LBS Research Online
P V Mannucci, D C Orazi and K De Valck
Developing Improvisation Skills: The Influence of Individual Orientations
Article
This version is available in the LBS Research Online repository:
https://lbsresearch.london.edu/
id/eprint/1568/
Mannucci, P V, Orazi, D C and De Valck, K
(2021)
Developing Improvisation Skills: The Influence of Individual Orientations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 66 (3). pp. 612-658. ISSN 0001-8392
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220975697
SAGE Publications (UK and US)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000183922...
Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LBS Research Online for purposes of
research and/or private study. Further distribution of the material, or use for any commercial gain, is
not permitted.
Administrative Science Quarterly
1–47
Ó The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0001839220975697
journals.sagepub.com/home/asq
Developing Improvisation
Skills: The Influence
of Individual Orientations
Pier Vittorio Mannucci,
1
Davide C. Orazi,
2
and Kristine de Valck
3
Abstract
The growing relevance of improvisation for successful organizing calls for a
better understanding of how individuals develop improvisation skills. While
research has investigated the role of training and simulations, little is known
about how individuals develop improvisation skills when formal training is not
an option and how individual-level factors shape development trajectories. We
explore these issues in a longitudinal qualitative analysis of live action role-
playing. Our findings reveal a three-stage process of improvisation develop-
ment shaped by the presence of task and social structures, which act as both
constraints and resources. Moreover, our findings illuminate how collaborative
and competitive orientations shape whether improvisers perceive these
structures as a resource that they need to nurture and renew (i.e., collabora-
tive) or to seize and exploit (i.e., competitive). We also show that individual
orientations are not always enduring but can change over time, engendering
four types of improvisation development trajectories. Our work provides a lon-
gitudinal account of how individual orientations shape the process of improvisa-
tion development. In so doing, we also explain why individuals who are skilled
improvisers do not necessarily improvise effectively as a collective, and we
reconcile different conceptualizations of improvisation.
Keywords: improvisation, development, orientations, structures, live action
role-playing
Improvisation has become a key capability for contemporary organizations. As
change becomes more difficult to anticipate, employees need to go beyond
just following procedures and executing strategic plans to quickly adapt to new
circumstances. Successful organizing thus increasingly depends on employees’
ability to improvise (Miner, Bassoff, and Moorman, 2001; Patriotta and Gruber,
2015; Leberecht, 2016). Defined as the spontaneous process by which plan-
ning and execution happen at the same time (Crossan and Sorrenti, 1997;
1
London Business School
2
Monash University
3
HEC Paris
Moorman and Miner, 1998a; Crossan et al., 2005; Vera and Crossan, 2005),
individual improvisation can make the difference between death and survival,
both metaphorically (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997) and literally (Weick, 1993,
1996; Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011).
Despite the growing relevance of improvisation for successful organizing,
much of what we know on improvisation focuses on the contextual factors that
allow individuals to improvise when the situation requires it (e.g., Vera and
Crossan, 2005; Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011; Patriotta and Gruber, 2015). A
central question remains: how do individuals develop improvisation skills
(Barrett, 1998; Hatch, 1998)? While a few studies investigate how improvisa-
tion develops as an enduring skill in the context of training programs and
simulation-based learning (Rudolph, 2003; Rudolph and Raemer, 2004; Vera
and Crossan, 2005), these studies do not focus on how individual factors affect
this process. But individuals who undergo similar training can exhibit very differ-
ent degrees of improvisation skills (Weick, 1993), thus suggesting the presence
of individual differences in improvisation development. Moreover, formal train-
ing is not always an option: employees often must ‘‘hit the floor running’’ and
learn improvisation skills while working on their tasks (Weick, 1993; Bechky
and Okhuysen, 2011). As this process is complex and difficult (Barrett, 1998;
Fisher and Barrett, 2019), there is a need to better understand how individuals
develop improvisation skills over time and how this process is influenced by
individual factors.
