Graduation thesis University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc BA Change Management 22 June 2015 Written by Renske Devilee Supervisor Dr. B. J. M. Emans Co-assessor Dr. I. Maris-de Bresser

(1)

THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT & LEADERSHIP

STYLE ON THE INITIATION PROCESS OF EMERGENT CHANGE THROUGH

EMPLOYEE IMPROVISATION.

Graduation thesis

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

Emergent change: the initiation through employee improvisation and the influence of organizational commitment & leadership style

R. Devilee Page 2

Abstract

The initiation of emergent change starts with action of employees, there is an active attempt to seek solutions to problems and alternatives are generated (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). Within this process of creating new possibilities improvisation can be a source. This survey study investigates how certain factors might influence the level of improvisation by employees. In specific organizational commitment and transformational leadership is researched, with the hypothesis that organizational commitment does positively influence improvisation which is strengthened by transformational leadership. Data is collected from 20 companies through email-questionnaires, consisting of 1 leader and 3 employees per company, resulting in a sample size of 80. The empirical evidence demonstrates that more affective organizational commitment (emotional attachment in employees to the company) leads to more improvisation in employees. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a strengthening effect when transformational leadership is showed. Recommendations for further research are concluded at the end of the report, with the main recommendation to research other employee characteristics that might influence improvisation.

Keywords: Emergent change, improvisation, creativity, spontaneity, organizational commitment,

affective commitment, normative commitment, continuance commitment, leadership styles, transformational leadership

(3)

Introduction

In the past few years, the emergent change approach has increased in importance (Burnes, 2009; Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Organizational strategy and design tend to lag behind, this because of the fast pace in external change, which emphasize the essential in unplanned change (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014). Furthermore, the markets nowadays are turbulent and uncertain, which demands a rapid response by organizations (Bamford & Forrester, 2003). Modern organizations should discover and try day-by-day to react in patterned, spontaneous and unplanned behaviors to an environment characterized by continuous evolution (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003).

In the academic literature there is already an agreement on how the approach emergent change is composed, it is bottom-up, spontaneous, continuous, and about improvisation (Pettigrew, Woodman & Cameron, 2001; Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995). This is in agreement with Aldrich (1999) who specified this by describing emergent change as an evolutionary process. In the evolutionary process organizations struggle over scare resources (Campbell, 1969). The evolutionary process starts with the creation of solutions to problems (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006), which can be seen as the initiation of emergent change. Employees try to find solutions to occurring problems whereby improvisation can be a source (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). These solutions to problems may be distributed through the internal borders of the organization and transformed into shared routines and practices, which completes the evolutionary process of emergent change (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014; Aldrich & Ruef, 2006).

Despite the increase in importance of an emergent change approach empirical studies on emergent change are still scare (Burnes, 2009; Higgs & Rowlands, 2011). Emergent change is still believed as something that just happens within organizations (Mackay & Chia, 2013). Academic literature demonstrates already some prove about the role and the centrality of spontaneous change (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014; Mohrman & Lawler, 2012; Lawler & Worley, 2006), but lacks quantitative analysis on how the emergent change approach can be stimulated. A further understanding of emergent change is especially important to companies and leaders that works in industries and contexts that requires an improvisatory mindset (Barrett, 1998), which is in an uncertain and turbulent environment.

(4)

R. Devilee Page 4 about how employee characteristics might influence emergent change, with the emphasis on improvisation.

According to Barrett (1998) “improvisation is being widely open to transformation, redirection, and unprecedented turns” (615). People discover new ideas and new ways to solve problems all the time, they communicate, negotiate, collaborate etcetera (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014). Magni, Proserpio, Hoegl & Provera (2009) noted improvisation as an action to flexibly dealing with unexpected occurrences and problems. Research acknowledges the presence of creativity and spontaneity in improvisation, this to be able to identify novel solutions for emergent problems (Moorman & Miner, 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2005; Magni, Maruping, Hoegl & Proserpio, 2013).

Improvisation by employees might be increased when employees have attachment to the values of the organization (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Yi, 2008), the probability that they are going to follow organizational views increases. Also the dedication to the organization, organizational commitment, might lead to more active search in novel solutions to secure existence of the organization. Research already demonstrated evidence in the positive influence of organizational commitment to organizational outcomes (Jak & Evers, 2010).

When researching the literature it stands out that leadership is an important factor in planned change, however in the topic emergent change there is discussion about the influence of leadership. Leadership does affect organizational outcomes and the success of a planned change initiative (Arvonen & Pettersson, 2002; Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Yukl, 2008). A leader can either obstruct or stimulate organizational change. The transformational leadership style is known for its encouragement to employees freedom, creative mind, and ability to reframe problems (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001), which might strengthen the relation of organizational commitment to improvisation.

The key research question to be answered in this research is: How does organizational commitment influence improvisation by employees and in what way might transformational leadership affect this?

(5)

Theoretical Framework

In this section the introduced concepts are further discussed. First, the process of emergent change is described. This is followed by a discussion on improvisation, which can be a source of the initiation in emergent change. Secondly, organizational commitment is elaborated, resulting in a three component concept. Thirdly, different leadership styles are identified with subsequently a discussion on transformational leadership. Finally, this section results in a conceptual model with hypotheses.

