Page 1 of 83
Sensemaking, Where Would
We Be Without It?!
The sensemaking process of
a crisis team during a crisis
13th of January, 2019 Jordi Bots
s2070367 Master Thesis Supervisor: Dr. W.G. Broekema Second reader: Dr. S.L. Kuipers Leiden University Word count: 23.976 (Excluding References and Appendices) 52.328(Including References and Appendices)
Page 2 of 83
Acknowledgements
After months of work, the time has finally arrived that I can write the final part of my thesis. This note of thanks marks the end of a period in which I developed myself both on an academic and personal level. Hereafter, I would like to say thanks to everyone how helped me throughout the process.
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Wout Broekema. You showed patience in my, sometimes, troublesome road towards finalizing my thesis and provided me with excellent feedback and concrete points for improvement. Secondly, I would like to thank my second reader Sanneke Kuipers for her guidance and remarks which helped tremendously.
In addition, I would like to thank my colleagues from the safety region who provided me with multiple opportunities and continuous support. From the Dutch Association of Mayors, I would like to thank Wouter Jong with whom I could share my thoughts regarding my master thesis.
I would also like to thank my parents and girlfriend, who supported me with love and encouragement. And finally, there are my friends, who were there for me to debate about thesis but also for relaxation and fun.
I sincerely thank you very much, everyone!
Jordi Bots
Page 3 of 83
Abstract
“Sensemaking, where would we be without it!?”, it might be interpreted as a cynical title. However, it emphasizes the importance of the sensemaking process while, at the same time, stressing its ambiguous nature. This thesis tries to analyse the sensemaking process of Dutch crisis teams in the Safety Region South-East Brabant and studies if this process is influenced by the type of crisis or society. Although sensemaking is a vital process during crisis team meetings (Weick, 1995; Mallender, 2016), it often receives less attention when compared to decision-making (Jong, Dückers, & Velden, 2016).
The aim of this study is to research if, and if so, to what extent, the type of crisis and societal influence affect the sensemaking process of a crisis team. As such, the research question is as follows: To what extent does the type and/or societal influence of a crisis affect the
sensemaking process within a crisis management team?. The type of crisis is related to either a physical (easy to anticipate the future) crisis or societal (harder to anticipate the future) crisis. Moreover, societal influence is related to the impact a society has on the sensemaking process of a crisis team the in regard to questions, protests, and political coverage.
The basis of this thesis of a comparative case study design and to answer the research question, three people of each crisis team were interviewed. Hereafter, their answers were verified with each other and the inquiry reports. The results of these interviews indicate that, especially, experience (retrospective) and team composition (identity) are influenced by two aspects of the type of crisis. however, it does not matter what type of crisis occurs. The impact of the societal influence on the sensemaking process is minimal as only the questions seem to influence the plausibility of the information. In sum, the type of crisis and societal influence both have a minimal impact on the sensemaking process.
On this basis, it is recommended that the Safety Region invests in practical exercises regarding municipal crisis teams to enhance the sensemaking process. Further research could point their attention towards Belgium crisis teams to study if the same aspects of the sensemaking process are influenced.
Page 4 of 83
Table of content
Acknowledgements ... 2 Abstract ... 3 Table of content ... 4 List of tables ... 6 1. Introduction ... 7 1.1. Research question ... 8 1.2. Academic relevance ... 8 1.3. Societal relevance ... 9 1.4. Thesis overview ... 9 2. Theoretical framework ... 11 2.1. Sensemaking ... 11 2.2. Types of crises ... 18 2.3. Societal influence... 20 3. Methodology ... 23 3.1. Research design ... 23 3.2. Case selection ... 24 3.3. Data gathering ... 25 3.4. Data analysis ... 27 3.5. Operationalization... 27 3.5.1. Sensemaking ... 28 3.5.2. Type of crisis ... 31 3.5.3. Societal influence ... 313.6. Validity and reliability ... 33
4. Analysis ... 35
Page 5 of 83
4.1.1. The sensemaking process ... 35
4.1.2. Type of crisis ... 40
4.1.3. Societal influence ... 42
4.1.4. Relation ... 44
4.1.5. Sub-conclusion ... 47
4.2. Case 2: Tire fire in Someren ... 48
4.2.1. The sensemaking process ... 48
4.2.2. Type of crisis ... 53
4.2.3. Societal influence ... 57
4.2.4. Relation ... 59
4.2.5. Sub-conclusion ... 62
5. Conclusion and discussion ... 64
Bibliography ... 68
Appendix 1: Summary of operationalization ... 73
Appendix 2: Background information ... 76
Appendix 3: Interview transcripts ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Appendix 3.1. Interview guide (Dutch)... 79 Appendix 3.2. Transcript Respondent A ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Appendix 3.3. Transcript Respondent B ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Appendix 3.4. Transcript Respondent C ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Appendix 3.5. Transcript Respondent D ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Appendix 3.6. Transcript Respondent E and F ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Appendix 3.7. Transcript Respondent G ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Page 6 of 83
List of tables
Table 1: Thesis overview ... 10
Table 2: Summary of the concept of uniqueness and uncertainty ... 41
Table 3: Summary of the concept of transboundary features ... 41
Table 4: Summary of the concept of duration ... 42
Table 5: Summary of the concept of impact on society ... 42
Table 6: Summary of section 5.1 ... 48
Table 7: Summary of the concept of uniqueness and uncertainty ... 54
Table 8: Summary of the concept of transboundary features ... 55
Table 9: Summary of the concept of built environment ... 56
Table 10: Summary of the concept of duration ... 56
Table 11: Summary of the concept of impact on society ... 57
Table 12: Summary of section 5.2 ... 63
Table 13: Operationalization of sensemaking ... 74
Table 14: Operationalization of the type of crisis ... 75
Table 15: Operationalization societal influence ... 75
Table 16: Overview of interviewees ... Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Table 17: Translated interview questions ... 82
Page 7 of 83
1. Introduction
“What the hell is going on?” is often the response of crisis managers when they enter the crisis center to take on an unfolding crisis. Such a crisis can put a strain on how people behave and how sense is made of this new situation. In our day-to-day life, we are faced with questions, uncertainty, and information overflow that we need to make sense of in order to make a decision. Luckily, in most situations we have time to make a rational decision based on our perception of what has happened. More importantly, the decisions we make are not usually connected to the loss of life, a huge societal impact, or negative long-term consequences. In contrast, a crisis provides elements that are sudden, can have a huge impact on society, and demand strong leadership to control. In almost all cases, a crisis is unexpected and stressful for crisis teams as they are in the ambiguous process of making sense of a certain situation (Boin, Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 2005). By giving a meaning to an unfolding situation, referred to by scholars as sensemaking, actors within a crisis team can try and put the puzzle together. Every actor has several pieces of the puzzle and perceives his pieces in a different way. The process of sensemaking serves to make sense of these puzzle pieces to move in the same direction and share the same concerns. Sensemaking, thus, is an irrefutable part of the crisis process since every crisis starts with creating an image of what has happened and what this will mean (Boin & Renaud, 2013).
