Revision as of 20:39, 7 May 2010 editGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits Rv, link spam← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:45, 27 December 2024 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,430,454 edits Removed URL that duplicated identifier. Removed access-date with no URL. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Dominic3203 | Category:Reasoning | #UCB_Category 22/68 | ||
(176 intermediate revisions by 76 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Giving meaning to collective experiences}} | |||
{{Citations missing|date=November 2008}}{{Refimprove|date=November 2008}} | |||
{{about|sensemaking in organizations|sensemaking in information and computer science|Sensemaking (information science)}} | |||
'''Sensemaking''' or '''sense-making''' is the process by which people give ] to their collective experiences. It has been defined as "the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing" (]). The concept was introduced to ] by ] in the late 1960's and has affected both theory and practice. Weick intended to encourage a shift away from the traditional focus of organization theorists on ] and towards the processes that constitute the meaning of the decisions that are enacted in behavior. | |||
== Definition == | |||
'''Sensemaking''' is the process by which people give meaning to experience. While this process has been studied by other disciplines under other names for centuries, the term "sensemaking" has marked two distinct but related research areas since the 1970s. It was introduced to ] by ] and to ] by ] at roughly the same time. In both cases, the concept has been used to bring together insights drawn from ], ], and ] (especially ]) and sensemaking research is therefore often presented as an ] ]. | |||
There is no single agreed upon definition of sensemaking, but there is consensus that it is a process that allows people to understand ambiguous, equivocal or confusing issues or events.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Brown |first1=Andrew D. |last2=Colville |first2=Ian |last3=Pye |first3=Annie |date=February 2015 |title=Making Sense of Sensemaking in Organization Studies |journal=Organization Studies |language=en |volume=36 |issue=2 |pages=265–277 |doi=10.1177/0170840614559259 |s2cid=145461963 |issn=0170-8406|doi-access=free |hdl=10871/16256 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>{{Rp|page=266}} Disagreements about the meaning of sensemaking exist around whether sensemaking is a mental process within the individual, a social process or a process that occurs as part of discussion; whether it is an ongoing daily process or only occurs in response to rare events; and whether sensemaking describes past events or considers the future.<ref name=":0" />{{Rp|page=268}} Sensemaking further refers not only to a process, be it mental or social, that occurs in organizations but also a broader perspective on what organization is and what it means for people to be organized.<ref>{{Citation |last=Kudesia |first=Ravi S. |title=Organizational Sensemaking |date=2017-04-26 |encyclopedia=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology |url=https://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-78 |access-date=2024-01-30 |publisher=Oxford University Press |language=en |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.78 |isbn=978-0-19-023655-7}}</ref> Overall five distinct schools of sensemaking/sense-making have been identified.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0112.xml | title=Sense-Making/Sensemaking }}</ref> | |||
==Roots in organizational psychology== | |||
==Sensemaking in individuals and organizations== | |||
In 1966, ] and ] published ''The Social Psychology of Organizations'' (]). In 1969, Karl Weick played on this title in his book ''The Social Psychology of Organizing'', shifting the focus from organizations as entities to organiz''ing'' as an activity. It was especially the second edition, published ten years later (]) that established Weick's approach in organization studies. | |||
In individuals, sensemaking is the largely cognitive activity of constructing a hypothetical mental model of the current situation and how it might evolve over time, what threats and opportunities for each action are likely to emerge from this evolution, what potential actions can be taken in response, what the projected outcomes of those responses are, and what values drive the choice of future action. In organizations, sensemaking is a collaborative process of creating shared awareness and understanding out of different individuals' perspectives and varied interests. The process of moving from ] in individuals to shared awareness and understanding to collaborative ] can be considered a ] activity in that the individual’s cognitive activities are directly impacted by the social nature of the exchange and vice versa. | |||
==Weick's approach to sensemaking== | |||
Klein et al. (2006b) have presented a theory of sensemaking as a set of processes that is initiated when an individual or organization recognizes the inadequacy of their current understanding of events. Sensemaking is an active two-way process of fitting data into a frame (mental model) and fitting a frame around the data. Neither data nor frame comes first; data evoke frames and frames select and connect data. When there is no adequate fit, the data may be reconsidered or an existing frame may be revised. This description resembles the Recognition-Metacognition model (Cohen et al. 1996), which describes the ] processes that are used by individuals to build, verify, and modify working models (or "stories") in situational awareness to account for an unrecognised situation.(Such notions also echo the processes of assimilation and accommodation in ]’s (1972, 1977) theory of ].) | |||
