Sensemaking: The Role Of Leaders In Higher Education

Sensemaking: The Role of Leaders in Higher Education

Sensemaking: The Role of Leaders in Higher Education

Emily Moore

Baylor University

Sensemaking: The Role of Leaders in Higher Education 1

A leader at an institution of higher education, whether faculty or administrator, holds the

responsibility of sensemaking. Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (2005) describe sensemaking as a

process by which one organizes unclear information in order to interpret its meaning.

Sensemaking typically takes place as a result of an event or some sort of chaos. Leaders “make

sense of organizational change” (Eddy, 2003, p. 453) through reflection and interpretation. In

these circumstances, employees, students, or colleagues will look to their leader to explain the

situation and its meaning. To do this, the leader must label what has occurred in order to simplify

it for people. This does not mean that leaders should treat their followers as though they cannot

understand complex concepts; it simply means that the leader‟s job is to interpret and articulate

the events in a way that all followers can grasp. The most important aspect of sensemaking is not

what actually took place, but what it means; “sensemaking is not about truth and getting it right”

(Weick, et al., 2005, p. 415). The role of a leader in higher education is primarily symbolic

(Birnbaum, 1988, p. 29).

Figure 1 illustrates the sensemaking process. The leader receives feedback from followers

concerning one or more events. Some followers may even bring more than one problem on their

own (represented by the circles with two colors). Some of the events or problems are the same

(represented by circles of the same color), and some are different (see Figure 1.1). The leader

must then synthesize the information and interpret it for the followers to ensure that they all end

up with the same understanding of the circumstances and what they mean (see Figure 1.2).


Figure 1.1. Followers provide feedback Figure 1.2. Leader organizes and
after an event or problem takes place. interprets information, then
communicates it with followers.

Many tools exist to assist leaders with the sensemaking process. There are also certain

concepts of which leaders need to be aware before they attempt to interpret equivocal

information. The rest of this paper will address the concepts of systems, culture, communication,

and frames as both realities and tools for leaders to understand and use as they make sense in the

realm of higher education.

Understanding Systems

Colleges are organizations and systems. Systems turn inputs into outputs through a series

of known and unknowntechnical processes. Just so, colleges enroll students and put them

through different experiences to produce a college graduate, learned and prepared for the real

world (or at least, that is the hope). A system is made up of interconnecting parts that work

together; so is a college or university. There are myriad departments, administrators, and faculty,

among many others, who influence the institution‟s processes and outcomes.

There are two kinds of subsystems: technical and administrative. The two are in tension

with one another, but both are needed. The technical subsystem typically consists of faculty,


asthey are charged most directly with turning inputs into outputs. The administrative subsystem

is essentially administrators, who manage the faculty. The tension results from different views of

the members of these subsystems; for example, although all the members may hope for student

success, their methods and goals differ. However, they are required to work together toward the

broader goal of “student success.” Birnbaum (1988) calls this the “dualism of controls.”

Although it poses difficulties for decision-making, goal achievement, and many other

actions, the dualism of controls is better than no tension at all. If we consider how an institution

of higher education might attempt to operate without one or the other of these subsystems, we

can see that it would be dysfunctional. This is because, while the system of a college or

university canbe frequently bewildering dueto the many types of interactions possible, each

subsystem affects and is affected by the other. Amey (2006) says that higher education systems

are “web-like;” they do not follow a clear-cut hierarchy. Figure 2 below illustrates this concept

and its confusing nature.

Administratorsmanage the faculty, but faculty action impacts administrative action.

Administrators must also respond to external environmental factors, which in turn determine

administrative action. Administrators and faculty are on opposite sides of the equation in Figure

2, but they would be unbalanced without each other. Through the nature of their interactions,

they impact the way governance takes place.Because of all of these different connections,

management and governance need to be appropriate to the technical and environmental factors

present in the system.


Figure 2. College subsystems. There are many
factors and interactions within the system.

It is important to note that management in higher education is nothing like business

management. One reason for this is that lines of authority are less clear in colleges and

universities than they are in businesses. Control is contested, and participation is fluid.

Furthermore, multiple, ambiguous, and conflicting goals exist in higher education, and

employees are widely experts and “highly professionalized” (Birnbaum, 1988, p. 28).

Open and Closed Systems

Systems have other identifiable characteristics which help to classify and understand

them. First, a system is either open, closed, or a combination of the two. An open system has

flexible boundaries and interacts heavily with the environment. Inputs take many forms (people,

interactions, and resources) and are essentially impossible to control or predict. Processes are

nonlinear (Birnbaum, 1988). Higher education consists largely of open systems, although some

closed systems may exist among departments, for example.


A closed system, on the other hand, has rigid boundaries and restricts its interactions with

the environment. Inputs move through in a linear, simple progression. Outcomes are more

effectively predicted and controlled (Birnbaum, 1988). Closed systems are more likely to exist in

the business world or in a bureaucracy of some sort.