Emergent change

As described in the introduction emergent change consists of ongoing accommodations, adaptions, and alterations (Weick, 2000). It is bottom-up, spontaneous and continuous (Pettigrew et al., 2001). Barrett (1998, p.617) describe it as:

People in organizations are often jumping into action without clear plans, making up reasons as they proceed, discovering new routes once action is initiated, proposing multiple interpretations, navigating through discrepancies, combining disparate and incomplete materials and then discovering what their original purpose was.

Cummings & Cummings (2014) emphasize that emergent changes can be too small, disparate, and diffuse to compile into fundamental changes. Vice versa, Weick (2000) does acknowledge the fact that emergent changes may lead to fundamental change without planned intentions from the top. Maimone & Sinclair (2014) agrees stating: “People discover new ideas and new ways to solve problems all the time, they communicate, negotiate, collaborate etcetera and these may be distributed through the internal borders of the organization and transformed into shared routines and practices” (p. 345).

These different interpretations about emergent change can be understood by the evolutionary process theory introduced by Aldrich (1999), consisting of three processes (variation, selection, & retention). The evolutionary process starts with the creation of solutions to problems (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006), which can be seen as the initiation of emergent change and is defined as the variation process. Thereupon, these solutions to problems may be distributed through the internal borders of the organization (selection process) and transformed into shared routines and practices (retention process), which completes the evolutionary process of emergent change (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014; Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). Thus, not every solution to a problem or initiation of emergent change will lead to fundamental change, this is determined in the selection and retention process (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006).

(6)

R. Devilee Page 6 consequences, independently from the intentions of those who generated the variations (Langton, 1979). For example, some variations help organizations acquire resources or legitimacy and are thus selected (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006).

The selection process continues with the retention process, where the selected variations are preserved, duplicated or reproduced (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). This implies the adaptation of new behaviors, beliefs, values or procedures by organizational members (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). Roles may be specialized or standardized, new teams can be created, or new structures might be institutionalized (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006).

The evolutionary process theory is a continuous and open-ended process, like evolution in nature (Lovas & Goshal, 2000). The three processes are simultaneously and linked in continuous feedback loops, there is no fixed sequence (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). The variation process is only a useful analytical starting point (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006), from the process retention new variations might rise.

The underlying urge in the evolutionary process is the struggle over scare resources (Campbell, 1969). Additionally, the turbulent and uncertain markets nowadays require a continuous evolution of organizations (Bamford & Forrester, 2003; Maimone & Sinclair, 2014; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). The generated variations are affected by environmental or internal criteria (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). As well as the “selection criteria are set through the operation of market forces, competitive pressures, the logic of internal organizational structuring, conformity to institutionalized norms, and other forces” (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006, p. 21).

This research focuses on the variation process, the initiation of change. Variation is potentially created by every employee of the organization (Lovas & Goshal, 2000). In this process current routines or competencies are changed, this can be either intentionally or blind according to Aldrich & Ruef (2006). Any deviation from routine or tradition is a variation (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006, p. 18).

Intentional variation occurs when there is an active attempt to seek solutions to problems and when alternatives are generated (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). Blind variation occurs out of misunderstanding, mistakes, surprises, chances, conflicts or luck, it happens independently of conscious planning (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Brunsson, 1985; March, 1981). According to Aldrich & Ruef (2006) opportunities for change risen with the frequency of variations, whatever their source.

(7)

R. Devilee Page 7 Improvisation

Emergent change has been associated with improvisation by several authors, it does affect the bottom-up change (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995; Eisenhardt, 1997; Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997; Barrett, 1998; Hatch, 1997, 1999). Improvisation is required in order to deal with the tension between deciding quickly or adaptively in the context of rapid change (Eisenhardt, 1997). Magni et al. (2013) emphasize the importance and necessarily to improvise at emergent challenges.

Most literature in the change management field describes improvisation by using jazz as a metaphor which is mostly written in the 90’s (Barrett, 1998; Hatch, 1997, 1999; Eisenhardt, 1997). The jazz metaphor represents the role of free exploration, improvisation and creation of collective new strategies and tools (self-organization) (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014). Recently (from 2010) this is elaborated by the metaphor dance, which is slightly different but integrated to the jazz metaphor (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014). The dance metaphor describes the processes of adaptation and continuous improvement (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014). Both metaphors present how people work, communicate, and improvise in different routines within a set of rules and boundaries.

Like mentioned in the previous paragraph improvisation is about exploring, continuous experimenting, and tinkering on possibilities all without knowing how the action will unfold (Barret, 1998, p. 606). According to Barrett (1998) “improvisation is being widely open to transformation, redirection, and unprecedented turns” (p. 615). Magni, Proserpio, Hoegl & Provera (2009) noted improvisation as an action to dealing flexibly with unexpected occurrences and problems. People discover new ideas and new ways to solve problems all the time, they communicate, negotiate, collaborate etcetera (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014). Improvisation is an organizing strategy of “making it up as you go along” (Moorman & Miner, 1995).

Improvisation has been studied on different levels of analysis (3), including individual (Magni, Proserpio, Hoegl, and Provera, 2009; Weick, 1998), team (Hatch, 1997; Vera and Crossan, 2005) and organization (Miner, Bassoff, and Moorman, 2001). All these studies recognizes two core elements of improvisation, namely, creative and spontaneous action (Magni et al., 2013).

(8)

R. Devilee Page 8 employees are the ones that can bring novelty in practice and creative ideas to the surface to improve business performances.

