weick1.pdf

7/27/2019 weick1.pdf

1/14

Introductory Essay: Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis

Author(s): Karl E. WeickReviewed work(s):Source: Organization Science, Vol. 9, No. 5, Special Issue: Jazz Improvisation and Organizing(Sep. - Oct., 1998), pp. 543-555Published by: INFORMSStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2640292 .

Accessed: 07/11/2011 10:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

INFORMSis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Organization Science.
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=informshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2640292?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2640292?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=informs


2/14

Introductory E s s a y

Improvisation a s a Mind se t f o rOrganizational nalys i s

Karl E. WeickSchool of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109

The emphasis in organizational theory on order and con-trol often handicaps theorists when they want to under-stand the processes of creativity and innovation. Symp-toms of the handicap are discussions of innovation thatinclude the undifferentiated use of concepts like flexibil-ity, risk, and novelty; forced either-or distinctions be-tween exploration and exploitation; focus on activitiessuch as planning, visioning, and strategizing as siteswhere improvements are converted into intentions thatawait implementation; and reliance on routine, reliability,repetition, automatic processing, and memory as the gluethat holds organization in place. Since the term "organi-zation" itself denotes orderly arrangementsfor coopera-tion, it is not surprisingthat mechanisms for rearrangingthese orders in the interest of adaptation, have not beendeveloped as fully. (See Eisenberg (1990) for an impor-tantexception.) That liability can be corrected if we learnhow to talk about the process of improvisation.Thus, the purpose of this essay is to improve the waywe talk about organizational improvisation, using the ve-hicle of jazz improvisation as the source of orientingideas. I startwith two brief descriptionsof the complexityinvolved when musicians compose in the moment. ThenI review several definitions intended to capture holisti-cally what is happening when people improvise. Next, Itake a closer look at selected details in improvisation,namely, degrees of improvisation, forms for improvisa-tion, and cognition in improvisation. These understand-ings are then generalized fromjazz to other settings suchas conversation, therapy, and relationships of command.I conclude with implications for theory and practice.Descriptionsof Jazz ImprovisationHere are two accounts of what happens when order andcontrol are breached extemporaneously in jazz perfor-mances, and a new ordercreated.

The sense of exhilaration that characterizes the artist's experi-ences under such circumstances is heightened for jazz musiciansas storytellers by the activity's physical, intellectual, and emo-tional exertion and by the intensity of struggling with creativeprocesses under the pressure of a steady beat. From the outsetof each performance, improvisers enter an artificial world oftime in which reactions to the unfolding events of their talesmust be immediate. Furthermore, the consequences of their ac-tions are irreversible. Amid the dynamic display of imaginedfleeting images and impulses-entrancing sounds and vibrantfeelings, dancing shapes and kinetic gestures, theoretical sym-bols and perceptive commentaries-improvisers extend thelogic of previous phrases, as ever-emerging figures on the pe-riphery of their vision encroach upon and supplant those in per-formance. Soloists reflect on past events with breathtakingspeed, while constantly pushing forward to explore the impli-cations of new outgrowths of ideas that demand their attention.Ultimately, to journey over musical avenues of one's own de-sign, thinking in motion and creating art on the edge of certaintyand surprise, is to be "very alive, absolutely caught up in themoment." (Berliner 1994, p. 220)While they are performing their ideas, artistsmust learn to jug-gle short- and intermediate-rangegoals simultaneously. To leadan improvised melodic line back to its initial pitch requires theability to hold a layered image of the pitch in mind and handwhile, at the same time, selecting and performing other pitches.The requirements of this combined mental and physical featbecome all the more taxing if, after improvising an extendedphrase, soloists decide to manipulate more complex material,developing, perhaps, its middle segment as a theme. In all suchcases, they must not only rely on their memory of its contour,but their muscular memory must be flexible enough to locatethe segment's precise finger pattern instantly within their motormodel of the phrase. (Berliner 1994, p 200)Attempts to capture definitionally what is commonamong these examples have taken a variety of forms.

1047-7039/98/0905/0543/$05.00CopyrightC) 1998, Institute or OperationsResearchand the ManagementSciences ORGANIZATION CIENCE/VO1.9, No. 5, September-October 1998 543


3/14

KARL E. WEICK Improvisation as a Mindset

The word improvisation itself is rooted in the word"proviso"which means to make a stipulation beforehand,to provide for something in advance, or to do somethingthat is premeditated. By adding the prefix "im" to theword proviso, as when the prefix "im" is added to theword mobile to create immobile, improvise means theopposite of proviso. Thus improvisation deals with theunforeseen, it works without a prior stipulation, it workswith the unexpected. As Tyler and Tyler (1990) put it,improvisation is about the un-for-seen and unprovided-for which means it "is the negation of foresight, ofplanned-for, of doing provided for by knowing, and ofthe control of the past over the present and future" (p. x).Some descriptions of improvisation, often those asso-ciated withjazz, describe this lack of prior stipulationandlack of planning as composing extemporaneously, pro-ducing something on the spur of the moment. Thus, wehave Schuller's (1968, p. 378) influential definition thatjazz involves "playing extemporaneously, i.e., withoutthe benefit of writtenmusic ... (C)omposing on the spurof the moment." Schon describes this extemporaneouscomposing in more detail as "on-the-spot surfacing, criti-cizing, restructuring,and testing of intuitive understand-ings of experienced phenomena" while the ongoing ac-tion can still make a difference (1987, pp. 26-27).I have found it hardto improve on the following defi-nition, which is the one that guides this essay: "Impro-visation involves reworking precomposed material anddesigns in relation to unanticipated ideas conceived,shaped, and transformedunder the special conditions ofperformance, thereby adding unique features to everycreation" (Berliner 1994, p. 241).

It is also possible to, highlight definitionally, sub-themes in improvisation. Thus, one can focus on orderand describe improvisation as "flexible treatmentof pre-planned material" (Berliner 1994, p. 400). Or one canfocus on the extemporaneous quality of the activity anddescribe improvisation as "intuition guiding action in aspontaneous way" (Crossan and Sorrenti 1996, p. 1)where intuition is viewed as rapid processing of experi-enced information (p. 14). Attempts to situate improvi-sation in organization lead to definitions such as theMiner et al. (1996) suggestion thatimprovisationconsistsof deliberately chosen activities that are spontaneous,novel, and involve the creation of something while it isbeing performed (pp. 3-4).While it is temptingto adoptthese compressed themesin the interest of economy, we may be better served astheorists if we retain the larger and more complex set ofoptions and see which subsets are most useful to explainwhich outcroppings. For example, spontaneity and intu-ition are importantdimensions of improvisation. Yet, ina rareoutspoken passage, Berliner argues as follows.

