Organizing to counter terrorism: sensemaking amidst dynamic complexity

publication-status: Acceptedtypes: ArticlePre-print draft (version 1). ‘The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Human Relations September 2013 66(9): 1201–1223, by SAGE Publications Ltd, All rights reserved. © [The Author]Organizations increasingly find themselves contending with circumstances that are suffused with dynamic complexity. So how do they make sense of and contend with this? Using a sensemaking approach, our empirical case analysis of the shooting of Mr Jean Charles de Menezes shows how sensemaking is tested under such conditions. Through elaborating the relationship between the concepts of frames and cues, we find that the introduction of a new organizational routine to anticipate action in changing circumstances leads to discrepant sensemaking. This reveals how novel routines do not necessarily replace extant ones but instead, overlay each other and give rise to novel, dissonant identities which in turn can lead to an increase in equivocality rather than a reduction. This has important implications for sensemaking and organizing amidst unprecedented circumstances

Simplexity: sensemaking, organizing and storytelling for our time

Simplexity is advanced as an umbrella term reflecting sensemaking, organizing and storytelling for our time. People in and out of organizations increasingly find themselves facing novel circumstances that are suffused with dynamic complexity. To make sense through processes of organizing, and to find a plausible answer to the question ‘what is the story?’, requires a fusion of sufficient complexity of thought with simplicity of action, which we call simplexity. This captures the notion that while sensemaking is a balance between thinking and acting, in a new world that owes less to yesterday’s stories and frames, keeping up with the times changes the balance point to clarifying through action. This allows us to see sense (making) more clearly

Hero takes a fall: A lesson from theatre for leadership

Comparing leaders to actors has a long tradition, and researchers and practitioners in the organizational field have tried to learn lessons from theatre. For developing this approach, this article takes an interdisciplinary theatre studies perspective and discusses how leaders in organizations compare to actors in the theatre. It makes the assertion that the actor’s role in (dramatic, epic and postdramatic) theatre over several historic epochs can be seen as a complementary, opposed practice that confronts and challenges audiences rather than ‘playing to them’. Theatre does not provide us with ideal or charismatic leader characters but, quite the opposite, teaches us about contentious and problematic heroes. Theatre presents a fundamental disrespect for tenability and positive affirmation and may offer more critical ideas about aesthetic interaction, leadership performance and leader-follower interaction. This illustrates that aesthetic features do not alone turn leadership into an art. ‘Leadership as an art’ through this lens includes critical interaction through increased aesthetic awareness from the viewpoint of followers. </jats:p

Knowing as an activity: implications for the film industry and semi-permanent work groups

The central concern of this chapter is to provide a theoretical explanation of the nature of knowing in an industry organized around project-based work, the film industry. In particular, it explains how knowledge of the work process, culture and rules of film production are gained and stored by both individuals and semi-permanent work groups (SPWGs, Blair, 2000) and then contributed for a short time to organizations. This exploration is particularly interesting as the film industry presents a context in which production organizations are temporary entities and there are no permanent organizational structures through which knowledge can be communicated and maintained