Sensemaking

MICHAEL W. KRAMER
University of Oklahoma, USA

Sensemaking in the simplest terms involves the process of assigning meaning to expe-
riences. Sensemaking explores what an experience means to the participants. Another
way to say this is that sensemaking occurs when individuals collectively come to an
understanding about the meaning of an experience they have had. A more complex
description is that sensemaking is the process of individuals collectively creating reality
in their everyday life in organizations; it is an ongoing accomplishment that involves
assigning meaning to experiences and creating order out of events by making sense
of them (Weick, 1995). Through sensemaking, individuals collectively develop plausi-
ble explanations that explain their experiences. Sensemaking is necessary because most
events are equivocal, which is to say that the experiences can be interpreted in multiple
ways. Sensemaking involves managing the equivocality of experiences that are differ-
ent than expected by selecting one interpretation for the experience out of the many
possible interpretations. Selecting an interpretation involves committing to a particular
meaning for an experience out of the possible meanings available. The commitment to
a particular meaning influences future actions as the process of sensemaking continues.

An overview

Sensemaking is associated with an interpretive perspective of communication. An inter-

pretive perspective focuses on how meaning is socially constructed through commu-
nication. In particular, an interpretive perspective explores how individuals create a
shared understanding of their experiences. Although the shared understanding does
not require that there be any objective truth to it, it does create a reality that represents
the lived experiences of individuals.
Weick (1995) is generally considered the founding theorist on sensemaking. In his
initial conceptualization of sensemaking, he proposed seven general principles:

1. Sensemaking is grounded in identity construction. When individuals collectively

select a certain interpretation of some experience, they are at the same time select-
ing a particular identity for themselves.
2. Sensemaking is retrospective. Although individuals may consider possible inter-
pretations of anticipated events, it is not until the event occurs that individuals
collectively make sense or commit to a particular interpretation of the event.

The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Craig R. Scott and Laurie K. Lewis (General Editors),
James R. Barker, Joann Keyton, Timothy Kuhn, and Paaige K. Turner (Associate Editors).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc185
2 SE N S E M A K I N G

3. Sensemaking is enactive of sensible environments. The context or environment is

created through the give and take between individuals’ abilities to enact the envi-
ronment they face through their actions and interpretations and the constraints
that the environment places on them.
4. Sensemaking is social. Through communication individuals collectively come to
agree on a meaning for understanding experiences.
5. Sensemaking is ongoing. Because individuals constantly have new experiences,
they must constantly make sense of them; even repetitious experiences need inter-
pretation concerning their consistency.
6. Sensemaking is focused on and by extracted cues. Because of the impracticality of
considering all the information about an experience, individual focus on particular
aspects of it (extracted cues) to make generalizations about the whole experience.
7. Sensemaking is driven by plausibility rather than accuracy. The meaning assigned
to an experience has to seem reasonable, but it does not have to meet some objective
sense of truth to be accepted.

To help understand how the principles of sensemaking work together holistically,

consider employees working for a company accused by the local newspaper of dump-
ing chemicals into the stream behind its plant. To begin with, the situation is equivocal
because there are many possible interpretations of the situation. The accusation could be
false and the newspaper was simply wrong for reporting it. If it occurred, the chemical
spill could have been an unavoidable accident due to some malfunctioning equipment.
It could have been the result of an untrained employee who did not know any better
or a lazy employee who simply cut corners to save time. Another interpretation could
be that the company is always looking to cut costs and so it disposed of the chemicals
illegally to save money. Faced with this equivocality, employees are likely motivated to
make sense of this accusation (retrospective). Employees likely overhear a number of
peers discussing these various explanations for the accusation (equivocality). During a
discussion (enactive of sensible environment), the group focuses on evidence provided
by a trusted supervisor who says it was an accident caused by a new, untrained employee
who now understands correct procedures. Eventually, the employees focus on the evi-
dence provided by a supervisor that this very minor accident was due to an untrained
employee and the problem was corrected through additional training before the story
was written and the accusations in the newspaper article of a large scale problem were
unfounded (extracted cues). Collectively (social), the employees accept the supervisor’s
explanation as the most likely explanation. It is not critical whether this is an accu-
rate explanation of the events as long as they agree that it makes sense (plausible). By
selecting this interpretation, the employees are identifying as employees who trust man-
agement rather than as employees who are cynical and believe that management would
dump chemicals to save money (identity). A commitment to this interpretation impacts
the employees’ future communication as they defend the company to others in conver-
sations and condemn the newspaper for its inaccurate reporting. Of course, if another
report of a similar problem occurs two months after this initial accusation from the
newspaper, the employees must continue to make sense of the situation (ongoing). As
 SE N S E M A K I N G 3

this example illustrates, the sensemaking principles work together throughout the pro-
cess. We will explore the process of sensemaking further below.

