(tarvainen 2010) the dark side of improvisation – towards a new typology and a view from the...
TRANSCRIPT
William J. Tarvainen
The dark side of improvisation:
Towards a new typology and a view
from the improvisation insiders
Thesis for the degree of
Master of Philosophy
in Innovation, Strategy & Organisation
1 June 2010
Supervisor: Dr. Allègre Hadida
ii
ABSTRACT
To survive and prosper amid the turbulence of the modern marketplace, organisations
need to respond to unpredictable changes resourcefully, locally and in real time – to
improvise. Organisational improvisation (OI) has been analysed through the metaphor
of the organisation as a jazz band, but just as the dark side of the Moon was never visible
from the Earth’s viewpoint, so the complete picture of OI has remained shadowy when
theorised only from the audience’s viewpoint. This thesis goes onto the other side of the
metaphor, interviewing ten established jazz musicians about OI. To help interpret the
findings vis-‐à-‐vis the existing literature, this paper introduces a new typological OI
framework distinguishing between degrees (timbral/phrasal/structural) and loci
(personal/interpersonal/organisational) of improvisation. The interviews reveal a more
nuanced picture of OI, suggesting that interpersonal improvisation has been particularly
underrepresented and oversimplified in the management research literature. The paper
concludes with a framework for improvisational development and proposes directions
for further research.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVISATION ......................................................................... 2 Reasons for improvisation........................................................................................................................3 The jazz metaphor ........................................................................................................................................5 • Metaphors and empirical studies......................................................................................................................... 5 • Jazz and other metaphors ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Definitions of organisational improvisation .....................................................................................7
THE DEGREE/LOCUS FRAMEWORK...........................................................................10 Constructing a framework ..................................................................................................................... 10 Degrees of improvisation: Timbral/phrasal/structural ........................................................... 12 • Timbral improvisation............................................................................................................................................12 • Phrasal improvisation.............................................................................................................................................13 • Structural improvisation .......................................................................................................................................13 Loci of improvisation: Personal/interpersonal/organisational............................................ 14 • Personal improvisation ..........................................................................................................................................15 • Interpersonal improvisation ................................................................................................................................15 • Organisational-level improvisation ..................................................................................................................16 The degree/locus framework............................................................................................................... 16
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 20 Interviews ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
FINDINGS & ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 23 Personal-‐level findings ............................................................................................................................ 24 Interpersonal-‐level findings.................................................................................................................. 24 Organisational-‐level findings................................................................................................................ 26 • Division of roles..........................................................................................................................................................27 • Leadership....................................................................................................................................................................28 • Structure .......................................................................................................................................................................29 • Culture ...........................................................................................................................................................................30 • Rules................................................................................................................................................................................30 The findings and the academic literature: Practice vs. theory ............................................... 31
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 33 Future research........................................................................................................................................... 36
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 37
DISCOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................49
APPENDIX 1: DEGREES AND LOCI ACROSS JAZZ STYLES ........................................ 50
APPENDIX 2: FULL INTERVIEW DETAILS...................................................................51
APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE............................................................................... 52
iv
EPIGRAPHS
“The period of disorder and chaos in organizational environments is set to take
off, and, as yet, we know very little about creating organizations and strategies
which institutionalize capabilities for change."
(Ilinitch et al. 1998: xxxii)
~ “Jazz players do what managers find themselves doing; fabricating and inventing
novel responses without a pre-‐scripted plan and without certainty of outcomes;
discovering the future that their action creates as it unfolds.”
(Barrett 1998: 605)
1
INTRODUCTION
The modern organisation operates in an increasingly complex, rapidly changing
environment. The forces of globalisation and trade liberalisation, together with
innovations in information systems, have created a new organisational order in which
explicit long-‐term plans might become obsolete at a moment’s notice and the most
successful organisations nimbly and creatively navigate the constantly changing
landscape (D’Aveni 1994). Even such behemoths as Nokia now describe themselves as
“a jazz band, not a symphony orchestra” (Steinbock 2010: 107). In this age of turbulence,
the ability to change and respond quickly brings a competitive advantage (Hamel &
Breen 2007).
Organisational improvisation (OI) has emerged as a possible answer to this new
competitive challenge. In an environment where emergent strategies decreasingly
conform to deliberate strategising (Mintzberg & Waters 1985), OI may enable
companies to subdue more of the emergent part of their actions and environmental
fortuities to their own will (Cunha et al. 1999). Improvisation is particularly important
for organisational tasks that are complex and dynamic, cannot be understood a priori or
managed using existing routines, and demand flexible and extemporaneous action
(Kamoche & Cunha 2001; Kirsch 1996).
However, even as the period of turmoil in organisational environments is
gathering pace, we know little about how such capabilities for change are
institutionalised (Ilinitch 1998). Research on OI is at a particularly immature stage
(Magni et al. 2008; Vera & Crossan 2005), and since few have the first-‐hand experience
required to fully understand improvisation, OI is likely to remain “a thorny area for
management theorists and practitioners” (Crossan & Sorrenti 2002: 46).
Jazz improvisation has been the primary hermeneutic and sense-‐making
metaphor for explaining OI, but has suffered from two shortcomings. First, the whole
field has been plagued by a strikingly low degree of cumulativity and coherence (Cunha
et al. 1999). Not only do definitions of OI differ, but more critically, the field has also
lacked a single unifying framework that would allow classifying types of OI and
compartmentalising the literature. Available typologies tend to be non-‐ordinal and
2
technical, which has not only rendered classification problematic but also made it
difficult to compare views across metaphors, let alone between theorists and
practitioners – which points to the second shortcoming.
That is, the jazz metaphor has been developed at arm’s length, with hardly any
first-‐hand involvement of practicing jazz musicians. Whereas the audience of a jazz
concert observes a group of musicians improvising exciting music, the view from the
orchestral stand is very different – jazz musicians themselves are acutely aware of the
complex processes that lead to the music. Just as the Moon had been examined from the
Earth’s vantage point for millennia before its dark side was first seen in 1959, so the jazz
metaphor of OI has been studied from the vantage point of the audience without
venturing onto the other side of the podium step. The improvisers’ viewpoint has
remained, as it were, the dark side of improvisation. It is remarkable that no scholarly
article could be found to have interviewed any number of jazz improvisers specifically
about OI. Whether the theory is built on out-‐of-‐context quotations or on primary data
intentionally collected does have scholarly implications. It is time for a reality check.
I seek to address both the field’s typological incongruity and its exclusion of
practitioners, introducing a unifying framework and conducting ten interviews with jazz
improvisers. The introduced framework differentiates between different degrees
(timbral/phrasal/structural) and loci (personal/interpersonal/ organisational) of OI,
and allows comparing the views of theorists and practitioners.
The structure of this paper is as follows. First, I introduce OI, review the
literature and establish a definition of OI. I then present the degree/locus framework
and review the research methodology. After discussing the interview findings, I
conclude with three methodological and four theory-‐building propositions and look
ahead at future research.
ORGANISATIONAL IMPROVISATION
OI is a relatively new field, and its emergence should be seen in the larger context of
management theory. Human organisations have probably always improvised to some
3
degree, but management as a field was slow to transcend its historical principles of
managerial planning (Taylor 1911) and formal strategising (Chandler 1962). In that
paradigm, improvisation was diagnosed as a dysfunction in planning (March & Simon
1958) or in organisational design (MacKenzie 1986).
Along the 20th century, the business environment became increasingly dynamic
and new management paradigms started to challenge the conventional wisdom. Such
scholars as Mintzberg (Mintzberg 1990; Mintzberg & McHugh 1985; Mintzberg &
Waters 1985) popularised alternative ways of seeing management – the environment
might change before elaborate plans could be implemented, and managers would be
best advised to keep an ear to the ground and create organisations that could flexibly
respond to the changing circumstances. Although this movement has not been
unequivocal or embraced without controversy (cf. Ansoff 1991; Mintzberg 1991),
developments have led management theory to shift its focus towards addressing change.
The following introduces the reasons for OI, discusses the use of the jazz
metaphor, presents a definition and distinguishes between types of OI.
Reasons for improvisation
To improvise, an organisation must face something unexpected that requires immediate
action and cannot be addressed using known routines or solutions (Hatch 1997;
Moorman & Miner 1998b; Weick 1993a). This unforeseen may come from within or
without.
The external environment might be so complex as to render planning simply
unfeasible (Cunha et al. 1999) or even counterproductive (Mintzberg 1994), or the
organisation might face an unpredictable environmental shock (Crossan et al. 1996).
Even if a subjectively perceived external environment is only enacted differently, the
organisation still perceives an incentive to improvise (Crossan & Sorrenti 2002). OI
scholars generally argue that such external triggers for improvisation are proliferating
as markets are becoming more dynamic.
The impulse to improvise can also come from within when an organisation has a
new vision, enacting which is usually subject to emergent changes (Mintzberg & McHugh
1985) and as such can be addressed by improvisation (Crossan et al. 1996; Perry 1991).
4
Flawed mental models of the organisation and its environment might also fail to predict
otherwise foreseeable change (Cunha et al. 1999; Senge 1990).
By improvising, an organisation can also seek to gain longer-‐term benefits
beyond the situation at hand. It is commonly seen to promote greater organisational
flexibility (Cunha et al. 1999), but can also help the organisation to learn to improvise
better (Crossan et al. 1996), to innovate (Vera & Crossan 2005), to explore new
solutions (March 1991), or to perform certain activities better through routinising
successful improvisations (Miner et al. 1997). Amongst employees, OI may lead to
higher motivation (Eisenberg 1990), feelings of success (Eisenberg 1990) or stronger
teams (Powers 1981).
OI is seen as having particular promise for developing leadership in the new
organisation (Newton 2004), with high autonomy in the context of clear rules (Cunha et
al. 2003). The concept of rotating leadership within the organisation allows benefiting
from a variety of views (Bastien & Hostager 1988; Newton 2004), whilst servant
leadership allows the organisation to act as a team (Crossan et al. 1996). As firms have
become ever more interconnected, acting in such inter-‐firm networks that do not have a
single leader often involves OI (Pavlovich 2003).
However, improvisation may also have negative organisational consequences.
Organisations may over-‐eagerly generalise successfully improvised solutions into wrong
contexts (Kamoche & Cunha 2001) or, by over-‐legitimising OI, neglect planning and
preparation (Eisenberg 1990). Tackling each challenge with an ad hoc improvisational
task force might also hinder the development of experience-‐based teams (Kamoche &
Cunha 2001; Weick 1998). Overall, despite researchers’ tendency to emphasise positive
outcomes more than negative ones (Magni et al. 2008; Vera & Crossan 2005),
improvisation itself is inherently neither positive nor negative (Crossan et al. 2005;
Miner et al. 2001). A recent empirical study found improvisation to be on average
valueless, although showing positive effects in the right context (Vera & Crossan 2005).
5
The jazz metaphor
OI has been associated with jazz from its earliest papers on (Bastien & Hostager 1988).
The theory entered the management domain in the 1990s, culminating in a 1998
Organization Science special issue based on a 1995 Canadian Academy of Management
symposium “Jazz as a Metaphor for Organizing in the 21st Century” (Meyer et al. 1998) –
with the inevitable accompanying jazz concert (Meyer 1998). The following discusses
the use of a metaphor in general and jazz in specific.
Metaphors and empirical studies
A metaphor is a “comparative figure of speech … through which humans create meaning
by using one element of experience to understand another” (Morgan 1998: 4). As an
“invitation to see the world” (Barrett & Cooperrider 1990: 222), the metaphor presents
an alternative social reality (Tsoukas 1993) and can provide the missing link between
the lay and scientific discourse (Tsoukas 1991). Epistemologically, metaphors have a
rooting in Kuhnian paradigms (Kuhn 1962) rather than positivism (Popper 1959, 1963)
– metaphors and paradigms are closely linked (Morgan 1980). They are seen as “an
epistemologically valid approach to making sense of organizations” (McCourt 1997:
511).
Since improvisation in organisations involves a number of human actors
dependent on the complex local circumstances, individual instances of OI are hard to
model. Improvisation is more developed jazz than in business, and thus the metaphor
allows drawing meaning from a richer source. Some scholars have already called for
researchers to “experience [improvisation] in the context of a group that makes
improvisation their profession” (Crossan & Sorrenti 2002: 45) and to transcend the
metaphorical level to explore what actually happens in jazz improvisation (Dennis &
Macaulay 2007).
Empirical OI papers are rather less numerous than metaphorical. Most deal with
general activities in organisations (e.g., Brown & Eisenhardt 1997; Miner et al. 2001;
Moorman & Miner 1998a; Orlikowski 1996); others with specific shocks that
necessitated improvisation, such as the Mann Gulch wildfire (Weick 1993b), the failure
of a ship’s navigational system (Hutchins 1991), or the space shuttles crises of Apollo 13
6
(Rerup 2001) and Columbia (Starbuck & Farjoun 2005). Notable instances of non-‐crisis
OI include 3M’s discovery of the Post-‐it note (Peters & Waterman 1982), Honda’s
motorcycle strategy (Pascale 1984) and the National Film Board of Canada’s
organisation as a fairly improvisational “adhocracy” (Mintzberg & McHugh 1985). These
empirical papers usually start with a known instance of improvisation and then, a
posteriori, trace its links to other organisational actions (Miner et al. 2001).
Jazz and other metaphors
Several metaphors have been used to explain improvisation, including conversation
(e.g., Berliner 1994; Hatch 1998; Ramos 1978; Weick 1998), problem solving (Bernstein
2000; Ramalho & Ganascia 1994), games (Hudak & Berger 1995) and stories
(Tanenbaum & Tanenbaum 2008). Kamoche et al. (2000, 2003) propose role theory,
Indian music and music therapy as alternatives. Improvisational theatre, however, is the
most common “alternative” metaphor in OI (Crossan 1997, 1998; Crossan et al. 1996;
Vera & Crossan 2005; McKnight & Bontis 2002; Meyer 2005; Weick 1993a). As theatrical
interaction happens with words rather than notes, the lower level of abstraction makes
improvisation more intelligible to more people.
Jazz, however, has accumulated more OI literature than all the other metaphors
combined – and not without reason. Representing improvisation at its most intricate
(Kamoche et al. 2003), jazz offers over 90 years of documented development since its
first recording (discography: ODJB 1917). Jazz offers a wealth of parallels to OI: It starts
from a certain structure that frames improvisation but does not cage it (Crossan 1998);
musicians juggle between exploiting the past and exploring the future (cf. March 1991);
and the organisation must collectively respond to change in real time (Barrett 1998;
Meyer 2005). There are similarities in roles and responsibilities – to improvise together,
says jazz pianist Dave Brubeck, “somebody has to mind the store, to give the improviser
more freedom to get out on his own" (Kao 1996b: 25). The analogy, however, is not
perfect:
“[Jazz] is artsy, performed disproportionately by people of color, still has
an undercurrent of booze and drugs surrounding it, and frankly doesn't sell that
well to a broad base of customers. In short, it's the antithesis of much of what we
think about when we think about business.” (Mirvis 1998: 591)
7
Improvisation has intrinsic value in jazz where musicians choose to improvise,
but only instrumental value in business where people usually need strong incentives to
improvise. In other words, jazz musicians improvise to feel alive – companies improvise
to stay alive. However, the very fact that jazz is not exactly like management may also
bring fresh perspective, as jazz musicians are less used to the taken-‐for-‐granted routines
and mundanities of business. As jazz clarinettist Ken Peplowski agonises:
“I have found that the single most annoying thing is the lack of
independent thought among [business] employees. There's nothing worse than
someone just doing their job: just doing the minimum that's required. My job as a
manager would be a lot simpler and more satisfying if more employees
understood improvisation. Doing the minimum is impossible in a jazz group.”
(Peplowski 1998: 561)
Jazz can also contribute to other fields of management (Crossan et al. 2005):
Change management (Barrett & Hatch 2003; Mantere et al. 2007; Orlikowski 1996);
learning and knowledge capturing (Crossan & Sorrenti 2002; King & Ranft 2001; Miner
et al. 2001); new product development (Kamoche & Cunha 2001; Moorman & Miner
1998a; Sutton & Hargadon 1996); adaptation and renewal (Brown & Eisenhardt 1997;
Crossan et al. 1996); strategic decision making (Eisenhardt et al. 1997; Holbrook 2007);
technology use and related change (Orlikowski & Hofman 1997); marketing (Holbrook
2007); and outsourcing (Silva 2002). Parallels to organisational creativity and flexibility
are often drawn from jazz even in the mainstream business literature (Kao 1996a).
Perhaps most importantly for this paper, however, the jazz metaphor has considerable
scope for further development.
Definitions of organisational improvisation
As a young, qualitative and interdisciplinary field, OI has struggled to find a
comprehensive definition – let alone a typology. There is, however, a high level of
agreement on many of its properties (Vera & Crossan 1999), of which scholars
emphasise different aspects. The word improvise derives from the Latin word providere,
“make preparation for”, and its derivative improvisus, “unforeseen” (Oxford Dictionaries
2010: “improvise”). It thus involves dealing with the unforeseen without the benefit of
preparation.
8
Improvisation is organisational when it is done by the organisation or its
members – it can thus have several loci in an organisation, and different dynamics apply
to it depending on whether improvisation happens within one (personal), between two
(interpersonal) or amongst many (organisational) improvisers. To give an image of what
theorists see OI as entailing, Table 1 gives an overview of the central OI papers by their
primary focus. Although most papers emphasise a particular level, many also mention
other levels of improvisation.
Table 1: Improvisation as described in academic articles
Source Improvisation described as… Primary focus on personal-‐level improvisation
Barrett (1998) Inventing novel responses without a plan; Discovering the future as action unfolds
Barrett (2000) Contemporaneous composition and performance Barrett & Peplowski (1998) Creating on the spot without a pre-‐scripted plan Brown & Eisenhardt (1997) Making strategy up as one goes along Cleary & Groer (1994) Making numerous interactive in-‐flight decisions (psychology)
Crossan et al. (1996) Ideas emerging in un-‐planned ways; Taking advantage of opportunities in the moment
Gardner & Rogoff (1990) Adapting planning to the circumstances (psychology)
Lockford & Pelias (2004) Incorporating new information spontaneously to action; Adapting to emergent circumstances (theatre)
Machin & Carrithers (1996) Creating ad hoc responses according to circumstances (anthropology) Meyer (1998) Solving problems in the nick of time Mirvis (1998) Making things up as one goes along Pasmore (1998) Creating in real time in a flexible fashion Tanenbaum & Tanenbaum (2008)
A highly contingent and emergent human process (theatre)
Weick (1998) Dealing with the unforeseen without prior stipulation Primary focus on interpersonal-‐level improvisation Crossan (1997, 1998) Intuitive and spontaneous action
Magni et al. (2008) The creative and spontaneous process of managing an unexpected event
McKnight & Bontis (2002) Spontaneously recombining knowledge, processes and structure in real time
Sharron (1983) Immediate and spontaneous creation process (sociology) Weick (1993b) Immediately inventing substitutes to old order Primary focus on organisational-‐level improvisation Barrett & Hatch (2003) Continuous elaboration of the absolutely new Bastien & Hostager (1988) Inventing new ideas as performance unfolds over time Ciborra (1996) Structure and strategy coincide in highly circumstantial ways Crossan & Sorrenti (2002) Intuitive and spontaneous action Cunha et al. (2003) Conception of action as it unfolds Hatch (1998) Playing around and with a structure Hutchins (1991) Action emerging without planning Kamoche & Cunha (1997) Contemporaneous composition and performance Kamoche & Cunha (2001) Contemporaneous composition and performance King & Ranft (2001) Combining adhockery with know-‐how
9
Miner et al. (1997) Spontaneous and novel actions
Miner et al. (2001) Deliberate and substantive fusion of the design and execution of a novel production
Moorman & Miner (1995) Extemporaneous action Moorman & Miner (1998a, 1998b)
Contemporaneous composition and performance
Orlikowski & Hofman (1997) Responding to spontaneous departures and opportunities through local innovations
Perry (1991) Formulating and implementing together in real time Zack (2000) [Improvising] within forms, with forms, and beyond forms
Vera & Crossan (1999) Reworking (pre-‐composed) material, influenced by unanticipated factors
Weick (1993a) Continuous reconstruction of processes and designs No primary focus on a specific level of improvisation
Berliner (1994) A way of life; reworking (pre-‐composed) material, influenced by unanticipated factors (musicology)
Crossan et al. (2005) Convergence of composition and execution; Conception of action as it unfolds
Cunha et al. (1999) Conception of action as it unfolds Holbrook (2007) Responding quickly, flexibly, and self-‐reflexively to changes Lewin (1998) Human capital flexibility Kao (1996a, 1996b) Jamming with an idea to create something novel Peplowski (1998) Painting oneself in a corner just to get out of it, inspired by mistakes
Schuller (1968) Playing extemporaneously, without the benefit of written music, in the spur of the moment (musicology)
Vera & Crossan (2005) The creative and spontaneous process of trying to achieve an objective in a new way
As Table 1 above suggests, OI research has particularly focused on the personal
and organisational levels. There also seems to be no major trend in how papers differ in
their description of improvisation, apart from the influence of the authors’ backgrounds.
Perhaps since improvisation is a fairly commonly used concept in everyday discourse,
some papers eschew any explicit definition of OI.
The overarching principle is action without preparation, expressed variously as
convergence of composition and performance (six papers in Table 1); unfolding (five);
emergence (four); extemporaneousness (two); immediacy (two); quickness (one); real-‐
time formulation and implementation (one); and birth out of the “now” (one). Closely
related recurring concepts are spontaneity (ten), intuition (three) and adhockery (two).
This paper defines OI as conception of action as it unfolds, by an organisation
or its members. Additional qualifiers are not required, since this austere definition
already obliges the actor(s) to act extemporaneously, spontaneously, intuitively and ad
hoc, without composing or formulating, in an immediate and emergent manner.
Although OI is usually triggered by unforeseen circumstances, it is not a necessary
condition for improvisation – jazz bands know full well to expect improvisation. The
10
convergence of planning and action is not used in this definition, since that definition
might seem to imply that any rapid decision-‐making, due to a degree of convergence, is
improvisational – improvisation is not deciding just before acting but whilst acting.
THE DEGREE/LOCUS FRAMEWORK
This section introduces the degree/locus framework as a viable typology for OI. To
overcome the field’s incongruence and the ensuing low cumulativity (Cunha et al. 1999),
it is imperative to be able to distinguish between the different types of OI. Currently,
papers tend to distinguish either between different degrees (e.g., Kamoche et al. 2003;
Moorman & Miner 1998a, 1998b; Zack 2000) or different loci of improvisation (e.g.,
Crossan et al. 2005; Lewin 1998; Vera & Crossan 2005) – if distinguishing at all.
Expanding, comparing or mapping the findings in the literature is retarded by the lack of
a common typology.
