human resource development review - td cascadia services and information for human resource...

http://hrd.sagepub.com/Development Review

Human Resource

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/11/3/299The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1534484312440566

2012 11: 299Human Resource Development ReviewSuzanne Gagnon, Heather C. Vough and Robert Nickerson

Improvisational TheatreLearning to Lead, Unscripted: Developing Affiliative Leadership Through

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Human Resource Development

can be found at:Human Resource Development ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/11/3/299.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 23, 2012Version of Record >> at Fielding Graduate University on August 21, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Fielding Graduate University on August 21, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hrd.sagepub.com/

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/11/3/299

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.ahrd.org/

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/11/3/299.refs.html

http://hrd.sagepub.com/content/11/3/299.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Human Resource Development Review11(3) 299 –325

© 2012 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1534484312440566

http://hrd.sagepub.com

440566 HRD11310.1177/1534484312440566Gagnon et al.Human Resource Development Review

1McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada2Rob Nickerson Improv, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:Suzanne Gagnon, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, 1001 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G5, Canada Email: [email protected]

Learning to Lead, Unscripted: Developing Affiliative Leadership Through Improvisational Theatre

Suzanne Gagnon1, Heather C. Vough1, and Robert Nickerson2

Abstract

We argue that improvisational theatre training creates a compelling experience of co-creation through interaction and, as such, can be used to build a distinctive kind of leadership skills. Theories of leadership as relational, collaborative or shared are in pointed contrast to traditional notions of an individual “hero leader” who possesses the required answers, and whom others follow. Corresponding thinking on how to develop these newer forms has, to date, been relatively rare. In this article, we draw on recent research to identify three core principles for learning affiliative leadership. We then apply literature on improvisational theatre and its main skill areas to build a model of developing affiliative leadership, and illustrate the model through an improvisation workshop in which participants learn the skills and principles that it sets out. The model and workshop may serve as useful tools for those searching for methods to develop leadership in contemporary organizations.

Keywords

leadership development, improvisation, improvisational theatre, leadership skills, affili-ative leadership, collaborative leadership, leadership ontology

at Fielding Graduate University on August 21, 2014hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from


300 Human Resource Development Review 11(3)

Improvisation is too important to be left to chance.

Paul Simon

That contemporary organizations face high levels of complexity, a rapid rate of change and increased ambiguity has become, perhaps, a truism. Corollary links to a heightened need for collaboration may be less well established (Bloch & Whiteley, 2007; Simonin, 1997; Wheatley, 2006). Developments in leadership theory have begun to reflect the contextual changes; scholars increasingly emphasize the role of collaboration and relational factors for effective leadership (Crevani, Lindgren, & Packendorff, 2010; Raelin, 2006; Uhl-Bien, 2006) and note that organizational leaders need to have the necessary skills to lead under these conditions (Taylor & Ladkin, 2009; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001). Although classic theories of leadership focus on top-down models in which an individual leader provides a vision and motivates employees to work toward that vision (Bass, 1993; Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Judge & Bono, 2000) emerging theories call for “post-heroic” models that stress relational and social dynamics in leadership, and learning, adaptability and an ability to work collectively through change (Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Cunliffe, 2009; Fletcher, 2005).

Despite the emergence of such theories, literature on the development of these forms of leadership remains relatively rare. Rather, the tendency has been to focus on a single, dominant “leader” and thus on individual-level competencies and outcomes within leadership training (Lord & Hall, 2005). Although there may be relational aspects within traditional views of leadership, these are often not what are trained, in preference of individual skills and knowledge sets reflecting top-down, individualized models (James and Ladkin, 2008). Leadership scholars note that the constitution of both leadership and of its development continue to be subjects of contested debate (Parker and Carroll, 2009), and others point to a general lack of scholarly work on leadership development and training (Mabey & Finch-Lees, 2008). Others critique further a stress on surface-level, technical skills within leadership development prac-tice, rather than the tacit and embedded learning necessary for adaptability and change amid uncertainty (Grint, 2007; Parker & Carroll, 2009).

In this article, we work from a premise that teaching and learning leadership requires significantly different approaches to development, in method and in peda-gogical philosophy. We suggest in particular the promise of improvisational theatre training, marrying its key skills with leadership skills for the current organizational environment. The article develops a conceptual model of how the skills that can be gained through improvisational theatre help to address the gap in approaches for developing what we refer to as affiliative leadership. Improvisational theatre skills are directly aligned with those suggested in newer leadership theories—adopting an external focus, developing adaptability to changing conditions, optimizing curiosity and responsiveness, and honing abilities to listen, interact, collaborate, and co-create with others. More broadly, the training embodies collaborative and collectivist norms. To develop this argument, we review literature in alternate understandings of leadership



Gagnon et al. 301

and propose the notion of affiliative leadership based on three core principles. We then combine the principles with key concepts in improvisation to introduce a conceptual model of the development of affiliative leadership. To illustrate the use of improvisa-tional theatre for leadership development, we describe a workshop that our third author has delivered in many business contexts, to explain how improvisation articulates the principles and develops the identified skills of affiliative leadership.

Our main contribution in this article is the creation of this model, extending theory in leadership development for alternative ontologies of leadership. We hope that through highlighting its components and elements, the article encourages future research interested in understanding how to develop skills in social and collaborative forms of leadership.

Leadership for Collaboration and Adaptabilty in OrganizationsRecent literature introduces a range of emerging perspectives that understand leader-ship as post-heroic, that is, as having shifted in significant ways from models and dis-courses in which leadership rests within an individual at the top of hierarchy, to leadership as a collective or shared capability within an organization (Fletcher, 2005; Kramer & Crespy, 2011). A number of related theories expressing a non-hierarchical, non-position-based notion of leadership have emerged. Each conceptualizes leader-ship, either normatively or critically, as a highly social and outward-focused process or set of practices, rather than residing in an individual “leader” with particular traits, who holds an authority position (James & Arroba, 2005; Pearce, 2004, 2007). Accordingly, each calls for decision-making that is a shared process rather than a ques-tion of vertical influence of leaders on members. For example, in her relational leader-ship theory, Uhl-Bien (2006) has defined leadership as a set of actions or practices that bring people together in pursuit of a common purpose. Such practices may exist any-where in an organization. Indeed, organizational, and effectiveness depends on the dis-tribution of such practices across individuals rather than on the actions of a small group. Fletcher (2005) emphasizes that post-heroic, post-individualist theories see leadership as a social process or set of interactions—a dynamic, multidirectional collective activ-ity, and moreover, that leadership is viewed as learning, centered on outcomes related to growth for the community, rather than on control or individual results for the leader. Similarly, from the education field, Elmore (2000) outlines a distributed leadership theory in which leadership is redefined “away from role-based conceptions and toward a distributed view” where many actors in the organization, in this case teach-ers, create through their shared expertise the leadership necessary for action and change (p. 35).

