1  [1]Despite many serious and catastrophic consequences for social and economic systems, it has also been argued that the COVID-19 pandemic has opened “windows of opportunity” (e.g., Kanda, Kivimaa, 2020; Dahlke et al., 2021; Alva Ferrari et al., 2023) for re-thinking, re-imagining, and fundamentally innovating economic habits and narratives towards more sustainable and regenerative ones (Waddock, 2019; Riedy, 2020a, 2020b; Waddock, 2020a, 2021; Riedy, Waddock, 2022). Such sustainability transitions (such as the transition to a sustainable and circular bioeconomy; e.g., Pyka et al., 2022; Schlaile et al., 2022) are usually long-term system innovations (Elzen et al., 2004) in production and consumption modes that promote quality of life, inter- and intragenerational equity and ecosystem stability (for overviews of different approaches to sustainability transitions, see e.g., Loorbach et al., 2017; Schlaile, Urmetzer, 2021). Yet, one of the most important and effective points of intervention for system innovations – potentially even in the short term – are the paradigms, worldviews, or mindsets of economic systems and their agents (e.g., Göpel, 2016; Waddock, 2020b; Friedrich et al., 2021; Schlaile et al., 2022). Against this background, new approaches in economic and organizational theory – especially in the field of decision theory – are beginning to incorporate new capabilities (and limitations) of human agents for both problem identification and problem solving in fundamentally uncertain environments (Kurtz, Snowden, 2003; Snowden, 2005; Johnson, 2019; Graupe, 2020; Bäuerle, 2021; Bäuerle, Graupe, 2023). However, the empirical operationalization of such sensemaking processes remains underexplored. We argue that for the emergence of a possible new paradigm of economic action, an exploratory, open-minded look at how managers already make sense of their actions as of today might be a good starting point. Instead of pitting a (possible) paradigm against, for instance, the still dominant rational choice paradigm (e.g., Schlaile et al., 2017; Bäuerle, 2023), we tacitly assume that a new paradigm might already be emerging in crisis-prone practices ‘out there’. In this respect, the pandemic has been characterized by transboundary dynamics and a high degree of uncertainty and unpredictability, which has required rapid and innovative decisions by various leaders, innovators, and other economic actors (Kuckertz et al., 2020; Crayne, Medeiros, 2021; Medeiros et al., 2022; Schlaile et al., 2023).

2 Previous research on managerial sensemaking and decision-making processes has often relied on applied psychology, linguistics, and respective constructivist and qualitative approaches, using methods such as text and discourse analysis, interviews, observations, and others (e.g., see reviews by Brown et al., 2015; Golob, 2018; Cristofaro, 2022). In this regard, however, the potential of combining narrative research with quantitative and mixed methods approaches informed by evolutionary theory, complex systems research, and cognitive science for both conceptual and empirical sensemaking studies remains underutilized (see also Snowden, 2011; Lynam, Fletcher, 2015; van der Merwe et al., 2019; Cristofaro, 2022; Turner et al., 2022). Our contribution addresses this gap by tackling the following research question: Which (memetic) patterns of meaning are reflected in managerial sensemaking during the COVID-19 pandemic? In our exploratory study, we apply a rather novel mixed-methods approach, particularly informed by cognitive science and complexity theory, using the SenseMaker® software platform as an online data collection tool (e.g., van der Merwe et al., 2019; Guijt et al., 2022). This tool allows us to merge and triangulate qualitative and quantitative data in a structured and systematic way (e.g., Bryman, 2006), which complements qualitative studies of sensemaking and facilitates gaining a more fine-grained understanding of managerial sensemaking in the context of crisis situations and system innovations. The method utilizes a compositional statistics approach in which quantitative data is used as a means to describe and quantify the patterns that underlie the qualitative data, and as such all statistical inferences are relative to the qualitative data and are analyzed using compositional techniques (Aitchison, 1986; Upton, 2017).

