to sense making

1

Teori Organisasi LanjutanTeori Organisasi LanjutanTeori Organisasi Lanjutan

PENDEKATAN INTERPRETIVE: SENSEMAKING & ORGANIZING

2

Agenda• Context

• Why Sensemaking?

• What is Sensemaking?

• Sensemaking in Enhanced Decision Making

• Conclusions

3

Berapa Umur Wanita dalam Gambar ini?

Apa Arti Gambar ini?

Hitung Jumlah Segitiga!

Fakta dalam Gambar

4

Symbolic Interpretive InfluencesSymbolic 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.

5

SymbolicSymbolic--InterpretivismInterpretivism

• 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.

6

SymbolicSymbolic--InterpretivistsInterpretivistsExploreExplore……

• 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.

7

Lingkung

Organi

an

sasi

8

SymbolicSymbolic--Interpretive Theories Interpretive Theories IncludeInclude::

Social Construction Theory (Berger & Luckmann, 1966)

Sensemaking Theory & Enactment (Weick, 1979, 1995)

Institutionalization (Selznick, 1949)

Reflexivity (Clifford & Marcus, 1986)

9

SensemakingSensemaking TheoryTheory ((WeickWeick, 1995), 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).

10

• 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

*Adapted from: Karl Weick, “Sensemaking in Organizations”

What is Sensemaking?

11

Sensemaking (Weick 1995, 2000)

Grounded in identity constructionRetrospectiveEnactive of sensible environmentsSocialOn-goingFocused on and by extracted cuesDriven by plausibility rather than accuracy

12

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

13

• An organization must process information about its environment in order to function effectively (maintenance or adaptation).

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

14

• Information is equivocal when it can be given many different interpretations.

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

15

• Equivocal information may be ambiguousor conflicting.

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

16

• Equivocal information may be ambiguousor conflicting.

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

So what do you think of my new look?

Well…I think it’s very

interesting.

17

• Equivocal information may be ambiguousor conflicting.

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

So what do you think of my new look?

Wow! It’s really great!!

That’s just about the

ugliest thing I’ve ever seen!

18

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

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

19

• All organizations face equivocality, and the degree of equivocality in the environment is constantly increasing...the world in becoming more and more complex.

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

20

• 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.

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

21

Sensemaking

Organizing Process Meliputi 6N:Nggumuni, Nitèni, Ngirani, Ngomongi, Ngembangké, danNgemongi.

: Organizing Process

RetentionEnactment SelectionEcological Change

+ + +

+ (+, - ) (+, - )

Sumber: Weick (1979: 132)

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

22

• 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

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

Evolutionary Process of Organizing

23

• 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.”

• Necessary in highly equivocal environments.

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

Evolutionary Process of Organizing

24

• Stage Three: Retention– Retrospective Sense-Making– Rationalized vs. Rational Behavior– Impacts future enactment and selection (p.

83)

Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application

Evolutionary Process of Organizing

25

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).

Sensemaking

26

Weik’s Seven PrinciplesWeick, K. E.(1995). Sensemaking in organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. P. 61-61

• Identities• Retrospective• Enactment• Social• Ongoing• Extracted Cues• Plausability

27

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

28

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

5. Ongoing- Sensemaking never stops

- Governed by identity- What I single out

6. Extracted Cues

7. Plausability- If it seems right – it is right- No alternatives evaluated- Search stops

29

Emerging View of C2 Process

Awareness

UnderstandingCommand Intent

Battlespace

Cognitive Domain

Physical Domain

Information Domain

BattlespaceMonitoring

Management

Synchronization

Operating Environment

Information Systems

Sensemaking

30

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– Reduce vulnerability to IO and deception

31

InformationDomain

CognitiveDomain

Physical DomainObjects/events

Data (representation)

Information (data in context)

Decisionprocesses

Directives•Requests for support•Queries•Reports•Efforts to consult

Actions

Planning•Missions•Assets•Boundaries•Schedules•Contingencies

Synchronization

Judgment PriorknowledgeMentalModels

Decision SupportModels & Tools

•Emotions•Physiological Factors•Beliefs•Perceptions

Sensemaking: Conceptual Framework

“Deep” understandingof situation•Cause and effect•Temporal relations•Dynamic futures•Opportunities & Risks

S h a r e d S h a r e d

Sensemaking•Values•Anticipated dynamicfutures

•Alternatives perceived

Command Intent•Choices among alternativesincluding contingent

choices•Choices to wait•Choices to seek information•Choices to consult others

S h a r e d

Constraints

RedBlue

S h a r e d

Capabilities &

Other

Intentions

Time & Space

Miss &ion

Environment

Uncert

ainty

Awareness

32

Data (representation)

Information (data in context)

InformationDomain

CognitiveDomain

Physical Domain

Objects/events

Decisionprocesses

Decisions•Choices among alternativesincluding contingent choices

•Choices to wait•Choices to seek information•Choices to consult others

Directives•Requests for support•Queries•Reports•Efforts to consult

Actions

Planning•Missions•Assets•Boundaries•Schedules•Contingencies

Synchronization

Judgment

RedBlue

Other

Capabilities &Intentions

Time & Space

Opportunities & Risks

Constraints

Miss &ion

Environment

Uncert

ainty

Shared Awareness

Sensemaking•Values•Anticipated dynamicfutures

•Alternatives perceived

“Deep” understandingof situation•Cause and effect•Temporal relations•Dynamic futures

Diagnosing Sensemaking

Was the right data collected?

Was it put together appropriately? (correlation, context)

Decision SupportModels & Tools

Was it put in a form that facilitates awareness?

Did the individuals develop appropriateSituational Awareness (SA)?

Was the SA shared?

Was shared awarenessof the situation

correctly understood?

Was Sense madeof the situation?

•Emotions•Physiological Factors•Beliefs•Perceptions

Diagnosing Sensemaking

PriorknowledgeMentalModels

Were the appropriate models and tools used?

Were emotions, beliefs and cognitive factors taken into account?

Were the decision and driving factors

shared?

Was command intent developed collaboratively

Was a quality plan developed?

Was the plan executed effectively?

33

Conclusions (1 of 3)

• For most cases examined, Sensemakingfailure is more often caused by – Misperceptions– Misinterpretations– Misunderstandings– Miscalculations– Miscommunications– Misorientation– Miscorrelation– Maldistribution– …rather than lack of data or information

And these are in the situations and mission areas we know best

34

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…)

And these are situations and mission areaswhere we are most likely to be engaged

35

Conclusions (3 of 3)

• Sensemaking is the essential link to information and decision superiority, but remains a weak link in the C2 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

36

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

37

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

38

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)

39

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

40

SENSEMAKING

Beliefs

Enactments Interpretations

Eureka asOrganizational

Innovation

Risk, UncertaintyKNOWLEDGE CREATING

Culturalknowledge

Tacitknowledge

Explicitknowledge

DECISION MAKING

Premises

Routines Rules

The Knowing Organization

Apply inOther Areas

Knowledge from France, Canada exp.

The Community isthe Expert System

The Community isthe Expert System

How do techniciansdo their work in practice?