Constructing a framework
Just as there are multiple metaphors, there are also multiple classifications, some of
which lie outside the jazz metaphor. The following outlines the most important existing
classifications and explains why the proposed distinction between degrees (timbral/
phrasal/structural) and loci (personal/interpersonal/organisational) compares
favourably with the alternatives.
Of the nominal (vis-‐à-‐vis ordinal) classifications, three dichotomous distinctions
and one four-‐way classification appear often in the literature. Firstly, product
improvisation affects the outcome of what is done, whereas process improvisation
changes the very way of doing (Miner et al. 1997). Secondly, behavioural improvisation
refers to changing organisational actions, whereas cognitive improvisation gives new
meaning to external stimuli (Miner et al. 1997). Lastly, idiomatic improvisation happens
within the context of an idiom such as jazz music, whereas non-idiomatic improvisation
is completely “free” (Bailey 1992). Kernfeld (1995) differentiates between four types of
jazz improvisation: paraphrase improvisation builds on existing themes; formulaic
11
improvisation on musical formulas; motivic improvisation on musical motifs; and modal
improvisation on scales. However, none of these four categorisations allows for an
ordinal ranking, and perhaps more importantly, none is particularly well suited for
metaphorising. A metaphor-‐friendly categorisation would be equally applicable to
companies and jazz/theatre groups, whereas the two classifications of Miner et al.
(1997) are essentially company-‐centric, and those of Bailey (1992) and Kernfeld (1995)
strictly musicological. However, since the three dichotomies discussed are independent
of the proposed framework’s dimensions, they may be complementary to the
framework.
Two ordinal categorisations also prevail in the literature. The most commonly
used typology comes from Berliner (1994: 66–71; citing jazz saxophonist Lee Konitz) – a
four-‐part continuum ranging from minor interpretation to embellishment, variation and
finally “true” improvisation. Berliner’s musicological typology presents two difficulties.
First, it sets an unnecessarily low ceiling for improvisation, since improvisation that
involves “reworking pre-‐composed material" (Berliner 1994: 241) must exist within
song structures (Kamoche et al. 2003; Zack 2000) and thus cannot be structural. Second,
it sets an unnecessarily high threshold for what can be improvisation: Since
interpretation, embellishment and variation are mutually exclusive with improvisation,
timbral improvisation is an oxymoron. Berliner’s (1994) “improvisation” is thus limited
to phrasal. The other ordinal categorisation distinguishes between four genres: Classical
with minimal to no improvisation; traditional jazz/swing with improvisation within
strong structures; bebop with minimal structural modification; and post-bop with
emerging structures (Zack 2000; cf. Appendix 1). Although Zack’s categorisation
acknowledges the full range of improvisation from timbral (“classical”) to structural
(“post-‐bop”), it is inextricably tied to music and precludes any other metaphors.
Compared to all the alternative classifications discussed, the proposed three
degrees and loci require limited technical knowledge, accommodate several metaphors,
and make clear distinctions that allow simple ordinal classification. Although the
degrees of improvisation could conceivably contain many more categories than three,
incorporating more categories would require more technical specification, which in turn
would make the framework less intelligible and more metaphor-‐specific. The term level
is used non-‐specifically and was excluded from the name of this framework, since unlike
degree or locus, level does not imply any specific dimension of OI.
12
The degree/locus framework presents two highly relevant questions with simple
alternative answers. First, to what degree does the improvisation happen – within a
phrase, within a structure, or beyond the structure? Second, where does the
improvisation happen – within a person, between two people, or amongst an
organisation of people? Thus, the proposed framework presents the two most crucial
aspects of OI with simple ordinal categories that are within themselves mutually
exclusive and collectively exhaustive, and yet have no mutually exclusive “dead spots”
between them. The following sections define the three degrees and loci in more detail.
Degrees of improvisation: Timbral/phrasal/structural
Improvisation is not a dichotomous on/off activity, but happens to different degrees.
These degrees can be seen on a continuum ranging from almost completely planned to
almost completely extemporaneous (Moorman & Miner 1998b), from tweaking minor
details to dramatically changing large structures (Schloss & Jaffe 1993). This paper
presents a typology that extends Berliner’s (1994) classification in both directions,
raising the ceiling and lowering the threshold: Improvisation ranges from minor
improvisation within a phrase (timbral improvisation) to improvising phrases within
structures (phrasal improvisation), and to improvising beyond and with the structures
(structural improvisation). Whilst such specificity of definition might seem finicky with
the dynamic and ad hoc activity of improvisation, giving ordinal labels to degrees of
improvisation is important as improvisation varies considerably along this dimension.
Timbral improvisation
Minor improvisation is variously termed interpretation, embellishment or
ornamentation (Berliner 1994; Hatch 1997; Preston 1991; Weick 1996), reflecting
modest adjustments to pre-‐existing processes (Moorman & Miner 1998b). The term
timbral denotes the quality of sound – timbral improvisation need not involve a new
solution but can merely be a new way of applying an old solution. Although such
processual flexibility is not unique to OI, a comprehensive typology of OI must include
the lower end of improvisation.
13
Such flexibility and allowance for constant adjustments in business processes had
already been developed in other fields of management before the emergence of OI – one
example of this is flexible manufacturing in operations research (e.g., De Meyer et al.
1989; Jaikumar 1986). Whether it is encouraged it or not, innovative embellishment of
work routines happens regularly in organisations (Brown & Duguid 1991).
A jazz musician improvising in demanding tempi is likely to fall back on mastered
“licks” – pre-‐rehearsed solutions that work well enough the improviser has no time to
explore more creative solutions (Berliner 1994; Weick 1998). This suggests there are
upper limits to improvisation in complex high-‐velocity organisations (Cunha et al. 2003;
Eisenhardt 1989). Thus, higher-‐velocity environments necessitate higher levels of
improvisation if improvisation is defined as converging composition and execution (e.g.,
Moorman & Miner 1998b), but lower levels of improvisation if defined as a trying to
achieve an objective in a new, creative way (e.g., Vera & Crossan 2005). All this calls for a
more coherent typology of OI.
Phrasal improvisation
Going beyond timbral modification of existing phrases, phrasal improvisation involves
improvising novel phrases within existing structures. Those scholars who do not discuss
different degrees of improvisation usually talk of it roughly phrasal terms; others call
phrasal improvisation chorus paraphrasing (Preston 1991) or formulaic improvisation
(Weick 1996).
To use the jazz metaphor, some element of the original referent remains a
template around which the musician improvises (Berliner 1994; Moorman & Miner
1998b). In companies, improvising new products that have a link to existing products is
phrasal improvisation (Kamoche & Cunha 2001; Miner et al. 1997) – innovations often
include an improvisational element.
Structural improvisation
Whereas phrasal improvisation involves improvising a phrase within an existing
structure, structural improvisation implies improvising the very structure. Although
most OI research describes improvisation within clearly defined structures, jazz
improvisation can occur “within forms, with forms, and beyond forms” (Zack 2000:
14
227). Although many scholars recognise that radical improvisation involves discarding
clear links to the original and composing something novel (Hatch 1997), such
improvisation is rarely identified as having the capacity to transcend and redefine
structures (Moorman & Miner 1998b). Zack rightly asks whether the full diversity of the
jazz metaphor is being used:
“What is the depth to which the materials are being reworked? Are we
talking about improvising notes over chords as in traditional jazz, new chords and
harmonic structures as in bebop, or the rules of improvisation themselves as in
post-‐bop?” (Zack 2000: 230).
In companies, structural improvisation may happen when an internal corporate
venturing group creates a product that is inconsistent with the firm’s existing strategy
(Burgelman 1983), or when the circumstances are so dramatically shaken by a crisis
that the old structures must be discarded (Rerup 2001; Weick 1993b). A platform
organisation with a “readiness to sport whatever organizational form is required under
the circumstances” (Ciborra 1996: 103), is described as
“…a virtual organizing scheme, collectively shared and reproduced in
action by a pool of human resources, where structure and potential for strategic
action tend to coincide in highly circumstantial ways, depending upon the
transitory contingencies of the market, the technology and the competitors'
moves.” (Ciborra 1996: 115)
Loci of improvisation: Personal/interpersonal/organisational
Whereas the degrees of improvisation represent a continuum, the three loci of personal,
interpersonal and organisational levels are more clearly distinct from one another. The
typology borrows from the organisational learning terminology of individual, group and
organisational levels (Argyris & Schön 1978; Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995), replacing
individual with personal and group with interpersonal. This three-‐way classification has
proved useful in other fields, such as organisational creativity (Woodman et al. 1993)
and knowledge management (Nonaka & Konno 1998). As with these other fields, OI
theory initially focused on the individual level and only later expanded more towards
the interpersonal and organisational levels (Miner et al. 2001).
15
Personal improvisation
The image of an improvising jazz soloist has probably been most used in explaining OI.
Even of the literature focusing on organisational aspects of improvisation, a large part
still underlines the individual’s freedom to improvise and tinker within the organisation.
Creative improvisation rarely flows from simply trying harder (Werner 1996). A
proposed way to learn improvisation is to understand the purpose behind a process and
then reconsider the process itself:
“What's the message for business people who want to improvise better?
Take some skill that you have mastered and unlearn it.” (Mirvis 1998: 587)
Whatever the degree of improvisation, individuals always bring their
backgrounds and memories into the improvisation (Crossan & Sorrenti 2002; Cunha et
al. 1999). Improvisation, however, is not inherently a positive personal attribute – “field
observations [make] clear that improvisation can also be unskilled and can cause harm”
(Miner et al. 2001: 329).
In companies, individual improvisation happens often when people adjust their
work in real time to emerging information or are stretched beyond their routines to
deliver a novel solution to a problem. The possibilities emerging with new information
technologies have increased the scope of individual improvisation, and the Internet
provides entrepreneurial improvisers with a global reach in real time (Kao 1996b).
Interpersonal improvisation
In the jazz band, collective improvisation often happens interpersonally – the drummer
responds to the saxophonist’s idea – without the whole of the organisation joining in.
Interpersonal improvisation transcends the individual level and happens in groups
where real-‐time adjusting and responding is bi-‐ or multilateral.
In companies, the stimuli of others enable groups to brainstorm new ideas that
no member could have developed individually (Sutton & Hargadon 1996), and
experimental skunkworks teams can piece together novel solutions from parts all
around the organisation (Moorman & Miner 1998a). Information technologies can
promote interpersonal improvisation by helping to overcome physical distances
(McKnight & Bontis 2002).
16
Organisational-level improvisation
When a jazz band improvises organisationally, the whole unit develops extemporaneous
ideas in new, emerging ways. In mainstream jazz, pianist Bill Evans’s 1959–61
egalitarian “first great trio” pioneered collective organisational improvisation, where all
instrumentalists could break their instruments’ conventions and improvise as a single,
organic unit (discography: Evans 1959). Although labelling one specific type of OI as
additionally “organisational” might sound confusing in the eponymous field, it is the
proper label; OI is improvisation by an organisation or its members.
Organisational-‐level refers to the ability of the whole organisation to act
improvisationally, but also to the institutionalisation of structures or practices that
enable or lead to improvisation. As an organisational attribute, improvisation
“…contributes to and is an outcome of organization absorptive capacity
for new knowledge, structural flexibility, market flexibility, operational flexibility,
intrapreneurial culture and of the organization path dependence of exploitation
and exploration adaptations.” (Lewin 1998: 539)
Improvisation at this level may be an aggregation of individual-‐level
improvisations just as well as a fundamentally collective, seamless process (Miner et al.
