57
Making Sense of Sensemaking
we fiddle with that world to understand it” ( Weick pers. comm. cited in Klein et al.,
2007, p. 122).
Sensemaking in a developing crisis can both be helpful and harmful as action can
alter the environment in unexpected ways. Crises and unexpected events are situations difficult to comprehend, and the situation may require people to take action
with incomplete information ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Enactment is central in
Weick’s analysis of a Union Carbide gas leak that occurred in Bhopal in 1984. Early
action may determine the trajectory of the crisis, “ Had they not acted or had they
acted differently, they would face a different set of problems, opportunities and constraints” ( Weick, 1988, p. 309). Enactment is especially difficult in complex systems
where changes in one part have less predictable effect on other parts, there may be a
delay in the effects of action and small actions can result in big and surprising effects
( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
the outcome of the SenSemaking ProceSS
The outcome of the sensemaking process is “ a more ordered environment from which
further cues can be drawn” ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 67). The specific sense
made is seen as a springboard for the actions people take to attempt to restore an interrupted activity. However, the sense made does not need to be an accurate account of
the situation at hand. According to Weick “ perceptual accuracy is grounded in models of rational d ecision-making” ( Weick, 2005, p. 415). Sensemaking is not about
discovering the truth and achieving a correct understanding, it is about “ continuing
redrafting of an emergent story” and it is “ driven by plausibility rather than accuracy” ( Weick, 1995, p. 55). As such, the endpoint for sensemaking is not a full comprehension of the situation or system at hand, it is a dynamic process occurring in a
dynamic, changing environment ( Klein et al., 2007). The sensemaker only needs a
plausible explanation or narrative sufficient enough to continue their activity ( Weick,
1995): “ To deal with ambiguity, interdependent people search for meaning, settle for
plausibility, and move on” ( Weick et al., 2005, p. 419).
ASPECTS OF SENSEMAKING
There are different fundamental assumptions about the sensemaking concept found
in the literature. The temporal orientation has been a subject for debate as well as
whether sensemaking is primarily an individual cognitive process or a social construction of intersubjective meaning where language is the locus of sensemaking
( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
SenSemaking anD temPoral orientation
Weick ( 1995) listed retrospective as one of the seven distinct properties of sensemaking. Sensemaking rationalizes what people have done as they look back on action that
has already taken place ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995). According to
Weick people can know what they are doing only after they have done it. “ The creation of meaning is an attentional process, but it is attention to that which has already
Making Sense of Sensemaking
we fiddle with that world to understand it” ( Weick pers. comm. cited in Klein et al.,
2007, p. 122).
Sensemaking in a developing crisis can both be helpful and harmful as action can
alter the environment in unexpected ways. Crises and unexpected events are situations difficult to comprehend, and the situation may require people to take action
with incomplete information ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Enactment is central in
Weick’s analysis of a Union Carbide gas leak that occurred in Bhopal in 1984. Early
action may determine the trajectory of the crisis, “ Had they not acted or had they
acted differently, they would face a different set of problems, opportunities and constraints” ( Weick, 1988, p. 309). Enactment is especially difficult in complex systems
where changes in one part have less predictable effect on other parts, there may be a
delay in the effects of action and small actions can result in big and surprising effects
( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
the outcome of the SenSemaking ProceSS
The outcome of the sensemaking process is “ a more ordered environment from which
further cues can be drawn” ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 67). The specific sense
made is seen as a springboard for the actions people take to attempt to restore an interrupted activity. However, the sense made does not need to be an accurate account of
the situation at hand. According to Weick “ perceptual accuracy is grounded in models of rational d ecision-making” ( Weick, 2005, p. 415). Sensemaking is not about
discovering the truth and achieving a correct understanding, it is about “ continuing
redrafting of an emergent story” and it is “ driven by plausibility rather than accuracy” ( Weick, 1995, p. 55). As such, the endpoint for sensemaking is not a full comprehension of the situation or system at hand, it is a dynamic process occurring in a
dynamic, changing environment ( Klein et al., 2007). The sensemaker only needs a
plausible explanation or narrative sufficient enough to continue their activity ( Weick,
1995): “ To deal with ambiguity, interdependent people search for meaning, settle for
plausibility, and move on” ( Weick et al., 2005, p. 419).
ASPECTS OF SENSEMAKING
There are different fundamental assumptions about the sensemaking concept found
in the literature. The temporal orientation has been a subject for debate as well as
whether sensemaking is primarily an individual cognitive process or a social construction of intersubjective meaning where language is the locus of sensemaking
( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
SenSemaking anD temPoral orientation
Weick ( 1995) listed retrospective as one of the seven distinct properties of sensemaking. Sensemaking rationalizes what people have done as they look back on action that
has already taken place ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995). According to
Weick people can know what they are doing only after they have done it. “ The creation of meaning is an attentional process, but it is attention to that which has already