Improvising Agility: Organizations as Structured-Extemporaneous Hybrids

  • Miguel Pina e Cunha
  • Luca Giustiniano
  • Pedro Neves
  • Arménio Rego
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses agility as an improvised accomplishment conducted by improvisational leaders , i.e., leaders that approach and define rules that guide behavior in normal conditions and that stimulate impromptu adaptations in unpredicted conditions, when the existing rule set failed. We do that by showing how the triad of the leadership process (leaders, followers , and context ) enacts the four principles of agile management . The contribution defends these principles are highly aligned with an improvisational understanding of leadership. The authors adopt a deliberately relational and distributed leadership perspective by exploring improvisation as a mutually constructed process of supportive leaders, compelled followers, and a conducive context. The chapter also discuss several obstacles that might limit the ability to enact agile improvisational leadership.

References

  1. Adler, P. S. (1993). The learning bureaucracy: New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 111–194.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, P., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ancona, D., Bresman, H., & Kaeufer, K. (2002). The comparative advantage of X-teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 33–39.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, K. (1980). The concept of corporate strategy (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.Google Scholar
  5. Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bahrami, H., & Evans, S. (2011). Super-flexibility for real-time adaptation: Perspectives from Silicon Valley. California Management Review, 53(3), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck, K., Mike, B., Bennekum, A. van, Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M. et al. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. http://www.agilemanifesto.org/iso/en/.
  9. Bernstein, E., Bunch, J., Canner, N., & Lee, M. (2016). Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Business Review, 94(7–8), 38–49.Google Scholar
  10. Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91, 65–72.Google Scholar
  11. Bredin, K., & Söderlund, J. (2011). Human resource management in project-based organizations: The HR quadriad framework. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  14. Burroughs, S. M., & Eby, L. T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A measurement system and explanatory framework. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carsten, M., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B., Patera, J., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clegg, S. R. (1989). Frameworks of power. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cleveland, J. N., Byrne, Z. S., & Cavanagh, T. M. (2015). The future of HR is RH: Respect for humanity at work. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., & Kamoche, K. (2009). Improvisation in service recovery. Managing Service Quality, 19, 657–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., & Clegg, S. (2011). Beyond addiction: Hierarchy and other ways of getting strategy done. European Management Journal, 29(6), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cunha, M. P., Neves, P., Clegg, S., & Rego, A. (2015). Tales of the unexpected: Discussing improvisational learning. Management Learning, 46(5), 511–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cunha, M. P., Miner, A. S., & Antonacopolou, E. (2017). Improvisation processes in organizations. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp. 559–573). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Cunha, M. P., Gomes, E., Mellahi, K., Miner, & Rego, A. (forthcoming). Strategic agility through improvisational capabilities: Implications for a paradox-sensitive HRM. Human Resource Management Review. Google Scholar
  25. D’Aveni, R. A. (1995). Coping with hypercompetition: Utilizing the new 7S’s framework. The Academy of Management Executive, 9(3), 45–57.Google Scholar
  26. Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. (2008). Are you a “vigilant leader”? MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(3), 43–51.Google Scholar
  27. de Geus, A. P. (1998). The living company: A recipe for success in the new economy. Washington Quarterly, 21(1), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  29. Duhigg, C. (2016). Smarter, better, faster. London: Cornerstone.Google Scholar
  30. Eden, C., & Radford, J. (1990). Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Edmondson, A. C. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 60–70.Google Scholar
  32. Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fairtlough, G. (2005). The three ways of getting things done. London: Triarchy Press.Google Scholar
  36. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Flyverbom, M., & Reinecke, J. (forthcoming). The spectacle and organization studies. Organization Studies.Google Scholar
  38. Frese, M. (1991). Error management or error prevention: Two strategies to deal with errors in software design. In H. J. Bullinger (Ed.), Human aspects in computing: Design and use of interactive systems and work with terminals (pp. 776–782). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  39. Gallup. (2013). State of the global workplace: Employee engagement insights for business leaders worldwide. Washington, DC: Gallup.Google Scholar
  40. Garvin, D. A. (2013). How Google sold its engineers on management. Harvard Business Review, 91(12), 74–82.Google Scholar
  41. Garvin, D. A., & Levesque, L. C. (2006). Meeting the challenge of corporate entrepreneurship. Harvard Business Review, 84, 102–112.Google Scholar
  42. Gittell, J. H., & Bamber, G. J. (2010). High-and low-road strategies for competing on costs and their implications for employment relations: International studies in the airline industry. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(2), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gittell, J. H., & Douglass, A. (2012). Relational bureaucracy: Structuring reciprocal relationships into roles. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 709–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Giustiniano, L., Cunha, M. P., & Clegg, S. (2016). The dark side of organizational improvisation: Lessons from the sinking of the Costa Concordia. Business Horizons, 59, 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2013). Creating the best workplace on earth. Harvard Business Review, 91, 98–106.Google Scholar
  46. Gothelf, J. (2014). Bring agile to the whole organization. Harvard Business Review, November 14. Available at https://hbr.org/2014/11/bring-agile-to-the-whole-organization&ab=Article-Links-End_of_Page_Recirculation.
  47. Govindarajan, V. (2016). Planned opportunism. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 54–61.Google Scholar
