Improvisation Processes in Organizations Miguel Pina e Cunha Nova School of Business and Economics Universidade Nova de Lisboa Portugal [email protected]Anne S. Miner University of Wisconsin – Madison USA [email protected]Elena Antonacopoulou GNOSIS University of Liverpool Management School UK [email protected]Chapter 38 in A. Langley and H. Tsoukas (Eds) (2015) SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Sage: London. 1
52
Embed
livrepository.liverpool.ac.uklivrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/.../1/Improvisation_Final.docx · Web viewTraditional normative efforts to improve managerial practices promoted replacing
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Improvisation Processes in Organizations
Miguel Pina e CunhaNova School of Business and EconomicsUniversidade Nova de [email protected]
Elena AntonacopoulouGNOSISUniversity of Liverpool Management [email protected]
Chapter 38 in A. Langley and H. Tsoukas (Eds) (2015) SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Sage: London.
1
Bios
Miguel Pina e Cunha is professor of Organization Theory at Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisbon, Portugal. His research has been published in journals such as the Academy of Management Review, Human Relations, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Journal of Management Inquiry, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Leadership Quarterly, Organization, and Organization Studies. He recently co-authored, with Arménio Rego and Stewart Clegg, “The virtues of leadership: Contemporary challenge for global managers” (Oxford University Press, 2012).
Anne S. Miner is Professor of Management and Human Resources Emeritus at the Wisconsin School of Business. Miner studies organizational learning and improvisation, including papers on improvisation in product development and organizational learning from failure. Miner was named 2004 Scholar of the Year by the Technology and Innovation Management Division of the Academy of Management. She has served as associate editor of Management Science and of Organization Science, and on the editorial boards of Administrative Science Quarterly, the American Sociological Review, the Academy of Management Journal, the Academy of Management Review, and Strategic Organization. Miner’s B.A. is from Harvard, and her Ph.D. from Stanford. She has also worked as VP of a start-up and as assistant to the President at Stanford.
Elena Antonacopoulou is Professor of Organizational Behavior at the University of Liverpool Management School, where she leads GNOSIS - a research initiative advancing impactful collaborative research in management and organization studies. Her principal research expertise lies in the areas of Organisational Change, Learning and Knowledge Management with a focus on the Leadership implications. Her research continues to advance new methodologies for studying social complexity and is strengthened by her approach; working with leading international researchers, practitioners and policy-makers collaboratively. Her current study on ‘Realizing Y-Our Impact’ is one example of the approach that governs her commitment to pursue scholarship that makes a difference through actionable knowledge. Elena’s work is published widely in leading international journals and edited books. She has been elected in several leadership roles and has served her scholarly community as a member at Board, Council, Executive and Editorial roles of the top professional bodies (AoM, EGOS, EURAM, SMS etc)
2
What do disaster workers and units, SWAT officers and film crews, Soviet
special troops, firefighters and medical doctors, IT workers and bank tellers, have in
common? How can large firms, governments and start-ups end up with a deliberate
strategy that was not planned in advance? How do ordinary organizational actors get
things done? According to organizational research, they all improvise. This chapter
reviews the literature on improvisational processes, including gaps and frontiers for
future research, and suggests that Improvisational processes offer a vital framework
for further probing organizing processes.
We organize our review in three main sections. First, we present a basic
working definition of improvisation, and explore contemporary assumptions about its
pervasiveness and impact. Second, we describe four stylized forms of improvisational
processes described in the literature. We arrange the forms using two conceptual axes:
the absence/presence of a common goal and micro/macro (individual vs. collective).
These axes represent oversimplifications of the ongoing flow of organizational life, but
help group prior research. We then describe research on interactions between
improvisational levels and other processes. Finally, we consider gaps and promising
frontiers for future research on improvisational processes as a core element of
organizing.
Definition and key assumptions
Improvisation is itself a process. To assess whether or not improvisation has
occurred, it is not enough to look just at a static outcome. One must also look at the
order of activities occurring over time. In the improvisation process, the design of a
novel activity pattern occurs during the pattern’s enactment. This contrasts with classic
3
management theory where actors analyze, make decisions, and then act. The
improvisation processes differ, then, from both fully pre-planned activity, and from
replicating the stable content of a routine.