2001). More broadly, it can be seen as a culture of spontaneity and simultaneous
consciousness (Soules 2002).
Given OI’s late entry into the management domain, it has absorbed management
concepts from other fields particularly at the organisational level. Kao (1996a), for
example, suggested that firms should organise slack capacity in people’s work routines
to allow for creative improvisational “jamming” with ideas, reflecting the concepts of
slack capacity developed in innovation management literature (Damanpour 1991;
Rosner 1968).
The degree/locus framework
Having discussed the relevance and the attributes of different degrees and loci for OI,
these dimensions are combined in the degree/locus framework in Figure 1. The
resulting matrix has nine cells, each of which represent OI of a different type and is
labelled with a relevant concept from an academic paper – the exception being
17
structural/interpersonal, which, remarkably, no academic paper was found to have
discussed.
Figure 1: The degree/locus framework with OI concepts
Few LOCUS Many Personal Interpersonal Organisational
Minor
Timbral
Spontaneous practicer (Weick 1998)
Groove (Barrett 1998)
Space for jamming (Kao 1996a)
DE-‐GREE
Phrasal
Bebop soloist (Barrett &
Peplowski 1998)
“Yes-‐and” (Crossan 1998)
Minimal structures (Kamoche & Cunha 2001)
Major
Structural
“Drop your tools!” (Weick 1993b)
For jazzers only? (No literature found)
Platform organisation (Ciborra 1996)
Timbral/personal: “Spontaneous practicer”. The least complex form of OI is
when an individual improvises within an existing process or “phrase”. As creativity and
innovation have become major issues in mainstream management (Hamel & Breen
2007), workers have increasing leeway to spontaneously perform given tasks differently
– to improvise timbrally. This spontaneous creation requires a high level of competence
that often comes only from practicing, so rather than spontaneous practitioners, these
improvisers have been described as spontaneous practicers (Berliner 1994; Weick
1998).
Phrasal/personal: “Bebop soloist”. The bebop era featured virtuosic individual
soloists whose improvisation was principally phrasal (see Appendix 1) – such
improvisers “follow those chord changes like they're a road map” (Barrett & Peplowski
1998: 559). This picture of a lone jazz soloist improvising phrases in the spotlight before
an accompanying organisation is the most common one painted in OI papers.
Structural/personal: “Drop your tools!” Weick’s (1993b) account of the Mann
Gulch wildfire includes the survival story of smokejumper Wagner Dodge. When the
approaching fire overcame the 16 firefighters’ efforts, Dodge surprisingly broke from
18
the known structure and ordered the 15 others to “drop your tools” (ibid.: 635).
Refusing to follow, 13 of those others died, whereas Dodge spontaneously improvised an
escape fire that saved his life. Creative organisational actors must be willing to “drop
their tools” to break free from existing structures (Weick 1996). In jazz, pianist Keith
Jarrett is particularly famous for individually improvising structures for his concerts
(discography: Jarrett 1975).
Timbral/interpersonal: “The groove”. Whereas groove (without definite article)
denotes the swing and musical energy of jazz, the groove means the rhythmic
synchronisation of instrumentalists – especially that between the bassist and drummer,
which forms the bedrock of the music. This requires ongoing micro-‐level interpersonal
adjustment and sensitivity to the relevant organisational partner. In OI, this concept has
mainly been discussed by Barrett (1998, 2000; Barrett & Hatch 2003).
Phrasal/interpersonal: “Yes-and”. The most popular OI concept from
improvisational theatre is “yes-and”, meaning that each improvisational offer of another
person is unconditionally accepted (“yes”) and built on (“and”). Yes-‐anding is
interpersonal, since it describes one individual’s response to another’s initiative; and
phrasal, since the very principle of yes-‐anding acts as a minimal structure that frames
the improvisation but is not itself subject to it (Crossan 1997, 1998; Crossan et al. 1996;
Vera & Crossan 2005; also in McKnight & Bontis 2002; Meyer 2005).
Structural/interpersonal: “For jazzers only?” Interestingly, not a single
academic paper here could be found to discuss structural/interpersonal improvisation.
Perhaps structural improvisation was seen to necessarily happen at the organisational
level, although jazz music testifies otherwise. A case in point is Miles Davis’s 1963–68
quintet, where any pair of the musicians could jump out of the harmonic structure and
improvise new one interpersonally, without the greater organisation necessarily
departing from the structure (discography: Davis 1965).
Timbral/organisational: “Space for jamming”. Many of today’s most
innovative companies are organised in a way that gives employees space to explore
their creativity by doing their projects differently (Hamel & Breen 2007). In work
organisations, communities-‐of-‐practice regularly modify work practices (Brown &
Duguid 1991), and Kao (1996a) has suggested that the new kind of company organise
employees enough space for creative jamming with ideas.
19
Phrasal/organisational: “Minimal structures”. Kamoche and Cunha (2001)
propose that jazz improvisation provides the organisational model for synthesising
structure and flexibility, with minimal structures allowing for new products to be
improvised whilst keeping within existing structures. In music, chord changes within
songs act as similar minimal structures that allow organisational-‐level phrasal
improvisation (Barrett & Peplowski 1998).
Structural/organisational: “Platform organisation”. Although this type of
dramatic improvisation might be rare in established, the advent of entrepreneurial ad
hoc teams and nimble virtual organisations has made improvisation at the structural/
organisational level more viable. Such platform organisations may opportunistically
pursuit any emerging business opportunities (Ciborra 1996). Free jazz provides a
metaphor for working with improvisation of this level (Holbrook 2007; Kamoche &
Cunha 2001; Zack 2000), and it has been proposed that,
“[w]here antecedents, influences and outcomes interact simultaneously,
as in free jazz, a structuration perspective (Ranson et al. 1980) might be more
appropriate.” (Kamoche et al. 2003: 2027)
Overall, a review of the literature through the lens of the degree/locus
framework corroborates what Table 1 suggested: Research has clustered around the
personal and organisational levels, with interpersonal improvisation receiving much
less attention. However, as only a small proportion of the papers distinguish between
both degrees and loci, assigning the entire papers into particular cells in the framework
would be in large part unfeasible – although separate sections and findings of the papers
could much more readily be classified. Some papers did elaborate on the full range of
degrees of improvisation (e.g., Cunha et al. 1999; Kamoche et al. 2003; Moorman &
Miner 1998a, 1998b; Zack 2000) and others on the different loci (e.g., Crossan et al.
2005; Lewin 1998; Vera & Crossan 2005), but few on both. Some stated explicitly that
they would not differentiate between different types of OI (Magni et al. 2008), and many
gave no thought whatsoever to the matter.
20
METHODOLOGY
The methodology of OI research in general has leaned heavily toward detached
theorising. Although some empirical papers exist in the field, the bulk of the research
has been metaphorical (Cunha et al. 1999), and relied heavily on secondary data from
musicological books (Berliner 1994; Kernfeld 1995; Schuller 1968) in addition to the
scholars’ past affiliations with jazz. The exceptions are two articles transcribed from jazz
clarinettist Ken Peplowski’s speeches at the 1998 Canadian Academy of Management OI
symposium (Peplowski 1998; Barrett & Peplowski 1998). This paper thus represents an
early effort to address this methodological gap by interviewing ten established jazz
professionals, all of whom have also taught jazz improvisation.
The interviews served three purposes. Firstly, they allowed discussing the
degree/locus framework with the musicians to see whether it was intelligible to
professional improvisers and coherent with their concept of improvisation. Secondly,
they allowed comparing the practitioners’ views with those of the theorists along clear
dimensions, and given that no such study could be found from the existing literature, the
interviews could act as a long-‐overdue reality check. Lastly, keeping the interviews only
semi-‐structured allowed for exploring emerging areas the musicians saw as important
but that might be absent from the theoretical literature.
Since these interviews are inexorably linked to the jazz metaphor, and metaphors
epistemologically connected to relativist concepts (Morgan 1980), I adopted an
explorative approach and forwent any hypotheses. Since I have studied and played jazz
music professionally in Finland for several years, my pre-‐existing personal and musical
relationships to the interviewed musicians are bound to have implications for the
validity of the findings. I made an effort not to assume any knowledge of the
improvisers’ positions, asking only open-‐ended questions with neutral probing
questions. However, the very fact that the interviewees knew that I understood
professional jazz slang and was familiar with the Finnish jazz scene allowed them to
speak more effortlessly and make musical references.
Although my immersion in jazz allowed me to possibly gain richer
understanding, it is important to see this research in the context of several of potentially
distorting factors. As Soules (2002: 271) candidly put it:
21
“Any writing that purports to explore intercultural and interdisciplinary
correspondences immediately treads on highly contested ground regarding
questions of authority, authenticity, subjectivity, and appropriation.”
Interviews
The interview sample consisted of ten professional jazz musicians in Finland. Although
the interviewees were Finnish, all had international careers and many had both studied
and professionally played jazz in the United States. The interviewees were asked to
reflect on how Finnishness might affect their perceptions of improvisation and whether
Finnish musicians reflected jazz musicians generally. Since jazz arrived to Finland
relatively late1, musicians were seen to draw their influences more directly from the
American mainstream tradition than in other European countries – this factor might
make Finnish jazz musicians even more representative of the international mainstream
than jazz musicians from countries with more established idiosyncratic jazz scenes. The
Finnish jazz scene was invariably described as relatively small but of very high quality.
All interviewees had had some affiliation with the Jazz Department of Sibelius Academy,
which was described as having a stronger American-‐style bebop orientation than its
Scandinavian counterparts.
From within the Finnish jazz scene, I approaching only the country’s leading jazz
musicians, and ten out of the 11 approached could give an interview within the required
time frame. For further representativeness, I selected a balanced quota sample of five
“solo” (wind instruments, guitar) and five “rhythm section” instrumentalists (piano,
bass, drums), and ensured that the interviewees represent a variety of generations,
backgrounds and musical styles. All were men; instrumental jazz remains globally a
heavily male-‐dominated field (Berliner 1994). These factors together suggest that the
sample is representative of jazz musicians generally.
The interviews took place in May 2010 in Helsinki, Finland, with nine interviews
being face-‐to-‐face and one conducted through Skype with a video link. They were
recorded in Finnish and translated into English when transcribing. The interviewees
were aged between 35 and 64, had improvised on the average 31 years, 27 of which
1 Although early forms of jazz were present in the 1920s, Finnish jazz reached the international level only in the late 1960s (YLE 2010).
22
professionally, and taught improvisation on the average 23 years. The sample thus
represents some 270 man-‐years of professional experience in jazz improvisation. Seven
interviewees had at least a Master of Music degree or equivalent, two had Doctor of
Music degrees with a further three were doctoral candidates. Table 2 shows a
breakdown of the key statistics, and the full interview details are in Appendix 2, the
musicians anonymised as M1–M10.
Table 2: Interview statistics (n=10)
Statistic Age
(years) Improvised
(years)
Improvised professionally
(years)
Taught improvisation
(years)
Interviewed (minutes)
Mean 46 31 27 23 61 Median 45.5 31 27 23 57.5 Minimum 35 20 15 10 36 Maximum 64 50 43 37 88
The interviewees were also asked to reflect on their own style as jazz musicians
and improvisers. One interviewee had an orientation towards early jazz and another
towards free improvisation, but most described themselves as “modern mainstream”
jazz musicians. Perhaps more notably, the rhythm section musicians tended to describe
their styles of improvisation as defined by their instruments. This self-‐reflection allowed
interpreting the interviews in context and sought to mitigate the persisting problem
amongst scholars of not fully understanding the style of the musician being quoted.
