Introduction
Coopetition scholars have in recent years begun to recognize complexities at the individual level, which is becoming particularly evident in studies dealing with coopetition tensions and paradoxes (Bengtsson et al., 2016; Le Roy & Fernandez, 2015; Raza-Ullah et al., 2014), as well as activities, processes, and practices (Dahl et al., 2016; Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016a, 2016b; Tidström & Rajala, 2016). A consensus is starting to spread that successful coopetition strategies start with successful tension management, which is supported by the fact that both the emerging practice and paradox approaches begin with individual coping.
It is not surprising that both approaches are rapidly rising in coopetition research, as the essence of coopetition lies in its complexity, duality, and the contradictory logics of interaction, at multiple levels of analysis. Scholars have therefore understood that, particularly for individuals dealing with this simultaneity in practice, tensions are experienced, for example, as role ambiguity (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000) and emotional ambivalence (Raza-Ullah et al., 2014). Therefore, coopetition requires the creation of new frames by managers (Mariani, 2007) and employees (Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016) that can be realized in practice.
This chapter looks to the future and sets out to demonstrate a stronger connection between the coopetition paradox and sensemaking approaches. The sensemaking perspective captures the ongoing individual and collective processes of organizing, communicating, and creating and re-creating the meaning of the world (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995). It also incorporates a dimension of politics (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010) that defines sensegiving as activities related to the preferred influencing of others’ views of reality (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). In other words, sensemaking becomes a cognitive and social tool for dealing with ongoing uncertainty and ambiguity while providing legitimacy for actions and interactions.
The coopetition paradox has become particularly interesting from a socio-psychological perspective. By applying the sensemaking perspective to coopetition, recent studies show that employees differ in their abilities to combine and deploy cooperative and competitive frames (Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016b; Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016). These studies demonstrate the major potential of the perspective to open the black box of the coopetition paradox by delving deeper into individuals’ thoughts, a largely underexplored research area (Le Roy & Fernandez, 2015). Despite its potential to reveal both individual and collective coping with uncertainty and ambiguity, the use of the sensemaking perspective in coopetition research has been rare. The research agenda offered here invites researchers to correct this deficiency.
The chapter is organized as follows. A brief review of the prior research on the coopetition paradox and the individual level is followed by notes on the use of case studies to examine sensemaking. We then discuss potential future avenues for coopetition sensemaking research and conclude with an overview of how the sensemaking perspective can be methodologically implemented within the coopetition research field.
The coopetition paradox at the individual level
Individuals at lower organizational levels have commonly been portrayed as recipients of coopetition tensions (Bengtsson et al., 2016; Raza-Ullah et al., 2014) that are transferred from top management engagement in inter-organizational interaction (Bengtsson et al., 2016; Fernandez et al., 2014; Raza-Ullah et al., 2014). The coopetition paradox thus exists due to simultaneous cooperation and competition between organizations, manifested through felt tensions, which stem from the difficulties in managing the opposing interaction logics (Bengtsson et al., 2016).
The dominant discourse concerning the management of coopetition tensions has revolved around the principles of separation and integration. The separation principle embraces the assumption that individuals deal with only one interaction logic at a time, meaning cooperation and competition are separated into different activities and times (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000). Recent research, however, shows that, particularly at lower organizational levels, individuals are able to internalize the coopetition paradox (Fernandez et al., 2014; Le Roy & Fernandez, 2015). From a cognitive perspective, managing tensions should therefore be approached as the ability to think paradoxically (Bengtsson et al., 2016; Gnyawali et al., 2016). In other words, the development of paradoxical frames indicates an employee’s understanding of when to use a cooperative or a competitive frame, or both (Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016). This presents an opening for the deeper integration of the sensemaking perspective into coopetition research.
By examining the coopetition paradox from a sensemaking perspective, the management of coopetition tensions shifts from the organizational level to the individual and group levels. Making sense of coopetition, i.e., dealing with the paradox, implies the creation of a coopetition frame—the combination of cooperative and competitive frames—by individuals (Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016a; Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016). Shared coopetition frames mean the understanding and acceptance of simultaneous cooperation and competition between individuals at the intra- and/or inter-organizational levels, and enable the integration of coopetition activities and practices into daily working life (Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016b). We also acknowledge coopetition sensegiving as an equally important process in creating new frames, that is, the influence practised by individuals or groups, at the intra- or inter-organizational levels, to steer the dominant view of coopetition in a certain direction.
