Organizational Communications Organizational Communications Esperanza A. Collado A Review: Sensemaking and Structuration Theory: Giddens Explored Esperanza A. Collado A Review: Sensemaking and Structuration Theory: Giddens Explored Dr. Lalaine Ocampo 11/5/2011 Dr. Lalaine Ocampo 11/5/2011 An in-depth background should be provided to the reader regarding the materials being discussed. Considering that we are talking about theories, I believe it should be at least enlightening.
The lack of details and vagueness in the thoughts and examples provided in the articles create a unclear understanding of the topics. The authors have left a lot to be inferred, making it necessary for readers to personally read and evaluate the sources referenced. Despite the initial confusion, a clearer explanation is found as more articles are read and more websites are explored. A Review on Sensemaking:
Karl Weick (1969) stated that organizing activities aim to achieve a certain level of certainty. The goal of an organization is to convert ambiguous, conflicted, obscure, or uncertain information into a more concrete and familiar form. Weick’s theory emphasizes the importance of reducing equivocality in communication and organizing processes.
When novel occurrences such as new regulations or technology arise, they pertain to equivocality, which refers to unfamiliarity within an organization. Equivocality entails confusion and a lack of comprehension. It acts as a factor that impacts how organizations process information. The structure and systems within an organization determine the quantity and quality of information accessible to managers. Various models demonstrate how organizations can be structured to fulfill their information requirements regarding technology, interdepartmental relationships, and the external environment.
One primary challenge that managers encounter in their communication efforts is the absence of clarity rather than a scarcity of data. All organizations confront ambiguity, and the level of ambiguity in the surroundings is incessantly escalating… the world is growing increasingly intricate. When information is clear and unambiguous (certain), organizations can depend on established rules (assembly rules) and procedures to direct their decisions and actions. To address organizational matters, sensemaking entails exploring explanations and solutions based on individuals’ perspectives rather than structures or systems.
Sensemaking is the process of making sense of organizational issues such as strategies, breakdowns, change, goals, plans, tasks, and teams. It involves understanding that these issues do not exist independently in the world or in the organization, but rather arise from people’s way of thinking. According to Weick (1995), sensemaking is the literal “making of sense” and occurs when there is a disruption in the organizational system that results in uncertainty or ambiguity. The purpose of sensemaking is to restore a sense of stability to the organizational life world.
The concept of sensemaking in organizations involves organizational members making sense of disruptions to the organizing process. This process, which has been referred to by different names such as incongruous events, interruptions, and unmet expectations, is characterized by the recognition that sensemaking occurs when the flow of work is disrupted. This disruption can be seen as a “shock” or system disruption. According to the theory of sensemaking in organizations, individuals retrospectively make sense of unexpected and disruptive events through a continuous process of action, selection, and interpretation. Additionally, the sense that is made retrospectively also influences future sensemaking. Therefore, sensemaking is viewed as an ongoing process without a single starting or ending point. While some argue that sensemaking is purely cognitive, there is an emphasis on the role of emotions in the sensemaking process according to Weick (1995).
Both the beginning and result of sensemaking involve emotions. According to Weick (1995), when a flow is interrupted, it becomes evident how real the flows are. Such interruptions typically trigger an emotional reaction, which then allows emotions to affect sensemaking. It is the possibility of interruptions in ongoing flows that adds emotions to sensemaking.
In a study on emotions at work, Fiebig and Kramer found that unmet expectations were the main cause of emotional experiences in organizations.
The text suggests that sensemaking is a response to disruptions in organizing processes (Weick, 1995, 2001; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001), and it emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between emotions at work and disruptions in organizing. In this context, system disruptions provide the chance for organizational members to extract cues from the environment, which are then used for sensemaking. These cues are simple and familiar structures that serve as the basis for developing a larger understanding of the situation (Weick, 1995).
Extracted cues, which represent noteworthy observations, can offer insight into individuals’ selection of emotions to focus on in organizational settings. Such cues can potentially challenge or reinforce the dichotomy between rationality and emotionality in the workplace. Weick and Snowden proposed a set of conditions and useful practices, including the implementation of suitable structures for successfully adapting to complexity. A crucial aspect involves acknowledging and learning from failures.
