Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 141 – 147

Learning to improvise, improvising to learn

A process of responding to complex environments
Cristian Chelariua, Wesley J. Johnstona, Louise Youngb,*
a
Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada
b
School of Marketing, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123 Broadway, Sydney NSW 2001, Australia

Abstract

This paper extends recent work on improvisation by focusing on the role of information flows and the action – learning interaction as an
organization responds to a changeable environment and/or to a crisis. Novelty, speed and coherence are presented as dimensions of
improvisation and we show how environmental factors influence the effectiveness of these. A typology of improvisation is offered that
suggests that improvisational skills can themselves be learned with more effective improvisation resulting. D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All
rights reserved.

Recent work in organizational theory and management
points to a growing interest in improvisation as an alter-
native to overt strategic planning. This interest is a reflection
of the pressures of an environment characterized by un-
precedented fast change that forces management to reconsi-
der their operational paradigms and to break way from
traditional patterns and solutions. The novelty of the con-
struct in marketing comes from the fact that it challenges a
long tradition of academic literature, filtered down into the
graduate and undergraduate textbooks, that emphasizes the
importance of advance planning and rational, semisequen-
tial decision-making. While outside of the mainstream of
marketing literature there is growing recognition that there
are alternatives to planning for organizations, planning is
still seen as the ‘‘accepted norm’’ (Moorman and Miner,
1998a, p. 2). Situations of unplanned or improvisational
behavior are thought to occur only occasionally in organiza-
tions (Hutt et al., 1988) in what are presumed to be atypical
situations where fast learning and adaptation are crucial for
the survival of the firm. But the environmental conditions
for improvisation — uncertainty, complexity (interdepen-
dent environments) and dynamism (short-lived opportu-
nities and big threats) — are becoming the norm (Stacy,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-9514-3538.
E-mail address: l.young@uws.edu.au (L. Young).
1996). Faced with these conditions, the traditional patterns
of planning and implementation will be less effective.
The purpose of this paper is to extend previous considera-
tion of improvisation in marketing by linking it with learning
theory. This allows better consideration of the effectiveness
of various types of improvisation in business markets.
Improvisation — seen as a system’s unplanned but purpose-
ful response at a particular point to a turbulent, fast changing
environment (Moorman and Miner, 1998a) — is an inevi-
table part of the processes of creation and re-creation of
relationships and networks in the business markets. It is
sometimes the only option in situations of environmental
turbulence. We therefore argue that greater consideration of
improvisation in marketing theory is warranted.
1. The concept of improvisation
Improvisation has been seen as a deviation from existing
practice or knowledge (Rogers, 1983), occurring in organi-
zations in problem circumstances. Firms may improvise to
compensate for bad management, employee errors or ra-
pidly changing environments (Moorman and Miner,
1998a,b). Or, management may make a conscious decision
to improvise as a means of creating more flexibility of
behaviour and more spontaneous decision making. But this
use is thought to be unusual. If there are not threats or
obvious short-term opportunities, firms are more likely to

