Tag Archive for: complexity

Organizational Culture: Why it Matters and How to Improve it

Company culture is often associated with having a ping pong table in your office, after-work drinks on a Friday, or a framed value statement on your wall. But organizational culture is so much more than that; it is the driving force behind innovation, growth, and sustainability. In this article, we will explore different types of organizational culture that exist and the signs of a toxic one, plus how you can work towards a culture that is more aligned with your goals. 

Read more

6 Agile Decision-Making Models to Foster Collaboration

Effective decision-making is the lifeblood of any business, and is important in any context. Being able to make the best decisions as quickly as possible can make the entire enterprise run more smoothly. Agile decision-making in particular encourages leadership at all levels of organizations, which is highly motivating for your teams. Here are six Agile decision-making models to try out in your organization.

Recommended for you: Help your team’s processes run more smoothly with the Agile Facilitation Foundations online course

Why is decision-making so important in an agile organization?

In Agile teams, or those striving for agility, decision-making is not based on the command and control of management. It is a collaborative and consensus-based process. When you are trying to manage self-organized, responsible, accountable teams, decision-making is the domain of groups of people. 

Decisions need to be coherent in the organization, which is an exciting and complex puzzle. Think of it like a rowing team: each person is rowing, making different decisions about each stroke, but ultimately moving in the same direction. It’s about forward momentum and coherence. Decision-making frameworks or models help people understand the scope of their decision-making power so that they are able to make decisions without barriers.  

Why decision-making matters

Photo by Quino Al on Unsplash

How is decision-making in agile organizations different from traditional hierarchical workplaces?

In traditional organizations, it’s about the manager making the decision, while others follow. In more agile organizations, everyone has a voice and opinions are encouraged. Because of the collaborative nature. The Agile manifesto’s principles imply that teams are making their own decisions about their work. These are visible to the stakeholders around them, rather than waiting for team leaders. It wastes time. 

What is the effect of slow, poor, or disorganized decision-making? 

In an agile organization, a core focus is to avoid waste. Poor, slow decision-making creates a lot of wasted time and effort, and this is what we hope to avoid. Empowering teams to make their own decisions also has the effect of a faster time to market. 

Six decision-making models to help you move forward

Cynefin Framework 

At agile42 we have a favorite framework for sense-making, which we consider the first, essential step of any effective decision-making. The Cynefin Framework is all about making sense of the domain and situations. “Cynefin” is a Welsh word without a real English equivalent, but it translates roughly to  “a place of your multiple belongings”. The framework has five decision-making contexts, or domains: clear, complicated, complex, chaotic, and confusion. Cynefin is most useful when you need to make sense of a problem before making a decision about it. 

Recommended for you: Learn the Cynefin Framework in our CAL training 

How to use it: Depending on which domain we’re in, there are different appropriate actions. The clear and complicated domains are considered “ordered”; while the chaotic and complex domains are “unordered”. The aim is to place the situation in the correct domain, which allows you to make sense of it and be better-equipped to make the right kind of decision to move forward. For more detail on using this method, read our blog on the Cynefin Framework.

The Cynefin Framework

SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis is possibly the most-used, most traditional decision-making framework, but it is still highly relevant. It is centered on a desired end state, which needs to be clear for the framework to be effective. This method works very well when used hand-in-hand with Cynefin, especially in the Complicated domain. It is a great way to decide what needs to be done next, after making sense of the situation. 

How to use it: The team comes together to analyze the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of a given situation. This process ideally involves a big miro board, or lots of sticky notes, with silent brainstorming. The facilitator then decides what to do to move forward. They may use dot voting to identify what is important in each quadrant, then we discuss, analyze, and add clarity to help teams make their decisions. 

Decider protocol 

The Decider Protocol is a way to make unanimous decisions. A decision is proposed, and there is an iterative voting process which continues until consensus is reached. It can be time-consuming, but is a useful, structured way to get the whole team in agreement.

