Features of sense-making in the workplace. Sense-making series 1

‘How can I know what I think until I see what I say’

Weick (2005)

Whenever I mention my interest in sensemaking, people nod their heads and attach a very ‘verbatim’ meaning to the word, something like sensemaking is about how you make sense, without appreciating the nuances. This blog is a brain dump mentioning aspects of sensemaking that I’ll be exploring in more detail in future.

My work in sensemaking is strongly influenced by the work of Brenda Dervin and Karl Weick. Dervin explored sensemaking from an individual perspective, arguing that there is internal (cognitive) and external (procedural or structural) practises that allows the individual to create meaning in a time-space context. I’ve previously written a more detailed blogs about Dervin’s work on sensemaking.

Weick’s theory of sensemaking provides a process theory of organizing. Here sensemaking is less focused on the individual, rather sensemaking is embedded in a collective and organisational context. The key features of sensemaking are overlapping and entangled, and the way I understand it in the organisational setting is as follows:

• Sensemaking is entwined with identity construction. In the words of Anais Nin – ‘we don’t see the world as it is, we see the world as we are’, or maybe even as we are allowed to see it. We have work identities, that are defined by the organisation, governing bodies, etc. An administrator, a doctor and a nurse will notice different things about the same situation. How they act is constrained by how they are expected to behave in the occupied role. To state it slightly differently, who an individual think they are will shape what they notice, their interpretation, and action. And especially in the workplace who other’s think we are or expect us to be not only influences their interpretation of what we say, but also the importance and credibility attached to what we are saying.  Thus, the level and expectation of sensemaking are transferred by informal and formal structures in the organisation.
• Sensemaking is retrospective and embedded in space and time. It is always unfolding – as we make sense of a situation, we act, and the action changes the situation. Weick says it best: ‘sense-making never starts, the reason it never starts is that pure duration never stops. People are always in the middle of things’.  Noticing i.e. seeing, hearing, or smelling something is the first action, and the second action might be to ignore it, or to keep quiet, so ‘inaction’ is also action, that will change the situation.
• Sensemaking is never free of context. We make sense by considering what has happened before and what else is happening right now. If a person were ‘put in their place’ for an action or told to ‘you’ll get into trouble’, they are unlikely to take the same risk next time, and they will share the information with others occupying a similar work identity. This is how sensemaking becomes deeply entrenched in how things are done around here.
• Sensemaking starts with flux and an infinite flow of information and happenings in a setting. One cannot respond to all of it, so we choose what we will pay attention too. The cue or what is noticed is labelled, and by given it words or a name a cognitive category – good, bad, concerning – provides a typology of actions.
• This triggers an action, and for most of the day we act without much deliberate thought. Weick refers to enactment. We usually act before we’ve made sense, and we act our way into understanding a situation. Sensemaking is grounded in cognitive dissonance theory and the dual-processing theories. Dual-processing theories distinguishes between near-automatic processes of action formation and the more deliberate reasoning processes. This has been described by Kahneman and Tversky’s; Gary Klein and the naturalistic decision-making theories and Gigerenzer’s heuristics of decision-making.
• Driven by plausibility rather than accuracy, meaning that it is not about getting it right or having all the facts. It is about the interpretation of the situation and what seems feasible right now. What might appear plausible to one group might not be plausible or even be sensed by another group.
• Communication and language are central. The language used i.e. words, metaphors and stories used influences cognitive structures which in turn impacts on interpretation and subsequent action. Communication is also a vehicle to make tacit knowledge explicit.
• Sensemaking is influenced by social and systemic factors. Knowledge exists between interaction and interpretation; it is not owned by individuals. Hospitals constrains sensemaking by making some actions unacceptable and others self-evident. Other factors that hinder or enables sensemaking includes the feedback mechanisms in the organisation, level of coordination and information dissemination i.e. who has the right to information and knowledge and where is it ‘kept’ – is it accessible to only some or does everyone have equal access?

Summary of key features

Sensemaking is about the interplay between action and interpretation. In the workplace it emerges as a sequence in which identities in the social context of other work identities engage with an ongoing flux of incoming information, noticing certain bits, ignoring other bits of information, making plausible sense whilst taking action that conforms with the workplace norms. In short, in an organisational context, sensemaking is a matter of workplace identity, it is who we understand ourselves to be in relation to others.

In conclusion,

Initiatives often fail is because the deeply entrenched sensemaking features are disregarded. It can be improved by asking questions and exploring the process of sensemaking such as what is assumed, what is addressed, what is ignored, who talks to who, what social relationships are encouraged or discouraged, which identities are valued more than others, which voices are not heard, what is rejected and accepted.

One way to better gain deeper perspectives into sensemaking is to capture stories and the one I’m familiar with is the SenseMaker tool, that can also be used to monitor and evaluate the rescripting of stories as well as the impact of decisions and actions using real time data.

Note: You’ll notice that in some of my writing I use sense-making and others sensemaking, this is not just a typo, but the different spellings is dependent on the theorist – Dervin’s work refers to sense-making whereas Weick uses sensemaking.  

Further reading

Dervin B. Dervin’s sense-making theory. In Information seeking behavior and technology adoption: Theories and trends 2015 (pp. 59-80). IGI Global.

Savolainen R. Information use as gap‐bridging: The viewpoint of sense‐making methodology. Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology. 2006 Jun;57(8):1116-25.

Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science. 2005 Aug;16(4):409-21.

Weber K, Glynn MA. Making sense with institutions: Context, thought and action in Karl Weick’s theory. Organization studies. 2006 Nov;27(11):1639-60.

Urquhart C, Lam LMC, Cheuk B, Dervin B. Sense-Making/Sensemaking. In Sense-Making/Sensemaking. New York: Oxford University Press. 2020. (Oxford Bibliographies in Communication). doi: 10.1093/OBO/9780199756841-0112