0148-2963/02/$ – see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 4 9 - 1
142 C. Chelariu et al. / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 141–147
continue with existing modes of explicit planning. Reliance
on previous plans and previously tested solutions is com-
fortable and thinking ‘‘outside the box’’ requires effort and
implies risks (Moorman and Miner, 1998a).
Different views on importance and role of improvisation
in part stem from differing views as to the relationship of
improvisation to planning and action. Lack of planning is
associated with improvisation, e.g., seeing it as ‘‘intuition
guiding action in a spontaneous way’’ (Crossan and
Sorrenti, 1997, p. 155). Alternatively, improvisation has
been defined in terms of simultaneous creation and execu-
tion of plans (Solomon, 1986) or as occurring when
composition and execution converge in time (Moorman
and Miner, 1998a). This temporal convergence is seen as
the key factor differentiating improvisation from similar
concepts such as creativity, intuition, adaptation and op-
portunism that involve seizing opportunities or dealing
with problems but may involve advance planning (Moor-
man and Miner, 1998b). The coping with environmental
problems, e.g., resource constraints and making do with
available resources is also seen as among the aspects of
improvisation (Weick, 1993a,b). There is disagreement as
to the relationship between improvisation and action.
While Moorman and Miner (1998a,b) present improvisa-
tion as a state of ‘‘planning’’ where composition and
execution converge in time, they model action or execution
as an outcome of improvisation and imply a sequential
process. Others such as Weick (1987, p. 230) more
appropriately argue that strategic planning and action are
integral parts of each other and improvisation occurs
‘‘where strategies are tied more closely to action’’. Min-
tzberg (1994) goes further, arguing that it may be action
that drives composition of plans, i.e., improvisation is part
of planning as well as action.
In business markets improvisation is a multilevel pro-
cess. Members of organizations individually improvise and
in turn collective improvisation is produced inside a firm
by the coming together of the activities of individuals
(Moorman and Miner, 1998a,b). Buying centers and pro-
ject teams are likely examples of this type of collective
improvisation. Within relationships with other organiza-
tions and within their networks improvising organizations
must improvise further to combine their actors, activities
and resources into bonded units with common perceptions,
chains of activities and constellations of resources (Ander-
son et al., 1994). Thus improvisation is inevitable in
intrafirm and interfirm relationships and networks, varying
only in degree.
There are different forms of improvisation. Based on the
model of Moorman and Miner (1998b), novelty, speed and
internal and external coherence are here proposed as dimen-
sions of improvisation. Novelty represents the degree to
which the improvisation deviates from the existing routine.
Improvisation can occur more or less swiftly in response to
uncertainty or otherwise deciding to improvise. Collective
improvisation can be further differentiated by the extent that
group members’ actions do or do not fit well with one
another, i.e., exhibit internal coherence and how well
improvisation solves problems, i.e., external coherence.
Central to the process of improvisation is learning, as
improvisation requires continuous evaluation of activity and
outcome and modification as needed. Learning is a process
that involves the discovery, retention and exploitation of
stored knowledge. In improvisation learning is likely to be
continuous and circular, occurring as improvisation occurs
and being immediately used as part of the process. Learning
can be seen as the development of new knowledge that has
the potential to influence behavior (Simon, 1969; Fyol and
Lyles, 1985). Also, learning can be a result of improvisation,
where there is discovery and retention of knowledge (Moor-
man and Miner, 1998b) and lessons drawn from an im-
provisation episode become a part of organizational memory
(Weick, 1987). In the context of improvisation, learning can
be adaptive and/or generative (Senge, 1990). Adaptive
learning will occur when improvisation reflects the manage-
rial assumptions about the nature of the business and is
focused on issues and opportunities that are within the
traditional scope of the organization’s activities (Slater and
Narver, 1995). On the other hand, generative learning
requires the organization to leave aside their long held
assumptions, to think outside the box and to come up with
new solutions to new problems.
Improvisation is a circular process of learning occur-
ring through moving and processing information, acting
on that learning and as a result learning more. This
reflects the process of learning said to consist of four
stages: knowledge acquisition, information distribution,
information interpretation and organizational memory
(Huber, 1991). The nature of the improvisation occurring
is influenced by the environment faced and the organiza-
tion’s memory (the past experiences of the groups of
actors in the system) and in turn it modifies that memory.
It is also directly related to the organization’s memory (as
