Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development

Abstract

Summary Through a wide‐ranging critical review of relevant publications, we explore and articulate what constitutes the sensemaking perspective in organization studies, as well as its range of applications and limitations. More specifically, we argue that sensemaking in organizations has been seen as consisting of specific episodes, is triggered by ambiguous events, occurs through specific processes, generates specific outcomes, and is influenced by several situational factors. Furthermore, we clarify the application range of the sensemaking perspective and identify, as well as account for, the types and aspects of organizational sensemaking that have been under‐researched. We critically discuss the criticism that the sensemaking perspective has received so far and selectively expand on it. Finally, we identify the main limitations of the sensemaking perspective, which, if tackled, will advance it: the neglect of prospective sensemaking, the exclusive focus on disruptive episodes at the expense of more mundane forms of sensemaking implicated in routine activities, the ambiguous status of enactment, the conflation of first‐order and second‐order sensemaking, and the lack of proper attention to embodied sensemaking. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sense and Strategy Building in the Romanian Academy

“…As it is a continuous process of development, the organizations own a flow of senses which can generate multiple strategies (Gergen, 2015). Considering this, the organization has a social construction which builds itself from the sense developed by its members (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). The organization does not precede the sense, and this is not produced by the organization, but by the interpersonal relationships among its members.…”

Co-constructing meanings in organizational development

“…Being an ongoing process of development organizations are seen as "potentially fluid field of meaning making" (Gergen, 2009, p. 321;Gergen, 2015). From a social constructionist perspective, organization is socially constructed, emerging from sensemaking (Hernes & Maitlis, 2010a;Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2014). Organization "doesn't precede sensemaking, and sensemaking isn't produce by organization" (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 410).…”

Sensemaking in virtual settings: a practice-based approach

“…Sensemaking has also been used as a lens to investigate other organisational phenomena, such as knowledge (Choo, 1996(Choo, , 2002, innovation (Hill & Levenhagen, 1995) and learning (Thomas, Sussman, & Henderson, 2001). Yet how sensemaking (as the basis of organising and organisational activities) takes place in virtual settings has hardly been studied (Marshall & Sandberg, 2011;Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Given how prolific virtual activities are nowadays and the fundamentality of sensemaking to such activities, that scholars have not investigated virtual forms of sensemaking is surprising and a major drawback in current literature.…”

“…Sandberg and Tsoukas (2015) identify a number of such studies in the fields of strategy and organisational change. These studies draw on the sensemaking concept of interruptions to shed light on how organisations cope with disruptions (e.g.…”

“…These studies draw on the sensemaking concept of interruptions to shed light on how organisations cope with disruptions (e.g. mergers, whistleblowing, technical failures, managerial errors), which may be planned or unplanned, major or minor (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2015). Dunbar and Garud's (2009) investigation of the Columbia shuttle is a seminal example of a study that has employed sensemaking to understand organisational responses to major unplanned events (i.e.…”