The Imaginary and Improvisation in Public Administration

Administrative Theory & Praxis ISSN: 1084-1806 (Print) 1949-0461 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/madt20 The Imaginary and Improvisation in Public Administration Susan FitzPatrick To cite this article: Susan FitzPatrick (2002) The Imaginary and Improvisation in Public Administration, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 24:4, 635-654, DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2002.11029381 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2002.11029381 Published online: 09 Dec 2014. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 26 Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=madt20 Vol. 24, No. 4, 2002: 635–654 Administrative Theory & Praxis THE IMAGINARY AND IMPROVISATION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Susan FitzPatrick Virginia Commonwealth University ABSTRACT This paper will demonstrate that Wolfgang Iser’s concept of the imaginary as described in The Fictive and the Imaginary provides a theoretical basis for understanding the way the imaginary can work in organizational settings. First, Iser’s insights suggest that the imaginary can be engaged but not controlled. The imaginary reveals itself through play, but the context in which play takes place influences the degree to which the imagination is free. Fictionalizing is a form of play that allows us to stage an endless number of ideas about the human condition. Second, I turn to the arts to describe a technique that has long been used to engage the imagination—improvisation. Third, I examine the notion of improvisational processes in public administration, including barriers and drawbacks. Improvisational processes both draw upon the imaginary and institutionalize meaning by adding to an organization’s knowledge. Fourth, I describe the use of improvisation games as a way for organizations to fictionalize and stage ideas, noting that in order for such games to be effective, the rest of the organizational setting must value imagination. Finally, I suggest that discourse about public administration can be seen as a series of improvisations that substitute small narratives for metanarratives. INTRODUCTION—IMAGINATION Imagination has long been feared as well as admired. In The Miller’s Tale, Chaucer wrote, “Men may dyen of ymaginacion/So depe may impression be take” (1386, p. 53, 3612-3613). Plato regarded poetry as dangerous because it feeds the passions. Many societies have repressed and punished those who express themselves imaginatively, such as writers and artists. But imagination does not just go away; when self-expression is challenged, it often finds another form in which to appear. One example is the British censorship of theatre in the 19th century. Playwrights responded with the development of a new genre, the “well-made play.” In this kind of play, plot becomes increasingly complex and convoluted through such devices as mistaken ©2002, Public Administration Theory Network 636 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 identity, until at the last possible moment everything is resolved in one quick movement. The well-made play was like tying a huge impossible knot for three acts, and at the end of the third act unraveling it with one deft gesture. The object for playwrights was to demonstrate skill within that well-defined structure. Censorship of theatre’s content prompted playwrights to channel imaginative expression into the structure of the play. Imagination was simply re-directed into a different form of expression. While imagination has been feared, it has also been respected. In Poetics, Aristotle recognized the influence of the artistic imagination in shaping a potential future when he wrote, “the poet’s function is to describe, not the thing that has happened, but a kind of thing that might happen.” Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man, “The Imagination is one of the highest prerogatives of man. By this faculty he unites, independently of the will, former images and ideas, and thus creates brilliant and novel results” (1896, p. 74). Like many artists and scientists, Darwin sees imagination as functioning at some level “independently of the will.” One reason imagination has been neglected in favor of rationalism in modern organizational theory is that imagination has been seen as outside our ability to cultivate it. Creativity has been seen as a mysterious, uncontrollable process. Yet other fields, such as the arts, purposefully engage the imagination. In The Language of Public Administration and elsewhere, David Farmer predicts that imagination will grow in importance, displacing rationalization as the preeminent force driving public administration. Farmer also recommends that discourse and practice should explore the notion of play in order to facilitate imagination (1998). The rise of imagination will grow in accordance with the rapid growth of complexity and complex circumstances, and with the capacity to record and analyze information about particulars. Supporting Farmer’s claim that increasingly complex situations will cause administrators to turn to imagination, the NBC Nightly News reported on October 15, 2001 that U.S. military leaders held a series of meetings with top writers, producers and directors in Hollywood. The purpose was to help predict or anticipate the next major actions against America by foreign terrorists. Farmer suggests that imagination will lead public administrators toward what he describes as “anti-administration.” Anti-administration refers to a method of administering that resists the traditional Weberian rationalist model and is characterized by a hesitancy to act. Farmer stresses the importance of imagination in the practice of public administration, as well as in discourse about the field. To discuss the role of the imagination in organizations, it is necessary to understand how theorists have explained the imaginary. In this paper, I will examine Wolfgang Iser’s The Fictive and the Imaginary (1993) as a review of major theories of the imagination. Iser notes similarities among three prominent theories, in which the imaginary is activated by respectively the FitzPatrick 637 subject, the consciousness, and the decentered self and its interactions with the world of the other. In describing the imagination as a “featureless and inactive potential” (p. xvii) that can be activated by outside stimulants, but which is always different from the intentions activating it, Iser opens the door for a theoretical approach to imagination in organizations. This approach consists of looking for ways to allow the imaginary to show itself; recognizing that the imagination may produce results different than those intended; and recognizing the importance of cultural and organizational settings that value the imagination. Iser suggests that organizations can view the imagination as an important asset that can be engaged but whose outcomes nevertheless cannot be predicted (1993). In envisioning a more prominent role for the imagination in practice and in theory, I will look to the arts and to a technique that has long been used to guide the imagination—improvisation. ISER’S DESCRIPTION OF THE IMAGINARY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONS In this section, I will describe Iser’s account of major historical theories of the imaginary, his suggestions about how the imaginary works, and implications for the role of the imaginary in organizations. In The Fictive and the Imaginary, Iser suggests that while many elements may bring the imaginary into play, fictionalization allows us to expand the mental space in which we share ideas (1993). Iser uses the term “imaginary” because of skepticism about the possibility of defining the essence of the imagination. “The imaginary” and its adjectival basis suggest an emphasis on the products of the imagination rather than on the origins of the process. Iser points to the limits of capturing the essence of imagination in discourse: “imagination manifests itself only as an impact on relationships brought about by forces external to it, and therefore is to a large extent conditioned by them” (1993, p. 180). The imaginary is present, says Iser, not only in ideas, dreams and daydreams, but also in memory and to a smaller degree in perception itself. Hume, Kant, and Wittgenstein in various ways support the notion that the identity and continuity of an object are constituted in part by the potential, or imaginary. For Wittgenstein, seeing functions mainly as “seeing as” an aspect of the object (Iser, 1993). The notion that the imaginary is present in both perception and in memory underscores the accessibility of imagination in all settings, including organizations. Iser notes that writers have conceptualized the imaginary differently according to the social needs of the era, with the imagination gaining prominence after the eighteenth century. Iser traces major paradigms in the history of modern thought about the imaginary, including the imagination as faculty, act, and sociohistorical phenomenon. Until the eighteenth century, the imagination was regarded as a mysterious faculty that consisted of the ability 638 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 to combine different pre-existing ideas. As a faculty exercised by the subject, the imagination was seen as a process of cognition. However, the ability to combine data and ideas implies that the imagination contains its own intentionality. Writers failed to give a satisfactory account of the essence of the imagination, and how it could be based on any knowable ground. Coleridge was among the last writers to offer an explanation of the imagination as faculty. He explored the idea of a faculty that consists of three parts: primary imagination, secondary imagination, and fancy. The primary imagination engages in interplay between the mind and nature in order to detect possibilities for the act of creation; the secondary imagination oscillates between decomposing the world of objects and recomposing them in new ways; and the fancy wavers between the combination and separations associated with memory and choice. Iser concludes that imagination cannot be a self-activating faculty as it is influenced by the intentions of the subject, and it contains no knowable ground since none is evident in its workings (Iser, 1993). Next, Iser turns to Sartre’s explanation of the imagination as an act of consciousness. Sartre realizes that the imaginary can no longer be isolated as a faculty, separate from consciousness. He attempts to describe how the two work together. Sartre is unclear over whether the consciousness precedes the imagination or vice versa. The consciousness negates real objects in order to make room for the unreal objects of the imagination. The imaginary can only negate in the presence of consciousness, and this negation becomes a defining feature of the imaginary in the consciousness. In forming mental images, the imagination constantly wavers between suitability and unsuitability of possible images. This back-and-forth movement is how the imagination manifests itself, and how it performs modifications between “somethingness” and “nothingness.” Modifications tilt the balance between the imaginary and the consciousness, and they also direct attitudes of consciousness. This constant wavering constitutes a kind of play movement, which is indeterminate and yet more structured than the wavering movement described by Coleridge. In Sartre’s account, the imaginary and the consciousness are closely connected and engaged in constant and unpredictable play with one another (Iser, 1993). Having described theories in which the imaginary is activated by the subject and the consciousness, Iser turns to Castoriadis’ theory of the radical imaginary and its manifestation as social institutions. Iser points out that for Castoriadis, the imaginary is not indeterminate, but represents the “other” or the potential transformation of determinacy. Castoriadis suggests that the imaginary consists of two components, the psyche/soma and the socialhistorical. The radical imaginary is manifested in the psyche as the desire to represent an unknowable and irretrievable initial state of being, which is lost forever as soon as the subject encounters an “object” consisting of the other FitzPatrick 639 and its body. The psyche is its own lost object, and it tries to overcome the experience of separation by creating itself through images that resonate with the “before” state. However, the need to direct oneself outward toward the world interferes with this process and transforms the radical imaginary into the actual imaginary. When the psyche enters society, it encounters the determinacy brought about by the intervention of others. This tension causes social institutions to be created by the collective residue of imaginary significations. Social significations do not denote an existing world of objects, and therefore lack determinacy. Institutions can be undone or changed. However, the very fabric of social life consists of imaginary significations. The imaginary is manifested differently in the psyche and in social institutions. In the psyche, there is tension between the intentional move toward recapturing a lost state and the free play involved in the constant invalidation of such an attempt. Another kind of movement results when the psyche encounters contrary impulses from the other. Iser concludes that the radical imaginary is activated by the need to recapture the lost state of the psyche as well as by the need to master the externally existing world, and is characterized by the play movement among its elements (Iser, 1993). Iser (1993) notes that the three theories of the imaginary contain similarities. Iser’s thoughts can be summarized as: 1. In each, the imaginary has no intentionality of its own, but is subject to the intentions of the force activating it. Because it is separate from what activates it, the imaginary is never identical to the intentions imposed upon it. 2. The imaginary is not a self-activating force, but is put into play by elements outside itself—the subject (Coleridge), the consciousness (Sartre), or the psyche or the sociohistorical (Castoriadis). 3. The imaginary appears as play, which is constrained the more it is subject to pragmatic intentions. 