Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Can Knowledge-Creating Organisations Learn from Theatrical Improvisation?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Knowledge Management, Arts, and Humanities

Part of the book series: Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning ((IAKM,volume 7))

Abstract

This chapter amplifies the understanding of organisational knowledge creation by examining the creation of new knowledge through the lens of improvisation. Such an approach views knowledge creation as a spontaneous process where thinking and action converge and underlines the synthesis of diverse actors’ knowledge and perspectives in a flexible and agile manner through their engagement in social practice. To increase understanding of knowledge creation as an improvisational capacity, we turn to a context in which improvisation is employed systematically: the world of theatre. We explore how and when improvisation is utilised among theatre groups in their creative processes and associate forms of theatrical improvisation with three types of knowledge creation. The chapter enriches knowledge management literature by providing alternative models of knowledge creation, and also contributes to the emerging literature on arts-based management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andreeva, T. (2008). Can organizational change be planned and controlled? Evidence from Russian companies. Human Resource Development International, 11(2), 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barret, F. J. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9(5), 605–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, D., & Meisiek, S. (2010). Seeing more and seeing differently: Sensemaking, mindfulness, and the workarts. Organization Studies, 31(11), 1505–1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigley, G. A., & Roberts, K. H. (2001). The incident command system: High-reliability organizing for complex and volatile task environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1281–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciborra, C. U. (1996). The platform organization: Recombining strategies, structures, and surprises. Organization Science, 7(2), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9(5), 593–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunha, M. P., Cunha, J. V., & Kamoche, K. (1999). Organizational improvisation: What, when, how and why. International Journal of Management Reviews, 1(3), 299–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drinko, C. (2013). Theatrical improvisation, consciousness, and cognition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M. (1991). An introduction. In M. Easterby-Smith, R. Thorpe, & A. Lowe (Eds.), Management research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erden, Z., Von Krogh, G., & Nonaka, I. (2008). The quality of group tacit knowledge. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(1), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative methods in business research: A practical guide to social research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, C. M., & Amabile, T. (2009). Creativity, improvisation and organizations. In T. Rickards, M. A. Runco, & S. Moger (Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativity (pp. 13–24). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, A., & Yarrow, R. (1980). Improvisation in drama. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, D., & Magerko, B. (2010, June). Shared mental models in improvisational performance. In Proceedings of the intelligent narrative technologies III workshop (p. 15), ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative theory. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka’s theory. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1415–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadida, A. L., Tarvainen, W., & Rose, J. (2014). Organizational improvisation: A consolidating review and framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S., & Kou, C. Y. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 346–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmieleski, K. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2006). Proclivity for improvisation as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(1), 45–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, M. J., & Sudman, S. (1975). A methodological assessment of the use of key informants. Social Science Research, 4(2), 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, K. (1981). Impro – Improvisation and the theatre, Methuen drama (first published June 18th 1979). London: Eyre Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamoche, K., Pina, E., & Cunha, M. (2008). Improvisation and knowledge: The challenge of appropriation. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 6(2), 93–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. (2002). Strategy as improvisational theatre. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(2), 75–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 22–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppett, K. (2002). Training using drama: Successful development techniques from theatre & improvisation. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leybourne, S. A. (2009). Improvisation and agile project management: A comparative consideration. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(4), 519–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, B., & Bontis, N. (2002). E-improvisation: Collaborative groupware technology expands the reach and effectiveness of organizational improvisation. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(4), 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meisiek, S. (2004). Which catharsis do they mean? Aristotle, Moreno, Boal and organization theatre. Organization Studies, 25(5), 797–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montuori, A. (2003). The complexity of improvisation and the improvisation of complexity: Social science, art and creativity. Human Relations, 56(2), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. The Journal of Marketing, 62, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisula, A. M. (2013). Building organizational creativity – A multitheory and multilevel approach for understanding and stimulating organizational creativity. Acta Universitatis Lappeenrantaensis. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-265-539-4

  • Nisula, A.-M., & Kianto, A. (2018). Stimulating organisational creativity with theatrical improvisation. Journal of Business Research, 85, 484–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford university press. ISBN9780195092691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective—Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C. C., & Konno, N. (1994). Organizational knowledge creation theory: A first comprehensive test. International Business Review, 3(4), 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oddey, A. (2013). Devising theatre: A practical and theoretical handbook. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. (2008). Organizational change and the importance of embedded assumptions. British Journal of Management, 19, s1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pina, E., Cunha, M., & Vieira Da Cunha, J. (2003). Organizational improvisation and change: Two syntheses and a filled gap. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(2), 169–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins, S. (2006). The psychodynamic perspective in organizational research: Making sense of the dynamics of direction setting in emergent collaborative processes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 335–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiuma, G. (2011). The value of arts for business. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S., & Sonnenburg, S. (2012). Brand performances in social media. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 189–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spolin, V. (1977). Improvisation for the theatre. A handbook of teaching and directing techniques. London: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R. (2000). The emergence of knowledge in organization. Emergence, A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and Management, 2(4), 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart, J., & Harvey, P. (2011). Identifying knowledge boundaries: The case of networked projects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(5), 703–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. S., & Carboni, I. (2008). Technique and practices from the arts: Expressive verbs, feelings, and action. In The Sage handbook of new approaches to organizational studies (pp. 220–228). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (2003). Forms of knowledge and forms of life in organized contexts. In In the realm of organisation (pp. 52–76). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Theatrical improvisation: Lessons for organizations. Organization Studies, 25, 727–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science, 16(3), 203–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1993). Organizational redesign as improvisation. In Organizational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance (pp. 346–379). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1996). Enactment and the boundaryless career: Organizing as we work. In The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 40–57). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1998). Introductory essay—Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organisational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 361–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zack, M. H. (2000). Jazz improvisation and organizing: Once more from the top. Organization Science, 11(2), 227–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Y., Venters, W., & Cornford, T. (2011). Collective agility, paradox and organizational improvisation: The development of a particle physics grid. Information Systems Journal, 21(4), 303–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Management, LUT University, Lappeenranta, Finland

    Anna-Maija Nisula & Aino Kianto

  2. Maynooth University School of Business, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland

    Tatiana Andreeva

Authors
  1. Anna-Maija Nisula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aino Kianto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tatiana Andreeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Management & InfoTech, International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Meliha Handzic

  2. Department of European and Mediterranean Cultures, Environment and Cultural Heritage (DICEM), University of Basilicata, Matera, Italy

    Daniela Carlucci

Appendix

Appendix

Key questions in the interview agenda (a selection)

  • How do you use improvisation in your work?

  • Define improvisation (according to your own opinion).

  • Define good improviser.

  • What are the most important factors/elements of improvisation?

  • What are the possibilities of improvisation in contexts other than in theatre?

  • How do you train with improvisation?

  • Concerning how the group ensemble is developed, do you have any experience with that?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nisula, AM., Kianto, A., Andreeva, T. (2019). What Can Knowledge-Creating Organisations Learn from Theatrical Improvisation?. In: Handzic, M., Carlucci, D. (eds) Knowledge Management, Arts, and Humanities. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10922-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation