Improvisation and innovative performance in teams.

This paper builds on the principles and insights from improvisational theater to unpack the nature of collective improvisation and to consider what it takes to do it well and to innovate. Furthermore, we discuss the role of training in enhancing the incidence and effectiveness of improvisation. We propose that two common misconceptions about improvisation have hindered managers' understanding of how to develop the improvisational skill. First, the spontaneous facet of improvisation tends to be overemphasized, and second, there is a general assumption that improvisation always leads to positive performance. Our goal is to clear up the conceptual confusion about improvisation by laying out the various aspects of preparation that are required for effective improvisation. In our theoretical model, we delineate how the improvisational theater principles of "practice," "collaboration," "agree, accept, and add," "be present in the moment," and "draw on reincorporation and ready-mades" can be used to understand what it takes to improvise well in work teams and to create a context favoring these efforts. Our findings support a contingent view of the impact of improvisation on innovative performance. Improvisation is not inherently good or bad; however, improvisation has a positive effect on team innovation when combined with team and contextual moderating factors. We also provide initial evidence suggesting that the improvisational skill can be learned by organizational members through training. Our results shed light on the opportunities provided by training in improvisation and on the challenges of creating behavioral change going beyond the individual to the team and, ultimately, to the organization.

Key words: improvisation; creativity; spontaneity; performance; innovation; strategy; improvisational theater; teams

**********

The ability to innovate is critical for organizational survival (Amabile 1988). As firms strive for faster cycle times and more innovative solutions, the spontaneous and creative facets of improvisation have been proposed as a pathway to understand and begin acting on what it takes to innovate (Crossan 1997a). In fact, the role of improvisation in innovation processes such as new product development has attracted growing attention (e.g., Eisenhardt and Tabrizi 1995, Moorman and Miner 1998b, Kamoche and Cunha 2001). Brown and Eisenhardt (1998, p. 33) argue that improvisation "enables managers to continuously and creatively adjust to change and to consistently move products and services out the door," and Poolton and Ismail (2000) identify improvisation as a key area of new development in the innovation field.

In an effort to understand how individuals work together in teams to innovate and adapt in real time, academics have turned to improvisational jazz and theater (e.g., Crossan 1998, Hatch 1998) and asked: If musicians and actors can learn to improvise and to be innovative in real time, can these skills also be learned by work teams in organizations? Despite the considerable attention given to the need for teams to be more nimble and to develop an improvisational capability, little is known about how team members can learn this skill and successfully apply it in organizations. Furthermore, for training in improvisation to be successful, firms need to create a safe context for improvisation to not only happen, but to be effective (Crossan and Sorrenti 1997). Training interventions have been designed for business organizations based on exercises used by actors in the world of improvisational theater (e.g., Crossan 1997b), but limited theoretical work is available on what it takes to develop this skill. Also, there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting the success of any improvisational training effort.

We believe that two common misconceptions about improvisation have hindered managers' understanding of how to develop the improvisational skill in work teams. First, the spontaneous facet of improvisation tends to be overemphasized in the extant literature. When improvisation is restricted to the ability to "think on your feet," managers risk confusing improvisation with random moments of brilliance and conclude that either you have this ability or you do not. There is, however, much preparation and study behind effective improvisation (Weick 1998). Improvisation relies on rules and routines that are preestablished and rehearsed. In improvisation, it is possible to "prepare to be spontaneous" (Barrett 1998, p. 606) and to "rehearse spontaneity" (Mirvis 1998, p. 587). Second, there is a general assumption in much of the literature that improvisation always leads to positive outcomes and better performance. This assumption is reinforced when improvisation is defined as "to cope or ingeniously adapt to a set of circumstances" (Preston 1991, p. 88) or as "devising resourceful solutions to intractable problems" (Meyer 1998, p. 572). When improvisation is positioned as a solution to all organizational problems, managers risk underestimating the need to create a context that supports improvisational processes in work teams. Improvisation is not inherently good or bad (Vera and Crossan 2004). Depending on the skill of the improvisers, improvisation may be highly innovative or chaotic; improvisation may solve a problem or worsen it. Efforts to train teams to improvise need to be based on a realistic understanding of what improvisation is, and what it is not.

The objective of this paper is to clear up the conceptual confusion about improvisation by laying out in detail the various aspects of preparation that are entailed in effective improvisation. We seek to advance understanding of the performance implications of improvisation by unpacking what collective improvisation is (descriptive view) and by examining team and contextual factors that help improvisational processes to be effective and positively impact innovation (prescriptive view). Furthermore, we discuss and test the role of training in enhancing the effectiveness of improvisation.