this sets the criterion by which effectiveness will be
evaluated) and indirectly to the environment, which will
make the improvisational process more or less difficult.
This is summarized in Fig. 1.
2. The relationship between information, environment
and improvisation effectiveness
Different sources of information impact in various ways
on the extent and nature of learning (March, 1991). Orga-
nizations engage in lower-level, routine information search
using direct experience and organizational memory where
the environment is benign and familiar. This leads to
adaptive learning (March, 1991). More intensive forms of
knowledge acquisition such as seeking the experience of
others and working with them to create new knowledge are
likely to be used when problems such as a significant
change in the environment demand special attention (Weiss
 C. Chelariu et al. / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 141–147
Fig. 1. The process of learning and improvisation.
and Heide, 1993). Such a situation is more likely to lead to
generative knowledge (March, 1991). However this process
is generally time consuming (Bunn, 1993b) and reliance on
well-exercised routines may be seen as more beneficial in
part because it avoids time-consuming mistakes (Cooper
and Kleinschmidt, 1986). Thus we argue that:
Proposition 1a: More intensive and powerful forms
of information generation are associated with more
novel improvisation.
Proposition 1b: More intensive and powerful forms
of information generation are associated with slower
speed improvisation.
The relationship between knowledge acquisition and
internal coherence is not straightforward. On one hand,
more information may lead to the emergence of more
viewpoints, which may lower the internal coherence. On
the other hand, more information may clarify some
perspectives thus helping the members of an organiza-
tion, relationship or network to achieve a common
understanding. It is likely that the relationship between
information generation and the internal coherence of
action is nonlinear where more information generation
increases coherence up to a point but beyond that
internal coherence decreases due to overload and confu-
sion. Environmental factors play a role in determining at
what point there is no further utility in generating
knowledge. In more complex environments this point
may occur later than in less complex environments. Or
it may be that the speed of response required may drive
the information needs where in rapidly evolving environ-
ments there is limited time for information collection and
processing. Thus there are two propositions dealing with
internal coherence:
Proposition 1c: In rapidly evolving environments, a
more powerful information generation process is asso-
ciated with improvisation with lower internal coherence.
143
Proposition 1d: In uncertain environments, a more
powerful information generation process is associated
with improvisation with higher internal coherence.
The amount of information, the number and diversity of
people or organizations contacted are all aspects of informa-
tion dissemination. Even though recent advances in com-
munication technology have improved the physical
movement of information, time is still needed to process
and assimilate the new information. Also different environ-
mental circumstances may moderate the relationship be-
tween information dissemination and internal coherence.
Thus we argue that:
Proposition 2a: The larger the scope of information
dissemination, the higher the novelty of improvisation.
Proposition 2b: The larger the scope of information
dissemination, the lower the speed of improvisation.
Proposition 2c: In rapidly evolving environments, the
larger the scope of information dissemination, the lower
the internal coherence of improvisation.
Proposition 2d: In uncertain environments, the larger
the scope of information dissemination, the higher the
internal coherence of improvisation.
The third step in the learning process is to interpret the
disseminated information. Interpretation means encoding
external events into internal categories that are part of the
group’s culture and language system (Daft and Weick,
1984). The actors have to understand a set of evolving
phenomena, with reference others’ meanings. ‘‘In a group
of improvisational players, there are always more possible
meanings for their actions than the group can ever use, so
their problem is to agree on a sufficient number of
meanings to make coordinated action possible’’ (Weick,
1993b, p. 347).
Interpretation occurs when meanings are not sufficiently
congruent. A continuous adjustment of organizational ac-
144 C. Chelariu et al. / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 141–147
tors’ actions occurs to try to bring meanings closer. Actors
find it easier to agree on an interpretation that is closer to the
accepted paradigm built around past activities and shared
beliefs. As the actors develop a shared interpretation of the
situation, they will be able to better coordinate their actions
according to a common paradigm. Not only will their action
be more cohesive, but they will also avoid time costly
mistakes, thus increasing their speed of action. Therefore:
Proposition 3a: The more shared the actors’ mean-
ings (information interpretation), the lower the