Reasons for equivocality and sensemaking

Sensemaking occurs because organizational experiences are constantly changing. In a

further explanation, Weick (1995) identified a number of specific experiences that likely
lead to equivocality and sensemaking for organizational members. These experiences
typically involve changes or discrepancies from what is routine or normal or expected.
These changes can occur internally within the organization or externally in its environ-
ment. Internally, individuals may experience an increase in load or complexity related to
work. There may be personnel changes within the organization that have a ripple effect
on the work responsibilities of others. Alternatively, organizational members may expe-
rience turbulence in their organization’s environment that might include instability or
randomness. The constantly changing technological advancements create instability as
new innovations occur randomly. For example, the financial markets and price of oil
are constantly changing; new competitors may enter an organization’s market. Orga-
nizational members must make sense of these external conditions in order to adjust
appropriately to the changing environment. Internal and external changes may com-
bine to create equivocality such as when there are mergers and acquisitions. Internal and
external changes like these necessitate sensemaking that may be observable as individu-
als discuss the changes and the adjustments that they make. For example, Bastien (1992)
examined how members of a small organization made sense of its changing culture as it
became part of the larger organization that purchased it, but also had to make sense of
how to manage relationships within its environment, including with former customers.

Basis for sensemaking

Faced with equivocality, individuals are motivated to make sense of their experiences,
but they do not do so from a “tabula rasa” or empty slate. Rather, the experience
of equivocality and the effort to make sense of the experience are both driven by
expectations based on previous experiences. For example, newcomers experience
changes, surprises, and shocks when there are discrepancies between their expectations
in an organization and their previous experiences (Louis, 1980). These discrepancies
between expectations and experiences create equivocality and anxiety, which trigger
the need for sensemaking as newcomers learn to cope with the differences. At the
same time, expectations are used to filter the information used to make sense and
the expectations influence which extracted cues are selected during the sensemaking
process. In this way, sensemaking at times has a self-fulfilling nature to it in which
individuals’ previous experiences and expectations cause them to extract cues that
support their previous sensemaking efforts and often lead to reinforcement of previous
sensemaking. For example, a new employee may do a particular job differently from
how the predecessor did the job, and thereby violates expectations of the veteran
4 SE N S E M A K I N G

employees. When the veterans make sense of why the newcomer has done it differently,
their expectations that newcomers need to be trained and socialized into the organi-
zational culture might determine their response and lead them to try to persuade the
newcomer to do the job like it has always been done, instead of considering whether
the new way of doing things might be more effective or efficient. In this way, their
sensemaking is filtered through their expectations that newcomers often need training
and their resulting action includes communication efforts to change the newcomer.
As such, sensemaking involves making arguments for a particular understanding of
experiences and may at times even be seen as manipulative, as individuals attempt
to influence others to commit to a particular understanding of experience and a
particular way of doing things as a result.

Sensemaking as a complex social process

It is an oversimplification to think that sensemaking means that the individuals always

reach a shared understanding. Sometimes sensemaking results in equivalent meaning
indicative of shared understanding. In other cases, the meanings may simply over-
lap in such a way that individuals’ understanding of the events are similar enough to
allow for coordinated action. Individuals within the social system may have common
understandings of certain aspects of their experiences, but have differences of interpre-
tations in other areas – differences either not apparent or unimportant for coordinated
action. In other cases, there may be very limited shared understanding as meanings
are distributed among different viewpoints. Individuals may or may not be aware that
they have different understandings and still be able to coordinate actions. Whether the
meanings are equivalent, overlapping, or distributed, the experience of collective action
is shared and so the experience is social. In addition, although sensemaking is never an
individual process, it can occur without social interaction. At times, individuals seem
to make sense on their own, but it is still a complex social process as they consider
what others think, consider previous conversations about similar experiences, or con-
sider how others will respond to a particular interpretation. So even when there is no
interaction, there is a complex social process to sensemaking.