This thesis concerns the concept of sensemaking and therefore depends on the work of Karl E. Weick. He studied how people within an organization or team make sense of an unfolding event and was also the first to introduce the term sensemaking. He sees it as a process in which a group collectively tries to make sense of a certain situation (Weick, 1995). He furthermore argues that a decision is the product of sensemaking. Especially within a crisis team, where a decision might have to be made without a complete image of the crisis or all the information, it is important to study how the team goes through the sensemaking process. The overwhelming effect, the complexity, and the ambiguity of a crisis can hamper the sensemaking process and therefore influence the decisions made in a crisis team. These decisions are felt in society and can have an impact on our day-to-day life.
The extent to which the sensemaking process is influenced by either the type of crisis or society remains unclear. Since much depends on how the sensemaking process evolves, this uncertainty can be regarded as a problem.
Page 8 of 83 1.1. Research question
The above leads to the following research question:
To what extent does the type and/or societal influence of a crisis affect the sensemaking process within a crisis management team?
To answer this research question, a comparative case study will be used to scrutinize two different types of crises (a physical and a societal crisis). Interviews with participants of a crisis team allow for further exploration into the sensemaking process. As this thesis examines two cases instead of one, I believe the results will be more credible, not the least because the crisis teams under study operated within the same safety region and had a similar structure. This master’s thesis focuses on three variables: the type of crisis and societal influence (independent variables), and the sensemaking process (dependent variable). In other words, this thesis assumes that, how the sensemaking process unfolds, is affected by the type of crisis. If a certain type of crisis can influence the sensemaking process, we might need to consider a different strategy.
1.2. Academic relevance
Previous research by Weick (1995) identified seven important properties of sensemaking: identity, retrospective, enactment, social, ongoing, cues, and plausibility. These are fully explained in the theory section. These properties are also underlined (and used) by several other scholars (Soffe, S., & Schwandt, David, S., 2002; Marshall, S., 2016; Gundersen, I. A., & Hansell, J. H. E., 2013; Murray, W. C., 2014), and serve to guide the analysis in this thesis. However, since 1995 sensemaking has been an under-researched topic, especially within crisis situations (Gundersen & Hansell, 2013). While many studies have focused on why sensemaking is an important yet difficult process, only a few have examined how to overcome these difficulties (Mallender, An Evaluation of Sensemaking in Crisis Contexts: An Organizational Perspective, 2016).
Many studies about sensemaking are related to organizational change during crises (Maitles, 2005; Mills, Thurlow & Mills, 2010; Kurtz & Snowden 2003) and not so much to crises that have an impact on society. However, research that does focus on such crises concerns the operational teams instead of the strategic crisis teams. Thus, the complexity that strategic crisis teams face during the sensemaking process is under-researched. Moreover, Jong,
Page 9 of 83
Dückers, and Velden (2016) argue that sensemaking overall receives less attention in comparison to decision-making and leadership skills. This does not coincide with the importance of sensemaking, as decisions are based upon this process.
Given the lack of research on this specific topic, the academic relevance of this thesis is in further enhancing knowledge about the sensemaking process. Furthermore, another point of relevance concerns the operationalization of the concept of sensemaking, since to date little has been written about it (Roskam, 2009, Gundersen & Hansell, 2013; Úlriksson, 2012). Specifically, this thesis aims to make a step in the direction of operationalizing the seven properties of sensemaking. Furthermore, by investigating the sensemaking process I hope to make a valuable contribution to this partly unexplored theory with regard to complex ad-hoc events, better known as crises.
1.3. Societal relevance
Decisions made during a crisis are a product of the sensemaking process (Weick, 1995) and can have a direct (or indirect) impact on society (Erikson & Tedin, 2014). This research underpins key elements (properties) of the sensemaking process that act as a foundation on which sense is made. Therefore, the primary contribution of this thesis to society resides in certain focus points for a crisis team to enhance its sensemaking. This might lead to decisions based on a solid sensemaking process. Thus, research on the sensemaking process has firm societal relevance. Furthermore, the collective sensemaking process can be hampered by the individual sensemaking process of the participating disciplines (B. Peute, Personal communication, 2018). Namely, the puzzle pieces that individuals provide can influence the collective task of solving the complete puzzle. Moreover, the book ‘Lessen uit crises en
mini-crises’ argues that it is vital to scrutinize what we can learn about different types of crisis
situations (Duin & Wijkhuijs, 2017).
1.4. Thesis overview
The rest of the thesis is organized as follows. First, the theoretical framework is presented in which the theory of sensemaking, the different types of crises and the societal influences are described. Next, in chapter 3, the methodology elaborates upon the research design, case selection, data gathering, data analysis, operationalization, and validity and reliability. If the reader is not familiar with the subject of Dutch crisis teams, I suggest reading Appendix 2 to gain a broader understanding before continuing with chapter 4. Hereafter, in the analysis, I
Page 10 of 83
examine two cases and scrutinize whether or not the type of crisis or the societal influence affect the sensemaking process. Then, I connect the two chapters by studying if the sensemaking process is related to certain key elements of the type of crisis and societal influence. In the concluding chapter, I answer the research question. The references and appendices complete the thesis. Table 1 provides a reading guide.
Chapter Content
Theoretical Framework Sensemaking
Type of crises
Societal influence Methodology Research design
Case selection
Data Analysis
Operationalization
Validity and reliability
Analysis Case one (robbery of a local jewelry store in Deurne) o The sensemaking process
o Type of crisis o Societal influence o Relation
Case two (tire fire in Someren) o The sensemaking process o Type of crisis
o Societal influence o Relation
Conclusion and discussion Conclusion
Discussion
o Shortcommings o Practical implications
Page 11 of 83
2. Theoretical framework
This chapter presents the framework that forms the basis for answering the research question. I use the sensemaking theory, which focuses on how we collectively make sense of a developing situation. Lastly, I elaborate on the various types of crises that might impact the
sensemaking process.