How to use it: There is a proposer, who proposes a decision to the group. The proposal needs to be short, clear, to the point and actionable. It focuses on one single issue. Once the proposal is made, people can think about it for a few minutes. Then the team votes, on the count of three. They either hold up a thumbs-up (100% behind this), a thumbs-down (cannot support this) or a flat hand (support with reservations). On the count of three, they hold up their thumbs at the same time. The no’s and maybe’s then have the opportunity to share their doubts and concerns, which are discussed with the group. They are asked, “what will it take for you to get behind this?”. The proposal is modified to accommodate this input, and then the process begins again, repeating until there is full consensus. 

Fist of five 

Fist of Five is another agile decision-making model to use when you need consensus. It is most popular in Scrum teams for making fairly informal daily decisions. 

How to use it: The facilitator presents a decision that needs to be made. Each person in the team votes by holding up a number of fingers at the count of three. Five fingers indicates full agreement; four fingers means the team member is happy with the decision; three fingers indicates support with no major concerns; two fingers expresses reservations that need further discussion; and one finger means the team member is opposed. 

Next, the team must discuss everyone’s reasonings and reservations, which fosters important discussion around the pros and cons. After everybody has a chance to share views, the proposal is adapted and a new vote takes place, repeating until there is a consensus about whether to move forward or scrap the idea. 

Decision-making technique - fist of five

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Forced ranking 

Forced ranking helps to make difficult decisions when prioritizing a list of items.

How to use it: The team starts with a list of no more than 10 items. Each person assigns a numeric value to each of the items (only one value per item). This must be made visible on a flipchart or board. The facilitator collects the numeric of the “votes,” and adds the numbers up. Items with the most votes go to the top, while others down in order. 

Relative estimation 

Relative estimation is used when teams need to estimate tasks and user stories. 

How to use it: Items are placed on a board or wall. Each individual goes to the list of items and places it according to what they think is most important, taking into account the effort required. Each person will shuffle things up or down according to their own ideas. This is done in silence first, but then people need to discuss their thoughts and reasoning. It can be difficult to reach a final consensus, and if so, Fist of Five can be used once you’ve narrowed it down. 

How do you know when you’re using the right decision-making model? 

Teams should be taught as many decision-making models as possible. The more resources and tools they have at their disposal, the easier it is to determine which tools are most useful in any given scenario. Cynefin is always a great starting point for sense-making, and these models can be used alone or in combination with one another. A key aspect of efficient decision-making is ensuring that the team has all the information they need, and if you’re struggling to reach decisions, that could be the cause. A neutral party to facilitate the decision-making process is also valuable.

Part 2: Human Factors in Agile Transformations

Our long-time partner, Sonja Blignaut from More Beyond, shares her insights on human factors within the realm of "complexity". She addresses the notion that, if we force too much change on people, we compromise their sense of coherence. Ultimately we need to think about limiting the change in progress, the same way we limit work in progress within agile transformations.

Watch the full interview below:

Watch the recording of Sonja's webinar on "Human Factors in Agile Transformations".

Gerald M. Weinberg said, “all problems are people problems”. What do you make of that statement?

I think the best answer I can give is my favourite answer in complexity, and that is “it depends”. I don’t think we can remove context from that question. The reality is, that both the people as well as the problems are entangled in many different ways we can’t fully understand. 

So, I will counter with another quote by W. Edwards Deming who said: “85% of the reasons for failure are deficiencies in the systems and processes rather than the employee”. He then continues to say that the role of management, therefore, is to change the process rather than badgering individuals to do better. I really like that because it brings together the idea of people and the context, the systems and processes they are embedded in, and how they are co-creating problems rather than just saying “it’s all about the people”.  

What human factors does one need to consider in agile transformations?