Using case studies to investigate sensemaking: The Finnish media industry case
Qualitative research and particularly in-depth case studies are valuable in studying sensemaking, as they enable multiple data collection methods by the researcher to closely follow how and why individuals think, feel or act (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). This reasoning was the starting point for our studies on coopetition from a sensemaking perspective (Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016a, 2016b), which are based on the same data set and address coopetition as a strategic change. In other words, integrating coopetition into the daily working lives of managers at different levels was treated as a cognitive re-orientation of existing interpretative schemes (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991: 444), i.e., a new way of thinking and acting.
The case study follows the emergence of a particular collaboration between three organizations in the Finnish media industry that had a history of fierce competition. As they are part of a rapidly changing industry, the changes created possibilities for increased cooperation between the parties and forced cooperation. Managers and employees had to create new understandings regarding competitors becoming coopetitors, changing their roles individually and collectively.
In total, twenty-eight interviews were conducted over two years, closely following how the coopetition initiative unfolded from its formulation to its implementation phases in 2013 and 2014, from the perspectives of both higher- and lower-level managers. In practice, cooperation encompassed sharing journalistic material between the three organizations, contradicting the profession’s business concepts that call for competitive thinking and uniqueness. By combining interviews with observation, texts, and artefacts, a holistic understanding of the challenges presented to the individuals involved in implementing coopetition in practice, and how they individually and collectively tried to cope with these, was enabled. In particular, the in-depth interviews allowed us to investigate how individuals worked out a new routine for implementing external material into the daily production of newspapers, while sharing their own material, as well as how they felt about taking part in inter-organizational meetings and establishing contact with other inter-organizational groups so that coopetition would continue on a permanent basis, which had not existed before. Examples from the case study will serve as foundations for the development of the arguments presented below.
How the sensemaking perspective can assist an increased understanding of the coopetition paradox: A future research agenda
The sensemaking perspective calls for a new research agenda in coopetition research. The importance of the perspective becomes evident when considering the outcomes, such as the development of a coopetition mindset. The mindset can be approached as accepting and understanding the paradox, and that understanding then forms the foundation for being able to make and shape coopetition in practice (Gnyawali et al., 2016). If a mindset is shared by managers and employees across an organization, the chances of successful strategy implementation and development naturally increase. However, the development of the mindset becomes complicated with respect to the interplay between the individual and collective levels in their own firm and in their partnering organizations, which we discuss next.
We posit that sensemaking cannot be addressed solely as an organizational construct, rather, we need to investigate sensemaking in relation to a number of interrelated elements across different actor levels (cf. Balogun et al., 2014). It should be noted that in this chapter we draw particularly on the strategy-as-practice stream of sensemaking studies that deals with implementing strategic change (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). We have chosen discourse (Balogun et al., 2014; Vaara, 2010) and emotions (Cornelissen et al., 2014; Liu & Maitlis, 2014) as the most promising elements for coopetition sensemaking research, due to their interrelatedness and roles in influencing participation in strategy. In addition, even though the case findings show that managers differed in their frame creation within the management levels, the discussion treats the coopetition frames as becoming shared within a specific actor level. Inspired by advances made by sensemaking scholars and our case study findings, we have developed a framework for adopting a sensemaking perspective on coopetition (Figure 16.1). A summary is presented in Table 16.1.
| Assumptions on the Strategy-as-practice Approach | Implications for Coopetition Frame Creation | Future Research Agenda | |
Discourse |
How strategies are talked about/framed influences how sense is made, i.e., how strategy participation is legitimized |
Both formal and informal talk may have enabling or hindering effects in terms of developing coopetition frames |
What is the role of discourse in the construction of coopetition frames at top, middle, and lower employee levels? Are there differences, and if so, why? How are discourses connected at different levels and what is the effect on the creation of shared frames? How and why do managers and employees use particular discourses to influence the creation of shared frames? |
Emotions |
Positive emotions (felt and expressed) aid sensemaking, negative emotions (felt and expressed) impede sensemaking; emotions are contagious |
The creation of shared coopetition frames is contingent on emotional dynamics |
What is the role of felt and expressed emotions in the creation of coopetition frames? How do emotional dynamics (individual and collective emotions) influence the creation of shared coopetition frames? How are emotional dynamics connected between organizational actor levels? What is the effect on the shared creation of coopetition frames in an organization? |
Discourse
The discursive stream in strategy-as-practice studies posits that the way in which strategies are visualized and communicated in organizations can promote and provide legitimacy for participation in implementing strategy, but it can also have a hindering effect. In other words, talk in all forms has a powerful effect on how sense is made (Balogun et al., 2014; Weick et al., 2005). Applied to coopetition, this would imply that both the formal and informal use of discourse would either aid or hinder the development and deployment of coopetition frames.