Both Snowden and Weick argue that failure is connected to learning and seeing things from a different perspective. People generally find it easier to agree on what went wrong rather than what went right. In fact, the concept of “best practice” relies on the ability to recognize both past successes and past failures (Snowden, 2003). Weick and Sutcliffe (2001) propose that High Reliability Organizations (HROs) should prioritize potential catastrophic failures, therefore these organizations regularly evaluate their readiness through reviews and exercises, without fear of punishment for reporting failures.
It is crucial to focus on failure because success can lead to hubris, according to Weick & Sutcliffe (2001). Weick and Sutcliffe emphasize the importance of being preoccupied with failures rather than successes in sensemaking. Additionally, Weick and Snowden promote participation and management by exception as alternative managerial control approaches for dealing with complexity, although they do not explicitly use those terms.
Those who are responsible for managing hierarchies have a duty to manage the unexpected changes brought about by complexity, as this is what is anticipated. The concept of management is often seen as the process of exerting social control (Tsoukas, 1994). However, Snowden and Weick’s models advocate for cultivating trust that enables individuals to engage in complex local situations, including the ability to respond immediately. If small, local forces can initiate complex changes, then it is strategic to have observers who are attentive and responsive to these forces.
The challenge for managers lies in balancing the act of “letting go” while still staying involved. Weick and Snowden present a unique perspective on management by emphasizing the equal significance of control and “letting go”. They align with J.D. Thompson’s idea from his book Organizations in Action, which suggests that management is most effective when it focuses on managing exceptions rather than controlling everything. The general approach is to let go while managing only in exceptional circumstances.
According to Kurtz & Snowden (2003), Snowden provides a definition of complexity as the emergence of patterns through interactions among numerous agents. Both Snowden and Weick believe that a style of communication characterized by diversity, openness, curiosity, and interaction is necessary in complex situations. Weick’s theory of sensemaking challenges traditional management literature, which is the foundation of managerial training. In light of Weick’s perspective, managers need to reconsider their roles and make adjustments.
Weick proposes seven maxims, which he tentatively puts forward. These maxims include: 1) “Talk the walk,” which emphasizes the importance of actions over mere words. Often, attempts to align actions with words fail because the appropriate words have not been found. 2) “Every manager an author,” highlighting the significance of language and communication skills in addition to action. 3) “Every manager a historian,” emphasizing the importance of decisions being rooted in a logical path that can be understood.
The process may sometimes start with the decision, followed by the history. Meetings are valuable and help create meaning. It is crucial for people to meet regularly, especially in a manner that encourages conversation. Incorporate action-oriented language. Promote shared experiences, as they can lead to a shared understanding of relevant issues, even though achieving shared meaning may be challenging due to differences in background among organizational members.
To evoke culture is to tell stories of shared experiences. Expectations are real and should be taken seriously as they shape the future. A review of the article “Structuration Theory: Giddens Explored” emphasizes the significance of using sociological theories in real-world policies to comprehend the complex dynamics that arise in our cities (Introduction, p.1). The term “intricate complexities” mentioned in the review is a vague idea that does not clearly convey the author’s perspective or provide direct support for the subject matter.
The theory of structuration, developed by Anthony Giddens, seeks to reconcile social system dichotomies such as agency and structure, subjective and objective, and micro and macro perspectives. Rather than focusing on individual actors or societal totality, Giddens examines social practices ordered across space and time (The Constitution of Society, p.2). His perspective shift considers humans acting as knowledgeable objects in conjunction with the social order to change their social reality, avoiding simplistic notions of voluntarism or determinism. This approach raises the timeless question of the chicken or the egg: society and individuals exist co-dependently, as there can be no social structure without people, and people cannot be together without concurrently forming a social structure (Theory of Structuration, p.4). The system of interaction emerges from the structure of the language spoken. I agree with the notion of speech being identified as a system of interaction and language as a structure. In the Philippines, speech serves as a distinctive marker of a person’s background, defining the particular structure to which the agency belongs and through which they identify themselves.It is common sense to conclude that structures are universally steady, and Giddens recommendation simply follows this belief.
Nevertheless, the relationship between structure and agent could be changed mainly through the unintentional consequences of action. For instance, when individuals ignore social norms, they either replace them or redefine them in a different manner (Theory of Structuration, p. 4). Giddens’ analysis of this relationship effectively portrays the mechanics of our society and its inhabitants. Despite the seemingly obvious nature of his propositions, explaining them in detail facilitates comprehension of the interplay between structure and agent, along with the influencing factors and elements.