Researchers sometimes highlight different aspects of improvisation, but the
minimal formal definition of this process involves three conceptual dimensions (Cunha
et al., 1999; Miner et al., 2001; Moorman & Miner, 1998a). These include the
convergence of design and performance (extemporaneity), the creation of some
degree of novel action (novelty) and the deliberateness of the design that is created
during its own enactment (intentionality). The process often involves working with an
improvisational referent (Miner et al., 2001), which might be a prior version of an
action pattern or prior plan. The definition implies that improvisation represents a
special type of innovation. However, the content of an innovation can be planned in
advance, so not all innovation activity represents improvisation. This definition also
implies that improvisation represents a special type of unplanned action: it involves a
deliberate new design, so excludes random change. Thus not all unplanned action is
improvisation.
The condensed articulation of these three dimensions results in a minimalist
definition of pure improvisation as the deliberate and substantive fusion of the design
and execution of a novel production. Some improvisation research has focused
especially on the degree of extemporaneity in activity, and other work focuses on the
degree of novelty, but some degree of both is required for an activity to match this
definition. Without this, improvisation collapses into the already-developed domains
of innovation and organizational change. Throughout this chapter, when we refer to
4
organizational actors we include individuals, teams, units, and entire organizations
(Cunha et al., 1999), even while recognizing that these artificially concrete entities can
themselves represent ongoing constructions of many processes.
Pervasiveness of improvisation. Two lines of thinking about improvisation’s
pervasiveness have crystallized to-date. At one end of the spectrum, researchers
highlight that the enactment of even stable routines or plans involves more than
repetition: it often involves the extemporaneous embellishment of daily practice. The
organizational actor engages in a flow of activity (Orlikowski, 1996; Tsoukas & Chia,
2002) and tailors the design of action to a specific concrete setting. This can represent
an ongoing re-constitution of a prior pattern in a unique response in time and space
(Antonacopoulou, 2008). From this perspective improvisation can be seen as part of
most performative activity (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). As March argues (1981, p.
564), “most of the time most people in an organization do what they are supposed to
do; that is, they are intelligently attentive to their environments and their jobs.” To the
degree that this means adjusting prior action templates for each context,
improvisation is pervasive.
At the other end of the spectrum, important theoretical traditions envision
much organizational life as enacting routines, and scripts, norms, traditions or habit
(Cyert & March, 1963), or as planning, analyzing, deciding and then acting (March,
1976; Mintzberg, 1994). Even though routines and regularities in action patterns can
represent effortful achievements, -- not detached objects, -- improvising differs from
the execution of stable elements of routines. It involves some degree of novel
performance relative to a referent (Crossan, 1998; Baker et al., 2003). It also differs
5
from planning and then acting because it involves design during, not before,
performance. When the changes to a plan or stable pattern are substantial,
improvisation represents an unusual activity.
Although at first glance these visions seem contradictory, current research
suggests that both visions have authenticity and important promise. Extant descriptive
research supports Weick’s observation that much organizational life can be seen as a
“mixture of the pre-composed and the spontaneous” (Weick, 1998, p. 551). Both
traditions offer doorways to explore how different mixtures of predesigned and
spontaneous activities occur and why they matter.
Impact of improvisation. Contemporary researchers broadly agree that
improvisation can produce mixed results. Historically, two undercurrents have
influenced improvisation theory. Traditional normative efforts to improve managerial
practices promoted replacing improvisation with smarter planning and better
routinization, whether in Taylor’s Scientific Management, TQM, process-reengineering
or strategic planning. This approach underlies even practice-oriented fields such as
manufacturing operations, marketing and disaster management. Theorists often
assume that planning and/or routinization trumps other approaches even more under
conditions of stability.
At the same time, however, careful observers have long argued that emergent,
unplanned and non-routine processes can have value especially in dynamic settings
(March, 1976; Mintzberg, 1994). Perhaps partly to overcome the historical anti-
improvisation undertow, some early improvisation research portrayed it primarily as a
source of flexibility, speed and adaptation. Observation of improvisation in practice,
6
however, led to the rejection of any unconditional impact, -- either valuable or
harmful. Much research now focuses on contextual features that influence its
occurrence or impact (Cunha, Neves, Clegg & Rego, forthcoming; Hmieleski et al.,
2013; Magni et al., 2009).