Outcomes of sensemaking

In addition to making sense of experiences (retrospective), sensemaking leads to

four important outcomes. First, the commitment and identification involved by
making sense generally leads to certain actions consistent with the interpretation of
the experiences. If there was a greater relationship between individuals’ beliefs and
actions, this connection would be stronger, but research on the attitude to behavior
link has consistently found that it is not as strong as might be expected. As a result,
although individuals collectively make a commitment to a particular interpretation
and an identity as a result, the action outcome may not be as strong as expected. For
example, if employees collectively make sense of their company as no longer providing
 SE N S E M A K I N G 5

job security due to layoffs, the commitment to that interpretation does not mean that
they all will necessarily look for another job because of a variety of reasons beyond how
they made sense of the layoff/attrition events, but it might have that effect on some of
the remaining employees, particularly those who have job opportunities elsewhere.
A second outcome of sensemaking is that it leads to justifications for past and future
actions. Once a commitment to action is made, the process of providing an explana-
tion for a particular interpretation simultaneously creates justifications for past events
and future courses of action. Creating these justifications is not a one-time event in
sensemaking, but an ongoing process whereby the justifications shapes actions and then
those actions shape further justifications.
This discussion suggests a third important outcome of sensemaking. Because sense-
making influences action, it creates new experiences. Individuals involved then need
to interpret (make sense of) those new actions (experiences). As a result, sensemaking
leads to action which in turn leads to additional sensemaking. In this somewhat cyclical
process, sensemaking follows experiences, especially ones involving discrepancies, but
also creates the need for additional sensemaking as the process continues.
A fourth outcome of sensemaking can be the development of cognitive short cuts
that allows individuals to take action with less conscious effort. A variety of terms have
been used for this idea that individuals act based on cognitive shortcuts, including rou-
tines, habits, cognitive maps, schemas, or working on automatic pilot. Although there
may be important differences between these various terms, they all have in common
that individuals use shortcuts to determine actions in situations and these shortcuts are
developed through the process of sensemaking.
Developing cognitive short cuts through sensemaking can be advantageous. It cre-
ates efficiencies and reduces cognitive effort in completing routine tasks. These short-
cuts reduce mental effort as meaning is assigned and action taken based on previously
developed understandings of experiences. However, working on automatic pilot can
also create problems. A lack of mindfulness can lead to errors when changes in the
work go undetected. Weick and others suggest that in situations where high reliability
is paramount, it is important to maintain mindfulness and not to work on automatic
pilot or scripts. Maintaining mindfulness prevents errors that may have catastrophic
effects in high reliability settings.

The general process of sensemaking

The general process of sensemaking involves ecological change, enactment, selection,

and retention (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Ecological changes are a necessary,
but not sufficient, condition for the sensemaking process to begin. Ecological changes,
internal or external to the organization, create a discrepancy between expectations and
experiences. Not all changes are noticed, however, and so not every change provokes
sensemaking. Enactment is a necessary condition for sensemaking to occur. When a
change is noticed, sensemaking involves bracketing and labeling the change. The cues
extracted during bracketing and labeling indicate that an interpretation of the experi-
ence of the ecological changes is necessary. Selection could be considered the actual
6 SE N S E M A K I N G

sensemaking step. Selection occurs when a particular interpretation of the ecological

change experience is accepted as more plausible than others through a social process.
Finally, retention occurs if the idea is solidified in the organizational memory. When it
is retained, it becomes part of the past experiences that creates expectations for future
experiences. When those expectations are violated through new ecological changes, the
process repeats itself.

The communicative process of sensemaking

It is important to elaborate on the communication process of sensemaking and not just

the cognitive processes involved. The sensemaking process often involves both sense-
breaking communication and sensegiving communication.
Sensebreaking is communication in which one individual attempts to convince or
persuade others that their current understanding of experience is inappropriate, or, in
other words, not plausible. Sensebreaking undermines and destabilizes previous sense-
making efforts; it creates a need for a new meaning or new sensemaking by creating a
meaning void (Pratt, 2000). Sensebreaking may be particularly easy when an experience
creates equivocality and calls into question previous sensemaking. For example, it may
not take much sensebreaking to convince others that their understanding of their orga-
nization’s culture as a secure workplace is no longer appropriate after an announcement
that certain employees are to be laid off. The changed atmosphere caused by the layoffs
has already broken this understanding of secure employment and created anxiety for
the remaining employees (survivors). Pointing out the difference through sensebreak-
ing may not be necessary because most survivors will have already concluded that their
previous understanding of the organization’s culture no longer applies. However, if the
organization reduces the number of employees over a period of months by not replac-
ing anyone who leaves, essentially resulting in the same reduction of employees over
time through attrition rather than layoffs, other employees may not notice a potential
change in job security because the change is so gradual that so they may not notice any
difference. Under such a situation, it may take more persuasive sensebreaking com-
munication to convince other employees that the situation has changed and that their
previous understanding of the organizational culture no longer is plausible. Under these
circumstances, an individual’s sensebreaking communication may include a wide vari-
ety of persuasive and rhetorical strategies.
Successful sensebreaking creates a need or drive to find new meaning or to make
sense of the equivocal situation. Once sensebreaking occurs, either as a result of expe-
riences that create equivocality or specific sensebreaking communication, various indi-
viduals will provide sensegiving communication to help others create meaning in the
situation (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Sharma & Good, 2013). Sensegiving communica-
tion attempts to influence others to assign a particular meaning to an experience, partic-
ularly when that situation has created equivocality for them. The sensegivers attempt to
communicate their understanding of the situation so that others will accept their inter-
pretation of the events. To produce effective sensegiving messages, sensegivers must
 SE N S E M A K I N G 7