{{Original research section|date=February 2019}} | |||
Weick identified seven properties of sensemaking (]): | |||
==Sensemaking in command & control== | |||
# ''Identity'' and identification is central – who people think they are in their context shapes what they enact and how they interpret events (]; ]; ]; ]; ]). | |||
Sensemaking is central to the conceptual framework for military ] (NCO) espoused by the ] (Gartska and Alberts, 2004). Sensemaking in NCO theory is said to consist of three interrelated activities: | |||
# ''Retrospection'' provides the opportunity for sensemaking: the point of retrospection in time affects what people notice (]), thus attention and interruptions to that attention are highly relevant to the process (]). | |||
# People ''enact'' the environments they face in dialogues and narratives (]; ]; ]). As people speak, and build narrative accounts, it helps them understand what they think, organize their experiences and control and predict events (]; ]; ]) and reduce complexity in the context of change management (]). | |||
# Sensemaking is a ''social'' activity in that plausible stories are preserved, retained or shared (]; ]). However, the audience for sensemaking includes the speakers themselves (]) and the narratives are "both individual and shared...an evolving product of conversations with ourselves and with others" (]: 565). | |||
# Sensemaking is ''ongoing'', so Individuals simultaneously shape and react to the environments they face. As they project themselves onto this environment and observe the consequences they learn about their identities and the accuracy of their accounts of the world (]). This is a feedback process so even as individuals deduce their identity from the behaviour of others towards them, they also try to influence this behaviour. As Weick argued, "The basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs" (]: 635). | |||
# People ''extract cues'' from the context to help them decide on what information is relevant and what explanations are acceptable (]; ]). Extracted cues provide points of reference for linking ideas to broader networks of meaning and are 'simple, familiar structures that are seeds from which people develop a larger sense of what may be occurring." (]: 50). | |||
# People favour ''plausibility over accuracy'' in accounts of events and contexts (]; ]; ]): "in an equivocal, postmodern world, infused with the politics of interpretation and conflicting interests and inhabited by people with multiple shifting identities, an obsession with accuracy seems fruitless, and not of much practical help, either" (]: 61). | |||
Each of these seven aspects interact and intertwine as individuals interpret events. Their interpretations become evident through ]s – written and spoken – which convey the sense they have made of events (]), as well as through ] and associated material practices (]; ]). | |||
* Forming an '''awareness''' of key elements relevant to the situation. This entails knowing "the who, what, when and where." | |||
* Forming an '''understanding''' of what it all means in some bounded context, based upon past experiences, training, education and cognitive capabilities. This entails: | |||
** Forming hypotheses and making inferences, i.e. generalizations (predictions or anticipations) about future events. | |||
** Forming a sense of the implications for different courses of action. | |||
* Making '''decisions''' by: | |||
** Generating alternative response actions to control the situation. | |||
** Identifying the objectives, constraints, and factors that influence the feasibility and desirability of each alternative. | |||
** Conducting an assessment of these alternatives. | |||
===From decision-making to sensemaking=== | |||
In a joint/coalition military environment, sensemaking is complicated by numerous of technical, social, organizational, cultural, and operational factors. A central hypothesis of ], however, is that the quality of shared sensemaking and collaboration will be better in a "robustly networked" force than in a platform-centric force, empowering people to make better decisions. According to NCO theory, there is a mutually reinforcing relationship among and between individual sensemaking, shared sensemaking, and collaboration. | |||
The rise of the sensemaking perspective marks a shift of focus in organization studies from how decisions shape organizations to how meaning drives organizing (]). The aim was to focus attention on the largely cognitive activity of framing experienced situations as meaningful. It is a collaborative process of creating shared awareness and understanding out of different individuals' perspectives and varied interests. Weick described the social and historical context in the late 1960s as being important in this shift from decision-making to sensemaking: "These ideas coincided with a growing societal realization that administrators in Washington were trying to justify committing more resources to a war in Vietnam that the United States was clearly losing. One could not escape the feeling that rationality had a demonstrable retrospective core, that people looked forward with anxiety and put the best face on it after the fact, and that the vaunted prospective skills of McNamara’s “whiz kids” in the Pentagon were a chimera. It was easy to put words to this mess. People create their own fate. Organizations enact their own environments. The point seemed obvious."<ref>{{Cite book |title=Debating organization: point-counterpoint in organisation studies |date=2003 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-0-631-21693-3 |editor-last=Westwood |editor-first=Robert Ian |location=Malden, Mass. Berlin |page=186 |editor-last2=Clegg |editor-first2=Stewart}}</ref> | |||
