guiding a group toward that vision, but not along a straightforward path.
All encountered barriers, detours, and diversions, but also glorious unfore- seen opportunities and discoveries.
The stories of these seven leaders are the story of realizing the vision and dreams of each. The opportunity to create a new organization, to explore a new frontier, is an exciting and risky one. It involves continuous balancing of vision, context, and situation – sensemaking and sensegiving. These CIOs’ experiences were not about the magical moment of making a decision, not about calculating probabilities of success of alternate solutions, and not about a linear or even clear progression from vision to structure. Rather, the essence of their sensemaking might best be described as the willful creation of organizational evolution.
The CIOs I interviewed expressed many times how unique an opportunity it was for them to think back on that time in their lives and analyze why they felt, thought and did what they felt, thought and did. In sharing their stories in depth, this study was unique in providing a ‘‘you are there’’ look at leader sensemaking.
WHAT WE STILL WANT TO KNOW; A RESEARCH
would studies based on individual and focus group interviews. It could be useful to replicate some of the research on decision-making, strategy, and special situations as discussed above to see and whether library leaders suffer from similar distortions in thinking and preconceived notions, wheth- er library leaders use similar or different theories-in-practice, scripts, as- sumptions, etc. Even within librarianship, it is often inferred that leadership is different depending on whether one is in a university, a school, a cor- poration, or a community. But to what degree are the sensemaking proc- esses of leaders really that different in these settings, and why?
Second, we have seen work recently on sensemaking in specific profes- sions, such as doctors (Sutherland & Dawson, 2002) and police (Maguire, 2002). As Sutherland and Dawson noted, sensemaking provides a frame- work in which to look at the lifeworlds created and inhabited by profes- sionals, including their values, their professional identities, and how their reactions to changes in practice might affect their behavior in terms of service quality (2002, p. 52). Hellgren and Melin called for research that looks at ‘‘the dynamic interaction between dominant ways-of-thinking, or- ganizational cultures and industrial wisdom in different sectors’’ (1993, p.
67). Much work has already been done about what is unique in organiza- tions comprised heavily of professional workers, as is the case in libraries, but it has been normative in nature rather than focusing on how leaders make sense of these contexts. Weick observed that professionals have higher levels of discretion in their jobs, and he speculated that this will lead to different sensemaking processes (1995, pp. 176–177). But professional man- agers of professionals are no doubt very unique sensemakers, indeed. I would like to see interviews with so-called Generation X-ers and Millennials to learn how managers can better tap into their skills. Similarly, participant observation could be used to study whether these younger generations make sense of leadership roles in different ways than do their mostly Boomer directors. Also, we have been only partially successful in bridging the tra- ditional rift between librarians and staff. The testimonials of successful leaders could serve as exemplars for other leaders struggling with these and related personnel matters.
Third, when one attends library conferences or talks with library con- sultants, one hears a lot about teams, collaboration, and new models of organization—what Sweeney (1994) called the ‘‘post-hierarchical library.’’
The ‘‘post-hierarchical library’’ is redesigned to minimize bureaucracy in order to focus on customized user service and to be flexible, responsive, and adaptable (Sweeney, 1994, p. 63). Rather than directing others and making decisions, the leader in the ‘‘post-hierarchical library’’ plans, coordinates,
coaches, motivates, supports, and fosters relationships (Sweeney, 1994, p.
62). Teams are becoming increasingly important in library organizations (Spreitzer et al., 2002). In her textbook for school media specialists, Don- ham pointed out that they ‘‘must exert leadership, yet still be collaborative and collegial’’ in working with others at the school (1998, p. ix). We could afford to understand a lot more, for example, about the exact mechanisms used to share leadership, to mentor, or to lead self-managed teams. The sensemaking framework has the potential to shed light on the different skills, attitudes, and behaviors needed from leaders in this new environment.
Daft and Lewin (1993) articulated the need for more work in this area:
‘‘Managers facing today’s difficult environment are engaged in organiza- tional experiments without the guidance and benefit of theories and models that would characterize the new paradigm’’ (1993, p. I).