In jazz music in general, there has been a clear trend towards formalisation of
education – historically, only a small minority of jazz musicians held an academic
degree. The interviewees considered academic training, including doctorates, to mainly
improve the ability to conceptualise and communicate the more abstract aspects of jazz.
Importantly, all doctorates were artistic (DMus) rather than musicological (PhD), and
thus even the doctors and doctoral candidates are correctly described as practitioners
rather than theorists. Four interviewees had some experience of business consulting in
the field of OI.
The interviews were on the average an hour long, and semi-‐structured around
open-‐ended questions (see Appendix 3 for the interview guide). Although the
interviews were interpreted in light of the degree/locus framework, the framework was
23
not presented to the interviewees before the final part of the interviews so as not to
constrain their thinking and to allow other classifications to emerge.
FINDINGS & ANALYSIS
As the semi-‐structured interviews allowed pursuing emerging areas spontaneously, the
interviews had somewhat different emphases and the resulting findings were
correspondingly diverse. The interviewees seemed by and large comfortable drawing
parallels between jazz and other organisations, albeit with some caveats. Jazz musicians
often have a specific calling for their work, and compared to other organisations, this
selection process “brings certain homogeneity to jazz organisations” (M9). Another
difference is attitude to risk – whereas companies usually try to avoid it, in jazz “risk-‐
taking is an integral part of creativity” (M6).
When presented with the degree/locus framework and asked to comment freely
on it, most interviewees proposed a developmental trend from personal towards
organisaitonal and from timbral towards structural improvisation. As teachers of
improvisation, they explained how improvisation was first rehearsed at a personal level
with play-‐a-‐long records, moving on to communicating with other players musically, and
only when these were grasped could improvisation reach the organisational level. As
one interviewee put it:
“I personally think that fully structural improvisation at the organisational
level clearly produces the most magnificent art. … In jazz, complexity and
sophistication of improvisation is an unmistakeable sign of artistic level.” (M7)
Going towards structural improvisation also requires higher-‐skilled improvisers,
as the increased uncertainty brings volatility:
“Letting go [of structure] increases the scale from both ends – if your goal
is reaching new climaxes, a freer structure is better.” (M1)
This thus raises a consideration for companies – structural improvisation should
be encouraged only when the goal is to reach creative heights but failure does not carry
24
great risk. Further, organisations wishing to develop OI had to master each previous,
adjacent level – no diagonal jumps across the framework would be possible.
Personal-level findings
The success of OI ultimately depends on the people involved, and personal-‐level skills
were seen as prerequisite for further stages. An important theme was the mental
readiness to be assertive and strong in carrying one’s ideas through. In good
organisations, “everybody plays with a fearless attitude” (M8) and presents their ideas
clearly and convincingly:
“Playing, whether it’s tightly framed or not, involves individuals making
initiatives and offering them to others. It’s very important to make such
initiatives; otherwise the music isn’t going anywhere. Even though every idea
cannot go through, they must always be offered. … Improvisation is mentally
demanding.” (M7)
Since such boldness might not come instinctively to non-‐jazz improvisers, many
proposed that that non-‐idiomatic improvisation (Bailey 1992) was a good way to get
into the right mindset – perhaps companies might benefit from general improvisation
workshops. Analysis paralysis from intellectual rationalisation was seen as an important
impediment for spontaneity. One interviewee put it humorously:
“I never freeze when improvising anymore. It’s like I always tell my
students: ‘Use the force’.” (M10)
Interpersonal-level findings
Interpersonal-‐level improvisation was seen as the fundamental determinant of
improvisation of the organisational level, and the ability to listen was described as the
skill for OI. Concentrating on listening allowed aligning individuals’ contributions with
the interest of the organisation; the most desirable colleagues were those who simply
“make others sound good” (M8), not those with greatest skills. Striking the balance
between acute sensitivity in listening and creative assertiveness was seen as a key
challenge for an organisational improviser:
25
“You need to be selfish and bold in communicating ideas, but also selfless
and receptive in receiving ideas. This is demanding. This separates the wheat
from the chaff.” (M6)
In other words, listening is indispensable but must not come at the expense of
initiative. As the listeners are exposed to a wealth of nascent ideas bouncing around,
they must also have “good tastes to discriminate between the qualities of
improvisational initiatives” (M4). This, then, could lead to higher, organisational-‐level
improvisation, as even organisations may improvise “as a collection of interpersonal
dialogues.” (M2)
In addition to highlighting the importance of interpersonal improvisation per se,
the interviews revealed a more complex interpersonal landscape that involved
provocation and tension:
“Things shouldn’t flow too effortlessly. A common misunderstanding of
communication in a jazz band is that when someone takes initiative, others must
necessarily follow.” (M3)
“It is good not to be too flexible” (M1).
The leader in a creative organisation “must tolerate [provocation] and even
demand others to provoke” (M5), but must also ensure the right atmosphere for it:
“Provocation requires trust – without trust, provocation is aggression” (M5). One
interviewee summed up the balance as follows:
“Organisations don’t need ‘yes men’ who immediately accept others’
views. They need courage. [OI] works best with many visionary actors, who
require heavy enough reasons to be persuaded. But when these reasons exist,
they must be quick to react.” (M3)
Although interpersonal/timbral improvisation must be seamless to ensure
groove, interpersonal/phrasal improvisation involves tolerating friction. In addition to
playing “against” the soloist at the interpersonal/phrasal level, pianists create friction
even play against themselves at a personal/phrasal level2.
2 “For instance, on both Grant Green’s and John Coltrane’s versions of ‘My Favorite Things’, when there is E in melody over D7, McCoy Tyner plays a D13(b9) voicing in every single chorus. You might think there’s an inconsistency, but the whole music is absolutely full of these instances. … McCoy Tyner’s [own] solos
26
This accounts to an evident rejection of the straightforward “yes-‐and” principle
from the literature, and may be more applicable to the setting companies face in OI.
Unlike in improvisational theatre, where one person typically has the “microphone” at a
time, both jazz and business organisations feature several improvisers offering their
own, often conflicting, improvisational initiatives simultaneously. Accommodating
multiple improvisational initiatives, however, does not mean that everybody is a soloist:
“When [improvisers do not leave] enough space, playing too full, music
stops breathing”. (M8)
Organisational-level findings
Although the interviewees suggested that people who are both assertive and sensitive to
others’ assertions are key for OI, several organisational-‐level considerations were also
brought up. Although listening is essentially an interpersonal activity, organisational-‐
level factors enable it systematically – but “there’s a long way from the interpersonal to
the organisational level” (M6). In jazz, as in companies, communication between
departments must be seamless and swift: “If [improvisers] cannot hear each other … it
cannot help but affect [them]”.
Organisational aspects differ vastly across organisations of different sizes and
types. At the spontaneous end, jam session combos (see Appendix 1) had no
premeditated organisational structure other than what the tradition of the music and
the roles the improvisers’ respective instruments suggest:
“[Structure in jam sessions] emerges from tradition and experience. There
are no people who can come just like that and form the structure; they need to
have experience and skill.” (M7)
Thus, even the most spontaneous form of organisational structuring depends on
individuals’ background knowledge, just as Crossan and Sorrenti (2002) suggest. Big
bands, on the other extreme, had explicit frames for improvisation, and the larger
number of members in such organisations meant that not everybody could improvise at
the same time – they require more explicit rules about who can improvise and where. illustrate that sometimes the left [accompanying] hand goes out, but the right [solo] hand stays in – and vice versa. That’s the clearest possible example that tension is the thing.” (M3) (Discography: Coltrane 1960; Green 1964; Tyner 1967)
27
“The bigger the organisation, the clearer the frames, the more is arranged,
and the clearer the leadership structure must be.” (M7)
This, however, does nod mean that large improvising organisations had to be
more bureaucratic; they could also rely on strong cultural norms. Count Basie’s big band
was often mentioned as a model example of this – the band had a clear mission based
around a charismatic but very hands-‐off leader. Although jazz groups have become less
stable personnel-‐wise as the big band gave way to the combo, long-‐time collective
improvisation can lead to lasting cumulative improvements in OI:
“It helps if a group works together for a long time. In jazz it’s becoming
increasingly rare. When I’ve been part of ensembles that play together for years,
musical telepathy sets in and one can sense others’ thoughts with minimal
gestures.” (M8)
As the step from interpersonal to organisational-‐level improvisation was seen as
especially complex, the following breaks down topically the aspects that were seen as
particularly important for enabling and institutionalising improvisation across the
whole organisation: Division of roles, leadership, structures, culture and rules.
Division of roles
A jazz band consists of specialist instrumentalists, and especially the bassist and
drummer have largely unsubstitutable roles. Clear division of roles within the jazz band
gives a frame to even organisational-‐level structural improvisation. Being able to rely on
others to keep the structure going frees the improvisers to stretch beyond phrasal to
structural-‐level improvisation:
“Not everybody should respond to everything. If the bassist joins every
polyrhythm, the loss of a rhythmic anchor makes the reference point disappear.”
(M4)
Similarly, improvising companies must distinguish which functions are critical
for existence, and which allow for freer exploration and experimentation. Despite the
high specialisation, organisational members should understand the roles and
contributions of other members. It makes the organisation as a whole more robust,
28
whether the existing structure is fractured by individuals’ structural improvisation or an
external shock, if the improvisers understand and can cover other members’ roles:
“Understanding all the functions means that one musician can substitute
another player’s function when another musician leaps outside. When the guitar
player drops out, the bass player needs to complement the harmonic structure
more strongly.” (M2)
Of the many structures that frame jazz performances, the conventions inherent in
jazz instruments frame the freedom of expression of the respective instrumentalists.
This allows balancing a democratic leadership style with a fairly reliably functioning
model of organisation. Responsibility is assigned but those duties can be fulfilled
creatively – in other words, improvising the instruments’ roles per se in the jazz bands
has relatively little leeway for improvisation.
“In ideal circumstances, the individual freedom in the performance gives a
more democratic approach to action – even if there is a clear leader. Although
people have clear functions, there is freedom of expression within the function.”
(M2)
Leadership
It was perhaps surprising to hear laid-‐back jazz improvisers speak so clearly of the need
for leadership and management in jazz improvisation. Most interviewees spoke of the
importance of common meaning within the organisation – if an organisation has a clear
vision of what it wants to achieve, finding new innovations from amid the improvisation
is easier. Confusion about the organisational purpose stemming from a leadership void
was seen as a major hindrance for OI taking off, whatever the style or degree of
improvisation.
Although the concept of rotating leadership is already relatively established in
the OI literature, the interviewees emphasised that leadership is more distributed than
rotating in its nature – “the leader often expects the sidemen3 to take equal
responsibility and leadership in performance” (M3), and at any given time,
accompanists’ ideas may “override the soloist’s say” (M5). This deeply democratic
3 Sideman refers to a musician who plays in the band of someone else (bandleader).
29
concept of leadership seemed very inspiring, helping to get “the band’s collective brains
work together towards producing – and that’s better than just one brain’s work” (M10).
Structure
When speaking of more complex improvisation, especially on structural and
organisational levels, the interviewees kept mentioning the importance of clear
reference points. Although reference points enable structural improvisation, they are
conceptually analogous to what OI scholars call minimal structures (e.g., Barrett &
Peplowski 1998; Kamoche & Cunha 2001). A clear reference point enables improvisers
to find the way back in after venturing outside the structures:
“The frame can be stretched, but the goal and reference point must be
strong enough to be understood even if people act on their own preferences.”