A symposium on Sensemaking, sponsored by the Command and Control Research Program (CCRP) of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence, was held in Vienna, Virginia, on 23-25 October 2001. The goal of this meeting was to bring together knowledgeable researchers and practitioners from industry, academia, and government to cross-fertilize the best sensemaking ideas and practices (Leedom, 2001). | |||
===From planning to action=== | |||
==Sensemaking and situation assessment== | |||
Sensemaking scholars are less interested in the intricacies of planning than in the details of action (]). | |||
In one application, sensemaking is approached as the ability or attempt to make sense of an ambiguous situation. More exactly, sensemaking is the process of creating ] and ] in situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions. It is "a motivated, continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively" (Klein et al., 2006a).the ability or attempt to make sense of an ambiguous situation. More exactly, sensemaking is the process of creating ] and ] in situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions. It is "a motivated, continuous effort to understand connections (which can be among people, places, and events) in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively" (Klein et al., 2006a). | |||
===Uncertainty, ambiguity, and crisis=== | |||
The DoD concept of sensemaking is very similar to that of ''situation assessment'', an umbrella term for the various forms of cognitive processing involved in maintaining ] (SA) (see Endsley, 1995). But while situation assessment is generally thought of as a process of fitting the observed facts to a familiar model, sensemaking implies more of an inductive and constructive process - actively creating awareness and understanding to account for many vague and disparate pieces of information concerning multiple decision-critical events that occur simultaneously over different functional areas. While the original work on situation assessment concentrated on how individuals maintain SA at the tactical level, sensemaking theorists have primarily focused on how shared awareness and understanding are developed within ] (C2) organizations at the operational level. At the tactical level, individuals monitor and assess their immediate physical environment in order to predict where different elements will be in the next moment. At the operational level, where the situation is far broader, more complex and uncertain, and evolves over hours and days, the organization must collectively make sense of enemy dispositions, ]s and capabilities, as well as anticipate the (often unintended) effects of own-force actions on a complex ]. | |||
The sensemaking approach is often used to provide insight into factors that surface as organizations address either uncertain or ambiguous situations (], ]; ]), including deep uncertainty.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eckstein |first1=G. |last2=Shrestha |first2=A.|last3=Russo |first3=F. |date=August 2024 |title=Thirty-five years of sensemaking in the business & management research: a bibliometric analysis, review and discussion |journal=Management Review Quarterly |issn=2198-1639 |doi=10.1007/s11301-024-00458-5 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Beginning in the 1980s with an influential re-analysis of the ], Weick's name has come to be associated with the study of the situated sensemaking that influences the outcomes of disasters (]). | |||
== Categories and related concepts == | |||
==Sensemaking research== | |||
A 2014 review of the literature on sensemaking in organizations identified a dozen different categories of sensemaking and a half-dozen sensemaking related concepts (]). The categories of sensemaking included: constituent-minded, cultural, ecological, environmental, future-oriented, intercultural, interpersonal, market, political, prosocial, prospective, and resourceful. The sensemaking-related concepts included: sensebreaking, sensedemanding, sense-exchanging, sensegiving, sensehiding, and sense specification. | |||
* ] (1983, 1992, 1996) has investigated individual sensemaking, developing theories underlying the “cognitive gap” that individuals experience when attempting to make sense of observed data. | |||
==Other applications== | |||
* ] (1988, 1993, 1995, 2005) has researched sensemaking at the organizational level, providing insight into factors that surface as organizations address either uncertain or ambiguous situations. | |||
Sensemaking is central to the conceptual framework for military ] (NCO) espoused by the ] (]). In a joint/coalition military environment, sensemaking is complicated by numerous technical, social, organizational, cultural, and operational factors. A central hypothesis of NCO is that the quality of shared sensemaking and collaboration will be better in a "robustly networked" force than in a platform-centric force, empowering people to make better decisions. According to NCO theory, there is a mutually-reinforcing relationship among and between individual sensemaking, shared sensemaking, and collaboration. | |||
