it's impressive how some professors are alienated from reality and do not show interest at all in making interesting arguments resulting really interesting(for what they really are). They Just wanna create problems and mistandings simply for the sake of It. Our society Is based on frustated people that wanna turn others frustated. But Your video Will surely help me in passing my exam!!!Well done!
Just wanted to say thanks, you really helped me to understand Weick's thoughts on sensemaking in organizations. Reading his journals and making sense of them is no easy job.
Extremely useful, thank you! I am doing a short course on leadership while in my full-time job as a leader of an organization...the course is quite intense (as is the job) and some of the reading complex, so thanks very much for helping me understand Weick´s work in the limited time I have...
Thanks for the video it was very very informative. I am looking forward to watching new videos as there are many questions in my mind, that may be answered by your videos.
working on a project for an Accounting ethics class were we have to view an accounting fraud case through a sensemaking lense. this helps a lot. Thank you
Thank you🙏 😅 I’m writing my Masters thesis on Sensemaking and motivation theory (SDT) You help me make sende of the the Sensemaking theory 👍😃And that’s a job well done 😂
The only other person I can think of that has adopted this idea of organizations/teams as complex adaptive systems is Richard Hackman, or at least who has explicitly noted it. He does this late in his career as well, saying we need to stop thinking about causational links in group dynamics and think more about setting conditions for successful outcomes. Are there other organizational theorists/researchers that have adopted and prompted organizations as adaptive? Would love to discuss this on a zoom call if you're willing as well.
Thank you for this explanation. It's really simplified an otherwise complex theory. Please I'll like to know if external sources and data can be collected when conducting an organisational sensemaking study? Or should it just be the views and interpretations of managers of that organisation?
Hi ,thanks for the video . Fo my thesis I am planning to use theory of sensemaking and/or boundry object theory , i am trying to make framework to improve shared understanding among stakeholders . Is there any leads.
Great question. There's been a lot written on this topic (sometimes called 'sensegiving' in the sensemaking literature and in institutional theory). Interesting, in Weick's 1995 book the main example of sensemaking he works with is collective sensemaking (among 35 executives spread across 17 manufacturing firms in Scotland), so we can look at his own ideas too. Here, the thing to remember is Weick's theory isn't about formal organizations per se. He goes to great pains to say he thinks about organizing as a process not as organizations as things. So, I think he'd argue that a group of people engaged sensemaking across multiple formal organizations are doing organizing together in the same way that people within a single organization do. Specifically, he'd say they were engaged in the seven properties of sensemaking. If what they are doing doesn't demonstrate these properties it isn't sensemaking. As an aside, it's interesting that lots of later writers on sensemaking (who often don't really know the theory that well but write about it cause it gets their work in top journals) make no attempt to show how people engage in these seven properties. In other words, they don't establish that what they are analysing is actually sensemaking not some other form of collective representations.
Great, thanks Sir. Now I understand the theory much better. What are the references of the contents you talked about ins this video, please? In which papers did you find these contents?
Thanks for the video! Weick's writing was kind of difficult to follow, this was a really helpful explanation. I have a question though. Would Weick's model be incompatible with a Marxist view of organizations? As far as I understand, Marx would argue that their are conflicting forces in organizations (i.e. the workers and the owners or capitalists), this would suggest that behavior in organizations is rational or goal-directed (i.e. the capitalists want to maximize profits and the workers want to meet their basic needs). Is this at odds with Weick's assertion that what happens in organizations is basically kind of random and only rationalized after the fact?
Glad the video is useful. Yes, you are on the right lines. As I read them, Marx emphasises the importance of material conditions (money etc) and sees this as determining social relations. Weick is opposite, he see's social interactions taking place through language and symbolism. So, for him, any conflict is over meaning not over who gets material benefit from the organization. Of course, they were writing about two very different types of organizations at different times. So it's possible both are wrong or correct!
Dear sir, I want to ask you if I was to study how practitioners help companies become sustainable, you know there are many companies that help companies transition to sustainability. The unit of analysis is the practitioner...can I use sensmaking? but I m interested in the companies they work with yet their perspective as a consultant is important. How would you look at it?
![Sensemaking: Key fundamentals, misconceptions & criticism [Game of theories #23]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AUR9YnTWkmU/mqdefault.jpg)
dude this is awesome. You literally explained what my professor is trying to explain in 2 hours.
Thanks! Don't blame your professor. Weick doesn't make things easy.
it's impressive how some professors are alienated from reality and do not show interest at all in making interesting arguments resulting really interesting(for what they really are). They Just wanna create problems and mistandings simply for the sake of It. Our society Is based on frustated people that wanna turn others frustated. But Your video Will surely help me in passing my exam!!!Well done!
Just wanted to say thanks, you really helped me to understand Weick's thoughts on sensemaking in organizations. Reading his journals and making sense of them is no easy job.
Extremely useful, thank you! I am doing a short course on leadership while in my full-time job as a leader of an organization...the course is quite intense (as is the job) and some of the reading complex, so thanks very much for helping me understand Weick´s work in the limited time I have...