(M2)
“[It is the] reference point upon which everything else is built. If it is
unclear, it’s very difficult to see the big picture.” (M6)
The groups that were seen to have taken organisation-‐level improvisation to new
heights were not seen to have done it with sheer individual brilliance, but with
exceptional clarity of perspective that permitted exploration:
“[Structural improvisation] is often interpreted as a function of individual
musicians, but in reality, Miles [Davis] had created a clear structure to his [1963–
68] repertoire, within which great liberties could be taken. This meant that the
listener had a frame through which to interpret the music. … To manage
structural improvisation, you have to create a strong reference point from which
to depart. A strong starting point gives the possibility to expand. The same goes
for [John] Coltrane’s [1962–65] band and [Bill] Evans’s [1959–61] trio.” (M2)
Even creativity itself was seen as having value only when it can be interpreted
through an intelligible structure:
“Creativity exists, of course, but it emerges only once we have an idea of
structure. Creative madness, too, is about a person who understands the
structures but does something exceptional with those structures. That’s why he’s
30
called crazy. He’s so good that he understands the structures, and in addition, he
has such vision that he does things differently. … [T]here’s no mysticism.” (M7)
It is interesting to note how the musicians perceived and contextualised radical
creativity and innovations with such strategic clarity. This might suggest that experience
in improvisation may help improvisers in general to see radically different creations in
the larger context, giving them a more strategic view.
Culture
A culture amenable to OI was broadly described as one permitting failure and
encouraging experimentation. It is also important to allow organisational members to
make statements throughout the organisation, not only when they are in a solo position
– “if sidemen feel that their input is valued, they might be more committed”. (M4)
However, it was often mentioned that jazz bands of the intensely innovative
1940s–60s also had a darker side to their cultures. Some bandleaders sought to keep
sidemen on their toes by not allowing them to get too comfortable. Miles Davis was most
commonly brought up as a representative of this style. However, those jazz musicians’
pervasive drug-‐related problems also made them behave erratically, and it would thus
be contentious to describe an anxious organisational culture as a voluntary production.
As ever, a balance must to be struck:
“Certain individuals work best under pressure, but you also have to
decriminalise failure.” (M3)
Rules
OI scholars have discussed and debated at length the nature of rules that guide
improvisation in organisations. The interviews offer an interesting contrast to such
hypothesising – the musicians described rules as simplified aesthetics. They can be
useful when learning to improvise – “rules can provide certain aesthetics more simply,
as they’re more unambiguous” (M10) – but may become a burden when moving beyond
the basics:
31
“Nobody can do these things with mere rules. The aesthetics …
accommodate a variety of viable views for doing things. Nobody can invent so
many rules that [improvisation] would work with them alone.” (M7)
This presents a considerably more nuanced view of the rules of jazz
improvisation than some OI literature would allow for:
“Jazz is a rule-‐bound activity. … To play outside of those chord changes is
to break a rule. You can't do that.” (Barrett in Barrett & Peplowski 1998: 559)
Rather, once the aesthetics that are coded in the rules are understood, the rules
themselves no longer demand rigid adherence:
“What comes to rules, it’s important to understand the rationale behind
them. After that you can break them. Try to find things that do not work and
reconsider any ‘rules’ that might make the situation worse.” (M1)
Finally, whereas rules mainly express what not to do, aesthetics allows for a fuller
picture of what is desirable. When organisations are learning to improvise, rules that
focus on the don’ts might be counterproductive:
“Never tell anybody, ‘Whatever you do, don’t play like that’. Don’t limit but
focus their attention on something. Any specific guide can backfire, if people focus
on the guide and not on the music.” (M5)
The findings and the academic literature: Practice vs. theory
Although certain areas of the findings have already been discussed in relation to OI
literature, some intriguing differences merit further discussion. Viewed through the lens
of the degree/locus framework, some important differences between the views and
concerns of theorists and practitioners are revealed. Most importantly, whereas
interpersonal improvisation across degrees received by far the least attention in the
literature, it was seen as the most important for OI by the musicians. When the
framework was presented to one interviewee, his full reaction was,
“That’s a fantastic table. Ingenious. Speaking of the jazz organisation, the
interpersonal column is crucial, since as a whole, even a small organisation
improvises as a collection of interpersonal dialogues. The organisational structure
32
is usually the reference point within which interpersonal improvisation
functions.” (M2)
Equally, when asked how to teach a non-‐improvising organisation to improvise,
the first instinct of the interviewees was to point toward their ears. “As Miles Davis said
–”, quipped one, imitating Davis’s husky voice, “Listen!” (M10).
Furthermore, not only did the literature seem to have underplayed the
interpersonal locus, but also vastly oversimplified interpersonal dynamics. Strikingly,
whereas the literature presented the epitome of the improvising organisation as one
where ideas are by default accepted and developed, the jazz improvisers presented a
much less straightforward picture. A successful improvising organisation was described
as consisting not of “yes men”, but of mentally strong specialists who could
provocatively question and even override others’ ideas. Although Barrett (1998) briefly
discusses “provocative competence”, his discussion mostly concerns provocation from
above; although that concept is not as such incompatible with the musicians’ views, the
interviewees emphasised provocation that stems from below. Consider the musicians’
egalitarian rhetoric vis-‐à-‐vis that found in some of the literature:
“The task of the managers' jazz combo is to make music. The role of
employees is to dance.” (Berniker 1998: 583)
Some further conceptual differences between the practitioners and the theorists
suggest that although much of the phenomena theorised might be valid, the rhetoric has
hitherto been tilted disproportionately towards the audience’s perspective. A case in
point is the concept of minimal structures, which does not accommodate structural
improvisation. This might be partly due to the widespread use of certain out-‐of-‐context
quotations – most notably bassist Charles Mingus’s “You can’t improvise on nothin’,
man. You gotta improvise on somethin’.” (Kernfeld 1995: 119; cited amongst others by
Kamoche & Cunha 2001; Kao 1996b; McKnight & Bontis 2002; Miner et al. 2001; Weick
1998). Mingus’s comment is commonly taken to necessitate a song structure, but such
an interpretation would be difficult to square with structural improvisation. The
musicians’ view was that improvisation without a purpose or goal was unfeasible, not
that non-thematic improvisation was so:
33
“You cannot simply start to improvise without a sense of where you want
to get to with the improvisation.” (M3)
“[Successful improvisation] is about a common goal. Either the goal is set
explicitly or the musicians in the organisation have inherently common
tendencies.” (M9)
Overall, the findings suggest that the practitioners’ views are quite different from
the theorists’, both conceptually and in terms of emphasis. As OI theory also suffers from
internal incongruities, updating some key concepts would help overcome both internal
conceptual clashes and the surfacing tangential deviations from the practitioners’ side of
the jazz metaphor.
CONCLUSION
This paper has been an early effort to study what has hitherto been the dark side of OI –
the improvisers’ view. The proposed degree/locus framework has helped map the
existing literature and enabled comparing the views of ten jazz improvisers with those
of scholars. The view from the “other side” of the jazz metaphor has been expressly
different from the known theory, suggesting that a realignment of theory with practice is
overdue. The degree/locus framework has thus demonstrated the need to involve
musicians in building the jazz metaphor of OI, and the interviews, for their part, have
demonstrated the analytical potential of the framework.
OI theory has suffered from a conspicuously low degree of cumulativity (Cunha et
al. 1999), and a chief contributor to that is the typological incongruity between papers.
The proposed degree/locus framework seeks to address this problem, integrating the
two key ordinal, non-‐technical dimensions into a unified framework that allows
distinguishing between types of OI. Unlike previous classifications, the new framework
is equally accommodating of several metaphors, from jazz to improvisational theatre,
discussion and beyond, and most importantly, it is applicable to companies. Being two-‐
dimensional, it also accommodates the most important existing typologies (Berliner
34
1994; Zack 2000) and could thus contribute to the congruence, cumulativity and
transparency of the OI field.
In addition to enabling more explicit mapping and comparison within the existing
literature, the degree/locus framework has enabled comparing practicing jazz
improvisers’ views with those of OI theorists and also proven useful in conceptualising
new insights from the interviews. Analysing the interviews through the lens of the
framework suggests that there has been a considerable imbalance between the focus of
OI literature and the musicians views – whereas the literature elaborated on personal
and organisational-level improvisation, the interviews suggest that jazz improvisers see
interpersonal improvisation as most important for OI. In particular, no academic
research could be found to discuss structural/interpersonal improvisation.
Apart from indicating that interpersonal improvisation has been
underrepresented in the literature, the interviews also suggest that interpersonal
improvisation has been oversimplified in the existing OI theory. The jazz improvisers
rejected the straightforward “yes-‐and” principle of phrasal/interpersonal improvisation,
presenting a more nuanced view. In jazz as in companies, but unlike in improvisational
theatre, multiple actors continuously make improvisational initiatives. In such an
environment, improvisers must be able to judge between competing initiatives but react
to the better ones instantly – such a critical approach allows an organisation to gain
positive exposure to a whole torrent of improvisational ideas but not be swept away by
the flood.
Having critical listeners also requires individuals with high mental strength who
can articulate their initiatives convincingly enough. Although personal-‐level mental
strength has not been discussed in the OI theory, it is crucial for developing the often
embryonic personal-‐level improvisational ideas from timbral toward phrasal. Further,
since all improvisational initiatives cannot be developed interpersonally, mental
stamina allows for a continuous stream of ideas that renews the organisation. This
emphasis on critical judgement and mental strength should not be taken to imply a
Darwinian take OI where only the toughest survive – organisational culture must still
support the individual, decriminalise failure and encourage exploration – but rather that
the existing literature has painted a rather more romanticised picture of OI than the
practicers attest to.
35
Importantly, the musicians saw a clear developmental trend in the degree/locus
framework (Figure 2); from improvising how existing phrases are played (timbral) to
improvising new phrases within existing structures (phrasal) and onto improvising
beyond existing structures (structural); and from improvising within one person
(personal) to improvising between two people (interpersonal) and with a whole
seamless organisation of people (organisaitonal). Notably, each step was seen as a
necessary precursor for the next, and no shortcuts or diagonal “jumps” in the framework
(e.g., from timbral/personal straight to phrasal/interpersonal) were allowed.
Figure 2: The degree/locus framework with development paths
Few LOCUS Many Personal Interpersonal Organisational
Minor
Timbral
DE-‐GREE
Phrasal
Major
Structural
Finally, some alternative concepts allowed jazz musicians to talk more broadly
about types of improvisation than the existing theoretical concepts would. Firstly,
whereas the existing theoretical concept of minimal structures limits organisational-‐
level improvisation to the phrasal level, the musicians’ concept of reference points
allows for making sense of and conceptualising structural/organisational improvisation
without difficulties – the clearer the reference points are, the further they can be
stretched. Secondly, jazz musicians’ view of rules as mere temporary, voluntary and
revisable vehicles of aesthetics enables transcending the schism (Zack 2000) caused by
Barrett’s take on rules, “You can’t [break them]” (Barrett & Peplowski 1998: 559), by a
simple yet critical supplement: “You can’t break them – unless you know what you’re
doing”.
36
Future research
As an early expedition to the dark side of the jazz metaphor of OI, this paper has acted as
a reality check between theorists and practitioners, and revealed some inconsistencies.
Most notably, interpersonal improvisation has been both underrepresented and
oversimplified in the OI theory, with, remarkably, no literature explicitly discussing
structural/interpersonal improvisation. This paper has also discussed personal qualities
and organisational attributes necessary to OI, and suggested a framework for relating
them and a model for developing improvisational capabilities from simple toward more
complex forms.
