Cynefin Through The Fractured Lens: Rethinking Complexity
I like the idea of putting the Cynefin framework through The Fractured Lens is an interesting pairing because both deal with complexity, but they approach it differently. Cynefin provides a sense-making model for navigating different types of problems, whereas The Fractured Lens focuses on the deeper forces shaping human systems, unknowing, meaning, belonging, and dynamics.
Cynefin categorises situations into five domains: Obvious, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, and Confused. The Fractured Lens can add depth to this by exploring why people interpret situations the way they do and how meaning, power, and belonging influence decision-making within these domains.
In The Fractured Lens, the Obvious domain is where unknowing is at its weakest, people assume the answer is clear because they trust best practices and repeatable solutions.
But how often do people misdiagnose a situation as obvious when it’s actually complex? Belonging plays a role here, if everyone in a system reinforces the same "obvious" solutions, people stop questioning them.
Power dynamics also shape what is considered "obvious." The dominant voices in a system get to decide what is “common sense” and what is ignored.
Meaning and power become central here. The Complicated domain thrives on expertise, but who gets to be the expert? Meaning is constructed by those with the knowledge to interpret it, and power is embedded in the structures that uphold this expertise.
The risk here is mistaking expertise for certainty, leaders and consultants might over-rely on frameworks rather than recognising the need for unknowing.
This is where The Fractured Lens thrives. Complexity is defined by emergence, cause and effect are only clear in hindsight, meaning traditional expertise isn’t enough.
Here, unknowing isn’t a problem, it’s the reality. The most effective responses come from sensemaking, dialogue, and adaptive learning rather than pre-defined solutions.
Belonging is key, how do we create spaces where diverse perspectives can interact in ways that generate new meaning, rather than reinforcing old assumptions?
Chaos disrupts belonging and meaning, when systems collapse, people grasp for certainty, often reverting to old narratives.
Power and control surge in chaotic situations, leaders either impose rigid structures to create order or exploit the chaos to maintain dominance.
The real question isn’t just how to stabilise chaos but who gets to define what stability looks like?
In The Fractured Lens, this is where misdiagnosis happens. We think we’re in one domain, but we’re actually in another.
The act of recognising confusion requires unknowing, admitting we don’t yet understand where we are.
The key shift is moving from assumption to inquiry, using belonging and dialogue to collectively make sense of the situation rather than rushing to impose a model.
This is where The Fractured Lens Adds Value, It questions who gets to define the domains, Cynefin provides a great structural model, but who decides whether something is Complex or Complicated? The Fractured Lens highlights the power dynamics behind these classifications.
It centres unknowing and dialogue, While Cynefin suggests different approaches for each domain, The Fractured Lens challenges how we engage with uncertainty rather than just categorising it.
It explores the role of meaning and belonging, People don’t just act based on logic; they act based on the meaning they’ve constructed and the groups they belong to. The Fractured Lens helps reveal how these forces shape responses within each domain.
Cynefin gives us a map, but The Fractured Lens asks, who made the map, who follows it, and who decides when to redraw it? It adds depth to how we understand complexity by exposing the hidden forces shaping our sense-making, decision-making, and leadership within these domains.