4. Iser concludes that since fictionalizing is not subject to pragmatic intentions, it is a particularly free form of play that allows us to stage a seemingly endless number of ideas and images about the human condition. Through this staging in the form of literature, we are able to explore possibilities that militate against determinacy. These insights about the imaginary suggest four issues for the treatment of the imaginary in organizations. First, the notion that the imaginary differs from the intentions that activate it means that the more fully imagination is engaged, the less predictable its outcomes compared with those in used in models based on efficiency and planning. In fact, an argument against emphasizing imagination in public administration is that imagination’s 640 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 processes and outcomes are unpredictable, and exist in the realm of the personal where organizations cannot (nor should attempt to) exert control. Many scientists, writers and artists, when describing a creative breakthrough, tell of a process in which they stopped thinking of the problem at hand. While engaged in a completely different activity (sleeping, eating, crossing the street), they experienced the imaginative breakthrough that allowed for tremendous progress in their work. Proust and Poincare are notable examples. What can an organization do to encourage a process so mysterious and seemingly random? In fact, it is important to recognize and acknowledge that the workings of the imagination are mysterious and largely unpredictable. Currently, public administration emphasizes evaluating outcomes rather than processes. If imagination is to be emphasized in practice, organizations must adapt to unpredictable outcomes. The second insight offered by Iser, however, suggests that organizations can bring the imaginary into play. If the imagination is not a self-activating force, but is a potential that is engaged by outside elements, organizations can take action to try to facilitate this engagement. This is supported by research indicating that both internal and external factors are important in the development of creativity in individuals; the environment and resources surrounding an individual can have an effect on the emergence of creativity (Runco & Albert, 1990). The process should be akin to leaving out food for the deer that live in the woods surrounding one’s house: create conditions likely to coax the deer (imaginary) to appear, then go about your business and be watchful. While you may intend to conjure up deer from the woods of the imaginary, be prepared for raccoons or bears to emerge instead. Later in this paper I will examine improvisation games as a tool that can help organizations engage the imagination. Aside from such tools, the most important step organizations can take is to create an environment in which imagination is valued and rewarded. In the practice of public administration, researchers have associated the use of imagination and innovation with the issue of how much discretion managers should have in a representative democracy (Borins, 2000). Recent research has explored the issue of whether public-sector entrepreneurs are rule-breaking self promoters (Terry, 1998) or enterprising leaders (Behn, 1998). Borins (1998) analyzed two samples of the best applications to the Ford Foundation- Kennedy School of Government Innovations in American Government Awards program and concluded that innovators pro-actively address community problems using appropriate organizational channels. If actions based in the imaginary are more likely to be taken by those with greater authority to exercise discretion, elected officials and top managers have the greatest opportunity to take imaginative action in public administration. Attention should be addressed to the ways in which workers denied the authority to take imaginative action channel their imaginations at 641 FitzPatrick work. At the organization level, rules and regulations should be examined in terms of the benefits of systematization versus the opportunity for workers to take imaginative action. Third, the imaginary shows itself through play, which is both the product of the activated imagination and the space in which the imagination interacts with its activators. The less play is subject to pragmatic intentions, the more free it is. For organizations, this suggests that play provides an opportunity to engage the imaginary, and that the context in which play takes place is significant. Mandated forms of play such as team-building exercises may be helpful in engaging the imagination, but “extracurricular” games with no apparent business-related goals, such as a company softball team, may allow the imagination greater freedom. Finally, if fictionalizing is a particularly free form of play that allows ideas to be staged, can organizations engage in fictionalizing activities in order to stage ideas that related to their own challenges and opportunities? In a later section of this paper I will describe improvisation games as a staging technique, suggesting that they offer organizations the chance to stage ideas in the context of a fictionalized world with some similarities to play. In the following section I will describe improvisation as an artistic technique for rehearsal and performance. IMPROVISATION AND ITS HISTORY Improvisation is a technique used in music, dance and theatre. The method varies for each discipline, but theatre and dance have in common a game-like exercise in which the artist(s) is given certain conditions to respond to, and a goal. Improvisation is characterized by spontaneity and mutual trust among performers. Improvisation may be used either as a teaching or rehearsal tool, or as part of a performance. In performance, improvisation becomes a collaborative art of spontaneous creation. An improvisational performance need not be completely spontaneous, as in the case of a musician who improvises variations on themes within a concerto. Similarly, a set of tacit guidelines may be the starting point for an improvised jazz performance (Young & Matheson, 2000). Brown (2000, p. 114) identifies three parameters that delimit improvisation: 1. Situation—while a composer or playwright can revise a work prior to performance, an improviser must build upon steps already taken. 2. Forced choice—an improviser must incorporate pauses into the performance, while composers may pause while composing without the time out becoming part of the work. 3. No script—the improviser cannot rely upon directions from the composer in making definitive choices about the performance. 642 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 While improvisation is often thought of as modern or contemporary, it is in fact an old technique. Improvisation has been a part of music since ancient times, and has influenced Western classical music for most of the past 1000 years (Hamilton, 1990). During the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, most instrumental musicians improvised or memorized their pieces rather than working from written scores (Gould & Keaton, 2000; Hamilton, 1990). Original score notations for mediaeval organ music commonly include instructions for improvisation and embellishments. Improvisation occurred in both early opera (Gould & Keaton, 2000) and mediaeval vocal music (Furstner, 2002). Improvisation flourished during the Baroque (1600-1750), Classical (1750-1830), and Romantic (1830-1900) periods, especially for keyboard players. J.S. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt are among those composers and virtuoso pianists noted for their skill in what was then called “extemporization.” Classical scores commonly contained sections for improvisation, often consisting solely of a progression of chords that performers used as basis for improvisations. Musical notation gradually changed from a mnemonic device for the accomplished performer into an explicit and determinate set of instructions to be interpreted by the performer (Hamilton, 1990). By the end of the nineteenth century, improvisation had declined as a classical musical technique. However, it continued uninterrupted in European music such as Hungarian Gypsy music, the Spanish flamenco, and Irish folk music. Improvisation began a revival in jazz in the 1960s and 1970s. Modern classical composers such as Lukas Foss and Peter Maxwell Davies are again incorporating improvisation into their works (Furstner, 2002). In theatre, improvisation has similar roots in the distant past. For instance, around the end of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance, troupes of strolling commedia dell’arte players wandered streets and marketplaces, where they improvised satires of local political problems and domestic situations (Hagen, 1991). The spirit of commedia dell’arte was anarchic, but required a high level of discipline on the part of actors. They needed to be able to sing and dance, as well as work together as an ensemble. They improvised comedy around a preestablished scenario, responding to one another or to audience reaction. Stock characters, or tipi fissi, represented fixed social types. (The character closest to a public servant was Il Capitano—the captain—a caricature of the professional soldier, cowardly but full of false bravado.) As with music, improvisation in theatre and dance has enjoyed resurgence since the 1960s and 1970s. While in earlier eras improvisation was an accepted and important form of expression, the revival of improvisation in dance, theatre, and music in the past forty years began as a rebellion away from traditional forms and strict decorum (Morgenroth, 1987). Improvisation is now an established tool for teaching acting, movement and dance composition, and for creating plays and dances. The texts of theatre FitzPatrick 643 teacher Viola Spolin have been influential in helping actors develop skills such as listening, problem-solving, and creating a sense of character and place. Spolin (1983, p. 4) describes the way improvisation aids the creative process: Spontaneity creates an explosion that for the moment frees us from handed-down frames of reference, memory choked with old facts and information and undigested theories and techniques of other people’s findings. Spontaneity is the moment of personal freedom when we are faced with a reality and see it, explore it and act accordingly. In this reality the bits and pieces of ourselves function as an organic whole. It is the time of discovery, of experiencing, of creative expression. This passage cites at least two important features of improvisation. First, Spolin writes that improvisation is a way of exploring the environment rather than managing it. This suggests that improvisation may be an apt technique for managers seeking a way to practice Farmer’s notion of anti-administration. Instead of trying to manage or control their environment, managers may find greater harmony with a rapidly changing world by allowing it to shape them. By insisting upon planning as the primary solution to an environment that is often uncontrollable and chaotic, managers reify the past rather than seeking new solutions. Second, while improvisation may not be wholly spontaneous, spontaneity is the catalyst that unlocks creativity in improvisation. Even the most spontaneous act is influenced to some degree by what we already know. It would be impossible to make a single gesture or action that contains no trace of memory or the given. However, Spolin’s description implies that spontaneity can free us of limiting notions and theories (1983). Spontaneity allows us to shed the most constricting aspects of what is known and discover innovative ways of responding. Improvisation cannot free us entirely of the planned, but it can peel away some layers. The influence of spontaneity has been traced to widely disparate elements of twentieth century American culture. In The Culture of Spontaneity, Belgrad (1998) explores the explosion of spontaneous expression in post-World War II America. He suggests that the growth of spontaneity in dance, music and theatre was a response to the progressive rationalization of life that grew in the 1950s. Belgrad traces the influence of improvisation on abstract expressionism, bebop jazz, gestalt therapy, Jungian psychology, beat poetry, experimental dance, Zen Buddhism, and the anti-nuclear movement. The next section of this paper will discuss how improvisation draws upon imagination. IMPROVISATION AND IMAGINATION—SARTRE AND CASTORIADIS Alvarez & Merchan identify the imagination as a critical element for both art and action, noting that in each arena imagination forms the basis for 644 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 experience (1992). Artistic and organizational improvisations have been described in ways that appeal to various models of the imaginary. Sawyer (2000) describes the process of theatrical improvisation as a series of choices made by actors that collectively creates a dramatic frame. The scene is least constrained at the moment before the first actor speaks or acts; that first choice establishes a context for the next actor’s line or action, and so on. Despite the increasing coherence of the emergent scene, actors must choose between many plausible actions at each turn. An actor exercises his/her consciousness to decide among some of the choices for dramatic action. An actor cannot imagine every possible dramatic action, but s/he must decide on one of several possible creative choices that exist fleetingly in the consciousness. Any choice might lead to a radically different yet dramatically plausible performance. Similarly, Brown (2000) describes jazz improvisation as a “feedback loop” in which the musician must constantly make choices in response to the music already played. The act of wavering among several possible choices links improvisation to Sartre’s concept of the imagination. The emergent nature of improvisation emphasizes how small a role planning plays in the wavering between negation and selection of actions. Improvisation draws upon the process of imagination described by Sartre as a potential activated by the consciousness, which negates the “real” world beyond the stage to make room for the “unreal” world of dramatic possibilities (Iser, 1993). In addition, the actor constantly negates alternative actions in the process of acting. The constant wavering between suitable and unsuitable dramatic choices is invisible to the audience, but takes place in the consciousness of the actor within seconds. Working against the degree of imagination involved is the given nature of what has come before, constraining choices without determining them. Improvisation in organizations draws upon the imaginary processes described by Castoriadis. Iser (1993) points out that for Castoriadis, the imaginary is the other of what is given, which Castoriadis metaphorizes as magma. Magma is always being transformed through the social processes of doing and organizing (teukhein) and saying and representing (legein). For Castoriadis, the historical is inseparable from the social and does not exist as a determinate chain of events. New social configurations arise constantly, their “meaning” posited through tensions between the psyche and the other. When individuals and organizations improvise, they depart from the given in the form of rational planning. Impediments to carrying out planned action prompt managers to improvise. Improvisation takes place where design and execution substantively converge, whether or not this convergence is temporal. Improvisations are the manifestations of the given as it is being transformed by the opposition between the psyche and the other. Improvisations are more likely than planned actions to resist the “given” nature of institutions. FitzPatrick 645 Musical improvisation theorists seem to be moving toward the idea of similarities between improvisation and music that is prepared and interpreted. Gould and Keaton (2000) hold that all musical interpretation involves a degree of improvisation. Cochrane (2000) writes that musical scores are guidelines for interpretation, and that all performance involves elements both fixed and variable. These writers indicate that imaginative action takes place in every musical performance, though improvisation involves a greater degree of imaginative freedom. Most writers agree that organizational improvisation involves the deliberate creation of novel activity (Miner et al., 2001), by definition linking improvisation and the imagination. Improvisation and its implications for organizations have been studied by writers including Kanter (1992), Moorman & Miner (1998), Crossan et al. (1996), Eisenhardt (1997), and Orlikowski & Hofman (1997). Most differentiate improvisation as a deliberate strategy from an accidental response to emergency. Orlikowski & Hofman (1997) propose an improvisational model for change management in which inevitable deviations from planning are seen as opportunities for change rather than failure. Moorman & Miner (1998) conclude that improvisation draws upon two kinds of organizational memory, skill memory and fact memory. Improvisational acts may consist of recombining past actions in novel ways. This use of organizational memory does not exclude the imaginary. Iser (1993) points out that memory both shapes and is shaped by the imaginary. Improvisation does not consist of repeating past actions per se; the improviser imagines the past action(s) and its likely outcomes in the present circumstances. Then remembered strategies must be changed to fit the situation and/or combined with other remembered or new actions. This is supported by Vernon Howard’s (1982) insights about the functions of the imagination, which complement those of Iser. Howard’s thoughts can be summarized as: 1. imagination links ends and means in a kind of narrative that enables us to understand the value of actions; 2. imagination involves inquiry rather than mere repetition, allowing us to learn from our mistakes; and 3. it involves the assimilation of the past and a growth of personal standards, linking memory and perception with an imagined future. Miner et al. (2001) conclude from a field study that improvisation contributes a special kind of short-term learning. They suggest that this form of learning differs from other experiential forms of learning such as experimental and trial-and-error. Similarly, Day (2000) writes of skilled jazz improvisers that in resisting the “given” quality of the present moment they reshape their experience into a kind of “knowing by instancing.” The kind of 646 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 knowing as instancing provided by improvisation enhances Castoriadis’ view of the imaginary as inseparable from the social and the historical. In their departure from the rational and planned, improvisational acts draw upon the imaginary; Castoriadis’ view of the imaginary as the other of determinacy means that the imaginary suggests everything in its potential form. In addition to drawing upon the imaginary as described by Sartre, improvisation is a form of learning that contributes imaginary significations to the realm of the social and historical. For Castoriadis, imaginary signifiers of social life result from the operations of social doing (teukhein) and social representing/saying (legein) (Iser, 1993). These operations involve both the positing of meaning, and the unintentional accretion of meaning since imaginary significations do not refer to any real world of objects (Iser, 1993). Miner et al. (2001) also demonstrate that when an organization improvises, it adds to its store of memory and knowledge about possible actions and outcomes. Improvisation institutionalizes meaning, while deriving its own substance from the imaginary as described above. Thus improvisation expands knowledge about executed actions and outcomes, while calling upon managers to access the Sartrian realm of possible actions that exist in the imaginary. Because of its ambivalent role in broadening access to the imaginary while creating opportunities for institutionalization, improvisation should be of special interest to public administration practitioners, researchers, and theorists. IMPROVISATION IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION However, improvisational management in the public sector has received little attention from researchers. Two recent articles contribute complementary insights. Sharkansky and Zalmanovitch (2000) discuss improvisation as an alternative to bounded rationality. They define improvisation not by the act itself, but by the process by which it is carried out. They suggest that improvisation is a valuable alternative to rational planning and to non-action, and that most actions contain a mixture of planning and improvisation. The authors examine a number of administrative actions and policy changes in Israel that they characterize as improvisational. They conclude that improvisation can enable a manager to enhance the limits of her discretion, and respond effectively to situations involving uncertainty, time constraints, and limited information on which to base rational planning or decision-making. On the negative side, improvisation can add to the ambiguity of complex situations, lead to irresponsible behavior, and create results that contain more social and economic harm than good. Factors that contribute to improvisation include mental flexibility and agility of individual managers; a culture that supports improvisation, or does not discourage it by a proliferation of rules and regulations; and environmental factors such as lack FitzPatrick 647 of resources to plan, emergency situation, or sharply conflicting demands that make compromise unlikely. Aram & Walochik (1996-1997) also found that culture exerts a strong influence on the tendency to improvise in organizations. They conducted unstructured interviews with nine Spanish managers to identify cultural influences on leadership and