Retrospective

The property of retrospect brings into focus the position of the person who does the sensemaking in relation to duration or time, and the implication of the ongoing, fleeting quality of time and its experience on attention. Weick explicates that time has two distinct forms. The first is the “coming-to-be and passing-away that has no contours, no boundaries, and no differentiation.”3 _{This denotes an ongoing, never-stopping quality of time which,} however, when its portions are bracketed and attended to, can also be understood in terms of episodes. He states that the latter form is more common because it is how we usually perceive (or rather talk about) time. The splitting of pure duration into portions or episodes only

implies that direction of attention is towards portions of the continuity, and in effect, that which has already elapsed.4

Therefore, “the creation of meaning is an attentional process, but it is attention to that which has already occurred.”5 _{This is particularly so because the never-stopping quality of time} dictates that our perception of reality is in fact always delayed and therefore in the past, even if this delay may be as minute as a fraction of a second.6 _{As such, the slight passing of} portions of our perception into the past is inescapable. The implication of this is that, no matter how small the slippage is, human perception is in reality always a memory. That anchors Weick’s argument that sensemaking can only be retrospective. He makes this point clearer by stating that “it is only possible to direct attention to what exists, that is, what has already passed.”7

1 _{Weick et al. (2005 citing Albert & Whetten, 1985)} 2 _{Gioia & Thomas (1996)}

3 _{Weick (1995 citing Schutz, 1967, p. 47)} 4 _{Weick (1995, p. 25)}

5 _{Weick (1995, pp. 25-26)}

6 _{Weick (1995 citing Schutz, 1967)} 7 _{Weick (1995, p. 25)}

Brought closer to organisational context, Weick makes clear the influence of the mixed content which passes into the past, from which content for meaning construction is drawn. To do so, he also points out an element instrumental to the glancing back, namely current action. Given that “people typically have more than one project underway, and have differing

awareness of these projects, reflection is overdetermined and clarity is not assured.”1 _Thus, over-determination of reflection is dictated by the fact that attention can only be backward, although there remains the challenge that the past makes “many different kinds of sense”2 given the varied, passing away content vis-à-vis undergoing projects. He stresses that this leads to confusion, rather than ignorance.

The important point is that retrospective sensemaking is an activity in which many possible meanings may need to be synthesized, because many different projects are underway at the time reflection takes place… The problem is that there are too many meanings, not too few. The problem faced with a sensemaker is one of equivocality, not one of uncertainty. The problem is confusion, not ignorance.3

The challenge, for organisations, is therefore that different people will interpret events differently, given their differentiated sentiments and goals in relation to similar projects. As he puts it “projects and feelings that are under way will affect the backward glance and what is seen.”4 _{The recognition that people in the higher up levels of organisations see and}

interpret event differently from those who are the lower levels of organisations,5 _{in particular} underscores this notion. Another implication of this is that “meanings change as projects and goals change.”6 _{This explains the reality of organisational life where projects are not only} underway at the same time, but are as likely to compete for attention and resources too. He views that what will guide what people search for when they look back is “values, priorities, and clarity about preferences” because these help with prioritisation of critical projects,7 _but in so doing also direct attention to specific cues over others.

1 _{Weick (1995, p. 27)} 2 _{Weick (1995, p. 27)} 3 _{Weick (1995, p. 27)} 4 _{Weick (1995, p. 26)} 5 _{Weick (1995, p. 27)} 6 _{Weick (1995, p. 27)} 7 _{Weick (1995, pp. 27-28)}

Furthermore, retrospection introduces the element of hindsight bias in sensemaking.1 _The point Weick makes is that glancing backward does not yield accurate results, and that this is contingent on whether the outcomes are already known or not. Thus, retrospective

sensemaking edits the history of outcomes which are already known in a manner which simplifies what led to the outcomes. Drawing from Starbuck and Milliken, who assessed the accuracies of executives’ perceptual filters, Weick states the following: “If the outcome is perceived to be bad, then antecedents are reconstructed to emphasize incorrect actions, flawed analysis, and inaccurate perceptions, even if such flaws were not influential to or all obvious at the time.”2 _{Weick reminds us that everyday sensemaking involves short time spans} which should minimise the effects of hindsight bias. He advises students of sensemaking to take seriously, or rather “become more comfortable” with retrospective sensemaking as it underpins most assumptions about organisations, including issues of strategy,3 _{just as it does} organisational structure.4 _{On this, he sensitises the student of sensemaking to the role of} hindsight and how its influence permeates much of organisational reality.