[T]he popular definitions of improvisation that emphasize onlyits spontaneous, intuitive nature-characterizing it as the 'mak-ing of something out of nothing'-are astonishingly incomplete.This simplistic understanding of improvisation belies the dis-cipline and experience on which improvisers depend, and it ob-scures the actual practices and processes that engage them. Im-provisation depends, in fact, on thinkers having absorbed abroad base of musical knowledge, including myriad conventionsthat contribute to formulating ideas logically, cogently, and ex-pressively. It is not surprising, therefore, that improvisers usemetaphors of language in discussing their art form. The samecomplex mix of elements andprocesses coexists for improvisersas for skilled language practitioners;the learning, the absorp-tion, and utilization of linguistic conventions conspire in themind of the writer or utilization of linguistic conventions con-spire in the mind of the writer or speaker-or, in the case ofjazz improvisation, the player-to create a living work.(Berliner 1994, p. 492)

What Berliner makes clear is that the compression of ex-perience into the single word "intuition" desperatelyneeds to be unpacked because it is the very nature of thisprocess that makes improvisation possible and separatesgood from bad improvisation.Similarly, Berliner is worried lest, in our fascinationwith the label "spontaneous," we overlook the major in-vestment in practice, listening, and study that precedes astunningperformance.A jazz musician is moreaccuratelydescribed as a highly disciplined "practicer"(Berliner1994, p. 494) than as a practitioner.Reminders that we should take little for grantedin ini-tial studies of improvisationseem best conveyed by morecomplex definitions that spell out what might be takenfor granted. In the following section, I will suggest threeproperties of improvisation that may be especially sen-sitive to changes in other organizational variables. Theimplied logic is that changes in these variables affect theadequacy of improvisation which in turn affects adapta-tion, learning, and renewal.

Degrees of ImprovisationTo understand mprovisation more fully, we first need tosee that it lies on a continuum that ranges from "inter-pretation," hrough"embellishment"and "variation" nd-ing in "improvisation" Lee Konitz cited in Berliner 1994,pp. 66-71). The progression implied is one of increaseddemands on imagination and concentration. "Interpreta-tion" occurs when people take minorliberties with a mel-ody as when they choose novel accents or dynamics whileperforming it basically as written. "Embellishment"in-volves greater use of imagination, this time with wholephrases in the original being anticipated or delayed be-yond their usual placements. The melody is rephrasedbut544 ORGANIZATION CIENCE/VO1.9, No. 5, September-October 1998


4/14

KARL E. WEICK Improvisation as a Minclset

recognizable. "Variation"occurs when clusters of notesnot in the original melody are inserted, but their relation-ship to that original melody is made clear. "Improvisa-tion" on a melody means "transforming he melody intopatterns bearing little or no resemblance to the originalmodel or using models altogether alternative to the mel-ody as the basis for inventing new phrases" (Berliner1994, p. 70). When musicians improvise, they "radicallyalterportions of the melody or replace its segments withnew creations bearing little, if any, relationship to themelody's shape" (Berliner 1994, p. 77). To improvise,therefore, is to engage in more than paraphraseor orna-mentationor modification.With these gradations in mind it is instructive to re-examine existing examples of improvisation to seewhether they consist of radical alterations,and new cre-ations. Miner et al. (1996, pp. 9-14) describe several in-stances of organizational improvisation and the verbsthey use suggest that their examples fit all four points onthe continuum.Thus, they describe improvisations duringnew product development that consists of a "shift" in alight assembly (interpretation); a "switch" in a productdefinition or "adding" a light beam source (embellish-ment); "altering"the content of a prior routine or "revis-ing"a test schedule (variation);and "creating"an internalfocus group or "discovering" a way to do a 22-secondinformation search in 2 seconds (improvisation). If myattemptto assign the Miner et al. (1996) verbs to Konitz'sfour categories is plausible, then it suggests severalthings. First, activities that alter, revise, create, and dis-cover are purerinstances of improvisationthanare activ-ities that shift, switch, or add. Second, activities towardthe "interpretation" nd of the continuum are more de-pendent on the models they start with than are activitiestoward the improvisation end. As dependency on initialmodels increases, adaptation to more radical environ-mental change should decrease. Third, as modificationsbecome more like improvisations and less like interpre-tations, their content is more heavily influenced by pastexperience, dispositions, and local conditions. When peo-ple increasingly forego guidance from a common melody,they resort to more idiosyncratic guidance. It is herewhere differentials in prior experience, practice, andknowledge are most visible and have the most effect.Fourth,the stipulationthatpeople deliberatelyact extem-pore should be easier to execute if they stick closer to aguideline than if they depart radically from it. Thus, in-terpretationand embellishment should be initiated morequickly under time pressurethan is true for variationandimprovisation. Deliberate injunctions to be radically dif-ferent may falter if they fail to specify precisely what the

original model is, in what sense it is to remain a con-straint, and which of its properties are constants andwhich are variables. These questions don't arise in thethree approximations to improvisation represented by in-terpretation, embellishment, and variation. The point is,deliberate improvisation is much tougher, much moretime consuming, and places higher demands on resources,than does deliberate interpretation. If deliberateness is akey requirement for something to qualify as organiza-tional improvisation, and if we construe improvisationinthe sense used by Konitz, then full-scale improvisationshould be rarein time-pressured settings. But, if it couldbe accomplished despite these hurdles, then it should bea substantial, sustainable, competitive advantage.Fifth, and finally, any one activity may contain all fourgradations,as sometimes happens in jazz.Over a solo's course, players typically deal with the entire spec-trum of possibilities embodied by these separable but relatedapplications of improvisation. At one moment, soloists mayplay radical, precomposed variations on a composition's melodyas rehearsed and memorized before the event. The very nextmoment, they may spontaneously be embellishing the melody'sshape, or inventing a new melodic phrase. There is a perpetualcycle between improvised and precomposed components of theartists' knowledge as it pertains to the entire body of construc-tion materials.... The proportion of precomposition to impro-vising is likewise subject to continual change throughout a per-formance. (Berliner 1994, p. 222)Re-examination of the Miner et al. (1996) examplessuggests that some involve the entire spectrumof impro-visation and others do not. For example, when designengineers tackled the problem of flawed filters at Fast

Track, they improvised a new feature, reworked the as-semblies, shifted how lights were to stand, changed theformal technical features, and added a light beam source.The intriguing possibility is that full spectrum improvi-sation like this has different propertiesthansimple stand-alone improvisation. Full spectrum improvisation makesfuller use of memory and past experience, can build onthe competencies of a more diverse population, is morefocused by a melody, and may be more coherent. If thisis plausible then it should be more persuasive, diffusefaster, and be more acceptable since a greater variety ofpeople within the firm can understand how it has devel-oped. Furthermore, hey are able to recognize some of itspre-existing components. It is also possible that thesmooth versus sudden changes celebrated by those whoinvoke the concept of punctuated equilibrium are simplymanifestations of full spectrum (smooth) or solitary (sud-den) improvisation.The point of all this is that we may want to be stingyin our use of the label improvisation and generous in our

ORGANIZATION CIENCE/VO1.9, No. 5, September-October 1998 545


5/14

KARL E. WEICK hnprovisation as a Mindset

use of other labels that suggest approximationsto impro-visation. When we focus on approximations, we focusboth on connections to the past and on the original modelthat is being embellished. The spectrumfrom interpreta-tion to improvisation mirrors the spectrum from incre-mental to transformationalchange. It becomes less com-mon in organizations than we anticipated, but itsantecedents become clearer as do its connections withthemes of order and control.