Critical scholars have similarly emphasized a process ontology for leadership as co-produced among organizational members, both “leaders” and “followers” rather than belying a sharp distinction between the two (Collinson, 2005; Crevani et al.,




2010). As organizational members construct notions of direction, co-orientation and space for action, leadership occurs in everyday processes (Crevani et al., 2010, p. 84). Thus, the presence of leadership is a function of social practice and interaction; it does not “exist” within a single person. Such socially constructed understandings of leader-ship understand organizational members as interdependent, intersubjective or “selves-in-relation-to-others,” shaping and shaped by a web of relationships (Cunliffe, 2009, p. 95; Geertz, 1973). At the same time, while leadership may in practice, as well as theory, be distributed across and throughout hierarchies, this will not necessarily sig-nify an end to enduring power relations and power asymmetries that cut through and animate such distribution (Collinson, 2005). Any normative calls for new leadership practices should be understood within this context.

Highlighting the centrality of social connection for leadership, and linking this closely to climates of organizational complexity and change, Raelin (2006) sees con-temporary leaders as learners who understand the adaptability of the organization as dependent on the contribution of myriad organizational actors. Within his normative model, four “operating perspectives” should characterize the practice of collaborative leadership. First, it is concurrent—more than one person can be a leader at any given time, leaders naturally share power with others, and collaborative work increases the power and ability to bring action. Second, it is collective—emerging not from indi-vidual influence but from processes of people working together toward a common objective. Third, it is mutual—all are responsible for the action, and all members count and have a voice. Fourth, it is compassionate—preserving the dignity of others within the collaborative process. Scholarship at an institutional level of analysis underlines similar principles for collaborative leadership. Face-to-face dialogue, trust building, and the development of commitment and shared understanding have been found in governance research to be crucial factors for cross-institutional and intrainstitutional collaborative leadership (Ansell & Gash, 2007). The deepening of trust, commitment, and shared understanding form a “virtuous cycle” of collaboration based on incremen-tal or “small wins” among the implicated actors.

Goleman (2000) used the label affiliative leadership previously to denote a position leader’s capacity to build relationships in the workplace. We use the term to capture the range of perspectives reviewed above and to highlight specifically the character of leadership as arising in social practice or processes. To affiliate is to connect, partner, associate or join with others (Oxford English Dictionary, 2010). Individuals can develop and enact affiliative leadership which draws power from interactive processes that embody collaboration.

Learning Principles of Affiliative LeadershipBased on our reading of extant theories of leadership, we identify three core principles that we believe are core to learning affiliative leadership. These are openness to mul-tiple perspectives, learning how to create trust, and learning to set aside individual control for shared control. To identify the three principles, we asked, what are the



Gagnon et al. 303

underlying dimensions or abilities that form the foundation of such leadership with respect to behaviors and skills? What do people need to do in their own practice and interactions with others to enact affiliative leadership?

First, following Cunliffe (2009), Crevani et al. (2010), and Raelin (2006), develop-ing leadership that is affiliative requires building an ability to see multiple views and future possibilities—to have an openness to multiple perspectives. Curiosity and open-ness to multivocality and diverse ideas requires learning to adopt a focus that is directed outward, outside of oneself and toward others.

Second, affiliative leadership involves learning how to create trust with others in a particular context (Heckscher & Adler, 2006; Jameson, Ferrell, Kelly, Walker, & Ryan, 2006; Vangen & Huxham, 2003). This relates to Raelin’s call for compassion as an oper-ating principle for collaboration, and Cunliffe’s assertion of an essential sociability and thus ethicality within relational models of leadership. Learning skills in trust building is fundamental to developing this form of leadership; a person who is able and willing to build trust engenders trust, creating a collaborative environment.

Third, affiliative leadership requires learning that control is shared. This can be accomplished by relinquishing the need for individual control over the process and out-comes of social interactions. Rather, control should be shared, based on an acceptance that in problem-solving contexts, joint working and multiple inputs often results in better outcomes than working alone (Cooke & Kernaghan, 1987; Miner, 1984). Relinquishing of individual control over the creative process may be difficult to learn for many indi-viduals practicing leadership, and contrasts plainly with traditional models of leadership. However, it is critical if the promise of affiliative leadership is to be borne out (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). The task is to come to an acceptance and understanding that the other person’s or persons’ input has equal import to one’s own.

Although there is a fair amount of agreement about what such forms of leadership require, there is much less known about methods for their development. New innova-tions and approaches are called for, and one argument is for greater attention to rich experiential and action-based learning (James, Mann, & Creasy, 2007). “Learning that occurs in the midst of practice” as a “concurrent by-product of practice” is essential for the development of collaborative leadership (Raelin, 2006, p. 157).

Leadership Development: Moving Away From Individualist Methods?Recent development literature distinguishes leader and leadership development (Day, 2001). Leader development focuses on a person and her or his personal quali-ties; leadership development is more, ambiguous, and stems from understanding leadership as collective rather than individual, and as a process rather than a person (Parker & Carroll, 2009). The two are not incompatible. However, it is important in the practice of development to avoid the construction of “leader” in a way that undermines possibilities for collective leadership capacity (Gemmill & Oakley,




1992). Following Parker and Carroll (2009), we assert the importance of leadership development which “develops individuals’ capabilities to work with others in con-sciously connected and collaborative ways,” and “introduces an ethos of integration where the focus is on shared networks, meaning and achievement” (p. 264). Seen in this way, the role of an individual “leader” thus lies in an ability to engage with oth-ers to cocreate leadership in particular settings.