novelty of improvisation.
Proposition 3b: The more shared the actors’ mean-
ings (information interpretation), the higher the
speed of improvisation.
Proposition 3c: The more shared the actors’ meanings
(information interpretation), the higher the internal
coherence of improvisation.
The dynamism and uncertainty of the environment
have already been identified as impacting upon the
incidence of improvisation. A fast changing environment
creates a number of constraints including many potential
sources of information but a lack of reliable information
and lack of time to process information (Johnston and
Lewin, 1996). While there are many potential sources of
information in a complex environment, if the environment
is changing rapidly the value of these sources is uncertain
and the interpretation of information received is equivocal
(Fazlollahi and Tanniru, 1991; Weick, 1979). Uncertain
environments reflect a gap between the information
available for the organization and the information neces-
sary to make a decision (Galbraith, 1977). As the
environmental uncertainty increases, there is an increase
in the amount of information that an actor needs to
acquire, disseminate and interpret. If instead of relying
on old preplanned responses to the new challenge the
organization is able to articulate an appropriate new
response, the improvisation will be effective. But ba-
lanced against this is the speed of response. A slow
response to a fast changing environment will likely result
in lost opportunities and unavoidable threats, i.e., the
right actions implemented at the wrong time. This is
likely to lead to lower organizational performance.
If uncertainty at least partially reflects the degree to
which the environment is changing and dynamism is the
rate of change, equivocality is concerned with the complex-
ity of the environment and its changes. In equivocal
environments improvisation is particularly problematic, as
actors are likely to have conflicting interpretations of the
environment (Daft and Macintosh, 1981) such that actors
cannot agree on the causal relationship between the envir-
onment and the decision variables (Fazlollahi and Tanniru,
1991). If an uncertain environment means not knowing the
answers to questions, an equivocal environment means not
knowing what question to ask (Fazlollahi and Tanniru,
1991). Referring to the most appropriate organizational
design to cope with the problem of equivocality, Weick
(1993a,b) argues that:
The problem with environments is no longer solely one of
uncertainty, with a corresponding need for increased
quantities of information. Advanced information technol-
ogies have lessened this problem. The problem is now one
of multiple meanings. Designs that help people remove
equivocality are needed to cope with multiple meanings.
These designs tend to be more social, more tolerant of
improvisation, and more affected by action than it is true
for designs grounded in decision making. (Weick, 1993b,
p. 365)
When actors share the interpretation of a situation, they
can agree on a course of action and begin to implement it.
While the initial course of action is likely to be wrong in
some respects, the key idea about improvisation is that ‘‘the
plan’’ is corrected as the actors implement it. We therefore
propose that:
Proposition 4a: When the environment is uncertain,
more novel improvisation is most likely to lead to
effective outcomes.
Proposition 4b: When the environment is dynamic,
more speedy improvisation is most likely to lead to
effective outcomes.
Proposition 4c: When the environment is equivocal,
internally coherent improvisation is most likely to lead to
effective outcomes.
3. Towards a typology of improvisation
It is our contention that different types of improvisation
(varying in novelty, speed and internal coherence) will
emerge depending on the way the characteristics of the
environment, the learning capabilities of the organization
and the outcomes of previous improvisation episodes are
combined. Table 1 presents four types of improvisation,
which vary according to these characteristics. These do not
represent all possible combinations of factors. Instead the
typology reflects our belief that there are a limited number
of combinations of factors that would be effective. Three
types of improvisation presented in Table 1 bring together
previous thinking on improvisational effectiveness, the
fourth type presents a type of improvisation that takes into
account the improvisational possibilities when learning
about improvisation is possible.
The type of improvisation occurring will depend upon
the general character of the environment, the specific nature
of the problem or opportunity at hand and the learning
capabilities of the firm. For example when the environment
is not understood and the information gathering capabilities
Table 1
A typology of improvisation
Type of improvisation Nature of improvisation Learning characteristics Environmental/organizational characteristics Probable outcomes/feedback
Familiar
High internal Use of similar cognitive Low levels of information acquisition Equivocal environment Low knowledge
coherence, low structures and actions as and communication needed creation possibilities
novelty, low speed in previous improvisation
High levels of interpretation Inexperienced or conservative Small change in

