View
107
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Teori Organisasi LanjutanTeori Organisasi LanjutanTeori Organisasi Lanjutan
PENDEKATAN INTERPRETIVE: SENSEMAKING & ORGANIZING
2
Agenda• Context
• Why Sensemaking?
• What is Sensemaking?
• Sensemaking in Enhanced Decision Making
• Conclusions
3
Berapa Umur Wanita dalam Gambar ini?
Apa Arti Gambar ini?
Hitung Jumlah Segitiga!
Fakta dalam Gambar
4
Symbolic Interpretive InfluencesSymbolic Interpretive Influences
1. The crisis of representation: questions our relationship with our social world and the ways in which we account for our experience.
2. Social constructionism: we construct our social world and our knowledge of that world in our everyday interactions.
5
SymbolicSymbolic--InterpretivismInterpretivism
• Challenges objective science and modernism.
• Applies ethnographic and interpretive approaches to organizations.
• Uncovers multiple interpretations of organizational members.
• Emphasizes the role of context in shaping and interpreting meaning.
6
SymbolicSymbolic--InterpretivistsInterpretivistsExploreExplore……
• How people create meanings in organizations through their interpretation of utterances, stories, rituals, actions, and so on.
• How individuals and groups create multiple meanings and interpret them from their own cultural contexts.
• How multiple interpretations of individuals and subcultures blend to socially construct organizational reality.
7
Lingkung
Organi
an
sasi
8
SymbolicSymbolic--Interpretive Theories Interpretive Theories IncludeInclude::
Social Construction Theory (Berger & Luckmann, 1966)
Sensemaking Theory & Enactment (Weick, 1979, 1995)
Institutionalization (Selznick, 1949)
Reflexivity (Clifford & Marcus, 1986)
9
SensemakingSensemaking TheoryTheory ((WeickWeick, 1995), 1995)
Organizations exist in the minds of organizational members in the form of cognitive maps, or images of experience.
• We make them real in our actions (reification).
• We talk and act organizations into existence (enactment).
10
• A process at the individual, group, organizational, and cultural level—That builds on a “deep understanding” of a situation— In order to deal with that situation more effectively, through better judgments, decisions, and actions
• Sensemaking addresses key cognitive issues• Sensemaking* is about such things as
– Placement of items into frameworks– Comprehending– Constructing meaning– Interacting in pursuit of mutual understanding– Patterning– Redressing surprise
*Adapted from: Karl Weick, “Sensemaking in Organizations”
What is Sensemaking?
11
Sensemaking (Weick 1995, 2000)
Grounded in identity constructionRetrospectiveEnactive of sensible environmentsSocialOn-goingFocused on and by extracted cuesDriven by plausibility rather than accuracy
12
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
• Theorist: Karl Weick, Professor of Organizational Behavior and Psychology
• Basic premise: Organizing is a communicative activity directed toward the reduction of equivocality in information
13
• An organization must process information about its environment in order to function effectively (maintenance or adaptation).
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
14
• Information is equivocal when it can be given many different interpretations.
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
15
• Equivocal information may be ambiguousor conflicting.
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
16
• Equivocal information may be ambiguousor conflicting.
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
So what do you think of my new look?
Well…I think it’s very
interesting.
17
• Equivocal information may be ambiguousor conflicting.
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
So what do you think of my new look?
Wow! It’s really great!!
That’s just about the
ugliest thing I’ve ever seen!
18
• In an environment of unequivocal information (certainty), organizations can rely on established rules (assembly rules) and procedures to guide decisions and actions.
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
19
• All organizations face equivocality, and the degree of equivocality in the environment is constantly increasing...the world in becoming more and more complex.
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
20
• A quote: “The activities of organizing are directed toward the establishment of a workable level of certainty. An organization attempts to transform equivocal information into a degree of unequivocality with which it can work and to which it is accustomed.”
Weick, K. (1969). The social psychology of organizing.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
21
Sensemaking
Organizing Process Meliputi 6N:Nggumuni, Nitèni, Ngirani, Ngomongi, Ngembangké, danNgemongi.
