The Cynefin Framework is central to Cognitive Edge methods and tools. It allows executives to see things from new viewpoints, assimilate complex concepts, and address real-world problems and opportunities. Using the Cynefin framework can help executives sense which context they are in so that they can not only make better decisions but also avoid the problems that arise when their preferred management style causes them to make mistakes.

Cynefin, pronounced kuh-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.

In this video, Dave Snowden introduces the Cynefin Framework with a brief explanation of its origin and evolution and a detailed discussion of its architecture and function.

So what factors influence the quality and style of conversations? What’s the recipe for productive interactions? A century and more of research reinforces the common sense notion that there is no one management, coaching or leadership style for dealing effectively with other people: to stand any chance of being effective you need to behave in a way that is responsive to the situation you find yourself operating within. Being appropriately responsive suggests perceptiveness in the way we make sense of our situation. Sense-making is about observing and assessing situations – allowing us to create a structure and a context for choice and decision taking. It is then down to behavioural flexibility: our ability to produce behaviours appropriate for the context as we see it.

For more on taking part in coaching conversations download the booklet “Coaching conversations and change”.

If you are interested in exploring your preferences in assessing situations you can download the Coaching Style Inventory.

It’s not just Dan thinking that management by control has its limits – Gary Hamel writes here about “the widening fault lines that run between individuals and institutions. Crack open the head of the average manager, and you’ll find a way of thinking that puts the institution in front of, or on top of, the individual.”

Among Hamel’s principles is: “steadily enlarge the scope of self determination” which fits nicely with Pink’s – “if you want engagement, self direction is better.”

And all of the above is an elaboration on an idea worthy of much more exploration – “there’s a mismatch between what science knows and what business does”

Whether this is a sign that the coaching bandwagon has finally ground to a halt I’m not sure, and I know this is resurrecting an old joke, but it does seem as if team learning – like reincarnation – is making a big comeback at the moment.

The plane above is the American F-86 Sabre, used in combat in Korean War against the MiG-15. The MiG was considered the superior plane but the F-86 emerged the somewhat surprising winner in dogfights over Korea. John Boyd, a military strategist in the US Air Force, concluded that the reason pilots of the F-86 won more dogfights was structural: the plane had a bubble canopy and hydraulic controls. The bubble canopy allowed pilots to get a better appreciation of the battle as it unfolded and the hydraulic control system enabled manoeuvres to be executed swiftly enough to stay one step ahead of the enemy. Combining this insight with his Energy-Maneuverability theory Boyd created a concept that accounted for the superiority of the F-86: pilots manage dogfights in a four step cycle of observe, orient, decide and act.

Observe – the impressions we gain as the interaction with our environment unfolds

Orient – using previous experience to filter, analyse and synthesise these impressions into an appreciation of the situation we are in

Decide – creating a hypotheses for action

Act – doing something to test out the hypothesis in the real world

He also concluded that the theory needn’t be confined to the skies of Korea, it could be applied to business – and life in general, where the perpetual challenge is to make sense of the world and respond to events as they unfold. Or, as Boyd put it: “In order to win, we should operate at a faster tempo or rhythm than our adversaries–or, better yet, get inside [the] adversary’s Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action time cycle or loop. … Such activity will make us appear ambiguous (unpredictable) thereby generate confusion and disorder among our adversaries–since our adversaries will be unable to generate mental images or pictures that agree with the menacing as well as faster transient rhythm or patterns they are competing against.”

You can apply the steps in the OODA cycle to the process groups of people go through when they work in teams to reach decisions – we gather information, agree on the significance of the information, what it could mean and what we want to achieve, create a plan of action and finally execute the plan. And you can also use OODA as a guide to the four conversations of team learning:

When the focus of the review is on what we did we have the react conversation - the classic “if you could do that again what would you do differently?” question. Here the focus is on the action taken by the team and the outcomes resulting from the action. The benefit of this type of conversation is that it enables the team to reflect on their behaviours and reinforce what works and modify what doesn’t.

