Doing, Theorizing and Doing, Theorizing and Publishing Qualitative Publishing Qualitative

Research:Research:

A Journey in Sensemaking

Sally Maitlis,

University of British Columbia

Maitlis (2005): The JourneyMaitlis (2005): The Journey

Maitlis, S. 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1, 21-49.

Maitlis (1998)Maitlis (1998)

PhD thesis on sensemaking and decision making in 3 British symphony orchestras

longitudinal study over two years

followed, in real time, sensemaking around the same 9 issues in each organization (e.g., appointing Principal Conductor, cost cutting, etc) = 27 issue domains

120 formal interviews, and many informal

attended 107 meetings

watched rehearsals, went on tour, socialized

analyzed strategy, policy and other documentation

dissertation: 400 pages long, plus 350 page appendix

Choosing your Research Choosing your Research QuestionQuestion

Qualitative research generally works best with questions about process, meaning, and experience

• What are the emotional experiences of front desk employees in busy American hotels?

• Do introverted individuals find working on a busy hotel front desk more stressful than extroverts?

Choosing your Research Choosing your Research Question – and ContextQuestion – and Context

Know what is already known about answers to the question

Be willing to modify your research question once you begin to collect data

Care about the question – and the context!

Being in the FieldBeing in the Field

o Make sure the context fits your questiono Most fun I have ever had in my

professional lifeo Take notes manically if doing anything

ethnographico Find people to talk to outside so it is less

lonely

Making Sense of DataMaking Sense of Data

“data asphyxiation” (Pettigrew 1990:281).

Cutting away data, trying to tell a general story about what seems to matter

Following intuitions and thenanalyzing systematically to show support for them

Don’t be in a hurry, but do work to a deadline

Writing it Up for PublicationWriting it Up for Publication

Maitlis, S. 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1, 21-49.

First Attempts: Writing a First Attempts: Writing a Qualitative PaperQualitative Paper

decision making

leader-stakeholder relationships

participation

sensemaking

framing matters

First Attempts: Publishing a First Attempts: Publishing a Qualitative PaperQualitative Paper

the pain of rejection rejecting the rejection

only break the rules if you really understand them

The Social Processes of The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking: Organizational Sensemaking:

FrameFramesensemaking: the process through which we retrospectively create order and make sense of what is happening (Weick, 1993; 1995).

sensemaking is a process of social construction, but often examined as an individual and cognitive process

research which has considered its social properties has focused on small groups under pressure (e.g., Gephart, 1993; Weick 1993; Weick & Roberts, 1993)

we know little about the social processes of sensemaking among large and diverse groups of stakeholders, over extended periods of time

Research QuestionsResearch Questions

RQ1: Are there patterns of interaction that constitute the social processes of sensemaking among diverse stakeholders in complex organizations?

 

RQ2: Are there patterns of accounts and action associated with the different social processes of sensemaking?

FindingsFindings

the kind of sensemaking is determined by the level of leader and stakeholder sensegiving

there are 4 distinct forms of sensemaking - guided, chaotic, restricted, and minimal

they differ from one another in their process characteristics

each form produces a different kind of account and action

4 Forms of Organizational Sensemaking4 Forms of Organizational Sensemaking

High Sensegiving

Leader Sensegiving

Low

Sensegiving

Guided Sensemaking

Process Characteristics ….

Outcomes …

Restricted Sensemaking

Process Characteristics …

Outcomes …

Fragmented Sensemaking

Process Characteristics …

Outcomes …

Minimal Sensemaking

Process Characteristics …

Outcomes …

High Sensegiving Low Sensegiving

Stakeholder Sensegiving

April 14 2002

Dear Professor Maitlis:The review of the manuscript that you submitted to the Academy of Management Journal, The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking (02-0084), is now complete. The reviewers and I believe that your study addresses an interesting, a timely and certainly an important topic, namely, the process of sensemaking. In addition, we find your data set to be most appealing and your submission to be easy to read. As a colleague, a reviewer and an editor, such fine work and craftsmanship are greatly appreciated. Most important, the reviewers and I believe that your manuscript shows an unrealized promise. Their evaluations range, for example, from marginally to modestly positive in strength. Nonetheless, they express collective concerns about the submission’s theoretical grounding, the meaningfulness of your induced inferences and the study’s overall contribution to our field’s body of knowledge. Based on their advice and my own separate reading, I agree with their judgments. More specifically, I believe that a publication decision would be premature at this time. Thus, I invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript to AMJ for further consideration.