: Organizing Process
RetentionEnactment SelectionEcological Change
+ + +
+ (+, - ) (+, - )
Sumber: Weick (1979: 132)
“How can I know what I think [retention] until I see [selection] what I say [enactment]”
22
• Stage One: Enactment– Enactment is creating the environment by
what you notice and how you assign it meaning
– Environment is not “what’s out there” but “what we know or believe to be out there”
– Organizational environments are socially constructed
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
Evolutionary Process of Organizing
23
• Stage Two: Selection– Assembly rules=organizational response recipes
• Acceptable in unequivocal environments
– Communication cycles=systems of double-interacts
• Act, response, adjustment• “Why has there been so much turnover in our sales force
lately?” “The new sales manager is really awful to work with.” “I hadn’t heard that. I’ll have to have a chat with him sometime soon.”
• Necessary in highly equivocal environments.
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
Evolutionary Process of Organizing
24
• Stage Three: Retention– Retrospective Sense-Making– Rationalized vs. Rational Behavior– Impacts future enactment and selection (p.
83)
Equivocality Reduction Theory:A Systems Application
Evolutionary Process of Organizing
25
Karakteristik:
(1) Berakar dalam Konstruk Identitas (Grounded in Identity Construction),
(2) Sosial (Social),
(3) Retrospektif (Retospective),
(4) Fokus pada dan oleh Isyarat Tersadap (Focused on & by Extracted Cues),
(5) Tanpa Jeda; Tanpa Awal dan Akhir (On Going),
(6) Terpaku pada yang Lebih Masuk Akal dari pada Akurasi (Plausible Rather than Accurate), dan
(7) Membangun Lingkungan Konstruk (Enactive).
Sensemaking
26
Weik’s Seven PrinciplesWeick, K. E.(1995). Sensemaking in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. P. 61-61
• Identities• Retrospective• Enactment• Social• Ongoing• Extracted Cues• Plausability
27
1. Identities- Many identities- Filters cues
2. Retrospective- Looking back- Verbalizing to confirm
3. Enactment- Speaking creates an object (concept)- Object is to be examined
28
4. Social- Who socialized me- How that was done
5. Ongoing- Sensemaking never stops
- Governed by identity- What I single out
6. Extracted Cues
7. Plausability- If it seems right – it is right- No alternatives evaluated- Search stops
29
Emerging View of C2 Process
Awareness
UnderstandingCommand Intent
Battlespace
Cognitive Domain
Physical Domain
Information Domain
BattlespaceMonitoring
Management
Synchronization
Operating Environment
Information Systems
Sensemaking
30
Why We Need Enhanced Sensemaking
• Ability to deal with– Emergent threats– Asymmetric situations– Unfamiliar situations– Dynamic situations
• Desire to employ new, more appropriate operational concepts and command approaches– Network Centric Operations– Effects Based Operations
• Ensure an open effective decision making process– Appreciate possible non-linear futures – Avoid premature closure– Evaluate new information appropriately– Reduce vulnerability to IO and deception
31
InformationDomain
CognitiveDomain
Physical DomainObjects/events
Data (representation)
Information (data in context)
Decisionprocesses
Directives•Requests for support•Queries•Reports•Efforts to consult
Actions
Planning•Missions•Assets•Boundaries•Schedules•Contingencies
Synchronization
Judgment PriorknowledgeMentalModels
Decision SupportModels & Tools
•Emotions•Physiological Factors•Beliefs•Perceptions
Sensemaking: Conceptual Framework
“Deep” understandingof situation•Cause and effect•Temporal relations•Dynamic futures•Opportunities & Risks
S h a r e d S h a r e d
Sensemaking•Values•Anticipated dynamicfutures
•Alternatives perceived
Command Intent•Choices among alternativesincluding contingent
choices•Choices to wait•Choices to seek information•Choices to consult others
S h a r e d
Constraints
RedBlue
S h a r e d
Capabilities &
Other
Intentions
Time & Space
Miss &ion
Environment
Uncert
ainty
Awareness
32
Data (representation)
Information (data in context)
InformationDomain
CognitiveDomain
Physical Domain
Objects/events
Decisionprocesses
Decisions•Choices among alternativesincluding contingent choices
•Choices to wait•Choices to seek information•Choices to consult others
Directives•Requests for support•Queries•Reports•Efforts to consult
Actions
Planning•Missions•Assets•Boundaries•Schedules•Contingencies
Synchronization
Judgment
RedBlue
Other
Capabilities &Intentions
Time & Space
Opportunities & Risks
Constraints
Miss &ion
Environment
Uncert
ainty
Shared Awareness
Sensemaking•Values•Anticipated dynamicfutures
•Alternatives perceived
“Deep” understandingof situation•Cause and effect•Temporal relations•Dynamic futures
Diagnosing Sensemaking
Was the right data collected?
