Sociology Plus
Management Improvisation Definition
Management improvisation refers to the conception of action that unfolds within an organisational context, drawing upon available material, cognitive, affective, and social resources in response to concrete circumstances. It is fundamentally an individual practice undertaken in light of specific, unplanned situations, which means that improvisation cannot be managed or controlled by the organisation; rather, organisations can only seek to nurture or facilitate it.
Historical Context and Emergence
Improvisation was largely overlooked until the 1990s when scholars began paying closer attention to it. This shift in focus was prompted by a reaction against dominant management paradigms, particularly the classical mechanistic approach, which viewed organisations as stable systems requiring systematic planning. Under this view, improvising was seen as unnecessary or even dangerous, potentially damaging organisational functioning. However, the description of business environments as hypercompetitive and rapidly changing stimulated interest in processes that offered survival advantages beyond mere mechanical routines. Seminal texts and research, including those by Hatch (1999), Crossan et al. (1996), Brown and Eisenhardt (1998), and Weick (1993, 1998), laid the groundwork for studying improvisation, with Karl E. Weick being particularly influential in exploring the aesthetics of imperfection and minimal structuring.
Theoretical Frameworks
The legitimacy of improvisation as a subject of study was reinforced by broader theories of practice, such as those developed by Giddens (1986), Bourdieu (1990), and Certeau (1988). This integration allowed improvisation to be viewed not just as a research topic but as a framework for understanding social experience across various domains, including planning, learning, and strategy. Theoretical explorations often employed metaphorical links to arts such as jazz and theatre. Research has subsequently combined these theoretical insights with empirical work in areas like new product development and crisis management, suggesting three major approaches: improvisation as an organising metaphor; improvisation as a means for managing the unexpected; and improvisation as a normal, everyday organisational practice.
Dimensions of Improvisation
The core dimensions of organisational improvisation relate to how action is performed and the resources utilised:
- Impromptu Action: This dimension concerns acting without routine or anticipation, where planning and execution converge in time. Improvisers build their plan while acting, relying on a minimal structure (goals, deadlines) to coordinate action without constraint.
- Bricolage: This involves the capacity to make do with available materials rather than engaging in formal resource allocation. Bricolage is facilitated by ingeniously using intimately known resources, encompassing material assets, cognitive knowledge and intuition, affective states (such as feelings of competence or flow), and existing social networks.
Methodological Challenges and Future Research
Due to its practical, situated, and ephemeral nature, studying improvisation presents significant methodological challenges. It resists capture through traditional quantitative methods because it is an action-based process rather than a set of attitudes. Researchers must contend with how to study dynamic processes that occur in context without retrospective justification. Consequently, research often favours qualitative, non-obtrusive methods such as ethnography and case studies.
Future research is expected to explore improvisation across multiple levels: at the individual level (examining psychological factors like self-efficacy), the group level (investigating team dynamics and leadership behaviour), and the organisational level (assessing how culture, structure, and routines influence practice). While some assume change results from top-down planning, others suggest that organisations evolve through the accumulation of minor, uncoordinated changes implemented by individuals lacking strategic choice. This dual perspective positions improvisation as both an individual practice and a systemic property relevant to both individuals and their environments.