The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking
Abstract
A longitudinal study of the social processes of organizational sensemaking suggests that they unfold in four distinct forms: guided, fragmented, restricted, and minimal. These forms result from the degree to which leaders and stakeholders engage in “sensegiving”—attempts to influence others' understandings of an issue. Each of the four forms of organizational sensemaking is associated with a distinct set of process characteristics that capture the dominant pattern of interaction. They also each result in particular outcomes, specifically, the nature of the accounts and actions generated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Simpson, G., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091739 · Cited by 16,462
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776
Cited by
Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428112452151 · Cited by 13,227
Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization
Duchek, S. (2020) · Business Research · doi:10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7 · Cited by 2,027
“…resilience (e.g., Lengnick-Hall and Beck 2009; Lengnick-Hall et al. 2011; Linnenluecke et al. 2012) and much can be learned from the various studies that provide insights into the functioning of sensemaking in organizations (e.g., Maitlis 2005; Patriotta 2003; Maitlis and Christianson 2014).”
BackgroundSensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Self-citationWorking with Machines: The Impact of Algorithmic and Data-Driven Management on Human Workers
Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., & Dabbish, L. (2015) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702548 · Cited by 823
The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its situational and dispositional correlates
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M. J., & Nag, M. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0019993 · Cited by 749
University of Sydney, Tan, B., Pan, S., University of New South Wales, Lu, X., Fudan University, Huang, L., & Fudan University (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00393 · Cited by 323
Counting in Qualitative Research: Why to Conduct it, When to Avoid it, and When to Closet it
Hannah, D. R., & Lautsch, B. A. (2011) · Journal of Management Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1056492610375988 · Cited by 282
Exceptional boards: Environmental experience and positive deviance from institutional norms
Walls, J. L., & Hoffman, A. J. (2013) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.1813 · Cited by 221
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840606068338 · Cited by 219
Narcissism and learning from entrepreneurial failure
Liu, Y., Li, Y., Hao, X., & Zhang, Y. (2019) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.003 · Cited by 172
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886311404556 · Cited by 135
Adcroft, A. (2011) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.526096 · Cited by 121
Sustainable HRM: An extension of the paradox perspective
Poon, T. S.-C., & Law, K. K. (2022) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100818 · Cited by 88
Choice architecture 2.0: Behavioral policy as an implicit social interaction
Krijnen, J. M. T., Tannenbaum, D., & Fox, C. R. (2017) · Behavioral Science & Policy · doi:10.1353/bsp.2017.0010 · Cited by 46
Kyratsis, Y., Ahmad, R., & Holmes, A. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-22 · Cited by 36
Seeing the Bigger Picture? Ramping up Production with the Use of Augmented Reality
Wuttke, D., Upadhyay, A., Siemsen, E., & Wuttke-Linnemann, A. (2022) · Manufacturing & Service Operations Management · doi:10.1287/msom.2021.1070 · Cited by 36
The InBoard Emotional Contagion Model
Haag, C., & Getz, I. (2016) · Emotions and Organizational Governance · doi:10.1108/s1746-979120160000012005 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Maitlis, S.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-49
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2049881921
- Cited by
- 1,451
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 50.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
