description of individual cases to look for insights that apply across cases and which might add to our theoretical understanding of sensemaking. In data analysis, scholars look for connections, shared elements of sensemak- ing, as well as differences between participants. Typologies and charts are frequent means by which such patterns are expressed in the literature.
In addition to text, visual depictions of various kinds are used in sense- making research. One approach is the use of cognitive maps. ‘‘Organizations exist largely in the mind, and their existence takes the form of cognitive maps’’ proclaimedWeick and Bougon (1986, p. 102). A cognitive map is a graphic representation of a person’s or group’s knowledge structure – ‘‘the concepts and the relations a participant uses to understand organizational situations’’ (Weick & Bougon, 1986, p. 106). It shows the spatial relation- ships between concepts, how the person classifies things, and how the person abstracts and simplifies a chaotic world (Weick, 1990a, pp. 1, 8). Cognitive maps may be gleaned from questionnaires, interviews, documents, or tran- scripts (Weick & Bougon, 1986, p. 113), or the researcher might ask par- ticipants to render their own. Maps are particularly useful for studies of sensemaking, because they can capture socially constructed realities, tacit values, metaphorical thinking, inconsistencies, and non-rational elements of thought (Weick & Bougon, 1986, p. 124). Maps can trigger memory, reveal gaps in thinking, highlight key factors, categorize, show the scale of various priorities, and show routes to change (Fiol & Huff, 1992, pp. 275–277).
‘‘Studying sensemaking is by no means unproblematic as it involves dealing with context-specific, evolving, and often contradictory interpreta- tions’’ (Vaara, 2003, p. 868). It is not for the faint of heart, for those with tight research production deadlines, or for those who prefer the clarity of unambiguous methods and outcomes. Given this brief overview of some methodologies used in sensemaking research, let us now look at what has been learned from these literatures so far.
WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW: EXISTING
Symbols are signs or other representations, which signify something broader (Gioia, 1986b, p. 50). A symbol ‘‘stands for some other object, entity or concept;’’ it ‘‘serves as a meaningful representation of some sig- nificant element of organizational experience’’ (Gioia, 1986b, p. 52). Sym- bols include words, objects, events, stories, metaphors, architecture, and rituals (Eisenberg & Riley, 1988, p. 131).
In our attempts to make sense of a new situation (draw meaning from it, understand it), we draw on previous experience stored in memory (Spreitzer, Shapiro, & Von Glinow, 2002, p. 206). When organizational members put bits of information together in particular combinations, they start to form conceptions of how things relate (Weick, 1979a, pp. 61–62). All organiza- tional members, Gioia and Poole posited, begin with schemas—‘‘some gen- eralized cognitive framework that an individual uses to impose structure upon, and impart meaning to, social information or social situations in order to facilitate understanding’’ (1984, pp. 449–450). For example, each of us has a schema for a ‘‘good supervisor,’’ against which we judge our bosses (Lord & Foti, 1986, p. 25). Schemas ‘‘guide answering the questions central to sensemaking efforts: ‘What or who is it?,’ ‘What are its implications?,’
and ‘How should I respond?’’’ (Harris, 1994, p. 309).
Schemas are used ‘‘to organize and make sense of social and organi- zational information or situations’’ (Gioia & Manz, 1985, p. 529). Schemas act as filters through which we select salient environmental cues and ignore others, and they provide a mechanism by which we explain actions (Sutherland & Dawson, 2002, p. 53). ‘‘[T]he human ability to attend se- lectively to information, disregarding unimportant stimuli in favor of those that our preexisting store of knowledge indicates as importantyspeeds and advances our capacity to remember, reason, solve problems, and act,’’
yet it is also potentially an Achilles heel (Johnson, Daniels, & Huff, 2001, p. 80).