In terms of the human factors that we need to consider for agile transformations, I think there are many, however, I will highlight a few and in our webinar, we will discuss more. Firstly we need to consider the anxiety that many people experience when we force too much change on them. It’s a bit paradoxical how we relate to change. Sometimes we seek out novelty and change and other times when it is forced on us, it creates a lot of anxiety and I think sometimes we forget about that. 

One of my favourite frameworks to help me think through the human aspects of change is by Aaron Antonovsky. He created a framework called “individual sense of coherence”. There is much evidence that this has a strong relationship with the collective or organisational resilience. So he talks about three factors that make up an individual sense of coherence, which in essence means that individuals could feel that their internal &external worlds make sense. 

The first factor is “comprehensibility”:

  • Can I understand what is going on? 
  • Can I make sense of it?

The second is “manageability”:

  • Do I feel that I’ve got the internal and external resources & skills to be able to cope with what is happening?

 The third one is “meaningfulness”:

  • Does it feel meaningful?
  • Am I motivated to engage?
  • Can I find meaning in what I am doing? 

I think what happens very often is if we force too much change on people, we compromise their sense of coherence.

What is the role of decision makers in the context of an agile transformation?

From an organisational perspective and considering change in agile transformations, I think the role of an organisation and the decision-makers is to create environments and conditions where people’s sense of coherence can be maintained. 

One of the things that I’ve noticed in many of the companies I have worked with, is that we don’t consider from an upstream perspective the impact of our decisions and the amount of change we put into the system, downstream. Very often an executive would say: “but I’m only driving one project”. But that one project, with all of the various silos that are involved, comprises a huge amount of change downstream, for the people who are at the receiving end of this. So I feel we need to think about limiting the change in progress, the same way we limit work in progress. 

What have been your sources of inspiration in your own journey of understanding human factors?

I am naturally a curious person, so I draw inspiration from multiple places. However, in general, my main source of inspiration is the various theorists and thinkers who work in the field of complexity. So I tend to see everything through the lens of complexity. 

Then also anthropologists like Gillian Tett and Aaron Antonovsky, and the field of systems psychodynamics and how social-technical systems work and all the various unconscious processes that happen there. And finally, my latest area of interest comes from biologists and how they are starting to look at flow and then also from the world of sports coaches.

So as you can see I’m drawing from multiple places and I look forward to seeing you at our webinar.  

Watch the recording of Sonja's webinar on "Human Factors in Agile Transformations".

*Click here to read Part 1 blog post* 

A decision making approach for resilience

Decision-making is an essential process in every organization and can be used as a proxy for the level of resilience and agility. There aren't any right or wrong ways to decide and there are trade-offs involved in each approach.

For example, centralized decision-making processes lead to more coherent decisions at the cost of longer information flows and synchronization delays. If decisions are distributed and frequent, the organization might instead be more autonomous and responsive at the cost of process coherence. In both cases the downsides can be partially offset, e.g. by deploying information systems or by increasing the cultural coherence.

In our latest webinar on November 16th, called “A decision making approach for resilience”, continuing the series on ORGANIC agility topics, we explored Principle #2 and how to use a common and transparent framework for decision-making processes which adapts to each specific context.

Using the Cynefin framework as a guide, we have created a specialized approach to decision-making based on the Cynefin domains, separating out two processes, which are both critical for resilience:

  • Situational analysis: this is how the people making the decision perceive the context in which the decision needs to be made.
  • Decision-making: how the actual decision-making is carried out, based on the situational analysis.

Both parts of the decision-making process are critical for resilience. In order to quickly recover from failure and adapt to changing circumstances, the organization must have the ability to manage the trade-off between speed, risk, and anticipated consequences.

