Why the most consequential capability in the C-suite is the one no one is naming.
The one capability every other executive input depends on — and the one no leadership team is trained to perform. Grounded in four decades of organizational research, and distinct from consulting, coaching, and facilitation.
The modern executive team operates with more data, more dashboards, and more analytic horsepower than any generation before it, and still finds itself stalled: circling the same decision across three meetings, discovering months later that four people left the room with four different understandings of what was agreed, watching a strategy dissolve into competing interpretations somewhere between the offsite and the org chart.
This is not a knowledge problem, a strategy problem, or a frameworks problem. We see this as a sensemaking problem.
Sensemaking — the process by which people work to understand events that are novel, ambiguous, confusing, or otherwise violate expectations — has been studied rigorously in organizational science for more than four decades. The research is unambiguous on three points:
And yet: when MIT researchers asked executives to describe the traits of great leaders, fewer than 4 percent of the 1,395 characteristics named had anything to do with sensemaking — even though the same research found sensemaking to be a predictor of leadership success.
The capability that matters most is the one leaders are least likely to name, least likely to train, and least likely to staff.
This paper defines Executive Sensemaking as a discipline: the orchestration of clarity, alignment, and decision-making in real time — without projecting answers, pushing frameworks, or hijacking the meeting room. It grounds that discipline in the existing research, distinguishes it from consulting, coaching, and facilitation, and proposes a practical model for building it as a permanent capability inside the senior team.
Begin with the arithmetic.
McKinsey's global survey on organizational decision-making found that only 20 percent of respondents believe their organizations excel at making decisions. Managers report spending roughly 37 percent of their time making decisions, and that a majority of that time is used ineffectively. In a separate finding of the same research, 61 percent of executives said at least half the time they spent making decisions was wasted, and fewer than half said their decisions were timely at all.
McKinsey's own estimate of the drag: approximately 530,000 days of manager time, or $250 million in wages, squandered annually at a typical Fortune 500 company.
Two core things are worth pulling out of that data.
The first is that the waste is not located in analysis. It is found in deliberation, in the spaces where senior people try, and often fail, to arrive at a common understanding of what they are looking at. The complaints the researchers catalogued are not complaints about missing data. They are complaints about the absence of real debate, convoluted process, overreliance on consensus, unclear roles, and an inability to separate "signal from noise."
The second is that the familiar trade-off — we can be fast or we can be right — appears to be false. The same research found that faster decisions tend to be higher quality, not lower, and that organizations that make good decisions quickly also see better financial returns. Speed does not corrode judgment. Ambiguity does.
The cost of unmade sense compounds. One misaligned executive conversation does not produce one bad meeting. It produces three follow-up meetings, two conflicting workstreams, weeks of rework, and a leadership team that stops trusting.
The concept entered organizational studies through the work of Karl Weick, who introduced the term in The Social Psychology of Organizing (1979) and developed it into a full theoretical apparatus in Sensemaking in Organizations (1995).
The most widely used contemporary definition comes from Sally Maitlis and Marlys Christianson's landmark review in the Academy of Management Annals (2014): sensemaking is the process through which people work to understand issues or events that are novel, ambiguous, confusing, or in some other way violate expectations.
Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld's synthesis in Organization Science (2005) sharpened the definition in a way that matters enormously for executives. Sensemaking, they argued, turns circumstances into a situation that is comprehended explicitly in words, and that comprehension then functions, in their phrase, as a "springboard into action."
Three features of the research deserve to be set squarely at the center of the executive table.
People do not search until they find the correct story. They search until they find a story that holds, one that is coherent enough to permit action, and then they stop. This is the mechanism by which organizations move. But it means the first plausible story to reach the ears of the people in the room has an enormous structural advantage, whether or not it is the right one.
Gary Klein, Brian Moon, and Robert Hoffman's data/frame theory (IEEE Intelligent Systems, 2006) describes the loop precisely: a frame determines which data counts as relevant, and the data in turn elaborates, questions, or replaces the frame. Klein defines sensemaking as a motivated, continuous effort to understand connections in order to anticipate their trajectories and act effectively.
The executive implication is clear. If the basic model is wrong, more data will not fix it. More data will simply be sorted into the wrong frame, faster and at greater expense. Reframing — the deliberate act of questioning and replacing the frame — is a distinct mental discipline that almost never happens by accident in a senior meeting, because it requires someone to say the thing that makes the group and their thinking start over. A risk few are willing to take, and fewer still are able to do.
Cynthia Kurtz and David Snowden's Cynefin framework (IBM Systems Journal, 2003) challenged three assumptions embedded in nearly all decision-support and strategy tools: the assumption of order, the assumption of rational choice, and the assumption of intent. Their argument is that leaders routinely apply ordered, best-practice logic to complex situations where cause and effect can only be understood in retrospect. And the first act of leadership is to correctly identify which kind of problem is on the table.
That first act is sensemaking. Everything after that — the framework, the analysis, the decision protocol — is a bet on having gotten it right.
There is a reason sensemaking concentrates its risk and its return at the top of the house.
The organization is a reflection of how its top team interprets. Hambrick and Mason's upper echelons theory (Academy of Management Review, 1984) established what has become one of the most durable findings in strategy research: organizational outcomes — strategic choices and performance — are partially predicted by the characteristics of top managers. Hambrick's 2007 update stated the mechanism more plainly: executives' experiences, values, and personalities shape their interpretations of the situations they face, and those interpretations shape their choices.
Sensemaking quality is also empirically linked to performance. Thomas, Clark, and Gioia (Academy of Management Journal, 1993) tested this. Analyzing direct relationships between decisions and outcomes across 156 hospitals, they modeled the chain from scanning → interpretation → action → outcomes, and found the sensemaking processes of senior teams linked to organizational performance. The study is one of the first and clearest empirical connectors between how leaders interpret and create meaning and what the enterprise produces as a result.
