CITATION AND COPYRIGHT INFORMATION:
Cite as: Nelissen, P. (2003, May). Sense-Making Methodology in organizations: Connecting theory, policy, and practice. Paper presented at a non-divisional workshop held at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
© Paul Nelissen (2003).

INTRODUCTION:

• Management of communication in organizations has become a key factor.
• Is Sense-Making Methodology helpful in putting (communication-) policies into practice—and why?

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION STUDIES:
MAIN STREAM:

• Media/organization centered perspective: structuralism and functionalism dominate
• Communication as transmission: intention = content = effects (management instrument; top-down)
• Organization as unit of analysis

RESULTS:
DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES:
Effectiveness and efficiency of communication systems depend on:

• Structure, culture, management styles

Unable to predict or explain success and failure of (new) communication policies.

ALTERNATIVE:
SENSE-MAKING METHODOLOGY AS AN ACTION THEORETICAL APPROACH:

• Concept of organization
• Concept of information
• Concept of organizational communication

CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATION:

• “Corporate actors” interact within a well-defined context, creating and sharing knowledge, playing and taking roles, making sense.
• “Organization is the process of organizing and interpreting . . . in a way that leads to orderly action.” (Weick, 1979)

CONCEPT OF INFORMATION:
(Brenda Dervin: Sense-Making Methodology)

• Information as a construction: Clay formed into a shape of one’s own choice (and not as a thing: brick thrown into an empty bucket).
• Information has no meaning of its own, only within an organizational context.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION:

• Communication systems must enable employees to move through time-space, to define and express individual gaps, and to address information needs—on the way to fulfill individual and collective needs and goals.
• Policy and practice must be driven by theory and research.
• Everlasting, continuing dialogue between individuals and groups, aimed at defining and bridging gaps, sharing solutions.
• Employees will differ—but also have common perspectives: transaction and coorientation.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

• What kind of gaps face employees in their daily work?
• What is the experience or expected usefulness of information sources—how accessible are these sources?
• Do employees participate in communication systems both as receiver and as sender of information?

SENSE-MAKING METHODOLOGY:
We used Sense-Making Methodology in different case studies (200-500 employees):

• Non-profit: (local government) - health - education
• Profit: finance - insurance - communication

Some Results:
Meaning of dialogue, openness, transparency varies not only between management and employees but also within these levels.

Example: Openness

For management: Showing employees what they have to do or can expect in the future.

For employees: Being heard—participate in planning and implementing changes.

CONCLUSION:

• In order to determine the quality of communication (systems) in organizations, we have to focus on individuals and groups, finding their ways within the organizational context.
• Using action theories to predict and explain effects of organizational communication.
• Sense-Making Methodology:
  • Opens management’s eyes and ears—Aha
  • Is as theoretical as it is practical
  • Is as complex as it is simple, etc.
  • Gives helpful insights into key barriers in planning and implementing new (communication) policies

OTHER MATERIALS BY THIS AUTHOR ON THIS WEB SITE:
See: http://communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/AAauthors/authorlistnelissen.html