Thus emerging theories of leadership imply a need for renewed approaches to how leadership is developed. Nonetheless, and despite a range of problems associ-ated with the design and delivery of traditional leadership programs (Simmonds & Tsui, 2010), “heroic” development models still tend to prevail in practice (James & Arroba, 2005; James et al., 2007; Reynolds & Vince, 2004). Individual evaluation methods such as competency frameworks geared to the self and to personal traits, individual coaching and other individualized assessments are still common in devel-opment programs. Self-focused development may also be particularly detrimental to individuals in “future leader” roles in flatter or more distributed structures, as the programs can unduly raise expectations that success in the program will bring prac-tical effectiveness, and promotion, neither of which then materialize (James et al., 2007). Development programs may equally reproduce a narrow or homogeneous model of the ideal leader, along with engendering a need to conform rather than generating capacity for new ideas and innovation desired by the employer (Gagnon, 2008; Carden & Callahan, 2007). James and Ladkin (2008) argue simply that the types of leadership needed in many organizations today cannot be achieved through traditional development activity focusing on individual development. In the follow-ing section, we introduce improvisational theater and explain how it may be a par-ticularly effective tool in helping train affiliative leadership behaviors.

Improvisational Theatre and LeadershipScholars have theorized that developing an ability to improvise may be effective for enacting a range of tasks, for example, interpreting the environment, creating emergent strategies, fostering teamwork, undertaking psychological risk, listening, and communi-cating (Crossan, 1998). Scholars have also proposed that improvisation be used as a tool for training. Sikora et al. (2004) suggest that training individuals in improvisational skills leverages “employees’ innate tendency to adapt and adjust, rather than forcing behaviors that are out of sync with the flow of organizational life” (p. 31). Crossan and colleagues (Crossan, 1998; Crossan & Hurst, 2006; Vera & Crossan, 2004, 2005) have proposed that training in improvisational theatre, in particular, can promote innovation and effectiveness in the face of change in organizations.

However, despite such statements as “In [the current organizational] context, lead-ership is an improvisational and experimental art” (Heifitz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009), the relationship between improvisation and leadership has rarely been directly studied, though it has been suggested. For example, Pruetipibultham and McLean (2010)



Gagnon et al. 305

describe improvisation as a tool that helps managers understand and respond to a given situation without prejudgment or preset plans. In Barrett’s (1998) theoretical examination of how jazz improvisation can inform organizational learning, he asserts that that learning to improvise involves gaining provocative competence, “a leadership skill that involves challenging habits and conventional practices, challenging mem-bers to experiment in the margins and to stretch in new directions” (p. 618). In addi-tion, discussions of the role of improvisation for leadership have suggested how, through improvisation, individuals learn to distribute leadership such that sometimes they are in the spotlight, and sometimes they are in the role of supporting others in the spotlight (Barrett, 1998; Newton, 2004). In this way, an “accompaniment” role can be seen as part of the position leader’s job, fostering the input of others, and practice in improvisation can facilitate individuals recognizing the appropriate times to lead in a more traditional sense, and when to “follow” (Mirvis, 1998).

Improvisational theatre, arguably the most collaborative of all the arts (Thomson, 2003), consists of an “ensemble of actors accepting suggestions from the audience and creating a scene onstage without any script” (Vera and Crossan, 2004, p. 729). Its goal is to construct new thinking, ideas and other creative outcomes through a commitment to collaboration and “thinking inside the box.” The latter involves using the resources one has at hand in new ways, but more than that, pinpointing current resources and seeing these very much as a pathway to creative solutions rather than a restriction.

Improvisational theatre is highly egalitarian; there is no single, formal leader, and responsibility for the outcome is wholly shared. Every participant or actor is respon-sible for every other participant (Crossan, White, Lane, & Klus, 1996; Sawyer, 2000); success relies on actors being highly attentive and responsive to each other (Johnstone, 1987; Spolin, 1999): “What professional actors do to be better improvisers is to learn techniques, games, and principles that help them to focus on the moment and to embrace the moment of collective creation” (Vera & Crossan, 2004, p. 736). Their heightened awareness assists with cocreation of the “story,” which in organizations may serve several functions, including replacing the need for a coordinating plan (Moorman & Miner, 1998; Vera & Crossan, 2005).

The lessons learned from improvisational theatre in particular, in contrast to other forms of improvisation such as jazz, are directly transferrable to organizations because “resources” used to convey meaning in improvisational theatre (words, posture, facial expressions, and tone of voice) are the same as those used in organizations (Vera & Crossan, 2004). In this section, we discuss the skills that can be gained through train-ing in improvisational theatre, and ultimately can be used to develop affiliative leader-ship. As will be described, central skills in improvisational theatre include maintaining an external focus, openness, listening and responsiveness, and an ability to create trust and “action space” for collective development of new ideas, approaches, methods and outcomes “inside the box.” The following section then presents our model for how the learning principles of affiliative leadership can be developed through learning and practicing of these skills.




Two manuscripts that we are aware of that directly investigate the relationship between leadership and improvisation: Cunha and colleagues (2003) and Newton (2004). Cunha and colleagues (2003) find that certain leadership behaviors, such as creating minimal social and task structures and convincing employees of the impor-tance of the task, encourage individuals to improvise in turbulent environments. Here, the focus is on how those in leadership positions can create the conditions in which others can improvise. Newton (2004) focuses on how practicing improvisation can be used to develop leadership skills. He writes,

Changing circumstances require the ability to adapt immediately. Improvisation is the development of a skill set that allows for exactly that type of automatic adjustment. Those interested in leadership should pay close attention to the pedagogy of improvisation. (p. 98)

Thus, the significance of dynamic and uncertain environments for much contempo-rary leadership underpins Newton’s recognition of an important connection between leadership and improvisation. In addition, similar to Cunha and colleagues, the ability to set the context or climate for improvisation by others (“followers” in more tradi-tional terms) is seen as important for leadership, and within a leader’s skill set.

We extend this work by arguing that the core skills of improvisation, and in particu-lar of improvisational theatre, are intricately related to the ability to enact affiliative leadership. Below we describe “being in the moment,” “whole listening,” and “focus-ing on the other” as three skills that can be taught through improvisation. While each of these interrelated skills has been alluded to in the previous literature, here we seek to deepen an understanding of these skills and how their development through training in improvisation creates affiliative leadership.

