**5. Conclusion**

so the organization's goals and values are consistent, regardless of who is communicating at the time. Workers' communication is both enabled and constrained by the values that make up the culture of an organization [4]. For sensemaking to be effective in workplace safety, the culture of the organization has to be conducive to unimpeded information flow such as the reporting of near misses and other risky events noticed [72]. Impediments to free-flowing communication in this case may consist of fear of management reprisal or co-worker judgment [54, 56]. Therefore, fostering an environment free of negative consequences by peers and

Finally, the structural characteristic of consistency can be influenced by what the various organizational decision-makers pay attention and respond to each day [55]. *Consensus* is agreement among workers, as to what H&S practices, and their associated behaviors, lead to intended organizational outcomes (e.g., reduction in H&S incidents) [69, 70]. Achieving consensus on an individual and organizational level can be difficult, but is critical for organizational function [73]. Because sensemaking is best facilitated through a just culture with strong organizational values, shared values and worker involvement are important to establishing site-wide consensus. Consensus requires competent leaders who are willing to engage in open dialog with workers. In response, leaders' sensegiving should possess intuition, logic, emotional intelligence, self-awareness, inductive/deductive reasoning, and the ability to look for and provide strategic evidence to support the RM decisions made [63]. In addition, it is important to know if workers perceive the organization to be fair and just. Perceived fairness is associated with workers' attitudes and behaviors as well as influences their acceptance of

Albeit this theoretical integration appears complex, in practice this process serves to reduce ambiguity encountered through unexpected, potentially risky events and near misses, which occur daily by rank-and-file workers in high-risk jobs. Because sensemaking is an active process of assigning meaning, it can only occur through human reflection [45]. Within this chapter, we argued that this reflection can occur best if organized and presented through the risk management process, along with joint participation from hourly workers and their management. To put this argument into practice, consider the following example on a job site:

Sensemaking is initially triggered by a situation that creates ambiguity for the worker—take for example a key piece of machinery experiencing problems that may make it unsafe to operate. This malfunction occurs while employees have a high work order they are in the process of filling—with the deadline for shipment fast approaching. This occurrence is likely to cause a discrepancy between what management expects and what the workers experience. This breakdown initiates enactment on behalf of the workers, triggering a risk assessment about whether or not to keep running the machine. In this case, the worker may choose to consult the job task analysis for the piece of machinery, consult a coworker who is in the maintenance department, or contact management for next steps. These assessment results should help

managers, is an important feature needed for sensemaking.

the H&S practices, rules, and regulations they are expected to follow [74].

*4.3.3. Message consensus*

20 Selected Issues in Global Health Communications

**4.4. Bringing it all together**

This chapter focused on the barriers to RM and potential benefits of both leaders and workers engaging in sensemaking processes to help deliver, influence, interpret and execute desired RM practices. This integrated, cyclical system may result in the following: (1) workers may be more confident in and committed to the organization due to a more accurate interpretation of their work environment; (2) workers may share the same interpretation of what is important, expected, and rewarded in that environment; and (3) workers may be more interested in helping the organization achieve its strategic goals [69]. Therefore, sensemaking can be viewed as a RM process which allows everyone to identify hazards, communicate about the risks, and respond accordingly. Although the communicators within the system are key players in fostering consensus and fairness in the system, how organizations progress through structural communication barriers remains a challenge [71]. If we can better identify and understand tangible behaviors of organizational leaders that are perceived as positive and encourage worker engagement, it may be easier to support organizations in improving structural deficiencies and eventually, execute a consistent health and safety management system to predict, identify, and mitigate risks.

[8] Zohar D. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadershipbased intervention model. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002;**87**:156-163

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

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

23

[9] Zohar D, Luria G. The use supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior:

[10] Zohar D, Polachek T. Discourse-based intervention for modifying supervisory communication as leverage for safety climate and performance improvement: A randomized

[11] Hale A, Borys D. Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review.

[12] Hofmann DA, Morgeson FP, Gerras SJ. Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an

[13] Hofmann DA, Stetzer A. The role of safety climate and communication in accident interpretation: Implications for learning from negative events. Academy of Management

[14] Christian MS, Bradley JC, Wallace JC, Burke MJ. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. The Journal of Applied Psychology.

[15] Griffin MA, Parker SK, Mason CM. Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. The Journal of Applied Psychology.

[16] Griffin MA, Neal A, Parker SK. A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal.

[17] Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG. Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European

[18] DeJoy DM, Schaffer BS, Wilson MG, Vandenberg RJ, Butts MM. Creating safer workplaces: Assessing the determinants and role of safety climate. Journal of Safety Research.

[19] Flach JM, Carroll JS, Dainoff MJ, Hamilton WI. Striving for safety: Communicating and

[20] Yorio PL, Willmer DR, Moore SM. Management systems through a multilevel and strategic management perspective: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Safety Science.

[21] Zohar D. Safety climate and beyond: A multi-level multi-climate framework. Safety

deciding in sociotechnical systems. Ergonomics. 2015;**58**:615-634

A cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety Research. 2003;**34**:567-577

field study. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014;**99**:113-124

exemplar. The Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;**88**:170

Safety Science. 2013;**55**:207-221

Journal. 1998;**41**:644-657

2009;**94**:1102-1127

2010;**95**:174

2007;**50**:327-347

2004;**35**:81-90

2015;**72**:221-228

Science. 2008;**46**:376-387

Economic Association. 2011;**9**:522-550