Loose and Tight Coupling

Coupling is the extent to which organizational subsystems are connected and to which

those connections are important; the degree of coupling corresponds to whether the system is

open or closed. Typically, an open system or subsystem has loose coupling; connections are

unclear, as are causes and effects. Loosely coupled subsystems have little in common and each

could change without significantly impacting the other. Tightly coupled subsystems have many

important elements in common, and changes in one impact the other (Birnbaum 1988).

When a leader knows the degree of connection, as well as the openness, of the system in

which he is operating, he will know whether he can expect clear outcomes or complex

interactions and effects. However, understanding the system is only one aspect of sensemaking.

At a college or university, because the inputs and outputs of the system are students, and because

the technical subsystem consists of faculty, the leader also must understand people.

Understanding People

To effectively reach people with an interpretation of the shared meaning of an event or

situation, a leader needs to know the perspectives, personalities, culture, and learning styles of

his followers.

The Four Frames

The four-frame model (Bolman & Deal, 2008) provides a helpful classification of the

different ways of thinking. Bolman and Deal demonstrate that “the same situation can be viewed


in at least four ways” (2008, p. vii), which are: the human resource frame, the structural frame,

the political frame, and the symbolic frame. The authors define a frame as a “mental model – a

set of ideas and assumptions – that you carry in your head to help you understand and negotiate a

particular „territory‟” (2008, p. 11). Leaders must learn how to “reframe” – to adjust their way of

thinking in order to see what another person sees; they must cultivate their ability to see things in

more than one way. Reframing is vital for leadership because if a leader sees correctly, he can

proceed to act accordingly.

Both administrators and faculty can improve their leadership through reframing; they will

be better equipped to understand their students, other leaders, employees, supervisors, and

themselves. Furthermore, followers may not know how to reframe, but if the leader does, he can

relate to all people as heapproaches each situation withthe knowledge that there are multiple

ways to work through a problem.

To further illustrate the frames, Figure 3 depicts a particular scenario: two hikers taking a

break on their journey. If a leader looks at this picture, he will see different truths, issues, and

solutions, depending on his frame.


Figure 3. A Frame Situation. Each framework will see something
different in the situation depicted.
The human resource frame.

The key elements of the human resource (HR) frame are care for the wellbeing of others,

concern for meeting needs, and hope for the thriving and fulfillment of individuals. Other words

to describe an organization within this framework are “collegial” (Birnbaum, 1988), “family”

(Bolman & Deal, 2008), or “caregiver” (Bolman & Deal, 2006). Bolman and Gallos (2011) use

the terms “servant, catalyst, and coach” (p. 89).

A leader who viewed Figure 3 through this frame would notice that the hiker on the left

has a hurt knee and needs either a bandage or ice. He would also see that the hiker on the right is

nearly out of water, although the pair is still far from reaching the summit of the mountain. He


would dress the wound and ask the first hiker to share water with the second. He would also

encourage the hikers to try again tomorrow, although he would acknowledge their

disappointment in not reaching their goal the first time. To lessen that disappointment, he would

engage them in a conversation about how to prepare, and he would express his confidence in

their abilities to try again and succeed.

In the human resource frame, there is a loop of “liking and interaction” (Birnbaum,

1988). The greater the interaction is, the greater the affinity between people. Furthermore,

affinity causes people to spend more time together. The situation amplifies itself to create tight,

internal subsystems of people. These subsystems are coordinated and well-integrated, and liking

one another is a vital element. When people like each other they find it easier to agree, and vice

versa.

The HR leader does his best to counteract anxiety among colleagues or students. His

followers appreciate his interpersonal skills, his guidance, and his investment in their lives.

The structural frame.

This frame focuses on dividing and coordinating work. A structural organization

recognizes clear goals and roles, and operates in a formal and rational manner. A structural

leader desires order, hierarchy, efficiency, and achievement. This is not to say that structural

leaders are impersonal; however, their focus is stability. Synonyms for structural are

“bureaucratic” (Birnbaum, 1988), “factory” (Bolman & Deal, 2008), and “analyst” (Bolman &

Deal, 2006).

A structural leader looking at Figure 3 would notice that the hiker on the left has a map

which lays out the course, and that the trail has mile markers to give them feedback on their

progress. He would ask the hikers what their target time is for reaching the summit. He would


also make sure they had equally divided whatever they had to carry between them and that each

of them knew what was expected of them. If they did not, he would help them plan ahead and

create rules or standards for the hike, as well as a role for each hiker.

The loop of interaction in a structural context involves superiors and subordinates.

Superiors give directives to the subordinates, who in turn provide feedback and reports to their

superiors. The hierarchy is clear, predictable, and orderly.

