In the last 40 years complexity thinking and sociology have given us new ways to understand uncertainty and the relationship between science, politics and intuition. Capturing this in easy-to-grasp senior selection and strategic talent management practices, and borrowing an investment mindset towards risk, offers HR the chance to create enduring boardroom adaptability.

Problem

From small charities to global corporations, when it comes to filling − behind closed doors − positions in or near the boardroom, selection ‘best practices’ such as competencies and structured interviews usually receive no more than lip service. Even when implemented, at high organisational altitudes these practices don’t serve us well. They assume that the future can be extrapolated from the past, and they neglect intuition and politics.

The result is we choose leaders badly. We don’t progress because change is blocked by fear, inertia, the self-interest of elites, and too blinkered a reliance on science. Neither does HR’s lack of credibility in dealing with board-level power and politics help.

Solution

SHIFT SELECTION PARADIGM. The two existing paradigms that drive how we do selection block adaptability to the future. Senior organisational work always involves science, politics and intuition − so when we select leaders we should think critically about all 3.

ADOPT THE CYNEFIN FRAMEWORK as an easy-to-grasp way to integrate complexity thinking into how we choose leaders. Developed by Dave Snowden and Cognitive Edge and deservedly popular, Cynefin helps anyone talk about the complexity of situations which they are in by distinguishing between simple, complicated, complex and chaotic.

Embed into SUCCESSION PLANNING and STRATEGIC TALENT MANAGEMENT the concept of risk appetite (borrowed from investment).

-------(These points, including an introduction to the CYNEFIN framework, are expanded in the Powerpoint.)------

Practical Impact

(1) A group which is working together to select at a strategic level receive a half-day ‘advanced selection training’ which covers the three parts of the solution (selection paradigm shift, Cynefin framework and risk appetite). For example they relate their own past experiences of organisational challenges to Cynefin domains. However the first discussion of risk appetite seems artificial.

•

(2) The group (especially those who distrust HR rigidity and ‘political correctness’) find the expanded and shared vocabulary a bit helpful in discussing the strategic situation of the business, but do not initially notice much change.

•

(3) The expanded, shared vocabulary lets change creep in. Eg: one member of the group starts probing candidates’ past experiences of change leadership in terms of Cynefin domains.

•

(4) Discussing the final candidates in terms of pessimistic to optimistic scenarios is different, and takes time. However, with good facilitation skills, deeper intuitive impressions are elicited and challenged by the group, with an explicit acknowledgement of political ramifications. Risk appetite comes into its own (and for the first time is fiercely argued over) as the final choice is made

•

(5) The group members feel that the selection process was more ‘grown up’, strategic and connected with business and market issues than they have experienced before. As other senior appointments are made, relevant colleagues are persuaded to train and use the tools offered.

•

(6) Non-executives on the nominations committee are trained and agree that risk appetite should be embedded in the following year’s succession plan. Carrying this out causes some grief in the executive team, and the plan returns to the board with many ‘low’, some ‘medium’ and no ‘high’ risk appetites.

•

(7) There is a breakthrough discussion of executives and non-executives with external facilitation. Discussion about ‘high’ risk appetites stimulates discussion of unexpected business and market issues, to the surprise of financially-minded non-executives who thought the category of agenda item was ‘HR’. Search firms start to deliver diverse (in multiple senses) shortlists for ‘high’ risk appetite positions, with less wasted time/friction when shortlists for ‘low’ positions look relatively dull.

•

(8) An external board review comments that much more acknowledgement of uncertainty, sometimes using Cynefin language, has come into board discussions unconnected with HR.

Challenges

(1) BUSYNESS. Getting time diarised for richer, more challenging discussions at the start of the selection process and at the end takes persistence. (Senior selection masks considerable fear/denial of the unknown, which does not express itself as such but rather as, for example, ‘I’m too busy … can’t we skip that?’)

•

(2) HIGH VOLTAGE DISCUSSIONS. Ensuring that HR (or other support) is trained and competent to facilitate challenging discussions in which intuitions and politics are surfaced as fully as possible – and not only measurable evidence (the science). Challenging for evidence remains a key part of the process, but the stakes in terms of the selectors’ vulnerabilities, exposing raw/unformed thoughts, prejudices and organisational power are now much higher.

•

(3) GRASPING AND IMPLEMENTING HIGH RISK APPETITE. The initial block is unfamiliarity with risk appetite in this context, and why it should sometimes be high. Then nimby-ism: ‘the organisation should have some high risk appetite positions but not in my area’. However, non-executives (including those not much interested in HR aspects) grasp how, integrated into succession planning, the tool can drive greater accountability including for diversity as well as resilience against future uncertainty, and put their weight behind it.

First Steps

Recruit the MD of a business unit and his/her HR business partner as volunteers, and carry out steps (1) to (5) listed above under PRACTICAL IMPACT in relation to a senior appointment:

•- can be started in 30 days and yield results within 90 days;

•- cost limited to half-day initial training for the selection group (ideally include the search consultant or psychological assessor if one is to be used), plus one day of support to facilitate the shortlisting and final discussions in the selection process;

•- doesn’t require multiple approvals.

Credits

Thanks for the discussion to Prof Graham Abbey, Terry Hitchcock and Dr Rob Warwick.

Materials

For the hack content above plus a couple of slides expansion on each point in the solution see the Powerpoint 'Choosing leaders'. For still more/optional background, see the supplementary note.

For an introduction to the Cynefin framework from Dave Snowden and Cognitive Edge (click the link or cut and paste http://cognitive-edge.com/library/more/video/introduction-to-the-cynefin...)

For the book developing the theory (click the link or cut and paste https://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=641&calcTitle=1&pageSubject=19...)

Documents

Powerpoint - changing the locks - 24aug13.pptx

CIPD - supplementary note - 9aug13.pdf

You need to register in order to submit a comment.

Sort By: Latest Oldest Likes Replies

August 27, 2013 at 12:30am

Victoria Ward

Douglas nails it in two ways for me. Firstly, instinct in the selection of leaders and in boardroom discussion needs to be put into its proper balance with what Douglas calls science and politics. Gut instinct and gut feel are vital, supressed, parts of sound judgement and good decision making, but when the gut does spill into C-Suite it often does so in entirely the wrong way. Secondly, embracing a completely different take on risk and uncertainty is surely necessary as we experience a complete shift in how work happens. The Cynefin framework is a great place to start, as it changes the view, and makes room for what Douglas calls instinct, alongside science and politics. I write, by the way, after two careers. In the first I led the product R and D for a derivatives exchange. In the second, Ive explored the role of narrative in organisations. I've found in both circumstances, and almost every organisation, that people find it really hard to look at things accurately, which is not the same as looking at what are generally taken to be the facts.