Different writers give different definitions of sense making according to their sense making but the simplest and attractive definition according to Starbuck and Milliken (1998) is that “sensemaking involves placing stimuli into some kind of framework”. And the framework over here is known as a frame of references. The sense making requires a frame of references, which can be relate with the retrospective (Weick, 1995). The retrospective is when you receive any stimuli and then you looking at your past, which you had, did it before (Weick, 1995, p. 17). It is your frame of references, which you had made before, like from your socialization (Lundgeran, 2018) where you socialize on a daily basis or from your culture from where you belong and from your all interaction, which you had, make previously. The frame of reference can be the stories myth, which is related to you from your traditions (Lundgeran, 2018). It helps to understand the situations, which you want to, the frame of references help to make sense of the situation by the past experience you had of the particular situation (Lundgeran, 2018, Weick, 1995). As the meaning of the situation is generated from our past experience from our frame of references, which with got or made from a lot of many components, which I discussed before. Taking about the cue the cues are the present experience of the person, which he is having. Or it can be the situation context from which the person is going on (Lundgeran, 2018, Weick, 1995, p. 29). Cues are something, which is noticeable, or it can be the ongoing event (Weick, 1995, p. 29). Cues are used in the sense making to abstract the meaning of the large situation with a resemblance to your frame of references, which is happening around you. Cues are the indications for the sense-maker to make sense of the situation, which is related to his frame of references. There are a lot of cues in the everyday life, and the person cannot recognize all of the cues its impossible for him. He will just abstract those cues, which are related to him (Weick, 1995, p. 29). Sensemaking is related to the interpretation of the cue that is noticed in the particular situation.The relation between the cue and the frame of references in the sense-making process is very curial. The cue is the present experience of the situation we are having and the frames of references are the past experience of the different situations we had before (Lundgeran, 2018, Weick, 1995). The link between both of them in the sense-making process is when we are having the present experience of the situation we identify the different cues, we take that cues and send them to our mind where we had the frame of references before, over there we do the interpretation of the cues which matches from our frame of references we make sense of that thing and got the meaning of that (Weick, 1995, p. 33). (Interpretation is not the synonym of sense making as Weick defined it clearly in his book; it is the part of the sense-making process). So for making the meaning or making the sense, it is not necessary that the cues should be accurate but, that cues should make sense, the cues will never occur in the same way as you had experienced it before. That’s why it is one of the characteristics of the Sensemaking that it drives not from accuracy but from the plausibility (Weick, 1995, p. 56). In the situation, there are a lot of cues but the person only abstruct that cues which are related to his frame of references to make sense of the situation. These two elements play an equal part in the sensemaking process. In short, the linkage as defined in the book between the cue and the frame of references is the linkage of the present cue with the similarly interpreted cue in the past (Weick, 1995). For example, some person from the village sees the latest technology like robots for the first time, but that robots did not exist before in his frame of reference but when he saw him he gets the cues and interprets that cues according to his frame of references so it might be happen that the robots have a different meaning from his previous experience. So the cues are interpreted according to the frame of references and then he will make sense of robots or the situation. Assignment # 2Leaders are involved in the sense giving activities towards others because they had the influence over follower. There is a dependency relationship exists between both of them, one of them the follower fervently or inherently surrenders his power to other/to the leader (Smircich and Morgan, 1982, p. 258). The leaders are supposed to define the realities/sense giving to the followers, which are sense-making for them (Smircich and Morgan, 1982). Leaders in the sense making and sense giving activity bracket their experience means to gain the attention of others like followers. Then they interpreted their experiences for the follower for the sense giving and this whole procedure is done on the leaders frame of references (Lundgeran, 2018) and followers use the experience of the leaders which they suggested and interpreted that experience according to there frame of references and by doing all this process they make sense of the situation or projects (Lundgeran, 2018). The leader tells reality to the followers by his frame of references (Smircich and Morgan, 1982, p. 259). Leaders can tell experiences to the followers by the speaking or by telling them the stories (Gardner and Laskin, 1997). Leaders use stories for there effectiveness, they relate stories to there lives to give a sense of the thing which make sense to them (Gardner and Laskin, 1997, p. 44). The ordinary leader will just relate the story with his life, the effective leader will relate and give the inspiration to sense maker but the innovator will come up with the new story and give a sense of that to the follower and inspire them (Gardner and Laskin, 1997, p. 45). They can give sense to the followers by performance to give them more understanding about the situation, can use them as a co-actor to involve them in his sense-making as we discuss in our today’s lecture (Performing leadership) (Lundgeran, 2018). Leaders can use the myths which are related to both of them frame of references leader and follower symbols and rituals for the sense giving (Smircich and Morgan, 1982). Symbols can be used in the performance to give a better understanding. Leaders sometimes not successes to give sense to their followers of the realities they want them to see. Sometimes there comes the contradiction between the vision of the leader and the vision of followers. There comes equivocality within the followers when followers have two interpretation of the situation (Weick, 1995, p. 56). Leaders are not able to give sense to the followers because they didn’t recognize the follower frame of references, which might be different and may have a different meaning of the similar situation (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). And it can be seen by the case study discussed in the article about the new CEO of the university (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). First, he makes sense of the entire situation when he had to become CEO. He meets with all the employees see all the problems of the university from outside. Meet with consultant talks about the current situation of the university and how it can be done better. He was making sense of the university. Similarly he makes vision he do a lot of changes in the university from the executives to the lower level employees. Made some changes in the course structure, know he was giving sense to other and showing his indications about what he is going to do. But here he got problem the entire executive team was against him because his frame of references is different from there. They were emotionally attached to some situation. Here the CEO was not able to give sense to their follower. He was imposing his ideas on other (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). Through power, you can impose your ideas but cannot implement effectively (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991).The same example can be seen by the OJ30 project from the article leadership: The management meaning in which there were some problems in the one department of the organization and because of that the sales of the company where enhancing. So the owner called everyone to work together on the project. Every department was supposed to work together, but there they got the problem. In the end, the project was successful they get good sales, but many of the employees dissatisfied with that, they think that this project is not a successful project it’s a failure because the problem, is still there and it will affect us in the long run (Smircich and Morgan, 1982). Here the CEO was not able to give a sense of what he thinks. He was not able to describe the reality to his followers because sometimes you take the situation in a different way and the others take it in a different way. There was two interpretation of the same situation. Leadership is to define the reality to followers, which make sense to them (Smircich and Morgan, 1982, p. 258). The effective leadership is which is a form of the experience of other so that mutual actions can be taken (Smircich and Morgan, 1982, p. 262). It’s a big challenge for the leaders to construct the situation in such ways that follower see there desired result (Smircich and Morgan, 1982, p. 262). Because of the dependency relationship and because of the power the leader sense making makes the follower sense making because he gives more priority to his leader sense making instead of him (Smircich and Morgan, 1982, p. 258).