  48. Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hadida, A. L., Tarvainen, W., & Rose, J. (2015). Organizational improvisation: A consolidating review and framework. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(4), 437–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hall, R. D., & Rowland, C. A. (2016). Leadership development for managers in turbulent times. Journal of Management Development, 35(8), 942–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Handy, C. (2011). The empty raincoat: Making sense of the future. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hedberg, B. L., Bystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1976). Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Heynoski, K., & Quinn, R. E. (2012). Seeing and realizing organizational potential: Activating conversations that challenge assumptions. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hodgkinson, I. R., Hughes, P., & Arshad, D. (2016). Strategic development: Driving improvisation in Malaysia. Journal of World Business, 51, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kamoche, K., & Cunha, M. P. (2001). Minimal structures: From jazz improvisation to product innovation. Organization Studies, 22, 733–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kamoche, K., Cunha, M. P., & Cunha, J. V. (2003). Towards a theory of organizational improvisation: Looking beyond the jazz metaphor. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 2023–2051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2002). Creating high commitment organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 30(4), 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1991). Implementing global strategies: The role of procedural justice. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Mak, S., & Chao, G. T. (2016). Team-centric leadership: An integrative review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
  63. Leonard, K. & Yorton, T. (2015). Yes, and: How Improvisation Reverses “No, But” Thinking and Improves Creativity and Collaboration – Lessons from The Second City. New York: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
  64. Luthans, F., & Youssef-Morgan, C. M. (2017). Psychological capital: An evidence-based positive approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 17.1–17.28. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113324.
  65. Magni, M., & Maruping, L. (2013). Sink or swim: Empowering leadership and overload in tem’s ability to deal with the unexpected. Human Resource Management, 52(5), 715–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: Creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 558–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2003). Beyond empowerment: Building a company of citizens. Harvard Business Review, 81, 48–53.Google Scholar
  68. Marquardt, M. J. (2014). Leading with questions: How leaders find the right solutions by knowing what to ask. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  69. Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1231–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Michelli, J. (2008). The new gold standard. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  72. Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy (pp. 66–75). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  73. Mintzberg, H. (1994). Rethinking strategic planning part II: New roles for planners. Long Range Planning, 27(3), 22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
  75. Nerur, S., & Balijepally, V. (2007). Theoretical reflections on agile development methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 50(3), 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nisula, A.-M. (2015). The relationship between supervisor support and individual improvisation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Parker, M. (1997). Organizations and citizenship. Organization, 4(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1(3), 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people. California Management Review, 36(2), 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 34–45.Google Scholar
  81. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 62–74.Google Scholar
  82. Piao, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2016). How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: Theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1431–14447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review, May, 41–50.Google Scholar
  84. Roberts, P. W., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2003). Austrian insights on strategic organization: from market insights to implications for firms. Strategic Organization, 1(3), 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Robertson, B. J. (2015). Holacracy: The revolutionary management system that abolishes hierarchy. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  86. Schwaber, K. (1997). Scrum development process. In J. V. Sutherland, D. Patel, C. Casanave, J. Miller, & G. Hollowell (Eds.), Business object design and implementation (pp. 117–134). London: Springer, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with Scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  88. Smith, W. K., Lewis, M., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Both/and leadership. Harvard Business Review, 63–70.Google Scholar
  89. Sonenshein, S. (2014). How organizations foster the creative use of resources. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 814–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sonenshein, S. (2016). Routines and creativity: From dualism to duality. Organization Science, 27(3), 739–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Takeuchi, H., Osono, E., & Shimizu, N. (2008). The contradictions that drive Toyota’s success. Harvard Business Review, 86, 96–104.Google Scholar
  92. Tyre, M. J., & Von Hippel, E. (1997). The situated nature of adaptive learning in organizations. Organization Science, 8(1), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Vidgen, R., & Wang, X. (2009). Coevolving systems and the organization of agile software development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. von Hippel, E., & von Krogh, G. (2015). Identifying viable “need–solution pairs”: Problem solving without problem formulation. Organization Science, 27(1), 207–221.Google Scholar
  96. Weick, K. E. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9, 543–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Weiss, H. M. (1990). Learning theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. E. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 171–221). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  99. Wiggins, R. R., & Ruefli, T. W. (2005). Schumpeter’s ghost: Is hypercompetition making the best of times shorter? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10), 887–911.Google Scholar
  100. Williams, L., & Cockburn, A. (2003). Agile software development: It’ s about feedback and change. Computer, 36, 39–43.Google Scholar
  101. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.Google Scholar
  102. Zenger, J. & Folkman, J. (2016). What great listeners actually do. Harvard Business Review, July 14. Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/07/what-great-listeners-actually-do.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel Pina e Cunha
    • 1
  • Luca Giustiniano
    • 2
  • Pedro Neves
    • 1
  • Arménio Rego
    • 3
  1. 1.Nova School of Business and EconomicsLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Business and Management and LUISS Business SchoolLUISS Guido Carli UniversityRomeItaly
  3. 3.Católica Porto Business SchoolPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations