**3. Incorporating sensemaking into risk management**

Sensemaking has been applied as a communication tool and organizing framework to examine threats, risks, and hazards in the context of the healthcare industry [45–47], nuclear power plants [48], organizational crises and disaster response [49, 50], and gaps in organizational leadership [51]. Retrospective root cause analyses have also been framed to facilitate sensemaking within organizations in regard to RM activities [52]. Sensemaking is a process that can improve interpersonal communication when people must make decisions during extreme events and has been used to mitigate organizational crises [53]. To date, sensemaking has yet to be theoretically integrated into the RM cycle and remains absent in the literature that discusses dynamic workplace contexts [45, 53].

### **3.1. Overview of the sensemaking process**

Because sensemaking can help engage workers in organizational RM, we focus on the process of sensemaking among receivers of messages to better understand how to communicate about risks and motivate participation in risk mitigation activities. Below, we debrief the four-step sensemaking process (i.e., *ecological change, enactment, selection,* and *retention*) (**Figure 1**).

First, to initiate sensemaking an event has to occur (*ecological change*) that is noticed by an individual, group, or organization. Examples include acknowledging the presence of the prescribed practices included within an organization's H&S goals, seeing a new workplace hazard or risk, or a co-worker/personal work-related injury. *Enactment* occurs when organizational leaders or workers choose to pay attention to the event [54]. After the event is noticed (*enactment*), the members of the organization must make sense of it and then do something about it (*selection*). At the worker level, *selection* entails choosing the appropriate behavioral response in accordance with the perceived meaning behind the H&S practices within the workplace. From a leadership level, *selection* entails deciding on the proper policy choice when responding to a previously unforeseen risk.

If these implemented responses and policy solutions are effective in reducing equivocality, they will likely be retained for subsequent sensemaking and become engrained into an organization's reaction to a situation [54]. Therefore, *selection* has important implications for longterm decisions and actions, as these decisions are often used to prevent future incidents or avoid injuries [55]. Eventually, *retention* occurs when ways of making decisions, handling workplace hazards, or preventing risky situations become part of an organization's policies, procedures, routines, and methods of organizing [56].

in the workplace—including the propensity to notice and the motivation to respond to potential hazards and present risks. From a management perspective, proactive hazard and risk identification activities are integral to the HSMS (e.g., job hazard analyses, health and safety audits, system safety studies, etc.). Workers must also be vigilant and seek out unanticipated hazards and risks that have passed through risk control activities unchecked. Tools such as pre-task job task briefings, worker self-checking, and stop-think-act-review activities are examples of practices often incorporated within behavior-based management systems that empower and engage workers in the first of the four step sensemaking process as well as planning within their RM processes [58]. This recognition is the beginning of a decision to act upon a hazard that has been noticed within the organization, initiating the sensemaking

Using Sensemaking Theory to Improve Risk Management and Risk Communication: What Can…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75725

15

After a hazard has been recognized (*ecological change*), any practice that can be used to avoid or minimize risk can be *enacted*. After workplace risk has been recognized (an *ecological change*), they must be assessed and risk control plans that address an organization's unique hazard and risk profiles along with the unique behavioral responses necessary to avoid and/or minimize risk must be developed. These assessments consist of gathering and analyzing safetyrelevant information on production processes, machines, equipment, chemicals, workspace layout, existing personnel, laws and regulations, etc. Assessment results should ultimately lead to a thorough understanding of all the hardware and human safety risks the organization

At the foundation of ecological change is the recognition that workers who identify H&S hazards are motivated and able to raise their concerns. Tools such as pre-task job briefings, worker self-checking, and stop-think-act-review activities are RM practices that empower and

process (*ecological change*).

**3.3. Enacting a plan to assess and mitigate risks**

**Figure 2.** Sensemaking within the risk management cycle.

is faced with and a plan to help mitigate these risks [57].

**3.4. Selecting and executing practices to control risks**

#### **3.2. Risk recognition initiating ecological change**

Cognitive recognition that a hazard exists is necessary before sensemaking begins. In the context of occupational health and safety it is the risk intertwined with job and task execution that must be recognized. This recognition is the beginning of a conscious decision to act upon what has been noticed. In the context of occupational H&S, however, because hazards inherent to work processes are likely to be encountered daily, both managers and workers can become used to "seeing" these hazards and in some ways, complacent or unaware of their presence [45]. Slip, trip, and fall hazards at occupational worksites is a common example.

In response, communication from leadership, situated in the middle of the integrated model (**Figure 2**), plays an important role in encouraging situational awareness of ecological changes

**Figure 1.** Organizational sensemaking process (Weick, 1999).

Using Sensemaking Theory to Improve Risk Management and Risk Communication: What Can… http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75725 15

**Figure 2.** Sensemaking within the risk management cycle.

**3.1. Overview of the sensemaking process**

14 Selected Issues in Global Health Communications

when responding to a previously unforeseen risk.

procedures, routines, and methods of organizing [56].

**3.2. Risk recognition initiating ecological change**

**Figure 1.** Organizational sensemaking process (Weick, 1999).

Because sensemaking can help engage workers in organizational RM, we focus on the process of sensemaking among receivers of messages to better understand how to communicate about risks and motivate participation in risk mitigation activities. Below, we debrief the four-step sensemaking process (i.e., *ecological change, enactment, selection,* and *retention*) (**Figure 1**).

First, to initiate sensemaking an event has to occur (*ecological change*) that is noticed by an individual, group, or organization. Examples include acknowledging the presence of the prescribed practices included within an organization's H&S goals, seeing a new workplace hazard or risk, or a co-worker/personal work-related injury. *Enactment* occurs when organizational leaders or workers choose to pay attention to the event [54]. After the event is noticed (*enactment*), the members of the organization must make sense of it and then do something about it (*selection*). At the worker level, *selection* entails choosing the appropriate behavioral response in accordance with the perceived meaning behind the H&S practices within the workplace. From a leadership level, *selection* entails deciding on the proper policy choice

If these implemented responses and policy solutions are effective in reducing equivocality, they will likely be retained for subsequent sensemaking and become engrained into an organization's reaction to a situation [54]. Therefore, *selection* has important implications for longterm decisions and actions, as these decisions are often used to prevent future incidents or avoid injuries [55]. Eventually, *retention* occurs when ways of making decisions, handling workplace hazards, or preventing risky situations become part of an organization's policies,

Cognitive recognition that a hazard exists is necessary before sensemaking begins. In the context of occupational health and safety it is the risk intertwined with job and task execution that must be recognized. This recognition is the beginning of a conscious decision to act upon what has been noticed. In the context of occupational H&S, however, because hazards inherent to work processes are likely to be encountered daily, both managers and workers can become used to "seeing" these hazards and in some ways, complacent or unaware of their presence [45]. Slip, trip, and fall hazards at occupational worksites is a common example.

In response, communication from leadership, situated in the middle of the integrated model (**Figure 2**), plays an important role in encouraging situational awareness of ecological changes in the workplace—including the propensity to notice and the motivation to respond to potential hazards and present risks. From a management perspective, proactive hazard and risk identification activities are integral to the HSMS (e.g., job hazard analyses, health and safety audits, system safety studies, etc.). Workers must also be vigilant and seek out unanticipated hazards and risks that have passed through risk control activities unchecked. Tools such as pre-task job task briefings, worker self-checking, and stop-think-act-review activities are examples of practices often incorporated within behavior-based management systems that empower and engage workers in the first of the four step sensemaking process as well as planning within their RM processes [58]. This recognition is the beginning of a decision to act upon a hazard that has been noticed within the organization, initiating the sensemaking process (*ecological change*).

#### **3.3. Enacting a plan to assess and mitigate risks**

After a hazard has been recognized (*ecological change*), any practice that can be used to avoid or minimize risk can be *enacted*. After workplace risk has been recognized (an *ecological change*), they must be assessed and risk control plans that address an organization's unique hazard and risk profiles along with the unique behavioral responses necessary to avoid and/or minimize risk must be developed. These assessments consist of gathering and analyzing safetyrelevant information on production processes, machines, equipment, chemicals, workspace layout, existing personnel, laws and regulations, etc. Assessment results should ultimately lead to a thorough understanding of all the hardware and human safety risks the organization is faced with and a plan to help mitigate these risks [57].