decision-making in that country. The small and unrepresentative sample identified a reliance on improvisation or lack of systems and procedures as a defining characteristic of Spanish management. Participants tied the strong tendency to improvise with several cultural factors, including impatience toward building systems, a desire to test one’s competence, and a strong sense of individualism. Participants identified several advantages to improvisation, including enhanced performance in a small firm environment, where many small firms cannot afford the overhead associated with organizational systems; the chance to develop higher levels of imagination and creativity; and the close, personal relationships between managers fostered by improvisation. However, participants spent more time discussing the negative implications of improvisation. Small firms may be thwarted in their efforts to grow in size due to lack of organized systems. While improvisation can lead to rapid decision-making, the process of carrying out the decisions can be much slower since the decision did not arise as a result of shared planning. And improvisation can lead to errors and unachieved goals when managers incorrectly anticipate future circumstances (Aram & Walochik, 1996-1997). The Aram & Walochik article illustrates one challenge of analyzing public administration processes as improvisation. A key factor of improvisation is its deviation from rational planning or standard practices. Are improvisational processes the same as “muddling through,” a term that indicates a series of reactions to immediate circumstances without an overarching vision? One indicator is the degree to which rational planning is present in the organization. If planning is entirely missing, the organization is managed wholly by bricolage, Levi-Strauss’s term for making do with the materials at hand. This reflects another sense of the word “improvisation” in which the emphasis is on creative use of limited resources. While bricolage is generally seen as a positive skill, it is not the only skill an organization should possess. Most organizations both plan and improvise. Just as an organization unable to improvise is ill equipped to respond to change and sudden chaos, an organization unable to plan is incapable of managing growth. Inefficiencies are likely to result. While a mixture of rational planning and improvisation would seem to best suit most organizations, how can a public agency achieve an optimal proportion of each? The amount of improvisation public agencies can undertake is limited not only by planning and lack of skills, but by the need for accountability and transparency. Improvisation involves risking mistakes, and these may have greater consequences than are acceptable to the 648 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 public. Also, managers may resist taking risks in full view of the public in order to avoid being perceived as incompetent. Both articles also emphasize that improvisation does not guarantee good outcomes. Moorman & Miner (1998) suggest that both an organization’s skill knowledge and its fact knowledge influence the coherence and timeliness of outcomes of improvisation. Miner et al. (2001) observed that the two organizations in their field study exhibited improvisational skills in several task-specific areas, rather than general improvisational skill. However, Crossan et al. (1996) found that organizations can develop improvisational skills Improvisation should not be idealized by describing it in ways that ascribe success. For instance, it should not be assumed that improvisation is always practiced with skill and under the right circumstances. Finally, both articles also indicate the importance of the environment in supporting improvisation. The amount of discretion available to managers is a strong factor in determining whether improvisation will be used. If one assumes that greater freedom invites increased improvisation, those most likely to improvise in the public sector are elected officials and upper-level managers. At a collective level, agencies most likely to improvise are those that exist in a chaotic environment, or in a cultural climate that supports improvisation. The influence of rules and regulations will act as a check on improvisation, paralleling Iser’s assertion that the play of the imaginary is freer the less it is subject to pragmatic intentions. IMPROVISATION GAMES Iser (1993) suggests that fictionalization is an especially rich way to stage ideas about potentialities of the human condition. The fictive creates a kind of double world in which the imaginary shows itself and which is open to a seemingly unlimited number of patternings. Out of this interplay arises literature, which can take many forms but which represents a kind of boundary crossing between worlds. Iser claims that one reason we need to fictionalize is that the decentered self tries to “have” itself by seeing itself in other ways. “The impossibility of being present to ourselves becomes our possibility to play ourselves out to the fullness that knows no bounds, because no matter how vast the range, none of the possibilities will ‘make us tick’” (Iser, 1993, p. 297). Organizations exist in a kind of de-centeredness that is similar to that of the individual. First, organizations are composed of de-centered individuals. They form the stage on which individuals act out much behavior that arises from their de-centered state. Second, organizations themselves are in a constant state of flux as try to recapture the “lost state” represented by their vision statement. The need served by fictionalizing exists at the organizational level. One method of fictionalizing that organizations can take FitzPatrick 649 part in is improvisation—specifically, the games and exercised developed by theatrical improvisation groups. Improvisation can be seen as one kind of “food” to be put out to entice the metaphorical “wildlife” of the imaginary. Organizations in the private sectors have been increasingly using improvisational techniques for just such a purpose. A 1999 article in the Wall Street Journal reported that The Second City Comedy Club, a Chicago improvisation group, expected all other forms of revenue to be surpassed by the revenues from classes in improvisation taught to business executives to improve skills that would give them a competitive edge (Lowe, 2000). Crossan and her colleagues at the University of Western Ontario have created partnerships with Second City to see if improvisation exercises can help build business skills (Crossan et al., 1996). They identify six areas which if developed would add a manager’s ability to improvise: interpreting the environment; crafting strategy; fostering teamwork; developing individual skills; cultivating leadership; and assessing organizational culture (Crossan et al., 1997). Crossan reports that improvisation games can be used to address these areas, but cautions that organizations must be aware of other organizational systems and conditions that encourage or discourage improvisation (1997). Descriptions of two games may illustrate the possibilities. First, here is a basic game used in dance and movement, called “mirroring:” Participants pair off and face one another. Each pair has a leader and a