First, to improvise well requires the willingness to act spontaneously and “be in the moment.” To be in the moment an individual must allow him or herself to switch from habitual to active thinking (Barrett, 1998). By allowing oneself to be in the moment, one fosters the ability to be mindful (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Being in the moment allows an individual to release her or himself from thoughts of the future or thoughts of the past and fully address the “here and now.” Vera and Crossan refer to awareness and alertness and, with reference to Crossan et al. (1996), write that improvisation “requires individuals to give their full concentration and attention to the moment, rather than being preoccupied with what happened before or what could happen later” (p. 741). By not being in the moment, the individual may lose the opportunity to dis-cover something new and potentially generative.

“Whole listening” is the act of paying complete attention to the environment that one is in, without the distraction of future plans, past mistakes, or interpersonal con-cerns. Whole listening transcends auditory perception and involves awareness of and attention to all forms of sensory information. An individual absorbs cues from the environment without judgment about the self or other, and is able to both more fully comprehend the meanings and intentions of others, based on actions as well as words,



Gagnon et al. 307

as well as to react quickly and generatively (Barrett, 1998). Hatch (2002) describes the importance of listening within improvisation in terms of “opening space for others’ ideas” (p. 81).

A third and related skill developed in improvisational theatre is “focusing on the other,” be it an individual or a team of individuals. Improvisers “develop a remarkable degree of empathic competence, a mutual orientation to one another’s unfolding; they continually take one another’s (musical) ideas into context as constraints and facilita-tors in guiding their choices” (Barrett, 1998, p. 613). As such, the focus is not on the self but on the others in the context. When one focuses on the other, the action and creative process become not a property of the individual but of the dyad or the group with whom one is interacting. Extrapolated to leadership, and consistent with alterna-tive ontologies of leadership such as that suggested by Crevani et al. (2010), the inter-active process itself constitutes leadership, rather than the actions of a particular formal or position leader. Accordingly, leadership is not a property of an individual but rather of the process of empathic collaboration and interaction.

A Model of Developing Affiliative Leadership Through ImprovisationIn this section, we draw together the different threads of theory presented to build a model of the development of affiliative leadership through improvisation. Figure 1 presents a model that introduces the major skills of improvisation and the process through which their development can lead to the three major learning principles of affiliative leadership. These skills appear in the improvisation literature, as discussed in the previous section. Here, we present them within an integrating model to under-stand how they work together and how they connect to the learning principles of affiliative leadership.

In the model, the process begins as individuals learn the main skills of improvisation—being in the moment, whole listening, and what we call “taking care of your partner(s).” We group these three skills under an umbrella term that we label an external focus. An external (or extrinsic) focus means taking one’s attention off of the self, of self- oriented goals and concerns, and of a desire to protect self, all of which block creativ-ity and the potential for collaboration.

The model posits that through learning and practicing these improvisation skills, an individual can begin to enact the learning principles that can lead to affiliative leader-ship. It does so in the following ways. First, through practicing enacting an external focus with interaction partners, participants see how openness to others’ ideas and inputs can lead to productive results, jointly setting a direction. Linked to this, partici-pants’ progressive recognition of their interdependence through using the skills within an external focus, allows trust to build between individuals, allowing them in turn to be more open and willing to take risks (Edmondson, 1999). Scholars emphasize the close connection between trust and conditions of risk and interdependence that char-acterize improvisation (Vera & Crossan, 2005). Trust can grow out of the experience




of improvising together, as individuals interact and support one another in an uncertain situation. We theorize further that for individuals to use these skills in the workplace and thus to build processes of affiliative leadership, they must continue to practice using them with colleagues, which in turn builds trust and willingness to take risks. Moreover, the trust further develops the principle of openness to multiple perspec-tives, giving the individual an ability to welcome different voices and views. The third learning principle, the ability to share control, is also developed through continued practice as the individual learns that personal control is not necessary and is in fact counterproductive to the collaborative and relational processes that underpin affilia-tive leadership. Principles of openness and sharing control thus combine with trust building and willingness to accept risk to enable the individual to enact affiliative leadership with others. The processes work together to create the collective capacity and agency that constitute affiliative leadership.

It is worth highlighting the major brackets in the bottom and top of Figure 1. Above the bottom bracket “learning the principles of affiliative leadership” we argue that through training in improvisation individuals begin to learn to take an external focus and, through practicing with others in the improvisation workshop, they can begin to

Figure 1. Learning principles of affiliative leadership



Gagnon et al. 309

see how applying a learning focus translates into openness, trust, and the willingness to share. Through the top bracket, building relationships, we argue that if individuals go through improvisation training with those with whom they will ultimately be work-ing, the characteristics of the relationships that they begin to build through the training may follow them to the workplace. As such, improvisational theater helps to both train specific skills as well as build relationships, both of which can be translated into behaviors at work. In the next section, we illustrate the how the skills and principles can be taught through a workshop in improvisational theatre.

Affiliative Leadership Development in Action: A Sample Improvisation WorkshopThis section describes an improvisation workshop for leadership development, emphasizing how the skills discussed above are progressively taught and layered on one another through activities or improvisation “games” (Spolin, 1999). The overall objective of the workshop is to teach the foundational skills of the improvisational actor that can be applied to the workplace, across hierarchical levels and organiza-tional settings. We argue that the workshop is applicable to almost any setting where people wish to build leadership skills that give life to fundamental interdependence and interconnectedness for organizational conditions of change and complexity. The workshop described here would run over a period of 4 hours, in two sessions, and would ideally involve around 25 participants, allowing for one-to-one interaction between the instructor and the participants. The room where the workshop is held would be flat and open, and furnished with portable chairs only, one per person. This, or similar, workshops have been run successfully by the third author, a profes-sional improvisation actor, teacher, and consultant in myriad corporations over more than a decade.