3 During the summer months of 2021 (July 5 to September 20), we administered our questionnaire to 623 managers in a diverse set of organizations in Germany. While the SenseMaker® data collection and analysis software has already been applied in different empirical settings such as civic engagement and in the context of humanitarian issues (e.g., Bakhache et al., 2017; Mager et al., 2018; Bartels et al., 2019; van der Merwe et al., 2020; Mausch et al., 2021; Vasilescu et al., 2021; Wagner et al., 2022; Wamsler et al., 2022a; Cunningham et al., 2023), we are – to the best of our knowledge – the first to run a SenseMaker® project on a national scale in a managerial and business context. Moreover, Germany is an important case due to its leading role in the European economy and the national and international impact of its legislation on COVID-19 protective measures on businesses and managerial decisions. Our survey is characterized by an open-ended prompting question and several follow-up questions that enable the participants to formulate stories of their own experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic and to make sense of their shared stories (self-signification) using quantitative and qualitative methods [2]. This approach also promises to facilitate the capture of emergent patterns within the shared stories, thus enabling transformation-oriented researchers to uncover potential levers for system innovation, particularly in unordered problem situations during the current crisis (Snowden, Rancati, 2021). It should be noted, however, that while participants shared stories of varying length, in this article, we do not focus on the (qualitative) details of the themes and narratives of the stories themselves but rather report and interpret the quantitative results of our survey, in particular by means of plotting and discussing collective patterns of signifiers, primarily using triadic measures (see also Lynam, Fletcher, 2015; van der Merwe et al., 2019, for details). However, to illustrate the connection between the patterns and the narratives, we complement these quantitative findings with selected quotes from the stories the managers shared.

4 In general, our study contributes to the current debates on sensemaking and cognition in economic theory and organizational theory, in particular by empirically exploring the patterns that emerge from the stories shared by the managers on the SenseMaker® platform. More specifically, our study reveals that in dynamic and uncertain decision-making contexts, individuals seem to become increasingly aware of the potential for innovations in institutions and thought patterns (memes), suggesting a growing belief in their ability to bring about transformative change. However, it is also observed that people’s ability to envision compelling and sustainable futures does not currently match their creative potential and ingenuity. Thus, our study also contributes to the literature on sustainability transitions by pointing to some blind spots that should be addressed in future research.

5 The paper is structured as follows: The next section presents a brief overview of the relevant literature at the intersection of (organizational) sensemaking and meme theory in the context of (changes in) complex systems. The following section describes the sample and method of our online survey. We then present the results from this survey and, thereafter, discuss our findings and their implications before we draw our conclusions in the final section.

Theoretical background

Methods

14 Various methods can be used to study narratives during crises, including semi-structured interviews with experts. Another interdisciplinary approach, drawing on findings from cognitive science, complexity theory, and the sensemaking literature (among others), is the use of the SenseMaker® software platform (https://​thecynefin​.co/​about​-sensemaker/​) developed by The Cynefin Company (formerly known as Cognitive Edge). SenseMaker® can be used as a survey tool (https://​thecynefin​.co/​how​-to​-use​-sensemaker/​) to collect and analyze short stories from people about a concrete lived experience. It allows participants not only to share their stories but also to self-interpret them by tagging themselves in a set of predetermined signifier questions which generates quantitative numerical data (Mager et al., 2018; van der Merwe et al., 2019; Guijt et al., 2022; Wagner et al., 2022; Wamsler et al., 2022a). Therefore, this method facilitates the processing and statistical interpretation of larger amounts of data and micronarratives than more conventional narrative analysis techniques, while reducing researchers’ interpretation bias (Lynam, Fletcher, 2015). SenseMaker® has thus served as an instrument for mixed-methods research in various types of settings (van der Merwe et al., 2019).