Crises are often characterized as events in which there is a high degree of uncertainty, confusion, and possibly fear, placing a significant demand on sensemaking (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). Decision-makers are then faced with challenging questions and have little to no time to gather all relevant information (Sayegh, Anthony, & Perrewé, 2004). Furthermore, Sayegh et al. (2004) argue that not all information is usable: some information proves to be complete, while other information is inaccurate and confusing. Information gathering during a crisis plays an important role in shaping the crisis response, sensemaking, and decision-making (Jain, et al., 2014). The initial perception of a crisis is often not changed or questioned by a crisis team (Sayegh et al., 2004), but the process of information gathering and information perception in combination with how certain phenomena are interpreted can influence this first image (Brown, 2000). Furthermore, in this process the group tries to rationalize developing images in the (social) environment to analyze what people are doing (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). How the sensemaking process is conducted can be influenced by many factors. This thesis examines whether or not the type of crisis and the society can influence the sensemaking process.
2.1. Sensemaking
Sensemaking is about contextual rationality (Weick, 1993), which means that the reason for action and the causal efficiency of action are not the sole elements that explain if that action was rational (Townley, 2008). Instead, those elements should be seen in the context in which the action takes place to determine whether an action was rational or not (Townley, 2008). In this thesis, I consider sensemaking as a process and not an outcome. Sensemaking is defined as “the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people
are doing” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005, p. 409).
Sensemaking is one of the most important aspects of crisis communication and managing a crisis as a whole (Weick, 1995; Mallender, 2016). As crises are unforeseeable and jolt leaders in many ways, there can be a lack of cooperation in putting the ‘puzzle’ together because all
Page 12 of 83
actors have their own piece (Boin, Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 2005). It is in these crises that leaders themselves need to make sense of an unfolding situation that they find very stressful (Boin et al., 2005). Based on the definition provided above, in this study I define sensemaking as how people jointly make sense of collectively experienced events based on their expertise, available information, and perception in order to rationalize their actions. In other words, sensemaking refers to certain processes that focus on interpretation and the production of a meaning, where people interpret unfolding events and create a coherent response (Currie & Brown, 2003), thus collaboratively making sense of a situation.
Research on sensemaking can be roughly divided into two streams (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). According to Maitlis and Sonensheim (2010), the first stream concerns how sensemaking unfolds during a crisis. The second stream, which is the focus of this thesis, examines how sense can be made of a crisis after it has happened, and often derives from public inquiry reports and interviews (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). Jong et al. (2016) found that, among others, sensemaking received less attention in the articles they analyzed with regard to leadership tasks. Sensemaking, but also decision-making and learning, remain under-examined to this day (Jong, Dückers, & Velden, 2016). Moreover, there is little research about sensemaking in crisis teams that work with complex (ad hoc) situations (Gundersen & Hansell, 2013). Therefore, it is interesting to study how sense is made at a strategic level during a crisis situation and how the type of crisis can influence this process.
A characteristic of many crises is that small mistakes/events become connected to each other and are amplified (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010), and that “[...] the world does not present itself directly in its ‘raw’ form” (Cornelissen, Mantere, & Vaara, 2014, p. 699). This means that we interpret the world and use our cognitive frame to ground our perceptions. Thus, a successful or unsuccessful attempt to solve a crisis depends on how a crisis team collectively (re)frames the unfolding events as a basis for its actions (Cornelissen, Mantere, & Vaara, 2014).
The world of strategic crisis management differs from its operational counterparts. Whereas a first response team goes to the physical crisis location (if there is one), the political and administrative executives go to a crisis center filled with whiteboards, computer screens, and telephones. From this crisis center, they try to oversee the whole operation and direct the multi-disciplinary crisis response. Their sensemaking process is different from that of the
Page 13 of 83
operational teams on five distinctive levels: time, information, information partners, media, and politicization (Boin & Renaud, 2013). Those five levels are intertwined with what Weick calls properties.
Weick (1995) argues for seven properties of sensemaking that distinguish it from other explanatory processes: identity, retrospective, enactment, social, ongoing, cues, and plausibility. Within this master’s thesis, the names are refined to better suit the content of each property and improve the clarity of the analysis structure. Weick refers to sensemaking as a framework “to understand how people cope with disruption” (Weick, 1995, p. 5). These properties, however, are to be seen as a set of ideas that explain the process of sensemaking and serve as a way to observe how sensemaking works in complex situations (Mills, Thurlow, & Mills, 2010). Weick’s properties are also used and underlined as a theory by several researchers to investigate the sensemaking process in complex situations (Marshall, S., 2016; Gundersen, I. A., & Hansell, J. H. E., 2013; Murray, W. C., 2014; Mills, J.H. et al., 2010). Complexity is a key component of almost any crisis and has an impact on the sensemaking process (Gundersen & Hansell, 2013). Therefore, the process can be more or less complex. Humans are able to change a complex situation into one that is maintainable in such a way that it can become predictable (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003).
The framework proposed by Weick (1995) is the backbone of this thesis. The framework is not very ‘user-friendly’, but it provides a more in-depth look into how people behave in complex situations. Weick’s seven properties are an essential part of this thesis to analyze the sensemaking process. They are further explained below.
Team composition (Identity)
One of the properties in Weick’s work is identity. Since sensemaking is a subjective process, it will always be influenced by the identity of those who are in place to manage the crisis. The identity of an individual is closely related to the organization for which he works, foremost because this identity is composed of the beliefs and views of the organization (Weick, 1995). The image, either positive or negative, that people in a crisis team have of each other’s organizations can smoothen or roughen the sensemaking process. Sensemaking is never done by one person: it is a collective task influenced by the group, which can fluctuate in size (Weick, 1995). The more people act within a crisis team, the higher the chance is that they
Page 14 of 83
will have a certain image of each other. Thus, the number of information partners in a crisis team can have an impact on the sensemaking process.
Past experience (Retrospective)
The retrospective property derives from the saying that “actions are known only when they have been completed, which means we are always a little behind or our actions are always a bit ahead of us” (Weick, 1995, p. 25). This means that we act and then examine our action; thus, we do not see what happens until it has happened. Knowing that our perception lags behind, we can use our interpretation of future scenarios as a basis for future actions (Soderberg, in Murray, 2014). The sensemaking process is influenced by the way the members of a crisis team use their experience. Looking back at previous incidents allows for the construction of a platform for action that can be used in the evolving crisis (Boin & Renaud, 2013). This means that the interpretation of future scenarios is influenced by the experiences of the past. Hence, a glance in the past can make the current situation clearer and provide order within the sensemaking process. Drawing on past experiences can thus have an influence on sensemaking.