As an early work, however, this paper also has limitations. Firstly, although the
Finnish jazz scene was found to be representative of jazz in general, it would be
important to test this against the views of jazz improvisers from other cultures. Further,
since the proposed framework accommodates comparing findings across multiple
metaphors, it would be intriguing to compare jazz improvisers’ views with those of
other improvisers, especially from improvisational theatre. It would also be important
to test this paper’s methodological and theoretical assertions against empirical studies
of OI in companies.
Given the highly voluntarist picture the musicians gave, future research might
benefit from adopting a more explicitly structurational ontology, where the “seed of
change is there in every act” (Giddens 1976: 102). Adopting the degree/locus matrix
would enable scholars both to compare findings with existing literature and also direct
efforts to the areas of OI where theory is the most underdeveloped. Given that its
increasing relevance to modern organisations, OI has remained too close to the fringes
of management theory – it holds great synergetic potential for integration into more
mainstream fields of management, organisational and sociological studies. From
structuration theory to dynamic capabilities, OI has the potential to enrich and be
enriched by other theories.
37
REFERENCES
Ansoff, H.I. (1991): “Critique of Henry Mintzberg’s ‘The design school: Reconsidering the
basic premises of strategic management’”. Strategic Management Journal,
12(6): 449–461
Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978): “Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective”. Reading, MA: Addison-‐Wesley
Bailey, D. (1992): “Improvisation: Its nature and practice in music”. New York: Da
Capo Press
Barrett, F.J. (1998): “Creativity and improvisation in organizations: Implications for
organizational learning”. Organization Science, 9(5): 605–622
––––––(2000): “Cultivating an aesthetic of unfolding: Jazz improvisation as a self-‐
organising system”. In Linstead, S. & Hopfl, H.J. (eds.): The aesthetics of
organizations: 228–245. London: SAGE Publications
––––––& Cooperrider, D.L. (1990): “Generative metaphor intervention: A new
behavioural approach for working with systems divided by conflict and caught in
defensive perception”. Journal of Behavioural Science, 26(2): 219–239
––––––& Hatch, M.J. (2003): “Planning on spontaneity: Lessons from jazz for a
democratic theory of change”. Academy of Management, Best Conference Paper
2003 in Organizational Development & Change: D1–D6
––––––& Peplowski, K. (1998): “Minimal structures within a song: An analysis of ‘All of
Me’”. Organization Science, 9(5): 558–560
Bastien, D.T. & Hostager, T.J. (1988): “Jazz as a process of organizational innovation”.
Communication Research, 15(5): 582–602
38
Berliner, P.F. (1994): “Thinking in jazz: The infinite art of improvisation”. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press
Bernstein, A. (2000): “How can cooperative work tools support dynamic group
processes? Bridging the specificity frontier”. In Proceedings of the Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Philadelphia, PA: ACM Press
Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (1991): “Organizational learning and communities-‐of-‐practice:
Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation”. Organization
Science, 2(1): 40–57
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): 1–34
Burgelman, R.A. (1983): “A process model of internal corporate venturing in the
diversified major firm”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(2): 223–244
Chandler, A.D. (1962): “Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the
industrial enterprise”. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Ciborra, C.U. (1996): “The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures,
and surprises”. Organization Science, 7(2): 103–118
Cleary, M.J. & Groer, S. (1994): “Inflight decisions of expert and novice health teachers”.
Journal of School Health: 84: 110–114
Crossan, M.M. (1997): “Improvise to innovate”. Ivey Business Quarterly, 62(1): 37–42
––––––(1998): “Improvisation in action”. Organization Science, 9(5): 593–599
39
––––––; Cunha, M.P.; Vera, D. & Cunha, J. (2005): “Time and organizational
improvisation”. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 129–145
––––––& Sorrenti, M. (2002). “Making sense of improvisation”. In Kamoche, K.; Cunha,
M.P. & Cunha, J.V. (eds.): Organizational improvisation: 27–48. London:
Routledge
––––––; White, R.E.; Lane, H. & Klus, L. (1996): “The improvising organization: Where
planning meets opportunity”. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4): 20–35
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
––––––; 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
Damanpour, F. (1991): “Organizational innovation: A meta-‐analysis of effects of
determinants and moderators”. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3): 555–
590
D’Aveni, R.A. (1994): “Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic
maneuvering”. New York: Free Press
De Meyer, A.; Nakane, J.; Miller, J.G. & Ferdows, K. (1989): ”Flexibility: The next
competitive battle”. Strategic Management Journal, 10(2): 135–144
Dennis, N. & Macaulay, M. (2007): “’Miles Ahead’ – Using jazz to investigate
improvisation and market orientation”. European Journal of Marketing,
41(5/6): 608–623
40
Eisenberg, E. (1990): “Jamming! Transcendence through organizing”. Communication
Research, 17(2): 139–164
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989): “Making fast strategic decisions in high-‐velocity environments”.
Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 543–576
––––––; Kahwajy, J.L. & Bourgeois, L.J. (1997): “Conflict and strategic choice”. California
Management Review, 39(2): 42–62
Gardner, W. & Rogoff, B. (1990): “Children’s deliberateness of planning according to task
circumstances”. Developmental Psychology, 26(3): 480–487
Giddens, A. (1976): “New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of
interpretative sociologies”. London: Hutchinson
Hamel, G. & Breen, B. (2007): “The future of management”. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press
Hatch, M.J. (1997): “Jazzing up the theory of organizational improvisation”. Advances in
Strategic Management, 14(2): 181–191
––––––(1998): “Jazz as a metaphor for organizing in the 21st century”. Organization
Science, 9(5): 556–557, 565–568
Holbrook, M.B. (2007): “Playing the changes on the jazz metaphor: An expanded
conceptualization of music-‐, management-‐, and marketing-‐related themes”.
Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 2(3/4): 185–442
Hudak, P. & Berger, J. (1995): “A model of performance, interaction, and improvisation”.
In Proceedings of International Computer Music Conference: 1–8. San
Francisco, CA: The International Computer Music Association
41
Hutchins, E. (1991): "Organizing work by adaptation". Organization Science, 2(1): 14–
39
Ilinitch. A.Y.; Lewin, A.Y. & D’Aveni, R. (1998): “Managing in times of disorder:
Hypercompetitive organizational responses”. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications
Jaikumar, R. (1986): “Postindustrial manufacturing”. Harvard Business Review, 64(6):
69–77
Kamoche, K. & Cunha, M.P. (1997): “Teamwork, knowledge-‐creation and improvisation”.
In Proceedings from the International Workshop on Teamworking: 358–374.
Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham
––––––& Cunha, M.P. (2001): “Minimal structures: From jazz improvisation to product
innovation”. Organization Studies, 22(5): 733–764
––––––; Cunha, M.P. & Cunha, J.V. (2000): “Shopping for new glasses: Looking beyond
jazz in the study of organizational improvisation”. Working paper, No. 381.
Lisbon, Portugal: New University of Lisbon
––––––; Cunha, M.P. & Cunha, R.C. (2003): “Improvisation in organizations”.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 33(1): 3–9
Kao, J. (1996a): “Jamming: The art and discipline of business creativity”. New York:
HarperCollins
–––––– (1996b): “The heart of creativity”. Across the Board, 33(8): 23–27
Kernfeld, B. (1995): “What to listen for in jazz”. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
42
King, A.W. & Ranft, A.L. (2001): “Capturing knowledge and knowing through
improvisation: What managers can learn from the thoracic surgery board
certification process”. Journal of Management, 27(3): 255–277
Kirsch, L.J. (1996): “The management of complex tasks in organizations: Controlling the
systems development process”. Organization Science, 7(1): 1–21
Kuhn, T.S. (1962): “The structure of scientific revolutions”. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press
Lewin, A.Y. (1998): “Jazz improvisation as a metaphor for organization theory”.
Organization Science, 9(5): 539
Lockford, L. & Pelias, R.J. (2004): “Bodily poeticizing in theatrical improvisation: A
typology of performative knowledge”. Theatre Topics, 14: 431–443
Machin, D. & Carrithers, M. (1996): “From interpretative communities to communities of
improvisation”. Media, Culture & Society, 18: 343–352
MacKenzie, K.D. (1986): “Virtual positions and power”. Management Science, 32: 622–
642
Magni, M.; Provera, B. & Proserpio, L. (2008): “Improvisation in geographically-‐
dispersed teams: Does distance matter?” In IX Workshop dei Docenti e dei
Ricercatori di Organizzazione Aziendale, Venice, Italy: Università Ca’ Foscari
Mantere, S; Sillince, J.A.A. & Hämäläinen, V. (2007): “Music as a metaphor for
organizational change”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3):
447–459
McCourt, W. (1997): “Using metaphors to understand and to change organizations: A
critique of Gareth Morgan's approach”. Organization Studies, 18(3): 511–522
43
March, J.G. (1991): “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”.
Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87
––––––& Simon, H.A. (1958): “Organizations”. New York: Wiley
McKnight, B. & Bontis, N. (2002): “E-‐improvisation: Collaborative groupware technology
expands the reach and effectiveness of organizational improvisation”. Knowledge
& Process Management, 9(4): 219–227
Meyer, A. (1998): “Organizing for improvisation: The backstage story of the Vancouver
jazz concert”. Organization Science, 9(5), 569–576
––––––; Frost, P.J. & Weick, K.E. (1998): “The Organization Science jazz festival:
Improvisation as a metaphor for organising”. Organization Science, 9(5): 540–
542
Meyer, P. (2005): “Organizational improvisation & appreciative inquiry: An exploration
of symbiotic theory and practice”. In Midwest Academy of Management 48th
Annual Meeting: 1–18
Miner, A.; Bassoff, P. & Moorman, C. (2001): “Organisational improvisation and learning:
A field study”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2): 304–337
––––––; Moorman, C. & Bassoff, P. (1997): “Organizational improvisation in new product
development”. In MSI Report, No. 97–110, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science
Institute
Mintzberg, H. (1990): “The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic
management”. Strategic Management Journal, 11(3): 171–95
––––––(1991): “Learning 1, planning 0: Reply to Igor Ansoff”. Strategic Management
Journal, 12(6): 463–466
44
––––––(1994): “The fall and rise of strategic planning”. Harvard Business Review,
72(1): 107–114
––––––& McHugh, A. (1985): “Strategy formation in an adhocracy”. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 30(2), 160–197
––––––& Waters, J.A. (1985): “Of strategies, deliberate and emergent”. Strategic
Management Journal, 6(3): 257–272
Mirvis, P.H. (1998): “Practice improvisation”. Organization Science, 9(5): 586–592
Moorman, C. & Miner, A. (1995): “Walking the tightrope: Improvisation and information
in new product development”. MSI Report, No. 95–101, Cambridge, MA:
Marketing Science Institute
––––––& Miner, A. (1998a): “The convergence between planning and execution:
Improvisation in new product development”. Journal of Marketing, 62: 1–20
––––––& Miner, A. (1998b): “Organizational improvisation and organizational memory”.
Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 698–723
Morgan, G. (1980): “Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organizational theory”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4): 605–622
––––––(1998): “Images of organization: The executive edition”. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications
Newton, P.M. (2004): “Leadership lessons from jazz improvisation”. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1): 83–99
Nonaka, I. & Konno, N. (1998): “The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for
knowledge creation”. California Management Review, 40(3): 40–54
45
––––––& Takeuchi, H. (1995): “The knowledge-creating company”. New York: Oxford
University Press US
Orlikowski, W.J. (1996): “Improvising organizational transformation over time: A
situated change perspective”. Information Systems Research, 7(1): 63–92
––––––& Hofman, J.D. (1997): “An improvisational model for change management: The
case of groupware technologies”. Sloan Management Review, 38(2): 11–21
Oxford Dictionaries (2010): “improvise”. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 24 May
2010, from: <http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/improvise>
Pascale, R. T. (1984): “Perspectives on strategy: The real story behind Honda’s success”.