Because much of this applied psychological research is grounded within the context of ] and ], there exists a strong desire for concepts and performance to be measurable and for theories to be testable. Accordingly, sensemaking and ] are viewed as working concepts that enable us to investigate and improve the interaction between man and ]. Within this perspective, it is recognized that humans play a significant role in adapting and responding to unexpected or unknown situations, as well as recognized situations. | |||
In defense applications, sensemaking theorists have primarily focused on how shared awareness and understanding are developed within ] organizations at the operational level. At the tactical level, individuals monitor and assess their immediate physical environment in order to predict where different elements will be in the next moment. At the operational level, where the situation is far broader, more complex and more uncertain, and evolves over hours and days, the organization must collectively make sense of enemy dispositions, ]s and capabilities, as well as anticipate the (often unintended) effects of own-force actions on a complex ]. | |||
==See also== | |||
Sensemaking has been studied in the patient safety literature (]). It has been used as a conceptual framework for identifying and detecting high risk patient situations. For example, ] examined sensemaking and the co-production of safety of primary medical care patients. | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
== |
==See also== | ||
{{Div col}} | |||
* {{annotated link|Abductive reasoning}} | |||
* Brickner, M.S. & Lipshitz, R. (2004) ''Pilot Study: System Model of Situation Awareness: "Sensemaking" and Decision Making in Command and Control''. AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2004-071. Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio: U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. | |||
* {{annotated link|Brenda Dervin}} | |||
* {{annotated link|Concept map}} | |||
* Cohen, M.S., Freeman, J.T. & Wolf S. (1996) Meta-recognition in time stressed decision making: Recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. ''Human Factors'', 38(2):206-219. | |||
* {{annotated link|Conclusion-making}} | |||
* {{annotated link|Cynefin framework}} | |||
* Dervin, B. (1983). An overview of sense-making research: Concepts , methods and results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ''International Communication Association''. Dallas, TX. | |||
* {{annotated link|Idea networking}} | |||
* {{annotated link|Institutional logic}} | |||
* Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. In Glazier, J. and Powell, R. (Eds.) ''Qualitative research in information management''. (pp.61–84). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. | |||
* {{annotated link|Kathleen M. Sutcliffe}} | |||
* {{annotated link|Knowledge management}} | |||
* Dervin, B. (1996). Given a context by any other name:Methodological tools for taming the unruly beast. Keynote paper, ''ISIC 96: Information Seeking in Context''. 1-23. | |||
* {{annotated link|Meaning-making}} | |||
* {{annotated link|Problem structuring methods}} | |||
* Endsley, M. R. (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64. | |||
* {{annotated link|Reflective equilibrium}} | |||
* {{annotated link|Semiotics}} | |||
* Garstka, J. and Alberts, D. (2004). Network Centric Operations Conceptual Framework Version 2.0, U.S. Office of Force Transformation and Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration. | |||
{{Div col end}} | |||
* Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R.F. (2006a). Making sense of sensemaking I: alternative perspectives. ''IEEE Intelligent Systems'', 21(4), 70-73. | |||
* Klein, G., Moon, B. and Hoffman, R.F. (2006b). Making sense of sensemaking Ii: a ] model. ''IEEE Intelligent Systems'', 21(5), 88-92 | |||
* Leedom, D.K. (2001). ''Final Report: Sensemaking Symposium''. (Technical Report prepared under contract for Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications & Intelligence). Vienna, VA: Evidence Based Research. Inc. http://www.dodccrp.org/files/sensemaking_final_report.pdf | |||
* Snowden , D.J. and C.F. Kurtz (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world, IBM Systems Journal, Volume 42, Number 3, 462. | |||
* Snowden, D.J. (2005). Multi-ontology sense making – a new simplicity in decision making in Informatics in Primary Health Care 2005:13:00 | |||
* Snowden, D.J. and Boone, M. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, November 2007, pp. 69-76 | |||
* Piaget, J. (1972). To Understand Is To Invent. New York: The Viking Press, Inc. | |||
* Piaget, J. (1977). The Development of Thought: equilibration of cognitive structures. (A. Rosen, Trans.) New York: Viking | |||
* Weick, K. (1979). ''The Social Psychology of Organizing''. New York: McGraw-Hill. | |||
* Weick, K. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. ''Journal of Management Studies'', 25, 305-317. | |||
* Weick, K. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. ''Administrative Sciences Quarterly'', 38, 628-652 | |||
* Weick, K (1995). ''Sensemaking in Organizations''. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. | |||
* Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. ''Organization Science'', 16(4), 409-421 | |||
==External links== | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* at TCW | |||
* by Karl E. Weick | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
==References== | |||
<!-- interwiki --> | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
{{Refbegin|colwidth=30em}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Abolafia, M. 2010 |reference=Abolafia, M. (2010). Narrative construction as sensemaking. ''Organization Studies'', 31(3): 349–367.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Battles, et al. 2006 |reference=Battles, J. B., Dixon, N. M., Borotkanics, R. J., Rabin-Fastmen, B., & Kaplan, H. S. (2006). Sensemaking of patient safety risks and hazards. ''Health Services Research'', 41(4 Pt 2), 1555.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Brown, A. D. 2005 |reference=Brown, A. D. (2005). Making sense of the collapse of Barings Bank. ''Human Relations'', 58(12): 1579–1605.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Brown, A. D., Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. 2007 |reference=Brown, A. D., Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007). Making sense of sensemaking narratives. ''Human Relations'', 61(8): 1035–1062.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Bruner, J. 1991 |reference=Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. ''Critical Inquiry'', 18: 1–21.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Cohen, M.S., Freeman, J.T. & Wolf S. 1996 |reference=Cohen, M.S., Freeman, J.T. & Wolf S. (1996). Meta-recognition in time stressed decision making: Recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. ''Human Factors'', 38(2):206–219.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Currie, G., & Brown, A. 2003 |reference=Currie, G., & Brown, A. (2003). A narratological approach to understanding processes of organizing in a UK hospital. ''Human Relations'', 56: 563–586.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Dunford, R., & Jones, D. 2000 |reference=Dunford, R., & Jones, D. (2000). Narrative in strategic change. ''Human Relations'', 53: 1207–1226.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Garstka, J. and Alberts, D. 2004 |reference=Garstka, J. and Alberts, D. (2004). ''Network Centric Operations Conceptual Framework Version 2.0'', U.S. Office of Force Transformation and Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Gephart, R. P. 1993 |reference=Gephart, R. P. (1993). The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. ''Academy of Management Journal'', 36: 1465–1514.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Huff, A. S. 1990 |reference=Huff, A. S. (ed.) (1990). ''Mapping Strategic Thought''. Chichester, UK; New York: Wiley.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Isabella, L. A. 1990 |reference=Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as change unfolds: How managers construe key organisational events. ''Academy of Management Journal'', 33(1).}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966 |reference=Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). ''The Social Psychology of Organizations''. New York: Wiley. Second edition published in 1978.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Kumar, P. and Singhal, M. 2012 |reference=Kumar, P. and Singhal, M. (2012). Reducing change management complexity: aligning change recipient sensemaking to change agent sensegiving. ''Int. J. Learning and Change'', Vol. 6, Nos. 3/4, pp.138–155.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Maitlis, S. 2005 |reference=] (2005). The social processes of organizational sense making. ''Academy of Management Journal'', 48(1): 21–49.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Maitlis, S. & Christianson, M. 2014 |reference=] & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward. ''Academy of Management Annals'', 8(1), 57–125.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Pratt, M.G. 2000 |reference=Pratt, M.G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. ''Administrative Science Quarterly'', 45: 456–493.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Rhodes, et al. 2015 |reference=Rhodes, P., McDonald, R., Campbell, S., Daker‐White, G., & Sanders, C. (2016). Sensemaking and the co‐production of safety: a qualitative study of primary medical care patients. ''Sociology of Health & Illness'', 38(2), 270–285.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Salancick, G., & Pfeffer, J. 1978 |reference=Salancick, G., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. ''Administrative Science Quarterly'', 23: 224–253.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. 2012 |reference=Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. (2012). Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. ''Academy of Management Journal'', 55(5), 1232–1259.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Thurlow, A., & Mills, J. 2009 |reference=Thurlow, A., & Mills, J. (2009). Change, talk and sensemaking. ''Journal of Organizational Change Management'', 22(5): 459–579.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Watson, T. J. 1995 |reference=Watson, T. J. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sensemaking: A reflexive tale. ''Organization Studies'', 16(5): 805–821.