Improvisation Processes

! &"!

Improvisation, however, is not simply “spontaneous composition.” Rather, as forms, memory, and practice combine to enable self-reflexive backward analysis, which extends the formative conversation between an emerging patterns and existent features such as formal composition, previous interpretations, and responsiveness to the audience, among many.

It is noted, the capacity to think on one’s feet may not be attractive to an organization because: one, incremental change is the norm; two,

improvisation in one unit may compound problems in another; three, profusion of innovations demands support services; four, values of rigor, reliable performance, and repeatable standards do not sustain the search for novelty and evolution; and five, customers are perceived as not

rewarding originality (Nachmanovitch, 1990). Furthermore, increasing the pace and/or velocity of activity does not result in creative experimentation and improvisation, rather, it rapidly pushes people back into old ideas and mental frameworks; musicians embrace improvisation techniques to

respond to surprises whereas managers want to avoid surprises. In fact, successful innovations draw organizations away from the improvisational sources that led to the original innovations.

2.3.2 Improvisation Processes

The techniques of spontaneity may be taught, as in theatre training, or commercial product innovation. Improvisation also has a complimentary, intuitive attribute of improvisation as well, which seems to work as an extension of more traditional and fundamental skills (Crossan, 1998: 593).

The intuitional process makes quality improvisation possible (Weick, 1998:

544), if not somewhat mysterious. In each instance, a tension exists as the original model is transformed, within a pretext, and something fresh

emerges (Weick, 1998: 546).

!!

! &#!

Crossan and Sorrenti acknowledge a less tangible, but essential dimension in their definition of improvisation as “intuition guiding action in a

spontaneous way” (Crossan and Sorrenti 1997: 155). Referring to Mintzberg’s study (1973: 36) finding that over 90% of CEO’s verbal interactions were spontaneous, the authors suggest that one might

conclude improvisation would be a highly studied area in the management literature. Given this has not been the pattern implies two possible biases:

1) it is difficult to isolate or improve individual competence in spontaneous behavior; and 2) “improvisational action is often considered inferior to planned action: one reverts to improvisation only when planning breaks down” (Crossan and Sorrenti 1997: 156). The planning bias not only inhibits organisations from supporting their members in developing improvisation competence, an over-reliance on planning, itself, fosters an environment that stifles new ideas, insights and discoveries (Mintzberg 1994: 12).

Laying the foundation for further empirical study Pina e Cunha et al (2002:

111) cite Miner et al’s narrower definition of organizational improvisation that establishes criteria for the instances of true improvisation as a response to the unexpected and unplanned (Miner, Moorman et al. 1996).

They reflect on rationalizing that an event can be unexpected (as when an air craft loses cabin pressure), but not unplanned for (oxygen masks

automatically drop from the overhead bin, a procedure for which

passengers have been prepared). When the event is both unexpected and unplanned for (as they were for passengers on the flights overtaken by terrorists on September 11, 2001), participants must improvise. It is

impossible for anyone to be so well trained, educated and experienced that they are prepared for all unexpected and unplanned for events. Multiple times each day, individuals are called to improvise. The chances for individual success in improvisation can be greatly increased through skill development, while organisational success is dependent on additional factors (Pina e Cunha, Viera da Cunha et al. 2002: 115 -123) including:

!!

! &$!

1) Experimental culture grounded in “values and beliefs that promote action and experimentation—as opposed to reflection and planning—as a way of understanding reality.”

2) Minimal structure or controls imposed on people in organizations.

3) A low procedural memory: While Moorman and Miner (1997: 91) find a positive link between memory dispersal and organizational

improvisation, they find that a high level of procedural memory inhibits improvisation.

4) Leadership: As with organizational memory, leadership can either encourage or stifle improvisation. An improvisation-friendly leader is one whose style supports collaboration, without heavy-handed controls or monitoring.

5) Member’s Characteristics. Skill in individuals’ practice area, skill in improvisation, and heterogeneous group composition all support organizational improvisation.

6) Information Flow between the environment and the organization, and within the organization is also considered important for the success of improvisation.

7) Organizational Configuration which, along with minimal structures, fosters trusting relationships, and a safe environment for exploration and risk-taking.

