctly identifying the
governing context, staying
aware of danger signals, and
avoiding inappropriate
reactions, managers can lead
effectively in a variety of
situations.
During the Palatine murders of 1993, Deputy Chief Gasior faced four contexts
at once. He had to take immediate action via the media to stem the tide of
initial panic by keeping the community informed (chaotic); he had to help
keep the department running routinely and according to established
procedure (simple); he had to call in experts (complicated); and he had to
continue to calm the community in the days and weeks following the crime
(complex). That last situation proved the most challenging. Parents were afraid
to let their children go to school, and employees were concerned about safety
in their workplaces. Had Gasior misread the context as simple, he might just
have said, “Carry on,” which would have done nothing to reassure the
community. Had he misread it as complicated, he might have called in experts
to say it was safe—risking a loss of credibility and trust. Instead, Gasior set up a
forum for business owners, high school students, teachers, and parents to
share concerns and hear the facts. It was the right approach for a complex
context: He allowed solutions to emerge from the community itself rather
than trying to impose them.• • •

Business schools and organizations equip leaders to operate in ordered

domains (simple and complicated), but most leaders usually must rely on their
natural capabilities when operating in unordered contexts (complex and
chaotic). In the face of greater complexity today, however, intuition, intellect,
and charisma are no longer enough. Leaders need tools and approaches to
guide their firms through less familiar waters.

In the complex environment of the current business world, leaders often will
be called upon to act against their instincts. They will need to know when to
share power and when to wield it alone, when to look to the wisdom of the
group and when to take their own counsel. A deep understanding of context,
the ability to embrace complexity and paradox, and a willingness to flexibly
change leadership style will be required for leaders who want to make things
happen in a time of increasing uncertainty.

A version of this article appeared in the November 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review.

David J. Snowden ([email protected]) is the founder and chief scientic ofcer of Cognitive
Edge, an international research network. He is based primarily in Lockeridge, England.
Mary E. Boone ([email protected]) is the president of Boone Associates, a consulting rm in
Essex, Connecticut, and the author of numerous books and articles, including Managing
Interactively (McGraw-Hill, 2001).

This article is about DECISION MAKING

 F OL L OW THIS TOP IC

Related Topics: L E ADE R SHI P

Comments
Leave a Comment

POST

3 COMMENTS

Francisco Caballero 10 months ago

Excellent article, very useful.

REPLY 10

 JOIN THE CONVERSATION

POSTING GUIDELINES
We hope the conversations that take place on HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To
comment, readers must sign in or register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will review all
comments and may edit them for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or
off-topic may be deleted per the moderators' judgment. All postings become the property of Harvard Business Publishing.