Fourth, Weick noted that more research is needed on the influence of information technology on organizational practice (1995, p. 177). Within the field of information sciences,Kuhlthau (2004)andDervin (1983, 1999) have used sensemaking as a theoretical framework for the study of infor- mation seeking behavior. I believe librarianship is a particularly intriguing setting in which to study sensemaking in this regard. So much of what library leaders contend with is the integration of new technologies. Need- ham went so far as to say that ‘‘libraries are at an intersection of great danger and even greater opportunity’’ because of the proliferation of net- worked information (2001, p. 133). New technologies require library leaders to ‘‘recognize, accept, and adjust to the constantly changing environment’’
and to break away from established structures, policies and procedures (Riggs, 2001, p. 9). Leaders need to develop new approaches and new tools, and they especially need ‘‘to inspire people and institutions to work together in a cooperative rather than competitive way’’ (Needham, 2001, p. 135).
Libraries are often particularly risk-averse, and library leaders need to know how to encourage others to take calculated risks (Riggs, 2001, p. 10).
Technology is driving unprecedented change in libraries, which in turn increases the importance of leaders to help organizations to reshape them- selves (Riggs, 1998, p. 55). It is especially critical that leaders develop com- pelling visions to bridge between the library’s present and its future and to move the staff to action (Riggs, 1998, pp. 57–58).Riggs (2001, p. 11)called for library leaders to be more innovative, creative, and entrepreneurial, and we have seen how sensemaking has been used as a framework to study these qualities in organizations. As Riggs concluded, ‘‘[w]e need more transfor- mational leaders in the library profession’’ (2001, p. 14), and, we need li- brary leaders who can ‘‘redefine the paradigm’’ (Needham, 2001, p. 138).
A key leadership role for the school media specialist, for example, is in advocating change through technology (Donham, 1998, p. 177). More eth- nographic observations of these processes could assist us in becoming more efficient and effective in managing these changes. Researchers might elicit cognitive maps of library leaders in particular circumstances involving new technologies, especially in terms of how they conduct sensegiving to the staff who cope with, integrate or troubleshoot new technologies.
Fifth is the area of leadership preparation and education. Recent diffi- culties in recruiting new leaders led Albritton and Shaughnessy (1990) to conclude that the profession was ‘‘experiencing a leadership gap, making focus on leadership development even more critical’’ (1990, p. 202). Bar- tunek, Gordon, and Weathersby (1983) drew particular attention to the importance of management development programs in helping managers to hone complex sensemaking skills, including abstract reasoning, social un- derstanding, tolerance for ambiguity, dealing with divergent viewpoints, and flexible approaches to decision-making. Quite a bit is known and written about the qualities needed in library leadership. A list of competencies and responsibilities is provided inHernon, Powell, and Young (2003). What they found to be less clear is how relevant leadership development opportunities such as those sponsored by the Association of Research Libraries, LAMA Management Institutes, or the Harvard Institute are to leaders in developing these qualities (2003, p. 171). A thorough investigation of exactly what sensemaking skills participants developed at such institutes would be illu- minating. Sensemaking as a framework offers an opportunity to conduct in- depth interviews with attendees during and after such programs, so we can gauge better how to create curricula that offer maximum transference to real-life leadership situations. Action research on sensemaking is another possibility, following the modelBoland (1984)used in which he designed an exercise to help library managers to envision future scenarios as part of planning.
Mentoring has also been an important vehicle for training library man- agers. Mentoring provides a form of socialization into library leadership (Chatman, 1992, p. 493), and sensemaking has been a valuable framework from which to study those taking on new roles (Louis, 1980). Mentors instill values, confidence, and a sense of reality and what is important;
mentors serve as guides and sources of positive reinforcement and emotional support as proteges encounter new situations and dilemmas (Chatman, 1992). What was most helpful to me was when mentors talked me through how they made sense of particular sets of circumstances—I was able then to vicariously hone my own skills by analyzing their experiences with them.
