Supporting Sensemaking to Deal with Organizational Complexity

Supporting Sensemaking to Deal with Organizational Complexity

S. Jantunen 

Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland

Page: 
24-32
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/DNE-V11-N1-24-32
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
31 January 2016
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Many organizations have in recent years experienced increased inadequacy of their management practices to deal with their complex and turbulent work-related challenges. Failing to recognize the complexity in their problems, organizations have persisted in applying inappropriate methods and tools to them. When the workrelated problems are ambiguous, complex, and constrained, business processes tuned for decision-making have begun to degrade providing a false sense of security based on unjustified numerical certainty. Examining these challenges in the light of complexity theory could potentially help organizations to deal with their challenges in a more effective way. For understanding complex and ambiguous issues, people must interact, discuss, and share their different perspectives and interpretations. Existing literature recognizes sensemaking as one way for group members to understand and talk about complexity. Unfortunately, little has yet been reported on exactly how the properties of sensemaking can be materialized in practice. This paper discusses sensemaking as a potential framework to deal with complexity. The paper (1) describes on a practical level interventions taken in one case company to support sensemaking, (2) illustrates the creation of different plausible interpretations of what essentially describes the case company’s current environment, (3) describes how the creation of shared understanding is currently being shaped into a commitment towards action, and (4) reflects the findings and experiences with the existing knowledge on complexity and sensemaking.

Keywords: 

business processes, complexity, sensemaking.

  References

[1] Palmberg, K., Complex adaptive systems as metaphors for organizational management, Learning Organization, 16(6), pp. 483–490, 2009. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470910993954

[2] Coombs, R. & Tetcalfe, J.S., Organizing for innovation: co-ordinating distributed innovation capabilities. Competence, Governance, and Entrepreneurship. Advances in Economic Strategy Research, eds. N. Foss, V. Mahnke, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 209–231, 2000.

[3] Chesbrough, H., Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From  Technology, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, 2003.

[4] Alasoini, T., Mainettaan Parempi Työ, Taloustieto Oy: Helsinki, 2010.

[5] Conklin, J., Chapter 1: wicked problems & social complexity. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems, Chichester: West Sussex, England, 2005.

[6] Mitleton-Kelly, E., The principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures, Complex  Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on Organisations: The Application of Complexity Theory to  Organisations, ed. E. Mitleton-Kelly, Elsevier Science Ltd: Oxford, UK, pp. 23–50, 2003.

[7] Weick, K.E., Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 23–50, 1995.

[8] Rutledge, M., Sensemaking as a tool in working with complexity, Organization Development Practitioner, 41(2), pp. 19–24, 2009.

[9] Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. & Obstfeld, D., Organizing and the process of sensemaking, 

 Organization Science, 16(4), pp. 409–421, 2005. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

[10] Ancona, D., Sensemaking: framing and acting in the unknown. The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and Being, eds. S. Snook, N. Nohria, R. Khurana, Sage Publications Ltd: Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3–21, 2012.

[11] Mills, J.H., Thurlow, A. & Mills, A.J., Making sense of sensemaking: the critical sensemaking approach. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 5(2), pp. 182–195, 2010. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465641011068857

[12] Phelps, R., and Hase, S., Complexity and action research: exploring the theoretical and  methodological connections. Educational Action Research, 10(3), pp. 507–524, 2002. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09650790200200198

[13] Waterman, H., Tillen, D., Dickson, R. & De Koning, K., Action research: a systematic review and guidance for assessment. Health Technology Assessment, 5(23), pp. 1–166, 2001. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta5230

[14] Anderson, G.L. & Herr, K., The new paradigm wars: is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(12), pp. 12–40, 1999. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189x028005012

[15] Newton, P. & Burgess, D., Exploring types of educational action research: implications for research validity, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), pp. 18–30, 2008.

[16] Holter, I.M. & Schwartz-Barcott, C., Action research: what is it? how has it been used and how can it be used in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18(2), pp. 298–304, 1993. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18020298.x