Spontaneous actions are not routine, not planned, or anticipated (Robinson, 1977; Unger & Kerman, 1983). Unger & Kerman (1983) refer to spontaneity in the following phrases, “it happens without warning or pre-tought, it happens out of the blue, it is a spur-of-the-moment thing, the person wouldn’t know it the day before that it was going to happen” (p.387). Another element in improvisation highlighted by Moorman & Miner (1998) is the time gap between events, the more narrow the more the action and/or response is improvisational, including spontaneity. Pina e Cunha, Vieira da Cunha, & Kamoche (1999) define the spontaneity in improvisation as the immediate action of utilizing immediately available resources in the task environment to address the issues at hand. This refers to a time-dependent nature of spontaneity (Magni et al., 2013) which was also mentioned by Moorman & Miner (1998).

Following this, improvisation can be defined as: the creative and spontaneous action of utilizing immediately available resources to identify novel solutions to emergent problems within a short time frame (Moorman & Miner, 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2005; Magni, Maruping, Hoegl & Proserpio, 2013). This definition of improvisation is used from this point on throughout the paper.

In the literature there are concepts that seem to have the same meaning as improvisation however these concepts (adaptation, flexibility, and responsiveness) are conceptually distinct from improvisation (Moorman & Miner, 1998; Magni et al. 2013). To get a comprehensive understanding of improvisation the differences between these concepts are discussed below.

Adaptation stands for the process to respond to external conditions by changing the internal system (Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006; Le Pine, 2003). It looks like there is significant overlap between adaptation and improvisation, both concepts indicate actions taken in response to environmental stimulus (Magni et al., 2013). However, there are conceptual differences, for example adaptive actions can be planned in advance in contrast to improvisation (Magni et al., 2013; Burke et al., 2006). Planned actions, although adaptive to situations as they arise, are clearly not spontaneous and the specific action taken may not necessarily be creative in nature (Magni et al., 2013, p. 1013). Waller, Gupta, & Giambatista (2004) describes adaptation actions and planned implementation as routines that already exist or consist of context-relevant protocols. Moorman and Miner (1998) suggest that adaptation can be seen as an outcome of improvisation.

(9)

R. Devilee Page 9 necessarily any requirement on the time frame within which actions must be taken (Magni et al., 2013).

Lastly, responsiveness is the degree to which an individual’s output meets the requirements of customers (Lee & Xia, 2010). Responsive actions can be executed over time spontaneously but are not necessarily creative (Magni et al., 2013, p. 1013).

Organizational Commitment

As mentioned previously the employee has a subsequently influence in the emergent change process (it is a bottom-up process), in particular the variation process (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). The employee creates solutions to unexpected problems through improvisation (Maimone & Sinclair, 2014; Magni et al., 2009).

According to Crossan (1998) individual traits and beliefs have a significant influence on improvisational behaviors. A committed and engaged attitude is needed in order to be convincing in improvisation (Crossan, 1998). This research investigates if organizational commitment positively influences improvisation in employees.

In the literature different definitions of organizational commitment were introduced at the end of the 60’s / begin of the 70’s. Porter (1968) described organizational commitment as the willingness of an employee to exert high levels of effort on behalf of the organization, a strong desire to stay with the organization, and an acceptance of its major goals and values. Kantor (1968) used a shorter definition stating: “the willingness of social actors to give energy and loyalty to the organization” (p. 499). Sheldon (1971) describes it as the intention to work towards its goals and a positive evaluation of the organization. Lee (1971) used the terms belongingness and loyalty.

Allen & Meyer (1990) integrated these different definitions of organizational commitment into a three-component model. In this model a clear distinction between different elements of organizational commitment were made, namely affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). In harmony it sends the message: “employees who are strongly committed are those who are the least likely to leave the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 1).

(10)

R. Devilee Page 10 Continuance commitment consists on the basis of two factors: the magnitude and/or the

number of investments individuals deploy and the perceived lack of alternatives (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Becker, 1960). According to Becker (1960) individuals estimate if the time and energy invested in an action will be payed off. If this estimate is high the likelihood that employees will stay with the organization rises (Becker, 1960). Next to the estimated investment necessary for employees to benefit, the employment alternatives are part of continuance commitment. The fewer viable job alternatives are available, the stronger their continuance commitment will be to their current employer (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981). “The continuance component refers to commitment based on the costs that employees associate with leaving the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 1).

Normative commitment is about the employees feelings of obligation to remain with the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 1). This obligation feeling is influenced by the individual’s experiences (familial/cultural socialization) and the organizational socialization (Wiener, 1982). For example, when others (e.g. parents) have been long-term employees of an organization and/or emphasize the importance of organizational loyalty, than an employee would have strong normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). With respect to organizational socialization, when employees believe the organization expects loyalty of their employees, their normative commitment would be most likely strong (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

If an employee has commitment, a positive attitude towards change is more likely (Herold et al., 2008), which approximates the condition of being widely open to transformation in improvisation (Barrett, 1998). Because of their openness to changes, they are not retained in their creativity (component of improvisation). Employees will show more action in trying out new ideas, finding new approaches to problems, and identifying opportunities (Tierney et al., 1999).

Furthermore, when employees have organizational commitment they have attachment to the values of the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). This high attachment may lead to an increase in the ability to work and think from the organizations view, which might stimulate spontaneous action (improvisation). Employees will anticipate and take immediate action to utilize unexpected occurrences (Pina e Cunha et al., 1999; Unger & Kerman, 1983). Van der Voet, Groeneveld, & Kuipers (2014) recognize this by stating that employees who understand the direction of the organization can translate this into daily practices.