Power distorts meaning. High-power individuals exert outsized influence on organizational sensemaking — as they do many other parts of strategy and leadership. In practice, this means that in most executive rooms, the sense that survives is not the most plausible sense; it is the sense held by the most senior person who spoke first. Every subsequent contribution is then, consciously or not, calibrated against it. This is the central operational hazard of the C-suite, and it is why sensemaking at that level cannot be left to happen on its own. The structure actively suppresses the very inputs that would improve the frame.
Executive sense becomes organizational sense, though it mutates on the way down. Gioia and Chittipeddi (Strategic Management Journal, 1991) showed that strategic change is initiated through a paired cycle of sensemaking (leaders working out what is happening) and sensegiving (leaders attempting to influence how others make sense of it). Balogun and Johnson (Academy of Management Journal, 2004) then demonstrated what happens next: middle managers construct their understanding of change largely through lateral conversations with each other, and often in the absence of senior management. The story leadership thinks it transmitted and the story the organization cobbles together later are frequently not the same story.
The resulting variation is determined by how much leaders animate the process and how much stakeholders participate in it. The typically fragmented and restricted results are the default condition of most large organizations rather than exotic failure states.
And leaders don't see it. Ancona, Williams, and Gerlach's (MIT Sloan Management Review, 2020) research found sensemaking to be a predictor of leadership success, and simultaneously found that of 1,395 characteristics executives associated with great leadership, fewer than 4 percent related to sensemaking at all. Leaders named vision. They named credibility. They named execution. Almost none named the capability on which all three depend.
Sensemaking does not degrade gracefully. It collapses. And it collapses hardest under precisely the conditions that make it most necessary.
The story of the Mann Gulch fire illustrates it perfectly. A smoke-jumping crew, confronted with a situation that no longer matched their model of understanding, lost the shared meaning that held them together as a unit — and lost with it the ability to act coherently. The lesson from the disaster is that people cling to their tools long past the point of usefulness, because dropping the tools means admitting they no longer know what is happening.
Executive teams have tools too. They are called the operating plan, the thesis, the deck we already presented to the board.
Thanks to a condition labeled dynamic uncertainty by Christianson and Barton, sensemaking has rarely been more critical and rarely been more difficult to accomplish at the same time.
The research establishes that sensemaking matters. It does not establish who is responsible for it inside a real leadership team, or what it looks like when performed well.
Four established professions each touch the problem, and none of them solves it:
Executive Sensemaking is the missing discipline: the orchestration of clarity, alignment, and decision-making in real time without projecting answers, pushing frameworks, or hijacking the room.
The difference between this and the disciplines described above isn't merely one of style. It's philosophical and essential. It is, in fact, the whole argument.
The organization already contains the answer. The people in the organization hold, distributed among them, the market knowledge, the operational reality, the political constraints, and the strategic instinct required to make the call. What they lack is not content. What they lack are the conditions under which that content can be surfaced, connected, tested, and converted into a shared frame that survives contact with the rest of the enterprise.
That is a capability that can be practiced, staffed, and built. But it can also be brought in.
For more than two decades, Ballast founders Kevin Gosa and Bryan Horvath have worked inside this gap, building the conditions under which senior teams can turn distributed knowledge into shared understanding. That work has distilled into three disciplines. Each is connected to a documented failure mode in the research.
Hearing what leaders meant, not what they said. Surfacing the insight underneath the argument, and the objection underneath the silence. Where the most senior voice sets the baseline by default, forensic listening is the deliberate act of retrieving the contributions the structure would otherwise suppress: the softened and quieted dissents, the dropped caveats. The forensic listener reconstructs the actual, distributed model of the situation — the challenge or the opportunity — including the parts of it no one has said out loud.
Connecting differing ideas into coherent direction while things are still in discussion. Not a post-session summary; a live articulation, offered back to the group, saying: here is the situation as you have all described it — is that right?
With this discipline, individual understanding converts into shared meaning. Sensemaking is complete when the situation is comprehended explicitly in words. Words that exist only in the facilitator's notebook, or only in each executive's private summary, have not done the work. The synthesis has to be spoken, tested, corrected, and owned by all involved.
Sensemaking is not a search for the single correct answer. Its aim is the construction of a picture coherent enough to act on, and then the willingness to update it as action produces new data. Ancona stated that sensemaking produces an emerging picture, made more complete through data, action, experience, and conversation.
The research supports the bias toward motion: fast decisions are not worse decisions. The discipline is not to decide recklessly, but to refuse to let the pursuit of certainty become the mechanism by which the organization declines to move.
Executive Sensemaking is not a service to be rented indefinitely. The day-to-day requires ownership for the ongoing work. Five conditions distinguish leadership teams that make sense well from those that do not.
Sensemaking resists measurement because its outputs are invisible when it works and catastrophic when it fails. But four proxies are useful to at least partially address this challenge:
None of these are perfect, of course, but all of them are better than the current standard, which is to measure nothing and assume the nodding meant something.
The research consensus is now four decades deep and points in one direction: organizations and people do not act on objective reality. They act on their interpretation of reality, and that interpretation is manufactured, in real time, in meeting rooms full of senior people who mostly do not know they are manufacturing it.
The C-suite has professionalized nearly every other input to that process — analysis, capital allocation, talent, risk, and communication. It has not professionalized the making of meaning itself. It's the one activity on which the value of every other input depends.
Prefer the designed edition? Have the formatted PDF sent to you →
The conditions this paper describes are not abstract. If your leadership team is in one of them, it starts with a conversation.