The case study findings tell us that the sense produced by the coopetition strategy in inter-organizational meetings between top managers and in intra-organizational interaction between top managers and lower-level employees, as well as between other employees, differed greatly. The reason is to be found in discourse—how the coopetition strategy was talked about and portrayed differently at inter- and intra-organizational levels (Lundgren-Henriksson & Kock, 2016a, 2016b). In inter-organizational meetings between top managers, the tone of the discussions was highly positive, an enthusiasm prevailed, and a shared view of the future was created—coopetition was an opportunity. The findings also indicate that key managers used this enthusiasm in their sensegiving efforts, driven by personal incentives to realize coopetition. Hence, the coopetition frame was largely shared in the organizations at top management levels.
When engaging in sensegiving processes in their home organizations, key managers also tried to transfer this enthusiasm throughout their organizations. However, it became evident that these efforts had mixed results because alternative and contradicting discourses existed in parallel at lower organizational levels. Through talk at lower levels, another image of the coopetition initiative was communicated—c-oopetition as a threat to present and future organizational identity. In opposition to the discourse prevailing at higher management levels, it provided legitimacy for not participating in the implementation of the coopetition strategy.
However, the role of the external context must also be taken into account here (see the dotted arrows in Figure 16.1). Top managers were very much involved in creating the prevailing industry discourse together with industry consultants to promote participation in the coopetition strategy, whereas lower-level employees tried to match the industry discourse with the ways the strategy was portrayed and talked about inside the organizations. Clearly, there were difficulties with fitting these two ways of talking about the strategy together—as a future possibility versus a threat—and this proved detrimental to lower-level actors in the development of new frames. Hence, coopetition frames were not shared throughout organizations.
All the case examples highlight the crucial role of talk at the intra- and inter-organizational levels in coopetition frame creation, as well as the major differences between organizational levels. Most importantly, they create new questions to be tackled in future research. In all, there are no guarantees that the intended discourse produced and used by top managers will be the dominant discourse in an organization (Rouleau & Balogun, 2011). First, the influence from sensegiving at lower organizational levels on top management sensemaking (dashed arrows in Figure 16.1), i.e., the down-middle-top communication and discourse (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010), requires attention to understand how top managers’ emerging understandings of coopetition are continuously challenged and developed (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Lower-level managers and employees might deliberately challenge top managers’ views on coopetition, possibly leading to fragmentation within and across top management levels in their frame creation. Reasons might also exist to portray coopetition in a certain manner within a particular actor level to influence the overall sense made (solid arrows in Figure 16.1). Future research could hence investigate how sensegiving is executed in practice by an actor group, and discuss how coopetition is talked about and framed, and the rationale behind it.
Evidently, the everyday struggle of implementing coopetition in practice, and the resolution processes, differs between top managers and lower-level employees (Le Roy & Fernandez, 2015). To understand how coopetition frames are developed, maintained, and re-developed, research needs to delve into how and why coopetition is discussed, legitimized or not, and debated at different actor levels. In the case study, top managers assembled at formal inter-organizational meetings to discuss the future of the industry and emerging forms of coopetition, whereas lower-level managers and employees discussed technicalities and implementation issues. The emerging future was also touched upon at these levels, but in more informal ways colored by speculation and rumor (Balogun et al., 2014) at both intra- and inter-organizational levels, largely creating skepticism and complexity in making sense of coopetition. Both top managers and lower-level employees might engage in inter-organizational exchange (dotted arrows in Figure 16.1), yet, as the examples above testify, coopetition may be portrayed differently. A question for the future is, thus, to what degree do talk and framing at an inter-organizational level influence the creation of a coopetition frame, compared to talk within an organization?
Emotions and discourse
In order to delve even deeper into understanding how individuals create coopetition frames, emotions need to be connected with how coopetition is discussed and framed. The discussion has already shown that discourse differs at inter- and intra-organizational levels, and we will now show the same can apply to emotions. It is important to acknowledge emotions, since felt and expressed emotions through talk and communication in different forms have the power to re-inforce or impede sensemaking (Liu & Maitlis, 2014; Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). For our discussion here, the distinction between individual and collective emotions, i.e., emotional dynamics (Liu & Maitlis, 2014), is particularly interesting. The linkage between emotions and discourse (Brundin & Liu, 2015) suggests the sensegiving of particular managers or employees, where a specific position or attitude expressed in an emotional manner has the potential to influence the collective emotional state towards coopetition in an organization. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that emotions are contagious (Cornelissen et al., 2014).