With that said, I hasten to add the three following points. First, this invitation to revise and resubmit your manuscript carries absolutely NO GUARANTEE for the ultimate success of your submission. Nonetheless, please note that the reviewers and I do encourage you to undertake this opportunity at revision…

Key Reviewer ConcernsKey Reviewer Concerns

weak theory

insufficient description of data and inferences drawn from it

credibility of conclusions

R & R

….and 15 single spaced pages of other concerns…

August 22 2003

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:1. Weak Theory1. Weak Theory

1. Reanalyzed data to identify set of core dimensions – animation and control – to compare 4 forms of sensemaking

4 Forms of Organizational Sensemaking4 Forms of Organizational SensemakingGuided Sensemaking (before)

Process Characteristics One-on-one interactions Intensive discussions with several

stakeholders in parallel Ongoing and iterative sets of

negotiations Incremental Smooth

Restricted Sensemaking (before)

Process Characteristics Intermittent private discussions

over time Secret meetings between leaders

and key stakeholders Controlled flow of information Sporadic, leader-driven bursts of

sensegiving activity

Guided Sensemaking (after)

Process Characteristics High animation Low control

Restricted Sensemaking (after)

Process Characteristics Low animation Low control

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:1. Weak Theory (contd.)1. Weak Theory (contd.)

2. Made propositions less “obvious” and more compelling

Guided Sensemaking

Proposition 1: Organizational sensemaking in which both leaders and stakeholders engage in sensegiving will tend to unfold through iterative, one-on-one negotiations, with leaders guiding the formation of shared accounts.

Proposition 2: Guided organizational sensemaking will tend to produce accounts of the decision issue that are widely accepted by organizational stakeholders, and generate relatively unified collective action.

Guided Sensemaking

Prop 2a: Organizational sensemaking in which both leaders and stakeholders are engaged in high levels of sensegiving will tend to produce a unitary account (rather than multiple accounts) that is rich (rather than narrow).

Prop 2b: Organizational sensemaking in which both leaders and stakeholders engage in high levels of sensegiving will tend to lead to an emergent series of actions (rather than a one-time action), that is internally consistent (rather than inconsistent).  

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:2. Insufficient Description2. Insufficient Description

1. Methods:

• explained sampling – of context, of specific orchestras, of interviewees

• clarified when and how I did the data collection and analysis

2. Findings:

• moved from offering short stories and quotations in the text to an extensive and detailed data table

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:3. Credibility3. Credibility

prolonged engagement & persistent observationcomprehensive, descriptively rich datatriangulation of data sources and methodsmember checking

There are several ways to increase the credibility of a naturalistic study

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:

….and 20 single spaced pages of responses to the reviewers…

October 14 2003

Dear Dr. Maitlis:The review of the revision that you resubmitted to the Academy of Management Journal, The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking (R02-0084), is now complete. To begin, Reviewer 3 for the prior manuscript could not provide a review in a timely fashion because of some unexpected health problems in his or her family. As such, I opted to obtain the advice of a new Reviewer 3, who was provided with the prior manuscript, decision letter and reviews. Moreover, new Reviewer 3 recognizes that she or he entered into an on-going conversation. Nevertheless, the reviewers and I believe that the revision is quite well written and reflects the substantial amount of work effort that you clearly put forth. It is tighter, more fully explained and very responsive to our earlier concerns and issues. Again, we greatly appreciate your professionalism and craftsmanship. In comparison to the prior manuscript, Reviewer 1 is now fairly supportive; Reviewer 2 is quite supportive; but new Reviewer 3 is only marginally so... I believe that a publication decision remains premature at this time. Thus, I again invite you to revise and resubmit your manuscript to AMJ for further consideration.

With that said, I hasten to add the following five points. First, the reviewers and I hold the highest hopes and expectations from your study. Thus, this invitation should be seen as a “strong R&R,” and I personally encourage you to undertake this opportunity at revision. Second – and as is always the case – this invitation carries no guarantee for the ultimate success of your manuscript. In my experience, unusual events and circumstances can and sometimes do happen.

Reviewer 1Reviewer 1

Theoretical development. The paper still comes across as very descriptive. You do more to say what happens than WHY it happens. You show correlations and patterns in the data, but I think it is imperative to also say more about why these connections occur…To close – I am impressed with how far you have come in this draft. While I think you have a ways to go, I think you are definitely on the right track. Best of luck to you as you continue developing your ideas. I am really excited about your research!

Reviewer 2Reviewer 2

This revision represents a substantial improvement over the original submission, both in terms of the clarity and effectiveness of the study’s presentation. Your revision was a pleasure to read. The central theoretical contributions of your paper emerge much more clearly than was the case with your original submission.