Information processing (Enactment)
People create narratives to understand the environment they are in, allowing them to guide their thoughts and structure their experiences and meanings (Murray, 2014). Bracketing (slicing in multiple parts so they can better deal with the situation (Gundersen & Hansell, 2013)) these experiences and meanings creates a preconceived context, further enhancing the already existing perception they have of an environment. For a meaning to be legitimate, it has to be the basis for an action since only then can it have an effect. A striking example is proposed by Murray (2014), who argues that an eight-sided red sign has no specific meaning, yet in the context of traffic it is related to the action of stopping. Thus, the meaning that is collectively given to this sign creates an action which makes the meaning legitimate. Since enactment focuses on the collectively created environment, it can hamper actions that are based on a certain view.
When individuals interpret an environment, they tend to create what they expect to find. This bracketing of meanings is along the lines of a natural pattern of human sensemaking (Weick, 1995). Information plays a considerable role when crisis teams create such an environment. Therefore, it is important to bracket the incoming information into different sections to make
Page 15 of 83
sense of it all (Gundersen & Hansell, 2013). But where operational teams can actually feel and see the crisis, strategic teams have to imagine it and thus often crave information (Boin & Renaud, 2013). The strategic teams include people who have obtained valuable (yet often incomplete) information through their chain of command that can contribute to the sensemaking process (Boin & Renaud, 2013). Boin and Renaud argue that the lack of information, or an information overflow, can influence the way a crisis team perceives the context of an unfolding event, and can thus have an impact on the sensemaking process. In other words, lack of information or an information overflow influences how do they use and process the information to make sense of an unfolding crisis.
Leadership and actors’ agendas (Social)
Sensemaking is not an individual process; instead, it is done within a society/group. Sensemaking is thus a social process in which participants interpret the environment with each other (Maitlis, 2005). Discourse within the team can influence an individual’s perception. Crisis management teams can be seen as a temporary organization of people who all have different agendas but the same goal. The interaction between those actors and their meaning play a vital part in the sensemaking process (Gundersen & Hansell, 2013). Putting all pieces together to collectively make sense of an unfolding event creates multiple perceptions, making it challenging to solve the puzzle (image) of a crisis. Crises can be a way to display political power and effective leadership, but they also allow critics to question the response or expose a political agenda (Boin & Renaud, 2013). Members of a crisis team may interpret a crisis in a different way because of their agendas, which can influence the sensemaking process.
Time horizon and timing of decisions (Ongoing)
Unlike a regular process, which has a beginning and an end, sensemaking has no clear start or end. This means that there is often no real time perspective, or that it is difficult to assess how much time a crisis will to take. The assessment of a crisis team about the duration of a crisis can influence the sensemaking process. A crisis team is always in the process of making sense and during a crisis, there is no point at which it stops: “[...] they are always in the middle of things” (Gundersen & Hansell, 2013, p. 37). This process is like a river: it continues to move forward, either fast or slowly, but without a change or disruption we do not notice that it is moving (Murray, 2014). Such a change can influence the perception of a crisis team as it no longer fits the frame to which the team is accustomed (Murray, 2014). However, within a
Page 16 of 83
crisis team on a strategic level, there are usually no split-second decisions to be made, and therefore there is more time to think (Boin & Renaud, 2013). Boin and Renaud further argue that in the initial phase of a crisis, only a few strategic decisions need immediate attention, but this can change over time as the crisis unfolds. The “speed” with which the “river” flows is related to the amount of information a crisis team needs to make sense of and therefore influence the sensemaking process.
Information selection and processing (Cues)
A vital part of the sensemaking process emerges when a decision is taken. It is important not to look at the decision itself, but rather at the circumstance (cue) that led to that decision. A cue is an event or trigger that influences the sensemaking process. A cue can, for example, be the fact that a missing person from a nursing home is a convicted child molester; this changes the way a crisis is perceived. Asking how a decision was formed instead of why it was made is vital to identify cues to understand what enhanced the sensemaking process (Gundersen & Hansell, 2013). Within this process, it is important to examine how actors notice the cues that are dependent on the context that they are in. The context can affect either what is noticed as a cue or how such a cue is interpreted (Weick, 1995). The vast number of cues people are confronted with are filtered by the individual’s own interest, focus, or perception. The cues individuals notice allow them to create a framework to analyze what is disrupting the “normal day of life” (Murray, 2014).
How and in what amount information is distributed can alter people’s perception of a certain crisis (Sweetser & Metzgar, 2007). Sweetser et al. (2007) argue that if more information is communicated, the perception of a crisis decreases. Furthermore, there is a cap on how much information one can process at any given time (Walumbwa, Maidique, & Atamanik, 2014). In addition, as with almost any crisis, the media plays a considerable role in the sensemaking process. Social media has a substantial impact on crisis communication too, and this kind of media quickly starts to play the “blame game’ (Schwarz, 2012). The media also makes sense of the crisis and considers the measures taken by the crisis team. Moreover, media outlets bring their results to the attention of the strategic crisis team through the questions they have (Boin & Renaud, 2013). These questions can fuel the information search and provide cues upon which the crisis team can take action (Boin & Renaud, 2013). However, if the perception is biased, situations change, or there are too many cues, cues can become unstable
Page 17 of 83
and individuals might lose their understanding of what is going on, which influences the sensemaking process (Murray, 2014).
Information assessment (Plausibility)
Weick (1995) argues that there is no need to know everything. Thus, working with a meaning that is plausible rather than completely accurate is important (Weick, 1995). However, a plausible meaning must consist of a certain degree of credibility and acceptance, and has to be “good enough” to justify an action (Murray, 2014). This is because 1) individuals continue to extract cues that affect their decision, 2) individuals link present cues with cues that were extracted before, and 3) often there is no time to rely on accuracy before they make a decision (Weick, 1995). The latter all drives on the basis of how a team can create a meaning from extracted cues, and whether that provides enough certainty to take action. Within many crises, decisions can quickly become politically influenced when certain values are at stake (De Wilde, 2011). Those values can influence the sensemaking process as political leaders will try to offer a credible narrative to the public, where facts matter less than argumentation (Boin & Renaud, 2013). Boin and Renaud also argue that political leaders might thus interpret a crisis in such a way that it is “explainable” to the public.
Weick (1995) summarized the above properties to illustrate the concept of sensemaking as follows:
“Once people begin to act (enactment), they generate tangible outcomes (cues) in some context (social), and this helps them to discover (retrospect) what is occurring (ongoing),
what needs to be explained (plausibility), and what should be done next (identity enhancement).” (Weick 1995, p. 54)
Although these properties are the framework of this thesis, they are not all evenly addressed in the analysis of the data. We cannot expect all properties to present themselves equally within the selected cases. However, it is important to explain all properties to gain a better understanding of sensemaking.
In sum, sensemaking is a cognitive process that starts when a sensemaker reacts to a cue. This cue is then framed to give structure to an unfolding situation, and labelled to categorize it. Sensemaking can thus be used to analyze the search for information needed to make sense of an unfolding crisis. Moreover, it provides us with handles to further increase our
Page 18 of 83
understanding of how collective sensemaking works, where it fails, and how we can improve this process as a whole. However, I argue that the type of crisis directly impacts the sensemaking process and thus plays a substantial part in the crisis response and sensemaking process.
2.2. Types of crises
Crises often consist of an element of surprise that endangers organizational values and limits decision-making (Deverell, 2010). Due to the complexity of the modern-day crisis, it is increasingly difficult for crisis teams to manage the unfolding event (Rosenthal, Boin, & Comfort, 2001). In this thesis, a crisis is defined as “a situation faced by an individual, group or organization which they are unable to cope with by the use of normal routine procedures and in which stress is created by sudden change” (Booth, 1993 cited in Al-Dahash, H., Thayaparan, M., & Kulatunga, U., 2016, p. 1192). From this definition, four characteristics can be derived: unexpected, creating uncertainty, a threat to important goals, and a need for change (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 1998). Seeger et al. later added a short decision time as another characteristic.
Rosenthal et al. (2001) argues that uncertainties are fed by complex and substantive conditions/characteristics of a crisis. This can result in a discrepancy between the definition and the characteristics of the crisis, and can hamper the crisis response. The lack of information, a wrong definition, the duration, or a change in the nature of the crisis can also distract attention from what is truly unfolding. Rosenthal et al. argue that adoption of the definition of the crisis can take quite some time. Crises, Rosenthal et al. explains, are characterized by a sudden increase in information and communication flows. Thus, when the definition of a crisis is unclear, or it is uncertain what type of crisis the organization/society/environment is exposed to, the sensemaking process can be negatively impacted. Rosenthal et al. argue for a two-phase model of crises. First, in the development phase, a crisis can escalate. Escalation can result after a smoldering process in which a crisis gradually “creeps up” to explode, or can be a sudden event which abruptly throws an organization/society into trouble (Rosenthal, Boin, & Comfort, 2001). Given the focus of this thesis, this phase does not receive any further attention. The second phase encompasses the crisis response and is deemed the acute phase. It is in this phase that the elements Rosenthal et al. and Seeger et al. describe as characteristics of a crisis threaten the basic values of society and create uncertainty and urgency. The impact on society might be instant or delayed, but
Page 19 of 83
does happen. These two phases are also part of Smith’s (1990) three-phase model, the third being the post-crisis phase. During this phase, the goal is to evaluate the crisis, legitimate the actions, and cope with possible consequences (Smith & Sipika, 1993). Post-crisis impacts are more often seen with societal crises as they tend to garner more attention from political parties and foreign government (Boin, 't Hart, & McConnell, 2009).
In the future, crises will develop a more compounded nature, meaning that they will evolve into new forms we did not have before and become self-perpetuating (Rosenthal, Boin, & Comfort, 2001). This kind of crisis will force us to rethink our response/approach and re-evaluate our priorities. In his study, Rosenthal (2001) describes four “critical trends” of future crises: transnationalization, mediazation, technological developments, and dissipation of state authority. Mediazation and dissipation of state authority are especially interesting for this research. Future crises will increasingly need to cope with the media. Rosenthal et al. argue that the media can impact the process of defining situations and can make a relatively small accident a nationwide tragedy. Furthermore, Rosenthal argues that media will cover two kinds of crises: those with physical impact (casualties and physical damage) and those with societal impact. Dissipation of state authority is the final trend Rosenthal et al. (2001) describe; it concerns the role the state/government fulfils during a crisis. The public often looks to the government for its response during a crisis. However, the public will also develop an increasingly critical attitude towards the government, and Rosenthal argues that this might lead to a loss in legitimacy. In turn, this can ultimately result in a lack of support and might diminish the governmental ambitions to prevent future crises, leaving room for private actors to enter the public crisis management domain (Rosenthal, Boin, & Comfort, 2001).
The section above summarized three phases of a crisis and the trends proposed by Rosenthal concerning how a crisis can unfold. Regarding the type of crisis, Christensen, Laegreid, and Rykkja (2016) argue that many typologies find their basis in the causes (Rosenthal and Kouzmin 1993; Boin, 2005; Boin, McConnell and ‘t Hart, 2008). However, there are two dimensions that are more important in determining what type of crisis is unfolding. The first is the degree of uncertainty and uniqueness, and the second is the degree of transboundary features (Christensen, Laegreid, & Rykkja, 2016). Cristensen et al. (2016) argue that one type of crisis is predictable and another is not. This refers to the degree to which a crisis team can predict and anticipate the path the crisis will follow. The two dimensions provided by
Page 20 of 83
Christensen et al. are important since they can provide information about the complexity of a crisis.
This typology is used since one cannot simply categorize a relatively modern crisis into a certain type (Mickers, 2017). Therefore, the concepts used in this thesis are related to Christensen et al.’s (2016) degree of uncertainty and uniqueness, and degree of transboundary features. These concepts result in two types of crises:
Type I (physical) is more predictable, and one can anticipate the course of the crisis. Type II (societal) is less predictable and one cannot, or can to a lesser extent,
anticipate the course of the crisis.
The types provided by Christensen et al (2016) are also underlined by Gundel (2005), who similarly distinguishes between easy- and hard-to-predict/anticipate crises. Gundel argues that social crises are difficult to influence and predict, while physical crises are easier to influence yet still somewhat challenging to predict. When a crisis is more uncertain, transboundary, and unique, a crisis team will face more difficulties in its performance and thus sensemaking process (Christensen, Laegreid, & Rykkja, 2016).
