64
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
human-automation collaboration, it is a safety issue, as well as an ethical issue of
designing meaningful work for people.
SENSEMAKING IN SAFETY-CRITICAL SITUATIONS
The term safety-critical situation denotes situations that, if they go wrong, have a
large potential for causing harm to people, property or the environment. In the organization literature, the term “ crisis” is also commonly used. Weick describes crises as
“ low probability/ high consequence events that threaten the most fundamental goals
of an organization” ( Weick, 1988, p. 305). Events like this place strong demands
on sensemaking as they are often “ characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and
means of resolution” ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p. 554). Several examples of sensemaking in these situations have been given throughout this chapter.
The studies of sensemaking in crises have been on both sensemaking as it unfolds
during a crisis and how sense is made of crises after they happened ( Maitlis &
Christianson, 2014). The latter often draws on public inquiry reports and other documents that “ have constructed an account of what happened, why it happened, and
who was responsible” ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p . 554). Public inquiries can say
something about the shared sensemaking process after a crisis and they may enable
organizational learning ( Brown, 2004, 2005; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).
Research on sensemaking during crisis has included a range of sectors, from the
space sector ( Dunbar & Garud, 2009; Stein, 2004) and the air force ( Snook, 2000) to
mining ( Wicks, 2001), climbing ( Kayes, 2004) and entertainment events ( Vendelo and
Rerup, 2009). Weick analyzed the Bhopal accident ( Weick, 1988, 2010), the Tenerife
air disaster ( Weick, 1990), the Mann Gulch fire ( Weick, 1993) and the medical disasters of Bristol Royal Infirmary ( Weick & Sutcliffe, 2003). Maitlis and Sonenshein
( 2010) found that the two central themes underlying sensemaking in crisis and change
conditions are shared meanings and emotions. The criticality of shared meanings can
be illustrated by a recent example of breakdown in team sensemaking.
breakDoWn in team SenSemaking
The social aspect of sensemaking was discussed earlier in this chapter. Klein et al.
( 2010) discussed the social aspect as team sensemaking, defined as “ the process by
which a team manages and coordinates its efforts to explain the current situation and
to anticipate future situations, typically under uncertain or ambiguous conditions”
( Klein et al., 2010, p . 304). Klein describes it as a macrocognitive function as it is the
team rather than individuals that perform the sensemaking. A successful outcome of
the team sensemaking process is a collective understanding of the situation which
accommodates decision-making. Klein et al. ( 2010) points out that team sensemaking is not new or different type of sensemaking, it is about “ the coordination of the
team members as they seek data, synthesise the data and disseminate inferences”
( Klein et al., 2010, p. 304). Sensemaking at the team level requires additional coordination and is more difficult to accomplish than individual sensemaking. According
to Klein et al. ( 2010), breakdown in team sensemaking may more often contribute to
accidents than sensemaking at the individual level as “ Most failures can be traced to
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
human-automation collaboration, it is a safety issue, as well as an ethical issue of
designing meaningful work for people.
SENSEMAKING IN SAFETY-CRITICAL SITUATIONS
The term safety-critical situation denotes situations that, if they go wrong, have a
large potential for causing harm to people, property or the environment. In the organization literature, the term “ crisis” is also commonly used. Weick describes crises as
“ low probability/ high consequence events that threaten the most fundamental goals
of an organization” ( Weick, 1988, p. 305). Events like this place strong demands
on sensemaking as they are often “ characterized by ambiguity of cause, effect, and
means of resolution” ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p. 554). Several examples of sensemaking in these situations have been given throughout this chapter.
The studies of sensemaking in crises have been on both sensemaking as it unfolds
during a crisis and how sense is made of crises after they happened ( Maitlis &
Christianson, 2014). The latter often draws on public inquiry reports and other documents that “ have constructed an account of what happened, why it happened, and
who was responsible” ( Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p . 554). Public inquiries can say
something about the shared sensemaking process after a crisis and they may enable
organizational learning ( Brown, 2004, 2005; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).
Research on sensemaking during crisis has included a range of sectors, from the
space sector ( Dunbar & Garud, 2009; Stein, 2004) and the air force ( Snook, 2000) to
mining ( Wicks, 2001), climbing ( Kayes, 2004) and entertainment events ( Vendelo and
Rerup, 2009). Weick analyzed the Bhopal accident ( Weick, 1988, 2010), the Tenerife
air disaster ( Weick, 1990), the Mann Gulch fire ( Weick, 1993) and the medical disasters of Bristol Royal Infirmary ( Weick & Sutcliffe, 2003). Maitlis and Sonenshein
( 2010) found that the two central themes underlying sensemaking in crisis and change
conditions are shared meanings and emotions. The criticality of shared meanings can
be illustrated by a recent example of breakdown in team sensemaking.
breakDoWn in team SenSemaking
The social aspect of sensemaking was discussed earlier in this chapter. Klein et al.
( 2010) discussed the social aspect as team sensemaking, defined as “ the process by
which a team manages and coordinates its efforts to explain the current situation and
to anticipate future situations, typically under uncertain or ambiguous conditions”
( Klein et al., 2010, p . 304). Klein describes it as a macrocognitive function as it is the
team rather than individuals that perform the sensemaking. A successful outcome of
the team sensemaking process is a collective understanding of the situation which
accommodates decision-making. Klein et al. ( 2010) points out that team sensemaking is not new or different type of sensemaking, it is about “ the coordination of the
team members as they seek data, synthesise the data and disseminate inferences”
( Klein et al., 2010, p. 304). Sensemaking at the team level requires additional coordination and is more difficult to accomplish than individual sensemaking. According
to Klein et al. ( 2010), breakdown in team sensemaking may more often contribute to
accidents than sensemaking at the individual level as “ Most failures can be traced to