The analytical, structural leader is known for his rationality and fairness. He is organized

and articulate. His followers are glad that he cares about making good decisions and that they

can depend on his skills of thought and analysis.

The political frame.

The key characteristics of the political frame are scarce resources and the need for

negotiation over those resources. Negotiation is often a contest to see who can finish with the

most favorable outcome. This takes place between departments in higher education institutions,

as well as between different levels of leadership (such as the faculty, the trustees, and the

president). The phrase “scarce resources” evokes the idea of finances, and at a university this is

frequently the case. However, other resources may be employees, parking places, physical space,

or publicity. Other terms for the political frame are “jungle” (Bolman & Deal, 2008) and

“warrior” (Bolman & Deal, 2006).

A political leader would look at the picture of the hikers and observe that the one on the

left has no food (a banana), and while the right-hand hiker does, he has almost no water. The two

could share their resources with one another, but they would need to create an agreement over

how much would be shared, as well as when, and in what way. Furthermore, the leader would

see that the hiker on the right is not injured, and therefore can probably travel faster. The left-


hand hiker will move more slowly, thereby depleting the valuable resource of time. This may

become a source of contention between the pair, and what they decide to do would probably not

be completely satisfactory to both of them. The leader, however, would assist them with a

compromise and, as an incentive, remind them that if they work together, he will consider giving

them the next day off of work.

Interactions in a political system take place via coalitions. One person cannot achieve his

or her goals alone; therefore, his or her power and efficacy increases by joining with others. The

formation of coalitions is useful to an organization because it balances power, especially in a

more decentralized, loosely coupled institution (Birnbaum, 1988). Coalitions interact through

representatives who negotiate for them.

The political leader is competitive and persistent. He does not back down to a challenge,

but knows how to choose his battles. His followers admire his courage and the fact that he fights

for them when he negotiates.

The symbolic frame.

This frame‟s primary concern is meaning. The symbolic leader employs metaphors and

stories to engage his followers and communicate his vision to them. His is the most powerful

frame, although its function is abstract. His job is to “make sense of the chaotic, ambiguous

world” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, 248), and he uses symbols to do so. Symbols are socially

constructed and communicate an understood meaning in order to overcome confusion. The

symbolic frame effectively sums up the overall goal of leadership (sensemaking). Other authors

refer to the symbolic frame as “anarchical” (Birnbaum, 1988), “temple” or “theater” (Bolman &

Gallos, 2011), and to the leader as “wizard” (Bolman & Deal, 2006).


The symbolic leader would look through his frame at the scene of the hikers and see that

the hiker on the left is perplexed by the map because it does not seem to fit the trail the hikers are

currently following. He would point out that they are looking at the wrong portion of the map

and help them find where they are. He would also notice the pile of rocks to the side of the trail,

and probably add a few rocks to it to ensure that it wouldn‟t go unseen by hikers; that pile helps

hikers find the trail when it is hard to see. It is an understood concept for hikers, and one that

contributes to their sense of culture. This leader would discuss with the hikers their purpose for

their journey that day and would ask what it would mean to them if they reached the summit. He

would tell them a story of one of his own experiences, which would serve to encourage them as

they continued on their way.

The symbolic leader in an anarchical system has a difficult job; he is to make decisions

based on very little knowledge. His system consists of unclear correlations between groups,

decisions, and ideas. He may make a decision based on what he knows of a current situation‟s

problems, solutions or products, and participants (those involved), and his decision may seem

logical; however, it may be the only option, or even a fluke, and no one will truly know. What is

important is the mission and the unity and shared understanding of the group.

Followers of a symbolic leader will notice his active imagination and knack for new

ideas. His creativity inspires others, and he encourages his colleagues or students to see the

world in a different way and with new possibilities. They may consider him an idealist, but they

also know that, because he understands different viewpoints and people, he is wise.

The last step in using frames to interpret information, regardless of which frame the

leader uses, is to symbolize – to express meaning (Eddy, 2003). When a leader reframes, he


chooses to pay attention to certain things over others. His individual understanding affects the

way he expresses that understanding to others (Eddy, 2003).

Culture

The role of culture is especially important in the symbolic framework, but on a broader

scale it matters to every kind of leader and organization. Culture has many definitions. It is the

identity of a group. It is simply how things work, the way things are in an organization. It is a

“shared reality” (Eddy, 2006, p. 456), constructed for the sake of group understanding. It is

group behavior according to normative values and traditions, spoken or unspoken. Not only does

a leader need to understand the culture around him if he wants to help his followers reframe; he

needs to fit into that culture. If he does not, no one will follow his leadership.

Organizational culture is comprised of three different levels. The first, most easily

observed, is that of artifacts. Artifacts are apparent and observable traits of an organization such

as behaviors, as well as tangible products, language, and explicit values.

