Home Weick 2005 - Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking
Post
Cancel

Weick 2005 - Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking

Google Scholar Link

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409-421.

Summary

Sensemaking occurs when an individual encounters an ambiguous situation and pieces together a plausible explanation for the situation. Sensemaking answers the question of “What’s the story?” and then considers the question of “What to do now?”, thereby enabling action to continue. It is a process by which order is imposed on chaos in an attempt to define the non-normal event within the confines of normality. Rarely does this happen in a vacuum. Generally, within an organization, sensemaking involves the use of language (talking with or explaining to others) and is influenced by social factors. Once the ambiguous or new situation has been codified or labeled, it can be passed into the dogma of the organization (organizational retention).

It is important to note that sensemaking is not about accuracy, but rather plausibility. People search for an answer and when they find one that seems plausible, their search stops (this seems quite similar to todo:insert satisficing link). Sensemaking is particularly useful to organizations because it allows for organizational movement to continue, even if the sensemaking wasn’t accurate. High-power individuals have an overly large influence on organizational sensemaking. Intense emotional experiences are often accompanied by sensemaking.

Application

As the authors point out, sensemaking can seem small but can have large results, especially if the sensemaking is retained and diffused/replicated throughout the organization. Sensemaking can be used strategically in the face of new situations in order to maintain organizational momentum.

This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.

Weick 1993 - The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations - The Mann Gulch Disaster

Weiner 1988 - An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas

Comments powered by Disqus.