61
Making Sense of Sensemaking
Weick, 1995). Brown et al. ( 2008) were interested in why people interpret shared
experiences differently. They explored the shared and discrepant sensemaking of
members of a work team and argued that “ although sensemaking is inherently social,
it is fundamentally tied to processes of individual identity generation and maintenance” ( Brown et al., 2008, p. 1037).
The social aspect of sensemaking is also understood by the sensemaking-related
construct sensegiving, defined as “ attempting to influence the sensemaking and
meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” ( Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). Organizational members may try to shape
the sensemaking of others. Studies have shown that organizational leaders attempting to strategically shape the sensemaking of other organizational members do not
necessarily succeed. Organizational members are not passive recipients of meaning;
they engage in their own sensemaking and may actively resist the effort from leaders
or alter the meanings conveyed to them ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
SenSemaking anD iDentity
Weick ( 1995) described sensemaking as being “ grounded in identity construction”
and that sensemaking begins with a s elf-conscious sensemaker. He argued that
identities are constructed out of the process of interaction. “ People learn about their
identities by projecting them into an environment and observing the consequences”
( Weick, 1995, p 23). Identity is thus not constant, as people experience a changing sense of self as they shift among interactions and try to decide which self is
appropriate in the current situation ( Weick, 1995). When the situation is ambiguous or confusing, sensemaking often occurs in ways that respond to people’s identity needs ( Weick, 2005). Sensemaking is part of maintaining a consistent, positive
self-conception: “ What the situation means is defined by who I become while dealing with it or what or who I represent” ( Weick, 1995, p. 24). However, the direction
of causality goes both ways: identity influences sensemaking but sensemaking also
influences the definition of self.
The importance of identity for sensemaking becomes especially evident in organizational crises or change, when identity might be threatened ( Maitlis & Sonenshein,
2010). A threatened identity may constrain action, as seen in Weick’s ( 1993) analysis
of the Mann Gulch fire. The foreman realized the severity of their situation and told
the retreating crew to throw away their tools; however, without their tools they would
turn “ from a team of firefighters to a group of endangered individuals who were running from a fire without their tools” ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p. 563). Identity
was also a contributing factor in the Westray mine disaster analyzed by Wicks ( 2001).
Wicks found that institutionalization of a harmful mindset of invulnerability, e.g. they
identified themselves as “ real men”, “ going where few men would dare to go” ( Wicks,
2001, p. 681), blinded them from seeing and preventing the risks in their work.
SenSemaking anD technology
Sensemaking has been described as influenced by technology, particularly information and communication technologies; however, there are relatively few studies on
Making Sense of Sensemaking
Weick, 1995). Brown et al. ( 2008) were interested in why people interpret shared
experiences differently. They explored the shared and discrepant sensemaking of
members of a work team and argued that “ although sensemaking is inherently social,
it is fundamentally tied to processes of individual identity generation and maintenance” ( Brown et al., 2008, p. 1037).
The social aspect of sensemaking is also understood by the sensemaking-related
construct sensegiving, defined as “ attempting to influence the sensemaking and
meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” ( Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). Organizational members may try to shape
the sensemaking of others. Studies have shown that organizational leaders attempting to strategically shape the sensemaking of other organizational members do not
necessarily succeed. Organizational members are not passive recipients of meaning;
they engage in their own sensemaking and may actively resist the effort from leaders
or alter the meanings conveyed to them ( Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).
SenSemaking anD iDentity
Weick ( 1995) described sensemaking as being “ grounded in identity construction”
and that sensemaking begins with a s elf-conscious sensemaker. He argued that
identities are constructed out of the process of interaction. “ People learn about their
identities by projecting them into an environment and observing the consequences”
( Weick, 1995, p 23). Identity is thus not constant, as people experience a changing sense of self as they shift among interactions and try to decide which self is
appropriate in the current situation ( Weick, 1995). When the situation is ambiguous or confusing, sensemaking often occurs in ways that respond to people’s identity needs ( Weick, 2005). Sensemaking is part of maintaining a consistent, positive
self-conception: “ What the situation means is defined by who I become while dealing with it or what or who I represent” ( Weick, 1995, p. 24). However, the direction
of causality goes both ways: identity influences sensemaking but sensemaking also
influences the definition of self.
The importance of identity for sensemaking becomes especially evident in organizational crises or change, when identity might be threatened ( Maitlis & Sonenshein,
2010). A threatened identity may constrain action, as seen in Weick’s ( 1993) analysis
of the Mann Gulch fire. The foreman realized the severity of their situation and told
the retreating crew to throw away their tools; however, without their tools they would
turn “ from a team of firefighters to a group of endangered individuals who were running from a fire without their tools” ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p. 563). Identity
was also a contributing factor in the Westray mine disaster analyzed by Wicks ( 2001).
Wicks found that institutionalization of a harmful mindset of invulnerability, e.g. they
identified themselves as “ real men”, “ going where few men would dare to go” ( Wicks,
2001, p. 681), blinded them from seeing and preventing the risks in their work.
SenSemaking anD technology
Sensemaking has been described as influenced by technology, particularly information and communication technologies; however, there are relatively few studies on