No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Is The Sense We Take Equal To The Sense We Make? A Discussion on Sensemaking and Power in Organisations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2015
Abstract
Sensemaking is recognised as one of the key contemporary approaches to organisation studies. It not only responds to current debates in the field, but also appears to offer a way out of the unproductive and misguided paradigm wars of recent times. The sensemaking literature, however, addresses power implicitly. Sensemaking and the power-knowledge nexus is discussed, giving rise to an argument that suggests the sense people make in organizations may not be entirely their own. Rather, the sense people make may be largely constituted for them in the sense criteria (historical antecedents - constituted knowledge and codes of order) and the political context of the setting in and of, which they are making sense. Implications for managers and future research in regard to how people come to make the sense that they do are contemplated.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2001
Footnotes
1
I would like to acknowledge and thank Professor Stewart Clegg and Dr. Margaret Wilkins for their helpful comments on early drafts of this paper.
References
REFERENCES
Bercheid, E, Snyder, M and Omoto, AM (1989) ‘The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the Closeness of Interpersonal Relationships’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 57 pp 792–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, SR (1990) Modern Organizations: Organization Studies for the Postmodern World. London: SageGoogle Scholar
Clegg, SR and Hardy, C (1996a), ‘Conclusion: Representations’ in Clegg, S.R.Hardy, C and Nord, WRHandbook of Organization Studies (pp. 676–708). London: SageGoogle Scholar
Clegg, SR and Hardy, C (1996b), ‘Some Dare Call it Power’ in Clegg, S.R.Hardy, C and Nord, WRHandbook of Organization Studies (pp. 622–641). London: SageGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, RL M. (1981) ‘Designs for Organizational Control’ in. Nystrom, PC and. Starbuck, WH (eds) Handbook of Organizational Design Vol 2 pp 85–115New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. London: The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B (2001) Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison Harmondsworth: PenguinGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M (1982) “The Subject of Power” in Dreyfus, HL and Rabinow, P (eds) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics London: Harvester WheatsheafGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M (1984) “Power and Ethics: An Interview,” in Rabinow, Paul, ed., The Foucault Reader (p. 248). New York: PantheonGoogle Scholar
Gordon, C (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Brighton: Harvester PressGoogle Scholar
Haugaard, M (1997) The Constitution of Power: A Theoretical Analysis of Power, Knowledge and Structure Manchester: Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
Hubber, GP and Daft, RL (1987) ‘Sources and Forms of Organizational Change’ in Tablin, FM, Putman, LL, Roberts, KH and Porter, LW (eds) Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective London: SageGoogle Scholar
Mannheim, K (1972) Essays on the sociology of knowledge edited by Kecskemeti, , London: Routledge & Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Palmer, I and Dunford, R (1997) ‘Out with the Old and In with the New? A Systematic Assessment of the Pervasiveness and Centrality of Networked Forms of Organizing in Australia’Paper presented at Thirteenth EGOS Colloquium.Google Scholar
Pemberton, M (1998) ‘Knowledge management’ Records Management Quarterly Vol 32 No 3 pp 58–63Google Scholar
Pentland, B.T. (1999) “Building process Theory with Narrative: From Description to Explanation” Academy of Management Review Vol 24 No 4: pp 711–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinow, P (1991), The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to his Thought. Harmondsworth: PenguinGoogle Scholar
Ring, PS and Rands, GP (1989) ‘Sensemaking, Understanding and Committing: Emergent Interpersonal Transaction Processes in the Evolution of 3M's Microgravity research Program’ in AH Van de Ven, AH, Angle, HL, and Poole, MS (Eds.), Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies, pp 337–366New York: BallingerGoogle Scholar
Rura-Polly, T, Baker, E and Hawryszkiewycz, I (1999) ‘Facilitating Electronic Collaboration in Cross-Functional Teams: The Role of Sensemaking’ Paper Presented as Part of the Showcase Symposium titled “Information Technology and Organizational Change, in Turbulent Environments: Exploring Emergent Technology Designs for Sensemaking Annual Meeting of the Academy of ManagementGoogle Scholar
Sackman, SA (1991), Cultural Knowledge in Organizations: Exploring the Collective Mind. Newbury Park CA: SageGoogle Scholar
Starbuck, WH and Milliken, FJ (1988), ‘Executives' Perceptual Filters: What They Notice and How They Make Sense’ in Hambrick, DC (ed) The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers pp 35–65Greenwich: JAIGoogle Scholar
Thomas, JBClark, SM and Gioia, DA (1993) ‘Strategic Sensemaking and Organizational Performance: Linkages Among Scanning, Interpretation, Action and Outcomes’ Academy of Management Journal Vol. 36 pp 239–270Google ScholarPubMed
Weber, M (1978) Economy and Society Vol. 1 An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, Berkeley, University of California PressGoogle Scholar