Reviewer 3Reviewer 3…The paper appears to have been extensively revised and the author(s) have worked hard to address prior comments by reviewers. There are several issues which emerge in the present draft which require attention. 1. The major issues at present are a) the four forms of sensemaking which constitute your findings are not well grounded in the data and b) the typology and propositions are based on concepts which themselves are not adequately developed…. 5. The research claims to involve qualitative methods. Your discussion of methods provides a reasonable rationale for qualitative research. But your research is fundamentally quantitative in so far as your typology is a 2X2 matrix based on high and low levels of sensemaking and the propositions specify quantitative relations among variables. …To conclude, the paper provides an interesting typology of sensemaking. At present, the typology is limited because it is based in undisclosed practices of measurement and it seems imposed on data…. I hope these comments are helpful.

Key Reviewer ConcernsKey Reviewer Concerns

stronger conceptual development

reveal more data

framing

R & R 2

….and 11 single spaced pages of other concerns…

December 20 2003

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:1. Conceptual Development1. Conceptual Development

Developed theoretical arguments for the relationships between different parts of the model:

leader/stakeholder sensegiving

process characteristics (animation and control)

process characteristics

accounts

accounts action

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:1. Conceptual Development1. Conceptual Development

Developed theoretical arguments for the relationships between different parts of the model:

leader/stakeholder sensegiving

process characteristics (animation and control)

process characteristics

accounts

accounts action

How fragmented sensemaking How fragmented sensemaking produces multiple, narrow accountsproduces multiple, narrow accounts

“A high level of animation ensured the discursive production of a variety of stakeholder perspectives, but because of the uncontrolled nature of this fragmented form of sensemaking, these accounts were rarely integrated or reconciled. Stakeholders’ accounts thus tended to accumulate over time: fragmented sensemaking processes remained active over the life of an issue, as more, diverse accounts of the situation were put forward which no one worked to integrate”

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:1. Conceptual Development1. Conceptual Development

Developed theoretical arguments for the relationships between different parts of the model:

leader/stakeholder sensegiving

process characteristics (animation and control)

process characteristics

accounts

accounts action

How multiple, narrow accounts How multiple, narrow accounts lead to emergent series of lead to emergent series of

inconsistent actions inconsistent actions

“The existence of multiple, distinctive accounts tended to generate series of inconsistent and contradictory actions. This was because the various accounts of the situation that were available to actors often differed so significantly that, over the life of these issues, different groups and individuals engaged in divergent actions based on their own

idiosyncratic interpretations of events.”

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:2. Revealing Data2. Revealing Data

1. Better showed how the data led to the conclusions

But - not always possible to provide all the data reviewers want to see

“However, given the extremely long, complex, and increasingly conceptual nature of the data analysis, it has been very difficult to show more direct links between the raw data, such as interview and meeting quotations, and the quite abstract constructs of, for example, animation and control. The development of these constructs and the links I propose to the outcomes of sensemaking were based on a set of analytical processes (described on p. 15-21) that involved a series of transformations, from raw data to narratives, and then to increasingly abstracted sets of characteristics and concepts. This has made it very difficult to identify sets of specific quotations that directly reflect the process characteristics and outcomes described in this paper.”

Responding to the Concerns:Responding to the Concerns:3. Framing3. Framing

Sensemaking in groups larger than those typically studied (e.g., cockpit crews, wildland firefighter teams)

to

Sensemaking in “ordinary” organizational contexts over longer periods of time – compared to the extreme conditions and crisis situations that necessitate urgent sensemaking

January 8 2004January 8 2004Dear Sally,I’ve reviewed the revision that you submitted to the Academy of Management Journal, The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking (RR02-0084). Most important, I am very satisfied with the changes. As such, I am extremely pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in AMJ. Given how difficult it is to publish in the Journal, your hard work, creativity and (especially) perseverance produced a major accomplishment. CONGRATULATIONS!

The Usual Suspects (1) The Usual Suspects (1) (for my work)(for my work)

definitions of core constructs • sensemaking, sensegiving, toxic decision processes,

compassion, resilience

framing and positioning of study• who are you talking to and what have they already

said?

clarity of data collection methods• how did you find out?

transparency of data analysis• what did you do with it all?

The Usual Suspects (2)The Usual Suspects (2)

satisfying positivists and interpretivists• the need for authoritative accounts of highly

interpretive material

maximizing data display• tables, tables and more tables – but also stories and

quotes in the text

trustworthiness of conclusions• how did you get from there to here?

theoretical contribution• what’s new and why does it matter?

length!• trying to say it all in a journal article