Dave Snowden - How leaders change culture through small actions
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.ค. 2016
- Summer School 2016
Chief Scientific Officer of Cognitive Edge and Director of the Centre for Applied Complexity at Bangor University @snowded
His work is international in nature and covers government and industry looking at complex issues relating to strategy, organisational decision making and decision making. He has pioneered a science based approach to organisations drawing on anthropology, neuroscience and complex adaptive systems theory.
Ysgol Haf 2016
Prif Swyddog Gwyddonol Cognitive Edge a Chyfarwyddwr Canolfan Cymhlethdod Cymhwysol ym Mhrifysgol Bangor @snowded
Mae natur ryngwladol i’w waith ac mae’n cynnwys llywodraeth a diwydiant gan edrych ar faterion cymhleth sy’n ymwneud â strategaeth, penderfyniadau sefydliadol a gwneud penderfyniadau. Mae wedi creu ymagwedd arloesol yn seiliedig ar wyddoniaeth at sefydliadau gan ddefnyddio anthropoleg, niwrowyddoniaeth a theori systemau addasol cymhleth.
09:08 - "In systems thinking, you define the ideal future state and you try to close the gap. In complexity, you describe the present and see what you can change. You define a direction of travel, not a goal.“
18:38 - "The language by which we define things should be the language by which we change things"
24:28 - "If you over constrain a system which isn't naturally constrainable, people have to find ways to work around the system"
31:07 - "If you have a rule for when rules can be broken, it's safer."
32:00 - Governing complexity in method appropriate to the system - Patient and nurses journey in hospitals, patient sensor network (higiene and other) - distributed human sensor network with real time feedback
33:30 - Chaos, order and complexity explanation using children's party
37:36 - "In complexity we manage the emergence of beneficial coherence within attractors and within boundaries"
42:00 - Problems with questionaires. "If you allow people to evaluate, they lock options down too fast." "Asking people to evaluate a service or themselves, they worry about what the perception is"
Non-hypothesis questions, non-judgemental
45:20 - Vector targets instead of outcome targets
47:34 - On advocacy - project with royal Australia air force and implementation of Lean 6-sigma
1:02:16 - "This means we can nudge, not yank. We map the dispositional state of a population, when it is disposed to change, then we nudge it. That is a really important distinction because it means you spend far less money."
1:05:00 - Principle of energy consumption - lowest energy cost of replication
Good almost transcript of this talk - medium.com/@brixen/dave-snowden-how-leaders-change-culture-though-small-actions-766cd2bf5128
This is so interesting on so many levels. Need to listen to this agsin and take detailed notes.
Where is the LOVE button when you need it! Excellent conference!
33:35 is where he tells the children's party story, and it's my favourite version (the other ones in TH-cam where he just talks to the camera are a bit dry - here, the humour lands).
Roger- wonderful observation. The example is delivered word for word in each presentation and the difference is the audience.
Roger- your comment was thoughtful and i wanted to give it the dignity of teasing it out. So let's first of all solicit your thoughts.... (isn't that what the cynefin framework Really does?)...
Been a fan for many years. I think too few have been listening to him. I mean "really" listening.
^^^^^^ bingo
18:38 “The language by which we define things should be the language by which we change things.”
Amazingly brillianttttttt
Thank you, this was a thought provoking presentation.
Very good and important points by Dave Snowden.
Bright Snowden !
Dear Dr Dave Snowden, although I am one of the people who admire you, but you need to be a six sigma to judge this practice, but you make the subject so trivial on your professional level
His examples are in some sense cases. He is using them not because of a lack of fore-thought as he just knocked case study approaches, but because people think in that way. A case of communicating ideas, but he hasn't communicated the science. Refer to his papers and blog posts for the types of evidence he drawns upon and how.
Is there a transcript of this anywhere? Or a good article that summarizes it?
Yes
Useful. However, alll he said could well be said in 15 minutes- or less.
^^^^ sounds like jealousy and another comment from a salty "creative consultant". lolz
❣
22:35 hahahahaha and haha
It is so funny! I wonder what kind of astrology they used to locate the Dalai Lama. His job description starts with born to be under the right celestial conditions. Maybe it equals with having a personality that serves others, empathetic and have compassion.
The old ways were reading charts and predictions, the new way would be a LinkedIn applicant search for :
ISFJ type that is industrious caretaker, loyal to traditions and organization. The applicant must be practical, compassionate, and caring, and is motivated to provide for others and protect them from the perils of life.
Accordingly to dr. Snowden, astrology is more reliable.
Interesting.
60:00
Your push against individual change for societal change makes sense. However, your approach may not be as persuasive as it could be.
It's clear we all have misunderstood the nature of complex systems, and in our attempts to change systems, have made huge mistakes with unacceptable consequences.
It is no wonder that people are sensitive to any talk of societal change and are hedging their bets on individual change as the *safest* route to societal change.
The Kynefin framework is groundbreaking, and may indeed lead to actual effective systemic change in society if applied. However, you have to be sensitive to the social context you are in. I know you are a rebellious soul and argumentive in nature. But a softer approach, one that recognises our history of catastrophic failure to change the system, may be more tactful and persuasive that your current approach.
why from time to time does Prof Snowden trivialise systems thinking? In particular he appears as engaging in some sort of bickering argument with Peter Senge? Prof Snowden has enough strong and rich arguments to support his views without needing to contrast how solid and convincing those are with respect to Peter Senge's positions. It almost looses credibility instead of gaining additional power. Because of the trivialities brought to bear.
I don't know. It certainly makes it hard for me to share his work with people, but he has never shied away from being a helpful curmudgeon and a practical cynic, and I don't expect him to change. He is what he is! . I have long ago just accepted that this is how he pokes and prods people to be more rigorous in they're thinking. The role of the polemicist I guess. What most people don't know is that in my experience, Dave is actually very open minded and willing to have his mind changed with decent theory based arguments, but he doesn't suffer fools.
It's quite possible that it's ideological. Senge et. al. espouse a notion that systemic organizational change is the result of massive change in *individual* behaviors. Starting from that point the next logical conclusion is that you need to divide the world into "those who exhibit the behaviors we want" from "those who exhibit the behaviors we don't want". We reward those who exhibit the beneficial behaviors and (ideally) ignore those who do not. So, in Senge's case, we reward those who represent "learning behaviors" and we ignore those who do not.
It *appears* that Snowden is in practice, if not in fact, an anti-authoritarian left anarchist. There is nothing wrong with that of course, but it seems to color his thinking considerably. He literally calls Senge and that camp's behaviors "neocolonial," but my counterargument to him would be "since most of us don't have the scope of influencing whole nations, that adjective would seem not to be applicable." Influence inside a single corporation can hardly be called "neocolonial," and if it has a positive impact, who is to say which approach is better?
I think it's part of his background in seminary training and religous debate - he's happy to take a standpoint and argue it quite vociferously until he is shown evidence to the contrary. I've always found him to be open-minded and approachable, if a little intolerant of stupid questions and trolls looking to bait an argument.
@@cybertrophic great thread of comments
Is there such a thing as “chaotic system”? Do you mean “anarchic” or “self-assembling”? Surely a truly “chaotic” system is not a system at all..?
grow up
In Cynefin there is the chaotic domain which is different from a "chaotic system"