Forms of ImprovisationThese connected themes of order and improvisation be-come even clearer when we look more closely at the ob-ject to which the process of improvisation is applied. Asbassist-composer, Charles Mingus, insisted, "you can'timprovise on nothing; you've gotta improvise on some-thing" (Kemfeld 1995, p. 119). This is the same Minguswho once actually reduced a promising young saxophon-ist to tears before an audience, with his running com-mentary of "Play something different, man; play some-thing different. This is jazz, man. You played that lastnight and the night before" (Berliner 1994, p. 271). Theongoing tension to "improviseon something"but to keepthe improvisations fresh is the essence of jazz. That ten-sion may be weaker in non-musical organizationswhereroutine embellishment of routines is sufficient and ex-pected and where surprise is unwelcome. But, whetherembellishment is majoror minor, improvisationinvolvesthe embellishment of something.In jazz, that "something" usually is a melody such asoriginated in African-American blues and gospel songs,popular songs, ragtime piano and brass-band marches,LatinAmerican dances, or rock and soul music (Kemfeld1995, p. 40). What is common to these melodies is formimposed by a sequence of harmonic chords and a schemeof rhythm. Otherobjects available for embellishment thatare more common to organizations range from routinesand strategic intent (Perry 1991), to a set of core values,a credo, a mission statement,rules of engagement, or ba-sic know-how. Gilbert Ryle (1979) argued that virtuallyall behavior has an ad hoc adroitness akin to improvisa-tion because it mixes together a partly fresh contingencywith general lessons previously learned. Ryle describesthis mixture as paying heed. Improvisation enters in thefollowing way.

(T)o be thinking what he is here and now up against, he mustboth be trying to adjust himself to just this present once-onlysituation and in doing this to be applying lessons alreadylearned. There must be in his response a union of some AdHockery with some know-how. If he is not at once improvisingand improvising warily, he is not engaging his somewhat trained

wits in a partly fresh situation. It is the pitting of an acquiredcompetence or skill against unprogrammed opportunity,obsta-cle or hazard. It is a bit like putting some new wine into oldbottles. (Ryle 1979, p. 129)Thus, improvisation shares an importantpropertywith

phenomena encompassed by chaos theory (e.g.,McDaniel 1996, Stacey 1992), namely, origins arecrucialsmall forms that can have large consequences [e.g.,cracks in shoulder bones determine hunting successamong Naskapi Indians (Weick 1979, pp. 262-263.)]Melodies vary in the ease with which they evoke priorexperience and trigger generative embellishments. Somemelodies set up a greater number of interesting possibil-ities than do other melodies. The same holds true for or-ganizational "melodies" such as mission statements,which range from the banal to the ingenious and invitewell-practiced or novel actions on their behalf.While improvisation is affected by one's associates,past experiences, and currentsetting, it is also determinedby the kernel that provides the pretext for assemblingthese elements in the first place. These pretexts are notneutral. They encourage some lines of development andexclude other ones. And this holds true regardless of theimproviser. While it is truethat a masterful musician liketenor saxophonist, Sonny Rollins, can find incrediblerichness in mundane melodies such as "Tennessee Waltz"and "Home on the Range," it is equally true that thesemelodies themselves unfold with unusual progressionsrelative to the standard jazz repertory (e.g., "I GotRhythm"). It is the capability of these progressions tochallenge and evoke, as well as the competence of theperformer, that contribute to improvisation. It is easy tooverlook the substantive contribution of a melody be-cause it is so small andsimple. It's importantto rememberthat a melody is also an early and continuing influence.The importantpoint is that improvisation does not ma-terialize out of thin air. Instead, it materializes around asimple melody that provides the pretext for real-timecomposing. Some of that composing is built from pre-composed phrases that become meaningful retrospec-tively as embellishments of that melody. And somecomes from elaboration of the embellishments them-selves. The use of precomposed fragments in the emerg-ing composition is an example of Ryle's (1979) "waryimprovisation" anchored in past experience. The furtherelaboration of these emerging embellishments is an ex-ample of Ryle's opportunistic improvisation in whichone's wits engage a fresh, once-only situation. Consid-ered as a noun, an improvisation is a transformation ofsome original model. Considered as a verb, improvisationis composing in real time thatbegins with embellishments

546 ORGANIZATION CIENCE/VOl. 9, No. 5, September-October 1998


6/14

KARL E. WEICK Improvisationas a Mindset

of a simple model, but increasingly feeds on these em-bellishments themselves to move farther rom the originalmelody and closer to a new composition. Whethertreatedas a noun or a verb, improvisation is guided activitywhose guidance comes from elapsed patternsdiscoveredretrospectively. Retrospect may range back as far as solosheard long before or back only as far as notes played justthis moment. Wherever the notes come from, their valueis determined by the patternthey make relative to a con-tinuing set of constraints formed by melody. The trick inimprovisation is, as Paul Desmond put it, to aim for "clar-ity, emotional communication on a not-too-obvious level,form in a chorus that doesn't hit you over the head but isthere if you look for it, humor, and construction thatsounds logical in anunexpected way" (Gioia 1988, p. 89).

Cognitionin ImprovisationAs this more detailed picture of improvisation begins toemerge, there is a recurring mplication that retrospect issignificantin its production.Injazz improvisation peopleact in order to think, which imparts a flavor of retrospec-tive sensemaking to improvisation. Ted Gioia puts it thisway: unlike an architect who works from plans and looksahead, a jazz musician cannot "look ahead at what he isgoing to play, but he can look behind at what he has justplayed; thus each new musical phrase can be shaped withrelation to what has gone before. He creates his formretrospectively" (Gioia 1988, p. 61). The jazz musician,who creates form retrospectively, builds something thatis recognizable from whatever is at hand, contributes toan emerging structurebeing built by the group in whichhe or she is playing, and creates possibilities for the otherplayers. Gioia' s description suggests that intention isloosely coupled to execution, that creation and interpre-tation need not be separated n time, and thatsensemakingrather than decision making is embodied in improvisa-tion. All three of these byproducts of retrospectcreate adifferent understandingof organized action than the onewe are more accustomed to where we commonly look forthe implementation of intentions, the interpretationofprior creations, and for decisions that presume priorsensemaking.When musicians describe their craft, the importanceofretrospectbecomes clear, as these excerpts make clear.

After you initiate the solo, one phrase determines what the nextis going to be. From the first note that you hear, you are re-sponding to what you've just played: you just said this on yourinstrument,and now that's a constant. What follows from that?And then the next phrase is a constant. What follows from that?And so on and so forth. And finally, let's wrap it up so thateverybody understands that that's what you're doing. It's like

language: you're talking, you're speaking, you're responding toyourself. When I play, it's like having a conversation with my-self. (Max Roach cited in Berliner 1994, p. 192)If you're not affected and influenced by your own notes whenyou improvise, then you're missing the whole essential point.(Lee Konitz cited in Berliner 1994, p. 193)When I start off, I don't know what the punch line is going tobe. (Buster Williams cited in Berliner 1994, p. 218)The importance of retrospect for improvisation im-poses new demands that suggest why organizational im-provisation may be rare. To add to a store of ironies thatare beginning to accumulate, not only is improvisationgrounded in forms, but it is also grounded in memory.Forms and memory and practice are all key determinantsof success in improvisation that are easy to miss if ana-lysts become preoccupied with spontaneous composition.Impliedin each musician's account is therelationshipthat"the larger and more complex the musical ideas artists

initially conceive, the greater the power of musical mem-ory and mental agility required to transform t" (Berliner1994, p. 194).To improve improvisation is to improve memory,whether it be organizational (Walsh and Ungson 1991),small group (Wegner 1987), or individual (Neisser andWinograd 1988). To improve memory is to gain retro-spective access to a greater range of resources. Also im-plied here is the importance of listening to oneself as wellas to other people. Prescriptionsin organizationalstudiestout the importance of listening to others (e.g., the bignews at GE is that Jack Welch discovered ears) but missthe fact that good improvisation also requires listening toone's own comments and building on them.The reader is referredback to the description of com-posing in the moment on p. 543 that starts "while theyare performing,"to see again how important memory isto improvisation. This importance is reflected in formaljazz study.