C. Chelariu et al. / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 141–147

organization organizational memory
Adaptive learning Moderate or high
external coherence

Different
High novelty, low speed
Different from improvisation
of past either in area or way
of solving problem
High levels of information acquisition Uncertain environment High knowledge
and communication creation possibilities
Low levels of interpretation Learning and creative Large change in
organization organizational memory
Generative learning High or low external
coherence

Swift
High speed, low novelty Improvisation completed
quickly with limited
reference to others
Low levels of information acquisition
and communication possible
High levels of interpretation
Adaptive learning
Rapidly changing environment Moderate to low
knowledge creation
possibilities
Learning and nonhierarchical, Moderate to small change
entrepreneurial organization in organizational memory
Moderate external coherence

Capable
High speed, high novelty,
internal coherence
less important
Effective management of
trade-off between speed
and novelty
Moderate (appropriate) levels of information Possible in any environment if High knowledge
acquisition and interpretation based on participants are capable creation possibilities
previous experiences in improvisation
(i.e. organizational memory)
Generative learning Experienced and effectively Necessary changes to
networked organization organizational memory
High external coherence

145
146 C. Chelariu et al. / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 141–147
of an organization is small, ‘‘familiar’’ improvisation would
be likely. Information would be extensively interpreted and
made consistent with existing knowledge within the group.
The action sequences would be similar to past actions and
response time fairly slow.
The second and third types of improvisation presented in
Table 1 reflect the trade-off between novelty and speed that
Moorman and Miner (1998a,b) and others have reported.
Improvisation that is radically ‘‘different’’ from past actions
is unlikely to be able to be undertaken ‘‘swiftly’’ and vice
versa. Hence most improvisation is either swift or novel.
Similarly, improvisation that is internally consistent enough
to be ‘‘familiar’’ as per the first type indicated in Table 1 can
be neither too swift nor too novel.
We propose there is a developmental process of
improvisation implicit in these types of improvisation.
‘‘Familiar’’ improvisation would be likely for an organi-
zation inexperienced and unskilled in improvising, per-
haps from having operated in stable networks and
markets. A growth in improvisation experience would
make speedy and/or novel action feasible with firms
capable of improvising speedily in some circumstances
and/or in a novel way in others. As entities become even
more experienced in improvisation, some at least will
grow in improvisational competence. This competence
may allow them to overcome the previously discussed
trade-offs between speed, novelty and internal coherence.
Therefore, in Table 1 we suggest the presence of a
fourth type of improvisation, ‘‘capable.’’ It is towards
this fourth type of improvisation that we argue firms
should be heading.
4. Managerial implications and future research
The previous discussion develops understanding of
improvisation, sets out the process that occurs and
explicates the relationships between elements of the
improvisation situation. However the resulting proposi-
tions fail to deal with a number of issues that confront
firms dealing with real environments. What if an envir-
onment is both very different from the past and very
fast-changing? A combination of speed and novelty may
be the indicated but are likely to be mutually exclusive
options to the inexperienced. And while internally con-
sistent improvisation is argued to be appropriate in
responding to complex environments, it has also been
argued that this does not generate knowledge of the type
that will be useful in coping in the future with problem
environments. In part the proposed typology deals with
these issues by considering improvisational possibilities
in terms of the experience and competence of the parties
involved — more is possible for those experienced and
capable in improvisation.
We argue that for organizations, learning about im-
provisation is a real possibility. Within firms, relation-
ships and networks the organizational memory will
contain the knowledge of ways in which organization
members more or less effectively learned from improvi-
sation to become more speedy and/or more novel,
became more or less internally consistent and collabo-
rated to effectively improvise or not. If improvisation
does not require reinventing the wheel for learning,
adjustment and collaboration styles each time a situation
of improvisation is faced, then it may be possible for
‘‘capable’’ improvisation to emerge. An example might
be a focussed, novel approach to improvisation (where
one could be very novel but only within defined para-
meters) that allowed speedy implementation. Or ways of
managing and acting despite large gaps in internal
consistency could be possible.
It is our belief that improvisation holds hither-to-fore
unexplored possibilities for managers trying to cope with
uncertain, rapidly changing and/or complex environments.
In such circumstances detailed planning may be:
 a waste of time and resources, as the resulting plan
cannot be implemented in the changed circumstances
 dangerous in that plans geared for one environment
may be unwittingly implemented in quite another or
 perilous, where detailed planning within a complex
environment can increase the complexity making the
future problems to be faced ever greater.
As Wilkinson and Young (1996) argue, if all players in
a system are aware of and responding to the perceived
complexities of a challenging environment, but are not
able to respond the current complexity of all other players
there is a danger of the actions interacting to increase
complexity further.
Improvisation on the other hand offers the possibility of
action that responds to the immediate past and present.
These are, according to research in complexity in a variety
of settings, the most reliable indicators to act upon in
complex environments. Thus managers may facilitate the
