CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,248Management and Organizational StudiesInnovation and Knowledge ManagementOrganizational Learning and Leadership

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Organizational Improvisation and Organizational Memory

Moorman, Christine, Miner, Anne S.·1998·The Academy of Management Review
DOI 10.2307/259058
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We define organizational improvisation as the degree to which the composition and execution of an action converge in time, and we examine the theoretical potential of this definition.We then propose that both organizational procedural memory (skill knowledge) and declarative memory (fact knowledge) moderate improvisation's impact on organizational outcomes in distinct ways.We also suggest that improvisation influences organizational memory by (1) generating experiments and (2) permitting the development of higher-level competency in improvisation.Contemporary technological changes related to the nature of organizational memory intensify the salience of these issues.Observers long have noted the presence and promise of improvisation in the arts, teaching, therapy, and athletics.For example, one can find detailed data on differences between improvisational performance by expert and novice mathematics teachers (Borko & Livingston, 1989), models of musical improvisation (Pressing, 1984(Pressing, , 1988)), and guidelines for encouraging effective improvisation by therapists (Embrey, Guthrie, White, & Dietz, 1996; Gardner & Rogoff, 1990).Organizational scholars often seek to provide strategic planning and project planning tools that, presumably, suppress the level of action occurring without prior design.Nonetheless, those in an important contrasting branch of work have argued that improvisation not only occurs frequently in organizations but may also have value for organizations (Preston, 1991a;Weick, 1979Weick, , 1987 Weick, , 1993a Weick, ,b,c, 1996)).Researchers have also observed, however, that fruitful improvisation may require important resources and skills (Crossan & Sorrenti, 1997;Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Hatch, 1997b; Weick, 1993b,c).In this article we draw on work from several disciplines to generate specific propositions about how organizational memory will influence improvisation's impact.We argue that two different types of organizational memory-( 1) procedural (skill memory) and ( 2) declarative (fact memory)-moderate the impact of organizational improvisation in different ways.In particular, we suggest these memory types enhance different organizational outcomes and can compensate for each other's drawbacks.We also formalize the insight that improvisation, in turn, affects organizational memory and represents an identifiable organizational competency (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Weick, 1993b).To support these testable propositions, we draw on prior work to define improvisation as the degree to which composition and execution converge in time.Therefore, the more proximate the design and implementation of an activity in time, the more that activity is improvisational.This view of improvisation is primarily temporal, with a focus on the degree of simultaneity of composition and implementation.It is consistent with prior work (Crossan & Sorrenti, 1997; Weick, 1993a) but focuses on one key dimension: the temporal order of two specific activities.This enhances theory development by encouraging distinctions between the improvisation process itself and important potential correlates or outcomes, such as intuition, adaptation, innovation, and learning.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/259058

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,248

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin System (US)
ORCID
Venue
The Academy of Management Review
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
1998-10
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
698
ISSN
0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/259058
OpenAlex
W2068899020
Cited by
1,248
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 64 · 2013: 77 · 2012: 56
FWCI
26.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Review (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9410419)
  • Marketing Science Institute
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Learning and Leadership
Keywords
organizational improvisation, institutional memory, procedural memory, declarative memory, organizational outcomes, experimentation, technological change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review