# 135: BOOK OF THE WEEK — “Sensemaking”
Story behind the Book Choice
This is going to be a very personal and emotional book reflection. That is actually what the book is all about. Humans are not machines, they think deeply and they feel. Anybody who follows my blog or my work in general knows that this is exactly the difficult balance that I have not quite been able to balance — at least not always. But Madsbjerg’s book is a wonderful encouragement that the humanistic approach, the less data-driven and not only purely rational approach to understanding, has a place in business — because it creates value.
Just like myself, the book is not supposed to reinforce binary thinking, it is not an ‘either/or’ manifesto that praises sensemaking over data analysis. Rather, it simply provides many different practical examples from the author’s consulting practice that show the value of sensemaking as a means of grasping what computers miss. Madsbjerg does not build his book on Weick’s definition of sensemaking which has become quite popular in business and organization studies — I feel. He mentions the original thinkers a lot, above all Heidegger and phenomenology. Here is how he defines sensemaking:
“This rigorous cultural engagement is the foundation of the practice I call sensemaking. Academics have used the term sensemaking to describe different concepts over the years, but I use it here, throughout this book, simply to describe an ancient practice of cultural inquiry, a process based on a set of values we are in great danger of forgetting. With sensemaking, we use human intelligence to develop a sensitivity toward meaningful differences — what matters to other people as well as to ourselves.” (xxi)
Now that you know what sensemaking means in the book, let me move on to three of the passages that especially caught my attention. In this book, there are at least 30 more passages that I would love to discuss. However, life is about making choices, right? Especially if you choose sensemaking as the basis of your own decision-making, you will be even better able to reduce the seeming complexity of the world more easily.
- Human inferences
This is nothing new to people who use non-quantitative approaches in research and business. I would say, for people like us, this is our capital. We read between the lines, we come up with creative solutions that even we ourselves cannot really name or trace to their origin. But all this works, all this creates value. Still, most people do not see it this way — many people in business are trained to not see it. I would not even say they cannot see it. Of course, we are all humans, this is the basis of sensemaking. We are all equipped with the “hardware” it takes to understand, to feel, through our different senses. Yet, the “pendulum shift,” as Madsbjerg describes it, is going the other way. You have to show that you are “rational” in order to be someone in business — and in research.
The thing is, it is not that easy to write this because my personal pendulum is going back and forth as well. Whenever I talk to highly technical and rational people who talk me out of sensing as my most important, even treasured, skill — I come to agree. Sure, all the advances in numerical analysis are quite overwhelming. Who could doubt that big data is superior to thick data? But everyone who practices the latter feels that there is so much in this that no computer can grasp — even though we cannot prove it with data. How can you provide ‘evidence’ for something that even you yourself cannot touch by any objective and material means?
What is so interesting about this passage is that Madsbjerg is talking about how this binary thinking, the virtual exlusion of sensemaking, is causing damage to our institutions — real monetary damage, I am sure of this. And monetary damage also has social consequences and vice versa. The tricky thing is: If you are sitting at the conference table as the only one who senses and you see the damage happening right there — it is so damn hard to “prove” it. It is so frustrating to try to make people aware of something that they do not even want to see because it is not visible in their neatly structured excel sheets. You cannot force people to start some humanistic data crawling exercise if that disrupts their world view.
The only situation when people are open to listen to you, I guess, is when all other solutions have failed already and people have nothing to lose. But this is a rare case to find, especially if you are not consulting for a huge label. The huge labels have been failing again and again with their data and framework obsession and quantitative analysis, this is how they became respected in the first place. The damage they are causing is increasingly making headlines. But I do not want to ridicule them. Again, we need both. But I definitely know that, at least in the past, creative sensemakers like myself had no say there — we are the people who have no idea about business, supposedly. We are the philosophers who always talk too much and think too complicated things that nobody wants to hear. Nobody has time — supposedly. That is costs a lot more money in the end to ignore these things does not occur to them. Everything is a zero-sum game. That business is for and about people, plays no role for them.
Fortunately, there are exceptions.
2. After Descartes
What I have been describing above is just that — the triumph of rationalism in the Western world. “I think, therefore I am.” It is so funny that this appears in the book just now that I am preparing a research proposal that claims that we are seeing the decline of the Cartesian dualism — finally. But as long as this “narrative” is still ruling our world, we always run the risk of becoming a slave of this, without us even intending to do so. You have to be very strong and very experienced, if you challenge it — ot only in front of others, also when facing your own gut feeling. But thankfully, there are role models.
3. Martin
Madsbjerg mentions the example of Martin as the prototypical sensemaker. The way he is described, of course, makes you imagine a creative disrupter. But colorful dress and not caring about showing up on time are not the major issues. The important thing for me is that Martin speaks up — all the time, even when he senses very well that others in the room are getting uncomfortable because he is disturbing the plan. In the ‘West,’ we always have plans, right? Especially Germany are famous for having plans, structures, and strategies. But sensemakers go by the people, what they need in a given moment.
Actually, this thing about needs is quite tricky. If you are a sensemaker, you always feel what others need. That also means, you know what the planners and hardcore data proponents need and want. In this case, it takes real guts to speak up. This is what takes learning and groundedness, as one of my friends likes to call it. You have to actually allow yourself to make sense of the big picture in the room and still follow your heart. If you do not, i.e., no action follows, sensemaking makes no sense. Only if you make others feel what you are seeing, then the “passion” that Martin is talking about in the passage will unfold, will even be preserved, and grow.
Passion, by the way, is a remarkable thing. It always comes up when people are talking about sensemakers. They often try to find a proper description and then they something like: “You are passionate or full of energy.” I think, this is a perfect ending for my short reflection today because that exactly combines the scientific and the humanistic way of meaning making. We are physical beings, full of energy — I mean, in the scientific way. Our body creates a field of energy. You can measure all this with objective means. This is part of perceiving and understanding. And then you have the subjective sensemaking approach, the emotional message which your body, your voice, your gestures send out. Both have their value and ideally, you can employ both. This is what the book stands for: It is a powerful claim for not thinking of sensemaking in any binary way, even though the “social capital” of non-technical understanding might be in need of special care today. As Madsbjerg closes:
“What are people for? Algorithms can do many things, but they will never actually give a damn. People are for caring.” (211)
Happy Valentine’s Day! :-)
Reflection Questions
1) Do you have any intuitive understanding of what sensemaking means?
2) Is there a “Martin” in your organization? What is a striking example of how/when he/she uses sensemaking?
3) How do you make others feel when you are passionate about something?