In one class, a teacher arbitrarily stopped the solos of studentsand requested that they perform their last phrase again. Whenthey could not manage this, he chastised them for being "likepeople who don't listen to themselves while they speak." As-piring improvisers must cultivate impressive musical recall inboth aural and physical terms if they are to incorporatewithintheirongoing conversation new ideas conceived inperformance.(Berliner 1994, p. 200)Viewed through the lens of retrospect, jazz looks likethis.The artist can start his work with almost random maneuver-abrush stroke on a canvas, an opening line, a musical motif-and then adapt his later moves to this initial gambit. A jazz



7/14


improviser, for example, might begin his solo with a descendingfive-note phrase and then see, as he proceeds, that he can usethis same five-note phrase in other contexts in the course of hisimprovisation.This is, in fact, what happens in Charlie Parker's muchanalyzedimprovisation on Gershwin's "Embraceable You." Parker be-gins with a five-note phrase (melodically similar to "you mustremember this" phrase in the song "As Time Goes By") whichhe employs in a variety of ingenious contexts throughout thecourse of his improvisation. Parker obviously created his soloon the spot (only a few minutes later he recorded a second takewith a completely different solo, almost as brilliant as the first),yet this should not lead us to make the foolish claim that hisimprovisation is formless. (Gioia 1988, p. 60)Viewed through the lens of retrospect, larger issueslook like this. If events are improvised and intention isloosely coupled to execution, the musician has littlechoice but to wade in and see what happens. What willactually happen won't be known until it is too late to doanything directly about it. All the person can do is justifyand make sensible, after the fact, whatever is visible inhindsight. Since that residue is irrevocable, and since allof this sensemaking activity occurs in public, and sincethe person has a continuing choice as to what to do withthat residual, this entire scenaiio seems to contain a mi-crocosm of the committingforces that affect creative cop-ing with the human condition (Weick 1989). Small won-der that Norman Mailer, in his famous essay "The WhiteNegro," described jazz as "American existentialism."This simple exposition of degrees of improvisation,forms for improvisation, and cognition in improvisationdoes not begin to exhaust the dimensions of jazz impro-visation that are relevant for organizational theory. Otherpotential themes of interest might include the ways inwhich "mistakes" provide the platform for musical"saves" that create innovations (e.g., Berliner 1994, p.191, 209, 210-216; Weick, 1995); skills of bricolage thatenable people to make do with whatever resources are athand (Harper 1987, Levi-Strauss 1966, Weick 1993); andsocial conventions that complement structures imposedby tunes (Bastien and Hostager, 1992).

Non-jazz Settingsfor ImprovisationWhat I have tried to show so far is that descriptions ofcomposing on the spur of the moment, and attempts toportray this process definitionally and dimensionally,comprise a language that allows analysts to maintain theimages of order and control that are central to organiza-tional theory and simultaneously introduce images of in-novation and autonomy. The ease with which improvi-sation mixes together these disparate images of control

and innovation (Nemeth and Staw 1989) becomes evenclearer if we look at other settings where improvisationseems to occur.A swift way to see the potential richness of improvi-sation as a metaphor is simply to look in the index ofBerliner's (1994) authoritativevolume under the heading,"Metaphorsfor aspects of improvisation" (p. 869). In hisanalyses Berliner finds that jazz improvisation is likenedto cuisine, dance, foundation building, a game of chess,a journey, landing an airplane, language, love, marriage,preparing for acting, painting, singing, sports, and actinglike a tape recorder (some drummers "are like tape re-corders. You play something and then they imitate it"; p.427). By a process of backward diagnosis, we thereforeexpect to find improvisation where people cook, move,construct, compete, travel, etc.Perhaps the setting that most resembles jazz improvi-sation, at least judging from its frequency of mention, islanguage acquisition and use (e.g., Ramos 1978, Suhor1986). Jazz musician Stan Getz describes improvisationas a way of conversing.

It's like a language. You learnthe alphabet,which are the scales.You learn sentences, which are the chords. And then you talkextemporaneously with the horn. It's a wonderful thing to speakextemporaneously, which is something I've never gotten thehang of. But musically I love to talk just off the top of my head.And that's what jazz music is all about. (Maggin 1996, p. 21)An example of the easy movement that is possible be-tween the two domains is Berliner's equating of impro-visation with rethinking.The activity [of jazz improvisation] is much like creative think-ing in language, in which the routine process is largely devotedto rethinking. By ruminating over formerly held ideas, isolatingparticular aspects, examining their relationships to the featuresof other ideas, and, perhaps, struggling to extend ideas in modeststeps and refine them, thinkers typically have the sense of delv-ing more deeply into the possibilities of their ideas. There are,of course, also the rarermoments when they experience discov-eries as unexpected flashes of insight and revelation.Similarly, a soloist's most salient experiences in the heat ofperformance involve poetic leaps of imagination to phrases thatare unrelated, or only minimally related, to the storehouse, aswhen the identities of formerly mastered patterns melt awayentirely within new recombinant shapes. (Berliner 1994, pp.216-217)Discussions of improvisationin groups arebuilt on im-ages of call and response, give and take (Wilson 1992),transitions, exchange, complementing, negotiating ashared sense of the beat (see Barrett's (1998) discussionof groove), offering harmonic possibilities to someoneelse, preserving continuity of mood, and cross-fertilization.Injazz, as in conversation, self-absorptionis

548 ORGANIZATION CIENCE/VO1.9, No. 5, September-October 1998


8/14


a problem. Wynton Marsalis observed that in playing, asin conversation, the worst people to talk to and play withare those who, "when you're talking, they're thinkingabout what they are going to tell you next, instead oflistening to what you're saying" (Berliner 1994, p. 401).What is also strikingaboutjazz conversation, as with con-versations in other settings, is the many levels at whichthey function simultaneously. Thus, jazz improvisationinvolves conversation between an emerging pattern andsuch things as formal features of the underlying compo-sition, previous interpretations, the player's own logic,responsiveness of the instrument, other musicians, andthe audience.Managerial activities, which are dominated by lan-guage and conversation, often become synonymous withimprovisation. Thus, we find Mangham and Pye (1991)proposing close parallels between improvisation and or-ganizing. Here is what they observe in top managementteams.

Our respondents assert that they learn what they are about intalking to and trusting their colleagues, thatthey often recognizeand develop their own views in the very process of seekingconsensus, that talking to others heightens their awareness,sharpens their focus. But they also assert that they are in com-mand, that they do plan and shape the future with clear intent,that they know where it is they are heading. (p. 77)Likejazz musicians, managers simultaneouslydiscovertargetsand aim at them, create rules and follow rules, andengage in directed activity often by being clearer aboutwhich directions are not right than about specified finalresults. Their activity is controlled but not predetermined

(Mangham and Pye 1991, p. 79).Here is how Mangham and Pye make sense of whatthey observe.What we are proposing is that in their daily interactions ourmanagers,no less than managerselsewhere, sustainappreciativesystems or improvise readinesses which reflect their values andbeliefs which, in turn, are likely to be influenced by and toinfluence received ideas about the doing of organizing. We holdthat much of the doing of organizing is either a matter of runningthrough a script or an instance of improvisation, and that bothof these activities relate to readings which have reference toappreciative systems which are, in turn, reflections of deeplyheld beliefs and values. (Mangham and Pye 1991, p. 36)What Mangham and Pye (1991) make clear is thatmanaging shares with jazz improvisationsuch features assimultaneous reflection and action (p. 79), simultaneousrule creation and rule following (p. 78), patternsof mu-tually expected responses akin to musicians movingthrough a melody together (p. 45), action informed bymelodies in the form of codes (p. 40), continuous mixing

of the expected with the novel (p. 24), and the feature ofa heavy reliance on intuitive grasp and imagination (p.18). These managers are not just Herbert Simon's (1989)chess grandmasters who solve problems by recognizingpatterns. And neither are jazz musicians. They are that,but more. The more is that they are also able to use theirexperience of "having been there" to recognize "thatoneis now somewhere else, and that that 'somewhere else' isnovel and may be valuable, notwithstanding the 'rules'which declare that one cannot get here from there"(Manghamand Pye 1991, p. 83).Daft and Weick (1984) suggest that when managersdeem an environment to be unanalyzable, they seek in-formation by means of strategies thatare "morepersonal,less linear, more ad hoc and improvisational" (p. 287).Sutcliffe and Sitkin (1996) have argued that total qualityinterventions basically involve what they call a "redistri-bution of improvisation rights." [See also Wruck andJensen (1994, p. 264) on allocation of decision rights toinitiation, ratification, implementation, and monitoring.]Successful quality management occurs when people arenewly authorized to paraphrase, embellish, and reassem-ble their prevailing routines, extemporaneously. Further-more, they are encouraged to think while doing ratherthan be guided solely by plans. Thus, when a firm "dis-seminates improvisation rights"it tends to encourage the"flexible treatmentof preplanned material,"which meansthat quality improvement and jazz improvisation areclosely aligned.Improvisation is common in public-sector organiza-tions and occurs often on the front-line, as Weiss (1980,p. 401) suggests.

Manymoves are mprovisations.acedwith anevent thatcallsfor response,officialsuse theirexperience, udgment,and in-tuition o fashion the response or the issue at hand.Thatre-sponsebecomesa precedent, nd whensimilarquestions omeup, the response s uncritically epeated.Consider he federalagency hatreceivesa call from a localprogram skinghow todealwithrequestsor enrollmentnexcessof theavailable um-berof slots. A staffmember espondswith off-the-cuff dvice.Within he next few weeks, programsn threemore cities callwith similarquestions,and staffrepeat he advice. Soon whatbeganas improvisationas hardenedntopolicy. (p. 401)Improvisation also occurs in settings as disparate as

psychotherapy,medical diagnosis, and combat.Improvisationis the heartof psychotherapy. Thus, it isnot surprisingto find that one of the most prominentandoriginal jazz pianists, Denny Zeitlin, is also a practicingpsychiatristwho sees patients approximately30 hoursperweek (Herrington 1989). Keeney (1990, p. 1) describesthe parallelsbetween therapy and improvisation.

ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VO1. 9, No. 5, September-October 1998 549


9/14


Given the unpredictablenature of a client's communication, thetherapist's participationin the theatrics of a session becomes aninvitation to improvise. In other words, since the therapist neverknows exactly what the client will say at any given moment, heor she cannot rely exclusively upon previously designed lines,pattern, or scripts. Although some orientations to therapy at-tempt to shape both the client and therapistinto a predeterminedform of conversation and story, every particularutterance in asession offers a unique opportunityfor improvisation, invention,innovation, or more simply, change. (Keeney 1990, p. 1)If therapy is viewed as improvisation, then therapiesare viewed as songs. The song can be played exactly asscored or with improvisation, but one would not expectan improvisational therapist to play only one song overand over anymorethan one would expect a jazz musicianto play only one song throughouta lifetime.Improvisation sometimes lies at the heart of medicaldiagnosis as well, but only when practitionersjettisonnarrowversions of decision rationalityin favor of impro-

visation. Starbuck (1993) suggests that good doctors donot base their treatmentson diagnosis. They leave diag-nosis out of the chain between symptoms and treatmentbecause it discards too much information and injects ran-dom errors. There are many more combinationsof symp-toms than there arediagnoses, just as there aremanymoretreatmentsthan diagnoses.(T)he links between symptoms and treatmentsare not the mostimportantkeys to finding effective treatments.Good doctorspaycareful attention to how patients respond to treatments.If a pa-tient gets better, current treatments are heading in the right di-rection. But, current treatments often do not work, or they pro-duce side-effects that require correction. The model ofsymptoms-diagnoses-treatmentsignores the feedback loop fromtreatmentsto symptoms, whereas this feedback loop is the mostimportantfactor. (Starbuck 1993, p. 87)The logic can be applied to academic research.Academic research is trying to follow a model like that taughtin medical schools. Scientists are translatingdata into theories,and promising to develop prescriptions from the theories. Dataare like symptoms, theories like diagnoses, and prescriptionslike treatments. Are not organizations as dynamic as humanbodies and similarly complex? Theories do not capture all theinformation in data, and they do not determine prescriptionsuniquely. Perhaps scientists could establish stronger links be-tween data and prescriptions if they did not introduce theoriesbetween them. Indeed, should not data be results of prescrip-tions? Should not theories come from observing relations be-tween prescriptions and subsequent data? (Starbuck 1993)Starbuck reminds us that, when faced with incompre-hensible events, there is often no substitute for actingyour way into an eventual understandingof them. Howcan I know what I am treatinguntil I see how it responds?

To organize for diagnosis is to design a setting that gen-erates rich records of symptoms, a plausible initial treat-ment, alertness to effects of treatments, and the capabilityto improvise from there on. Theories, diagnoses, strate-gies, and plans serve mostly as plausible interim storiesthat mix ignorance and knowledge in different patterns.Isenberg (1985, pp. 178-179), following the work ofBursztjahn et al. (1981), has also discussed what he callstreating a patientempirically. Like Starbuck, he notes thata diagnosis, if it is inferred at all, occurs retrospectivelyafter the patient is cured. Isenberg then generalizes thismedical scenario to battlefield situations. This applicationfleshes out a much earlier statement by Janowitz (1959,p. 481) that a combat soldier is not a rule-following bu-reaucrat who is "detached, routinized, self-contained;rather his role is one of constant improvisation.... Theimpact of battle destroys men, equipment, and organiza-tion, which need constantly and continually to be broughtback into some form of unity through on-the-spot impro-

visation." For Isenberg, the parallel between empiricalmedicine and empirical fighting is that in both casestactical maneuvers (treatment)will be undertaken with the pri-mary purpose of learning more about (diagnosing) the enemy'sposition, weaponry, and strength,as well as one's own strength,mobility, and understanding of the battlefield situation....Sometimes the officer will need to implement his or her solutionwith little or no problem definition and problem solving. Onlyafter taking action and seeing the results will the officer be ableto better define the problem that he or she may have alreadysolved! (pp. 178-179)The steady progression from jazz to other sites whereimprovisation is plausible culminates in the idea that liv-ing itself is an exercise in improvisation. People composetheir lives, as Mary CatherineBateson (1989) suggests inthis composite description.I have been interested in the arts of improvisation, which in-volve recombining partlyfamiliar materials in new ways, oftenin ways especially sensitive to context, interaction, and re-sponse.... (The idea of life as an improvisatory art) startedfrom a disgruntled reflection on my own life as a sort of des-perate improvisation in which I was constantly trying to makesomething coherent from conflicting elements to fit rapidlychanging settings. . . Improvisationcan be either a last resort oran established way of evoking creativity. Sometimes a patternchosen by default can become a path of preference.... Muchbiography of exceptional people is built around the image of aquest, a journey through a timeless landscape toward an endthat is specific, even though it is not fully known.... (Theseassumptions are increasingly inappropriate today because) flu-idity and discontinuity are central to the reality in which welive. Women have always lived discontinuous and contingentlives, but men today are newly vulnerable, which turns women'straditionaladaptations nto a resource.... The physical rhythms



