Critique of Cycan in the light of contemporary views of management theories

Christopher J. Wheeler 920402233

Date of Submission
11 April 2007

Lecturer:
Mrs. Rene Benecke
Content page p.

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. CYCAN: AN OVERVIEW 2

3. THE PREMISE OF CONTEMPOARY MANAGEMENT THEORIES 3

3.1. WEICK AND THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZING 3
3.1.1. Basic components of Weick’s theory 4
3.1.2. Sense-making and organizing 5
3.1.3. The nature of organizing sense making 6
3.2. TECHNOLOGY AND KNOWLEDGE MANGEMENT 7

4. CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF CYCAN AS A CONTEMPORARY ORGANIZATION 9

4.1. THE ROLE OF THE CEO IN CONTEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS: CYCAN 9
4.2. CYCAN”S INTERNAL COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES 10
4.3. CYCAN’S DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE 11

5. CONCLUSION 12

6. SOURCE LIST 14
1. INTRODUCTION

Today organizations have to adjust too many dramatic changes, ranging from fundamental
restructuring to revolutionary shifts in traditional values. These required changes are largely
attributed to drastic changes in the way in which organizations respond to the environment in which
they operate. Globalization and the resultant advancements in information technology are the two
main contributors of modern organizational structuring, both of which pertain to highly complex
communication activities and considerations that have become part of the organizations enactment
with micro (i.e. inter-organizational activities) as well as the macro systems (i.e. transnational
synergies, strategic geographic positioning, etc.). This reflects a paradigm shift from traditionally
‘closed’ operating procedures (characterized by one-way hierarchical inter-organizational
communication) to highly flexible and innovative contemporary organizations which. The paradox
here is that organizations need existing paradigms in order to make sense of the current situations
and this can trap organizations in current paradigms (Verwey & Du Plooy-Cillers, 2003:2).
However, it is important to consider the premise on which contemporary management theories are
based. Contemporary theories, such as that of Karl Weick, reflect a deep restructuring of core
competencies that values an organizations’ sense-making processes when they are dealing with
environmental equivocality.

Contemporary management theories place emphasis on the interaction process between all
components concerned with the organization, as well as adopting a more holistic orientation
towards that way in which organizations function and are structured. Cycan is an example of such
an approach in that the manner in which they conduct business is reflective of contemporary
managerial concerns. This assignment will critically discuss contemporary views of management
and organization theories to Cycan’s current company structuring and operating, focusing on the
role of the CEO (Bryan Hattingh); the state of their internal communication structures; and the
holistic manner in which the organization approaches the decision-making process. Furthermore,
the role of technology and communication within Cycan will also be analyzed in terms of how it
contributes too and affects the three areas to be discussed.
2. CYCAN: AN OVERVIEW

Cycan’s primary focus is to assist companies in optimizing risk, increasing performance and
profitability, and ultimately achieving sustainable business and competitive advantage. This is
achieved through a holistic set of complementary leadership appointment, development and
transformation services. The organizations focuses on executive coaching, which emphasizes the
neuro-semantics self actualization model derived from the works of Maslow, May, Rogers and
others in the human potential movement and it was developed by Dr. Michael Hall (Hattingh,
2000).

Cycan tackles the challenges of attracting, retaining, developing and maximizing talented leaders,
this approach acknowledges the importance of human resources in the development of successful
organizational culture of individuals working towards a collective goal. Areas such as life-planning,
decision-making, goal setting and strategic thinking are their primary focus. Cycan’s experience in
the industry is extensive and the holistic manner in which they approach business, as well as
individuals within the organization, has proven to be rewarding and enduring.

Cycan’s extensive network comprises of highly capable and accomplished executives who are
deployed within organizations on a project or assignment basis. Through this, companies are able to
engage the best possible talent to complete a wide array of challenges (Hattingh, 2000). Cycan
acknowledges that organizations now operate in an age where there are scientifically based
mechanism and instruments for not only assessing and measuring competency and capacity but for
developing it, Furthermore they believe that companies must be proactive in building a cohesive
leadership team and ethos, and developing their people (Hattingh, 2000)

The essences of Cycan’s organizational values are formed by relationships and the development of
their own personnel and leadership teams. In terms of contemporary management, Cycan exists as a
successful organization that has adopted many of the managerial perspectives outlined by modern
theorist for a prospective and long-term organizational culture of diversity, synergies and
innovative and personalized strategies.
3. THE PREMISE OF CONTEMPOARY MANAGEMENT THEORIES

Contemporary management theories recognize the importance of communication in creating and

maintaining a successful organization. Through aligning communication and organizational goals
we are now able to better interact with all levels of a company and the context in which they exist.
This section will cover three main areas of contemporary management including Weick’s theory of
organizing; the role of technology in contemporary organizations and knowledge management.