The relationship between the two becomes even more distinct because he pursued his idea to scrutinize the behavior of agents and its effect on society and vice versa. Action, I believe, is the core element that distinguishes and unites the two: structure and agent. While governed by external influences as well as internal motivations, they just as equally affect both the said influences and ultimately impact the agent and structure. “The decision to act, either consciously or not, creates changes within the agency and to the structure that one has influence on. (Anthony Giddens: The Last Modernist, pg. 182) Weick (1995) develops sensemaking as a tool to help understand how a new order is defined or explained to render organization plausible. He outlines seven elements of sensemaking, of which retrospective as a primary source of meaning is crucial to this discussion (Weick 2001). His concept that a sequence of events can be momentarily held in stasis and then be used to guide action lends itself very well to the discussion of organizations as the interaction of agency and structure (Giddens 1979).
When seen as sensemaking, individual action demonstrates a desire to establish structure (Weick 1995). The development of identity is also an effort to place organizational activity and symbols within a meaningful context when the existing framework seems implausible (Weick, Sutcliffe et al. 2005). Structuration and sensemaking offer contrasting perspectives on the social world. Structuration theory offers insight into human work as social interaction within organizational culture, influenced by tools, language, rules, procedures, and open to transformation.
An organization offers various opportunities for sensemaking, which involves comprehending different individuals, dealing with uncertainty, and working within limited time frames. The collaborative nature of organizational work makes it suitable for the utilization of sensemaking and structuration theories. Ultimately, as stated eloquently, “On an individual level, we lack control over our parental lineage but have the freedom to decide whether or not to become parents ourselves. The relationships we form are constantly evolving and shaped by the individuals involved.”
On the contrary, we cannot function as a society without some form of state and social organizations. This is because we are bound together by a common pattern of survival, which is shaped by state laws. It is impossible to separate these two perspectives as they are interconnected. Failure to recognize this connection makes it difficult to fully comprehend them. This bond between individuals and external forces is what Giddens refers to as his theory of structuration. (Theory of Structuration, p.6) References: Internet http://www.utwente.l/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Organizational%20Communication http://www.ecomerc.com/ http://www.fisherhouse.com/ http://mansci.highwire.org http://www.scribd.com/doc/51140006/Sensemaking http://www.knowledgeboard.com/library/cynefin.http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~brooks/storybiz/kurtz.pdf http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=p01p16333204757n&size=largest http://www.cognitive-edge.com/ceresources/articles/51_Browning_Boudes_on_Weick_and_Snowden.pdf http://hum.sagepub.com/content/ Publications Dougherty, Debbie S. Drumheller, Kristina (2006).Communication Studies Magazine.Central States Communication Association.Fiebig, G. V. &Kramer, M. W. (1998).A Framework for the Study of Emotions in Organizational Contexts.Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 536–572.Fineman,S. (1996).Emotion and Organizing.Handbook of Organization Studies.Giddens, The Constitution of Society, 1984.Jablin F. M. &Kramer, M. W. (1998).The article “Communication Related Sense Making and Adjustment During Job Transfers” by Kurtz and Snowden (Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 155-182) discusses the importance of communication in the process of job transfers.
The text includes a reference to an article titled “The New Dynamics of Strategy: Sense-making in a Complex and Complicated World” from the IBM Systems Journal, Vol 42, No 3, 2003. It also mentions a book titled “Mind and Body: Psychology of Emotion and Stress” by G. Mandler, published by Norton in 1984. This book was selected by the Behavioral Sciences Book Club in 1985 and has a Japanese edition published by Seishin Shobo Publishers in 1987. Another reference is made to the book “Anthony Giddens: The Last Modernist” by Mestrovic, published in 1998. Lastly, the text references a paper titled “Cynefin, a sense of time and place: An Ecological Approach To Sense Making And Learning In Formal Organizations” by D.J. Snowden from 2000, which was presented at the KMAC conference and authored by Starbuck, W.
H. and Milliken, F. J. (1988) Executives’ Perceptual Filters: What They Notice And How They Make Sense. In D. Hambrick (Ed.), The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for StudyingTop Managers. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Weick, K. (1969). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations (Foundations for Organizational Science). A Sage Publications series.
Weick, K. E. and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the Unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity, San Francisco, CA.