Additionally, employees feel involved in the organization when they are high in organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Feelings of involvement might result in more actions of employees, and thereby also deliberate improvisational actions.

(11)

R. Devilee Page 11 the organization from the pressure of organizational socialization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). In this

active search for novel solutions which is pushed by commitment and loyalty the creative and spontaneous actions of improvisation by employees will increase.

Finally, when employees have commitment to the organization they have the feeling that the time and energy invested will be payed off (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Employees might therefore show more improvisation when they estimated a positive reward in their time and energy, which is presented in organizational commitment.

In short, when employees are strong in commitment their creativity and spontaneity (improvisation) increases. Following this organizational commitment is leading to three separated hypotheses according to the three distinct elements of Allen & Meyer (1990), they emphasize the importance in recognizing the differences.

H1: A high level of affective commitment by employees increases their level of improvisation.

H2: A high level of continuance commitment by employees increases their level of improvisation.

H3: A high level of normative commitment by employees increases their level of improvisation.

The arguments of organizational commitment influencing improvisation do have the most conformity with affective commitment (emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement, in the organization). Therefore, it is expected that affective commitment has the highest influence on improvisation.

Leadership style

(12)

R. Devilee Page 12 In leadership many different styles are recognized. Bass’s (1985) multi-factor leadership

theory is probably the most cited and most comprehensive theory that represents a broad range of leadership styles (Lee, 2005).

The multi-factor leadership theory includes different styles varying from non-leadership, otherwise known as laissez faire, to transactional leadership, which focuses on rewards and punishments, to transformational leadership, which hinges on behavioral charisma (Bass & Avolio, 1993). After some critics on the multi-factor leadership theory of Bass (1985) a reflection was conducted by De Hoogh, Koopman, & Den Hartog (2004). This resulted in four distinguished leadership styles namely, transactional, autocratic, passive, and charismatic / transformational leadership.

Transactional leadership is defined by Bass & Avolio (1993) as an exchange between leader and employees existing of contingent reward (endorsement of task performance), active ‘management-by-exception’ (monitor if no mistakes occur), and passive ‘management-‘management-by-exception’ (only intervene when targets are not met). Autocratic leadership is about giving commands and clarity on who is the leader (Yukl, 1999b). Passive leadership or ‘laissez-faire’ represents the absence of leadership and avoidance of interventions (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Transformational leadership constitutes developing relations with employees that go beyond pure economic and social exchange (Bass, 1985).

The relation of organizational commitment to improvisation might most likely be strengthened by the transformational leadership style. The transformational leadership style is known for its encouragement to employees freedom, creative mind, and to reframe problems (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). It is an enabling style (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). The creative behavior needed in improvisation can be stimulated by freedom to experiment and through encouragement of leaders (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Furthermore, delegation by the leader leads to commitment and high level of effort in employees (Volberda & Lewin, 2003; Seltzer & Bass, 1990). A transformational leadership style might help employees to achieve more improvisational actions through the presence of organizational commitment. This conception will be discussed in the next subsection, starting with an elaborated discussion on the content of transformational leadership.

Transformational leadership

(13)

R. Devilee Page 13 Transformational leadership can be best discussed by approximating the four present

components namely, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual simulation, and charismatic-inspirational / individualized consideration (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Alimo-Metcalfe, 2001). The component idealized influence reflects behaviors that result in the leader being admired, respected and trusted, such that employees wish to pursue the leader; the leader is extraordinarily capable, persistent, and determined (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). Inspirational motivation refers to the fact that leaders motivate and inspire those around them by providing meaning, optimism and enthusiasm for a vision of a future state (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). Encouraging employees to question assumptions, reframe problems, approach old solutions in new ways, and to be creative is the intellectual simulation of transformational leadership (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). This can also be seen as encouraging motivation in employees. The fourth element, charismatic-inspirational / individualized consideration refers to actively developing the potential of employees by creating new opportunities for development, coaching, mentoring, and paying attention to each employee’s desires and needs; the leader is well aware of their employees, they know their staff due to the right level of communicating, listening, and encouraging (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001).

As mentioned creative behavior of employees will be higher when a leader stimulates employees to challenge themselves, share information, and by providing them enough space (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Higgs & Rowland (2011) studied behaviors that were successful in change management, they state that enabling behaviors are most effective, leaders provide others the space to implement changes. According to Brand et al. (2012) it is important for a leader to recognize emergent change, the leader should stimulate and reinforce continuous emergent. Maimone & Sinclair (2014) found that managers need to create freedom of interpretation to employees, also it is important to work in harmony with peers and superiors like a role model. A style of delegation is necessary to create commitment at every level of the organization (Volberda & Lewin, 2003).

(14)

R. Devilee Page 14 Besides the effects of transformational leadership on improvisation, it was also proven in

literature to have an effect on organizational commitment (Rowden, 2000). In specific, transformational leadership is most likely to exhibit strong positive relationships with affective commitment because of the intense feelings of emotional attachment in affective commitment (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Lee, 2005). Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu (2008) also found that transformational leadership is strongly related to follower’s commitment.

When leaders show a transformational leadership style (providing space, delegating), they enable a higher level of organizational commitment in employees and thereby helping employees to show more improvisation. The leader helps employees to understand the higher vision of the organization, and provide employees with high level of effort to reach novel solutions through improvisation. The transformational leadership style encourage employees to reframe problems, that is possibly more showed when employees have a high level of organizational commitment.

