Teori Organisasi Lanjutan

PENDEKATAN INTERPRETIVE:
SENSEMAKING & ORGANIZING

1
 Agenda
• Context

• Why Sensemaking?

• What is Sensemaking?

• Sensemaking in Enhanced Decision Making

• Conclusions

2
Symbolic Interpretive Influences

1. The crisis of representation: questions our relationship

with our social world and the ways in which we
account for our experience.

2. Social constructionism: we construct our social world

and our knowledge of that world in our everyday
interactions.

3
 Symbolic-Interpretivism

• Challenges objective science and modernism.

• Applies ethnographic and interpretive approaches to

organizations.

• Uncovers multiple interpretations of organizational

members.

• Emphasizes the role of context in shaping and

interpreting meaning.

4
 Symbolic-Interpretivists
Explore…

• How people create meanings in organizations through

their interpretation of utterances, stories, rituals, actions,
and so on.

• How individuals and groups create multiple meanings

and interpret them from their own cultural contexts.

• How multiple interpretations of individuals and

subcultures blend to socially construct organizational
reality.

5
6
 Symbolic-Interpretive Theories
Include:

Social Construction Theory (Berger & Luckmann, 1966)

Sensemaking Theory & Enactment (Weick, 1979, 1995)

Institutionalization (Selznick, 1949)

Reflexivity (Clifford & Marcus, 1986)

7
 Sensemaking Theory (Weick, 1995)

Organizations exist in the minds

of organizational members in the
form of cognitive maps, or
images
of experience.

• We make them real in our actions

(reification).

• We talk and act organizations into

existence (enactment).

8
 What is Sensemaking?
• A process at the individual, group, organizational,
and cultural level
—That builds on a “deep understanding” of a situation
— In order to deal with that situation more effectively, through
better judgments, decisions, and actions
• Sensemaking addresses key cognitive issues
• Sensemaking* is about such things as
– Placement of items into frameworks
– Comprehending
– Constructing meaning
– Interacting in pursuit of mutual understanding
– Patterning
– Redressing surprise 9
*Adapted from: Karl Weick, “Sensemaking in Organizations”
 Sensemaking (Weick 1995, 2000)
 Grounded in identity construction
 Retrospective
 Enactive of sensible environments
 Social
 On-going
 Focused on and by extracted cues
 Driven by plausibility rather than
accuracy

10
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application

• Theorist: Karl Weick, Professor of

Organizational Behavior and Psychology

• Basic premise: Organizing is a

communicative activity directed toward
the reduction of equivocality in
information

11
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application

• An organization must process information

about its environment in order to function
effectively (maintenance or adaptation).

12
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application

• Information is equivocal when it can be

given many different interpretations.

13
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application

• Equivocal information may be ambiguous

or conflicting.

14
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application

• Equivocal information may be ambiguous

or conflicting.
So what Well…I think
do you it’s very
think of interesting.
my new
look?

15
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application

• Equivocal information may be ambiguous

or conflicting. Wow! It’s
really great!!
So what
do you
think of
That’s just
my new
about the
look?
ugliest thing I’ve
ever seen!

16
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application

• In an environment of unequivocal
information (certainty), organizations can
rely on established rules (assembly rules)
and procedures to guide decisions and
actions.

17
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application

• All organizations face equivocality, and

the degree of equivocality in the
environment is constantly increasing...the
world in becoming more and more
complex.

18
 Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application

• A quote: “The activities of organizing are

directed toward the establishment of a workable
level of certainty. An organization attempts to
transform equivocal information into a degree of
unequivocality with which it can work and to
which it is accustomed.”
Weick, K. (1969). The social psychology of organizing.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

19
 Sensemaking : Organizing Process

“How can I know what I think [retention] until I see [selection] what I say [enactment]”

Ecological + Enactment + Selection + Retention

Change
+ (+, - )
(+, - )

Sumber: Weick (1979: 132)

Organizing Process Meliputi 6N:

Nggumuni, Nitèni, Ngirani, Ngomongi, Ngembangké, danNgemongi.