The next level consists of espoused beliefs and values; these are what the organization

claims as important. Values inform the organization‟s exhibited patterns of behavior, but they are

not necessarily equated with the actions the organization takes. The group‟s values are what they

believe should be the case, even if it is not currently so. The group adopts values after its

members see that those values are valid and provide workable solutions.

Finally, the deepest level of culture is basic underlying assumptions, which are unspoken

but understood. The assumptions determine how things really work, regardless of what the

organization says it believes or what it does. These are the ideas that the members of the group or

organization take for granted.


It is important to understand an organization‟s culture so as to work within it; going

against the culture will lead to frustration and misunderstandings.Leaders need cultural

awareness (Amey, 2006). The first step to understanding a culture is to learn the basic underlying

assumptions. At that point, the leader can proceed to understand the surface level patterns and

behaviors as well.

Learning Styles

The way a person learns is closely related to his or her personality, as well as his or her

framework and understanding of the world. A person‟s learning style is usually implicit in his or

her own mind; a leader needs to inquire about the way his followers learn and grow so that he

can better serve and guide them (or teach, as the case may be).

Kolb‟s theory of experiential learning can help leaders know how to support and

challenge those entrusted to them. A person‟s learning style is based on experience and

observation, and Kolb outlined a learning cycle to illustrate that learners move from one “stage”

to the next and need all of them to be effective. The four stages are concrete experience,

reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Evans, Forney,

Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010). Put in other words, they are feeling, watching, thinking, and

doing.

From these stages, Kolb created the four learning styles; each is a combination of two of

the stages, and each also correlates, though not explicitly or perfectly, to one of the four frames.

The accommodator learning style occurs when feeling and doing overlap; the accommodator is

focused on action but also easygoing and flexible. This style fits well with the human resource

frame because an accommodator wants to be involved with others and work with them in order

to carry out a plan.


The converger learning style combines doing and thinking, and therefore fits with the

structural frame. The converger prefers technical and analytical tasks, solves problems skillfully,

and confidently makes decisions.

The assimilator learning style consists of watching and thinking. Although this link is less

strong, the assimilator would most likely use the political frame because he or she can synthesize

and integrate observations. The assimilator also focuses on ideas rather than people, just as the

political frame focuses on resources and winning rather than on needs.

The diverger learning style, a combination of feeling and watching, correlates to the

symbolic frame; both are concerned with feelings and the imagination. The diverger is very

conscious of meanings and values, and creatively develops new ideas.

A leader who understands these different learning styles and watches for signs of them

will learn to identify which methods of communication work best for his followers.

Communication

A common theme in shared meaning making is communication. Sensemaking is

impossible without it. One has to learn where others are coming from; sensemaking may well be

a manifestation of empathy – the ability to understand the feelings of another. Problems are

opportunities to find solutions together. When a leader gives work to people to find a solution, he

empowers them to discover the solution,thereby crediting them with that discovery.

Honesty is vital to being an effective leader and communicator. It allows for trust to

grow and for shared meaning making to take place authentically. Honesty as a sensemaker

means asking direct questions and expressing what seems to be going on, in order to get

clarification. It means that leaders address what people mean behind what they say, rather than

their word choice. This kind of communication takes power away from what is unspoken and


subconscious by making it spoken and explicit. When concerns and thoughts are expressed and

heard in a context of honesty and civility, those involved will be better able to understand one

another and reason together.

Conclusion

One of the paradoxes of higher education is that inefficiency can actually lead to

progress. Because a leader‟s job is to sensemake, and not to control outcomes, he must let go of

control. Leaders have very little control over results, viewpoints, and even the system and

processes.Leaders certainly possess no control over culture.However, leaders have power.

Through sensemaking, they can persuade people to see things the way they do; they can also

reframe in order to see things the way others do. This kind of power is subtle; leaders use it

interpret problems as opportunities, and to create a shared vision for their system, organization,

or followers.

Leaders must also understand their need for self-development (Amey, 2006) if they are to

meet the needs of others. Using frames and learning styles as tools for understanding, leaders can

succeed in their primary function and do a great service to their followers.


References

Amey, M. J. (2006). Leadership in higher education. Change, 38(6), 55-58. Retrieved from

EBSCOhost.

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and

leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2006). The wizard and the warrior: Leading with passion and

power. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership

(4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Gallos, J. V. (2011). Reframing academic leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Eddy, P. L. (2003). Sensemaking on campus: How communitycollege presidents frame change.

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(6),453-471.doi:

10.1080/10668920390190619

Evans, N.J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of

sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

Sensemaking: The Role Of Leaders In Higher Education

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to Sensemaking: The Role Of Leaders In Higher Education

Similar to Sensemaking: The Role Of Leaders In Higher Education (20)

Sensemaking: The Role Of Leaders In Higher Education