Furthermore, the IFV (Institute for Safety) acknowledges seven different crisis situations: natural environment, built environment, transportation, healthcare, social environment, technological environment, and vital infrastructure. This thesis elaborates more upon the built (physical) environment and social environment, as both selected cases are related to these kinds of crisis situations. When discussing the built environment, one can think of vital buildings that are mentioned on a risk assessment chart. For instance, a fire can have an impact on domains such as health, safety, and environment. The social environment is more related to the social domain and thus to public unrest, panic, and protests (Bakker, Ruiter, & Koopmans, 2018).
Based on the literature review above, an overview of the characteristics of a crisis is presented in Section 3.5.2. This provides guidance in choosing two crises for further research in this thesis.
2.3. Societal influence
Crises in the public domain are inherently prone to having a societal impact. Conversely, the society can also influence the crisis response. Burdge and Vanclay define societal impact as
Page 21 of 83
“[...] the consequences to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet their needs and generally act as a member of society.” (as cited in Maas & Liket, 2011, p. 5) This means that the societal impact is created by a response of the government that can influence our day-to-day life. However, this definition says nothing about the impact the crisis itself has on society. Therefore, for this thesis, Burdge and Vanclay’s definition is supplemented with the intended and unintended social consequences of a sudden change in the environment proposed by Maas and Liket (2010). Thus, the definition used in this research is the intended and unintended social consequences of a sudden change in the environment “[...] to human populations of any public or private actions that alter the ways in which people live, work, play, relate to one another, organise to meet their needs and generally act as a member of society” (Burdge and Vanclay, as cited in Maas & Liket, 2010, p. 5). This is also related to the characteristics of a crisis posed by Seeger et al.: unexpected, creating uncertainty, a threat to important goals, a need to change, and a short decision time. Thus the impact a crisis has on society can be translated to an influence the society has on a crisis team as the two interact.
Potma (2016) studied the most important indicators of societal influence, three of which are especially important for this thesis: safety, housing, and health. These have a significant connection with the effects a crisis might have on a society. A crisis can have an impact on the housing of people: it can affect the availability of houses (refugee crisis), but it can also force people to move due to certain circumstances (a toxic cloud). For instance, specific areas surrounding a disaster site may have to evacuate. Safety can also influence the societal impact. The need to feel safe is part of the second tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and a significant part of an individual’s life. When this need cannot be guaranteed, it influences the way people feel and behave (Slovic, Lichtenstein, & Fischoff, 1984). The last indicator is related to health. Health can be affected by the crisis itself or by the aftermath. This mainly encompasses the concerns people have about their health, either mental or physical.
However, the impact on society should not be overestimated: society’s resilience is an important given during any crisis (Hossain, et al., 2010). Societal resilience assumes that people have the resources and the capabilities to cope with an unfolding crisis. Even though a crisis can have a significant impact on society, citizens will often find a way not to have to depend on the government. Nevertheless, society expects concrete actions and decisions, and thus crisis teams heavily depend on society’s reaction (Ancona, 2012). The indicators
Page 22 of 83
described in the previous paragraph are related to the impact a crisis might have on society. However, this also works the other way around and the society can also have an impact on the sensemaking process: crises can evoke a storm of questions and emotions in people related to the three indicators (Potma, 2016). Moreover, the ways in which they pose those questions are important benchmarks for a crisis team. The coverage, local and national, of both political parties and (social) media also has an effect on the sensemaking process (Filstad, 2014). Furthermore, protests are another way for members of the public to express their feelings. Protests can have an impact on the sensemaking process since they can significantly affect the communication of a crisis team (McLeod, 2011). Moreover, sense is made in a social context, and people feel the need to justify decisions that are derived from the sensemaking process (Gundersen & Hansell, 2013). The social environment is always moving, and those moves are accentuated during a crisis. The interaction between the social domain and the sensemaking process is important to scrutinize, as they have an impact on each other. However, it is important to note that the decisions of a crisis team, distilled from the sensemaking process, can also have an impact on society (Maas & Liket, 2011). That being said, the crisis response and decisions are more likely to have a large impact on society than the other way around.
Page 23 of 83
3. Methodology
The theoretical chapter presented seven properties with which to examine the sensemaking process. This thesis uses these properties to study how and to what extent the type of crisis can influence the sensemaking process. The primary focus of this chapter is to ensure that the gathered information leads to answering the research question in a valid and reliable way. It
discusses the research design, case selection, data gathering, data analysis, and operationalization, and assesses the validity and reliability. This chapter serves as the
blueprint for this master’s thesis. 3.1. Research design
To examine the relationship between theory and the research data, this thesis is structured with a deductive approach to the subject, since I use the sensemaking theory as guidance throughout the rest of the research. To scrutinize the relationship between the type of crisis and the sensemaking process, a comparative case study design is used. An advantage of this type of study is that it can provide evidence that describes complex and multi-factor events that happen over time (Neuman, 2014). According to Neuman (2014), a case study has a detailed focus and can incorporate different perspectives. Moreover, Yin (2014) argues that such a design should be considered when 1) the focus is to answer “how” and “why” questions; 2) the researcher does not need to control the behavior of those who are involved; and 3) the research is about contemporary events. As the first two points are clear, I elaborate on point 3. Contemporary events mean that information can be gathered through interviews or observations (Yin, 2014). Yin further states that documents, interviews, and/or observations are an important part of the dataset. Although direct observation was not possible because the crises happened in the past, I conducted interviews with primary employees within a crisis team who were available for this research. Since the process of sensemaking is ongoing and always based on past events, it is normal for research to follow in its tracks. Therefore, I argue that a comparative case study is an appropriate choice.
The qualitative nature of this master’s thesis requires a dataset that can provide detailed knowledge about the selected cases. Therefore, expert interviews and inquiry reports are used to better understand the sensemaking process. To ensure that research is feasible, a comparative case study is used to compare two cases (crises).