gather sufficient information, create plausible interpretations of it, and then communi-
cate effectively so that other individuals will accept their interpretation. Extending the
example of reduced employment by layoffs or attrition, a supervisor may use sensegiv-
ing messages to try to convince survivors that their jobs are secure because all remaining
employees are essential to the organization. At the same time, peers may provide sense-
giving messages that indicate that the reduction in employment means that it is time
for them to look for jobs elsewhere.
Through the interaction of the previous expectations, the sensebreaking communi-
cation, and the sensegiving communication, employees arrive at a new understanding
of their experience. They make sense of their situation in a way that is plausible given
the circumstance.

A research example

Weick (1993) provided an excellent example of the general process of sensemaking and
the interaction between sensebreaking, sensegiving, and sensemaking in his analysis of
the Mann Gulch forest fire disaster. In brief, the disaster, which happened in 1949, hap-
pened when a group of 16 smokejumpers were dropped in the Mann Gulch in Montana
to fight what was described as a routine forest fire started by a lightning strike. When
the winds suddenly shifted, the smokejumpers went from fighting a routine fire to run-
ning for their lives. When it became clear that they were unlikely to be able to outrun
the fire up to the top of the gulch, the leader, Dodge, to the surprise of his crew, lit a fire
in the grassy area in front of them which quickly burned away all the grass. Dodge then
ordered the men to drop their tools and lie down in the middle of this burned out area.
Unable to make sense of this directive, since it violated their expectations of firefighting,
the rest of the crew continued to try to outrun the fire up to the top of the gulch. Dodge
survived unscathed in the burned-out area as the fire raced around him and up the hill.
Only two of those running up the hill made it through a small crevice in the ridge and
survived. The remaining 13 died – the first time that forest service smokejumpers had
die from flames in a forest fire.
Viewing this as a sensemaking and communicative process, the smokejumpers
experienced an ecological change when the fire itself led to a situation that the smoke-
jumpers could no longer make sense of. Instead of a routine exercise – extinguishing
the fire – they found themselves having to try to escape. After Dodge lit the back fire,
he made almost no attempt at sensebreaking and his attempts at sensegiving were
unsuccessful. Dodge’s sensegiving message to his colleagues to drop their tools and
come into the burned-out area to wait failed to achieve its goal of creating a new
meaning because it violated the expectations of the rest of the crew. They understood
that their tools were what made them firefighters and kept them alive. They understood
that you escape fire by leaving the area, not by waiting for the fire to reach you. Based
on those cues, the crew made sense of the situation as one in which they continued
to run. It is not surprising that they relied on their previous sensemaking rather than
embracing the sensegiving message of Dodge, since they did not have any basis for
trusting his sensegiving message. Commitment to this interpretation of the events
8 SE N S E M A K I N G

seemed plausible, although inaccurate, particularly given the panic brought on by the
crisis situation they were experiencing and the lack of time for sensebreaking and
sensegiving messages. The lessons from these experiences have been retained by the
organization as it experienced more forest fires.
The process of sensemaking through the communication of sensebreaking and
sensegiving messages shares similarities with most change models, such as Kurt
Lewin’s (1951) seminal work on creating change by unfreezing, change, and freezing.
Sensebreaking involves unfreezing previous sensemaking efforts. Sensegiving involves
making changes in understandings. Finally, sensemaking involves freezing new
understandings or meanings of experiences.