A number of guidelines are important in framing the workshop as a learning ses-sion, to help build receptivity to the learning. In delivering the improvisation activi-ties, the instructor works to enact the trust building that he or she is teaching. The training itself thus ideally serves as a safe or backstage space (Goffman, 1956) or holding environment (Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2010; Winnicott, 1965) for learning. Three guidelines used by the third author to create this climate are (a) full participation of all in the room, (b) having all participants work with a range of other participants, and (c) fun. Full participation and interaction is essential because actively doing the exercises makes possible an understanding of what is being taught on a visceral level. Moreover, it assists in creating the backstage space in which no participant is being evaluated in any sense outside of the immediate moment of cocreation with one’s peers. Thus, the instructor and the format aim to create conditions where power dynamics in the setting are reduced or ideally, nonexistent. It is a safe environment for learning. Working with a wide variety of other participants in the room for the first several exer-cises encourages learners not to become tied to one relationship. It teaches that anyone with whom one is interacting is their “partner” in that situation and therefore must




receive similar attention. Switching groups and interaction partners helps participants to see that the concepts being taught are transferable across interactions or relation-ships, and that different people produce different results within the collective creative process. Finally, fun provides energy, allowing the participants to be more open to con-sidering new thoughts, feelings, and activities. From the beginning and throughout the workshop, the instructor creates an atmosphere of fun and humor. The cues given to start activities, for example, are always lighthearted and absurd rather than serious. In this way, the instructor works to release pressure, again making the activities not about individual “performance” but about collective learning. The humor rooted in this dia-logue and in the activities themselves is viewed as important in helping participants to engage fully.

The workshop finds foundation in principles of experiential learning, through which experience can be transformed into knowledge (Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Fry, 1975). Action learning theory (Pedler, 1997; Revans, 1982), focusing on learning through resolving “real” problems or issues, is relevant when participants are co-employees in an organization. Trends within human resource development (HRD) emphasize the place of experiential and action within efforts to increase employee capacity and poten-tial (e.g., Buus & Saslow, 2005; Cho & Egan, 2009). In the workshop described here, participants experience physical, affective, and cognitive engagement to absorb the les-sons connected to the core skill areas through intensive experiential learning. The workshop methods aim for learning that is affective as well as cognitive; for example, participants may feel the “joy of collaboration” as described below and can take their feeling from that moment and bring it into their relationships in their own work and organizations. Furthermore, the method of development is itself egalitarian, plurivocal and participative, matching the leadership principles it aims to teach.

First SessionThe first session of the workshop unfolds through a series of games that become increasingly demanding and require participants to attend to more and more stimuli, including being highly conscious of what others are doing. For example, in “apples and oranges,” a variation on musical chairs in which participants move around a set of chairs when they hear cues for either apples or oranges, after a few rounds the instruc-tor adds a chair to the circle of chairs, meaning that all participants could conceivably have a chair. However, few participants notice this addition because they have been so focused on auditory cues (e.g., a colleague shouting “apples” or “oranges”), and on finding a chair for themselves, that they ignore some of visual cues that could provide valuable information. The instructor then explains to the participants the importance of being in the moment and paying attention to what is going on around them, with an emphasis on whole listening.

Once participants have practiced being in the moment and whole listening through a series of exercises, a new layer of complexity is added to the games. Now, they are also asked to begin “taking care of their partner.” As explained above, taking care of your partner means fully attending to your partner’s (or partners’) words and actions,



Gagnon et al. 311

building on these, and adapting to them to move a scene or a story forward. For partici-pants to take care of their partner(s), they must be attentive to that person or persons, help them out when they begin to struggle, and actively avoid putting them in a diffi-cult situation where they might become stuck. The overall goal is to have the collab-orative effort continue so that a joint creation—the story—results.

For example, in “word-at-a-time,” participants are divided into groups of four, and each person says only one word as the story progresses either clockwise or counter-clockwise around the group. Through several rounds, the instructor encourages people to stop trying to control the story, to “take the focus off of yourself,” to “put your ego on hold,” and to understand that “your only responsibility is to make your teammate’s word work,” that is, carry the story forward. The impact is clear in that groups who achieve this type of listening and building are able to keep their stories going, while others are not. In this way, “word-at-a-time” teaches whole listening which allows the participants the liberty to be creative and to begin to see the results of collaboration.

A third activity, “story line/pop-up,” tends to bring the biggest change in partici-pants as they increasingly use and embrace the skills being taught. In this game, six to eight people stand on a line in front of the whole group. The instructor gives them a title. One person voluntarily steps forward to start the story. This volunteer contin-ues telling the story until someone else steps off line to tap him or her on the arm. The first storyteller then steps back to the line as the second person assumes the role of storyteller. Participants are told that the sole rule in the game is “take care of your partner.” This is emphasized in subsequent rounds. The audience watching learns what happens when a storyteller runs out of ideas and is left in front of the line with nothing to say. The participants on the line learn to subvert their own personal fears and self-consciousness because they must take care of their partner to keep the story going.

In “pop-up,” the same basic exercise is conducted, except the team sits in a circle and individuals pop-up to be the storyteller, instead of stepping forward. This is often the first moment when participants fully let go of their internal focus and allow them-selves “the sheer luxury of sitting there and being creatively inspired by the words of others,” as the instructor tells them afterward. This “joy of collaboration” is experi-enced not only cognitively but also emotionally and even viscerally. These feelings and sensations in turn have an impact on participants’ understanding of leadership in that they experience collaboration as producing results which they could not achieve on their own. They experience that there is power in this ability to combine one’s capacity with others’, without regard to ego.

Second SessionThe afternoon session of the workshop moves participants from learning how to take an external focus to applying that learning as a position leader, and to relationships that may continue beyond the workshop. In particular, building trust and focusing on rela-




tionships and their central role within successful collaboration are key themes in this session.

“Story choir” is a fundamental game that incorporates all of the lessons that partici-pants should have learned up to a point and gives the opportunity to experience how having an external focus can lead to trust. This is also the first game in the improvisa-tion workshop to include a formal (or position) leadership role, which is rotated among participants, and in which, perhaps fittingly, the “leader” must stay silent. The game starts as one member of a group of six to eight participants is chosen to play the role of conductor and is given a pen. The other people in the circle are asked to get up and stand in a semicircle directly opposite the person with the pen, forming a small choir. The goal of the collective is to create a story by listening and building on the work of the group members who have gone before, similar to the earlier games. The goal of the conductor is to support and protect his or her team. To get an authentic performance from the leader, this latter point is not made until the end of the experience. The instructor asks the conductor to begin by pointing at one person in the choir. That per-son begins to tell (create) a story and must continue to do so until the conductor moves the baton (pen) to another person in the choir, who picks up the story where the first person has left off. That person continues on with the story until the conductor moves the baton again, and again. Thus, the conductor determines who speaks, when, and for how long. After a few rounds, the instructor asks the conductor to switch places with one of the choir members. Once all of the participants have each had a chance to play conductor, the exercise ends.