The effect of transformational leadership on both improvisation and organizational commitment results in the hypothesis below.

H4: The effect of organizational commitment to improvisation is stronger the more a transformational leadership style is displayed.

Conceptual model and hypotheses

From the literature a conceptual model can be presented, see figure I. The hypotheses tested in this research are summed up below.

H1: A high level of affective commitment by employees increases their level of improvisation. H2: A high level of continuance commitment by employees increases their level of improvisation. H3: A high level of normative commitment by employees increases their level of improvisation.

(15)

(16)

Methods

In order to test whether the hypotheses hold, quantitative research has been conducted. This section describes how the survey-research is prepared and collected. Furthermore the respondents are presented. Subsequently the analytical procedure is reported, ending with a short review of the procedure.

Data collection and sample

An online questionnaire is developed from existing research covering subjects of improvisation, organizational commitment, and transformational leadership, which is described in more detail in measurement of the variables. The survey is focused on employees and their direct superiors, per leader 3 employees are concerned. The questionnaire is distributed among 20 organizations, this resulted in a sample size of 80 participants.

The respondents are contacted through the personal network of the writer. This leads to a high response, the participants have an interest in completing the questionnaire and are willing to fill in the questionnaire accurately from a network perspective. This probably leads to a more valid representation of the outcomes.

The questionnaire is made available in Dutch, this because all the participants are Dutch, and therefore the right understanding of the questionnaire is improved. Potential mistakes through confusion in language are reduced.

The data is collected from all kind of organizations, many sectors and regions are included and distributed proportionally, almost all organizations are established in the Netherlands. Excluded in this quantitative research are start-up organizations (shorter than one year in business) and micro organizations (9 employees and smaller). This since start-up and micro organizations change and work in a different way (Brand et al., 2012). The organizations range from 13 employees to 25,000 employees and are established from 1615 to 2013.

Of the respondents 64% is men, 61% is graduated at Polytechnic and/or University level and the age is well spread from 22 to 64. The number of years in work experience vary from 2 to 46 years, with an average experience of 19 years, which is 9 years in the current function.

Measurement of the variables

(17)

R. Devilee Page 17 from well-validated measures (See appendix I for measurement items and sources). For all items a

7-point likert scale is used. To improve the quality of the instrument, questionnaire, it was pre-tested by study group members who also study emergent change (total of 6), next to that other students and acquaintances were asked (total of 14).

Dependent variable

The dependent variable, improvisation, consists of creative and spontaneous action of utilizing immediately available resources to identify novel solutions to emergent problems within a short time frame (Moorman & Miner, 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2005; Magni et al., 2013). Vera & Crossan (2005) developed a well validated seven-item likert-type scale to measure improvisation, including both its creative and spontaneous facets (four items about creativity, three items about spontaneity). These seven-items were translated to Dutch as accurate as possible. To verify if these translations are correct an English native speaker who is also confident in the Dutch language checked the translation. The translated items are presented in appendix I. This variable is only measured on employees, excluding leaders.

Independent variable

Strong organizational commitment has the overall meaning of not willing to leave the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). However different elements are recognized within organizational commitment namely, affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The independent variable, organizational commitment, is measured through the published and tested Dutch instrument of Jak & Evers (2010), based on the original English instrument of Allen & Meyer (1990) and the improvements of Van Breukelen (1996). This instrument consists of fourteen-items (five-items affective, five-items continuance, four-items normative) see appendix I. This variable is only measured on employees, excluding leaders.

Moderator variable

(18)

R. Devilee Page 18 The items are answered by both the employees and their leader, this to achieve a more

comprehensive and accurate view on the leadership style of the leader. A leader might not be aware of his influences, as might an employee not be aware of all the components in the leadership behavior (invisible actions). The outcomes of the items by the employees will be connected to their leader and tested for differences. At the start of the questionnaire the respondent have to enter a code, this makes it possible to link the employee and leader correspondingly (according organization).

Data analysis and construct development

Several steps are conducted to analyze the data. First, a factor analysis is conducted on all multi-item variables to ensure discriminant validity of the variables and to check for underlying dimensions within the variable. Second, a cronbach’s alpha test (variability test) is executed to identify reliable and valid factors. Third, after the construction of reliable factors the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are performed. This to test whether the variables differ from each other, as they should to test different measures. Fourth, the outcomes of employees and leaders are tested on differences. Finally, a regression and moderator analysis is performed. In order to measure the moderating effect of transformational leadership, standardized variables for organizational commitment, improvisation, and transformational leadership needed to be added to interpret the moderating effect correctly. The moderating effect is analyzed according to the PROCESS procedure of Hayes (2013).

With the development of the constructs, the factor analyze, the following criteria are applied: (1) each item must have a loading of greater than 0.5 to the construct; (2) each item must not have a loading of greater than 0.4 to more than one construct; (3) each item must load into the correct factor (according the mentioned scales). Table I presents an overview of the developed constructs.

This study uses validated scales, which is reflected in the Cronbach’s alpha’s that are sufficient or even above sufficient (.67 - .91). A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.7 is preferred.