We explored how a situational analysis can be done, through both individual and group sense-making, and we provided an overview of possible decision-making based on context:

  • When the problem at hand is self-evident and doesn’t require specific knowledge or expertise, the organization must have defined policies, processes or tools in place, so that every employee knows when such constraints apply, either because they are common sense or because they are explicitly taught as part of the organization's on-boarding process. The way to improve decision making in this context is to hold regular reviews of those policies and see if small changes can improve the quality of decisions. 
  • When some sort of expertise or analysis is necessary to make a decision, then the approach to decision making is to identify the experts in the specific domain, allow them to provide options (vetted through peer review) and then decide based on those options. To improve decision quality, multiple experts can collaborate, facilitated by a non-expert who can introduce naive questions, avoiding the risk of analysis paralysis and a limited expert point of view. If the experts cannot decide between multiple coherent options within a reasonable amount of time, we might follow into the next scenario.
  • When it is impossible to analyze a situation given the high level of volatility and uncertainty, then the approach to decision making is to run multiple parallel probes, in the hope that certain patterns will emerge that will help decision making. Under such conditions expertise doesn’t play a role, and in fact can hinder if experts cannot see beyond the scope of their expertise, and instead of exploring potential patterns they see every new input through their pre-existing mental models (to an expert in hammers every problem will be a nail).
  • When in a true crisis, it is impossible to analyze the situation, because the volatility is so high that even experimentation won’t help. The only way to proceed is to make decisions with authority as fast as possible. A bad decision is better than no decision at all, as it will create some constraints that will allow patterns to emerge in the system. We recognize such situations as chaotic and very energy-draining, but the presence of constraints and creation of coherence will allow us to move back into a context where experimentation is possible.

Last we discussed how organizational Archetypes can influence the way these decision making patterns are implemented in practice.


If you want to know more, you are welcome to join one of our upcoming trainings ORGANIC agility Foundation valid for Certified Agile Leadership - Essentials, Teams & Organizations

  • 08 - 11 February 2021
  • 06 - 09 April 2021
  • There is a BLACK FRIDAY discount valid until 27.11.2020



You are also welcome to have a look at our book ORGANIC agility Foundations: Leadership and Organization!



The recording is available online. Feel free to watch it again and share with your network. It is also available on YouTube.


Below you will find the slides, with some further content. Please also feel free to share the slides around.


Connect with us on social media, to stay updated with blogs, webinars, training and other events which support your learning journey :) We hope to see you in the webinar regarding Principle #3 in January

From here you can check out post and upcoming webinars! The list is updated frequently.


Have a great week everyone!

Archetypes for change – Leadership coaching in complex times

I wrote an article (08/2020) for the Coaching-Magazin Online about "Archetypes for change - Leadership coaching in complex times" and I'm happy to share the content with you here on our blog. The different archetypes are part of our ORGANIC Leadership® framework which we support organizations with.

Archetypes tie together in an intuitive and powerful way a diverse range of concepts that affect leaders and organizations. This article examines the concept of leader and organizational archetypes. Starting from the root of archetype in myth and narrative and combining this theoretical literature with leadership theories and psychological literature on behavior, it discusses the coaching of leaders through the process of changing themselves and their organizations by understanding their relationship to certain archetypes and the effects of their behavior.

If you want to read the story online, you can do so from Coaching-Magazin Online's webpage.


Introduction: what is an archetype?

Archetypes are part of stories: they represent structures or character types that stand for, or even represent, collective ideas, ideals, characteristics, fears, and desires. Some archetypes are almost universally recognizable, such as the self-sacrificing hero, or the loving mother, while others are more culturally specific. It is important to note that archetypes are not stereotypes (Snowden, 2005). People or situations are not shoehorned into them and they are not used for categorization. They just emerge out of repeated collective representations in stories, and we might recognize them when we see them. They also continue evolving as stories are retold or new ones are added into the canon. Because that makes them essentially pattern abstractions with a personality, archetypes can be incredibly flexible and practical: they are instantly recognizable, but rooted in different specificities.

