56
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
triggerS for SenSemaking
What makes something from this stream of events noticed and carved out as a cue
for sensemaking? The sensemaking literature finds that issues, events or situations
become triggers for sensemaking when they are ambiguous, interrupt people’s ongoing activity, make them realize the inadequacy of their current understanding and
create uncertainty about how to act ( Klein et al., 2007; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
The events triggering organizational sensemaking range from minor to major events
and they may be planned or unplanned ( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). A triggering
event does not necessarily emerge unexpectedly, it may be constructed by the actors
themselves, e.g. by noticing or failing to notice cues ( Ibid.). Cues are “ seeds from
which people develop a larger sense of what may be occurring” ( Weick, 1995, p. 50).
Sometimes vague cues are not noticed, other times cues are significant enough
to be noticed but still do not trigger sensemaking. Instead, they are accommodated,
explained away or normalized ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). How it makes sense to
explain away cues is thoroughly described in Lützhöft and Dekker’s (2 002) analysis
of the grounding of the Royal Majesty east of Nantucket in 1995. The ship lost her
satellite signals just after departure from Bermuda and the GPS forwarded estimated
positions to the autopilot. This went unnoticed by the crew as the automated bridge
functions supported their mental model of a safe trip following the planned track to
Boston. The crew explained away or did not attend to cues emerging along the way
that would indicate a different story, like lookout reports and warning broadcasted
on VHF. On June 10, 1995 she ran aground 17 nautical miles from her planned track
towards Boston.
The study of sensemaking has mainly been confined to study episodes where an
ongoing activity has been interrupted and need to be restored ( Sandberg & Tsoukas,
2015). According to Sandberg and Tsoukas ( 2015), this is problematic as specific
episodes certainly are an aspect of organizational life, but most of the time organizational life consists of routine work where people do things without deliberately
thinking about how they do them. This does not mean that routine work is senseless,
rather that people are involved in mundane or immanent sensemaking ( Sandberg &
Tsoukas, 2015). This is sensemaking as people are immersed in practice without
being consciously aware of it, and they spontaneously respond to the situation as it
develops. Sandberg and Tsoukas ( 2015) argue that the study of immanent sensemaking is as a way forward to extend the sensemaking concept. This line of enquiry
would correspond to the safety II perspective on safety where the focus is on the
everyday performance where things go right under varying conditions ( Hollnagel,
Woods, & Leveson, 2006).
SenSemaking anD enactment
Enactment is not only a stage in the sensemaking process but at the very core of the
sensemaking concept ( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015; Weick, 1988, 1995). Action is an
integral part of sensemaking as it is a part of gathering more information about the
situation at hand. Action can test the initial sense made as well as shape the environment for sensemaking. “ What the world is without our enacting is never known since
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
triggerS for SenSemaking
What makes something from this stream of events noticed and carved out as a cue
for sensemaking? The sensemaking literature finds that issues, events or situations
become triggers for sensemaking when they are ambiguous, interrupt people’s ongoing activity, make them realize the inadequacy of their current understanding and
create uncertainty about how to act ( Klein et al., 2007; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
The events triggering organizational sensemaking range from minor to major events
and they may be planned or unplanned ( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). A triggering
event does not necessarily emerge unexpectedly, it may be constructed by the actors
themselves, e.g. by noticing or failing to notice cues ( Ibid.). Cues are “ seeds from
which people develop a larger sense of what may be occurring” ( Weick, 1995, p. 50).
Sometimes vague cues are not noticed, other times cues are significant enough
to be noticed but still do not trigger sensemaking. Instead, they are accommodated,
explained away or normalized ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). How it makes sense to
explain away cues is thoroughly described in Lützhöft and Dekker’s (2 002) analysis
of the grounding of the Royal Majesty east of Nantucket in 1995. The ship lost her
satellite signals just after departure from Bermuda and the GPS forwarded estimated
positions to the autopilot. This went unnoticed by the crew as the automated bridge
functions supported their mental model of a safe trip following the planned track to
Boston. The crew explained away or did not attend to cues emerging along the way
that would indicate a different story, like lookout reports and warning broadcasted
on VHF. On June 10, 1995 she ran aground 17 nautical miles from her planned track
towards Boston.
The study of sensemaking has mainly been confined to study episodes where an
ongoing activity has been interrupted and need to be restored ( Sandberg & Tsoukas,
2015). According to Sandberg and Tsoukas ( 2015), this is problematic as specific
episodes certainly are an aspect of organizational life, but most of the time organizational life consists of routine work where people do things without deliberately
thinking about how they do them. This does not mean that routine work is senseless,
rather that people are involved in mundane or immanent sensemaking ( Sandberg &
Tsoukas, 2015). This is sensemaking as people are immersed in practice without
being consciously aware of it, and they spontaneously respond to the situation as it
develops. Sandberg and Tsoukas ( 2015) argue that the study of immanent sensemaking is as a way forward to extend the sensemaking concept. This line of enquiry
would correspond to the safety II perspective on safety where the focus is on the
everyday performance where things go right under varying conditions ( Hollnagel,
Woods, & Leveson, 2006).
SenSemaking anD enactment
Enactment is not only a stage in the sensemaking process but at the very core of the
sensemaking concept ( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015; Weick, 1988, 1995). Action is an
integral part of sensemaking as it is a part of gathering more information about the
situation at hand. Action can test the initial sense made as well as shape the environment for sensemaking. “ What the world is without our enacting is never known since