3.1. WEICK AND THE PROCESS OF ORGANISING

‘Communication’ has been defined in a number of specific schools of thought and its
conceptualization as a term has proven to be contextual as opposed to an all-encompassing
explanation, in this vein ‘communication’ will be defined as a “mode of exchange and a mode of
knowledge production” (Taylor & Van Every in McPhee, 2000: 328-329). The notions of
‘exchange’ and ‘production’ are evolutionary terms used to describe the transference and creation
of information in order to assess environmental interaction and the process of sense making in
organizations. Therefore, organizations are a process of communication activity in which they are
formed and reformed by communication discourse between the context in which they operate (i.e.
the global economy) and the resultant organizational texts and culture. This dialogic process
represents the double interact that lead Karl Weick to reformulate the notion of the ‘organization’ to
that of ‘organizing’.

Weick’s ‘organizing’ highlights the paradigmatic nature of organizations, as they are “something
that people accomplish through a continual process of communication” and not defined by the
positions and roles the members occupy (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005:245). The question of dualism
between communication and organizations represents latter as a “symbolically realized
construction” produced by interactional process of the organizations members and the macro
system they occupy (Taylor & Robichaud, 2004). These ‘symbolically realized constructions’
emphasis the importance of interlocked behaviors as they create, maintain, and are adjusted in
accordance with the normative competencies necessary to reduce uncertainty or ‘equivocality’
(Weick in Littlejohn & Foss, 2005: 246).
3.1.1. Basic components of Weick’s theory
In order for organizing to occur it is necessary that there is some form of basic statement that
individuals produce. Weick refers to this primary unit as an ‘act’ and it is symbolically loaded with
meaning, but in does not get recognized as meaningful until a response is supplied. Hence an
‘interact’ must follow in order for the ‘act’ to have value. However, in order for equivocally to be
reduced or managed a dual process must take place that allows for adjustment or correction (called
the ‘double interact’). Consider the relationship between a director and the cameraman as an
example. The director asks the cameraman to frame a specific shot (act); the cameraman then asks
for clarification (interact); and the director elaborates (double interact). This basic examples shows
how interaction created understanding which results in a dually create meaning. It is important to
recognize that all information from human interaction (as well as the environment) is equivocal or
ambiguous to some degree, and organizing activities are designed to reduce this lack of certainty
(Littlejohn & Foss, 2005: 246).

Taylor’s approach to communication and organizing focuses on collective action, dialogue between
partners, the context, and on micro and macro processes (Taylor & Robichaud, 2004: 396). This
challenges the traditional ontological assumptions of organizations being concrete structures;
instead they see communication, as does Weick, as boundaryless social structures formed and
maintained by communication interaction. The theories of Taylor and colleagues also explore the
terrain of what constitutes organizational structures and functioning. Similarly to Weick, Taylor
deconstructs the notion of ‘organizing’ and identified two core components: the conversation and
the text (the content and ideas embedded in language) and communication. Communication,
according to Taylor, is a circular process that makes use of conversation and text in the production
of shared meaning. However it should be noted that the text and the conversation cannot be
functionally separated, instead a double translation is constantly present that acknowledges the
duality of these two interdependent components (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). These basic terms used
by Taylor act as the foundation for his multilayered conception of communication as both a mode
of exchange and of knowledge production that emphasizes “shared meaning and interpretations that
are constructed within the networks” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005: 249). Similarly Weick’s approach
explores how these networks are created and maintained through communication within these
networks but his emphasis is on role of sense-making in reducing environmental equivocality.
3.1.2. Sense-making and organizing
The equivocality experienced in the process of organizing results in the organization explicitly
comprehending problematic circumstances into words that serves as the basis for action, a process
know as sense-making (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2005: 409). Sense-making starts with chaos, and an
organization’s ability to create systems for meaningful action (in response to chaos) acts as a
precursor to its adaptability. ‘Adaptability’ is determined by the nature of communication held by
its members as they attempt to order the “intrinsic flux of human action to channel it towards
certain ends (Tsoukas & Chia in Weick & Sutcliffe, 2005: 410). This highlights the role of the
communicative individual within the system of organizing as he/she contributes towards the shared
understanding that permits collective response to equivocality.