Schemas are developed from experience, helping to explain the differences between experts and novices (Lord & Foti, 1986, p. 33). What distinguishes experts from novices, then, is the development of ‘‘highly elaborate schemas resulting from many experiences with a particular issue or area of concern’’
(Harris, 1994, p. 311). Isenberg described managers as ‘‘highly experienced people operating within a familiar environment’’ (1986, p. 252). He found that schemas provided a number of important elements to managers’ think- ing, including:
1. bringing solutions forward almost unconsciously, serving as the basis for what is called managerial intuition;
2. creating a dense web of knowledge that allows managers to act even under uncertainty, and;
3. allowing managers to categorize things and make inferences (1986, pp. 248–254).
[D]iagnosis of organizational schemata is a powerful means for researchers to understand much of what goes on in organizations’’ and ‘‘how its mem- bers arrive at the conclusions they do’’ (Weick, 1979a, p. 53).
Within specific organizational settings, these schemas are translated into scripts—‘‘a schematic knowledge structure held in memory that specifies behavior or event sequences that are appropriate for specific situations’’ (Gioia & Poole, 1984, p. 449). Scripts are a particular kind of schema—schemas that guides action (Gioia, 1986b, p. 57). Scripts provide a framework for understanding organizational action and dy- namics (Gioia & Poole, 1984). Scripts represent the working knowledge we all have of how our organizations function, such as how meetings are conducted or how performance appraisals are done (Gioia & Poole, 1984, p. 450). Scripts can be learned from first hand experience or vicar- iously through observation or communication; part of the important role of training in organizations is the transfer of these scripts (Gioia & Manz, 1985, p. 534).
Scripts help to explain some of the unconscious nature of many organ- izational behaviors. Much of what goes on in organizations is familiar, habitual, rehearsed (Weick, 1979a, p. 66)—we operate on a kind of
‘‘autopilot’’ at work (Sutherland & Dawson, 2002, p. 53). Since many of our actions are unconscious and repetitive, scripts are the way we structure knowledge in memory so that we can carry out a sequence of events or actions (Gioia, 1986b, p. 50). Situational cues call forth these scripts and trigger certain kinds of responses (Gioia, 1986b, p. 57). So-called
‘‘standard operating procedures’’ are examples of scripts (Weick, 1995, p. 46).
Sometimes new information or events are readily assimilated into our existing ways of thinking, but the study of sensemaking becomes interesting when the individual is confronted with a situation that requires new ways of thinking and responding. Novel situations may require the rethinking of scripted behavior (Gioia & Poole, 1984, p. 454). When confronted with the inexplicable, our sensemaking processes become more conscious in an effort to resolve or explain the discordant information (Sutherland & Daw- son, 2002, p. 53). Technology changes are examples of situations in which old patterns and scripts no longer work, and sensemaking is triggered
(Barley, 1986). Sensemaking scholars look at those underlying processes, often as a backdrop to the times when these processes fail and the organ- ization is forced to think and act in new ways.
Collective Sensemaking
‘‘The establishment of common understanding is important to an organ- ization, because it enables organizational activities to become routinized and it helps organizational members achieve a level of commonality and con- tinuity that facilitates organizational action’’ (Greenberg, 1995, p. 185). This process of coming to common understanding is often referred to as collec- tive sensemaking.
As with individual sensemaking, symbols are a key element in collective organizational sensemaking, especially in the role they play in communi- cation leading to shared meanings (Eisenberg & Riley, 1988). An example of a symbolic representation is the organizational chart. Organization charts depict the organization graphically, showing ‘‘communication relationships, lines of authority, chain of command, levels within the organization, su- perior-subordinate relationships, etc.’’ (Weick, 1979b, p. 14).
Language is a critical tool in bridging between cognition and action (Donnellon, 1986)and a critical tool in social influence (Pondy, 1978, p. 91).
Language and symbols are important elements in the development of shared beliefs and meanings (Pfeffer, 1981, p. 9). In fact, ‘‘an important practical implication of sensemaking is that, to change a group, one must change what it says and what its words mean’’ (Weick, 1995, p. 108). From the cognitive perspective, leaders use language and symbols to influence organ- izational members’ interpretations of events and compliance with norms (Pfeffer, 1981, p. 1). Especially in problematic, poorly understood, abstract, ambiguous or unsettling situations, leaders use symbolism to guide meaning of the group and work toward consensus (Frost & Morgan, 1983). Man- agers’ rhetoric is analyzed by sensemaking scholars for its use in persuading oneself and others, in negotiation of viewpoints, and in making decisions.