The instructor now tells the participants that the purpose of the exercise was to investigate leadership as displayed by the conductor. The instructor asks, “What are the types of things that the conductors in your group did that made it hard for you as an individual, and/or you as a creative collective, to achieve the goal of building a story?” The instructor also asks the opposite question, “What are the things the various conductors did to make it easier for you and your team to be successful?” Some of the responses participants have given are as follows:

One of our conductors would tip you off with a little glance if she was going to point at you next. That made me comfortable.

We had a conductor that would point at you and if you went blank or had noth-ing he would just keep pointing at you. He wouldn’t move on. It was very unset-tling.

Some of the conductors would let you finish a sentence and others would switch in the middle of a word.

At this point, the instructor points out that all of the behaviors that helped the teams be successful had a common thread: they engendered trust between conductor and choir. The results of this exercise can be dramatic. The players can see how much



Gagnon et al. 313

easier the story is to create when the conductor is protecting and supporting the choir members, but even more importantly, participants feel what it feels like to work in an environment where the leader can make your teammate nervous, apprehensive and perhaps, speechless. The final question before the exercise ends is “What kind of con-ductor do you want to be?”

A second game in the second session of the workshop is “storyteller and assistant.” Here, a key goal is building relationships, again tied to building trust. This time, two individuals sit facing each other. One individual begins telling a story. It is the job of the assistant to listen to the story being told and if the storyteller ever appears to have dif-ficulty continuing with the story, the assistant is responsible for either giving them a cue to help them continue the story, or to continue the story for them for a short period. In the words of the instructor, the storyteller and assistant exercise allows participants to “re-ignite the creative” when the other person falters. In this way, the story should be continuous and the storyteller is able to rely on the other person whenever he or she begins to falter. There are a number of outcomes of this exercise. Participants playing the role of assistant feel how much easier it is to be creative when they are externally focused. Through focusing all of their attention on the storyteller, they are able to take care of their partner, and collaborate in the story while not blocking. Continuing the theme of experiencing the impact for trust and relationship building, if the assistant supports the storyteller when in need, the storyteller has the opportunity to actually feel the impact of trust on their ability to be creative. A further valuable lesson from this exercise is that storytellers learn that they do not have to create the story all by them-selves; rather the best stories arise when the assistant provides the storyteller with cues. Table 1 summarizes how the games build improvisation skills.

Significance of the WorkshopThrough the workshop, participants have worked on each of the core skills central to affiliative leadership. By the end of the workshop, they begin to cognitively understand and viscerally feel both the creative and affective benefits of using the skills. We argue that they also begin to enact the principles that we view as central to affiliative leader-ship. Participants thus take away from the workshop an introduction to the skills and how to use them, as well as a heightened awareness of the core learning principles.

This knowledge can then contribute to organizational and HRD through transfer to the workplace in a number of ways. For example, if a team of colleagues engages in the training, their skills for an enhanced ability to surface and develop their collective creativity and agency are improved, and could bring a range of benefits to their work. The training develops individual managers’ skills in eliciting the full potential for idea generation and collective leadership in his or her group. The workshop can build an executive’s competency to engage in joint decision making and thus engender new types of outcomes, through bringing multiple voices to difficult problems and change initiatives. More generally, HRD is aided through building the collective creativity and problem-solving ability of the leaders and employees already in the organization. The




training serves to build their confidence, resourcefulness and flexibility–a partner-first, team-first mind-set that builds trust within the organization and leads to the cre-ation of a collaborative environment.

Returning to the three learning principles, the first, openness to multiple perspec-tives, is developed in the first part of the workshop where the training is designed to raise individuals’ awareness of their own creativity, through increasing their attention to what prevents them from being more creative within the collective setting of the workshop. The training does so by encouraging participants to be less concerned about their egos and needs for self-preservation or protection, that tend to act as barriers to participation, an instead take an external focus. The activities in the first part of the workshop, centered on “word-at-a-time” in various group sizes, progressively show participants that the “danger” or risk to self involved in such collaborative storytelling, is in practice an illusion. In fact, the danger actually lies in the insistence on being focused on one’s own ideas and priorities. Stories become “stuck” when individuals predetermine what they want to say, holding back the entire group. In this way, indi-viduals learn that for the group to proceed, each individual must listen to and respect the words of the others. Awakening or unblocking of participants’ collaborative capac-ity involves, then, taking the focus from the internal to the external, away from self and toward others, the context, and the shared task at hand. This openness to multiple perspectives is necessary for the practice of affiliative leadership. Individuals cannot engage in the collective practice of taking action, generating ideas and exercising col-lective agency without the ability to express and enact this principle.

Successful collaboration does not eradicate individuality or individual creativity, but rather increases the chances that it is optimized. In one improvisational theatre scholar’s terms: “collaboration does not diminish, but rather releases and expands what is unique to any artist” . . . (Thomson, 2003, p. 119). This principle of openness to multiple perspectives reflects the capacity of improvisational skills to require all voices within the collaborative process. Thus, individuals’ ability to express ideas is increased and fostered in improvisational theatre rather than thwarted.

The second principle, learning how to create trust and build an environment of trust, is achieved in the workshop through highlighting the contrasts between experi-ences of “followers” where there is little trust, with those where trust is given and thus established further through the interactions. As discussed above, participants learn through the “story choir” game how their own actions in the formal leader role can contribute to or detract from trust building within a collaborative process. Moreover, from the beginning of the workshop, participants are encouraged to contribute—this is the basis of the games. They are encouraged to express ideas, no matter how odd, in an environment where all are focused on the same task. Taking the risk of trusting one’s collaborators or partners, and seeing the productive results of that attitude of trust, then helps to develop it further. This “virtuous circle” is underlined by previous research on how trust is developed for example through others fulfilling promises (Ansell & Gash, 2007; Heckscher & Adler, 2006; Jameson et al., 2006). It is doubtful whether the



Gagnon et al. 315

practice of affiliative leadership could occur without individuals exhibiting an ability to create trust.