Thanks for the video it was very very informative. I am looking forward to watching new videos as there are many questions in my mind, that may be answered by your videos.
Thanks for this video! It was very helpful as a supplement to what I have read about Open system :) I am looking forward for more of these!
working on a project for an Accounting ethics class were we have to view an accounting fraud case through a sensemaking lense. this helps a lot. Thank you
Awesome, glad it helped.
Thank you very much for this! This lecture is informative.
Got me back thinking on this - good one
You were brilliant in explaining sensemaking !!!
Thank you🙏 😅 I’m writing my Masters thesis on Sensemaking and motivation theory (SDT) You help me make sende of the the Sensemaking theory 👍😃And that’s a job well done 😂
Thanks for this video! Really appreciate your explanation!
Many thanks for the video.this was really helpful explanation
Great job in short time, thank you so much.
Thank you so very much. You explained this to the T.
Glad it was helpful!
The only other person I can think of that has adopted this idea of organizations/teams as complex adaptive systems is Richard Hackman, or at least who has explicitly noted it. He does this late in his career as well, saying we need to stop thinking about causational links in group dynamics and think more about setting conditions for successful outcomes. Are there other organizational theorists/researchers that have adopted and prompted organizations as adaptive? Would love to discuss this on a zoom call if you're willing as well.
I really liked this, thank you!
Thanks for the intro - very good :)
Thank you, you're a great professor! Way better than mine haha
Thank you for summarizing Karl Weick's ideas in a nutshell. I was having a hard time understanding it all.
Thank you for this explanation. It's really simplified an otherwise complex theory. Please I'll like to know if external sources and data can be collected when conducting an organisational sensemaking study? Or should it just be the views and interpretations of managers of that organisation?
What about sensgiving and sensebraking ? Is it part of sensmaking or it's really 2 differente things ? Thanks
The sound quality is bit off, but thanks .
Hi ,thanks for the video .
Fo my thesis I am planning to use theory of sensemaking and/or boundry object theory , i am trying to make framework to improve shared understanding among stakeholders . Is there any leads.
Thank you so much for making this video. Extremely interesting and useful theory. How would sensemaking apply to the organizing across organizations?
Great question. There's been a lot written on this topic (sometimes called 'sensegiving' in the sensemaking literature and in institutional theory).
Interesting, in Weick's 1995 book the main example of sensemaking he works with is collective sensemaking (among 35 executives spread across 17 manufacturing firms in Scotland), so we can look at his own ideas too.
Here, the thing to remember is Weick's theory isn't about formal organizations per se. He goes to great pains to say he thinks about organizing as a process not as organizations as things.
So, I think he'd argue that a group of people engaged sensemaking across multiple formal organizations are doing organizing together in the same way that people within a single organization do. Specifically, he'd say they were engaged in the seven properties of sensemaking. If what they are doing doesn't demonstrate these properties it isn't sensemaking.
As an aside, it's interesting that lots of later writers on sensemaking (who often don't really know the theory that well but write about it cause it gets their work in top journals) make no attempt to show how people engage in these seven properties. In other words, they don't establish that what they are analysing is actually sensemaking not some other form of collective representations.
@@thinkingorganizing361 Thank you so much for the explanation! Weick's 1995 sounds like a must read. :)
Great, thanks Sir. Now I understand the theory much better. What are the references of the contents you talked about ins this video, please? In which papers did you find these contents?
Most of it is covered in Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
universities shift from teaching students to satisfying consumers. ouch. thank you... wow. also, that map analogy, so beautiful.
Thanks for the video! Weick's writing was kind of difficult to follow, this was a really helpful explanation. I have a question though. Would Weick's model be incompatible with a Marxist view of organizations? As far as I understand, Marx would argue that their are conflicting forces in organizations (i.e. the workers and the owners or capitalists), this would suggest that behavior in organizations is rational or goal-directed (i.e. the capitalists want to maximize profits and the workers want to meet their basic needs). Is this at odds with Weick's assertion that what happens in organizations is basically kind of random and only rationalized after the fact?
Glad the video is useful. Yes, you are on the right lines. As I read them, Marx emphasises the importance of material conditions (money etc) and sees this as determining social relations. Weick is opposite, he see's social interactions taking place through language and symbolism. So, for him, any conflict is over meaning not over who gets material benefit from the organization. Of course, they were writing about two very different types of organizations at different times. So it's possible both are wrong or correct!
Dear sir, I want to ask you if I was to study how practitioners help companies become sustainable, you know there are many companies that help companies transition to sustainability. The unit of analysis is the practitioner...can I use sensmaking? but I m interested in the companies they work with yet their perspective as a consultant is important. How would you look at it?
Yes, definitely. Many people use sensemaking to understand how groups of practitioners collectively define their situation.
Not true with the idea of complexity - the epicycle theory rejects this.
Thanks for this. Not sure I understand your point but I don't know anything about epicycle theory!