occasional or more frequent use of improvisation in a
number of ways:
 By setting up environmental monitoring systems that
allow effective assessment of the type of environment
faced (e.g., dynamic versus complex),
 By working towards a system culture that encourages
improvisation as a sometimes effective alternative to
traditional styles of problem solving,
 By working to incorporate improvisational experi-
ences into the organization’s memory as a first
step towards developing improvisational capability
and talent.
 By developing different types of performance criteria
such that the effectiveness of improvisation can be
judged and perhaps compared to planning-based
outcomes. This will require some effort as the expected
 C. Chelariu et al. / Journal of Business Research 55 (2002) 141–147
results — as set in a planning exercise — and actual
results cannot be compared to determine effectiveness.
There are considerable possibilities for future research.
First, the relationships we have proposed in the basic model
need to be tested. Each of the factors that influence the
effectiveness of improvisation requires further exploration.
The factors that impact upon the domain of the individual
manager, firm and relationship as well as the net of
relationship partners, require further investigation as does
the specific impact of different modes and styles of in-
formation generation, dissemination and interpretation. Spe-
cifically, each of these may play a somewhat different role
or a role of differing significance on how effective im-
provisation can be. Similarly, different, yet-to-be-deter-
mined dimensions of the environment may act quite
differently as moderators of improvisation effectiveness.
Also, the issue of the environment as a precipitator of
improvisation needs to be investigated. Identification of
environmental signals that managers can safely ignore and
those that should trigger improvisational processes would
be of enormous benefit.
The application of learning theory to the field of
improvisation may gain significantly from insights brought
in by network theory. Actors within an organization enter
in a multitude of relationships with actors from other parts
of the organization and with actors from other organiza-
tions (Johnston and Bonoma, 1981). A network perspec-
tive will enable consideration of improvisation in
collections of both strong and weak ties between indivi-
dual actors and organizations (Granovetter, 1973, Iacco-
bucci and Hopkins, 1992). A strategic approach to
collective improvisation in networks of individuals and
organizations may enable firms to effectively think and act
improvisationally as well as strategically.
References
Anderson JC, Hakansson H, Johansson J. Dyadic business relationships
within a business network context. J Mark 1994;58:1 – 5 (October).
Bunn MD. Information search in industrial purchase decisions. J Bus Bus
Mark 1993b;1:67 – 102 (January).
Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ. An investigation into the new product pro-
cess: steps, deficiencies, and impact. J Prod Innovation Manage 1986;3:
71 – 85 (June).
Crossan M, Sorrenti M. Making sense of improvisation. In: Walsh JP, Huff
147
AS, editors. Advances in strategic management, (vol. 14). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press, 1997. pp. 155 – 80.
Daft RL, Macintosh NB. A tentative exploration into the amount and equi-
vocality of information processing in organizational work units. Adm
Sci Q 1981;26:207 – 24 (June).
Daft RL, Weick KE. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation
systems. Acad Manage Rev 1984;9:284 – 95.
Fazlollahi B, Tanniru Mohan R. Selecting a requirement determina-
tion methodology-contingency approach revisited. Inf Manage
1991;21:291 – 303.
Fyol CM, Lyles MA. Organizational learning. Acad Manage Rev 1985;
10(4):803 – 13.
Galbraith J. Organizational design. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publish-
ing, 1977.
Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 1973;78(6):1360 – 80.
Huber GP. Organizational learning: the contributing process and the litera-
tures. Organ Sci 1991;2:88 – 115.
Hutt MD, Reingen PH, Ronchetto JR. Tracing emergent processes in mar-
keting strategy formation. J Mark 1988;52:4 – 19 (January).
Iaccobucci D, Hopkins N. Modelling dyadic interactions and networks in
marketing. J Mark Res 1992;26:5 – 17 (February).
Johnston WJ, Bonoma TV. The buying center: structure and interaction
patterns. J Mark 1981;45:143 – 56 (Summer).
Johnston WJ, Lewin JE. Organizational buying behavior: toward an inte-
grative framework. J Bus Res 1996;35:1 – 15.
March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ
Sci 1991;2:71 – 87 (January).
Mintzberg H. The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free
Press, 1994.
Moorman C, Miner AS. The convergence of planning and execution: im-
provisation in new product development. J Mark 1998;62:1 – 20 (July).
Moorman C, Miner AS. Organizational improvisation and organizational
memory. Acad Manage Rev 1998;23:698 – 723 (October).
Rogers E. The diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press, 1983.
Simon H. Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1969.
Senge PM. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
Slater SF, Narver JC. Market orientation and the learning organization.
J Mark 1995;59:63 – 74 (Fall).
Solomon L. Improvisation II. Perspect New Music 1986;24:224 – 35.
Stacy RD. Complexity, creativity and management. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler, 1996.
Weick KE. The social psychology of organising. Reading. MA: Addison
Wesley, 1979.
Weick KE. Substitutes for strategy. In: Teece DKJ, editor. The competitive
challenge: strategies for industrial innovation and renewal. New York:
Harper and Row, 1987. pp. 221 – 33.
Weick KE. The collapse of sense making in organizations: the Mann Gulch
Disaster. Adm Sci Q 1993a;38:628 – 52.
Weick KE. Organizational design as improvisation. In: Huber GP, Glick
WH, editors. Organizational change and redesign: ideas and insights
for improving performance. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993b.
pp. 346 – 79.
Weiss AM, Heide JB. The nature of organizational search in high technol-
ogy markets. J Mark Res 1993;30(May):220 – 33.
Wilkinson IF, Young LC. On cooperating. J Bus Res 2002;55:123 – 32.