58
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
occurred” ( Weick, 1995, p. 26). Changes or cues in the environment are noticed
when looking back over previous experience and seeing a pattern ( Weick, 2005). As
part of retrospective sensemaking, forward looking sensemaking has been explained
as “ future perfect” thinking where a future event is imagined and made sense of as if
it had already occurred. However, in recent years, researchers have argued that sensemaking can also be prospective or future oriented ( Gephart, Topal, & Zhang, 2011;
Klein, Wiggins, & Dominguez, 2010; Rosness, Evjemo, Haavik, & Wærø, 2016) or
be seen as drawing on all three dimensions ( past, present and future) of sensemaking
( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
SenSemaking anD language
Over time Weick has developed the notion of sensemaking in a way that gradually removed it from its cognitivist origins into a social constructivist perspective
( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). In this perspective, sensemaking is understood as
being more fundamentally concerned with language ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014;
Weick et al., 2005). The focus on language or linguistic factors has increased over
the last two decades ( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Language is a central part of organizational life as most social contact is mediated through talk and conversations.
“ Situations, organizations, and environments are talked into existence” ( Weick et al.,
2005, p. 409) and turning the flow of organizational circumstances into words and
categories is central in sensemaking ( Weick et al., 2005). Some scholars especially
highlight narratives as the primary site from where experiences are made meaningful. Narratives are used to define individual and collective identities, and there
may be several different narratives existing in an organization which contributes to
people interpreting differently experiences they have in common ( Brown, Stacey, &
Nandhakumar, 2008; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Although the focus on language is connected to understanding sensemaking as the construction of intersubjective meaning rather than primarily as an individual cognitive process ( Maitlis &
Christianson, 2014), sensemaking can be understood as both an individual and a
social process. According to Weick ( 1995) “ sensemaking is grounded in both individual and social activity”, and it might not even be possible to separate the two.
FACTORS INFLUENCING SENSEMAKING
As “ people can make sense of anything” ( Weick, 1995, p. 49), there is an infinite number of factors that can influence sensemaking. In this section, some of the central factors from the sensemaking literature is reviewed; emotions, embodied sensations, social
context, identity, technology and meaningfulness through work ( Maitlis & Christianson,
2014; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015; Weick, 1995).
SenSemaking anD exPectationS
Sensemaking has often been described as a response to a s urprise – a failure of
expectations ( Klein et al., 2007). Expectations can be both enabling or constraining
for sensemaking ( Weick, 1995). The discrepancy between expectations and reality
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
occurred” ( Weick, 1995, p. 26). Changes or cues in the environment are noticed
when looking back over previous experience and seeing a pattern ( Weick, 2005). As
part of retrospective sensemaking, forward looking sensemaking has been explained
as “ future perfect” thinking where a future event is imagined and made sense of as if
it had already occurred. However, in recent years, researchers have argued that sensemaking can also be prospective or future oriented ( Gephart, Topal, & Zhang, 2011;
Klein, Wiggins, & Dominguez, 2010; Rosness, Evjemo, Haavik, & Wærø, 2016) or
be seen as drawing on all three dimensions ( past, present and future) of sensemaking
( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
SenSemaking anD language
Over time Weick has developed the notion of sensemaking in a way that gradually removed it from its cognitivist origins into a social constructivist perspective
( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). In this perspective, sensemaking is understood as
being more fundamentally concerned with language ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014;
Weick et al., 2005). The focus on language or linguistic factors has increased over
the last two decades ( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Language is a central part of organizational life as most social contact is mediated through talk and conversations.
“ Situations, organizations, and environments are talked into existence” ( Weick et al.,
2005, p. 409) and turning the flow of organizational circumstances into words and
categories is central in sensemaking ( Weick et al., 2005). Some scholars especially
highlight narratives as the primary site from where experiences are made meaningful. Narratives are used to define individual and collective identities, and there
may be several different narratives existing in an organization which contributes to
people interpreting differently experiences they have in common ( Brown, Stacey, &
Nandhakumar, 2008; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014). Although the focus on language is connected to understanding sensemaking as the construction of intersubjective meaning rather than primarily as an individual cognitive process ( Maitlis &
Christianson, 2014), sensemaking can be understood as both an individual and a
social process. According to Weick ( 1995) “ sensemaking is grounded in both individual and social activity”, and it might not even be possible to separate the two.
FACTORS INFLUENCING SENSEMAKING
As “ people can make sense of anything” ( Weick, 1995, p. 49), there is an infinite number of factors that can influence sensemaking. In this section, some of the central factors from the sensemaking literature is reviewed; emotions, embodied sensations, social
context, identity, technology and meaningfulness through work ( Maitlis & Christianson,
2014; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015; Weick, 1995).
SenSemaking anD exPectationS
Sensemaking has often been described as a response to a s urprise – a failure of
expectations ( Klein et al., 2007). Expectations can be both enabling or constraining
for sensemaking ( Weick, 1995). The discrepancy between expectations and reality