follower. The follower mirrors the movements of the leader as precisely as possibly. An observer should be unable to tell who is the leader and who is the follower. The leader’s responsibility for clear movement and for keeping the follower with her is at least as important as the follower’s focused attention. Participants switch roles and repeat the exercise (Morgenroth, 1987). During this process participants are using skills of close observation, concentration, and cooperation. The practice of “following the follower” may be valuable to an individual trying to administer in the spirit of what Farmer calls “anti-administration.” The emphasis is not on the actions themselves, but on the connection that develops between leader and follower and the ambiguous nature of that relationship. A game from theatre is called Word for Word. An open-ended question is asked, such as, “How is the weather today?” The group responds as one person, making up a simple sentence. Each person is limited to one word. The first person might reply: “The.” Second: “weather.” Third: “is.” Fourth: “clear.” Fifth: “but.” Sixth: “cold.” Seventh: “period!” And so on. Close listening is required, and memory. Everyone in the group must think about where the sentence is going. This exercise gives the group experience in successfully completing a small goal together. Also, the question might ask the group’s opinion of a work-related issue, and the “group answer” may provide surprising insights (Lowe, 2000). A similar game involves participants collectively making up a story, with each contributing an idea or 650 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 two. Other games involve role-playing within fictionalized scenarios, which may represent or relate to organizational situations. Improvisation has many traits that make it suitable for organizations seeking to encourage imagination. First, according to theatre improvisation pioneer Viola Spolin, improvisation creates an atmosphere of trust among participants in which external approval and disapproval are not factors. There is no right or wrong way to solve a problem (Spolin, 1983). The facilitator or trainer or group leader is not to approve or disapprove of individual actions. Suspending organizational authoritarianism can allow personal freedom and self-expression. Second, the tension between the rules of the game and the energy needed to solve the problem leads to spontaneous breakthroughs that allow false assumptions to be exposed and torn apart (Spolin, 1983). Third, improvisation can create an atmosphere of confusion that can lead to deep insight, real change, and creativity. This confusion must be accepted rather than avoided (Lowe, 2000). No one knows what will happen next. Participants must drop the usual mask of confident professionalism in order to participate fully in the moment. Sharkansky and Zalmanovitch (2000) stress the importance of organizational climate in determining likelihood of improvisation. An organization using improvisation techniques should examine whether its overall culture supports imagination and creativity. If an employee participates openly in improvisation only to find her new skills and ideas ignored or discouraged on the job, it becomes clear that the use of improvisation has only novelty value. Organizations may be attracted to activities billed as “team-building” because they appear to be new or different, with little thought given to how the organization can use the results. Such activities can cause resentment on the part of employees who understand that only lip service is being paid to the idea of change, growth, imagination, etc. Improvisation can be used most effectively by organizations that are prepared to see imagination as an asset to be actively encouraged and welcomed. IMPROVISATION GAMES AS PLAY Farmer (1995) and others have called for greater attention to the role of play in public administration. Improvisation games show some characteristics of play as defined by Huizinga. They take place in an imaginary space that is not ordinary. Improvisation games have rules. They exhibit a to-and-fro quality in the interaction among players. However, Huizinga notes that the first characteristic of play is that it is free. If improvisation games are perceived as mandated in the work environment, they are no longer free. So while improvisation games exhibit many qualities of play, they cannot be entirely playful if they are imposed in a work setting. FitzPatrick 651 IMPROVISATION AS METAPHOR FOR DISCOURSE ABOUT PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Skillful theatrical improvisation is characterized by mutual trust, creativity, and a spirit of exploration rather than control. It involves a give-and-take quality among players and the audience (public). It involves working without a script. By contrast, Montuori (1997) notes that academic discourse is often full of such adversarial phrases as “They demolished my dissertation” or “I tore his argument apart.” He suggests that improvisation provides a better model than warfare for thoughtful sharing of information among colleagues. He also contrasts improvisation with the idea of the model, borrowed from science. Models, he notes, seem to freeze an idea in a way that discourages inquiry. Improvisation, in contrast, becomes an ongoing conversation and exploration (Montuori, 1997, p. 34). Improvisation also appeals to the postmodern resistance to the notion of the metanarrative in its recognition that there is no single “correct” story, but a limitless store of possible stories that can help identify and solve problems. Writers such as Montuori (1997) and Day (2000) suggest that improvisation appeals to the small narrative, the case of knowing as instancing. In the absence of one authorial voice, a collection of voices of players interacts with one another. This notion recognizes that no theory can be transcendent enough to account for everything, since theories arise from individuals with perspectives necessarily limited by circumstance. Czarniawska (1997) emphasizes that the unexpected is a necessary element of the human experience as narrative, and that it accounts for the failure of the social sciences to predict human behavior and thus succeed as metanarrative. Unexpected events create the need for improvisations when rational planning fails. The need to improvise militates against the success of the grand narrative. Czarniawska also stresses the value of the small narrative in organizational research. Improvisations create small local narratives, variations on themes such as response to the unexpected, problem solving, and others. Eisenhardt (1997) and others point out that improvisation depends on the players’ adherence to a few basic rules. These rules vary according to situation and function not as metanarrative, but as guidelines for producing adaptive and efficient performances. Improvisation as metaphor accounts for the environment as changing and complex. Alvarez & Merchan (1992) note that traditional rigid management theories do not reflect the chaotic nature of the world they refer to, creating in practitioners the need for other kinds of informal, nonacademic knowledge. By viewing discourse as a series of improvisations, theorists may embrace a more flexible and pragmatic approach to public administration. 