Abstract:
This article explores the application of Karl Weick’s sensemaking theory to the field of health and safety (H&S). It argues that traditional H&S approaches, rooted in engineering and behavioral models, often fail to address the complex, “wicked” problems inherent in real-world organizations. Weick’s sensemaking framework emphasizes the importance of understanding how individuals and groups interpret their experiences, highlighting the role of communication, shared meaning, and social interaction in shaping safety outcomes.
The article traces the evolution of safety management through the lens of sensemaking, illustrating how the field has gradually shifted from a focus on physical hazards and behavioral control to a more nuanced understanding of the role of culture and subjective interpretation in risk perception. It also outlines Weick’s key contributions to H&S, including his emphasis on the dynamic nature of culture, the importance of subjectivity and interpretation, and the need for empowered participation in safety decision-making. By challenging traditional assumptions and offering a more holistic perspective, sensemaking provides a valuable framework for improving safety practices and addressing the persistent challenges of significant injuries and fatalities in the workplace.
Making Sense of Health & Safety: As Envisioned by Karl Weick
“Argue as if you are right and listen as if you are wrong.” – Karl Weick (Unpublished Interview)
Welcome to the second installment of a series exploring the future of health and safety (H&S), also known as risk management. In this series, we’re delving into the work of thought leader from various disciplines to gain fresh perspectives on how to tackle persistent challenges in the health and safety (H&S) field. The first article focused on humble inquiry with social psychologist Edgar Schein. Today, we turn our attention to another influential figure, organizational psychologist Karl Weick, and apply his concept of sensemaking in H&S.
The curriculum for safety and health risk management is dominated by rationalist models that ignore the inherent complexity and ambiguity of human relationships and emotions in real-world organizations and their environments. Karl E Weick highlights how human interaction through `sensemaking′ shapes organizational structure and behavior. He proposed that reality is an ongoing process that takes form when people make retrospective sense of the situations in which they find themselves and take action to test it.
The idea that sensemaking is an abstract, academic “waste of time” comes from the H&S department. Those who believe this don’t understand that reaching a common understanding of why a problem persists is a crucial step in managing it. The current state of S&H, with its persistent significant injuries and fatalities (SIFs), is a testament to decades of sensemaking in H&S that has often been too insular and lacking in discipline.
To manage complex, “wicked” problems, we need a diversity of thought and approaches. The emphasis on manage highlights that wicked problems cannot be solved, they can only be managed. This means moving beyond the traditional engineering and behavioral models that have dominated the H&S field for decades. The belief that we can simply control behavior through rules, training, and incentives is an illusion—one we must let go of to achieve meaningful progress.
Sensemaking in H&S: A Path to Understanding Complex Challenges
“Language and Action…They hold events together long enough and tightly enough in people’s heads so that they act in the belief that their actions will be influential and make sense.” Weick
Here Weick underscores the power of language in shaping our understanding of reality and guiding our actions. It also highlights the importance of clear, unambiguous communication in creating a shared understanding of safety risks and procedures. He adds, however, that our conversations must be accompanied by action to have any effect. A common error in H&S is asking for feedback or ideas because you want people to own safety, then fail to act on those ideas or requests. Those actions rather than build understanding, build mistrust.
In essence, sensemaking is the process by which individuals and groups interpret and give meaning to their experiences. Weick’s work challenges the traditional sensemaking in H&S that takes a linear approach to problem-solving in safety, looking for a physical root cause and a straightforward solution. Instead, he emphasizes that reality is subjective and constructed through social interaction, where communication, feelings, emotions and shared understanding play crucial roles.
Sensemaking in the Evolution of Safety Management
“Failure presumes a lot of prior knowledge. Otherwise, how would you know whether a change represents failing?” Weick
The history of safety management itself is a prime example of sensemaking in action. Early safety engineers, faced with the grim reality of workplace accidents, focused on identifying and fixing physical hazards. When this proved insufficient, they added rules, regulations, and training programs to the mix. Accidents were reduced but persisted.
The rise of behavioral-based safety (BBS) in the latter half of the 20th century reflected a shift in sensemaking in H&S. Safety began to recognize the role of human behavior in accidents and sought to modify it through rewards, incentives, observation and feedback. However, this approach often neglected the underlying cultural and systemic factors that contribute to risky behaviors. This shortcoming fueled the creation of safety culture. Not many understood the nature of culture, but it along with leadership, always emerged as the root cause of major failures.