(19)

R. Devilee Page 19 Table I. Identified factors after factor analysis

Items^ Core characteristics of factor Cronbach’s alpha # Improvisation Creativity Spontaneity 4,5,6,7 1,3 -Novelty -Quick response .78 .67 (.50**) Organizational Commitment Affective Continuance Normative 1,2,3,4,5 6,7,8,10 11,12,13,14 -Emotional attachment -Disruption when leaving -Duty .87 .70 .91 Leadership style Transformational Transactional Autocratic Passive 1,3,4,5,6,8, 7,9,11 13,14,16,17 18,19,21,23 20,22 24,25,26,27 -Stimulation, vision -Demarcation -Equitable agreement -Self convenience -Power -Hands-off .82 .78 .63 .75 .61 (.44**) .56

^ questions of the numbered items can be founded in appendix I. # in case of 2-item construct correlation displayed between parentheses. ** correlation significant p<=0.01 (2-tailed)

* correlation significant p<=0.05 (2-tailed) N = 60 (improvisation & organizational commitment) N = 80 (leadership)

The constructed factors are used in further analysis, according table I. The variables consisting of two factors (improvisation and transformational leadership) are combined proportionally to one variable.

Reflection of analytical procedure

The strength of this procedure lies in the different perspectives (employees and leaders). Furthermore, the dataset shows great variety in gender, age, education, work experience, and branches. This contributes to the respresentability of this research.

(20)

Results

In this section the results are discussed, presenting the variance, mean, and correlation of the data. Furthermore, regression analyses are presented and the interpretation of the outcomes, which leads to supporting or rejecting the hypotheses.

Descriptives

To get a first impression of the collected data the main descriptive and bivariate correlations are illustrated in table II.

The rate of improvisation in employees is relatively high (mean of 5.44 on a 7 point scale). Furthermore, the standard deviation of improvisation shows that the data points are relatively close to the mean; the amount of variation from the average is limited. Nevertheless the improvisation variable is normal distributed, which enables analytical analysis.

In organizational commitment, affective commitment is most possessed by the employee participants (4.72 of 7). The least possessed is the normative commitment (2.48 of 7). The variance in the three types of organizational commitment is acceptable, which presents usage of the full scale. The correlations between the organizational commitment variables are acceptable, the variables continuance commitment and normative commitment represent some similarity.

Table II. Descriptive statistics and Pearson bivariate correlations among variables

Variable Means St. Dev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Improvisation 5.44 .64 1 2. Affective commitment 4.72 1.29 .36*** 1 3. Continuance commitment 4.01 1.34 -.012 -.02 1 4. Normative commitment 2.48 1.29 -.12 .29** .24** 1 5. Transformational leadership 4.66 .86 .21* .30** -.11 .14 1 6. Transactional leadership 4.95 .94 _.06 _.15 _-.11 _.08 .61*** 1 7. Autocratic leadership 4.48 .98 _.06 _.36*** _-.19* _.14 .62*** .35*** 11 8. Passive leadership 5.03 .87 _.27** _.32** _-.38*** _.04 .39*** .47*** .51*** N = 60 employees

*** Correlation significant p<=0.01 (one-sided) ** Correlation significant p<=0.05 (one-sided) * Correlation significant p<=0.10 (one-sided)

(21)

R. Devilee Page 21 correlations between the different leadership styles, which is extraordinary since these scales

represents differences according to the theory and developed scale by De Hoogh, Koopman, & Den Hartog (2004). The standard deviation shows sufficient usage of the scales in all leadership styles.

Analyses

First linear regression analyses are conducted to identify how the organizational commitment variables explain the improvisation variable, see table III. In model 1 all independent variables are added, models 2 to 4 test the independent variables separately.

Subsequently a moderator analysis is conducted to test the effect of transformational leadership on the relation organizational commitment to improvisation. The variables are mean-centered, as recommended by Hayes (2013) to test interaction effects.

Model 1 presents that organizational commitment explains 19% (R square) of the variance in improvisation. Which means 81% of the variance is explained by other variables that are not covered in this report.

The linear regression presented in model 2, shows an significant improvement of model 1 (F-statistic from 3.96 to 7.91). Model 2 shows a significant relation between affective commitment and improvisation, the variable affective commitment predicts the level of improvisation in employees by 13% (R square). Furthermore, the coefficient for affective commitment is positive (B=.18) and significant (p<0.01). These results provide empirical support for H1.

The other two elements of organizational commitment (continuance commitment & normative commitment) did not significantly predict improvisation in employees. Therefore, H2 and H3 are not supported.

Table III. Improvisation regressed on commitment

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variable B SE B SE B SE B SE Affective commitment .22** .067 .18** .065 Continuance commitment .03 .063 -.001 .10 Normative commitment -.13 .068 -.096 .071 R Square .19 .13 0 .034 Adjusted R Square .14 .12 -.02 .015 F 3.96 7.91 0 1.80 * significant at p < .05 ** significant at p < .01

(22)

R. Devilee Page 22 To test whether the relation between organizational commitment and improvisation is

moderated by transformational leadership (H4), a bias-corrected bootstrap PROCESS procedure, model 1, 1000 bootstrap resamples is performed (Hayes, 2013). There are no significant outcomes of the moderator analysis (not on the separate elements of commitment and not on the total of these elements, organizational commitment). Hence, H4 is not supported.

Additional analyses are conducted to test whether other leadership styles do moderate the relation between organizational commitment and improvisation. This because the other leadership styles correlated with either or both improvisation and organizational commitment. The other leadership styles did not significantly moderate organizational commitment to improvisation.

