Applying this to Weick's organizational information theory, organizations must work to reduce ambiguity and complexity in the workplace to maximize cohesiveness and efficiency.
[9] Maitlis and Christianson states that the equivocality trigger sensemaking for three reasons: environment jolts and organizational crises, threats to identity, and planned change interventions.
In order to place Weick's vision regarding Organizational Information Theory into proper working context, exploring his view regarding what constitutes the organization and how its individuals embody that construct might yield significant insights.
From a fundamental standpoint, he shared a belief that organizational validation is derived---not through bricks and mortar, or locale—but from a series of events which enable entities to "collect, manage and use the information they receive.
What will be found is that there are events linked together, that transpire within concrete walls and these sequences, their pathways, their timing, are the forms we erroneously make into substances when we talk about an organization".
[13] When viewed in this modular fashion, the organization meets Weick's theoretical vision by encompassing parameters that are less bound by concrete, wood, and structural restraints and more by an ability to serve as a repository where information can be consistently and effectively channeled.
Taking these defining characteristics into account, proper channel execution relies on maximization of messaging clarity, context, delivery and evolution through any system.
Simply put, double interacts describe interpersonal exchanges that, inherently, occur across the organizational chain of command and in life, itself.
He believes that many outside consultants gloss over the importance of the double interact because they depart the scene before the effects of their recommended action bounce back to affect the actor".
[15] By allowing us to consider the organization in this alternative framework, Organizational Information Theory provides us with a robust platform from which to explore the communication process, literally, as it unfolds.
In developing Organizational Information Theory, Weick took a "social psychological stance that notes that individual behavior is more a function of the situation than of personal traits or role definitions.
[18] So, in much the same way he suggested that organizations be viewed through a non-traditional lens in structure, he acknowledges that, by doing so, one may have to consider circumstances where "several means can produce the same result, while offering the appearance that lack of coordination, absence of regulations, and very slow feedback times are the norm".
[19] While many might view these nuances as roadblocks or impediments to progress, Organizational Information Theory views each one as a catalyst for improved performance and positive change through: "increased sensitivity to a shifting environment, room for adaptation and creative solutions to develop, sub-system breakdown without damaging the entire organization, persistence through rapid environmental fluctuations and fostering an attitude where self-determination by the actors is key".
Based on the number of rapidly moving parts within any organization (i.e., information flows, individuals, etc....) the foundation upon which messaging is received constantly shifts, thus leaving room for unintended consequences relative to true intent and meaning.
Equivocality arises when communication outreach "can be given different interpretations because their substance is ambiguous, conflicted, obscure, or introduces uncertainty into a situation".
[24] Organizational Information Theory provides a knowledge base and framework which can help mitigate these risks through by decreasing the level of ambiguity present during relevant communication activities.
[24] In looking at how equivocality evolves more closely, it can also manifest itself as a signature for highly interpretive events, along with those where the parameters (and uncertainty levels) are, traditionally, much more concrete.
Equivocality arises because everyone's experiences are unique; individuals and communities develop their own sets of values and beliefs and tend to interpret events differently.
Equivocality also may result from unreliable or conflicting information sources, noisy communication channels, differing or ambiguous goals and preferences, vague roles and responsibilities, or disparate political interests".
[27] In its more defined organizational context, sensemaking can be looked at as a process "that is applied to both individuals and groups who are faced with new information that is inconsistent with their prior beliefs".
[32] On the other hand, sensemaking about material gathered and available options make a great contribution to learn in more conventional contexts, especially in knowledge-intensive work settings.
Assembly rules--Signifies a broader construct, "which may include evaluating how standard operating procedures (SOP) are carried out, along with chain-of-command designations".
In order to expand the theory, social mechanism can be applied to consider how institutions prime, edit and trigger sensemaking besides the traditional cognitive constraint.
[57] As an adjunct to Weick's work regarding organizational information, noted academician (and fellow researcher), Dr. Brenda Dervin, followed a similar path in exploring how ambiguity and uncertainty are handled across platforms.
[58] "In 2000, the researchers Doughtery, Borrelli, Munir and O'Sullivan discovered that the level of innovation capability within organizations was connected to the ability of making the right sense of collective experiences in uncertain or ambiguous situations such as radical changes in the market or technology paradigm shifts".
[59] Instinctively, it seems, the sensemaking systems of less innovative companies appeared to be inhibited by tendencies to "play within existing rules...filter out unexpected information or unorthodox competency sets, resulting in groupthink and more of the same".
[61] A study applies these dynamics and organizational sensemaking to analyze how people make sense of market and technology knowledge for product innovation.
In other words, CMC tends to build up a rigidly structured communication environment, due to which, people will find it harder to gain additional information from outside the computer system.
[64] In this process, people are expected to use normal form objects, terms and utterances to portray correctly the contexts and experiences in order to let computer recognize.
[64] Meanwhile, descriptive vocabularies are used as indexical expressions to assist people to resolve equivocal meanings based on contextual, cultural, technical knowledge and information.