Page 24 of 83 3.2. Case selection
The unit of analysis is the crisis team, whereas the units of observation are selected members of this team. Interviewing members of a crisis team allowed for a conclusion to be drawn regarding the sensemaking process in which the whole team participated. The basis of the case selection revolved around six cases within the province of Brabant. The number of cases was capped off at six due to the availability of both inquiry reports and interviewees. More importantly, however, in the period of 2013-2018 there were not many crises in Brabant to begin with. The period for case selection was 2013-2018 because of the newly introduced method to compose a crisis team in 2013. However, this required the cases to be similar in key dimensions. The most important dimension was that the reviewed crises included a crisis team located at the targeted municipality. During the aforementioned period, six crises occurred that were significant enough to examine more closely (B. Peute & M. van Hoof, personal communication, 2018):
1. Robbery of a local jewelry store, Deurne 2. Hailstorm, south-east Brabant
3. Industrial fire, Moerdijk (Chemie-Pack) 4. Asbestos fire, Roermond
5. Tire fire, Someren
6. Collision with the sluice, Grave
The following are the criteria on the basis of which two cases were selected for further research.
1. The installation of a crisis management team: A crisis management team could either be assembled by the municipality alone (MONO) or via the official procedures (GRIP).
2. Presence of an inquiry report: The response to the crisis was evaluated by the municipality, the safety region, or an independent actor.
3. Expected discrepancy in the sensemaking process: The collective sensemaking process of the crisis team in the selected cases should be distinct in each case.
As far as outcome or elements are concerned, the selected crises vary vastly from each other. However, the most important common factor is the presence of a crisis management team. Based on the three criteria mentioned above, the two cases central to this master’s thesis are
Page 25 of 83
1) the robbery of a local jewelry store in Deurne and 2) the tire fire in Someren. Based on the purposive sampling strategy, I have chosen these two cases because of the availability of interviewees and inquiry reports. Moreover, I expect the sensemaking process of the crisis teams in each crisis to differ due to the type of crisis. Considering the crisis types presented earlier, case 1 is related to type II (less predictable/social) and case 2 is related to type I (more predictable/physical). Moreover, these cases had a different throughput time, and both had a different impact on society. Namely, case 1 was a more socially orientated crisis (robbery), whereas case 2 was a more physical incident (fire). This is crucial for answering the research question, since there needs to be a difference in crisis type to determine whether this variable can influence the sensemaking process. Chapter 4 further elaborates on the sensemaking process, the type of crisis, and the societal influence.
3.3. Data gathering
Yin (2014) states that six common sources are used in case study designs. Two of them are used in this thesis: interviews and documents. To improve the validity of the data, I first analyzed the inquiry reports, after which I conducted interviews with three members of the crisis team of the corresponding crisis. This triangulation eliminated biased viewpoints from certain members and yielded a more collective overview of the sensemaking process.
Interviews
Interviews are a method to explore the views, experiences, beliefs, or motivations of individuals (Gill, Stewart, Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008). The most valuable contribution from interviews is one that can emerge from interviewees’ experiences. The purpose of the interviews in this study was to analyze how crisis teams made sense of an unfolding situation. This could supplement this research with a more in-depth look into how sense is made during a crisis and the extent to which the type of crisis influences complexity. In this research, expert interviews supplement the analysis with a wider understanding of why crisis teams acted the way they did in a crisis. This is done by analyzing the interview transcripts on the basis of the theory reviewed earlier.
Semi-structured interviews are commonly used when researching sensemaking (Úlriksson, 2012; Ankerstjerne, 2012; Maitlis, 2005; Fulton, 2005). Semi-structured interviews allow for increased reliability since key concepts are discussed every time, while the freedom afforded by this type of interview makes it possible to elaborate on different yet relevant topics. In this
Page 26 of 83
study, I conducted interviews with the mayor, communication advisor, and civil servant of disaster management. The mayor acts as a leader within a crisis team and could thus provide valuable insights into what aspects of sensemaking he finds most relevant. The communication advisor takes the outside world inside, meaning that he knows what the media is doing, what the societal impact is, and how decisions are perceived by people outside the crisis team. The civil servant of disaster management is an expert in his field and knows the processes within a crisis situation. He could provide valuable information since he knows how one is supposed to act during a crisis. In total, six interviews were conducted. Performing single-person interviews as opposed to focus group interviews allowed for more in-depth information gathering and story-telling. This is especially important because when studying sensemaking, people react based on their perception of what has happened (Reissman, 1993). An interview guide in which all questions are translated is provided in Appendix 3.1. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and sent back to the interviewee for validation and feedback. For privacy purposes, all interviewees are anonymized and referred to as respondent A-G.
Documents
Although the majority of the dataset was collected by interviewing employees of the involved crisis team of each respective crisis, the remaining data consists of inquiry reports. Inquiry reports supplement the interviews, allow for triangulation of the gathered data and are vastly used by academics for research regarding disasters and crises (e.g. Snook, 2000; Starbuck & Farjoun, 2005; Vaughan, 1996, in Boudes & Laroche, 2009). According to Maitlis and Sonenshein (2010), inquiry reports are used after a crisis to research how sense was made. Moreover, Brown (2000) concluded in his research, that inquiry reports can give valuable insights into the sensemaking process.
Therefore, in this thesis a total of four inquiry reports related to each crisis were studied to create a context in which the answers of the interviewees are reflected. The documents used in this research are limited to the ones that were publically available and are:
“Context analysis: Four cases reviewed” by Jan Eberg (2015)
“Lessons from crises and mini-crises 2014”: Chapter 2, Fatal robbery of a jewelry
Page 27 of 83
“Issuing of permits, supervision and enforcement” by Oberon Nauta, Erika Samuels Brusse-van der Linden, and Daniel Hofstra (2017).
“Lessons from crises and mini-crises 2016”: Chapter 13, Tire fire in Someren by Menno van Duin, and Vina Wijkhuijs (2017)
3.4. Data analysis
The data in this case study comes from different information sources. The content is studied to search for common patterns across the interviews. This makes it possible to analyze the evaluation based on a list of composed indicators from the literature on sensemaking. The transcripts of the interviews have been coded into different topics with the help of the questions that were asked, allowing the search for indicator-related subjects. This means that each answer to each question can be related back to one of the seven properties proposed by Weick (1995). The sensemaking process is then analyzed through the “filter” of these properties. This leads to a coherent narrative that supplements the general focus of this research.
Rowley (2002) argues that certain principles should be taken into account when analyzing case study results. 1) The analysis should use all of the relevant information so that no important cues are overseen. This helps to structure both analyses in this thesis in the same way. 2) The analysis should address the most important elements of the case study. In this thesis, this means that both the analyses revolve around the seven properties of sensemaking. 3) The analysis should draw on the researcher’s expertise and knowledge of the subject of the case study, but this should be unbiased and objective (Rowley, 2002). Rowley’s principles are taken into account during the data analysis.
