Improvisation as a Way of Dealing with Ambiguity and

Complexity
By Stephen A. Leybourne, PhD

2010 Volume 13 Issue 3

As “process” becomes less relevant in today’s flexible organizations, can organizational

improvisation produce “emerging best practice?”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“The Times, They Are A-Changin,” Bob Dylan said, or rather, sang in 1963, but as an
anthem for the 2000s, he was right on the button. Organizations are changing, and
changing quickly, and managers who do not recognize—and more importantly—react, to
this emerging truth, will struggle to compete as markets become more demanding and
competition intensifies.

Change is driven by a number of inter-related phenomena, notably:

1. the turbulence of environments;

2. the need for organizations to respond quickly to changing environments;
3. increasingly sophisticated, demanding, knowledgeable, and discerning customers;
and
4. the shortening of product and service life-cycles.

Put simply, we as consumers want more choices, better quality, faster and more
convenient delivery, and all at a lower price!

This requires significant change on the part of traditional organizations, and we have seen
a shift away from hierarchical, “command and control,” micro-managed operational
styles toward an organizational model based on “flattened” hierarchies, increased
flexibility and local autonomy, the increased importance of inter and intra-organizational
networks, of and self-directed, self-designed work. However, such a radical shift in
organizational “style” also requires major changes in the way in which culture,
motivation, commitment, and trust are addressed. Essentially, work is becoming less
“formalized,” more “complex,” and more “improvisational.”

This leads to a view that improvisation, which developed from Karl Weick’s early work
on “sensemaking,” and which has evolved through comparison to jazz, and theatrical
improvisation, can assist in this shift. Improvisation has been accepted both conceptually
and empirically, and has a genuine contribution to make in resolving the issues of
complexity and ambiguity that organizations are grappling with in these turbulent times.

Indeed, employees are arguably becoming more like entrepreneurs, or maybe

“intrapreneurs,” in that they are often expected to innovate in “real time” within their
organizations to resolve issues as they arise. This is the essence of improvisation, and it is
also linked to an emerging area known as effectuation, which involves problem solving
through human actions in environments that are essentially unpredictable.

Components of Improvisation

So, what is improvised work about, and more importantly, what are the “components” of
improvisation?

In 1998, academics at the University of Wisconsin identified and documented three

elements of improvisation: creativity, intuition, and bricolage.

In other words, improvisation involves using an element of creative thought, combined

with an intuitive feel for what will assist in the resolution of a particular problem.
Bricolage, which essentially means “utilizing the resources at hand,” indicates that the
improviser has only limited resources to apply. Bricolage comes into play because it is
unlikely that the improviser in a given circumstance will have time to mobilize additional
resources. This is a significant limitation at times when organizations are trying to
achieve increased performance with reduced means.

Improvisation is also closely linked with time, and in particular the pressure to achieve a
demanding or compressed timetable. Improvisation in this context is defined as: “…the
degree to which composition and execution converge in time.” It follows from this that
the less the time between the design and implementation, the more that activity is
improvisational. This temporal link between two activities is important in judging the
degree of improvisation required in the activity.

Arguably, there are other constructs that link with the concept of improvisation, including
“socialization,” given that group-based activity arguably produces more “robust”
improvisational interventions, and “prototyping,” in that there are strong parallels
between improvisation and new product development.

In 2001, four additional elements or “constructs of improvisation” emerged from the

literature: adaptation, innovation, compression, and learning. Adaptation refers to the
“adapting” of one of a personal store of previously successful interventions or improvised
routines to assist in resolving emerging requirements. Adept and experienced improvisers
innovate at the personal level in order to leverage previous practice and existing routines
to solve organizational problems. Compression shortens intended timescales in order to
deliver or resolve problems in less time. Learning is the outcome from successful, and
indeed from unsuccessful, improvisation, in that effective interventions can join the
personal library of successful improvised applications of the experienced improviser.
Learning from less effective improvised activity is equally important.

Improvisation Ecology

It is evident that experienced and adept improvisers can circumvent routine and process,
and deliver resolutions to problems quickly and effectively. In organizations where the
culture and working styles are supportive of improvised work practices, employees can
quickly develop a store of effective interventions that can be adapted and re-used. Often,
this skill is linked with “experience” i.e. “this is an experienced manager.” This can
however require a degree of risk tolerance that some organizations find difficult to
engage with.