The assumption of mixed potential value has helped spur emerging theories
about whether, when and how different contexts promote the value of improvisational
activity, both short-term and long-term. Improvisation’s impact is seen as involving
trade-offs (Vera et al., 2014) and dialectical sub-processes (Weick, 1998; Clegg, Cunha
& Cunha, 2002). For example, the relative balance of structure and freedom is
assumed to play a key role. Improvisation in the absence of structure can potentially
lead to strategic drift or even dangerous lack of coordination (Bigley & Roberts, 2001;
Ciborra, 1999). At the same time, the lack of freedom can introduce structural rigidity
Micro improvisation as political ingenuity in the organizational underlife. The
investigation of how power influences practitioner’s ability to recognize and pursue
non-sanctioned opportunities to acquire resources and to act “undercover”
21
(Mainemelis, 2010) will be immensely helpful for probing improvisation’s link to
organizing (Kamoche et al., 2003; Yanow and Tsoukas 2009). The potential for hidden
improvisation also highlights the possibility of reverse pattern in which organizational
actors hide planning or routines under the guise of improvisation. March’s and his
colleagues’ studies of garbage can processes (1986), for example, describe this
relatively underexplored process.
Macro improvisation as strategic domination. Re-examination of under-
theorized descriptions of improvisation processes in warfare or in social movements
offers a promising window for theory development. For example, how do guerilla
warfare units achieve transitions to enduring organizations that can operate as equals
in a world of enduring, formalized organizations? How do emotional and interpretive
activities play a role in improvisation in explicit battles over identity and strategic
missions?
Gaps in research on interactions between improvisational levels, forms and
other processes. Finally, while extant theory reveals rich interactions across levels and
of improvisation, important frontiers remain. Promising lines of work include but are
not limited to deepening understanding of improvisation’s links to distinct
institutionalization processes, organizational performance, and multi-level outcomes --
including cultures or institutional fields, as sketched below.
First, more detailed observational data will improve understanding of how
actors recreate improvised content. Further work can usefully probe non-professional
settings or improvisation but non-engaged actors, in contrast to much work on
engaged professionals. When does a sequence of micro actions to accomplish work or
underlife improvisations become part of a foundational change process? How do
22
evaluation, power and interpretive processes influence each other and change over
time? More fundamentally, what if we start with the assumption that improvisational
activities come before all others, and then theorize about how they eventually
generate knots of regularity in action that we call routines or plans (Tsoukas, 2010)?
Second, exactly when and how does an initial improvisational episode or
sequence of actions affect later tendencies to improvise at all? What about capabilities
to improvise effectively versus ineffectively? Is this a matter of practising
(Antonacopoulou, 2008) and if so, how, precisely, does it unfold? How does this
process affect a transactive memory system (Vera & Crossan, 2005; Winter, 2003)?
How and when do organizations develop an “addiction” to improvisational processes?
Is it possible that current improvisational tendencies are actually remnants of
improvisational processes during organizational formation that are not yet touched by
bureaucracy or routines?
Improvisation and performance. Interactions between levels of improvisation
and other processes can impact outcomes at all levels. How do amplification
processes of improvisation create different trajectories for different types of strategic
performance – both short and long term? Does the long-term impact of an
improvisational process differ from the performance impact of a planned innovation or
a random deviation? What is theoretically new in such models compared to the
existing literature on unintended outcomes of local deviations in practice?
Multi level outcomes. Much multi-level work that explicitly flags improvisation
tackles interactions between the individual/team and the organizational level (see
Smets, above for an exception). This invites further exploration of interactions
affecting entire institutional fields and on the role of culture. Nollywood, the Nigerian
23
film industry, offers a case in point. Uzo and Mair’s (2014, p.65) qualitative study
describes actors in this industry as habile improvisers and attributes this to the sector’s
low level of professionalism and to the high the value of rapid adaptation. The authors
show how a sound technician without preparation can replace an unexpectedly absent
actor on the spot and how “stories and scripts were spontaneously and collectively
improvised as the movie production process unfolded.” The study suggests a
pervasive, cultural comfort with conceiving action as it unfolds.