A redesign conversation is slightly riskier: the focus shifts to the strategy that informed the action: were the hypotheses that formed the foundation of our plan valid? To what extent did we take relevant factors into account? What parts of the plan worked? What parts didn’t? Did we select the best option? Did we generate any options?

Moving further along the continuum of risk we have a reorient conversation: this entails looking again at the way we made sense of our environment, re-examining our individual and shared goals and our ideas of how to achieve them. Opens the possibility of setting different and potentially more challenging goals.

A rethink conversation ups the ante still further: we focus attention on our collective observation and data gathering capability and our perceptions and interpretations of the task and team environment. What did we consider important? What factors held our attention? What is deemed relevant or irrelevant? A rethink conversation provides the potential for reassessing personal and shared values – as well as influencing goals, options and behaviours.

You may be wondering what determines the type of conversation a team is willing to entertain: it’s the willingness – bravery basically – of team members to dig a little deeper in search of insights and new thinking. It might even be worth unearthing the good old Johari Window for a reminder of the dynamics of risk, trust and bravery in teams.

There are four parts to the self assessment process:

Determining a set of assessment dimensions that are relevant to the context and purpose of the team.

Agreeing the criteria for effectiveness on each dimension. In the example shown below a traffic light system was used: the team divided into three subgroups to come up with descriptions that illustrated red, amber and green conditions for each dimension. Rather than collapse these into a single set of criteria all were retained to provide a multi-faceted illustration of differing levels of effectiveness.

The self assessment. Depending on the size of the group – and its maturity – this can be done in subgroups (as in the example), or individually. Generally speaking subgroups are the less risky option so this might be the preferred route in the early days of a team’s existence. For more mature teams, or if you want to push the boat out, individual assessment provides more data and more scope for interesting conversations at the next stage.

Having the conversations. The team explores the implications of the range of scores on each dimension and agrees what to do next.

Read on for a detailed look at each step…

Step 1: Determining a set of assessment dimensions

The most beneficial way do this in the long run is to work as a team to originate set of assessment dimensions that are meaningful and relevant to you as a team. It may be tempting to short circuit this stage and use outputs from other teams but the benefit you gain by way of shared meaning and ownership far outweighs the cost in time and effort I reckon. Here is a basic recipe, adjustable in endless ways to suit the situation and the time, space and resources available:

Split up into number of groups so that you have three or four people working together in each sub group and ask each team to come up with six or seven indicators of team performance that are relevant to the overall goals of the team. You may want to provide a couple of examples to get the thought processes going. Allow 10-15 mins for this part of the task. Ideally use a flipchart or post-its and brown paper to record the outputs.

Each group pitches its proposals in turn to the rest of the team. Allow 5 mins or so for each team to present.

Working as a whole team, reach agreement on the five dimensions that paint an appropriately comprehensive picture of team functioning. There are many variations for how you go about this:

• various voting and ranking systems
• if you’ve used post-its you can organise ideas into themes
• straightforward exploration and conversation into the meaning behind each proposal
• if none of the above work there is always the default of what would look good to the boss

Step 2: Agreeing the criteria for effectiveness

Once you have agreed a set of dimensions to assess yourselves against the task becomes one of scaling: for each dimension of team performance you need to attach meaning to positions along a continuum that ranges from your definition of ineffective (crap team in the example) to highly effective (high performing team in the example). In terms of structure there are two basic options here and, either way, there is a good argument for doing this part of the process in subgroups – allowing you get the benefit of multiple versions of each scale.

• A traffic light system as shown in the example – requires descriptions for three positions along the scale that correspond to red, amber and green – and, of course, your meanings for red, amber and green
• A 1-10 scale with descriptions for the ‘1’ and the ’10’ extremes

Step 3: The self assessment

This is where team members do a bit of ranking. The easiest way to structure this is to draw up the completed assessment grid on brown paper or flip chart and simply ask people to mark the place on each scale that they think corresponds with the current level of team performance. You can do this either individually or in small teams, the team option being the less risky and therefore more appropriate for a newly formed team.

