IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jomorg/v7y2001i2p41-49_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is The Sense We Take Equal To The Sense We Make? A Discussion on Sensemaking and Power in Organisations

Author

Listed:
  • Gordon, Raymond D

Abstract

Sensemaking is recognised as one of the key contemporary approaches to organisation studies. It not only responds to current debates in the field, but also appears to offer a way out of the unproductive and misguided paradigm wars of recent times. The sensemaking literature, however, addresses power implicitly. Sensemaking and the power-knowledge nexus is discussed, giving rise to an argument that suggests the sense people make in organizations may not be entirely their own. Rather, the sense people make may be largely constituted for them in the sense criteria (historical antecedents - constituted knowledge and codes of order) and the political context of the setting in and of, which they are making sense. Implications for managers and future research in regard to how people come to make the sense that they do are contemplated.

Suggested Citation

  • Gordon, Raymond D, 2001. "Is The Sense We Take Equal To The Sense We Make? A Discussion on Sensemaking and Power in Organisations," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 41-49, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:7:y:2001:i:2:p:41-49_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1833367200005204/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:7:y:2001:i:2:p:41-49_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jmo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.