Interviews about such sensemaking encounters between experienced and new library managers could provide rich insights for future generations of leaders.
Sixth, Weick articulated the need for more research on collective sense- making (1995, p. 181). At conferences and meetings library leaders learn to view their practice at their home libraries differently based on the collective wisdom shared in these forums. Within librarianship we need to move be- yond ‘‘how I done it good’’ stories to analyses such asPye’s (2002), which look at how generations of leaders make sense of context and adapt ac- cordingly. ‘‘Organizations must develop information processing mecha- nisms capable of detecting trends, events, competitors, markets, and technological developments relevant to their survival’’ (Daft & Weick, 1984, p. 285). I would argue that library leaders could be more effective in using faculty liaison structures, professional development opportunities, and assessment strategies to ensure that we are adapting to change. We must stay abreast of information dissemination and use patterns, for example, if we are to remain competitive in an Internet environment, and we need to put more resources into research and development to ensure our place among information providers and information experts. Industry-level studies of sensemaking can serve as excellent models for work on library leadership on this broader level.
Seventh is the area of communication. ‘‘Perhaps no area of library lead- ership receives so much criticism as the area of communication’’ (Hanson, 1991, p. 38). ‘‘For too long the vision that library personnel have had of library leaders has been tarnished by those leaders’ inability to give clear directions, to convey information concisely, to make requests that result in timely action or, in some cases, to communicate library needs to the outside world’’ (Hanson, 1991, p. 43). Hanson noted that ‘‘every library job de- scription emphasizes communication as a job requirement’’ (1991, p. 39).
Since communication and sensemaking are so integrally intertwined, it is easy to see why sensemaking makes a logical framework from which to analyze successful and unsuccessful communication strategies. As in other settings, sensemaking can provide useful insights into the ways in which library leaders can more effectively articulate vision, facilitate change, and engage successfully in sensegiving through memos, meetings, speeches, and stories.
Last, when library leaders read professional literature, they are ultimately hoping to gain insights into what methods are effective and what paths are likely to be destructive. Sensemaking has already proven a useful framework for looking at leader success and failure in other settings, and promises
similar applicability to librarianship. Some questions that fascinate me in this regard include:
How do library leaders decide which trends are worth attending to, and how effective is their environmental scanning?
How does resource availability affect leader sensemaking?
How do leaders learn to make use of a variety of leadership styles and to apply them appropriately in different circumstances?
How is the first year as a library director different in terms of sensemak- ing? What is the role of the ‘‘honeymoon period?’’
These are just a few of the areas I would propose as ones for further re- search. You may have others. I concur with Isenberg that ‘‘this intimate relationship between managerial understanding and managerial action re- mains one of the most intriguing areas of inquiry for management scholars to explore further’’ (1986, p. 259). I hope some of you will join me in taking up this challenge.
REFERENCES
Albritton, R. L., & Shaughnessy, T. W. (Eds) (1990).Developing leadership skills: A sourcebook for librarians. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Balogun, I. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change intermediaries.British Journal of Management,41(1), 69–83.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (1998). Bridging the gap between intended and unintended change:
The role of managerial sensemaking. In: M. A. Hitt, J. E. Ricart I Costa & R. Nixon (Eds),New managerial mindsets: Organizational transformation and strategy implemen- tation(pp. 55–82). New York: Wiley.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of CAT scanners and the social order of radiology departments.Administrative Science Quarterly,31(1), 78–107.
Barnes, J. H. (1984). Cognitive biases and their impact on strategic planning.Strategic Man- agement Journal,5(2), 129–137.
Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order.Administrative Science Quarterly,29(3), 355–372.
Bartunek, J. M. (1988). The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In: R. E.
Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds),Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management(pp. 137–162). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing complicated under- standings in administrators.Academy of Management Review,8(2), 273–284.
Bartunek, J. M., Lacey, C. A., & Wood, D. R. (1992). Social cognition in organizational change: An insider/outsider approach.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(2), 204–223.