10/14

KARL E. WEICK Improvisationas a Mindset

of reproduction and maturation create sharper discontinuities inwomen's lives than in men's, the shifts of puberty and meno-pause, of pregnancy, birth, and lactation, the mirroring adapta-tions to the unfolding lives of children, their departures andreturns, the ebb and flow of dependency, the birth of grand-children, the probability of widowhood. As a result, the abilityto shift from one preoccupation to another, to divide one's at-tention, to improvise in new circumstances, has always beenimportant to women. (pp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13)The newfound urgency in organizationalstudies to un-derstand improvisation and learning is symptomatic ofgrowing societal concerns about how to cope with dis-continuity, multiple commitments, interruptions, andtransient purposes that dissolve without warning. To un-derstand more about improvisation undoubtedly will helpus get a better grasp on innovation in organizations.That's important. But it is not nearly as important as isunderstandinghow people in general "combine familiarand unfamiliar components in response to new situations,

following an underlying grammar and an evolving aes-thetic"(Bateson 1989, p. 3). To watchjazz improvisationunfold is to have palpable contact with the human con-dition. Awe, at such moments, is understandable.

Implications for TheoryWhile several implications for organizational theory havealready been mentioned, I want to suggest some of therichness implicit in improvising by brief mention of itsrelation to postmodem organizational theory and to par-adox.The idea of improvisation is important for organiza-tional theory because it gathers together compactly andvividly a set of explanations suggesting that to understandorganizationis to understandorganizing or, as Whitehead(1929) put it, to understand "being" as constituted by its"becoming."This perspective, found in previous workbypeople such as Allport (1962), Buckley (1968), Follett(1924), Mangham and Pye (1991), Maruyama (1963),Mintzberg and McHugh (1985), and Weick (1969, 1979)has been newly repackaged as the "unique intellectualpreoccupation of 'postmodern' organizational theorists"(Chia 1996, p. 44). Thus, we find people talking oncemore about the ontology of becoming, using images al-ready familiar to process theorists and musicians alike,images such as emergence, fragments, micro-practicesthat enact order, reaccomplishment, punctuation, recur-sion, reification, relations, transcience, flux, and "a soci-ology of verbs rather than a sociology of nouns" (Chia1996, p. 49). If theorists take improvisation seriously,they may be able to give form to the idea of "becomingrealism"(Chia 1996) and add to what we already know.

They may, for example, be able to do more with thesimultaneous presence of seeming opposites in organi-zations than simply label them as paradoxes. There iscurrently an abundance of conceptual dichotomies thattempt analysts to choose between things like control andinnovation, exploitation and exploration, routine and non-routine, and automatic and controlled, when the issue inmost organizations is one of proportion and simultaneityrather than choice. Improvisation is a mixture of the pre-composed and the spontaneous, just as organizational ac-tion mixes together some proportion of control with in-novation, exploitation with exploration, routine withnonroutine, automatic with controlled. The normally use-ful concepts of routine (Gersick and Hackman 1990,Cohen and Bacdayan 1994) and innovation (Amabile1988, Dougherty 1992) have become less powerful asthey have been stretched informally to include improvi-sation. Thus, a routine becomes something both repeti-tious and novel, and the same is true for innovation. Asimilar loss of precision [Reed (1991) refers to it as a"rout"]has occurredin the case of decision making wherepresumptions of classical rationality are increasingly al-tered to incorporate tendencies toward spontaneous re-vision. Neither decisions nor rationality can be recog-nized in the resulting hodgepodge. What is commonamong all of these instances of lost precision is that theyattempt to acknowledge the existence of improvisation,but do so without giving up the priorcommitment to sta-bility and orderin the form of habit, repetition, automaticthinking, rational constraints, formalization, culture, andstandardization.The result, when theorists graft mecha-nisms for improvisation onto concepts that basically arebuilt to explain order, is a caricatureof improvisationthatignores nuances highlighted in previous sections. Thesecaricatures leave out propertiesof organizational impro-visation such as the tension involved in mixing the in-tended and the emergent and the strong temptationto sim-plify in favor of one or the other;the possibility that ordercan be accomplished by means of ongoing ambivalentmixtures of variationand retentionthatpermit adaptationto dynamic situations; the chronic temptation to fall backon well-rehearsed fragments to cope with current prob-lems even though these problems don't exactly matchthose present at the time of the earlier rehearsal;the useof emergent structures as sources for embellishmentwhich enables quick distancing from previous solutions;the close resemblance between improvising and editing;the sensitivity of improvisationto originating conditions;and the extensive amount of practice necessary to pull offsuccessful improvisation. The remedy would seem to liein a variety of directions such as positing routines, in-novation, and decision making as inputs to improvisation



11/14


akin to melodies (e.g., people improvised on this routine);treating improvisation as a distinct form of each (e.g., thisroutine was executed improvisationally); treating each ofthe three as a distinct way to engage in organizationalimprovisation (e.g., routinizing of improvisation); and,treating improvisation as a stand alone process like theother three consisting of a fixed sequence of conceiving,articulating,and remembering.

Implications for PracticeThe concept of improvisation also engages several con-cepts in mainstreamorganizationalpractice and likewisesuggests ways to strengthen them. For example, if timeis a competitive advantage then people gain speed if theydo more things spontaneously without lengthy prior plan-ning exercises (Crossan and Sorrenti 1996, p. 4). To domore things spontaneously is to become more skilled atthinking on your feet, a skill that is central in improvi-sation even though it is not given much attention in ac-counts of managerial action. Improvisation has implica-tions for staffing. Young musicians who are laden withtechnique often tend to be poor at improvisationbecausethey lack voices, melodies, and feeling (Berliner 1994, p.792, ftn. 17; Davis 1986, p. 87), which sounds a lot likethe liability thatcorporationsassociate with newly mintedMBAs. The remedy for students is to mix listening withhistory, practice, modeling, and learning the fundamen-tals, which can be tough if they are driven, instrumental,in a hurry, and have little sense of what they need toknow. The irony is that it is this very haste which doomsthem to be a minor player who sounds like every othertechnique-laden minor player, none of whom have muchto say.If we treat the preceding description of improvisationas if it contained the shell of a set of prescriptions foradaptive organizing, then here are some possible char-acteristics of groups with a high capability for improvi-sation:1. Willingness to forego planning and rehearsing infavor of acting in real time;2. Well developed understanding of internal re-sources and the materials that are at hand;3. Proficient without blueprintsand diagnosis;

4. Able to identify or agree on minimal structures orembellishing;5. Open to reassembly of and departuresfrom rou-tines;6. Rich and meaningful set of themes, fragments, orphrases on which to draw for ongoing lines of action;7. Predisposed to recognize partial relevance of pre-vious experience to present novelty;

8. High confidence in skill to deal with nonroutineevents;9. Presence of associates similarly committed to andcompetent at impromptu making to;10. Skillful at paying attention to performanceof oth-ers and building on it in order to keep the interactiongoing and to set up interesting possibilities for one an-other.11. Able to maintain the pace and tempo at which oth-ers are extemporizing.12. Focused on coordination here and now and not dis-tracted by memories or anticipation;13. Preference for and comfort with process ratherthan structure, which makes it easier to work with on-going development, restructuring,and realization of out-comes, and easier to postpone the question, what will ithave amounted to?