The next step is to capture successful improvisational activity and “codify” it—and in
doing so, make the shift from “tacit” to “explicit” knowledge, that can be shared within
the organization for wider benefit. This requires that the organization supports and
encourages improvisational activity, and has a culture that does not denounce or worse,
punish “failure.”

This is essential, as one of the outcomes of research in this area is that in many
organizations, “failed” or ineffective improvisation is stigmatized, leading many
employees to improvise “surreptitiously.” Moving away from “planned” activity involves
discarding the shared responsibility that comes from consensus-based planning, and it
exposes improvised activity to intense scrutiny. Lack of organizational support can
therefore drive effective and adept improvising managers “underground.”

A Taxonomy of Improvisation

Given the importance and likely influences documented in this section, it is useful to
develop a taxonomy of improvisational competence to assist with the management of
complex and challenging work.
Figure 1: Improvisation Characteristics – Creativity -v- Analytical Adaptability

In Figure 1 a simple matrix is proposed that classifies activity along two axes:
“creativity” and “analytical adaptability.” The intention is to assist organizations to
identify situations where improvisation could reasonably be beneficial. The matrix can
also help to understand what practices and procedures are relevant to organizations in
similar regions of the diagram.

Creativity

The creativity axis is characterized as high and low. High creativity is associated with
dramatic change, numerous risk events, and situations with many unknowns. These
changes should be fundamental and more than simple incremental variation and cost
escalation.

Analytical Adaptability

This axis recognizes the fact that improvisational work needs to be based on and linked
with traditional analytical tools and techniques, such as the production and analysis of
decision-making data (e.g. to estimate costs and scheduling). However, particularly early
in the planning cycle, much creativity may be required in data collection and analysis.
Questions to be answered include: Is the data typical, or did special conditions hold? Is
the design facing major revisions? Are the underlying assumptions no longer valid?

If the answer to these types of questions is “yes,” then we ask the fundamental question,
“Can improvised activity assist?”

In Figure 1 the vertical axis describes the level of creative challenge, which can be high
or low. The horizontal axis describes the level of analytical adaptability, which again can
be high or low.

For the purposes of this matrix, creativity can be considered as an “assumption breaking
process,” in that it defies the acknowledged and accepted paradigm in a specific area or
for a specific process.

On the other axis, analytical adaptability is considered as a “tool breaking process,” in

that it defies the acknowledged and accepted paradigm for the tools and techniques.
Analytical adaptability is required when the processes or the cost and schedule data are
unpredictable—that is, significantly outside of their expected bounds—and the tools and
techniques generally associated with activity planning appear to be predicting results well
beyond a simple cost or schedule overrun. It is now appropriate to move to an
explanation of the matrix.

An example from the IT sector will be given for each quadrant in the matrix, in order to
contextualize the concept.

Box One: High Creativity, Low Analytical Adaptability

Smaller non-profit organizations tend to fall in this category. Non-profits often

encompass creative arts organizations conducting fund-raising projects or putting on
performances. They typically require considerable creative energy, but the activity often
resembles previous efforts: previous fund raisers or previous performances. Therefore,
while this requires considerable creativity, the analytical aspect is often similar to
previous efforts and is therefore low on the analytical adaptability scale. Web page
development for new markets would fall into this quadrant.

Box Two: Low Creativity, Low Analytical Adaptability

Here we have work such as incremental software maintenance and Information

Technology (IT) activity, which requires relatively low creativity. Maintenance work
typically inherits characteristics from the already existing parent system, which
presumably has existed for a while. Therefore, relatively low creativity is also required,
since maintenance changes are unlikely to require a redesign of the underlying system.

In box two, we do not expect the activity to require much in the way of new or innovative
tools to analyze the project. Maintenance activity typically exists in a regime where the
processes and tools are already rigorously defined, and the team is expected to follow
existing protocols.

Box Three: High Creativity, High Analytical Adaptability

The pharmaceutical and drug industries characterize activity with both very high
creativity and highly adaptable analytical requirements. New drugs require research and
development, which is unpredictable, and calls for high degrees of creativity. Drug
development is both highly regulated and expensive, so there is a great deal of analytical
work to plan the development, and closely monitor the cost and schedule during the trials
and acceptance. A high degree of analytical adaptability is also required to manage the
project through the lengthy process with its many changes in direction. Strategic IT
systems would fall within this quadrant.