Meetings are one place where collective sensemaking is calculated to oc- cur. Meetings are seen as central places for argumentation to take place:
they maintain the organization by providing a way to make sense, commu- nicate, and make decisions (Weick, 1995, pp. 142–144). ‘‘Participants ex- change opinions, perceptions and judgments’’ in meetings, thus allowing them to negotiate common frames of reference and to reach collective agreements (Daft & Lengel, 1986, pp. 560–561).
Both storytelling and sensemaking are interpretive practices, and ‘‘sense- making is often accomplished through storytelling’’ (Gephart, 1991, p. 35).
‘‘[T]he truth of a story lies not in the facts, but in the meaning,’’ and they are part of the sensemaking process (Gabriel, 2000, p. 4). Stories offer ‘‘valuable windows into the emotional, political, and symbolic lives of organizations, making them powerful tools for the study of organizational members’ ex- periences’’ (Gabriel, 2000, p. 2). Stories may be used to entertain, persuade, educate, blame, warn, reassure, or justify, among other uses (Gabriel, 200, pp. 22, 32). Stories have value in coaxing others to accept changes and in coping with rapid change (Boje, 1991, pp. 118, 125). Boje proclaimed that
‘‘in organizations, storytelling is the preferred sensemaking currency of hu- man relationships’’ (1991, p. 106). Organizational members ‘‘tell stories about the past, present, and future to make sense of and manage their struggles with their environment’’ (Boje, 1991, p. 124).
Symbols are used to create shared meanings (Smircich, 1983, p. 55). Rit- uals and slogans, for example, ‘‘give form and coherence to the experience of organization members’’ (Smircich, 1983, p. 55). Ultimately we constitute organizational reality through symbols (Eisenberg & Riley, 1988, p. 136).
Through them, ‘‘meaning is communicated and understood’’ (Gioia, 1986b, p. 51). Symbols articulate the values and aspirations of the organization (Gioia, 1986b, p. 67). An important skill for leaders to develop is the effective management of these symbols (Gioia, 1986b, p. 67).
Schemas at the organizational level are sometimes referred to as inter- pretive schemes. Interpretive schemes are ‘‘the cognitive schemata that map our experience of the world, identifying both its relevant aspects and how we are to understand them’’ (Bartunek, 1984, p. 355). They represent shared
‘‘assumptions about why events happen as they do and how people are to act in different situations’’ (Bartunek, 1984, p. 355). They are often taken- for-granted and unarticulated, yet they provide continuity and a sense of structure (Ranson, Hinings, & Greenwood, 1980, pp. 5–6). Interpretive schemes include mutual understandings about roles, authority relations, rules, etc. (Ranson et al., 1980, p. 5). A sense of commonality of experience facilitates coordinated action (Smircich, 1983, p. 55). ‘‘Organizations pre- serve knowledge, behavior, mental maps, norms, and values over time’’
which become shared, even though ‘‘individuals come and go’’ (Daft &
Weick, 1984, p. 285).
‘‘Organizational ideologies and cultures function for groups as do sche- mas and scripts for individuals’’ (Louis & Sutton, 1991, p. 62). Harris de- fined organizational culture as ‘‘shared beliefs, values, and assumptions that guide sensemaking and action in organizations.’’ (1994, p. 309). ‘‘Schemas
are the repository of cultural knowledge and meanings and the source of the consensual sensemaking characteristic of culture’’ (Harris, 1994, p. 310).
They include traditional ways of doing things, appropriate behaviors, de- fining characteristics of subgroups, what the boss is like, and how roles are defined (Harris, 1994, p. 313).
Organizational Structure
Since sensemaking as a framework evolved partially from the 1970s liter- ature on organizations as socially constructed entities, it is not surprising that an early focus of the sensemaking literature was on organizational design. Weick stated boldly that ‘‘organization and sensemaking processes are cut from the same cloth. To organize is to impose order, counteract deviations, simplify, and connect, and the same holds true when people try to make sense’’ (1995, p. 82). ‘‘[T]he organization is an instrument to do things, a means, a consciously constructed tool’’ (Weick & Bougon, 1986, p.