Studies in contexts as geographically diverse as India (Capelli et al., 2010) and
Southern Europe (Aram & Walochik, 1997; Cunha, 2005) show that improvisational
skills can be enacted up to a point that they become institutionalized as normal
features of managerial practice. Here, too, it will be interesting to probe whether this
has developed over time, or whether initial improvisational tendencies simply have not
been over-ridden by planning and routinization norms.
Summary: Advancing process theory through research on improvisational processes
By exploring the frontiers outlined above, research can advance process theory
broadly and deepen understanding of the improvisation process itself. By definition,
the improvisation process involves dynamics and practice -- hallmarks of process
theory (Feldman & Orlikowksi, 2011; Langley et al., 2013) and process researchers
have already played a key role developing improvisation theory. Extant research
implies, however, that the improvisation construct is not a single “secret sauce” that
solves all issues of emergent organizational processes, making it vital to develop it
further and explore links to other processes.
24
Instead of seeing improvisation as an either-or process, empirical research
convincingly portrays varieties and degrees of improvisation that offer theoretical
promise. Studies underscore that while improvisation may mark most or all activity in
some ways, not all activity is equally improvisational -- and that this is likely to matter.
The degree of improvisation in a discrete action can vary in terms of novelty and in the
degree to which the design and execution of action converge in time (Crossan, 1998;
Cunha et al., 1999; Miner et al., 2001; Weick, 1998). The relative presence of
improvisation can vary over time within a stream of action. These nuances offer
windows to advance theory.
One crucial step will be to conduct even finer-grained research on sub-
processes within improvisational incidents or flows of action. Weick (1998) and others
have insightfully probed this issue, but to some degree we still have theory based
heavily on expert improvisers or engaged professionals. This leaves unresolved how
improvisation by non-expert or disengaged actors unfolds. At higher levels of analysis,
many studies document intriguing interactions across levels and types of
improvisation, but we need more studies that trace the distinct roles of different
improvisational forms on both short and long term patterns.
Exploring improvisation’s frontiers can also contribute to theories of practice.
Feldman and Orlikowski (2011) flag three foundations for practice theory: empirical,
theoretical and ontological. This review has emphasized observational empirical
studies of improvisation in action. Improvisation by definition involves performance,
but its link to practice theory is still emerging in important ways.
Antonacopoulo (2008, 2009), for example, has emphasized the process of
practising, which relates to how specific practices can change when they are
25
performed (are in practise). Practising is thus also a practice itself: it entails deliberate,
habitual and spontaneous repetition – including rehearsing, reviewing, refining, and
changing different aspects of a practice and their relationships. Practising involves
imagination and pragmatism that help create space for different courses of future
action, key potential aspects of improvisation. Practising is also argued to play an
important role in a distinct process of learning in crisis (Antonacopoulou & Sheaffer,
2014). Teasing out improvisation’s links to these related processes represents an
important frontier.
Conclusion
Management theory long saw improvisation as a rare activity that usually leads to bad
outcomes. Other work has seen it as a ubiquitous activity that usually leads to good
things. The body of research described above paints a richer, more powerful picture. It
reveals improvisational processes as varied but also as understandable and impactful.
It shows that they interact with each other and other processes to sustain organizing
at all levels. Overall, it points to improvisational processes as vital to the ongoing
development of process-oriented research.
26
References
Akgun, A.E., Byrne, J.C., Lynn, G.S. & Keskin H (2007). New product development in turbulent environments: Impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 24: 203-230.
Alinsky, S. (2010). Rules for radicals. New York: Random House.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2008) On the Practise of Practice: In-tensions and ex-tensions in the ongoing reconfiguration of practice. In D. Barry and H. Hansen (eds) Handbook of New Approaches to Organization Studies (pp.112-131). London: Sage.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2009) Strategizing as practising: Strategic learning as a source of connection. In L.A. Costanzo, L.A. and R.B. McKay (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Strategy and Foresight (pp.169-181). London: Sage.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Sheaffer, Z. (2014) Learning in Crisis: Rethinking the Relationship between Organizational Learning and Crisis Management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(1): 5-21.
Aram, J.D. & Walochik, K. (1996). Improvisation and the Spanish manager. International Studies of Management and Organization 26: 73-89.