When everybody has completed their assessments it might be tempting to assume the job is done; while you might want to report your assessments to others external to the team the main benefit from this sort of process is the conversation it allows you to have…

Step 4: Having the conversations

There are at least four types of conversation that can emerge from this process – they can be arranged along a risk and opportunity gradient as each one challenges more of the assumptions made by the team.

At the least risky end of the gradient is the react conversation. Here the focus is on the action taken by the team and the outcomes resulting from the action. The benefit of this type of conversation is that it enables the team to reflect on their behaviours and reinforce what works and modify what doesn’t.

A redesign conversation is slightly riskier: the focus shifts to the strategy that informed the action: were our predictions made about the situation accurate? To what extent did we take relevant factors into account? What parts of the plan worked? What parts didn’t? Did we select the best option? Did we generate any options?

Moving further along our risk continuum we have a reorient conversation: this entails looking again at our individual and shared goals and our sense of how to achieve them. Opens the possibility of setting different and potentially more challenging goals.

A rethink conversation ups the ante still further: we focus attention on our perceptions and interpretations of the task and team environment. Fundamental questions are asked and assumptions tested: What do we consider important? What factors get our attention? What is deemed relevant or irrelevant? Provides the potential for reassessing personal and shared values – as well as influencing goals, options and behaviours.

You may be wondering what determines the type of conversation a team is willing to entertain, basically it’s the willingness – or bravery – of team members in pushing the boat out in an appropriately forthright manner. For more insight into the dynamics of risk in teams check out the Johari Window.

Clay Shirky talks about how the internet creates a platform for organising differently, how you can build cooperation into the infrastructure of your enterprise and how coordination replaces planning.

Janine Benyus has a message for inventors: When solving a design problem, look to nature first. There you’ll find inspired designs for making things waterproof, aerodynamic, solar-powered and more. Here she reveals dozens of new products that take their cue from nature with spectacular results.

Destination Open Innovation may sound like a space shuttle mission but it was actually a unique event held at the University of Hull which aimed to encourage cross-business idea-sharing.

Run in collaboration with Castleton Consulting, the University of Hull, Yorkshire Water and the Environmental Technologies Centre of Industrial Collaboration (ETCIC) at the University, the project involved more than 75 delegates taking part in open space technology sessions designed to enable diverse groups to address complex, important and sometimes controversial topics to achieve meaningful results quickly.

L-R: Dr David Calvert ETCIC, University of Hull, Simon Barnes Head of Innovation Delivery, Yorkshire Water, Professor Calie Pistorius, Vice Chancellor, University of Hull, Jon Kendall, Castleton Consulting Management Consultant

Each delegate was able to pitch their challenge to the group, looking outside their own organisations and industries for innovative ideas which could help deliver benefits for their own business. Often, progress is limited by searching for solutions solely within a single industry while learning from different sectors can open the doors of opportunity – as head of innovation at Yorkshire Water Simon Barnes has found:

“As a company, we set ourselves stretching targets, looking for ways we can deliver a better service to our customers by reducing the number of times we interrupt their water supply or limiting disruption on the roads by cutting the number of times we dig trenches to work on water pipes or sewers. If we’d have looked solely within the water industry for the answers, we would still be in the same position we were 20 years ago.

“What I hope events like today’s prove is that working together with cross-business groups produces innovative ideas; learning from other sectors can be essential to business growth and, in the future, may deliver a faster, more cost-effective way of working.”

The event was opened by new Vice-Chancellor at the University, Professor Calie Pistorius. Welcoming delegates to the event on 14 September, Prof Pistorius said it was important for universities to be places of innovation. He also underlined the University’s commitment to working with business partners and the wider community in the region. He added: “I am delighted to welcome you to this event, and I look forward to speaking to you again in the future.”

David Calvert, ETCIC Commercial Manager said: “From looking into causes of flooding, to renewable energy and environmental testing, there are many obvious areas where the university has expertise which relates directly to water. This event provides a great opportunity to explore these areas, but also supply chain logistics, computer visualisation and technologies and strategies for a low carbon future. Working across disciplines and with industry is the way forward for innovation and I am confident that many interesting and challenging opportunities will come out of the event.”