15 For our study, we applied the SenseMaker® method to conduct a survey among managers residing in Germany. We developed a questionnaire consisting of a prompt (an open-ended question asking participants to share a story about an important moment that illustrates their decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic) [3], various multiple-choice questions, and clarification questions through which participants could self-signify the stories they shared using widgets such as triads, dyads, and stones (e.g., van der Merwe et al., 2019; Guijt et al., 2022, for terminology and further methodological details). The method deliberately departs from the use of traditional scales as a means to increase the cognitive load placed on respondents, in order to encourage them to consider the issue in more and different dimensions than they typically would and to reduce gaming of responses (van der Merwe et al., 2019; Clark, 2023). The questionnaire framework was designed and implemented based on an extensive literature review on possibilities of and limitations to economic sensemaking procedures under uncertainty and building on previous and ongoing conceptual work by Graupe (2019, 2020), Ötsch and Graupe (2020), and Bäuerle and Graupe (2023). The process of drafting, testing [4], and finalizing the framework took approximately three months (April-June 2021). This work was done by the project team in collaboration with partners from The Cynefin Company (who also provided a helpful signifier compilation from previous SenseMaker® frameworks). Our framework is divided into three main parts: 1) an inquiry into the narrative of the present (how were decisions influenced during the pandemic, items 1-9 in the appendix), 2) an inquiry into the narrative of the future (how will decisions be influenced after the pandemic, items 10-14 in the appendix), and 3) multiple-choice questions (MCQs) about the respondents themselves (items 15-21 in the appendix). The signifier questions are designed based upon relevant literature and represent abstractions of concepts (see also Bäuerle, Graupe, 2023); the signifiers each relate to a culturally broadly understood concept but are subject to a degree of interpretation and adaptation to the individual respondent context. Since the study addresses managers in Germany, the framework was designed in German, but the results are translated by the authors and presented in English for this article. An English translation of the complete framework can be found in the appendix for reference.

16 We combined probability sampling with a convenience and purposive sampling strategy (Douglas, 2022) to capture a large number of narratives and to include diverse perspectives around decision-making in times of uncertainty. Study participants were invited through our own networks [5] and through a market research company and panel service provider (Bilendi) [6] to obtain a diverse sample regarding the management level and organizational background. After quality checks (e.g., deleting duplicate data, removing all questionnaires completed in less than 150 seconds, or where no stories were shared, etc.), our final sample consists of N = 623 participants (about 30% female and 70% male) occupying a managerial position (33% in upper management, 22% in middle management, 21% in lower management, 20% in strategic/administrative management, and 4% in “other” management positions) in a German private or public organization (heterogeneous sample with regard to size and background of the organizations). The survey was made available through both the SenseMaker® collector web version and app and ran for 77 days from July 5^th to September 20^th, 2021. After participants had shared their story in the free text box, they were asked to answer pre-determined follow-up questions. These were divided into three parts (as mentioned above: present narrative, future narrative, MCQs). The follow-up questions (eight triads, one dyad, two stones items, and two single select MCQs [MCQ0; MCQ3 in the appendix]) aim at uncovering underlying choice architectures and their affective signification (as calling forth positive or negative feelings), for instance, asking how the participants perceive(d) the world during the pandemic, whether they have developed new habits, how they evaluated this change (as appearing positively or negatively grounded), and which values guide(d) their decisions (see subsequent section) [7]. The framework also enables inquiries into the narrative of the future and transformative tendencies (see also Bäuerle, Graupe, 2023). Here, the study is primarily interested in how participants perceive the future and evaluate their own agency for shaping it. Finally, the five single-select (MCQ1-2 and 5-7 in the appendix) and one “select all that apply” (MCQ4 in the appendix) MCQs included, concerning the socioeconomic position of the respondents, not only help to ensure a diverse sample but also enable the detection of patterns/contrasting results as presented in the following section.

17 Data analysis was conducted in an iterative process as outlined by Mager et al. (2018). For this reason, we first analyzed emerging patterns within the triads, the dyad, and stones, checked for outliers, and filtered triads with MCQs and other questions of interest. We used Pearson’s goodness of fit test to test the quality of the data and visualized correlations both by filtering data (using the statistical analysis software integrated into the SenseMaker® platform) and through cobweb diagrams (e.g., Agresti, 2013; Upton, 2017; as also done by Wamsler et al., 2022b; see part 2 of the appendix for details). Finally, we complemented the quantitative analysis with the shared stories, which we analyzed inductively to explore the topics addressed.