The roots of archetypes go back to ancient Greek philosophy and Plato, who envisioned a world of ‘ideas’, ideal types whose specific reflections make up the real world. They were then picked up in Renaissance philosophy. In the 20th century, the psychoanalysis pioneer Jung gave them clearer shape and much of their modern understanding, identifying archetypes with prototypical images of the world that we all carry around with us, and which are so inherently bound to us that they keep surfacing again and again in our stories. These days, archetypes often feature in narrative research and literary criticism, informing approaches that seek to take a big-picture, comparative view of the word (Campbell, 1968; Frye, 2001).


What do archetypes have to do with coaching, leadership, and organizations?

It is clear then how archetypes might be relevant in approaching a book or film, but what do they have to do with coaching leaders? In fact, there are two major connecting points: one has to do with stories themselves, and the other with the kind of understandings and representations that archetypes can support in an organization.

Narrative has of course become a dominant theme in organizational coaching in recent years, with leaders often encouraged to take courses in storytelling (see, for example, Choy, 2020 or Denning, 2005). In fact, narrative goes far deeper than that. The unstructured, natural stories that are told every day around the coffee machine, the stories of success and failure that circulate and justify organizational practices and choices, the elaborate mythology and grand narratives that make up and support organizational values, all these are part of what constitutes the all-important organizational culture (see, for example, Ravasi & Schultz, 2006 or Gabriel, 2004). And archetypes, once we start looking, are one of the elements that crosscut across different levels and connect them, appearing in different forms in all kinds of stories.

By seeing and understanding those archetypes, a point of access in organizational culture in all of its complexity becomes available, which means that we can start affecting it. Archetypes bring together different elements in a natural way. Those studying the art and science of organizations know that the attitudes of leaders in an organization, the underlying culture and structure, and the response of others to those behaviors are connected: directly, indirectly, and sometimes in ways that we cannot immediately see. Understanding archetypes means that these connections are built into our perceptions and interventions without reducing the complexity of both organizations and leadership.


Complexity theories of leadership

Mentioning this embeddedness of leadership in partly visible and partly understood networks leads us to necessarily discuss a complex approach to leadership in general. Leadership theories can help us understand what archetypes contain. Given the characteristics of archetypes and the way they are used in coaching (to be more specifically addressed in the next section) it makes sense to turn to complexity theories in particular (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Complexity leadership theories were developed as a response to the changing world of work, from a more structured and mechanical to a rapid-based, adaptive one that is primarily built on human knowledge, relations, and capacities. This modern world of work moreover operates in dangerous, constantly shifting markets, sped up even more by technology. Complexity leadership draws from complexity science, which focuses on large, dynamic systems of interconnected components that evolve over time and are in a constant state of change, even without external inputs. In organizations, those components include people and their networks, which brings complexity to a whole other level.

Leadership for an evolving dynamic system should be evolving and dynamic itself or fall behind and desperately try to maintain control of the uncontrollable. In this environment, flexible leadership (now meant as a quality and a dynamic, and not as a position of power or a job description) can create the right conditions to enable responsive evolution, and therefore resilience, and trigger the evolutionary potential of the system without directing it, focusing on speed and learning over efficiency and process control. In order to achieve that, a high degree of well-connected autonomy will be necessary.

Because coaching a dynamic is generally rather difficult, in this article reference will often be made to leaders themselves, with the understanding that they are especially well-placed to influence how leadership is exercised. The rest of this article will focus on how coaches can facilitate through archetypes the emergence of coherent autonomy in a context that enables evolution.


Complex-friendly movement through change and coaching for awareness

So how do coaches put that to good use in the process of organizational change, and what does it mean for coaching leaders through it? There are processes for extracting the archetypes that are present in different parts or groups of an organization (see for example Snowden, 2005): contrasting those reveals unarticulated, sometimes critical, variations in perspective. Here, however, we will propose using a series of pre-existing, high-abstraction organizational archetypes that can then be given specific form into the context of application. These high-level archetypes bring together leadership attitudes, organizational expectations, and culture, as well as levels or types of structure and autonomy present in the organization.