Organizational members first become aware of the events they are experiencing (be it
environmental or relational) and then begin to ‘bracket’ these experiences according to something
that has already occurred within the organizing process, but which does not yet have a name (Weick
& Sutcliffe, 2005: 411). This act of ‘bracketing’ is intrinsic to sense-making because equivocal
information cannot be dealt with until it has been acknowledged and labeled within organizing
structures. Therefore the organization must produce a system for ‘functional deployment’. In
organizational terms ‘functional deployment refers to “imposing labels on independent events that
suggest a plausible acts of managing, coordinating, and distribution” (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2005:
411), hence by initially ‘bracketing’ empirical information the organization is able to commence
with the classification of that event/situation. This creates a socially constructed form (the label)
that offers the organizational members a communal term that acts as the catalyst for meaningful
action. This is because once uncertainty can be labeled within the organizing structures the original
threat of equivocality is reduced due to the mere labeling of that uncertain event.

Communication is a central component of sense-making and organizing. The importance of

creating channels for the transference of information in order to create knowledge is what allows
organizations to both challenge and rely on past events and courses of action. Strategies that are
based on past experiences are only as useful as the degree of connectiveness between the then and
the now, and they may often act as the source of inaccurate labeling that will ultimately impede
developments. This is largely due to failure to become aware that the events being observed are not
concrete in existence, instead they are in the process of becoming.
The paradox here is that even if zero-based planning is offered as an alternative, the speed at which
uncertainty is labeled (and then action is taken) is hindered by the this continual information
‘ground-zero’, whereby knowledge production is hindered and information is overwhelming.
Therefore the channels and mediums through which an organization is able to transfer meaningful
information should consist of progressive approximations, which would allow for a better linkage
between the concrete (organizational norms) and the abstract (current and future equivocality). The
question of sense-making raised here are placed into a conceptual framework through Weick’s
position of organizing being an evolutionary process that involves enactment, selection, and
retention as they relate to organizational members cognitive understanding of equivocality and
meaningful action.

3.1.3. The nature of organizing sense making

Donald Campbell’s application of evolutionary epistemology to social life proposes that sense
making can be “treated as reciprocal exchanges between actors (Enactment) and their environment
that are made meaningful (Selection) and preserved (Retention)” (Campbell in Weick & Sutcliffe,
2005). Firstly, enactment involves defining current equivocal information from the environment.
This step is dependent on ecological change and hence must be acknowledged as part of the larger
(or macro) system in which the organization is involved. The constant and reciprocal feedback
cycles that occurs between the environment and the enacting organizing emerges from the need to
‘label’ events in order to progress and evolve the organizations core competency of adaptability.

The second process is selection. This involves reducing the quantity of possible meanings, derived
from ecological change, into tentative and provisional units of meaning to be acted upon (Littlejohn
& Foss, 2005). The selection process is a direct result of enactment and is hence dependent on it.
What the organization considers of high or low priority is determined by how the organization is
designed to achieved its goals as well as what situations would possibly destabilize and threaten the
organizations ability to function in its environment.

Thirdly, the ‘stock’ of information selected is then stored for possible future use; this process in the
evolutionary process of organizing is called retention (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). Here the
organization face a choice point is which organizational members must decide whether they should
reenact the environment in order to approach a particular problem from a different course of
possible action or to acknowledge an area that was previously considered of less importance
(Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). This choice point is what acts as an adaptive measure that allows
organizational structures to constantly create a bank of knowledge for the creation, and revision, of
possible strategies for approaching ecological change as well as inter-organizational routines.