Sensemaking and uncertainty management

Sensemaking and uncertainty management theory (UMT), formerly known as uncer-

tainty reduction theory, are typically not associated with each other because of impor-
tant differences in how they are studied, but they do share important similarities. It is
necessary to recognize both their differences and their commonalities.
Because sensemaking comes from an interpretive perspective of communication
and its assumptions, the research involved almost always uses qualitative methods. By
contrast, because UMT generally flows out of a post-positivist perspective, the research
involved almost always uses quantitative methods. Despite these differences, there
are examples of sensemaking conducted using quantitative methods and uncertainty
management conducted using qualitative methods, and examples of both using mixed
methods.
As to commonalities, both approaches examine how individuals create meaning or
interpret situations in their lives. Both involve awareness of a discrepancy in or differ-
ence between what is known and what is experienced. Sensemaking involves assigning
meaning to situations involving equivocality. Uncertainty management involves cre-
ating understanding in situations in which the meaning is unclear or uncertain. One
potential difference is that equivocality in sensemaking is generally defined in terms of
situations where there are multiple meanings and it is difficult to select the appropriate
interpretation. Uncertainty management usually examines situations in which there is
uncertainty or unclear meaning due to a lack of information from which to make an
interpretation. However, the terms equivocality, uncertainty, and ambiguity appear in
studies on both sensemaking and uncertainty management.
Another difference has to do with the actions of the person experiencing the lack
of meaning in the situation. Sensemaking focuses on how individuals communicate
to make sense of an experience retrospectively. By contrast, uncertainty management
focuses on how individuals proactively seek information to manage their uncertainty.
Although the one process is defined as retrospective and the other as proactive, there
is probably more overlap between the two than these labels suggest. The social process
of sensemaking involves gaining information from others and using understanding to
guide future action, which are proactive processes. Uncertainty management involves
reflecting on information gained and previous experiences, which are retrospective
 SE N S E M A K I N G 9

processes. Overall, there are important commonalities between sensemaking and

uncertainty management, as well as differences. Those differences may primarily be
differences in emphasis.

Future research

Sensemaking has become a valuable theoretical perspective for exploring organi-

zational communication. It has primarily been used to describe how individuals
collectively gain an understanding of their experiences. Future research should con-
sider how larger frames, such as political structures and power, influence sensemaking,
and should explore some of its assumptions, such as the prominence of rationality in
assigning meaning (Eisenberg, 2006). In addition, sensemaking could be applied to
other unique organizational contexts, such as corporate social responsibility, computer
mediated communication, and volunteering.

SEE ALSO: Ambiguity; Change, Organizational Change; High Reliability Organiza-

tions; Identity, Individual; Interpretive Approaches; Jamming; Uncertainty

References

Bastien, D. T. (1992). Change in organizational culture. Management Communication Quarterly,

5, 403–442. doi:10.1177/0893318992005004002
Eisenberg, E. M. (2006). Karl Weick and the aesthetics of contingency Organization Studies, 27,
1693–1707.
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initia-
tion. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448. doi:10.1002/smj.4250120604
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in enter-
ing unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.
doi:10.2307/2392453
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among
Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 456–493. doi:10.2307/2667106
Sharma, G., & Good, D. (2013). The work of middle managers: Sensemaking and sensegiving
for creating positive social change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49, 95–122.
doi:10.1177/0021886312471375
Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking.
Organization Science, 16, 409–421. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

Further reading

Dougherty, D., & Smythe, M. J. (2004). Sensemaking, organizational culture, and

sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 293–317.
doi:10.1080/0090988042000275998
10 SE N S E M A K I N G

Golden, A. G. (2009). Employee families and organizations as mutually enacted environments:

A sensemaking approach to work–life interrelationships. Management Communication Quar-
terly, 22, 385–415.
Kramer, M. W. (2009). Role negotiations in a temporary organization: Making sense during role
development in an educational theater production. Management Communication Quarterly,
23, 188–217.
Scarduzio, J. A., & Tracy, S. J. (2015). Sensegiving and sensebreaking via emotion cycles and emo-
tional buffering: How collective communication creates order in the courtroom. Management
Communication Quarterly, 29, 331–357.
Sellnow, T. L., Seeger, M. W., & Ulmer, R. R. (2002). Chaos theory, informational
needs, and natural disasters. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 269–292.
doi:10.1080/00909880216599
Tornes, M., & Kramer, M. W. (2015). The volunteer experience in temporary organizations:
Volunteer role negotiation and identification in a pop-culture convention. Communication
Studies, 66, 590–606.
Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Michael W. Kramer is chair of the Department of Communication at the University

of Oklahoma. His research has focused on employee transitions and how they manage
uncertainty and make sense of changes in their employment. His recent emphasis on
similar issues for volunteers in nonprofit organizations has resulted in a series of arti-
cles and three edited books on volunteers. In 2014, he received the Fredric M. Jablin
Award for Outstanding Contributions to Organizational Communication, awarded at
the International Communication Association’s organizational communication divi-
sion.