The third principle, sharing control and setting aside a need for individual control over process and outcomes, begins to be built early in the workshop with the storytell-ing games. Letting go of a focus on self (internal focus) is again part of the process. This principle is then developed further through activities such as “story choir” in which the conductor, to develop a good story, must follow rather than lead his or her choir members’ flow of ideas. Trying to control the outcome is anathema to the cre-ation of a good story. Rather, the most effective conductors share control with the choir members, recognizing that it is their ideas that will help to move the story forward. The principle of relinquishing individual control relates further to the notion of accept-ing what is “inside the box”—accepting that such restrictions serve to assist with col-laborative problem solving, rather than detract from it. Sharing control is an individual capability central to the practice of affiliative leadership. With additional practice and attention following the workshop, participants can continue to develop each of these capabilities and reap their benefits in their work context. Table 2 sets out each of the games and their learning outcomes for affiliative leadership.

DiscussionAffiliative leadership and its development using improvisation contribute to new leadership theory through identifying specific skills which we argue are closely linked to the practice of these forms of leadership. We have argued that the core skills of the improvisational actor can be applied directly to the development of affiliative leader-ship, challenging conventional top-down leadership models. Both critical and norma-tive scholars have deconstructed such popular assumptions about leadership and effective leadership, arguing that leadership does not “exist” as a function of an indi-vidual’s traits or position as formal power-holder, but emerges through co-construc-tion or social construction in practice. The processes of co-construction, then, may be viewed as key to understanding what is inside the “black box of leadership” (Conger, 2004); it is here that our theory of affiliative leadership development aims to make a contribution. Working in the field of educational leadership, Elmore (2000) has argued that distributed leadership is an emergent property of a group or network of individuals. Our ideas take this thinking considerably further in proposing that the capacities required to achieve such distribution in practice are affiliative capacities—they connect individuals and build affiliation in order that leadership can be produced through interaction. While distributed theories tend to focus on structure and pooling or sharing knowledge, our work helps to specify the individual capabilities and social mechanisms that can act as the enablers for making the structure (i.e., multiple actors) work to produce collective leadership.

In this article, we have pin-pointed elements that we see as related to developing or reconstructing leadership—focusing on its attendant skills—within the theoretical context of these emerging theories. We believe that highlighting such skills provides a




starting point from which to develop innovative methods through which these founda-tional skills can be developed. One such method is the use of improvisational theater. We would not argue that training in improvisational theatre is all that is needed to bring affiliative leadership into practice, nor that affiliative skills are the only skills relevant for leadership. We would hope, however, that our model may spark further thinking and research about how to develop new forms of leadership. In this regard, we join development scholars who have argued that the types of leadership needed in many organizations today cannot be achieved through traditional development activity focusing on individual development. Our model aims to develop a collective capacity for leadership, and skills that are geared toward generating this capacity, rather than toward competencies that develop only the individual. Understanding leadership as a process rather than the property of an individual, our model aims to build the skills that organizational members require to enable and construct that process. Two further points are important within this argument.

First, through emphasizing the learning of principles and building relationships, our model includes an important role for continuing to build affiliative leadership over time, in context. The learning principles represent the development of more enduring attitudes or beliefs consistent with the main skills of the model, and which the skills serve to intro-duce and bring awareness. For example, learning to be open to others, opinions and perspectives is not developed only within the training context of course, but continues afterward through continuing to practice the skills in interactions. Having been trained in

Table 1. Summary of How the Main Improvisation Games Build Improvisation Skills

Word-at-a-time Encourages participants to listen (whole listening), to shift in focus from oneself and own thoughts and individual interests, for a more successful story/collaboration.

Story line/pop up Asks participants to be in the moment and take care of their partners, and subvert their own fears/internal focus, experiencing fruits of collaboration—seeing the results.

Story choir Demonstrates how a position leader who has an external focus and wholly listens to their group is more successful than one who does not; Understanding why this is so—development of climate of collaboration through taking care of your partner; position leader’s key role in influencing and shaping climate through creating trust.

Storyteller and assistant Demonstrates to assistants how their external focus makes creativity easier and how taking care of your partner enables collaboration in the story while not blocking. Allows experience of the impact for trust and relationship building: If the assistant supports the storyteller when in need, the storyteller has opportunity to feel the impact of trust on their ability to be creative.



317

Tabl

e 2.

Impr

ovis

atio

nal T

heat

re G

ames

and

The

ir L

earn

ing

Out

com

es fo

r Affi

liativ

e Le

ader

ship

Gam

esSe

ssio

nD

escr

iptio

nLe

arni

ng o

utco

me

App

les

and

oran

ges

Firs

tA

form

of l

ivel

y an

d fa

st m

usic

al c

hair

s th

at b

uild

s en

ergy

whi

le b

egin

ning

to

teac

h ne

ed t

o at

tend

to

all c

ues

in t

he e

nvir

onm

ent.

Bein

g in

the

mom

ent

Bein

g in

the

mom

ent

Who

le li

sten

ing

Wor

d-at

-a-t

ime

Firs

tSm

all g

roup

s bu

ild a

sto

ry t

oget

her

by e

ach

pers

on s

ayin

g on

e w

ord

at a

tim

e,

afte

r th

e in

stru

ctor

giv

es a

titl

e on

whi

ch t

o ba

se t

he s

tory

and

ass

igns

one

pe

rson

to

star

t. T

he “

stor

y” p

roce

eds

arou

nd t

he c

ircl

e as

the

par

ticip

ants

bu

ild a

sto

ry b

y co

ntri

butin

g on

e w

ord

at a

tim

e.

Play

ers

usua

lly b

ecom

e di

stra

cted

from

the

sto

ry b

y th

eir

over

whe

lmin

g de

sire

to

look

goo

d (o

r no

t lo

ok b

ad)

in fr

ont

of a

n au

dien

ce (

the

othe

r pa

rtic

ipan

ts).