Emotions in coopetition research have been discussed in terms of the coopetition paradox. Tensions stem from individuals evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of coopeting, thus grasping both positive and negative emotions; the former connected to mutuality in terms of cooperation, the latter to a fear of the negative implications of coopeting for the individual or organization (Raza-Ullah et al., 2014). The discussion here centers on how emotions towards coopetition can become shared within and across actor levels, and their effect on the creation of a shared coopetition frame. Based on the case findings, we emphasize in particular the influence of negative emotions, such as anxiety and fear (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010).
Positive emotions reinforce sensemaking, become an aiding tool, and can enable the matching of cooperative and competitive frames. On the other hand, negatively oriented emotions can do the opposite and become contagious. Since coopetition encompasses interactions at both inter- and intra-organizational levels, the case study findings show that the sense produced at each level is influenced by, but also influences, other levels. In a worst-case scenario, then, this could mean that negativity and skepticism spread throughout an organization, hindering the sensemaking of individuals that might not otherwise have experienced those emotions. Negative or positive emotions, expressed through talk and speech for any particular reason in an organization, have a powerful effect on the felt emotions of individuals and subsequently on the sense made (boxes on the arrows in Figure 16.1).
The findings clearly show that the affective dimension had an influencing effect on the ability of managers to develop a coopetition frame. The shared positivity expressed in the inter-organizational meetings towards future forms of coopetition aided the development of high expectations concerning the future development of the relationship. Future research should therefore dig deeper into investigating emotions at the individual and collective levels, both in terms of felt and expressed emotions. For example, even though expressed emotions within a particular actor level are shared, variations might exist in individually felt emotions, potentially causing ambiguity for the individual. In this sense, dealing with contradictory individually felt and collectively expressed emotions introduces new perspectives on the coopetition paradox. Another issue to be tackled is whether managers and employees express what they really feel concerning coopetition, how they do that, and what the collective consequences are for the creation of coopetition frames. Thus, future research questions may ask: can expressed positive, negative, or confused emotions be linked to the success or failure of collective decision-making (Liu & Maitlis, 2014), such as in top management meetings where coopetition is discussed and debated?
Since the collective level in terms of coopetition also includes actor levels in the partnering organizations, expected versus unexpected emotions becomes a valid issue to be explored in the future. For example, due to the different natures of intra- and inter-organizational interactions at higher and lower organizational levels, there are no guarantees that the actual experienced emotions of employees will match with top management’s expectations of employees’ emotions. The findings showed that skeptical views at lower organizational levels clearly stood in contradiction to the expected emotional response desired by top managers, resulting in top managers struggling to make sense of and doubting the emerging collective frame. Thus, a future research question might ask: how and why are emotions at different organizational levels connected and what is their influence on sensemaking in the organization?
Last, we wish to emphasize that adopting a sensemaking perspective on coopetition should be guided by the aim to shed light on the pluralism of views, emotions, and talk, i.e., the complexity of managing a strategy where ongoing parallel yet interconnected processes of sensemaking exist. Only then can the creation of a shared coopetition frame be comprehensively understood. Thus, we now turn to how the sensemaking perspective can be methodologically implemented in coopetition research.
How to implement the sensemaking perspective in coopetition research
In order to conduct an in-depth investigation on the creation of coopetition frames by individuals, the common methods for both data collection and analysis in coopetition research have to be re-evaluated. To explore how coopetition is made sense of at intra- and inter-organizational levels, future research must adopt techniques that allow movement closer to social interaction and meaning creation processes, such as ethnography (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Ethnographic methods also create the potential for more studies on sensemaking and materiality (Balogun et al., 2014), such as how the use of PowerPoints and different kinds of material tools and artefacts in both formal and informal meetings—where coopetition is discussed and debated—can influence how sense is made. To develop a holistic understanding, both higher and lower organizational actor levels should be incorporated, since sense differs between actor levels (Weick et al., 2005). In addition, future research could embrace narrative research and discourse analysis (Vaara, 2010) in examining how individuals participate in executing coopetition strategies, since these methodological choices strive to understand how legitimacy is socially and culturally produced and reproduced.