20
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application
Evolutionary Process of Organizing
• Stage One: Enactment
– Enactment is creating the environment by
what you notice and how you assign it
meaning
– Environment is not “what’s out there” but
“what we know or believe to be out there”
– Organizational environments are socially
constructed
21
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application
Evolutionary Process of Organizing
• Stage Two: Selection
– Assembly rules=organizational response recipes
• Acceptable in unequivocal environments
– Communication cycles=systems of double-
interacts
• Act, response, adjustment
• “Why has there been so much turnover in our sales force
lately?” “The new sales manager is really awful to work
with.” “I hadn’t heard that. I’ll have to have a chat with
him sometime soon.”
22
• Necessary in highly equivocal environments.
Equivocality Reduction Theory:
A Systems Application
Evolutionary Process of Organizing
• Stage Three: Retention
– Retrospective Sense-Making
– Rationalized vs. Rational Behavior
– Impacts future enactment and selection (p.
83)

23
Sensemaking

Karakteristik:
(1) Berakar dalam Konstruk Identitas (Grounded in Identity Construction),
(2) Sosial (Social),
(3) Retrospektif (Retospective),
(4) Fokus pada dan oleh Isyarat Tersadap (Focused on & by Extracted
Cues),
(5) Tanpa Jeda; Tanpa Awal dan Akhir (On Going),
(6) Terpaku pada yang Lebih Masuk Akal dari pada Akurasi (Plausible
Rather than Accurate), dan
(7) Membangun Lingkungan Konstruk (Enactive).

24
Weik’s Seven Principles
Weick, K. E.(1995). Sensemaking in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. P. 61-61

• Identities
• Retrospective
• Enactment
• Social
• Ongoing
• Extracted Cues
• Plausability
25
1. Identities
- Many identities
- Filters cues

2. Retrospective
- Looking back
- Verbalizing to confirm

3. Enactment
- Speaking creates an object (concept)
- Object is to be examined

26
4. Social
- Who socialized me
- How that was done

5. Ongoing
- Sensemaking never stops

6. Extracted Cues
- What I single out
- Governed by identity

7. Plausability
- If it seems right – it is right
- No alternatives evaluated
- Search stops 27
 Why We Need Enhanced
Sensemaking
• Ability to deal with
– Emergent threats
– Asymmetric situations
– Unfamiliar situations
– Dynamic situations
• Desire to employ new, more appropriate operational
concepts and command approaches
– Network Centric Operations
– Effects Based Operations
• Ensure an open effective decision making process
– Appreciate possible non-linear futures
– Avoid premature closure
– Evaluate new information appropriately
28
– Reduce vulnerability to IO and deception
 Conclusions (1 of 3)
• For most cases examined, Sensemaking
failure is more often caused by
– Misperceptions
– Misinterpretations
– Misunderstandings
– Miscalculations
– Miscommunications
– Misorientation
– Miscorrelation
– Maldistribution
– …
rather than lack of data or information

29
 Conclusions (2 of 3)

• For emerging situations and mission

areas:
– We lack fundamental data and mental models
– We lack the institutional insights necessary to
understand and make sense in these arenas
– We lack relevant education and training
• Suited to these situations and mission areas
• Focused on important elements of the operating
environment (cultures, languages, countries,
regional dynamics…)
30
 Conclusions (3 of 3)

• Sensemaking is the essential link to

information and decision superiority, but
remains a weak link in the value chain
• Our current investment strategy is focused
on our strengths, not our weaknesses
• Without changing the way we invest, train,
and do business, we will continue to be
vulnerable to mission failure

31
Application 1: Organizational Inertia

• Strategic frames (schema) direct and limit

attention
• Unquestioned routines guide daily
decisions and actions, thus reinforcing
schema
• Stable relationships limit access to new
perspectives and information
• Shared beliefs and values limit questioning
of decision premises and legitimacy of
current practices 32
Application 2: Decision Heuristics
• The Anchoring Trap
• The Status-Quo Trap
• The Sunk-Cost Trap
(Escalation of Commitment)
• The Confirming-Evidence Trap
• The Framing Trap
• Estimating and Forecasting Traps
– The Overconfidence Trap
– The Prudence Trap
– The Recallability Trap 33
 Application 3: Managing
Diversity
• Assimilation: Focuses on discrimination
and fairness perceptions (eliminating
differences)
• Differentiation: Focuses on acceptance
of differences (matching organizational
diversity to diversity of stakeholders)
• Integration: Focuses on leveraging
differences as a source of substantive
conflict, improved decision making, and
creativity (recombinant knowledge) 34
 Application 3: Facilitating
Collective Sensemaking
• Leadership truly values varied opinions
• Leadership emphasizes organizational
learning opportunities created by integration
• Culture has high solidarity (clear mission and
high performance expectations)
• Culture emphasizes personal development
• Culture emphasizes substantive conflict
• Organization structure supports egalitarian
norms, values, and processes
35
 The Knowing
Organization
How do technicians
do their work in practice?

Beliefs

Enactments Interpretations

SENSEMAKING

The Community is The Community is

the Expert System the Expert System

Cultural
knowledge Premises

Tacit Explicit Eureka as

knowledge knowledge Organizational Routines Rules
Innovation
KNOWLEDGE CREATING DECISION MAKING
Knowledge Risk, Uncertainty Apply
36 in
from France, Other
Canada exp. Areas