Organizational routines, or behavioral cycles, are a collective understanding of a series of

procedures that serve as a unified modus operandi for dealing with equivocality (Littlejohn & Foss,
2005). Furthermore, the member’s actions are governed by assembly rules that “guide the choice of
routines used to accomplish the process being conducted [enactment, selection, retention]”
(Littlejohn & Foss, 2005). These rules prescribe to members what is considered plausible when
dealing with the intrinsic flux of information from within the organizations communication
structures as well as from the environment. For example, previous organizational perspectives view
the decision-making process as a function carried out by elitist managers, hence these assembly
rules de-emphasized the importance of collective efforts in achieving collective goals and instead
reduced lower-level workers to functional position instead of knowledgably participants. This basic
example highlights the difference between a ‘learning organization’ and ‘organizational learning’
(Ortenblad, 2001) and both of which, however, are embedded in the state of technological
communication structures within the organization.

3.2. TECHNOLOGY AND KNOWLEDGE MANGEMENT

The processing of organizing is defined by communication. This communication is constantly

undergoing change and reformation due to increased connectivity and the emergence of e-
commerce. With businesses becoming more and more innovative with their technological solutions,
it has emerged that having access to information technology is not sufficient. Instead, there has to
be structures that allow employees to obtain, interpret, weigh, and utilize information. Hence,
information is a component of knowledge management, but it is not knowledge itself (Verwey &
Du Plooy-Cillers, 2003) because knowledge management involves internalizing information
obtained and then communicating that knowledge within the organization in order to enhance
organizational performance.

Knowledge, according to Verwey & Du Plooy-Cillers, involves sense-making and, as Weick

indicated, it is a core competency of any contemporary organization. This is because the rate and
accessibility of information available to organization members is disjointed and ambiguous, and in
order to channel information for practical purposes technological communication has to be
integrated in all levels of the organization. Communication structures offer an effective medium for
inter-organizational connectivity, and the more decentralized the organization is (i.e. less
hierarchical) the more adaptable the organization will be in response to environmental equivocality
itself (Verwey & Du Plooy-Cillers, 2003). Furthermore, the move from a mechanistic organization
to a more organic one allows organizational members to participate in the decision-making
processes. This is because the parameters of the organization all have different experiences of
organization’s operations and interactions, hence in order to maintain maximum adaptability in a
constantly changing world, the more feedback leaders have about their organizations interaction
with the environment, the more pragmatic in nature the organization will become.

With the emergence of the new economy, utilizing technology is not enough to ensure successful
organizational operations. What is required is that businesses incorporate technological readiness as
a long and short-term strategy (e.g. Technology planning and forecasting; technology management;
social impact assessment; and technologies impact on the organizations environment). According
Bahouth (1994), Technology can be defined as “recent knowledge embodied in tools”; these tools
are in turn used to perform some human tasks. However, contemporary organizations need to factor
in possible future tends in information technology in order to ensure sustain success. By doing so
they develop an organizational culture that values change instead of resisting it.

Interestingly, with the development of advanced technology and cyber-interactions organizations

are able to transcend time and space in order to maximize productivity. This has resulted in the
development of virtual teams that emerge as a direct result of communication technology. This has
a problematic effect on the role of leaders and managers within the organization. Managers have
traditionally occupied a role that was generally authoritarian in nature, however since the
employee-employer relationship has changed their as been a shift and empowerment of
organizational members. Instead, organizational leaders are now considered to be architects of
organizational strategy. In other words, the communication of goals, visions, and values as core
competencies has fallen upon these organizational leaders, and as a result employees are entrusted
with task-orientated responsibility that is more satisfying and self-actualizing. This holistic
approach to business typifies the modern approach to organizations and their relationship not only
with their environment, but also with their own employees. The following section will indicate how
Cycan implements holistic management solutions through innovative leadership, communication
technology and inclusive decision-making procedures.

4. CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF CYCAN AS A CONTEMPORARY ORGANIZATION

Cycan’s approach to business is based upon the humanistic movement made famous by Carl Rogers
and other humanistic psychologists and philosophers. Basically, through humanizing the
communication networks Cycan is able to create and maintain open and meaningful dialogue
within the company as they collectively move towards achieving their goals (Hattingh, 2000).
Holistic management and facilitated employee learning is core to Cycan’s structuring and Bryan
Hattingh’s (CEO of Cycan) attitude and perspectives on business reflects this.