Sensemaking occurs through continuous cycles of cognition and action (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), and is therefore not a static concept. Therefore, when following how managers and employees make sense of coopetition, a longer time frame should be adopted. Case studies have been popular in coopetition research where interviews seem to be the number-one choice for data collection. When exploring sensemaking through interviews, researchers must remember that it spans different temporal states—past-present-future (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Weick et al., 2005)—which is something that should help form the base for interviews.
However, in examining sensemaking, researchers must move beyond interviews as the number-one empirical data source and seek triangulation with other ethnographic-inspired methods, such as observation of top management inter- or intra-organizational meetings and everyday talk on the shop floor where coopetition plans are put into practice or abandoned. This becomes particularly evident when dealing with felt and expressed emotions, thus creating a new role for the coopetition researcher and calling for more longitudinal research to closely examine how coopetition develops—preferably by becoming a member of the studied organization or group—so as to glean viewpoints from the researched individuals (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008).
Concluding words
The aim of this chapter was to illustrate the benefits of a tighter integration of the sensemaking perspective into the coopetition paradox discussion, and to open new research avenues into investigating how actors at different levels make sense of coopetition. It is suggested that a sensemaking perspective on coopetition shifts the focus from the organizational management of tensions, including the principles of separation and integration, to psychological and social management by individuals. In other words, the perspective calls for alternative and complementary ways to manage the coopetition paradox, namely discursive use and framing, as well as sensitivity to the influencing role of emotional dynamics on strategy participation.
Managers can learn from the sensemaking perspective that shared perspectives on coopetition strategy are hard to accomplish across actor levels and over time. To understand how sense is generated in different ways, and how that results in unintended effects for strategy development, its discursive use in varying forms has to be investigated within all sections of the organization. In addition, top managers should bear in mind that managing employee emotions (Huy, 2002) regarding coopetition might prove difficult. Thus, the discussion on sensemaking and emotions calls for an investigation of managers’ abilities to sense and manage collective emotions so that coopetition frames can become shared throughout an organization.
References
Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 175–201.
Balogun, J. & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573–1601.
Bengtsson, M. & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks – to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 411–426.
Bengtsson, M., Raza-Ullah, T., & Vanyushyn, V. (2016). The coopetition paradox and tensions: The moderating role of coopetition capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 19–30.
Brundin, E. & Liu, F. (2015). The role of emotions in strategizing. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (Eds), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 632–646). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cornelissen, J. P., Mantere, S., & Vaara, E. (2014). The contraction of meaning: The combined effect of communication, emotions, and materiality on sensemaking in the Stockwell shooting. Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), 699–736.
Dahl, J., Kock, S., & Lundgren-Henriksson, E.-L. (2016). Conceptualizing coopetition strategy as practice: A multilevel interpretative framework. International Studies of Management and Organization, 46(2–3), 94–109.
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. London: Sage.
Fernandez, A.-S., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition – Case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222–235.
Gioia, D. A. & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448.
Gnyawali, D. R., Madhavan, R., He, Y., & Bengtsson, M. (2016). The competition-cooperation paradox in inter-firm relationships: A conceptual framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 7–18.
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–69.
Le Roy, F. & Fernandez, A.-S. (2015). Managing coopetitive tensions at the working-group level: The rise of the coopetitive project team. British Journal of Management, 26, 671–688.
Liu, F. & Maitlis, S. (2014). Emotional dynamics and strategizing processes: A study of strategic conversations in top team meetings. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 202–234.
Lundgren-Henriksson, E.-L. & Kock, S. (2016a). A sensemaking perspective on coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 97–108.
Lundgren-Henriksson, E.-L. & Kock, S. (2016b). Coopetition in a headwind – The interplay of sensemaking, sensegiving, and middle managerial emotional response in coopetitive strategic change development. Industrial Marketing Management, 58, 20–34.
Maitlis, S. & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125.
Maitlis, S. & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551–580.
Mariani, M. M. (2007). Coopetition as an emergent strategy: Empirical evidence from an Italian consortium of opera houses. International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(2), 97–126.
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.
Rouleau, L. & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 953–983.
Stadtler, L. & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2016). Coopetition as a paradox: Integrative approaches in a multi-company, cross-sector partnership. Organization Studies, 37(5), 655–685.
Tidström, A. & Rajala, A. (2016). Coopetition strategy as interrelated praxis and practices on multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 58, 35–44.
Vaara, E. (2010). Taking the linguistic turn seriously: Strategy as a multifaceted and interdiscursive phenomenon. In Baum, J. A. C. & Lampel, J. (Eds), The Globalization of Strategy (Advances in Strategic Management, Volume 27) (pp. 29–50). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.