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Watson, T. J. 1998 |reference=Watson, T. J. (1998). Managerial sensemaking and occupational identities in Britain and Italy: The role of management magazines in the process of discursive construction. ''Journal of Management Studies'', 35(3): 285–301.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Watson, T. J. 2009 |reference=Watson, T. J. (2009). Narrative life story and the management of identity: a case study in autobiographical identity work. ''Human Relations'', 62(3): 1–28.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Weick, K. 1979 |reference=Weick, K. (1979). ''The Social Psychology of Organizing''. New York: McGraw-Hill.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Weick, K. 1988 |reference=Weick, K. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. ''Journal of Management Studies'', 25, 305–317.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Weick, K. 1993 |reference=Weick, K. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. ''Administrative Science Quarterly'', 3: 628–652.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Weick, K. 1995 |reference=Weick, K. (1995). ''Sensemaking in Organisations''. London: Sage.}} | |||
*{{Wikicite |id=Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005 |reference=Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. ''Organization Science'', 16(4): 409–421.}} | |||
{{Refend}} | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 11:45, 27 December 2024
Giving meaning to collective experiences This article is about sensemaking in organizations. For sensemaking in information and computer science, see Sensemaking (information science).Sensemaking or sense-making is the process by which people give meaning to their collective experiences. It has been defined as "the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing" (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 409). The concept was introduced to organizational studies by Karl E. Weick in the late 1960's and has affected both theory and practice. Weick intended to encourage a shift away from the traditional focus of organization theorists on decision-making and towards the processes that constitute the meaning of the decisions that are enacted in behavior.
Definition
There is no single agreed upon definition of sensemaking, but there is consensus that it is a process that allows people to understand ambiguous, equivocal or confusing issues or events. Disagreements about the meaning of sensemaking exist around whether sensemaking is a mental process within the individual, a social process or a process that occurs as part of discussion; whether it is an ongoing daily process or only occurs in response to rare events; and whether sensemaking describes past events or considers the future. Sensemaking further refers not only to a process, be it mental or social, that occurs in organizations but also a broader perspective on what organization is and what it means for people to be organized. Overall five distinct schools of sensemaking/sense-making have been identified.
Roots in organizational psychology
In 1966, Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn published The Social Psychology of Organizations (Katz & Kahn, 1966). In 1969, Karl Weick played on this title in his book The Social Psychology of Organizing, shifting the focus from organizations as entities to organizing as an activity. It was especially the second edition, published ten years later (Weick, 1979) that established Weick's approach in organization studies.
Weick's approach to sensemaking
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (February 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Weick identified seven properties of sensemaking (Weick, 1995):
- Identity and identification is central – who people think they are in their context shapes what they enact and how they interpret events (Pratt, 2000; Currie & Brown, 2003; Weick, et al., 2005; Thurlow & Mills, 2009; Watson, 2009).
- Retrospection provides the opportunity for sensemaking: the point of retrospection in time affects what people notice (Dunford & Jones, 2000), thus attention and interruptions to that attention are highly relevant to the process (Gephart, 1993).
- People enact the environments they face in dialogues and narratives (Bruner, 1991; Watson, 1998; Currie & Brown, 2003). As people speak, and build narrative accounts, it helps them understand what they think, organize their experiences and control and predict events (Isabella, 1990; Weick, 1995; Abolafia, 2010) and reduce complexity in the context of change management (Kumar & Singhal, 2012).
- Sensemaking is a social activity in that plausible stories are preserved, retained or shared (Isabella, 1990; Maitlis, 2005). However, the audience for sensemaking includes the speakers themselves (Watson, 1995) and the narratives are "both individual and shared...an evolving product of conversations with ourselves and with others" (Currie & Brown, 2003: 565).
- Sensemaking is ongoing, so Individuals simultaneously shape and react to the environments they face. As they project themselves onto this environment and observe the consequences they learn about their identities and the accuracy of their accounts of the world (Thurlow & Mills, 2009). This is a feedback process so even as individuals deduce their identity from the behaviour of others towards them, they also try to influence this behaviour. As Weick argued, "The basic idea of sensemaking is that reality is an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs" (Weick, 1993: 635).