4.1. THE ROLE OF THE CEO IN CONTEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS: CYCAN

The world today is experiencing change on a scale and at a rate that is in excess of all previous
measures. Consequently, businesses now need to approach ‘order’ within the organization from a
seemingly radical perspective that encompasses an endless range of possible points of impact
within the company. Bryan Hattingh has developed an approach to business that is able to
seamlessly function as well as promote and support the individual as they contribute towards the
totality of the company’s being. One of the premises involved in achieving such a system is to have
unambiguous company goals and competencies, a component of Cycan’s business strategy that
originates from the CEO.

In order to understand the role of the CEO in Cycan it is first necessary to elaborate on the structure
of Cycan. Cycan functions as a series of teams that interact accordingly depending on each unique
client, from coaching to research, Cycan’s teams are interdependent and self-regulating. Bryan
Hattingh’s role is not an authoritarian one, but rather one of guidance, direction, and support. This
comprises of facilitating team learning and holistic support (e.g. team building exercises), as well
as communicating the values and state of the company. In addition, the quality of feedback from
within the organization is meaningful, honest and respectful, a result of Hattingh’s strategy and
attitude.
According to Weick (1992), when formal structures fail only communication is left, therefore the
better quality of communication accruing amongst organizational members, the more effective the
organization will be in times of chaos. Through adopting humanistic principles, Hattingh has
identified that organizations are communication phenomena that exists because of communication,
and that the interpersonal relationships that exist within Cycan are to be values and honored.
Hattingh (2000) states:

“Individuals at any level who continually review, refine and crystallize their dreams, goals and
objectives and pursue them to fulfillment automatically assume the status of leader. When the
managers and executives within the organization embrace this practice, profound impact takes
place on the organization as a whole”

It is evident that Hattingh as the CEO encourages the individual to achieve and grow, and he does
so primarily by encouraging respectful and meaningful interaction within Cycan’s internal
communication structures.

4.2. CYCAN”S INTERNAL COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES

In the previous section the role of communication technology was discussed as it pertains to
knowledge management and information flow. Weick (1994) indicates that organizations need to
develop ‘resilient groups’ that are capable of four things: improvisation, wisdom, respectful
interaction and communication. By improvisation Weick refers to “bringing to the surface, testing,
and restructuring one’s intuitive understanding of phenomena on the spot, at a time when action can
still make a difference” (Weick, 1994). This is related to the process of enactment discussed earlier
and it highlights Cycan’s self-regulating and interdependent nature, a process built on their internal
communication networks. This process is formed by communication technology in the form of a
utilized intranet, e-mail and telecommunications. Furthermore, the head office of Cycan is a hub of
communication activity characterized by constant communication. Increasing the speed and
frequency of communication (according to Weick, 1994) increases an organizations ability to
coordinate meaningful action in complex systems that are susceptible to disaster. It is fitting then
that the core and most tangible part of Cycan reflects this principle, however it is necessary to
develop the next component of Weick’s function of resilient teams that of respectful interaction,
describe very simply below:
“Respect for the reports of others and being willing to base beliefs and actions on them (trust);
report so that others may use your observations in coming to valid beliefs (honesty); and respect
your own perceptions and beliefs and integrate them with the reports of others”

This approach is part of Hattingh’s belief that the organizational culture must encourage self-
actualization amongst Cycan’s employees through communication and leaning. This process
becomes fruitful when wisdom is obtained through such interaction and sharing of perspectives.
Consider Cycan’s most recent team building exercise, individuals within the companies head office
will switch roles at random and they will have to function from that person’s position for a month.
This allows employees to learn about the daily happenings of another individual and, according to
Hattingh, increases the cohesiveness and appreciation of other individuals’ contributions. One of
the effects such internal communication has on Cycan is that the decision-making process is
inclusive and collective.

4.3. CYCAN’S DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE

Decision-making within organizations has traditional fallen upon upper and middle management
and the results of these decisions were then issued down to lower level employees. The problem
with this is that although management has a better overview of the organization, it is the employees
functioning within specific areas that are exposed to areas that management would not be aware of.
For example, the coaching team at Cycan is involved with specific cliental and their
communication with Cycan is primarily through this team. Hence, if Cycan wanted to improve their
relationships with future clients it would be logical to assume that the individuals involved in the
coaching section would have the most accurate and readily available information in this regard.