#### **3.4. Selecting and executing practices to control risks**

At the foundation of ecological change is the recognition that workers who identify H&S hazards are motivated and able to raise their concerns. Tools such as pre-task job briefings, worker self-checking, and stop-think-act-review activities are RM practices that empower and engage workers throughout the sensemaking process [58]. Management, in turn, responds to and engages workers in planning risk mitigation activities. Given limited resources, implementing all possible risk control options may not be feasible [59]. Thus, organizational leaders are usually responsible for choosing an appropriate course of action to reduce the risk (i.e., *selection*). Examples include minimizing physical hazards through proper engineering controls, preventative and predictive maintenance, providing proper equipment, worker training and education, and defining specified patterns of behavior [28].

deliver specific information or lead activities, the organization can be perceived as having various procedures, rites and rituals [60]. Without similar commitment to the organization's goals, workers may have disparate perceptions [61]. Engaging in complete and ongoing sensemaking of H&S risks may help develop and maintain individuals' cognitive, social coordinative, and motivational components needed to accurately perceive and participate in risk

Using Sensemaking Theory to Improve Risk Management and Risk Communication: What Can…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75725

17

Developing and fostering cognitive components are necessary to facilitate workers' consistent identification of workplace risks, understand the practices necessary to mitigate those risks, and have the efficacy to execute risk practices [62]. Sensemaking*,* described as "organizing through communication"—can be a helpful alignment process ([63], p. 137). Sensemaking has been shown to help individuals respond to organizational risks or events to prevent workplace accidents [64], demonstrating support for enhanced worker cognition. According to Dixon [65] to "make sense" is not to find the right or wrong answer, but to find a pattern that helps give specific events meaning and direction to the individual, group, or organization. Engaging workers so they have the ability to perceive and initiate responsibility, regardless of

Equally crucial to the consistent communication and interpretation of risks, however, are workers' motivation to execute behaviors needed to prevent an incident. Workers need to believe that if they carry out the desired, or necessary behaviors by way of certain RM practices, they will avoid a negative consequence or receive a positive consequence [10, 12, 14]. However, communication alone is not likely to impact everyone's risk assessment and motivation. In response, a primary task of top-level leadership is to create an organizational culture that values and rewards assessment and communication pertaining to risk-related events [66]. Organizations can use sensemaking processes to help facilitate a more organized, communicative process that involves the interpretation of events in the environment, social interactions to interpret those events, and constructing the responses necessary to mitigate a problem or improve a process [67, 68]. Along these same lines, a social component is necessary regarding, namely the importance of everyone being on the same page both cognitively and motivationally. More specifically, because risk mitigation often depends on the collective work unit and because the work is increasingly interdependent, it is important for everyone to establish a

**4.1. Risk communication to enhance workers' cognitive components**

the risk, is essential to managing a dynamic environment.

**4.2. Risk communication to enhance workers' motivational components**

common perception of, agreement about, and response to workplace risks [63].

Based on a review of the organizational psychology and strategic management literature, we suggest that sensemaking around risk management should be structured so that three interrelated characteristics are clearly illustrated to employees: (1) Distinctiveness; (2) Consistency; and (3) Consensus. These three characteristics have been theoretically associated with having

**4.3. Designing risk communication**

management.

### **3.5. Continuous monitoring and retaining outcomes for future risk practices**

Finally, the selected action is monitored, assessed, and checked to ensure that the given risk has been minimized to the point of acceptability. Evaluating such efforts could represent both proactive (prior to a safety incident) and reactive (after a safety incident) activities designed to check for workplace hazards and risks that were overlooked or not accurately assessed, or that emerged because of a breakdown in executing certain activities [18, 59]. Examples of *checking* include hazard inspections or audits (proactive checking), and incident investigations (reactive checking) [28]. Risk control practices that successfully reduce uncertainty warrant *retention* of the decision for future use. However, if residual risk is unacceptable, the organization can collectively act to change the initially selected risk control activities. **Figure 2** illustrates how sensemaking can occur parsimoniously within the identification, decisionmaking, and implementation of the RM cycle.

**Figure 2** is depicted to show how the four steps of the sensemaking process can be integrated with the RM cycle to foster an understanding of how to more completely implement an organization's risk management system and continually improve upon it. This integration, however, illuminates the futility of attempts to implement health and safety practices without the necessary organizational infrastructure to support the complete and ongoing sensemaking process throughout the cycle. Organizational and RM characteristics should be structured to support the cognitive, social coordination, and motivational needs that underlie complete sensemaking throughout the cycle. In the following section we discuss these characteristics while continuing to provide general examples of practices within high-risk industries (i.e., mining and construction).