- People extract cues from the context to help them decide on what information is relevant and what explanations are acceptable (Salancick & Pfeffer, 1978; Brown, Stacey, & Nandhakumar, 2007). Extracted cues provide points of reference for linking ideas to broader networks of meaning and are 'simple, familiar structures that are seeds from which people develop a larger sense of what may be occurring." (Weick, 1995: 50).
- People favour plausibility over accuracy in accounts of events and contexts (Currie & Brown, 2003; Brown, 2005; Abolafia, 2010): "in an equivocal, postmodern world, infused with the politics of interpretation and conflicting interests and inhabited by people with multiple shifting identities, an obsession with accuracy seems fruitless, and not of much practical help, either" (Weick, 1995: 61).
Each of these seven aspects interact and intertwine as individuals interpret events. Their interpretations become evident through narratives – written and spoken – which convey the sense they have made of events (Currie & Brown, 2003), as well as through diagrammatic reasoning and associated material practices (Huff, 1990; Stigliani & Ravasi, 2012).
From decision-making to sensemaking
The rise of the sensemaking perspective marks a shift of focus in organization studies from how decisions shape organizations to how meaning drives organizing (Weick, 1993). The aim was to focus attention on the largely cognitive activity of framing experienced situations as meaningful. It is a collaborative process of creating shared awareness and understanding out of different individuals' perspectives and varied interests. Weick described the social and historical context in the late 1960s as being important in this shift from decision-making to sensemaking: "These ideas coincided with a growing societal realization that administrators in Washington were trying to justify committing more resources to a war in Vietnam that the United States was clearly losing. One could not escape the feeling that rationality had a demonstrable retrospective core, that people looked forward with anxiety and put the best face on it after the fact, and that the vaunted prospective skills of McNamara’s “whiz kids” in the Pentagon were a chimera. It was easy to put words to this mess. People create their own fate. Organizations enact their own environments. The point seemed obvious."
From planning to action
Sensemaking scholars are less interested in the intricacies of planning than in the details of action (Weick, 1995, p. 55).
Uncertainty, ambiguity, and crisis
The sensemaking approach is often used to provide insight into factors that surface as organizations address either uncertain or ambiguous situations (Weick 1988, 1993; Weick et al., 2005), including deep uncertainty. Beginning in the 1980s with an influential re-analysis of the Bhopal disaster, Weick's name has come to be associated with the study of the situated sensemaking that influences the outcomes of disasters (Weick 1993).
Categories and related concepts
A 2014 review of the literature on sensemaking in organizations identified a dozen different categories of sensemaking and a half-dozen sensemaking related concepts (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). The categories of sensemaking included: constituent-minded, cultural, ecological, environmental, future-oriented, intercultural, interpersonal, market, political, prosocial, prospective, and resourceful. The sensemaking-related concepts included: sensebreaking, sensedemanding, sense-exchanging, sensegiving, sensehiding, and sense specification.
Other applications
Sensemaking is central to the conceptual framework for military network-centric operations (NCO) espoused by the United States Department of Defense (Garstka and Alberts, 2004). In a joint/coalition military environment, sensemaking is complicated by numerous technical, social, organizational, cultural, and operational factors. A central hypothesis of NCO is that the quality of shared sensemaking and collaboration will be better in a "robustly networked" force than in a platform-centric force, empowering people to make better decisions. According to NCO theory, there is a mutually-reinforcing relationship among and between individual sensemaking, shared sensemaking, and collaboration.
In defense applications, sensemaking theorists have primarily focused on how shared awareness and understanding are developed within command and control organizations at the operational level. At the tactical level, individuals monitor and assess their immediate physical environment in order to predict where different elements will be in the next moment. At the operational level, where the situation is far broader, more complex and more uncertain, and evolves over hours and days, the organization must collectively make sense of enemy dispositions, intentions and capabilities, as well as anticipate the (often unintended) effects of own-force actions on a complex system of systems.
Sensemaking has been studied in the patient safety literature (Battles, et al. 2006). It has been used as a conceptual framework for identifying and detecting high risk patient situations. For example, Rhodes, et al. (2015) examined sensemaking and the co-production of safety of primary medical care patients.