Results

Narrative of the Present

Experiencing the World

18 For the first triad (item 3), which asks about the general way in which the world was experienced, there is a strong tendency towards the bottom with large clusters of stories in the lower left, center, and right parts of the triad (as shown by the percentages in Figure 1) (note that each plotted data point is connected to a shared story as illustrated by the examples in the text bubbles in Figure 1). During the pandemic, the majority of respondents had experienced the world as uncertain and chaotic and/or full of new opportunities. Unsurprisingly, only few respondents indicated that everything remained the same. This is also reflected in the shared stories: At the bottom of the triad, stories were mostly about challenges with organizing health measures, teleworking, or financial issues, while in the stories tagged in the top corner, respondents mainly stated that their companies were not affected by the pandemic, or that they had nothing significant to report from that time.

Figure 1 – Experiencing the world

Figure 1 – Experiencing the world

19 Another, more interesting result can be found when we look at this question in combination with the affective MCQ (MCQ0 in the appendix) about the participants’ feelings towards the story they shared: Participants with negative feelings about their story tend to regard the world as rather unpredictable and chaotic, whereas those with very positive feelings towards their story tend to view the world much more as being full of new opportunities. Another interesting insight can be gained by combining this triad with the question of whether the participants have founded the organization they are working for. Founders tend to cluster rather on the bottom right (full of new opportunities), whereas those that have not founded the organization are much more evenly distributed among this triad. This finding is also supported by Figure 3, which presents the results of a Pearson’s goodness of fit test of the relationship between the variable ‘non-founders’ and the seven anchors of the triad “I experienced the world” in the form of a cobweb plot (following Upton, 2017, as also done by Wamsler et al., 2022b). Accordingly, there is a significant negative relationship (grey line) between not being a founder and experiencing the world as being full of new opportunities, that is, the right anchor received significantly fewer responses from ‘non-founders’ than theoretically expected. The opposite is true for founders: there is a significant positive relationship between experiencing the world as being full of new opportunities and having founded the organization (again, we refer the reader to part 2 of the appendix for more details).

Figure 2 – Experiencing the world (founders vs. non-founders)

Figure 2 – Experiencing the world (founders vs. non-founders)

Figure 3 – Cobweb plot: non-founder and triad 3 “I experienced the world …”

Figure 3 – Cobweb plot: non-founder and triad 3 “I experienced the world …”

Note: The lines indicate the category combinations that have the largest standardized residuals (black = positive, gray = negative)

Habitualization

20 The fourth question asks about the evolution of habits during the pandemic. As we can see in Figure 4, a very clear pattern emerges: 37% of the respondents stated that they developed new habits during the pandemic. These new habits mainly revolved around working from home [8], setting up health measures, and increasing collaboration and team cohesion [9]. There are only small outliers toward the center and right, and toward the center and left of the triad, indicating that relatively few people gave up old habits or maintained their habits during the pandemic. In the bottom left corner of the triad, the topics addressed are very diverse, ranging from business as usual, neglecting or downplaying the pandemic, to very context-specific stories, such as the report from a nursing home where visits continued to be allowed (tagged in the left corner) [10]. In the right corner, the stories were somewhat similar to the top as respondents mostly talked about changes in their work and lifestyle due to working from home.

Figure 4 – Developing, maintaining, or giving up habits

Figure 4 – Developing, maintaining, or giving up habits

Decision-making Approach

21 Triad 5 (Figure 5), which asked respondents how they made decisions, presents a more mixed picture. A slight emphasis on the top corner of the triad demonstrates that most respondents decided spontaneously and intuitively in their shared stories (21%). The topics in these tagged stories mainly revolved around implementing or dealing with telework and health policies. There are also a few conspiracy stories in this corner [11]. There is also a tendency toward the center (20%) and left (16% and 15%) sides of the triad, indicating that people have different approaches for decision-making, either acting spontaneously or after a process of deep contemplation and reflection12. [12].