To this end, we conduct a longitud inal qualitative analysis of individual
improvisation devel opment in a con text characterized by improvisational
efforts that are both transparently observable and sustained over time: live
action role-playing (LARP). A LARP game is an immersive narrative game in
which players assume the r oles of fictional characters in a story enacted
within a ph enomenol ogical frame (Orazi and Cruz, 2019). During LARP,
players develop their impro visation skills ‘‘on the task’’ while emb edded in
an interactive, interdependent, dynamic context. LARP represents a meta-
phor for organ izing (Hatch, 1998; Meyer, Frost, and Weick, 199 8) that reveals
in-depth insights into how improvisation developme nt unfolds. Our fin dings
reveal a three-stage process of individual improvisation deve lopment shaped
by the presence of task and social structures, which act as both constraints
and resources. Shining the spotlight on the individual, our findings illuminate
how competitive and collaborative orientations change the way indivi duals
perceive and use these structures and, consequently, the trajectory of impro-
visation develop ment.
INDIVIDUAL IMPROVISATION
Henry Mintzberg (1973; see also Mintzberg and Waters, 1985) introduced the
notion of improvisation to management research to explain how some strate-
gies adaptively emerge as a reaction to environmental shifts. Karl Weick (1993:
642) later formalized this notion: investigating the deaths of 13 firefighters in
the infamous Mann Gulch fire disaster, he noted that the three survivors, in a
‘‘burst of improvisation,’’ were able to escape the fire as a result of their ability
to think on their feet and act quickly. This landmark work inspired research on
how improvisation aids in situations characterized by a lack of predictability due
to frequent surprises and time pressure. A first research stream focuses on
2 Administrative Science Quarterly (2020)
how improvisation helps organizations solve emergent, unexpected problems
and has drawn insights from fast-response, hig h-reliability settings such as
firefighting, SWAT teams, and emerge ncy me dical teams (e.g., We ick, 1993;
Klein et al., 2006; Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011). A second research stream
focuses on improvisation intended to generate creative and innovative
outcomes, investigating artistic settings such as jazz and improvisational the-
ater (e.g., Barrett, 1998; Crossan, 1998; Weick, 1998; Vera an d C rossan,
2004). Scholars have also explored improvisation in more co nventional
contexts such as information systems development (Magni et al., 2009),
new product development (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Miner, Bassoff, and
Moorman, 2001), R&D (Vera et al., 2016), law firms (Smets, Morris, and
Greenwood, 2012), and news organ izations (Patriotta and Gruber, 2015).
Findings from these settings ind icate t hat improvisations geared toward solv-
ing emergent problems and toward creating novel outcomes are not mutually
exclusive; they coexist.
While scholars have proposed different definitions of improvisation, these
definitions share a core element, which is the convergence of planning and
execution (Crossan et al., 2005), such that ‘‘the more proximate the design and
implementation of an activity in time, the more that activity is improvisational’’
(Moorman and Miner, 1998a: 698). Moreover, they all describe improvisation
as a reactive, spontaneous action in response to unanticipated occurrences, in
which individuals find a way to manage the unexpected problem (Weick, 1993;
Moorman and Miner, 1998a, 1998b; Miner, Bassof, and Moorman, 2001) and/
or create something novel in response to the unknown (Barrett, 1998; Zack,
2000; Kamoche and Cunha, 2001; Vera and Crossan, 2004, 2005). Drawing on
these shared definitional elements, we developed a working definition of
improvisation that we used as our compass as we navigated between theory
and the field: improvisation is a spontaneous action in response to unantici-
pated occurrences that is characterized by the convergence of planning and
execution.