3.5. Operationalization
This section discusses how the concepts presented in Chapter 2 are operationalized. The following explains how the sensemaking process, types of crises, and societal influence are measured. First a brief introduction to the property is given, after which a question is formulated. Appendix 1 provides three tables that summarize the operationalization of the three concepts that are discussed in this section.
Page 28 of 83 3.5.1. Sensemaking
Little has been written about the operationalization of Weicks’s properties (Mills, Thurlow, & Mills, 2010). In this thesis, the seven properties are seen as lenses through which we can look at the sensemaking process. Each lens highlights a different aspect of the process, which helps to isolate the findings. The way in which each of the properties can influence the sensemaking process was described in Section 2.1. In the next section, questions are connected to each of the properties based on the theoretical framework.
Team composition (Identity)
The subjective nature of the sensemaking process makes it prone to the influence of identity. Having a positive or negative image about one of the participating actors within a crisis team can either hamper or improve the sensemaking process. Having positive associations with the participating actors can improve the process since there is some form of trust responsibility.
Did you have a positive or negative image of the participants (organizations) within the crisis team, and why?
Besides the “connection” the members of the crisis team have with each other, the scale of this team is also important, especially in combination with the image they have of each other. One information partner from each discipline is the ideal situation (municipality, fire department, police department, and medical services). However, when more people participate, the process can be hampered if there is a lack of guidance.
How many people participated in the sensemaking process? What discipline were the participants from?
Past experience (Retrospective)
Using the experiences of previous incidents can help provide a better understanding of the current crisis and make it easier to navigate through the forest of information. An experienced team is often able to add some nuance; they might know what to expect in an earlier phase than an inexperienced team.
To what extent did the participants of the crisis team have experience with previous incidents?
Page 29 of 83 Information processing (Enactment)
Information plays an important role in crises. Strategic teams often need information to make sense of the crisis since they cannot see what is happening. They use their experience, information, and meaning to create the context of an unfolding situation. Bracketing their experience, information, and meanings into concrete themes can help them structure the sensemaking process. On the other hand, compiling these experiences, information, and meanings makes the process rigid, slow, and cluttered. Thus, the sensemaking process depends on how a crisis team has bracketed its experiences, information, and meanings.
Did the crisis team compose a list of relevant themes/issues? If so, did this aid the team and how?
If not, did this hamper the sensemaking process and why? Leadership and actors’ agendas (Social)
The social dynamics of a crisis team impact the sensemaking process since all participants have their own view of the crisis. Each participant wants to contribute to the crisis by providing a piece of the puzzle (information). Although this ultimately provides an image of the whole crisis, it can hamper sensemaking if there is a lack of structure. Therefore, it is important to know how the crisis leader managed the meetings.
How did the crisis leader guide the meetings?
The variety of participants and the presence of multiple agendas can lead to (deliberately) different interpretations of the crisis that suit actors’ own goals. Questions 10 and 12 were formulated to examine whether there were different agendas and how this could have affected the sensemaking process.
To what extent did the agendas of the participants differ? Were participants aware of each other’s agendas?
To what extent did the agendas align with the ultimate goal? Time horizon and timing decisions (Ongoing)
The sensemaking process does not have a start or an end. It is a continuous process that can even stretch out over multiple days. Having an understanding of both the duration and the
Page 30 of 83
aftermath can help in predicting upcoming cues. Anticipating the future can reduce the complexity of sensemaking since the team makes different scenarios. Furthermore, knowing the aftermath can prepare them for sensemaking when the initial repression phase is over.
Did the crisis team have an understanding of the duration of the crisis? To what extent did the crisis team have information about the aftermath?
A crisis team can anticipate at what pace the information is arriving. The initial phase is characterized by the presentation of a huge amount of information. As time progresses, this stream increases and decreases but never disappears. Anticipating this stream can prepare the team members for when they need to make sense of new information.
How did the crisis team anticipate the upcoming information? Information selection and processing (Cues)
Decision-making is the product of sensemaking and a vital part of any crisis (Weick, 1995). Therefore, it is important to examine what cues led to a certain decision and what context these cues had. The sensemaking process is influenced by the context of a cue, since it can determine whether or not the cue is worth reacting to. For example, odor complaints from a neighborhood can be an important cue during a fire, but not so much during a robbery.
What triggers do you remember as being important for the sensemaking process? How did the team decide what was relevant?
Moreover, cues can become lost in the information gathering process. Usually, the more information there is, the more cues will be lost since it is impossible to react to all of them.
Did you find that there was too much information available, and why? Did you feel any relevant information was missed/omitted?
Besides the cues generated by the crisis, the media also asks questions that can provide the crisis team with cues upon which to act.
To what extent did the reports by the media influence the scope of information on the basis of which you made decisions?
Page 31 of 83 Information assessment (Plausibility)
The sensemaking process is influenced by the degree to which information is accurate or plausible. Waiting for accurate information without going forward can hamper sensemaking, but going forward with false information can also have a negative impact. Therefore, information has to be good enough to justify a certain action (Murray, 2014); it has to be plausible.
How did you decide that the information was good enough to act upon? What was the main focus during the sensemaking process?
3.5.2. Type of crisis
The types of crisis were explained in Section 2.2, including their definitions and specific indicators for a crisis. To determine what kind of crises cases 1 and 2 are, I analyze the inquiry reports. The concepts used in this chapter are related to the theory presented in Section 2.2 and inspired by Mickers (2017). The indicators are formed to determine what type of crisis the selected cases were. The concepts guide me through my search for related indicators in the inquiry reports. As such, the concepts are the main theme during the analysis of the crisis type. Chapter 2 clarified the main differences between each case and assigned a crisis type. Chapter 4 further elaborates on this.
3.5.3. Societal influence
Although it is thought-provoking to study what impact a crisis has on society, in this thesis it is interesting to know what impact society has on the sensemaking process. Three indicators thought to have an impact on society are housing, safety, and health (Potma, 2016). Concerns among citizens express themselves via questions, protests, and media and political coverage. The influence of the media on the sensemaking process fits within Weick’s properties and was operationalized in Section 3.5.1. That being said, it is important to note that the impact on society is an interaction between the crisis team and the social environment. This is because decisions made by a crisis team can have a significant impact on society, and likewise, the social environment can also have an impact on the sensemaking process of a crisis team. and is often related to the indicators from Potma (2016). It is interesting to study the extent to which they are related to each other.
