59
Making Sense of Sensemaking
must be of a certain magnitude or importance to cause people to wonder what is
going on and trigger sensemaking ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
It can either be an unexpected event or the n on-occurrence of an expected event.
The experience of how significant a discrepancy feels is highly subjective; it can
depend on the “ impact on individual, social, or organizational identity … and personal or strategic goals” ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p 70). It can also vary from
moment to moment depending on emotions and identity construction ( Weick, 1995).
In Weick’s ( 1993) analysis of the Mann Gulch fire where 13 firefighters died, the
firefighters expected a “ 10:00 fire”, which meant it would be relatively easy to manage and be under control by 10:00 the next morning. This image stuck with them
and prevented them from making sense of new cues as they emerged. Expectations
were also an important part of the i ndividual-level analysis of a friendly fire incident
by Snook ( 2000). The F -15 fighter pilots had not been informed about the friendly
helicopters when they entered what was designated as a “ combat zone”. Due to range,
angle and speed of the fighters, the visual stimulus was ambiguous. As they flew
close to the friendly helicopters a second time to confirm the sighting, they saw what
they expected to see – the enemy.
SenSemaking anD emotionS
Extensive research has found that the interplay between emotions and cognition influence who we are, what we do and the decisions we make ( Norman, 2019). Emotions
were initially ignored in sensemaking studies but have gradually been expanding
in the recent years ( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). On both individual and collective
levels, emotions have increasingly been understood to influence the sensemaking
process, “ whether sensemaking occurs, the form it takes, when it concludes, and
what it accomplishes” ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 100).
Emotions in crisis are often strong and negative like anxiety fear, panic and desperation. The arousal these emotions trigger in the autonomous nervous system can
consume cognitive information processing capacity, which in turn reduces the number of cues that can be noticed and become triggers for sensemaking ( Maitlis &
Sonenshein, 2010). As seen in the Mann Gulch incident when people are put under
life-threatening pressure, they return to w ell-learned, habituated ways of responding,
like flight ( Weick, 1993). Positive felt emotions may “ broaden individuals’ scope of
attention and their t hought–action repertoires” ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p . 568).
This should lead to a sensemaking process that can contribute to positive outcomes,
averting crisis and accidents. However, overly positive emotions may cause people
to be overly optimistic and overlook important cues and misinterpret the situation
( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). Hence, moderately intense emotions, strong enough
to be noticed but not to distract and consume cognitive resources, seem to support
sensemaking ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).
emboDieD SenSemaking
As sensemaking has been conceptualized as a deliberate process confined to specific
episodes, research on sensemaking has mainly concerned the cognitive or linguistic
Making Sense of Sensemaking
must be of a certain magnitude or importance to cause people to wonder what is
going on and trigger sensemaking ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
It can either be an unexpected event or the n on-occurrence of an expected event.
The experience of how significant a discrepancy feels is highly subjective; it can
depend on the “ impact on individual, social, or organizational identity … and personal or strategic goals” ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p 70). It can also vary from
moment to moment depending on emotions and identity construction ( Weick, 1995).
In Weick’s ( 1993) analysis of the Mann Gulch fire where 13 firefighters died, the
firefighters expected a “ 10:00 fire”, which meant it would be relatively easy to manage and be under control by 10:00 the next morning. This image stuck with them
and prevented them from making sense of new cues as they emerged. Expectations
were also an important part of the i ndividual-level analysis of a friendly fire incident
by Snook ( 2000). The F -15 fighter pilots had not been informed about the friendly
helicopters when they entered what was designated as a “ combat zone”. Due to range,
angle and speed of the fighters, the visual stimulus was ambiguous. As they flew
close to the friendly helicopters a second time to confirm the sighting, they saw what
they expected to see – the enemy.
SenSemaking anD emotionS
Extensive research has found that the interplay between emotions and cognition influence who we are, what we do and the decisions we make ( Norman, 2019). Emotions
were initially ignored in sensemaking studies but have gradually been expanding
in the recent years ( Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). On both individual and collective
levels, emotions have increasingly been understood to influence the sensemaking
process, “ whether sensemaking occurs, the form it takes, when it concludes, and
what it accomplishes” ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014, p. 100).
Emotions in crisis are often strong and negative like anxiety fear, panic and desperation. The arousal these emotions trigger in the autonomous nervous system can
consume cognitive information processing capacity, which in turn reduces the number of cues that can be noticed and become triggers for sensemaking ( Maitlis &
Sonenshein, 2010). As seen in the Mann Gulch incident when people are put under
life-threatening pressure, they return to w ell-learned, habituated ways of responding,
like flight ( Weick, 1993). Positive felt emotions may “ broaden individuals’ scope of
attention and their t hought–action repertoires” ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p . 568).
This should lead to a sensemaking process that can contribute to positive outcomes,
averting crisis and accidents. However, overly positive emotions may cause people
to be overly optimistic and overlook important cues and misinterpret the situation
( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). Hence, moderately intense emotions, strong enough
to be noticed but not to distract and consume cognitive resources, seem to support
sensemaking ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).
emboDieD SenSemaking
As sensemaking has been conceptualized as a deliberate process confined to specific
episodes, research on sensemaking has mainly concerned the cognitive or linguistic