104). Organizations are a concept by which ‘‘people attempt to make sense of their world’’ (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 260).
Organizations are stronger when organizational members share values, rules of behavior, and norms that become crystallized and stabilized in organizational structures (Gray, Bougon, & Donnellon, 1985, p. 89). None- theless, a key to understanding the relationship of sensemaking to organ- izational design is the recognition that sensemaking scholars view organizational design as a continuous activity, as an emergent process, rather than as an enduring entity (Weick, 1993b, p. 347). Organizations are not static structures; rather they are ‘‘better understood as dynamic, con- scious, and subconscious processes through which meanings are constructed and destroyed’’ (Gray, Bougon, & Donnellon, 1985, p. 83). Thus, ‘‘organ- izational structures are less prescribed and permanent than roles, titles, and organization charts imply’’ (Gray, Bougon, & Donnellon, 1985, p. 94).
Ranson et al. (1980)represented one of the early works coming from the social interactionist perspective that was later described as representing the organizational sensemaking perspective. The authors proposed a theoretical framework for understanding how structures take shape and change over time (1980, p. 3). They postulated that structure is ‘‘continually produced and recreated by members,’’ changing over time as members’ interpretive schemes and context changes (Ranson et al., 1980, p. 1). The values, pur- poses, and interests of key members of the organization shape structure and are also embodied in structure (Ranson et al., 1980, pp. 7–8). They found
that interpretive schemes served as an important source of stability during times of change, and that a change in schemes was critical for restructuring to occur (Ranson et al., 1980, p. 12).
Weick’s (1979b)book, The Social Psychology of Organizing, was a key to the early work on sensemaking and organizational design. Organizing, he said, involves the creation of rules and conventions which provide recipes and blueprints to organizational members on how to interpret what is happening and how to get things done (1979b, pp. 3–4). In the mid-1980s authors began to build upon Weick’s early work and make explicit connections between leader sensemaking and organizational structure/design. Several classic works on sensemaking evolved at this time. They looked, for example, at How ideas of organizational designers translate to organizational struc-
tures, and why organizational members respond to structures as they do (Brief & Downey, 1983);
Why design decisions are the result of purposeful choices by human actors whose cognitions influence those decisions (Downey & Brief, 1986);
How organizational members’ interpretive schemes, emotions, and ac- tions can affect what kind of organizational structure results, and the role of the leader in privileging some schemes over others (Bartunek, 1984);
How existing role relationships can mediate between technological chang- es and organizational designs (Barley, 1986); and,
How people create workable, meaningful organizational structures after an environmental disaster—organizational structures that are fluid, ad hoc, small, informal, and local (Lanzara, 1983).
Leader Role
Sensemaking as a framework fits into a general shift during the 1970s and 1980s in how scholars were thinking about leaders’ roles, and in part it fueled that change in thinking.
Smircich and Morgan’s (1982)now classic work, ‘‘Leadership, The Man- agement of Meaning,’’ represents an early contribution to sensemaking studies. In it the authors contended that ‘‘leadership lies in large part in generating a point of reference, against which a feeling of organization and direction can emerge,’’ and that ‘‘leadership involves a process of defining reality in ways that are sensible to the led’’ (1982, pp. 258–259). As Thayer expressed it:
A leader at work is one who gives others a different sense of the meaning of that which they do by recreating it in a different form, a different ‘face,’ in the same way that a
pivotal painter or sculptor or poet gives those who follow him (or her) a different way of
‘seeing’—and, therefore, saying and doing and knowing in the world. A leader does not tell it ‘as it is’; he tells it as it might be, giving what ‘is’ thereby a different ‘face.’yThe leader is a sense-giver (1988, pp. 250, 254).
Gioia and Chittipeddi defined sensegiving as ‘‘the process of attempting to influence the sensemaking and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality’’ (1991, p. 442).