Limits to ImprovisationIf theoristsconceptualize organizations as sites where theactivity of improvisation occurs, this may offset their ten-dency to dwell on themes of control, formalization, androutine. It may also help them differentiate the idea of"flexibility,"which tends to be used as a catchall for theinnovative remainder. Nevertheless, there are good rea-sons why the idea of improvisation may have limited rele-vance for organizations. If organizations change incre-mentally-punctuations of an equilibrium seldommaterialize out of thin air without prior anticipations-then those incremental changes are more like interpreta-tion and embellishment than variation or improvisation.Thus, even if organizations wanted to improvise, theywould find it hard to do so, and probably unnecessary.Improvisation in one unit can also compound the prob-lems faced by other units to which it is tightly coupled.Furthermore, bursts of improvisation can leave a firmwith too many new products and processes to support(Miner et al. 1996, p. 26).The intention of a jazz musician is to produce some-thing that comes out differently than it did before,whereas organizations typically pride themselves on theopposite, namely, reliable performance that producessomething that is standardized and comes out the sameway it did before. It is hard to imagine the typical man-ager feeling "guilty"when he or she plays things workedout before. Yet most jazz musicians performwith the in-tention of "limiting the predictable use of formerly mas-tered vocabulary" (Berliner 1994, p. 268). Parentheti-cally, it is interesting to note that the faster the tempo atwhich a musician plays, the more likely he or she is tofall back on the predictable use of a formerly mastered



12/14


vocabulary. It is difficult to be affected by one's ownnewly created notes when musical ideas have to be con-ceived and executed at 84ighth notes per second (tempoof one quarter note = 310). At extremely fast temposthere is no choice but to use preplanned, repetitive ma-terial to keep the performance going. This suggests thatthere are upper limits to improvisation.If this is true thenhigh-velocity organizations (Eisenhardt 1989)-whichresemble jazz ensembles in many ways-become espe-cially interesting as sites where the increasing tempo ofactivity may encourage, not improvisation, but a suddenreversion back to old ideas thathave no competitive edge.A key issue in high-velocity organizations is just howmuch of a constraint velocity really is. Recall that in thecase of jazz improvisation, creativeprocesses continuallystruggle under the unrelenting demands of a steady beat.Injazz improvisation, deadlines are reckoned in secondsand minutes whereas high-velocity organizations dealwith deadlines reckoned in hours and days. While it istrue that pressure is pressure, it is also true that at somespeeds memory plays an increasingly large role in theproduct produced. This suggests that high-velocity or-ganizations may have more latitude for improvisationthan do jazz ensembles, but only up to a point. High ve-locity organizations may be vulnerable in ways similartothose described by Starbuck and Milliken (1988) andMiller (1993). Success encourages simplification, morerisk taking, less slack, and accelerated production, all ofwhich shrink the time available for adaptive improvisa-tion and force people back on older ideas and away fromthe very innovating that made them successful in the firstplace.Even if organizations are capable of improvisation, itis not clear they need to do it. One of the realities in jazzperformanceis that the typical audience is none the wiserif a musician makes a mistake and buries it, plays a mem-orized solo, solves a tough problem, inserts a clever ref-erence to a predecessor, or is playing with a broken in-strument and working aroundits limits. If composing inreal time is difficult and risky, and if the customer is un-able to appreciate risk taking anyway, then the only in-centives to take those risks lie with one's own standardsand with fellow musicians. Those incentives may be suf-ficient to hold sustainedimprovisationin place. However,most organizations may not rewardoriginality under theassumption thatcustomersdon't either. If we add to thesecharacteristics the fact that the musical consequences ina jazz performance are irreversible whereas managers trynever to get into anythingwithout a way out, and the factthat musicians love surprises but managers hate them,then we begin to see that improvisation may be absent

from the organizational literature,not because we haven'tlooked for it, but because it isn't there.My bet is that improvising is close to the root processin organizing and that organizing itself consists largely ofthe embellishment of small structures. Improvising maybe a tacit, taken-for-grantedquality in all organizing thatwe fail to see because we are distracted by more con-spicuous artifacts such as structure, control, authority,planning, charters, and standard operating procedures.The process that animates these artifacts may well consistof ongoing efforts to rework and reenact them in relationto unanticipated ideas and conditions encountered in themoment. In organizing as in jazz, artifacts and fragmentscohere because improvised storylines impose modest or-der among them in ways that accommodate to their pe-culiarities. Order through improvisation may benefitsome organizations under some conditions and be a lia-bility under other conditions. These contingencies needto be spelled out. But so too does the sense in whichimprovisation may be part of the infrastructurepresent inall organizing.

ConclusionA final sense in which jazz improvisation mirrors life iscapturedin an entry from Norman Mailer's journal datedDecember 17, 1954 (source of this quotation is un-known).Jazz is easy to understand once one has the key, somethingwhich is constantly triumphingand failing. Particularly n mod-ern jazz, one notices how Brubeck and Desmond, off entirelyon their own with nothing but their nervous system to sustainthem, wander through jungles of invention with society contin-ually ambushing them. So the excitement comes not from vic-tory but from the effort merely to keep musically alive. So,Brubeck, for example will to his horror discover that he haswandered into a musical clich6, and it is thrilling to see how heattempts to come out of it, how he takes the clich6, plays withit, investigates it, pulls it apart, attempts to put it together intosomething new and sometimes succeeds, and sometimes fails,and can only go on, having left his record of defeat at thatparticularmoment. That is why modernjazz despite its apparentlyricalness is truly cold, cold like importantconversations orHenry James. It is cold and it is nervous and it is under tension,just as in a lunch between an editor and an author,each makesmistakes and successes, and when it is done one hardly knowswhat has happened and whether it has been for one's good orfor one's bad, but an "experience," has taken place. It is alsowhy I find classical music less exciting for that merely evokesthe echo of a past "experience"-it is a part of society, one ofthe noblest parts, perhaps,but still not of the soul. Only the echoof the composer's soul remains. And besides it consists too en-tirely of triumphsratherthan of life.



13/14


Life in organizations is filled with potential inventionsthat get ambushed when people slide into old cliches.Pulling oneself out is tense work. It can be cold work.Occasionally there is triumph. Usually, however, as peo-ple at Hondaput it, "A 1per cent success rate is supportedby mistakes made 99 per cent of the time" (Nonaka andTakeuchi 1995, p. 232). Jazz improvisation, itself built of"momentsof rare beauty intermixed with technical mis-takes and aimless passages" (Gioia 1988, p. 66), teachesus that there is life beyond routines, formalization, andsuccess. To see the beauty in failures of reach is to learnan important lesson thatjazz improvisationcan teach.1Endnote'This essay expands on themes mentioned in my brief remarksin Van-couver on August 8, 1995 (e.g., "defining characteristics of improvi-sation," "examples of improvisation in non-musical settings") and itretains all specifics used to ground those themes (e.g., Pyle and Gioiaon adroit ad hoc action, Mingus on melodies, Keeney on psychother-apy, and Mailer on society's proneness to ambush invention). Theseexpansions are a perfect example of "reworkingprecomposed materialin relation to unanticipated ideas" conceived during the writing itself,which is simply another way of saying, it is an exhibit of improvisation.ReferencesAllport, F. H. 1962. A structuronomic conception of behavior: Individ-

ual and collective. Jolurnal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.64 3-30.

Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in orga-nizations. Research in Organizational Behavior. 10 123-167.JAI, Greenwich, CT.

Barrett, Frank. 1998. Creativity and Improvisation in Jazz and Orga-nizations: Implications for Organizational Learning. OrganizationScience 9 5 605-622.

Bastien, D. T., T. J. Hostager. 1992. Cooperation as communicativeaccomplishment: A symbolic interaction analysis of an impro-vised jazz concert. Communication Stludies.43 92-104.

Bateson, M. C. 1989. Composing a Life. Atlantic Monthly, New York.Berliner, Paul F. 1994. Thinking in Jazz: The InfiniteArt of Improvi-

sation. Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Buckley, W. 1968. Society as a complex adoptive system. W. Buckley,

ed. Modern Systems Researchfor the Behavioral Scientist Aldine,Chicago, IL. 490-513.

Bursztjahn, H., A. Feinbloom, R. Hamm, A. Brodsky 1981. MedicalChoices, Medical Chances. Dell, New York.

Chia, R. 1996. The problem of reflexivity in organizationalresearch:Towards a postmodern science of organization. Organization. 331-59.

Cohen, M. D., P. Bacdayan. 1994. Organizational routines are storedas procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Orga-nization Science. 5 554-568.

Crossan, M., M. Sorrenti. 1996. Making sense of improvisation. Un-published manuscript. Univ. of Western Ontario.

Daft, R., K. Weick. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as inter-pretation systems. Academy of Management Review. 9 284-295.

Davis, F. 1986. In the Moment. Oxford, New York.

Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretivebarriers to successful product inno-vation in large firms. Organization Science. 3 179-202.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 ManagenmentJournal. 32

543-576.Follett, M. P. 1924. Creative Experience. Longmans, Green, NewYork.Gersick, C. J. G., J. R. Hackman. 1990. Habitual routines in task-

performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-sion Processes. 47 65-97.

Gioia, T. 1988. The ImperfectArt. Oxford, New York.Harper, D. 1987. Working Knowledge. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chi-cago, IL.

Herrington, B. S. 1989. Merging of music, psychiatry yields richlycomposed life. Psychiatric News. April 7, 16 +.

Isenberg, D. J. 1985. Some hows and whats of managerial thinking:Implications for future army leaders. J. G. Hunt and J. D. Blair,eds., Leadership on the Future Battlefield. Pergamon-Brassey's,Washington, DC. 168-181.

Janowitz, M. 1959. Changing patternsof organizational authority:Themilitary establishment. Administrative Science Quarterly.3 473-493.Keeney, B.P. 1990. Improvisational Therapy. Guilford, New York.Kernfeld, B. 1995. What to Listenfor in Jazz. Yale Univ., New Haven,

CT.Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. The Savage Mind. Univ. of Chicago, Chicago,IL.Maggin, D. L. 1996. Stan Getz: A Life in Jazz. Morrow, New York.Mangham, I., A. Pye. 1991. The Doing of Managing. Blackwell, Ox-

ford, UK.Maruyama, M. 1963. The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifyingmutual causal processes. American Scientist. 51 164-179.McDaniel, Reuben R., Jr. 1996. Strategic leadership: A view from

quantumand chaos theories. W. J. Duncan, P. Ginter,L. Swayne,eds., Handbook of Health Care Management. Blackwell, Oxford,UK.

Miller, D. 1993. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Manage-ment Review. 18 116-138.Miner, A. J., C. Moorman, C. Bassoff. 1996. Organizational improvi-sation in new product development. Unpublished manuscript.University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.Mintzberg, H., A. McHugh. 1985. Strategy formation in an adhocracy.Administrative Science Quarterly. 30 160-197.Neisser, U., E. Winograd,eds. 1988. Remembering Reconsidered: Eco-

logical and Traditional Approaches to the Study of Memory.Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.Nemeth, C. J., B. M. Staw. 1989. The tradeoffs of social control andinnovation in groups and organizations. L. Berkowitz, ed. Ad-vances in Experimental Social Psychology. 22 175-210. Aca-demic, San Diego, CA.Nonaka, I., H. Takeuchi. 1995. TheKnowledge-creating Company.Ox-ford, New York.

Perry, L. T. 1991. Strategic improvising: How to formulate and imple-ment competitive strategies in concert. OrganizationalDynamics.19 4, 51-64.Ramos, R. 1978. The use of improvisation and modulation in naturaltalk: An alternative approach to conversational analysis. N. K.



14/14


Denzin, ed. Studies in Symbolic Interaction. 1 319-337. JAI,Greenwich, CT.

Reed, M. 1991. Organizations and rationality: The odd couple. Journalof Management Studies. 28 559-567.

Ryle, G. 1979. Improvisation. G. Ryle, ed. On Thinking. Blackwell,London, UK. 121en130.

Schon, D. A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.Schuller, G. 1968. Early Jazz. Oxford, New York.

Simon, H. A. 1989. Making management decisions: The role of intu-ition and emotion. W. H. Agor, ed. Intuition in Organizations.Sage, Newbury Park, CA. 23-39.

Stacey, R. D. 1992. Managing the Unknowable. Jossey-Bass, San Fran-cisco, CA.

Starbuck, W. H. 1993. "Watch where you step!" or Indiana Starbuckamid the perils of academe (Rated PG). A. G. Bedeion, ed. Man-agement Laureates. 3 65-110. JAI, Greenwich, CT.F. Milliken. 1988. Challenger: Fine tuning the odds until some-thing breaks. Journal of Management Studies. 25 319-340.

Suhor, C. 1986. Jazz improvisationand language performance:parallelcompetitiveness. ETC. 43 4, 133-140.

Sutcliffe, K. M., S. Sitkin. 1996. New perspectives on process man-agement: Implications for 21st century organizations.C. Cooper,S. Jackson, eds. Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Wiley,New York.

Tyler, S. A., M. G. Tyler. 1990. Foreword. B. P. Keeney, ed. Improv-isational Therapy. ix-xi. Guilford, New York.

Walsh, J. P., G. R. Ungson. 1991. Organizational memory. Academyof Management Review. 16 57-91.

Wegner, D. M. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysisof the group mind. B. Mullen, G. R. Goethals, eds. Theories ofGroup Behavior. 185-208. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Weick, K. E. 1969. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. 2d ed. Addison-

Wesley, Reading, MA.1989. Organized improvisation: 20 years of organizing. Com-

munication Studies. 40 241-248.1993. Organizational redesign as improvisation. G. P. Huber,

W. H. Glick, eds. Organization Change and Redesign. Oxford,New York. 346-379.1995. Creativity and the aesthetics of imperfection. C. M. Ford,

D. A. Gioia, eds. Creative Action in Organizations. 187-192.Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Weiss, C. H. 1980. Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowl-edge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization. 1 381-404.

Whitehead, A. N. 1929. Process and Reality. Macmillan, New York.Wilson, R. C. 1992. Jazz: A metaphor for high-performance teams.

J. A. Heim, D. Compton, eds. Manufacturing Systems. 238-244.National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Wruck, K. H., M. C. Jensen. 1994. Science, specific knowledge, andtotal quality management. Journal of Accounting and Economics.18 247-287.

ORGANIZATION CIENCE/Vol. 9, No. 5, September-October 1998 555

weick1.pdf

Documents

Transcript of weick1.pdf