Furthermore, the correlation matrix might suggest a mediation effect of transformational leadership on affective commitment to improvisation (it correlates with both improvisation and affective commitment). The mediation procedure offered by Baron & Kenny (1986) was conducted. No significant mediation effect is founded in transformational leadership on affective commitment.

(23)

Conclusion

This research aimed to create insight into the concept of emergent change. It offers a new empirical test of the relationships among organizational commitment, improvisation and transformational leadership. The results point to an interesting, important, and novel finding that advance theory and inform practice. In specific the question to be answered is: How does organizational commitment influence improvisation by employees and how might transformational leadership affect this?

This researched examined improvisation as outcome. Improvisation is one of the mechanisms through which individuals can accomplish routine breaking (Cunha et al., 2007), which can be seen as the initiation in emergent change (Aldrich & Ruef, 2006). Every employee might act as a source in the creation of solutions to unexpected problems (Lovas & Goshal, 2006). Improvisation is defined as, the creative and spontaneous action of utilizing immediately available resources to identify novel solutions to emergent problems within a short time frame (Moorman & Miner, 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2005; Magni, Maruping, Hoegl & Proserpio, 2013).

According to Crossan (1998) individual traits and beliefs have a significant influence on improvisational behaviors. A committed and engaged attitude is needed in order to be convincing in improvisation (Crossan, 1998). Employees that are committed are least likely to leave the organization, different elements can be recognized in organizational commitment namely, affective, continuance, and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

For the affective commitment a significant positive association with improvisation was founded. The variance in improvisation is statistically explained with 13% by affective commitment. When employees feel emotional attached to, identified with, and involved in the organization, the improvisation by employees rises. Affective commitment may lead to an increase in the ability to work and think from organizations view, which might stimulate spontaneous action. Furthermore, it may lead to willingness in securing the existence of the organization, which stimulates an active search in novel solutions, creativity.

(24)

R. Devilee Page 24 commitment have no influence and are therefore not necessary to consider in stimulating

improvisation.

Research already showed that a leader can facilitate an environment in which unplanned change is allowed (Plowman et al., 2007). In the initiation of emergent change, leadership behaviors should be directed at stimulating variation (Lovas & Goshal, 2000). Transformational leadership has a positive effect on organizational commitment and improvisation separately (Rowden, 2000; Herold et al., 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2011; Amabile et al., 1996). Transformational leadership does create high levels of effort in employees (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). Furthermore, transformational leadership stimulates emotional attachment which is part of organizational commitment, especially affective commitment (Bycio et al., 1995; Lee, 2005). When leaders show a transformational leadership style (providing space, delegating), they enable a higher level of organizational commitment in employees and thereby helping employees to understanding a higher vision and show more improvisation.

Despite the suggestion from collected literature that transformational leadership might strengthen the affect of organizational commitment to improvisation, no significant moderating effect is founded. Further analyses were conducted, the correlation matrix provided certain suggestion which were interesting to further examine. This resulted in excluding the moderating or mediating effect of all leadership styles (transformational, transactional, autocratic, & passive) in affective commitment to improvisation. Leadership thus does not influence the relation between organizational commitment and improvisation by employees.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This research contributes to the theory of emergent change, which is described as an evolutionary process consisting of variation, selection and retention. The conception of emergent change as an evolutionary process provides the possibility to analyze emergent change in more detail, this to the contrary of emergent change as a single process presented by other studies.

Also for practice it is useful to see emergent change as an evolutionary process. The evolutionary view provides a deeper and more detailed understanding. Emergent change as a single process is too complex to understand and to see the underlying actions that happen within the process. In specific this research provides a further understanding of the variation process in emergent change and how variation can be stimulated. Research already acknowledges the influence of employees through improvisation. This research demonstrates academic evidence that affective commitment does positively influence improvisation by employees.

(25)

R. Devilee Page 25 scope of the research consequently contributes to a more detailed academic literature on emergent

change. Furthermore, because of the proven positive linear relationship, theory could expand by involving further influences.

When companies have a high interest in emergent change and are present in dynamic markets it is useful to know that employees with a high level of affective commitment shows more improvisation. Companies could attract or stimulate employees to high levels of affective commitment.

Lastly, this research rules out the influence of leadership in strengthening affective commitment to improvisation. This is in contrast to the expected relationship argued by other research that leaders do influence emergent change but within an enabling, facilitating style. For theory and practice it contributes that leadership does not always influence emergent change (not on all factors and relations within the variation process).

Limitations and Further research

This research includes some limitations. The outcomes should be interpreted with the conscious of the limitations.

Firstly, the four leadership styles included in this research reflected a high correlation among each other, all leadership styles were rated relatively high on the scale. This results in questioning the reflectivity of the variable transformational leadership in this research. It is odd that passive leadership is rated high simultaneously with other leadership styles, this seems contradictorily. Furthermore, the high correlations debate the validity of the constructed different leadership styles. These different styles should measure differences and conformity should be low.

Secondly, the sample size is limited. Because of time and assets this is limited to 80 respondents. The sample size could be increased to improve represantability of the outcomes.

Finally, other factors do have influence in improvisation, only 13% in improvisation is explained by this research. This leaves a huge gap to research, and therefore it limits the conclusion in how improvisation is influenced by employees.

(26)

R. Devilee Page 26 Secondly, other mediator variables should be researched, for example organizational culture

and organizational structure in the relation between affective commitment and improvisation. Culture and structure are generally recognized and frequently studied as a moderating effect.