Berger, P. L., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office- supply firm.Administrative Science Quarterly,36(1), 106–126.
Boland, R. J., Jr. (1984). Sensemaking of accounting data as a technique of organizational diagnosis.Management Science,30(7), 868–882.
Brief, A. P., & Downey, H. K. (1983). Cognitive and organizational structures: A conceptual analysis of implicit organizing theories.Human Relations,36(12), 1065–1090.
Brown, A. D. (2000). Making sense of inquiry sensemaking.Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 45–75.
Bryman, A. (1996). Leadership in organizations. In: S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds), Handbook of organization studies(pp. 276–292). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979).Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London:
Heinemann.
Chatman, E. A. (1992). The role of mentorship in shaping public library leaders. Library Trends,40(3), 492–512.
Choo, C. W. (1998).The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. New York: Oxford University.
Choo, C. W. (2001). The knowing organization as learning organization.Education+Training, 43(4/5), 197–205.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design.Management Science,32(5), 554–571.
Daft, R. L., & Lewin, A. Y. (1993). Where are the theories for the ‘new’ organizational forms?:
An editorial essay.Organization Science,4(4), 1–6.
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems.
Academy of Management Review,9(2), 284–295.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1999). Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An in- terpretative framework.Journal of Management Studies,36(6), 757–778.
Dervin, B. (1983).An overview of sensemaking research: Concepts methods and results to date.
Seattle: University of Washington School of Communication.
Dervin, B. (1999). On studying information seeking methodologically: The implications of connecting metatheory to method.Information Processing and Management,35(6), 727–
750.
Donham, J. (1998).Enhancing teaching and learning: A leadership guide for school library media specialists. New York: Neal-Schumann.
Donnellon, A. (1986). Language and communication in organizations: Bridging cognition and behavior. In: H. P. Sims & D. A. Gioia (Eds),The thinking organization(pp. 136–164).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms.
Organization Science,3(2), 179–203.
Downey, H. K., & Brief, A. P. (1986). How cognitive structures affect organizational design:
Implicit theories of organizing. In: H. P. Sims, D. A. Gioia & Associates (Eds),The thinking organization(pp. 165–190). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Drazin, R., Glenn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286–307.
Dutton, J. E. (1988). Understanding strategic agenda building and its implications for man- aging change. In: L. R. Pondy, R. J. Boland & H. Thomas (Eds),Managing ambiguity and change(pp. 127–144). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Dutton, J. E. (1993). Interpretations on automatic: A different view of strategic issue diagnosis.
Journal of Management Studies,30(3), 339–357.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Riley, P. (1988). Organizational symbols and sensemaking. In: G. M.
Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds),Handbook of organizational communication(pp. 131–
150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1990). Speed and strategic choice: How managers accelerate decision mak- ing.California Management Review,32(3), 39–54.
Ericson, T. (2001). Sensemaking in organisations: Towards a conceptual framework for un- derstanding strategic change.Scandinavian Journal of Management,17(1), 109–131.
Fairhead, J. (1998). Paradigm change and leveraged learning during the Rover—Honda col- laboration.Creativity and Innovation Management,7(2), 93–106.
Fiol, C. M., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Maps for managers: Where are we?Journal of Management Studies,29(3), 267–285.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. C. (1984).Social cognition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Frost, P. J., & Morgan, G. (1983). Symbols and sensemaking. In: L. R. Pondy, P. J. Frost, G.
Morgan & T. C. Dandridge (Eds),Organizational symbolism(pp. 207–236). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Fulton, T.L. (2001). Integrating academic libraries and computer centers: A phenomenological study of leader sensemaking about organizational restructuring. (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International 62 (12), 4085A (UMI No. 3036035).
Gabriel, Y. (2000). Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions, and fantasies. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University.
Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1991). Succession sensemaking and organizational change: A story of a deviant college president.Journal of Organizational Change Management,4(3), 35–44.
Gephart, R. P., Jr. (1993). The textual approach: Risk and blame in disaster sensemaking.
Academy of Management Journal,36(6), 1465–1514.