Figure 5 – Making decisions

Figure 5 – Making decisions

22 A very clear pattern becomes evident in triad 6 (Figure 6). Here, participants were asked whether they did different things (top), did things differently (right), or assigned new meaning to their actions (left). The majority of stories were plotted in the right corner (28%), with a notable outlier towards the center right of the triad. This shows that most people shared stories where they did things differently (e.g., working from home). However, due to the outlier towards the center right of the triad, there also seems to be a connection with doing different things. We find ambiguous results for the stories associated with ‘assign new meaning’: While many respondents reflected on working from home and implementing health measures, employee safety, team cooperation, and humanity were particularly emphasized and positively grounded. In contrast, there are also some “conspiracy stories” related to the pandemic in this sub-sample of stories [13].

Figure 6 – Doing different things, doing things differently,or assigning new meaning

Figure 6 – Doing different things, doing things differently,or assigning new meaning

Individual Driving Forces

23 In the seventh triad (Figure 7), there are various clusters. However, the strongest cluster is in the top corner (I acted because circumstances forced me) with 24% of the data points. Two other clusters can be observed in the right corner (I acted from a sense of responsibility) and the middle right part of the triad. This cluster demonstrates a strong relationship between acting out of circumstances and acting out of a sense of responsibility. Stories tagged in the right corner reflect health measures and teleworking but can be differentiated from the notion of forced circumstances as respondents highlight the need to care for their employees and assume responsibility for their organization [14].

Figure 7 – Acting because of circumstances, sense of responsibility, or visionary impulse

Figure 7 – Acting because of circumstances, sense of responsibility, or visionary impulse

Guiding Values and Principles

24 Looking at the (multiple) values and principles that have guided the decisions reported in the story (see violin plots in Figure 8), some interesting observations can be made. First, many participants claim that securing the company’s existence/maintaining of assets has mostly guided their decisions (as represented by the thickness of the diagram), whereas profit and growth do not seem to have played a major role for most. Interestingly, almost all participants indicated that humanity (in the sense of humaneness)/justice has played a rather important part in their decisions. Sustainability—especially in the sense of ecological responsibility—presents a rather ambiguous picture, suggesting that this value was not that important for current decisions during the pandemic. The other three values of openness for novelty/creativity, conformity with regulations/compliance, and transparency/honesty have also been claimed to be rather important (to varying degrees as shown in Figure 8). While not shown here, an interesting observation can be made when looking at whether participants expect these values to be important in their future decisions: Whereas there are no significant changes in most values, both profit/growth and sustainability/ecological responsibility are skewed to the right, suggesting that both of these values are expected to become more important again in the future.

Figure 8 – Values and principles (violin plots)

Figure 8 – Values and principles (violin plots)

Narrative of the Future

General Perception of the Future

25 Regarding the future, while participants were not asked to share a whole story about their future expectations, they were asked to imagine the future and self-signify their imagined futures (triads 11-13). A clear pattern emerges in item 11 (Figure 9), which asks how participants perceive the future in general: There are two strong emphases in both the right corner and the right center of the triad. Hence, in relative terms (all three corners compared), most respondents believe that the future can be shaped by acting in the present (right corner, 28%). However, the second significant cluster in the right center (29%) shows that there is a strong connection with the statement in the top corner, that is, that the future is “open and unpredictable”. Another, yet smaller, cluster can be identified in the top corner (19%), which underscores this connection.

Figure 9 – General perception of the future

Figure 9 – General perception of the future

Imagined determinants of personal future

26 In item 12 (Figure 10), participants were asked how they imagined that their own future will be shaped. As in item 11 above, there is again a strong emphasis on the center right part (24%) as well as the right corner (23%) of the triad. Accordingly, in relation to all three corners, most respondents indicated that their future will be shaped by human creativity and ingenuity. The strong emphasis on the center right connects this view with the statement of the top corner: the future will be shaped by chance and new, unforeseen events. In addition, there is an outlier in the center of the triad with a skew to the right that further emphasizes this connection.

Figure 10 – Imagined determinants of personal future

Figure 10 – Imagined determinants of personal future

Expected Characteristics and Path Dependence of Future Decisions

27 In the last triad (Figure 11) included in our study, various clusters can be identified. The strongest emphasis is in the right corner. Hence, most participants indicated (again in relative terms comparing all three corners) that they imagine their future decision-making to be influenced by experiences during the pandemic. Two further clusters can be identified in the center (with a tendency towards the right center and the middle bottom part of the triad). This shows a certain connection with the other two statements: decision-making will be like before the pandemic (top); decision-making will take new forms (left).