Cycan’s is able too incorporate the opinions and perspectives of its employee’s through
management’s gradual exposure to specific feedback from each team on any given client. This
allows the CEO to have the information available of areas of concern continually. In other words,
when a decision has to be made the information impacting on any possible outcome is consistently
made available prior to the point at which the Cycan undergoes its decision-making process.
Therefore, the speed at which decisions are addressed is increased due to the internal
communication networks established by the organization.
Although issues around corporate values and organizational core competencies are still largely left
to the CEO, Cycan appreciates and encourage its members to actively take part in decisions that
affect the teams in which they operate. This correlates with Weick’s (1994) notion of respectful
interaction describe in the previous section. Furthermore, with employees being more involve in
the decision-making process, they are inclined to feel more apart of the organization and, hence,
feel more positively about their involvement in it.

5. CONCLUSION

Today organizations have to adjust too many dramatic changes, ranging from fundamental
restructuring to revolutionary shifts in traditional values. These required changes are largely
attributed to drastic changes in the way in which organizations respond to the environment in which
they operate. Contemporary management involves acknowledging the role of communication in
achieving organizational success, as well sustaining it placement in the marketplace.

Globalization and the resultant advancements in information technology are the two main
contributors of modern organizational structuring, both of which pertain to highly complex
communication activities and considerations that have become part of the organizations enactment
with micro (i.e. inter-organizational activities) as well as the macro systems (i.e. transnational
synergies, strategic geographic positioning, etc.). This reflects a paradigm shift from traditionally
‘closed’ operating procedures (characterized by one-way hierarchical inter-organizational
communication) to highly flexible and innovative contemporary organizations which. The paradox
here is that organizations need existing paradigms in order to make sense of the current situations
and this can trap organizations in current paradigms (Verwey & Du Plooy-Cillers, 2003:2).

Cycan illustrates how humanistic communication paradigms can be used to enhance not only the
achievements of the organization but as well as to the benefit of the organizational members. By
allowing employees to form an active part of Cycan and its equity, the organizational culture
created is able to achieve an open and flexible communication flow that has been theorized by
contemporary system thinkers such as Weick and Taylor. Furthermore, the role of technology in
creating and sustaining these open communication systems is vital in creating communication
channels that are becoming increasingly user-friendly and integrated with the organizations core
competencies. Furthermore, the ability of organizations to create internal structures that promote
the conversion of information to viable knowledge is becoming critical in creating informed
employees that can actively contribute towards the organizations functioning.
6. SOURCE LIST

BAHOUTH, S.B. 1994. Technological readiness as a business strategy. Industrial Management &
Data Systems. Wembley: 1994. 94(8): 5-8 p.

HATTINGH, B. 2000. Cycan leadership solutions: a detailed profile of Cycan’s executive coaching
programme. 50 p.

LITTLEJOHN, S.W. & FOSS, K.A. 2005. Theories of human communication. 8th ed. Belmont:
Thomson-Wadswoth, pp.388.

MCPHEE, R. D. 2000. The emergent organization: communication as its site and surface.
Management Communication Quarterly, 14(2): 328-334.

ORTENBLAD, A. 2001. On differences between organizational learning and learning

organization. The Learning Organization, 8(3): 125-133.

TAYLOR, J. R. & ROBICHAUD, D. 2004. Finding the organization in the communication:

discourse as action and sensemaking. Organization, 11(3): 395- 413,

VAN EVERY, E.J. & TAYLOR, J. R. 1998. Modeling the organization as a system of
communication activity: a dialogue about the language/action perspective. Management
Communication Quarterly, 12(1): 128-147.

VERWEY, S. & DU PLOOY-CILLERS, F. 2003. Strategic Organisational Communication:

Paradigms and Paradoxes. Heinemann, South Africa. 283 p.

WEIK, K.E. & SUTCLIFFE, K. M. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking.
Organizational Science, 16(4): 409-451.

WEICK, K.E. 1996a. Drop you tools: An allegory for organizational studies. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(2): 301-313.

WEICK, K.E. 1996b. Preparing your organization to fight fires. Harvard Business Review, 74(3):
143-148.

WEICK, K.E. 2005. Organizing and the Process of sensemaking. Organizational Science, 16(4):
409-451.