Box Four: Low Creativity, High Analytical Adaptability

Here we have activity with very high analytical requirements but low creativity. Many
types of Department of Defense and other large public sector projects fall in this
category. The government imposes many and varied standards and procedures. While
data reporting and analysis requirements in this category of activity are significant, the
work is developed to a very specific and pre-existing scope statement, on which
compromise and the use of immature process is rarely possible. Backroom accounting
systems would also fall within this quadrant.

Summary

The logical outcome from this matrix is that creative improvisation is likely to be more
evident, and indeed more effective, in certain environments. In some domains,
considerable analytical creativity can be brought to bear to evolve new and innovative
ways to allow adept and motivated employees to develop new ways of achieving required
activity. An example of this is the development of the Grameen Bank, where bricolage
and significant creative leeway is required to circumvent and adapt traditional banking
models to operate effectively in a “third world” environment.

The skill in improvisation is in knowing when to relax the framework that surrounds
proscribed activity in organizations, and when to impose a greater degree of rigor and
structure. Realistically, this will depend on two factors:

That is, employing creativity will depend on the degree of trust and confidence that
strategic managers have in the ability of employees to improvise effectively. As this trust
and confidence increases, the degree of rigor and structure can be relaxed.

Managing the tension between improvisation and control is a challenge for modern
organizations, but is one that needs to be addressed. Evidence suggests that traditional
routines for “micro-managing” organizational activity will not deliver the flexibility and
agility required in modern organizations, and will not resolve the ambiguity and
complexity that are inherent in modern organizational work.

This tension is real, and complicates the relationship between proscribed activity and
improvised creativity. It is apparent that those organizations that successfully manage the
tension between process and improvisation effectively will benefit in the turbulent
organizational environments that make up tomorrow’s challenging business landscape.
As an example of this, innovative organizations like Grameen Bank are demonstrating
that rethinking traditional business sectors can generate dramatic change from very small
beginnings.

Dylan, Bob, “The Times They Are a-Changin” (Columbia Records, 1963).

For an interesting exposition of complexity in organizations, Ralph Stacey’s work on

organizations as “complex adaptive systems” is highly recommended reading.

Weick, Karl E., The Social Psychology of Organizing [2nd edition], (Addison-Wesley,
1979).

Hatch, M.J., “Exploring the Empty Pages of Organizing: How Improvisational Jazz
Helps Redescribe Organizational Structure” Organization Studies, 20, no. 1 (1999): 75-
100.

Vera, D. and M. Crossan, “Theatrical Improvisation: Lessons for Organizations”

Organization Studies, 25, No. 5 (2004): 727-749.

e Cunha M.P., J.V. da Cunha, and K. Kamoche, “Organizational Improvisation: what,

when, how and why?” International Journal of Management Reviews, 1, No. 3 (1999):
299-341.

Miner, A.S., P. Bassoff, and C. Moorman, “Organizational Improvisation and Learning:

A Field Study,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, (2001): 304-337.

Lewin, R., Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos, (New York: Macmillon, 1992).
Effectuation is outside the scope of this paper, being an interesting subject in itself.
However, for more information on effectuation, see Sarasvathy, S.D., Effectuation:
Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise (Cheltenham, Glos: Edward Elgar, 2008).

Moorman C. and A.S. Miner, “The Convergence of Planning and Execution:

Improvisation in New Product Development,” Journal of Marketing, 62, No. 3,
(1998/July): 1-20.

Bricolage can be literally translated from the French or Spanish to mean “do-it-yourself,”
and in this context, it means doing the best job you can with the human, physical, and
financial resources that you have at your disposal at that time.

Moorman, C. and A.S. Miner, “Organizational Improvisation and Organizational

Memory,” Academy of Management Review, 23 No. 4 (1998): 698.

See note 10 above.

Miner, A.S., P. Bassoff, and C. Moorman, “Organizational Improvisation and Learning:

A Field Study,” Administrative Science Quarterly 46 (2001) 304-337.

About the Author(s)

Stephen A. Leybourne, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at Boston University, and has

published widely on improvisation in organizations. Prior to joining his current
institution, he completed his PhD at Cardiff Business School, and then taught for seven
years at Plymouth Business School, both in the UK. Leybourne's research has been
recognized with "best paper" awards at the AOM conference in Atlanta in 2006, and at
the 18th World Business Congress in Tbilisi, Georgia, in 2009. He is an editorial board
member of the Project Management Journal, and is particularly interested in
improvisational activity within the project domain. Before joining academia, Dr.
Leybourne was a senior executive in the UK banking sector. sleyb@bu.edu