The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking

Abstract

A longitudinal study of the social processes of organizational sensemaking suggests that they unfold in four distinct forms: guided, fragmented, restricted, and minimal. These forms result from the degree to which leaders and stakeholders engage in "sensegiving"-attempts to influence others' understandings of an issue. Each of the four forms of organizational sensemaking is associated with a distinct set of process characteristics that capture the dominant pattern of interaction. They also each result in particular outcomes, specifically, the nature of the accounts and actions generated.

Baltimore Is Burning: Can I-O Psychologists Help Extinguish the Flames?

“…Management buy in and support are important factors in successfully implementing new policies or changes in organizations and may be particularly critical in reducing discrimination (Balogun & Johnson, 2004;Maitlis, 2005;Ruggs, Martinez, & Hebl, 2011). In agencies in which racial biases have been identified, it is crucial to have management support in implementing policies to combat the presence and consequences of these biases.…”

Perceptions of Deception: Making Sense of Responses to Employee Deceit

“…Most empirical research on lying, blaming, and sensemaking identify a perceiver (person placing blame or making sense) and an actor (person lying), but this work has not identified or distinguished between beneficiaries of the action being perceived. For instance, the sensemaking research discusses sensemakers and sensegivers, and while a recent study of the social processes in organizational sensemaking takes into account stakeholders (Maitlis, 2005) it does not specify how benefiting various stakeholders influences the sensemakers perceptions of the organization. Similarly, attribution theory addresses the idea that customers may blame themselves (rather than the employee or the organization) for servicefailures when see themselves as actors, partially responsible for the service failure (Yen et al 2004), but it does not address blame for service failures among beneficiaries of the service failures.…”

Making Sense of Workplace Spirituality: Towards a New Methodology

“…Ashforth and Pratt (2003, p. 99) describe how "directing organizations" which openly promote spirituality often socialize new members using a process of "sensebreaking" and "sensegiving." As Maitlis (2005) has said, both organizational stakeholders and organizational leaders can influence other organizational members' understanding of workplace spirituality. We would suggest that this "directing" of organizations with a particular spiritual or religious ideology can be understood in terms of social sensemaking.…”