California Management Review, 25(3): 47–72
Pasmore, W.A. (1998): “Organizing for jazz”. Organization Science, 9(5): 562–564
Pavlovich, K. (2003): “All that jazz”. Long Range Planning, 36(5): 441–458
Peplowski, K. (1998): “The process of improvising”. Organization Science, 9(5): 560–
561
Perry, L.T. (1991): “Strategic improvising: How to formulate and implement competitive
strategies in concert”. Organizational Dynamics, 19(4): 51–64
Peters, T. & Waterman, R. (1982): “In search of excellence”. New York: Harper & Row
Popper, K. (1959): “The logic of scientific discovery”. New York: Basic Books
––––––(1963): “Conjectures and refutations”. London: Routledge
Powers, C. (1981): “Role imposition or role improvisation: Some theoretical principles”.
The Economic & Social Review, 12(4): 287–99
46
Preston, A. (1991): "Improvising order". In Mangham, I.L. (ed.): “Organization analysis
and development”: 81–102. New York: Wiley
Ramalho, G. & Ganascia, J. (1994): “Simulating creativity in jazz performance”.
Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence: 108–
113. Seattle, WA: AAAI Press
Ramos, R. (1978): “The use of improvisation and modulation in natural talk: An
alternative approach to conversational analysis”. Studies in Symbolic
Interaction, 1(1): 319–337
Ranson, S.; Hinings, B. & Greenwood, R.T. (1980): “The structuring of organizational
structures”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1): 1–17
Rerup, C. (2001): "'Houston, we have a problem': Anticipation and improvisation as
sources of organizational resilience". Comportamento Organizacional e Gestão,
7(1): 21–44
Rosner, M. M. (1968): “Economic determinants of organizational innovation”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(4): 614–625
Schloss, A. & Jaffe, D.A. (1993): “Intelligent musical instruments: The future of musical
performance or the demise of the performer?” Journal of New Music Research,
22(3): 183–193
Schuller, G. (1968): “Early jazz”. New York: Oxford University Press US
Senge, P.M. (1990): “The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization”. London: Century Business
Sharron, A. (1983): “Time and space bias in group solidarity: Action and process in
musical improvisation”. International Social Science Review, 58(4): 222–30
47
Silva, L. (2002): “Outsourcing as an improvisation: A case study in Latin America”. The
Information Society, 18(2): 129–138
Soules, M. (2002): “Improvising character: Jazz, the actor, and protocols in
improvisation”. In Heble, A. & Fischlin, D. (eds.): The other side of nowhere: Jazz,
improvisation and cultural theory: 268–297. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan
University Press
Southworth, J.S. (1983): “Improvisation for nonmusicians: A workshop approach”.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(3): 195–205
Starbuck, W.H. & Farjoun, M. (2005): “Organization at the limit: Lessons from the
Columbia disaster”. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Steinbock, D. (2010): “Winning across global markets: How Nokia creates strategic
advantage in a fast-changing world”. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-‐Bass
Sutton, R.I. & Hargadon, A. (1996): “Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a
product design firm”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 685–718
Tanenbaum, J. & Tanenbaum, K. (2008): “Improvisation and performance as models for
interacting with stories”. In Proceedings of the 1st Joint International
Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling: Interactive Storytelling: 250–
263
Taylor, F.W. (1911): “The principles of scientific management”. New York: Harper
Bros.
Tsoukas, H. (1991): “The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in
organizational science”. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 566–585
––––––(1993): “Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation in organizational
theory”. Organization Studies, 14(3): 323–346
48
Vera, D. & Crossan, M.M. (1999): “Improvisation: A theoretical model of its dimensions,
antecedents, outcomes, and moderating variables”. Working paper, No. 1999-‐10.
London, ON, Canada: Richard Ivey School of Business
––––––& Crossan, M.M. (2005): “Improvisation and innovative performance in teams”.
Organization Science, 16(3): 203–224
Weick, K.E. (1993a): “Organizational redesign as improvisation”. In Huber, G.P. & Glick,
W.H. (eds.): Organizational change and redesign: 346–379. New York: Oxford
University Press US
––––––(1993b): “The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch
disaster”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4): 628–652
––––––(1996): “Drop your tools: An allegory for organizational studies”. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(2): 301–313
––––––(1998): “Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis”. Organization
Science, 9(5): 543–55
Werner, K. (1996): “Effortless mastery: Liberating the master musician within”. New
Albany, IN :Jamey Aebersold Jazz
Woodman, R.W.; Sawyer, J.E. & Griffin, R.W. (1993): “Toward a theory of organizational
creativity”. Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293–321
YLE – The Finnish Broadcasting Company (2010): “Suomijazzin läpimurron vuodet”
(“The breakthrough years of Finnish jazz”). Elävä arkisto. Retrieved 25 May
2010, from <http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/?s=s&g=8&ag=91&t=591>
Zack, M. (2000): “Jazz improvisation and organizing: Once more from the top”.
Organization Science, 11(2): 227–34
49
DISCOGRAPHY
Coltrane, J. (1960): “My Favorite Things”. With John Coltrane (tenor saxophone), McCoy
Tyner (piano), Steve Davis (bass) and Elvin Jones (drums). Atlantic Records
Davis, M. (1965): “Miles in Berlin”. With Miles Davis (trumpet), Wayne Shorter (tenor
saxophone), Herbie Hancock (piano), Ron Carter (bass) and Tony Williams
(drums). Columbia Records
Evans, B. (1959): “Portrait in Jazz”. With Bill Evans (piano), Scott LaFaro (bass) and
Paul Motian (drums). Riverside Records
Green, G. (1964): “Matador”. With Grant Green (guitar), McCoy Tyner (piano), Bob
Cranshaw (bass) and Elvin Jones (drums). Blue Note Records
Jarrett, K. (1975): “The Köln Concert”. With Keith Jarrett (piano). ECM Records
ODJB – Original Dixieland Jass Band (1917): “Livery Stable Blues”. With Nick LaRocca
(cornet), Larry Shields (clarinet), Eddie Edwards (trombone), Henry Ragas
(piano) and Tony Spargo (drums). Victor/RCA Records
Tyner, M. (1967): “The Real McCoy”. With Joe Henderson (tenor saxophone), McCoy
Tyner (piano), Ron Carter (bass) and Elvin Jones (drums). Blue Note Records
50
APPENDIX 1: DEGREES AND LOCI ACROSS JAZZ STYLES
Jazz music has several distinct styles, each with its own conventions. The following gives
an overview of five major styles in the context of the degree/locus framework.
Dixieland & early jazz (1910s–20s). The earliest jazz featured polyphonic
improvisation, with multiple soloists improvising collectively. This improvisation
involved thematic variation, and the focus was on interpersonal/timbral improvisation –
several soloists varied existing phrases in relation to each other.
Swing (1930s). The swing era featured prominent big bands, whose intra-‐
organisational “swing” relied on organisational/timbral adjustment. Individual soloists
were also featured at pre-‐arranged parts of songs within clear structures. Solo
improvisation still took existing melodies as a starting point, but developed
personal/timbral improvisation progressively toward personal/phrasal.
Bebop & hard-bop (1940s–50s). Bebop jazz was no longer dance music, and the
jazz combo (mostly quartets and quintets) replaced the big band as the principle
organisational form. Fewer voices facilitated interpersonal communication within the
combo, but the rhythm section was still essentially accompanying and the soloist
improvising. Scale-‐based bebop improvisation broke away from existing melodies but
kept well within the song structures, being thus fundamentally phrasal and mostly
personal. Hard-‐bop improvisation had a more modern sound but similar degrees/loci.
Post-bop (1960s). Jazz began to split into myriad styles in the 1950s–60s, for
which post-‐bop is a very general term. Bands started to experiment with structures and
instrumentalists started to challenge their conventional roles – although still often
phrasal, post-‐bop improvisation expanded to structural improvisation at all loci.
Free jazz (1960s). Free jazz progressively challenged any structure and
conventions, and thus the improvisation was essentially organisational/structural.
51
APPENDIX 2: FULL INTERVIEW DETAILS
Int
erview
ee ID
Ins
trum
ent
Age
(yea
rs)
Impr
ovised
(yea
rs)
Impr
ovised
pro
fessiona
lly (y
ears)
Tau
ght impr
ovisation (yea
rs)
Int
erview
ed (m
inutes
)
Int
erview
metho
d
Date
Edu
catio
n
M1 Bass 40 28 23 10 88 Face-‐to-‐face
5 May 2010
MMus (Cand. DMus)
M2 Bass 49 35 34 21 60 Face-‐to-‐face
5 May 2010
MMus
M3 Guitar 35 20 15 15 87 Face-‐to-‐face
5 May 2010
MMus (Cand. DMus)
M4 Piano 39 20 19 12 36 Face-‐to-‐face
6 May 2010
MMus (Cand. DMus)
M5 Sax. 49 35 32 28 54 Face-‐to-‐face
6 May 2010
DMus
M6 Drums 42 25 25 25 43 Face-‐to-‐face
6 May 2010
DMus
M7 Drums Piano
49 44 33 33 58 Face-‐to-‐face
6 May 2010
On-‐the-‐job
M8 Sax. 38 23 18 12 51 Face-‐to-‐face
7 May 2010
MMus
M9 Sax. 64 50 43 37 57 Face-‐to-‐face
7 May 2010
On-‐the-‐job
M10 Guitar 54 34 54 29 72 Skype w. video
13 May 2010
Diploma in Prof. Music
52
APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE Disclosure • Purpose of the thesis • Permission for recording • Anonymity Profiling/reflecting questions • History
o Tell me about your musical history o Tell me about your education
How might this affect your views on improvisation?
• Age o How old are you?
• Experience in improvisation o How long have you improvised? o How much of this professionally? o How long have you taught
improvisation? • Finland
o How would you characterise the Finnish jazz scene?
o How are Finnish jazz musicians compared to jazz musicians generally?
o How might Finnishness affect the jazz musicians’ views on improvisation?
• Personal style o How would you characterise your
style as a musician/improviser? o How might that affect your views on
improvisation? OI questions • Introducing the parallels
o How are jazz organisations (=bands) compared to other organisations?
How are they similar? How are they different?
o What might other people learn from jazz?
o What might other organisations learn from jazz?
• Drivers of OI success o Why do some organisations
improvise better than others?
When/why does it work well in jazz organisations?
o What are the determinants of success (or otherwise)?
What is done right? What is done wrong?
• Types of organisations o Does improvisation differ in large
and small organisations? How? o How does managing improvisation
differ? o Does improvisation differ in
established organisations vs. jam sessions? How?
How does structure emerge in new settings (e.g., jam sessions)?
o What kind of a structure is good for improvisation?
• Navigating in OI o How do people improvise together? o How do you ensure a common
direction? o How do you resolve conflicts? o What is the role of rules?
What is the role of aesthetics?
• Teaching improvisation o How would you teach a beginning
jazz band/organisation to improvise together?
o How would you teach a band/organisation with high technical skills but no improvisational experience to improvise?
• Degree/locus framework o What do you think of this
framework? o Are some aspects especially
important? o Are some aspects problematic?
• Anything else? o Is there anything else we did not
cover in this interview?