652 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 CONCLUSIONS Organizational theorists have often seen imagination as the “other” of rationalization. Iser helps us understand that imagination is the “other” of determinacy. As such, it is not incompatible with rationalization. By finding ways to engage imagination in organizations, a more balanced approach to the theory and practice of public administration may be encouraged. Theories of the imaginary offer implications for an organizational approach to imagination: 1. The imagination is a potential that can be activated by outside elements. 2. The imaginary is never identical to the intentions that activate it. 3. The imaginary shows itself through play which is freer the less it is subject to pragmatic intentions. 4. Fictionalizing is a way to stage ideas about the human condition. Thus, organizations can take action to engage the imagination but must not expect that the outcomes will be predictable; the conditions under which play takes place are important in determining the amount of freedom of play of the imaginary; organizations interested in encouraging imagination should review their settings, structures, and systems to analyze barriers to creativity. Improvisation is an arts technique that is characterized by spontaneity, mutual interaction, and lack of an authorial voice. Improvisation calls upon memory and learned skills, but it also requires the imagination to invent variations on the spot. Iser’s insight that imagination is both present in and shaped by memory and perception allows us to see that improvisation draws upon the imaginary in ways that are compatible with Sartre and Castoriadis. Improvisation can describe organizational processes that are alternatives to rational planning or to non-action. Such processes require specific skills and do not guarantee positive outcomes. Improvisational theatre games are being adapted for use by organizations as a tool for engaging the imagination and developing competitive skills. These games exhibit many qualities of play but are not truly play if they are perceived to be mandatory. If imagination is to be emphasized, it is important for organizations to use such techniques as part of a culture that values and rewards imagination and creativity. Improvisation can be seen as a metaphor for discourse about public administration that encourages collaboration rather than competition, and resists the notion of a metanarrative. The practice and discourse of public administration must search for ways to engage the imagination that are grounded in an understanding of its workings and characteristics. This approach is necessary in order to embrace the vision expressed by John F. Kennedy (1963): “The problems of the world cannot 653 FitzPatrick possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics, whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were, and ask why not.” REFERENCES Alvarez, J. L., & Merchan, C. (1992). The role of narrative fiction in the development of imagination for action. International Studies of Management and Organization, 22, 27. Aram, J. D., & Walochik K. (1996/1997). Improvisation and the Spanish manager. International Studies of Management and Organization, 26, 73. Behn, R. (1998). What right do public managers have to lead? Public Administration Review, 58, 209-224. Belgrad, D. (1998). The culture of spontaneity: Improvisation and the arts in postwar America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Borins, S. (2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60, 498-507. Brown, L. B. (2000). “Feeling my way”: Jazz improvisation and its vicissitudes—A plea for imperfection. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58, 113. Crossan, M. M., White, R. E., Lane, H. W., & Klus, L. (1996). The improvising organization: Where planning meets opportunity. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 20. Crossan, M. M. (1997, Autumn). Improvise to innovate. Ivey Business Quarterly, 62, 36. Czarniawska, B. (1997). Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Day, W. (2000). Knowing as instancing: Jazz improvisation and moral perfectionism. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58, 99. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997, Autumn). Strategic decisions and all that jazz (influence of improvisation in business strategy). Business Strategy Review, 8, 1. Farmer, D. J. (1995). The language of public administration: Bureaucracy, modernity, and postmodernity. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Farmer, D. J. (Ed.). (1998). Papers on the art of anti-administration. Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press. Furstner, M. (2002). Jazz music—The history of improvisation. Retrieved from http://www.jazclass.aust.com/impro1.htm Gadamer, H.-G. (2000). Truth and method (2nd Rev. ed.). New York: Continuum. Gould, C. S., & Keaton, K. (2000). The essential role of improvisation in musical performance. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58, 143. 654 Administrative Theory & Praxis vVol. 24, No. 4 Hagen, U. (1991). A challenge for the actor. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Hamilton, A. (1990). The aesthetics of imperfection. Philosophy, 65, 323. Howard, V. (1983). Artistry: The work of artists. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Huizinga, J. (n.d.). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Andover, England: Routledge Kegan Paul. Iser, W. (1993). The fictive and the imaginary: Charting literary anthropology. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Kanter, R. M. (1992, Winter). Strategy as improvisational theater. MIT Sloan Management Review, 76, 76-81. Lowe, R. (2000). Improvisation, Inc. harnessing spontaneity to engage people and groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 304. Montuori, A. (1997, Summer). Social creativity, academic discourse, and the improvisation of inquiry (transformative learning). ReVision, 20, 34. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23, 698. Morgenroth, J. (1987). Dance improvisations. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Orlikowski, W. J., & Hofman, D. J. (1997, Winter). An improvisational model for change management: The cast of groupware technologies. Sloan Management Review, 11, 11-21. Runco, M. A., & Albert, R.S. (Eds.).(1990). Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sawyer, R. K. (2000). Improvisation and the creative process: Dewey, Collinwood, and the aesthetics of spontaneity. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58, 149. Sharkansky, I., & Zalmanovitch, Y. (2000). Improvisation in public administration and policy making in Israel. Public Administration Review, 60, 321. Spolin, V. (1983). Improvisation for the theatre. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Terry, L. D. (1998). Administrative leadership, neo-managerialism, and the public administration movement. Public Administration Review, 58, 194. Young, J. O., & Matheson, C. (2000). The metaphysics of jazz. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58, 126. Susan FitzPatrick is Grants Coordinator for Chesterfield County, Virginia and a doctoral student at Virginia Commonwealth University.