Was it put together appropriately? (correlation, context)
Decision SupportModels & Tools
Was it put in a form that facilitates awareness?
Did the individuals develop appropriateSituational Awareness (SA)?
Was the SA shared?
Was shared awarenessof the situation
correctly understood?
Was Sense madeof the situation?
•Emotions•Physiological Factors•Beliefs•Perceptions
Diagnosing Sensemaking
PriorknowledgeMentalModels
Were the appropriate models and tools used?
Were emotions, beliefs and cognitive factors taken into account?
Were the decision and driving factors
shared?
Was command intent developed collaboratively
Was a quality plan developed?
Was the plan executed effectively?
33
Conclusions (1 of 3)
• For most cases examined, Sensemakingfailure is more often caused by – Misperceptions– Misinterpretations– Misunderstandings– Miscalculations– Miscommunications– Misorientation– Miscorrelation– Maldistribution– …rather than lack of data or information
And these are in the situations and mission areas we know best
34
Conclusions (2 of 3)
• For emerging situations and mission areas:– We lack fundamental data and mental models– We lack the institutional insights necessary to
understand and make sense in these arenas– We lack relevant education and training
• Suited to these situations and mission areas • Focused on important elements of the operating
environment (cultures, languages, countries, regional dynamics…)
And these are situations and mission areaswhere we are most likely to be engaged
35
Conclusions (3 of 3)
• Sensemaking is the essential link to information and decision superiority, but remains a weak link in the C2 value chain
• Our current investment strategy is focused on our strengths, not our weaknesses
• Without changing the way we invest, train, and do business, we will continue to be vulnerable to mission failure
36
Application 1: Organizational Inertia
• Strategic frames (schema) direct and limit attention
• Unquestioned routines guide daily decisions and actions, thus reinforcing schema
• Stable relationships limit access to new perspectives and information
• Shared beliefs and values limit questioning of decision premises and legitimacy of current practices
37
Application 2: Decision Heuristics
• The Anchoring Trap• The Status-Quo Trap• The Sunk-Cost Trap
(Escalation of Commitment)• The Confirming-Evidence Trap• The Framing Trap• Estimating and Forecasting Traps
– The Overconfidence Trap– The Prudence Trap– The Recallability Trap
38
Application 3: Managing Diversity
• Assimilation: Focuses on discrimination and fairness perceptions (eliminating differences)
• Differentiation: Focuses on acceptance of differences (matching organizational diversity to diversity of stakeholders)
• Integration: Focuses on leveraging differences as a source of substantive conflict, improved decision making, and creativity (recombinant knowledge)
39
Application 3: Facilitating Collective Sensemaking
• Leadership truly values varied opinions• Leadership emphasizes organizational
learning opportunities created by integration• Culture has high solidarity (clear mission and
high performance expectations)• Culture emphasizes personal development• Culture emphasizes substantive conflict• Organization structure supports egalitarian
norms, values, and processes
40
SENSEMAKING
Beliefs
Enactments Interpretations
Eureka asOrganizational
Innovation
Risk, UncertaintyKNOWLEDGE CREATING
Culturalknowledge
Tacitknowledge
Explicitknowledge
DECISION MAKING
Premises
Routines Rules
The Knowing Organization
Apply inOther Areas
Knowledge from France, Canada exp.
The Community isthe Expert System
The Community isthe Expert System
How do techniciansdo their work in practice?
Recommended