What is a framework?
My last post had me examine what I had learned over the last couple years writhing and researching this blog. One of the more important ideas I discovered about myself was the use of frameworks when it came to my decision making process. I equated this to a tactical predilection I seem to possess. Tactical issues seem to provide me the right mix of hands on work and intellectual stimulus. I rarely approach a predicament with a rigid predetermined set of steps.
In this post I delve deeper into frameworks and how they can be used in our personal decisions. To begin with; what exactly is a "framework"? This Wikipedia page lists several uses of the term. After a quick glance of this Wiki site one may get the impression that a framework is anything you want it to be. If you are a software developer it means one thing and if you are an educator it means another. Merriam Webster's does use more succinct terms.
basic conceptional structure (as of ideas)
the framework of the U.S. Constitution
These influences threaten the very framework of our society.
a skeletal, openwork, or structural frame
An iron framework surrounds the sculpture.
Structure and skeleton (skeletal) seem to be common terms when describing a framework. Also the examples are both tangible (iron framework) and intangible (framework of our society). All in all the term "framework" is quite flexible in its use. Somewhat opposite of the vision the word suggests. The word "framework" gives an impression represented by the picture above. The words structure and skeletal reinforce this impression of a framework. The word "framework" is really quite remarkable when you think of it. One imagines a structure that can hold up the tallest buildings yet still can be used intangibly as well. So how can we use a framework in making decisions? Amazingly, such a word with such broad applications does not appear to be overused as well. Quite a remarkable word.
Why do I think a framework is helpful when making decisions. I came across this interesting Harvard Business Review article. This article examines leadership decisions in the context of the problem or issue they are addressing. The article is quite deep and covers many aspects of a leader's framework for decision making. The most interesting part is the use of different contexts. This really is as simple as it appears to be. If you have a flat tire you alleviate the issue with a relatively straight forward process. Either the tire needs to be repaired or replaced. This differs from a situation where your car is making a strange noise. The noise does indicate a problem, however its source and impact may not be readily understood. This engine noise represents a different context and thus a different framework to address the issue.
The authors (David J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone) define 4 contexts in which leaders find themselves. Above I have given examples of the 2 of the 4 contexts. These are simple and complicated. The other 2 are complex and chaotic. The authors do a clearly define the contexts and I would encourage any one reading this blog to read the original article (you get a couple of free views of the article, I actually printed it). The article does delve quite deeply into the contexts and frameworks and also lays out the pitfalls of each approach. I will try to apply some of the concepts to personal decision making.
The simple context is straight forward. The environment is stable. There is a clear path to the solution. the example I gave earlier was a flat tire. My wife and I experienced this exact problem when returning from a trip. We stopped at a large roadside service station. When I exited our vehicle I noticed the front tire was partially deflated. Simple put we had a flat tire. Fortunately we were at a service station. Unfortunately they only serviced large trucks. In other words my problem was too simple for them. They suggested I reinflate the tire and drive 5 miles to the Discount tire store. I filled the tire and drove to the Discount tire store and got the tire repaired. In this endeavor we encountered a number of "known knowns" ( a phrase used by the authors). As I said the tire was partially deflated so I was pretty sure that once reinflated it would be ok to drive on it a short distance. Secondly we were able to confirm the location of the discount tire store by using the map/gps feature on our phones. We could also verify the operating hours of the location. The tires currently on our vehicle were purchased at a discount tire store so we were confident that they had the tires in stock. Very much a "No Brainer".
This tire issue could have easily shifted into the second context. Weather, location and poor preparation could have us staring in the face of a "complicated context". What if the weather looked stormy and that we discovered the deflated tire in a remote location? Was the weather going to get worse? Was there a service station near by? If the location was remote could our phones be of any use? Now this is in the realm of "known unknowns". As with the simple context we "know" that the tire needs replacing or repairing. Unlike the simple context the "unknown" element is where to get it fixed.
Our decisions regarding finances are mostly in this complicated context. As an example we know that a stockpile of money is needed when we retire. We know that we will receive some money through social security. What is unknown is how much we need to save and how much we will receive in social security. We know that once retired will will use our accumulated funds to meet our financial needs. What we do not know is how long those funds need to last. In this context there is no clear path to a solution. There is a general idea and a set of good possibilities. I believe that here, solutions are framed by common sense and risk aversion. Getting stranded in a remote location one may want to scan the sky for signs of violent weather (lightening, wind changes, etc.). The best solution may be to sit tight and wait out stormy weather then address the tire issue. When it comes to personal finances risky investments and "get rich" schemes usually lead to failure. Most success comes from a low debt, conservative spending philosophy. Compound interest from "time in the market" not from "timing the market" is the key to wealth. None of us know how long our retirement will last so we may over compensate by increasing our savings.
The next level is the complex context. Now we are in the realm of "unknown unknowns". Very few of our personal decisions enter this world (and the next context as well). The article emphasizes that most decisions in organizations are complex due to ever changing markets and consumer preferences. On a personal level the only decision that may meet this criteria are our relationships. Whether friends or family these groups are dynamic enough to approach the complex context as described by the authors. When raising children we address the "known" elements, such as nutrition, education and discipline. We really cannot imposed a rigid course of action. We generally do not tell our children that they have to be a doctor or a lawyer. We may try these actions but we are rarely successful. We try and provide the proper resources and guidance but in the end we endure the ups and downs of parenthood and hope for the best. A humorous example of this complexity is trying to get a group of people to decide on where to go for lunch. Have you ever stood in a lobby while the group discusses all the options and measures them against the likes and dislikes of the members! You usually just endure.
The final context is the "chaotic context". In this context cause and effect are impossible to determine. Only turbulence exists, hence the term chaos. As the authors state the immediate job of a leader is not to discover patterns but to stop the bleeding. The authors use the 911 crisis as an example of a chaotic context. At a personal level I cannot imagine going through this context. The only examples that come to mind are quite horrific and I hope and pray that no one experiences them.
Personal decision making is a a series of process that involve understanding the level of complexity and then providing a framework to address the issue. The framework is based on the level of complexity.
- Simple Context: Known Knowns
- Cause and effect very apparent to all
- Framework is very rigid and is based on known solutions
- Example: Your child has a sore throat.
- you check for fever and any other soreness
- bedrest for a couple days
- If symptoms do not resolve themselves after a couple days seek medical attention
- Complicated Context: Known Unknowns
- Cause and effect apparent to most people but not all
- Framework is less rigid and based on common sense, risk aversion and expert analysis
- Example: Rodent infestation in your house
- You may set a few traps in locations around your house
- Contact pest/rodent control company
- Pest/rodent control analyses the house and determines likely areas of concern
- Pest/rodent control offers a series of courses of action the further address the problem
- Complex context: Unknown Unknowns
- Cause and effect can only be viewed in hindsight
- Framework involves patience, trial and error and a basic foundation.
- Example: Raising a family
- You nurture, educate, protect and discipline your children
- You expose them to many different aspects of life (arts, culture, sports, religion, etc)
- In the end they are going to choose their path and there is not much that you can do about it
- Also remember that they will probably pick your nursing home so be nice to them (LOL). This one comes from our daughter.
- Chaotic Context: Turbulence
- No sensible cause and effect
- Framework involves stemming the bleeding
- Examples are really unthinkable
- The article uses the events around the 911 tragedy as an example.
- Personalizing it, I cannot imagine what it would be like finding out that there is a school shooting at your child's school. Then rushing to the school and the frantic search to find your child.
Comments
Post a Comment