David on a personal note - you are an erudite man. How can "you' of all people advance pseudoscience? I repeat: even Nobel Laureates are at odds with Complexity Science and that is for non-sentient systems, but you are advancing Cynefin for "interacting humans" as a "reality" ! You know well that it fails "evidence based management" tests that you would subscribe to for any other material. You are falling into your own trap: whereby "you are right as long as you believe it" but "others are wrong about other similar metaphorical models".

I notice it doesn't stop here. You write in such an erudite fashion yet are overtly a practicing mystic (see your status page: Roman Catholic). You know, far more than me as a "Professor" that the lack of evidence does not de facto mean an existence (deity) to be! Why do you draw the line between mysticism and reality David ? As for me, I draw it where Prof. Richard Dawkins draws it, where all other eminent scientists draw it. There must be evidence, it must satisfy scientific criteria to be valid. Cynefin (as well as that other belief of yours) fails the test. But you are a "Profesor' so you know that far more than me! So from a psychological perspective: why are you advancing this model ? 

You know others were very erudite too like Freud, Jung, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle etc. Freud was a doctor yet advanced nonsense as "truths'. Jung was a learned man yet advanced and strongly believed in "Spirits, ghosts and so forth". You are not in that vague field "psychology" but a Professor of "stronger field" with knowledge of business. So why are you advancing pseudoscience ?