The last point is critical, because the range of autonomy levels represented in archetypes makes them an ideal transition tool. The proposed archetypes start from The Expert, characterized by a leader who is the primary decision-maker and communicator with the team. Relationships are one-to-one with the leader and the culture is focused on control. All five high-level archetypes proposed will not be outlined here, but they move in increasing levels of autonomy from The Expert, through The Co-ordinator and The Peer (includes collective decision-making, solid feedback loops, increased responsibility for personal action and a collaborative culture). Finally, at the higher levels of autonomy there are The Coach and The Strategist archetypes, where ultimately leadership is distributed instead of concentrated on the person of the leader, in true complexity fashion, and the leader as a person acts as a strategic conduit between the team and the organization.


Identifying relevant archetypes and using them to better understand autonomy

So how does a leader, a team, or an organization know which archetype they can identify themselves with, and use that knowledge to intervene and gradually increase the level of autonomy, and therefore adaptability and speed of reaction, in the organization? As a coach, the process can start with facilitation: in a workshop, people from diverse perspectives share stories of success and failure in the organization and then map those on to archetypes. This shows the coach, not only which archetypes are more typical of the organization, but also which ones people feel more comfortable with and which they consider more effective. Comfort levels are something to take into account in leadership coaching, because pushing premature change will only get rejected and lead to conflict.

Using the most common and successful archetypes as a guide, leaders can start seeing a possible evolutionary path, from the existing conditions to greater autonomy and interconnection within and between teams. The path however is not to the archetype representing the highest possible level of autonomy: it is to the next most autonomous archetype from the one the team is at right now, whatever that is. This is where leadership coaching becomes most crucial, because the key to triggering change are leadership behaviors.

For the practicalities of coaching, leadership behaviors can also be distilled down to six major categories, which of course subsume a whole range of actual actions. These behaviors exist simultaneously in various dimensions, from the perspective of the leader, to the perspective of the team, to ideas of how work gets done and what constitutes success. These overarching behaviors can be described with words like directingdemandingconducting, or catalyzing. Behaviors and archetypes are mutually reinforcing and feed off culture: a leader’s behavior shapes the culture and archetype, while at the same time being affected by it.


Coaching leadership through behavior and contextual awareness

From a coaching perspective then, the first step would be coaching on Emotional Intelligence (Beldoch, 1964; Goleman, 1995), observation and awareness. Beyond the debate on the general validity of Emotional Intelligence as a concept, it is used here as a tool that can be particularly helpful in making connections: the leader can observe the way their own emotions trigger their actions which in turn shape the impact they have, so that they realize this chain for themselves and, through practices such as journaling or regular coaching and reflection sessions, build the capacities for observation.



With awareness heightened, conscious behavioral change can be possible. Going back to the evolutionary path that archetypes have helped us recognize, coaches can associate the present and the desired archetypes with specific behaviors (which are already part of an archetype’s constellation). Each archetype involves multiple different behaviors and these partially overlap between different archetypes, so for the leader the key is to start adopting some of the new behaviors of the desired archetypes, while maintaining those among the old ones that are still present in the goal archetype. This continuity is an important element for change to be accepted and happen naturally. So, for example, if an organization or group is trying to move from The Expert to The Co-ordinator archetype, a leader might still use demanding-type behaviors, but they will no longer be dictating every detail, and will instead move to a higher-level co-ordination. As the leaders’ behavior changes, the structures around it will start shifting as well, as people and structures around them respond to the changed leadership behavior and new rituals and practices (that can be reinforced to support the change) emerge. The key here is that instead of forcing organizational structure to change in appearance only, the leader uses this heightened awareness and sense of direction to change their own actions and practices, and magnify that impact.


The letting go of control and its rewards

This process sounds theoretical, but in its application on the ground it has the advantage of making the abstract immediately specific and graspable by honoring existing knowledge through the intuitive connections embedded in the idea of archetypes. This means that the leader isn’t being aggressively guided to unravel everything and break it down into constituent parts in order to make a difference, but they are being given a way of seeing things that offers power and understanding over their own actions.