Weick’s Contributions to the H&S Paradigm Shift
Weick challenged the traditional problem solving views from engineering and behaviorism. He argued that accidents often result from a complex interplay of factors, including individual interpretations, organizational culture, and the way information is communicated. He emphasized that effective risk management requires a deep understanding of how people make sense of their environment and the factors that influence their decisions and actions.
This is a considerable step beyond risk matrices, which primarily focus on quantifiable risks. The risk matrix does not account for subjective perceptions influenced by personal experience along with cultural and organizational context. Per Weick, matrices neglect weak signals because they are focused on assessing known and foreseeable risks. Therefore, social interactions are not part of the risk assessment. This could explain why some employees ignore the information they are given on risks. It simply does not make sense to them. Easier to depend on experience or a trusted coworker for accurate risk assessment.
By challenging traditional assumptions and offering a more nuanced and dynamic understanding of culture, Weick’s sensemaking theory provided a new lens for approaching H&S. He developed valuable insights into how cultural assumptions influence the way individuals and organizations interpret events, make decisions, and take action. This challenge becomes obvious when trying to work in a foreign culture, such as a North American working in Brazil.
H&S managers working in foreign countries often try to apply the sensemaking assumptions from their culture to another continent. Of course, it doesn’t work because the underlying assumptions of the practitioner are different from those of the people they are working with. This can happen even in one’s native culture when communicating with someone in a different profession, different ethnic group or gender and myriad of other characteristics where a person’s life experience has given them a different set of assumptions.
By understanding the role of culture in sensemaking, we can better appreciate the challenges and opportunities involved in creating a shared understanding of risk in the workplace. Weick has been a part of changing H&S assumptions particularly in nuclear power and other high hazard industries. Some of his work is difficult reading. Thus, the aim of this series of articles is to make these emerging concepts more accessible to practitioners so that SIFs will finally begin to decline.
“As we try to map confusion and bring coherence to what appears mysterious, we are able to talk about what is happening, bring multiple interpretations to our situations, and then act. Then, as we continue to act, we can change the map to fit our experience and reflect on our growing understanding.” – Deborah Ancona via Sensemaking: Framing and Acting in the Unknown.
Conclusion
The concepts of embracing uncertainty, fostering adaptability, and promoting self-organization in managing complex systems require a seemingly massive shift in basic assumptions about the way the world works. Weick spoke of reality as an ongoing accomplishment that emerges from efforts to create order and make retrospective sense of what occurs. Reality is always changing. Having an open mind is essential for adaptation.
“Sensemaking is about the enlargement of small cues. It is a search for contexts within which small details fit together and make sense.” Weick
This quote emphasizes the importance of paying attention to seemingly insignificant details and understanding how they fit into the larger context. It also reinforces the idea that sensemaking is an ongoing process of interpretation and reinterpretation. He was a brilliant and incisive observer who drew insights from diverse professions. Always seeking to understand he had the ability to question the truisms of his era.
Early adopters or people that push these shifts into the general population have certain characteristics that enable them to see alternative realities. Alternative in the sense of being outside the traditionally accepted views. This leads us to the next article, which will focus on self-awareness and mindfulness. These are two of the underlying characteristics of successful change leaders.
Sources
https://libquotes.com/karl-e-weick/2
Dculberhouse. (2020),Sense making through uncertainty. downloaded from https://dculberh.wordpress.com/2020/04/26/sensemaking-through-uncertainty/
Ancona, D. (2011). Sensemaking: Framing an acting in the unknown. Handbook for teaching leadership: 3-19. SAGE Publications, Inc
Lyng HB, Macrae C, Guise V, Haraldseid-Driftland C, Fagerdal B, Schibevaag L, Alsvik JG, Wiig S. (2021). Balancing adaptation and innovation for resilience in healthcare – a metasynthesis of narratives. BMC Health Serv Res. Jul 31;21(1):759.
Malone, T.W. (1997). Is empowerment just a fad? Control, decision making and IT. MIT Sloan Management Review. Downloaded from https://sloanreview.mit.edu › article › is-empowerment-j…
Naji GMA, Isha ASN, Mohyaldinn ME, Leka S, Saleem MS, Rahman SMNBSA, Alzoraiki M. (2021). Impact of Safety Culture on Safety Performance; Mediating Role of Psychosocial Hazard: An Integrated Modelling Approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health.Aug 13;18(16):8568.
Simons, R. (1995) Control in an Age of Empowerment. Harvard Business Review. 73 no. 2: 8-88.
Weick, Karl E., Sutcliffe, K., and Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for High Reliability. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, pp. 81–123.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Blackwell publishing.
Williams, Damien & Noyes, Jan. (2007). How does our perception of risk influence decision-making? Implications for the design of risk information. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science.