See also
- Abductive reasoning – Inference seeking the simplest and most likely explanation
- Brenda Dervin – American academic
- Concept map – Diagram showing relationships among concepts
- Conclusion-making
- Cynefin framework – Decision-making framework
- Idea networking – Method of cluster analysis
- Institutional logic – how broader belief systems shape the cognition and behavior of actorsPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
- Kathleen M. Sutcliffe – American academic (born 1950)
- Knowledge management – Process of creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organization
- Meaning-making – Process of understanding changes in life
- Problem structuring methods
- Reflective equilibrium – State of balance among a set of beliefs, arrived at by considering general principles
- Semiotics – Study of signs and sign processes
References
- ^ Brown, Andrew D.; Colville, Ian; Pye, Annie (February 2015). "Making Sense of Sensemaking in Organization Studies". Organization Studies. 36 (2): 265–277. doi:10.1177/0170840614559259. hdl:10871/16256. ISSN 0170-8406. S2CID 145461963.
- Kudesia, Ravi S. (2017-04-26), "Organizational Sensemaking", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.78, ISBN 978-0-19-023655-7, retrieved 2024-01-30
- "Sense-Making/Sensemaking".
- Westwood, Robert Ian; Clegg, Stewart, eds. (2003). Debating organization: point-counterpoint in organisation studies. Malden, Mass. Berlin: Blackwell. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-631-21693-3.
- Eckstein, G.; Shrestha, A.; Russo, F. (August 2024). "Thirty-five years of sensemaking in the business & management research: a bibliometric analysis, review and discussion". Management Review Quarterly. doi:10.1007/s11301-024-00458-5. ISSN 2198-1639.
- Abolafia, M. (2010). Narrative construction as sensemaking. Organization Studies, 31(3): 349–367.
- Battles, J. B., Dixon, N. M., Borotkanics, R. J., Rabin-Fastmen, B., & Kaplan, H. S. (2006). Sensemaking of patient safety risks and hazards. Health Services Research, 41(4 Pt 2), 1555.
- Brown, A. D. (2005). Making sense of the collapse of Barings Bank. Human Relations, 58(12): 1579–1605.
- Brown, A. D., Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2007). Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human Relations, 61(8): 1035–1062.
- Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18: 1–21.
- Cohen, M.S., Freeman, J.T. & Wolf S. (1996). Meta-recognition in time stressed decision making: Recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. Human Factors, 38(2):206–219.
- Currie, G., & Brown, A. (2003). A narratological approach to understanding processes of organizing in a UK hospital. Human Relations, 56: 563–586.
- Dunford, R., & Jones, D. (2000). Narrative in strategic change. Human Relations, 53: 1207–1226.
- Garstka, J. and Alberts, D. (2004). Network Centric Operations Conceptual Framework Version 2.0, U.S. Office of Force Transformation and Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration.
- Gephart, R. P. (1993). The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1465–1514.
- Huff, A. S. (ed.) (1990). Mapping Strategic Thought. Chichester, UK; New York: Wiley.
- Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as change unfolds: How managers construe key organisational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1).
- Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley. Second edition published in 1978.
- Kumar, P. and Singhal, M. (2012). Reducing change management complexity: aligning change recipient sensemaking to change agent sensegiving. Int. J. Learning and Change, Vol. 6, Nos. 3/4, pp.138–155.
- Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sense making. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1): 21–49.
- Maitlis, S. & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125.
- Pratt, M.G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 456–493.
- Rhodes, P., McDonald, R., Campbell, S., Daker‐White, G., & Sanders, C. (2016). Sensemaking and the co‐production of safety: a qualitative study of primary medical care patients. Sociology of Health & Illness, 38(2), 270–285.
- Salancick, G., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224–253.
- Stigliani, I., & Ravasi, D. (2012). Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1232–1259.
- Thurlow, A., & Mills, J. (2009). Change, talk and sensemaking. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(5): 459–579.
- Watson, T. J. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sensemaking: A reflexive tale. Organization Studies, 16(5): 805–821.
- Watson, T. J. (1998). Managerial sensemaking and occupational identities in Britain and Italy: The role of management magazines in the process of discursive construction. Journal of Management Studies, 35(3): 285–301.
- Watson, T. J. (2009). Narrative life story and the management of identity: a case study in autobiographical identity work. Human Relations, 62(3): 1–28.
- Weick, K. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Weick, K. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25, 305–317.
- Weick, K. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 628–652.
- Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organisations. London: Sage.
- Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4): 409–421.