The presence of these conditions affords a greater chance for both the incidence and success of organizational improvisation. The complementary individual agent qualities may be explored via four primary characteristics.

!!

! &%!

First, improvisation involves reworking pre-composed material and designs in relation to unanticipated ideas conceived, shaped and transformed under the special conditions of performance, thereby adding unique features to every creation. (Berliner, 1994:241) Improvisation does not involve the complete discarding of planning, but a change in how planning is done and in how the plan is viewed (Isenberg, 1987: 92). What

improvisation appears to allow is concurrency: an opportunity to design, act, learn, reflect and renew as parallel and complementary undertakings rather than as linear and competing activities (Weick and Westley, 1996).

Second, the concept of improvisational bricolage is well developed in the literature. Described as “the ability to build solutions from available resources” (Pina e Cunha, Viera da Cunha et al. 2002: 99), bricolage necessarily occurs in time bound situations. If time were not a limitation, the participants would be able to find optimal resources rather than

making due with what is at hand. The authors bring us closest to a working definition of improvisation that describes its manifestation in both the arts and organizations. Linking the concepts of time-bounded action and

available resources, Pina e Cunha et al define improvisation as “…the

conception of action as it unfolds, drawing on available material, cognitive, affective and social resources” (2002: 99)

Third, Karl Weick composes an essay recognizing the concept of rearranging the order and control of organisations for the purpose of adaptation

(Weick, 1998). He describes improvisation as “guided activity whose guidance comes from elapsed patterns discovered retrospectively.” This suggests people act in order to think, thereafter leading to sensemaking, rather than decision-making, as a primary quality of improvisation. A sequenced chain of interpretation, embellishment, and variation lead to improvisation in a more nuanced order of sensemaking activity.

!!

! &&!

Fourth, thinking of improvisation as a skill developed and refined through practice suggests that improvisation can be progressively honed until proficiency is reached (Crossan et al., 1996, Weick, 1998). Its emphasis on experiencing, experimenting, and incremental development, lends itself to work-based methodologies that support ‘designing-by-doing’, thereby enacting strategy. What improvisation allows is concurrency: an opportunity to design, act, learn, reflect and renew as parallel and

complementary undertakings rather than as linear and competing activities (Weick and Westley, 1996: 442). This makes improvisation a viable model from which to train people in use of social media, for example, for

contemporary environments.

If improvisation is to some degree a skill (rather than an illusive “talent”) this is positive for individuals and organisations wishing to improve their response ability. Barrett (Barrett, 1998: 606) and Weick (Weick, 2002: 170) call these the skills of a “disciplined imagination.” Weick expands on the theme that “improvisation does not materialize out of thin air” (Weick, 2002: 58) by citing “the extensive amount of practice necessary to pull off successful improvisation” (Weick, 2002b: 67). In reflecting on the tragedy of Mann Gulch, where 13 smoke jumpers lost their lives in 1949, Weick wrote, “If improvisation were given more attention in the job description of a crew person, that person’s receptiveness to and generation of role improvisations might be enhanced” (Weick, 1993: 636).

Improvisation is close to the root process of organizing, and organizing itself consists primarily of embellishing small structures (Weick, 1998).

Characteristics of groups with high capability and potential for

improvisation within these organization structures have the following characteristics:

!!

! &'!

• Willingness to forego planning and rehearsal in favor of acting in real time

• Well developed understanding of internal resources and materials that are at hand

• Proficiency without blueprints and diagnosis

• Ability to identify or agree on minimal structures for embellishing

• Openness to reassembly of and departures from routines

• Rich and meaningful sets of themes, fragments, or phases on which to draw for ongoing lines of action

• Predisposal to recognize partial relevance of previous experience to present novelty

• High confidence in skill to deal with non-routine events

• The presence of associates similarly committed to and competent at impromptu making to

• Skill at paying attention to other’s performance of others and building on it to maintain interaction and to set up interesting possibilities for one another

• Ability to maintain the pace and tempo at which others are extemporizing

• Focus on coordination here and now, undistracted by memories or anticipation

• Preference for and comfort with process rather than structure, making it easier to work with ongoing development, restructuring, and

realization of outcomes, and easier to postpone the question, “…what will it have to amount to?”

!!

! &(!