The ability to improvise cannot be taken for granted. In the words of Joshua
Funk, artistic director of Second City, the most prestigious improvisation the-
ater and school: ‘‘It takes years of work before you can get good at improv’’
(Lehrer, 2012: 102). While previous research has acknowledged the difficulties
and complexities associated with improvisation development (Weick, 1993;
Barrett, 1998; Peplowski, 1998), we know little about how improvisation skills
develop. Going from low to high skill in improvising means expanding the reper-
toire of skills at one’s disposal (Barrett, 1998; Vera and Crossan, 2005). These
skills are usually acquired and come to life in a social setting. While other types
of skill development may benefit from observation and interaction (e.g., Darr,
Argote, and Epple, 1995; Gino et al., 2010), the interplay with others and the
social environment more broadly are at the core of improvisation development
(Barrett, 1998; Peplowski, 1998; Kamoche and Cunha, 2001). Thus, we need
to know more about structures involved in improvisation and how individuals
use them.
Improvisation and Minimal Structures
Research has emphasized the importance of minimal structures, or semi-
structures, in fostering improvisation (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Barrett,
Mannucci, Orazi, and de Valck 3
1998; Kamoche and Cunha, 2001). Minimal structures provide the ‘‘frameworks
for understanding’’ (Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld, 2005) necessary to afford
improvisational action without imposing excessive constraints. While exces-
sively articulated structures can inhibit the spontaneity and creativity at the
heart of improvisation, their absence can lead to organizational chaos and ineffi-
ciency (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997). Structures thus represent the boundaries
within which improvisation takes place and the elements on which improvisa-
tion is built (Barrett, 1998; Kamoche and Cunha, 2001; Miner, Bassof, and
Moorman, 2001; Vera and Crossan, 2005). Extant literature has highlighted the
importance of task-related structures, such as role systems and routines
(Kamoche and Cunha, 2001; Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011; Patriotta and
Gruber, 2015), and of social structures, such as group composition and trust
systems (Barrett, 1998; Vera and Crossan, 2004, 2005). Importantly, the rela-
tionship between structures and improvisation is not monodirectional:
structures bound and affect improvisational action and its effectiveness (Brown
and Eisenhardt, 1997; Kamoche and Cunha, 2001; Vera and Crossan, 2005),
and new structures can emerge from improvisational efforts (e.g., Barrett,
1998; Miner, Bassof, and Moorman, 2001).
While scholars have thoroughly explored the importance of structures for
the emergence of improvisational behavior, there is scant research that
explores their role in shaping improvisation development. Notably, Vera and
Crossan’s (2005: 209) study of improvisational theater shows that the presence
of ‘‘ready-mades,’’ such as short motifs and cliche
´
s, allows individuals to
develop ‘‘memory about scenes created in the past that actors can recombine
in present improvisations.’’ This finding reveals an important gap in extant liter-
ature, as it demonstrates that individual factors, such as cognitive effort and
memory, influence the use of structures: if a structure is not remembered, it is
as if it does not exist. Most improvisation research has treated the relationships
between individuals and structures as homogeneous, implying that everyone
approaches structures in the same way (for an exception, see Banin et al.,
2016). By contrast, management research suggests that individuals approach
structures in different ways and that how they perceive and use them, rather
than their mere availability, engenders entirely different behaviors (Baker and
Nelson, 2005; Sonenshein, 2014). Structures are not objective elements
equally acknowledged by all employees but are dependent on individuals’
perceptions (Ranson, Hinings, and Greenwood, 1980; Smircich and Stubbart,
1985; Weick, 1993). What constitutes a constraint for one employee can be a
resource for another, and what is a common good for one might be a resource
to be seized and exploited by another.
These perceptual differences are likely to be relevant for improvisation devel-
opment: the way structures are perceived and used can affect the repertoire of
skills and responses developed by employees (Barrett, 1998; Rudolph, 2003).
As improvisation hinges on individuals’ ability to build ‘‘social and cognitive
capacity’’ to access and use existing structures (Barrett, 1998; Kamoche and
Cunha, 2001; Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011), understanding how individuals per-
ceive and use structures is of capital importance to uncover how individual
improvisation develops.
4 Administrative Science Quarterly (2020)