Figure 11 – Shaping future decisions

Figure 11 – Shaping future decisions

The role of emotions

28 Finally, since emotions have generally been found to play an important role in decision- and sensemaking processes (e.g., see Cristofaro, 2020, 2021, 2022; Ötsch, Graupe, 2020), we decided to take a closer look at the feelings that participants reported having towards the story and if/how these correspond to a position in a particular area of one of the triadic signifiers. Although not shown here for the sake of brevity, we can, for example, observe significant positive correlations between neutral feelings towards the story and the top corner of triad 7 (i.e., “I acted … because circumstances forced me”) and between the feelings towards the story and how the world was perceived (triad 3). For triad 3, we observed significant positive correlations between negative feelings and experiencing the world as uncertain and chaotic, and also between very positive feelings and perceiving the world as full of opportunities.

Discussion

29 Our findings have multiple implications for research on managerial decision- and sensemaking and organizational change in times of uncertainty. For example, triad 5 (Figure 5) identifies the neoliberal heuristic of the rational, utility maximizing, and growth-oriented “homo economicus” as inapplicable and unhelpful from the agents’ perspective in uncertain decision situations. Rather, spontaneity and intuition seem to play the driving role in these situations, as opposed to planning and calculation, or at least the latter are challenged by the former – which is in line with the heuristics for unpredictable (complex and chaotic) decision situations as promoted by the Cynefin® framework (e.g., Snowden, Rancati, 2021). At the same time, however, the dominant strategy shared in the stories seemed to be the pursuit of rather incremental adjustments, rather than using this unprecedented cesura for radical change and rethinking the mission or purpose of the organization. In other words, changing economic habits (including habits of thought) seems to depend on an already perceived horizon of opportunities. Whereas all agents act far beyond the simplistic homo economicus model, the sustainability of these patterns depends on their general ability to productively read and seize wicked problem situations.

30 Given that remote working is a ubiquitous decision-related issue, the rather prominent “doing things differently” cluster for triad 6 (Figure 6) is also rather unsurprising. However, in combination with the other clusters to the right side and top of this triad, we can take this as evidence that the “window of opportunity” for changing our ways of doing business towards more sustainable ones – as claimed by sustainability transitions researchers (e.g., Bodenheimer, Leidenberger, 2020; Kanda, Kivimaa, 2020; Alva Ferrari et al., 2023) – has not yet (fully) closed. That said, clear and strong visions for this new future do not seem to exist (as indicated by Figure 7). Most managers seem to have acted either because they felt compelled by circumstances or by a sense of responsibility, rather than because of a strong vision or imagined future. Combining these findings with the fact that both profitability and growth as well as (environmental) sustainability/ecological responsibility are expected to gain more importance again in the future seems to indicate that there remains a strong belief that “green growth” is not just possible but desirable, possibly reflecting the prevalence of the dominant techno-economic paradigm as described, among others, by Blok (2021) and Joly (2017), and supported empirically by Bogner and Dahlke (2022).

31 In the three triads concerning the future, we observe a somewhat optimistic view of agency and imaginative capacities, which could be read as evidence for the awareness of decision makers that habits, rules, norms, institutions, and memes more generally are indeed malleable and subject to what might be called “systems entrepreneurship” (Schlaile et al., 2021b). However, given the path dependence of cultural evolution and creativity from a memetic point of view (Schlaile, 2021; Schlaile et al., 2024), this malleability may depend on “the right circumstances” (or – as sustainability transitions researchers call it – “landscape events”; e.g., Geels, 2002), that is, the intentional or unintentional destabilization, exnovation, and collapse of previously stable institutional arrangements combined with the selection pressure of a transboundary crisis that forces us to adapt and thus shape the co-evolution of a new organizational ecology of (more sustainable) memes.