Baker T., Miner A.S. & Eesley D.T. (2003) Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy 32: 255-276.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. (2005). Creating something out of nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329-366.
Balogun, J. & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523-549.
Bechky, B & Okhuysen, G. (2011). Expected the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2): 239-261.
Bergh, D.D. & Lim, E.N.K. (2008). Learning how to restructure: Absorptive capacity and improvisational views of restructuring actions and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 593-616.
27
Berliner, P. F. (2009). Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bigley, G & Roberts, K. (2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6):1281-1299.
Bingham, C.B. (2009). Oscillating improvisation: How entrepreneurial firms create success in foreign market entries over time. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 3: 321-345.
Bingham, C.B. & Davis J.P. (2012). Learning sequences: Their existence, effect and evolution. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 611-641.
Bingham, C. & Eisenhardt K.M. (2011). Rational heuristics: The ‘simple rules’ that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal 32: 1437-1464.
Brown, S.L. & Eisenhardt, K.M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 1-34.
Capelli, P., Singh, H., Singh, J. & Useem, M. (2010). The India way. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Charles, K. & Dawson, P. (2011). Dispersed change agency and the improvisation of strategies during processes of change. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 329-351.
Chia, R. (2014). In praise of silent transformation – Allowing change through ‘letting happen’. Journal of Change Management, 14(1):8-27.
Chia, R. & Holt, R. (2009). Strategy without design: The silent efficacy of indirect action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ciborra, C. (1999). Notes on improvisation and time in organizations. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9, 77-94.
Clegg, S.R., Cunha, J.V. & Cunha, M.P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483-503.
Crossan, M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9(5):593-599.
Crossan, M. M., & Sorrenti, M. (1997). Making sense of improvisation. Advances in Strategic Management, 14, 155-180.
28
Crozier, M. & Friedberg, E. (1976). L’acteur et le système. Paris: Seuil.
Cunha, M.P. (2005). Adopting or adapting? The tension between local and international mindsets in Portuguese management. Journal of World Business, 40(2), 188-202.
Cunha, M.P., Clegg, S.R. & Kamoche, K. (2006). Surprises in management and organization: Concept, sources, and a typology. British Journal of Management, 17, 317-329.
Cunha, M.P., Cunha, J.V. & Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational improvisation: What, when, how and why. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(3), 299-341.
Cunha, M.P., Kamoche, K. & Cunha, R.C. (2003). Organizational improvisation and leadership: A field study in two computer-mediated settings. International Studies of Management & Organization, 33(1), 34-57.
Cunha, M.P., Neves, P., Clegg, S. & Rego, A. (forthcoming). Tales of the unexpected: Discussing improvisational learning. Management Learning.
Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Dailey, S.L. & Browing, L. (2014). Retelling stories in organizations: Understanding the functions of narrative repetition. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 22-43.
De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Edmondson, A. C. & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23-43.
Eisenhardt, K.M. & Tabrizi, B. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84-110.
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, 202-225.
Feldman, M. & Pentland, B. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1): 94-118.
29
Feldman, M.S. & Orlikowski, W.J. (2011). Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science, 22: 1240-1253.
Garud R, Jain S and Tuertscher P (2008) Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness. Organization Studies 29: 351-371.
Gong, Y., Baker, T. & Miner, A.S. (2005). The dynamics of routines and capabilities in new firms. Unpublished manuscript.
Gong, Y., Baker, T. & Miner, A.S. (2006). Failures of entrepreneurial learning in knowledge-based startups. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 15, part 2.
Grant, A.M. & Ashford, S.J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34.
Grant, R.M. (2008). Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6), 491-517.
Guevara, Che (2002). Guerrilla warfare. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hargadon, A.B. & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 476-501.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Commentary: Jazzing up the theory of organizational improvisation. Advances in Strategic Management 14: 181-192.
Hmieleski, K.M., Corbett, A.C. & Baron, R.A. (2013). Entrepreneurs’ improvisational behavior and form performance: A study of dispositional and environmental moderators. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 138-150.
Jarzabkowski, P. & Kaplan, S. (2014). Strategy tools in-use: A framework for understanding technologies of rationality in practice. Strategic Management Journal, forthcoming.
Kamoche, K. & Cunha, M.P. (2001). Minimal structures: From jazz improvisation to product innovation. Organization Studies, 22, 733-764.
Kamoche, K., Cunha, M.P. & Cunha, J.V. (2003). Towards a theory of organizational improvisation: Looking beyond the jazz metaphor. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2023-2051.
Kendra, J., & Wachtendorf, T. (2003). Elements of resilience after the World Trade Center disaster: Reconstituting New York City’s Operations Center. Disasters, 27(1): 37-53.
King, A. W., & Ranft, A. L. (2001). Capturing knowledge and knowing through improvisation: What managers can learn from the thoracic surgery board
30
certification process. Journal of Management, 27(3), 255-277.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. & Klein, K.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundation, extensions, and new directions (pp.3-90). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Kyriakopoulos, K. (2011) Improvisation in product innovation: The contingent role of market information sources and memory types. Organization Studies 32: 1051-1078.
Lampel, J. & Shapira, Z. (2001). Judgmental errors, interactive norms and the difficulty
of detecting strategic surprises. Organization Science, 12, 599-611.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. & Van de Ven, A.H. (2013) Process studies of change in organizations and management: Unveiling temporality, activity and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13.
Magni, M., Proserpio, L., Hoegl, M. & Provera, B. (2009). The role of team behavioral integration and cohesion in shaping individual improvisation. Research Policy, 38, 1044-1053.
Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review 35: 558-578.
Manning, P.K. (2008). Goffman on organizations. Organization Studies 29(5), 677-699.
McGinn, K., & Keros, A. 2002. Improvisation and the logic of exchange in socially embedded transactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(3):42-473.
Mantere, S. & Vaara, E. (2008). On the problem of participating in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. Organization Science, 19(2), 341-358.
March JG (1976) The technology of foolishness. In JG March and J. Olsen (Eds.),
March, J.G. &Olsen, J.P. (1986). Garbage can models of decision making in organizations. . in J.G. March & R. Weissinger-Baylon (Eds.), Ambiguity and command: Organizational perspectives on military decision making (pp.11-35). Reading, MA:
Miller, P. & Wedell-Wedellsborg, T. (2013). The case for stealth innovation. Harvard Business Review, March, 91-97.
Miner, A., Bassoff, P. & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and
31
learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2):304-337.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). Rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Moorman, C. & Miner, A. (1998a). The convergence between planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62, 1-20.
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. (1998b). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 698-723.
Ocasio, W.A. & Joseph, J. (2008). Rise and fall – or transformation? The evolution of strategic planning at the General Electric Company, 1940-2006. Long Range Planning, 41, 248-272.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63-92.
Orr, J. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community memory in service culture. In D.S. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering: Memory in society. Newbury Park: Sage.
Plowman, D.A., Baker, L.T., Beck, T., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. & Travis, D. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50, pp. 515-543.
Preston, A. (1991). Improvising order. Organization analysis and development 8.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Smets, M., Morris, T. & Greenwood. R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel
model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 877-904.
Sonenshein, S. (2014). How organizations foster the creative use of resources. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3):814-848.
Ton, Z. (2014). Good jobs strategy: How the smartest companies invest employees to lower costs and boost profits. Seattle: Lake Union.
Tsoukas, H. (2010). Representation, signification, improvisation – A three-dimensional view of organizational knowledge. In H. Canary & R. D. McPhee (Eds.), Communication and organizational knowledge. New York: Routledge: New York.
Tsoukas H. & Chia R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567-582.
32
Uzo, U. & Mair, J. (2014). Source and patterns of organizational defiance of formal institutions: Insights from Nollywood, the Nigerian movie industry. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8, 56-74.
Van de Ven, A., Polley, D., Garud, R., Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vera, D. & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative learning in teams. Organization Science, 16(3), 203-224.
Vera, D., Nemanich, L., Vélez-Cástrillon, S. & Werner, S. (2014). Knowledge-based and contextual factors associated with R&D teams’ improvisation capability. Journal of Management,forthcoming.
Wachtendorf, T. (2004). Improvising 9/11: organizational improvisation following the World Trade Center disaster. Dissertation, University of Delaware.
Weick, K.E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652.
Weick, K.E. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9, 543-555.