The implication here is that the leaders’ control primarily extends to themselves and what they do, as well as what they are able to observe, which sometimes might be hard to accept. It means that leaders will have to recognize that deliberate changes in organizational structures, or stating ideal company values might have very little effect. They will have to recognize that their control over others’ actions (except in the most direct and damaging way) is very minimal. The coach can encourage that process by emphasizing why it is worth it for creating the kind of impact most leaders dream of having on their organization through the cumulative power of small interventions. So what they can do is take action themselves, encouraging the direction they have chosen, as the archetype of their organization changes more smoothly around them, alongside the stories people tell.



Beldoch, Michael (1964). Sensitivity to expression of emotional meaning in three modes of communication. In Joel R. Davitz et al. (eds.), The Communication of Emotional Meaning (pp. 31–42), New York: McGraw-Hill.

Campbell, Joseph (1968). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Choy, Esther (2020). What Is Leadership Storytelling, Anyway?. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/estherchoy/2020/01/26/what-is-leadership-storytelling/#313d19f07b17 [Accessed 23 July 2020].

Denning, Stephen (2005). The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling: Mastering the Art and Discipline of Business Narrative. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Frye, Northrop. (2001). The archetypes of literature. In Vincent Leitch (ed.), The Norton Anthology: Theory and Criticism. New York: Norton.

Gabriel, Yiannis (ed.) (2004). Myths, Stories and Organizations: Premodern narratives for our times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lavine, Marc (2014). Paradoxical Leadership and the Competing Values Framework. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), pp.189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522510.

Goleman, Daniel (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Jung, C. G& Franz, Marie-Luise von (1964). Man and his symbols. New York: Dell Pub. Co.

Ravasi, Davide & Schultz, Majken (2006). Responding to Organizational Identity Threats: Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture. AMJ, vol. 49, pp. 433–458, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794663.

Snowden, David (2005). Stories from the Frontier. E:CO, 7(3–4), pp. 155–165.

Snowden, David (2002). Narrative Patterns: Uses of Story in the Third Age of Knowledge Management. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 1(1), pp. 1–6.

Tong, Yew Kwan & Arvey, Richard D. (2015). Managing complexity via the Competing Values Framework, Journal of Management Development, 34(6), pp. 653–673.

Uhl-Bien, Mary; Russ, Marion & McKelvey, Bill (2007). Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), pp. 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002.

Five Essential Skills for Successful Collaborative Relationships

I thoroughly enjoyed hosting the first of a series of webinars centred around "collaboration". We had people from all around the world listening in :)

In focusing on the importance of collaboration in building a great team, I delved into the five essential skills for successful collaborative relationships:

  • Collaborative intention
  • Truthfulness
  • Self-accountability
  • Awareness of self & others
  • Problem solving & negotiating

"Collaboration is making joint effort towards a goal" - Vreede, Briggs & Kolfschoten, 2008

As promised we would like to share with you the recording of the session:

There were a couple of questions we didn't manage to get to. Specifically one of the participants wanted to find out where he could find more information on "Magic 21" (aka CDE configuration). I believe the best source for this is here - What’s Magic About Magic 21?

Another participant wanted to know where she could read up on "Conflict Circles". I would recommend checking out this link.

As mentioned in the webinar, I'm a Certified Radical Collaboration® Trainer. The 3-day Radical Collaboration® training is a deeply experiential, transformational course and as such ideally needs to be conducted face-to-face. We will likely only be running this training face-to-face again in 2021. Until such time we can offer this training, we can instead offer a remote 1-day Building Collaborative Skills workshop (Powered by Radical Collaboration®). To learn more about this workshop please contact [email protected]

Lastly be sure to catch my next webinar on "Defensiveness". We'll be posting this on Meetup and across our social media channels soon!

Thank you for joining us and we hope to "see" you next time!

*Follow this link to view upcoming & past webinars on our website*