Thirdly, it is interesting to test the influence of employees in the other processes of emergent change (selection and retention). In these processes other behaviors are presented and necessary in order to reach a market forced selection and adaption of new procedures.

(27)

References

Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Sage.

Aldrich, H., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations Evolving. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2001). The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 1-27.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

Amabile T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167 (n Staw BM, Cummings LL(Eds,).

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity and innovation in organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1185.

Bamford, D. R., & Forrester, P. L. (2003). Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment. International Journal Of Operations & Production Management, 23(5), 546-564.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Barrett, F. J. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations:

(28)

R. Devilee Page 28 Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press: New York.

Bass, B.M. (1990), The Bass and Stogdill handbook of leadership. Free Press: New York.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 509-527.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques: In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership: Theory and research perspectives and directions. San Diego, CA, Academic Press.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 32- 40.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133-141.

Biedenbach, T., & Söderholm, A. (2008). The Challenge of Organizing Change in Hypercompetitive Industries: A Literature Review. Journal Of Change Management, 8(2), 123-145.

Brand, M. J., Vos, J. F. J., & de Haan, J. (2012). Planned and emergent change in small firms; a cross-sectional study. Rent-conference: Lyon.

Brunsson, N. (1985). The Irrational Organization. New York: John Wiley

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189–1207.

Burnes, B. (2004). Emergent change and planned change - competitors or

(29)

R. Devilee Page 29 Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J.S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass’s (1985)

conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.

Campbell, D. (1969). Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. General Systems: Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, 16, 69–85.

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

Cummings, T. G., & Cummings, C. (2014). Appreciating Organization Development: A Comparative Essay on Divergent Perspectives. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 141-154

Cunha, J. V., Cunha, M. P., & Chia, R. (2007). Routine as deviation, Unpublished paper. : Leone, L. (2010). A critical review of improvisation in organizations: open issues and future research directions. Summer Conference, Opening Up Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology, Imperial College London Business School.

De Hoogh, A. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: Een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. = The development of the CLIO: A questionnaire for measuring charismatic leadership in organizations. Gedrag En Organisatie, 17(5), 354-382.

Den Hartog, D. N. (1997). Inspirational Leadership. Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-34.

(30)

R. Devilee Page 30 3.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating adaptive processes: product

innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 84-110.

Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 78-95.

Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multi-level investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59, 1–29.

Ford C.M. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 1, 1112-1142.

Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521–531.

Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2002). The Unintended Consequences of Culture Interventions: A Study of Unexpected Outcomes. British Journal Of Management, 13(1), 31.

Hatch, M. J. (1997). Jazzing up the theory of organizational improvisation. Advances in strategic management, 14, 181-191.

Hatch, M. J. (1999). Exploring the empty spaces of organizing: how improvisational jazz helps redescribe organizational structure. Organization Studies, 20, 75.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Yi, L. (2008). The Effects of Transformational

(31)

R. Devilee Page 31 Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-

component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474–487.

Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal Of Change Management, 5(2), 121-151.

Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change successfully? A

study of the behaviors of successful change leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309-335.

Holden, N. J., & Glibsy, M. (2010). Creating knowledge advantage: The tacit dimensions of

international competition and cooperation. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Ionescu, V., Cornescu, V., & Druic, E. (2012). Creativity, innovation and change in knowledge-based organization. Revista Economica, 2, 160-166.

Isaken, S. G., & Lauer, K. J. (2002). The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11, 74-86.

Jak, S., & Evers, A. (2010). Onderzoeksnotitie: een vernieuwd meetinstrument voor organizational Commitment. Gedrag en Organisatie, 23 (2), 158-171

Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization.In L. L. Cumming (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (169–211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kantor, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: a study of commitment mechanisms in Utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33, 499-517.

Langton, J. (1979). Darwinism and the Behavioral Theory of Sociocultural Evolution: An Analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 85(2), 288–309.

(32)

R. Devilee Page 32 Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identification. Academy of Management

Journal, 14, 213-226.

Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 655 – 672.

Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 34(1), 87–114.

LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 27–39.

Lovas, B., & Ghoshal, S. (2000). Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9), 875-896.

Mackay, R. B., & Chia, R. (2013). Choice, chance, and unintended consequences in strategic change: a process understanding of the rise and fall of northco automotive. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 208-231.

Maertz, C. P., Mosley, D. C., & Alford, B. L. (2002). Does organizational commitment fully

mediate constituent commitment effects? A reassessment and clarification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1300-1313

Magni, M., Maruping, L. M., Hoegl, M., & Proserpio, L. (2013). Managing the Unexpected Across Space: Improvisation, Dispersion, and Performance in NPD Teams. Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 1009-1026.

Magni, M., Proserpio, L., Hoegl, M., & Provera, B. (2009). The role of team behavioral integration and cohesion in shaping individual improvisation. Research Policy, 38, 1044-1053.

(33)

R. Devilee Page 33 March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to Organizational Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2),

563–577.

Miner, A.S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A field Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 304-337.

Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2012). Generating knowledge that drives change. Academy Of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 41-51.

Moorman, C., & Miner, A. (1995). Walking the tightrope: Improvisation and information use in new product development. Marketing Science Institute Report No. 95–101. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Moorman, C., & Miner A. S. (1998). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 1–20.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for innovation. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 313–351.

Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge

creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 1, 2-10.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Hofman, J. D. (1997). An improvisational model of change

management: the case of groupware technologies. Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 11-22.

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational

change and development: challenges for future research. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697-713.

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