Thus, leadership is a form of social influence (Pondy, 1978). A primary role of leaders, according to Pondy, is ‘‘putting very profound ideas in very simple language’’ (1978, p. 95). A leader’s ability to make subtle, creative use of language may be an important factor in his/her effectiveness, credibility, and ability to influence meaning creation, according toPondy (1978, p. 93).
[T]he image of the executive as a ‘sense maker’ has replaced the former mindset that focused on solving problems, making rules, policing systems, adjudicating conflicts, and commanding the action of othersyUltimately their job is to construe the world for themselves and others so that collective action and meaning is possible (Jonas, Fry, &
Srivastva, 1990, p. 45).
Accordingly, skill in defining a reality that can gain a consensual following constitutes the essence of leadership’’ (Gioia, 1986b, p. 67).
Leader Decision-Making
Up until the late 1960s and 1970s, the literature on leader decision-making had been dominated by a so-called ‘‘rational choice’’ model. The rational choice model discussed decision-making in terms of calculation, maximizing choices, probability, and judgment (Porac et al., 1996, p. xii). Cognitive emphasis in the study of organizations evolved partially from literature that began to move away from strictly rational models of organizational action (Porac et al., 1996, p. ix). In the late 1970s interest evolved in uncertainty, ambiguity, and judgment bias in decision-making and in other more naturalistic views of decision-mak- ing. Cognitive theorists contend that managers deal more often with non-linear, ill-structured, and messy matters than the scenarios used in rational choice model analysis imply. Sensemaking in organizations ‘‘is inherently a fluid, open, disorderly, social process’’ (Choo, 1998, p. 67).
These scholars are interested in what managers do naturally rather than what they should do. Leaders’ actions, they claim, are not normative:
for example, leaders do not necessarily look for optimal solutions (Daft
& Lengel, 1986, p. 36). Classic decision-making models propose a linear process from clarifying goals to assessing the situation to evaluating options
to selecting a course of action (Isenberg, 1984). Managers must use classical rational decision-making approaches, but managers often act while thinking and incorporate intuition in their decision-making (Isenberg, 1984). Man- agers’ reasoning processes are not strictly logical: rather they were charac- terized by plausible reasoning and probabilistic thinking (Isenberg, 1986, pp. 240–242). Isenberg found leaders frequently ‘‘bypass rigorous, analytical planning altogether’’ (1984, p. 82).
Researchers may be disappointed if they look for managerial thought to be conducted in lengthy, private sessions of contemplation, contendedWe- ick (1983). Rather, managerial thought is woven into action, is done in conjunction with action, for example while leaders are supervising, writing reports, touring, or conducting meetings (Weick, 1983, pp. 222–223).
A number of sensemaking authors have alluded to the importance of non- rational elements in sensemaking, i.e. the role affect (emotions, beliefs, val- ues, etc.) might play in organizational life (Gioia, 1986a, pp. 344, 349).
There is particular interest in this phenomenon among organizational cog- nition scholars (Park, Sims, & Motowidlo, 1986, p. 216). ‘‘There is nothing
‘objective’ about the sensemaking process’’; it ‘‘cannot be disentangled from the team members’ own personal experiences, expectations, assumptions and values,’’ according toSpreitzer et al. (2002, p. 206). ‘‘Affect influences on managerial judgments are subtle, insidious, and pervasive. We need to know more about how they operate’’ (Park et al., 1986, p. 231).
An abiding interest of sensemaking scholars is in how the acquisition and processing of information affects top management issue interpretation and sensemaking. Managers’ beliefs about the environment, and how they scan and interpret that environment, affect organizational decision-making (Daft
& Weick, 1984). Managers need to consider their own beliefs and whether they match the reality of their current situation, and must consider mod- ifying their approach if they are to succeed (Daft & Weick, 1984, p. 294).
Strategic Change
Out of the interest in decision-making and organizational change, a new stream of literature developed during the mid-1980s applying sensemaking to the study of strategic change. Gioia, in the conclusion to his volume entitled The Thinking Organization provided a most articulate description of the interplay of sensemaking and organizational change:
Another useful way to view adaptation to change is as a process of making sense of new experience. y The sensemaking perspective implies consideration of the social