32 Finally, although we did not explicitly focus our study on emotions or affective states, the significant positive correlations between some of the feelings towards the stories shared by participants and their perceptions of the world as uncertain and chaotic (correlated with negative feelings) or as being full of new opportunities (correlated with very positive feelings) highlight the relevance of emotions and affective states of managers for decision- and sensemaking as also explained in detail, for example, by Cristofaro (2020, 2021, 2022). Moreover, these correlations point to the need for further in-depth research on the role of emotions for managing under uncertainty and in the context of sustainability transitions in general (see also Coops et al., in press; Martiskainen, Sovacool, 2021).

Conclusion

33 In this paper, we address the exploratory research question: “Which (memetic) patterns of meaning are reflected in managerial sensemaking during the COVID-19 pandemic?” Using SenseMaker® as a survey tool, we were able to uncover interesting patterns and clusters, revealing that in uncertain, fluid decision environments, people are indeed gaining more and more awareness of the fact that institutions and habits of thought (memes) can be innovated (arguably reflecting a sense of transformative capability). At the same time, however, the imaginative capacities to create powerful visions of alternative and sustainable futures are not yet on par with the creative power and ingenuity ascribed to human beings. Ongoing turmoil and global challenges beyond the pandemic, such as the war in Ukraine, suggest that decision-making under conditions of uncertainty is likely to continue or even increase for managers around the world. This development has the potential to both support and, arguably, hinder sustainability transitions. Against this backdrop, our results suggest that there are multiple avenues for translating (a) experiences of agency (Figures 4, 6, 13), (b) ethical convictions (Figures 7, 8), and (c) the perceived designability of the future (Figures 11, 12) into directed action in the present. However, in order to actually guide future practice and possibly transform it into new habits and institutions, each of these pathways has to be addressed, from an agent-centered perspective, through respective capacitation of managers in higher education or on-the-job training. In this respect, approaches such as (a) action learning (Pedler, 2011), (b) transformative moral education (Joseph, Mikel, 2014), or (c) futures literacy (Miller, 2018) might prove to be crucial resources, among other “future skills” (Spiegel et al., 2021).

34 Although this study is exploratory in nature, we must acknowledge several limitations. First and foremost, in this article, we only focus on the patterns and quantitative results of our SenseMaker® study. A more elaborate and detailed picture of weak signals and narratives of change may be revealed by delving deeper into the stories shared by the participants, for example, by means of thematic or content analysis. Another limitation is the scope (managers in Germany) and time frame of the study (which was, however, also due to the nature of the funding). Potentially more fine-grained and robust insights could have been gained by means of a more comparative (e.g., cross-national) or longitudinal survey, or by repeating this survey at a later point in time to examine the actual (evolutionary) dynamics of these patterns. In this regard, the same caveat applies as to previous studies on organizational memetics (Schlaile et al., 2021a): we have presented an insightful, yet only static, snapshot of an evolving complex system. Moreover, future research on sensemaking processes of decision makers under uncertainty could also aim at using SenseMaker® in a more participatory way, for example, already during the stage of framework/questionnaire development together with participants (or as a potential evaluation tool for interventions), as suggested by Bartels et al. (2019), Lindeman and McAusland (2020), and others.

35 Despite these limitations, our findings paint a picture of sensemaking during the pandemic that opens up several avenues for future research: While it may not have been too surprising that those who have negative feelings towards their story also tend to perceive the world as chaotic and unpredictable, it would be interesting to investigate why founders tend to see more opportunities rather than chaos. Does this perception of opportunities come from an entrepreneurial mindset rooted in systems entrepreneurial schemata (Schlaile, Ehrenberger, 2016; Schlaile et al., 2021b), or is it simply a result of the fact that founders usually tend to have more decision-making power in their own organizations? Moreover, while the development of new habits (Figure 4) during the crisis itself is rather unsurprising, it would be important for future research to follow up on this question in order to investigate whether these new habits have taken root or if they are being pulled towards the “old normal”. Finally, more research is also advisable on the methodological implications and specifics of using the SenseMaker® software platform in empirical research projects, especially since it is not a free or open-source software environment.