Surprise results drive personal learning. The way an individual makes sense of results that go counter to expectations determines that person’s ability to learn from experience.

Surprise results drive performance improvements of a work group. The way a manager makes sense of disappointing performance results determines the effectiveness of the actions taken to better that situation.

Surprise results drive strategic organization change. The way a leader makes sense of such feedback determines the organization’s ability to become an adaptive organization, responding to change with agility and flexibility.

Despite the vital role of sensemaking of feedback/results in making sound decisions and initiating appropriate action, this process is not well understood or implemented. Some managers act without sufficient reflection, a situation known as ‘shooting from the hip’. Some managers delay action by getting lost in reflection, a situation known as ‘analysis paralysis’. In this article I describe three interdependent phases of sensemaking that managers can apply in order to act quickly and effectively.

PHASE ONE: SELECTING

Life is a continuous flow of experience. Out of this flow the manager must choose what to extract. What are viewed as surprise results by one person may be viewed as business as usual by another. The manager has to ‘notice’ the fact that sales are down, or ‘pay attention to’ the mistakes in the warehouse, or ‘focus’ on the complaints of certain customers. Particular cues have to be singled out as occasions for sensemaking.

The specific unexpected results that are selected determine the questions to be asked. Asking the right question lies at the core of sound decision making. The manager is setting the stage for defining a problem. One cannot attend to everything. The identification of the problem situation may be the most significant contribution of the manager. Managers set the problems to be faced when they take stock of ambiguous or uncertain information and select some surprise or disappointment that requires better understanding.

Leaders apply this process of selecting when they use ‘consciousness raising’ as a method of organization transformation. Consciousness raising commences with heightened awareness of what is taking place, especially awareness of how the organization is not satisfying the expectations of its stakeholders. Leaders who wish to introduce organization change must start with highlighting surprising differences between anticipation and current results.

PHASE TWO: INTERPRETING

A paradigm gap exists amongst social scientists between those who seek to ‘explain’ an objective reality and those who seek to ‘understand’ a reality that encompasses subjective perceptions. The former emphasizes an analytical approach and produces cause-effect generalizations. The latter emphasizes the "actors approach" and produces specific interpretations within a unique personal, interpersonal and cultural context. Holistic sensemaking that takes into account multifaceted information, belongs with the actors approach.

A manager has to spin a good story that puts the surprise results within a frame of reference. The manager constructs a plausible version of what happened, of what produced the outcome under consideration. In order to move to action quickly the manager tends to simplify interpretations. The manager builds his/her understanding of the new surprising results upon his/her past experiences, current beliefs, and future hopes. The manager offers a personal interpretation of the results, a version that may include but does not depend upon statistical explanations of causes.

Leaders apply this process of interpreting when they use ‘reframing’ as a method of organization transformation. Reframing means putting a new frame or new meaning around a situation being experienced. This new interpretation fits the set of ‘facts being selected’ equally well or even better. Reframing enables people to see the same things in a new light, beyond their current frame of reference. Reframing enables people to discard ineffective, ‘more of the same’ solutions.

PHASE THREE: PRESCRIBING

Making sense of surprise results should lead to action. Even if the surprises are in a positive direction, results far better than expected, actions are desired that would perpetuate this trend. Selecting what to focus on and interpreting these results are necessary but insufficient aspects of sensemaking. The actor or sensemaker should shift from describing what ‘is’ to prescribing what ‘ought to be’. The art of sensemaking also entails providing an action map of how to go from ‘is’ to ‘ought’.

A manager has a variety of ways to incorporate recommendations for action within the sensemaking context. The manager can prescribe:

• ‘What can be’ under existing circumstances, given an acceptance of what is.
• ‘What could be’ under changed circumstances.
• ‘What ought to be’ as ideals to strive toward.

A different understanding of a system occurs as one tries to change it. Managers can include the potentialities for change when they interpret or ascribe meaning to current results.

Leaders apply this process of prescribing when they use ‘envisioning’ as a method of organization transformation. Envisioning means setting a vision of a desired future for the organization. Organization development is viewed as the movement from current state toward this desired future. Leaders have to prescribe lines of action, the methods and procedures for moving toward this idealized vision.

In this article sensemaking has been presented as an activity of one individual. In organizations, group and organization-wide sensemaking may be prominent.