If you’re involved in organisational change you’ll be aware that - like reincarnation - four box models are making a big comeback at the moment. I thought I’d use my guest blog opportunity to run through a few that seem pertinent from a change perspective. And where better to begin than with Cynefin? After all, once you strip away the squiggly bits, ditch that awkward disorder space and straighten a few lines you have a proper looking four box model:
| COMPLEX: “learners and participants” | COMPLICATED: “celebrity chefs” |
| CHAOTIC: “moving in mysterious ways” | SIMPLE: “control freaks” |
The simple territory is the land of best practice – what we know we should be doing. The consultancy style that best reflects this domain is “control freak” – after all no one is arguing about what should be done it’s more a matter of cajoling them into doing it. Examples include health and safety, quality systems in all their guises – especially where processes are documented in endless folders. I may have a slightly prejudiced view but, in the UK at least, this seems to attract ex members of the armed forces or people spawned out of organisations with a reputation for success in a particular area e.g. Dupont on safety. Maybe an area for implementing change but not much to offer from a change creating point of view.
Moving on to complicated – the land of “celebrity chefs” and recipe driven change. I think the connection with food here runs deep – fortunes are being made daily by transforming the basic discipline of weight management into an elaborate process that requires expert guidance. The art of the celebrity chef is to make the recipe simple enough to explain but sufficiently difficult in practice for you to conclude you need a bit of assistance – whether or not the meal is right for you is another matter again. In organisational change terms I’m thinking of things like balanced scorecard, business process reengineering, any form of government led intervention in the UK (increasing literacy, reducing teenage pregnancy rates), leadership development programmes, multicultural awareness, culture change, blah, blah, blah. The underlying belief here is that organisational change can be understood – and if you understand change maybe you control change. The lack of satisfaction attributed to large scale change initiatives seems to challenge this understanding however. Does acting like a celebrity chef bring anything worthwhile to the change party? The relatively static nature of offerings in the change market for the past few decades suggests not.
In the chaotic zone the consultancy model is “moving in mysterious ways” – the messiah who pushes the right button at the right moment. Perfect for those moments of crisis but not much good if you are trying to build a sustainable and resilient organisation.
Which brings us to the land of the complex – and given that by definition there is no predictability – the land of consultants as “learners and participants”. We need to act like learners and experimenters in order to discover more about the situation we wish to change and we are participants in the sense that without prior knowledge we don’t have an advantage, or power, over anyone else. So you could say in order to be more effective as a consultant in a complex environment we need to let go of the need to be in a role and start acting more like human beings. More ideas on this to follow tomorrow
Comments (6)
Hi Jon
Excellent - deep resononces with where I'm at, at the moment; trying desperately to engage learners and participants in re-storying in multi-dimensional change involving multiple public services - whilst surrounded by control freaks and celebrity chefs. Look forward to the rest of your posts.
David
Posted by Dave Hoyle | March 13, 2008 1:04 PM
Posted on March 13, 2008 13:04
Hello Jon,
Loved the adaptation of the 4-box model, so true the part about us as 'consultants' learnng aswell, something as this would undoutbtedly improve the quality and standard of their output too!
Józefa
Posted by Józefa![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/guest/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 15, 2008 9:08 AM
Posted on March 15, 2008 09:08
On the basis of the children's party story, consultants in the complex domain could be party organisers. In terms of fee rates, it might be more lucrative to be a symposiarch.
'Our methods have catalytic validity' ... whole new areas of brochure-speak open up.
Posted by Brian Sherwood Jones | March 15, 2008 11:32 AM
Posted on March 15, 2008 11:32
Hi Jon,
Avoid the 'awkward disorder space' if you must, but don't forget that the 'squiggly bits' are there to remind you that the framework should emerge from the situation you are observing, and therefore you are never certain where the boundaries may end up (that lack of 'predictability' in the 'land of the complex' that you describe).
Squaring the boxes is the domain of the very 'control freaks' you seek to make fun/sense of.
Cheers, Ron
Posted by Ron Donaldson | March 16, 2008 9:24 PM
Posted on March 16, 2008 21:24
Fair comment Ron - and in terms of the framework being allowed to emerge from the situation I'm observing I guess I'm trying to say that the more I think like a control freak or celebrity chef the more chance there is I'll decide I know the answer from the relative comfort of being 'outside the tent'
regards
Jon
Posted by Jon Kendall | March 17, 2008 8:45 AM
Posted on March 17, 2008 08:45
Narrative (all stories are ficticious).
Its late noon and the crowd begins to stir as Hetucalis makes his way to center stage. Everyone has gathered to hear this great man speak. Many not so much as what he was about to say but most to be present as a symbol of intellectual comradeship.
Hetucalis started by explaining the fundamentals of the observable universe and revealed his new map of the celestial which included 3 new constellations modelled about bla, bla, bla...
The crowd awed...
*****
Clementarus was scheduled to give a speech on the statistical inferences drawn from the Guassian Unitary Ensemble and its relationship to the fundamental behavior of newly found ultra high energy particles and their scattering behavior. His speech has been carefully drafted for the initiate only and structured to leave his contemporaries guessing in awe at the fundamental significance of his find. He explained the system orientated thinking behind his find and the information carried by the newly discovered particles.
*****
Duderim has just unveiled to an awe filled audience the complete genetic switching model of the mouse genome. He explained his information theoretic model with confidence.
**************************************************
Just maybe Stars in the universe do not care if they exist as constellations, groups, clusters, galaxies etc. They dont even know they are stars !
Just maybe "Partcles" do not care if they carry information, data or any mediating form. If they did they wouldnt be so indistinguishable.
Ever since reproduction became possible...some things have been reproduced. Genes or some other mechanism, reproduction would still have taken place.
I guess every age tends to explain the world from its general perspective while contemplating and understanding as much as the human CNS will allow without complete disorientation. However, it most certainly seems like there is a world out there and it is all of the things we describe it as and none of them. The universe may not be a computer but the computer is the universes way of trying to understand some qualities of its behavior.
Systems thinking may yet have tremendous benefits until you begin to conceptualize how the world came to be what it is and why. It is an information theoretic way of thinking where everything becomes a system in which networks, collaboration and contingency rule by mediating information.
Are humans complex systems? Are chimpanzees complex systems? Is there a heirachical nomenclature of system categorization? Is the universe a system? Is my business organization a complex system?
Interesting questions for a curious mind. Who knows what the next peek into Alices' wonderland would reveal?
Posted by Paul | July 9, 2008 11:41 PM
Posted on July 9, 2008 23:41