‘Sensemaking’ is an extraordinarily influential perspective with a substantial following among management and organization scholars interested in how people appropriate and enact their ‘realities’. Organization Studies has been and remains one of the principal outlets for work that seeks either to draw on or to extend our understanding of sensemaking practices in and around organizations. The contribution of this paper is fourfold. First, we review briefly what we understand by sensemaking and some key debates which fracture the field. Second, we attend critically to eight papers published previously in Organization Studies which we discuss in terms of five broad themes: (i) how sense is made through discourse; (ii) the politics from which social forms of sensemaking emerge and the power that is inherent in it; (iii) the intertwined and recursive nature of micro-macro sensemaking processes; (iv) the strong ties which bind sensemaking and identities; and (v) the role of sensemaking processes in decision making and change. Third, while not designed to be a review of extant literature, we discuss these themes with reference to other related work, notably that published in this journal. Finally, we raise for consideration a number of potentially generative topics for further empirical and theory-building research.

This paper contributes to the timely debate on research into boards and their effectiveness by focusing on context, process and time, which are crucial to understanding board dynamics. It also explores key principles of board process research, and advocates the need to strengthen its theoretical and methodological foundations in order to challenge the analytically particular assumptions of agency theory. The paper concludes that there is still much more to be researched in this area and encourages work that explores variation in board process and director effectiveness in different organizational contexts, as well as seeking to go beyond the board to address their impact and effectiveness in the broader organizational and external context.

Simplexity is advanced as an umbrella term reflecting sensemaking, organizing and storytelling for our time. People in and out of organizations increasingly find themselves facing novel circumstances that are suffused with dynamic complexity. To make sense through processes of organizing, and to find a plausible answer to the question 'what is the story?', requires a fusion of sufficient complexity of thought with simplicity of action, which we call simplexity. This captures the notion that while sensemaking is a balance between thinking and acting, in a new world that owes less to yesterday's stories and frames, keeping up with the times changes the balance point to clarifying through action. This allows us to see sense (making) more clearly. Keywords change, organizing, sensemaking, simplexity, storytelling, WeickThere is currently a great deal of retrospective sensemaking regarding recent unprecedented events of rioting and looting in London and other English cities. Unprecedented events challenge organizing and sensemaking in as much as they instigate a search for

This article aims to challenge some of the assumptions which we make in our understanding of leadership, through empirical illustration from a large organization where a chief executive endeavours to ‘lead’ global change. The continuing search for the Holy Grail, which seems to characterize interest in leadership, implies that research efforts are perhaps being directed at ‘solving the wrong problem’. Leadership as a form of social influence is hard to distinguish from many other influences in relationships between people yet, it is argued, its emphasis on moving towards future action encourages a conception not dissimilar to organizing. The case analysis developed in this article goes on to reframe leadership as an example of sensemaking. It concludes that while sensemaking will never replace leadership as a focus or topic of interest, to understand leadership as a sensemaking process helps illustrate more clearly what happens in the daily doing of leading.

A B S T R AC TBuilding on a previous conceptual article, we present an empirically derived model of network learning -learning by a group of organizations as a group. Based on a qualitative, longitudinal, multiplemethod empirical investigation, five episodes of network learning were identified. Treating each episode as a discrete analytic case, through cross-case comparison, a model of network learning is developed which reflects the common, critical features of the episodes. The model comprises three conceptual themes relating to learning outcomes, and three conceptual themes of learning process. Although closely related to conceptualizations that emphasize the social and political character of organizational learning, the model of network learning is derived from, and specifically for, more extensive networks in which relations among numerous actors may be arms-length or collaborative, and may be expected to change over time.

Organizations increasingly find themselves contending with circumstances that are suffused with dynamic complexity. So how do they make sense of and contend with this? Using a sensemaking approach, our empirical case analysis of the shooting of Mr Jean Charles deMenezes shows how sensemaking is tested under such conditions. Through elaborating the relationship between the concepts of frames and cues, we find that the introduction of a new organizational routine to anticipate action in changing circumstances leads to discrepant sensemaking. This reveals how novel routines do not necessarily replace extant ones but instead, overlay each other and give rise to novel, dissonant identities which in turn can lead to an increase in equivocality rather than a reduction. This has important implications for speed of response to unprecedented circumstances, sensemaking and organizing.2

Manuscript Type: EmpiricalResearch Question/ Issue: To what extent can group faultlines and their potential valuedestroying effects be detected on corporate boards? Task-related attributes of the type of directorship, education, board tenure and financial background of board members are considered as directors' characteristics that give rise to the faultline phenomenon. The impact of task-related faultlines on firm performance as well as the moderating effects of busy boards, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) tenure, executive directors' (EDs) compensation structure, and the average nonexecutive directors' (NEDs) involvement in board committees are examined. Research Findings/ Insights: Using a panel of FTSE 350 companies from 1999 to 2008, we find a strong negative effect of task-related faultlines on firm performance. Further exploration of the moderating effects demonstrates that the condition of a busy board and the CEO tenure exacerbate the negative effects of faultlines. At the same time, the executive pay-contingency is found to have a remedying effect on boardroom cohesiveness, whereas the involvement of NEDs in board committee work is not likely to make the adverse effects of board faultlines less pronounced. Theoretical/ Academic Implications: Based on the arguments of the identity and social identity theory, this study shows that task-related faultlines on corporate boards have strong negative value-creating implications. The positive moderating impact of the executive compensation structure renders support to agency theory predictions about executive incentive alignment. This work also underlines the usefulness of the concept of faultlines in the corporate governance literature, because the unitary boards, where NEDs and EDs come to work together, exhibit preexisting factions, similar to top management teams of family-controlled firms and teams managing international joint-ventures. Practitioner/Policy Implications: This research points to the importance of the careful selection process of directors by the nomination committees. It also underlines the role for active leadership on boards, who should be aware of available strategies to ameliorate the negative consequences of board splits, such as accentuating superordinate board identity and/ or informal meetings. words

1 We should like to express our gratitude to ESRC for funding this research under grant number RES: 062-23-0782 (2008-2011) and to our colleague, Tim Miller, for his skilful assistance during the data processing stage. Interlocking directorships and firm performance… 2Interlocking directorships and firm performance in the highly regulated sectors: The moderating impact of board diversity ABSTRACTInterlocking directorships are a pervasive element of the corporate landscape. Academic literature documents many examples of spreading business practices and strategic outcomes through this form of inter-organizational connectedness. Yet, the findings on the long debated relationship between interlocking ties and firm performance remain mixed. In this study, we provide an analysis of this relationship on the basis of a sample of UK-listed financial and utility companies across a ten year period. Our findings provide support to the busyness hypothesis of interlocking and indicate that when used in excess, interlocking is likely to compromise the attention of directors on the focal company board. Moreover, in reconciliation of the competing views of the resource-dependence and agency theory, we propose a contingency-based model of interlocking with board diversity as a moderator of the baseline interlocking-firm performance relationship. Our results render support to the assertion that the potential for dissemination of ideas and innovations resides in the interlocking ties. However, boards need to be receptive to that knowledge exchange for this transfer to take place and this process may be facilitated by the level of and changes in board diversity. This study contributes to research into the consequences and implications of interlocking directorships and demonstrates that the search for the moderating and mediating variables represents a step in the right direction. words