Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Abstract
Sensemaking is the process through which people work to understand issues or events that are novel, ambiguous, confusing, or in some other way violate expectations. As an activity central to organizing, sensemaking has been the subject of considerable research which has intensified over the last decade. We begin this review with a historical overview of the field, and develop a definition of sensemaking rooted in recurrent themes from the literature. We then review and integrate existing theory and research, focusing on two key bodies of work. The first explores how sensemaking is accomplished, unpacking the sensemaking process by examining how events become triggers for sensemaking, how intersubjective meaning is created, and the role of action in sensemaking. The second body considers how sensemaking enables the accomplishment of other key organizational processes, such organizational change, learning, and creativity and innovation. The final part of the chapter draws on areas of difference and debate highlighted throughout the review to discuss the implications of key tensions in the sensemaking literature, and identifies important theoretical and methodological opportunities for the field.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In situations of high uncertainty and vulnerability, people actively seek current information to fill information gaps and make sense of events.
“In a situation that causes high levels of uncertainty and feelings of vulnerability like the COVID-19 outbreak, people actively search for up-to-date information to fill the information gap and, thus, to make sense of the situation (Fischer-Preßler et al., 2019; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014).”
From Understanding user responses to the COVID-19 pandemic on Twitter from a terror management theory perspective: Cultural differences among the US, UK and India (2022) · cites this paper as Maitlis & Christianson, 2014
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 268 · Cited by 1,764
- Authors
- Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Venue
- Academy of Management Annals
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-125
- ISSN
- 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-6520
- OpenAlex
- W4245597957
- Cited by
- 1,764
- References
- 268
- Citations by year
- 2026: 332 · 2025: 187 · 2024: 167 · 2023: 192 · 2022: 182 · 2021: 188 · 2020: 160 · 2019: 139 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 93.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Annals (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Learning and Leadership
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
- Keywords
- sensemaking, organizational sensemaking, ambiguity, intersubjective meaning, organizational change, organizational learning, creativity and innovation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review