Gioia, D. A. (1986a). Conclusion: The state of the art in organizational social cognition. In: H.
P. Sims & D. A. Gioia (Eds),The thinking organization(pp. 336–356). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Gioia, D. A. (1986b). Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking: Creating meaning in the organiza- tional experience. In: H. P. Sims & D. A. Gioia (Eds),The thinking organization(pp. 49–
74). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Gioia, D. A. (1989). Self-serving bias as a self-sensemaking strategy: Explicit vs. tacit impression management. In: P. Rosenfeld & R. Giacalone (Eds),Impression management in the organization(pp. 219–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change in- itiation.Strategic Management Journal,12(6), 433–448.
Gioia, D. A., & Manz, C. C. (1985). Linking cognition and behavior: A script processing interpretation of vicarious learning.Academy of Management Review,10(3), 527–539.
Gioia, D. A., & Mehra, A. (1996). Review of the book Sensemaking in organizations.Academy of Management Review,21(4), 1226–1230.
Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior.Academy of Manage- ment Review,9(3), 449–459.
Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1986). Introduction: Social cognition in organizations. In: H. P.
Sims Jr. & D. A. Gioia (Eds),The thinking organization(pp. 1–19). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia.Administrative Science Quarterly,41(3), 370–403.
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence.Organization Science, 5(3), 363–383.
Gray, B., Bougon, M. G., & Donnellon, A. (1985). Organizations as constructions and dest- ructions of meaning.Journal of Management,11(2), 83–98.
Greenberg, D. N. (1995). Blue versus gray: A metaphor constraining sensemaking around a restructuring.Group & Organizational Management,20(2), 183–209.
Hannabuss, S. (2000). Narrative knowledge: Eliciting organizational knowledge from story- telling.ASLIB Proceedings,52(10), 402–413.
Hanson, C. D. (1991). The language of library leadership: Effective communication. In: D. E.
Riggs (Ed.),Library communication(pp. 38–54). Chicago, IL: American Library Asso- ciation.
Harris, S. G. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: Aschema-based per- spective.Organization Science,5(3), 309–321.
Hatch, M. J., & Yanow, D. (2003). Organizational theory as an interpretive science. In: H.
Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds), Oxford handbook of organization theory(pp. 63–87).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Hellgren, B., & Melin, L. (1993). The role of strategists’ ways-of-thinking in strategic change processes. In: J. Hendry & G. Johnson (Eds), Strategic thinking: Leadership and the management of change(pp. 47–68). Chicester, UK: Wiley.
Hernon, P., Powell, R. R., & Young, A. P. (2003).The next library leadership: Attributes of academic and public library directors. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Hosking, D. M. (1991). Chief executives, organising processes, and skill.European Review of Management Science,41(2), 93–103.
Huff, A. S., & Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Bias and sensemaking in good times and bad. In: A. S.
Huff (Ed.),Mapping strategic thought(pp. 89–108). New York: Wiley.
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events.Academy of Management Journal,33(1), 7–41.
Isenberg, D. J. (1984). How senior managers think.Harvard Business Review,62(6), 81–90.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). The structure and process of understanding: Implications for managerial action. In: H. P. Sims & D. A. Gioia (Eds),The thinking organization(pp. 238–262). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, P., Daniels, K., & Huff, A. (2001). Sense making, leadership, and mental models. In:
S. J. Zaccaro & R. J. Klimoski (Eds),The nature of organizational leadership(pp. 79–
103). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Jonas, H. S., Fry, R. E., & Srivastva, S. (1989). The person of the CEO: Understanding the executive experience.Academy of Management Executive,3(3), 205–215.
Jonas, H. S., Fry, R. E., & Shrivastva, S. (1990). The office of the CEO: Understanding the executive experience.Academy of Management Executive,4(3), 36–48.
Kiesler, C. A., & Sproull, L. (1982). Managerial response to changing environments: Perspec- tives on problem sensing from social cognition.Administrative Science Quarterly,27(4), 548–570.