The

y do

n’t

liste

n to

eac

h ot

her

or t

hem

selv

es a

nd a

re fa

r m

ore

focu

sed

on t

heir

ow

n pe

rcei

ved

pers

onal

suc

cess

(i.e

., co

min

g up

with

a

“goo

d” w

ord)

inst

ead

of o

n th

e ta

sk a

t ha

nd (

telli

ng a

sto

ry).

Aft

er s

ever

al

roun

ds a

nd e

ncou

rage

men

t fr

om t

he in

stru

ctor

, gro

ups

begi

n to

suc

ceed

.St

ory

line/

pop

upFi

rst

Six

to e

ight

par

ticip

ants

pro

ceed

to

the

stag

e an

d st

and

in a

line

. Bas

ed o

n a

sugg

estio

n fr

om t

he a

udie

nce

or in

stru

ctor

one

per

son

step

s fo

rwar

d an

d be

gins

to

tell

a st

ory

and

cont

inue

s un

til s

omeo

ne e

lse

step

s fo

rwar

d fr

om

the

line

to t

ake

over

. The

par

ticip

ants

are

coa

ched

to

“tak

e ca

re o

f you

r pa

rtne

r,” w

hich

her

e m

eans

don

’t le

ave

your

par

tner

on

the

line

whe

n th

ey

have

run

out

of i

deas

or

stor

y to

tel

l. In

stea

d, t

ap t

hat

pers

on o

n th

e sh

ould

er

and

cont

inue

the

sto

ry u

ntil

the

inst

ruct

or c

alls

for

a st

op. P

artic

ipan

ts m

ust

build

on

the

prev

ious

per

son’

s id

eas

so t

hat

the

stor

y re

tain

s co

here

nce,

al

thou

gh n

o on

e pl

ayer

kno

ws

wha

t th

e st

ory

will

be

or w

here

it w

ill e

nd.

Onl

y by

look

ing

out

for

and

depe

ndin

g on

one

ano

ther

, the

gro

up is

abl

e to

w

eave

a s

tron

g se

amle

ss s

tory

.

Bein

g in

the

mom

ent

Who

le li

sten

ing

Taki

ng c

are

of y

our

part

ner

“P

op-u

p” fo

llow

s th

e sa

me

basi

c st

ruct

ure

exce

pt t

hat

the

play

ers

are

sitt

ing

in a

cir

cle,

and

the

sto

ryte

ller

pops

to

his

or h

er fe

et t

o be

gin

the

stor

y an

d co

ntin

ues

until

ano

ther

sto

ryte

ller

pops

to

thei

r fe

et a

nd s

o on

.

(con

tinue

d)



318

Gam

esSe

ssio

nD

escr

iptio

nLe

arni

ng o

utco

me

A

sks

part

icip

ants

to

be in

the

mom

ent

and

take

car

e of

the

ir p

artn

ers,

subv

ert

thei

r ow

n fe

ars/

inte

rnal

focu

s, ex

peri

enci

ng fr

uits

of c

olla

bora

tion—

seei

ng

the

resu

lts. U

sual

ly t

he fi

rst

mom

ent

in t

he w

orks

hop

whe

n pa

rtic

ipan

ts t

ruly

st

art

to lo

se t

heir

“in

tern

al fo

cus.”

Stor

y ch

oir

Seco

ndA

gro

up o

f six

to

eigh

t pa

rtic

ipan

ts s

tand

in fr

ont

of o

ne “

cond

ucto

r” o

r ch

oir

mas

ter

who

hol

ds a

pen

and

dir

ects

who

sho

uld

begi

n te

lling

the

sto

ry. T

he

cond

ucto

r ha

s th

e po

wer

to

mov

e th

e pe

n w

hene

ver

he o

r sh

e lik

es, a

nd t

his

has

a ke

y im

pact

on

the

stor

y an

d on

cho

ir m

embe

rs’ a

bilit

y to

be

crea

tive.

T

he c

ondu

ctor

’s ac

tions

can

ser

ve t

o cr

eate

tru

st o

r to

dep

lete

it e

ntir

ely,

for

exam

ple,

if t

hey

mov

e th

e pe

n to

o qu

ickl

y, w

ithou

t w

arni

ng, o

r ho

ld t

he p

en

on o

ne p

erso

n re

gard

less

of w

heth

er t

hat

pers

on h

as r

un o

ut o

f ide

as. E

ach

pers

on h

as a

tur

n pl

ayin

g co

nduc

tor;

the

debr

ief t

hen

focu

ses

on w

hat

the

cond

ucto

r(s)

did

to

faci

litat

e ot

hers

’ sto

ryte

lling

, and

wha

t th

e co

nduc

tor

did

that

had

an

oppo

site

effe

ct, a

nd w

hy/h

ow.

Build

ing

trus

t fr

om a

n ex

tern

al fo

cus

Stor

ytel

ler

and

assi

stan

tSe

cond

Part

icip

ants

sit

in g

roup

s of

tw

o an

d de

cide

who

is “

A”

and

who

is “

B.”

“A”

begi

ns b

y st

artin

g to

tel

l a s

tory

and

con

tinue

s to

tel

l the

sto

ry a

s lo

ng a

s he

or

she

can

. Whe

n A

’s flo

w o

f ide

as b

egin

s to

wan

e, B

(w

ho h

as b

een

liste

ning

in

tent

ly)

adds

som

e ne

w in

form

atio

n or

a n

ew d

irec

tion

whi

ch s

erve

s to

re

igni

te t

heir

par

tner

’s st

ory.

The

gam

e is

the

n re

peat

ed w

ith t

he r

oles

re

vers

ed. I

n th

e fin

al it

erat

ion

of t

he g

ame,

the

pla

yers

beg

in p

layi

ng w

ith o

ne

as s

tory

telle

r an

d th

e ot

her

assi

stan

t, bu

t th

is t

ime

the

inst

ruct

or p

erio

dica

lly

calls

out

“sw

itch.

” Whe

n th

ey h

ear

this

, the

pla

yers

sw

itch

role

s w

hile

m

aint

aini

ng t

he s

ame

stor

y.

Build

ing

rela

tions

hips

fr

om a

n ex

tern

al

focu

s

T

he p

laye

rs r

ealiz

e th

at b

y be

ing

exte

rnal

ly fo

cuse

d on

the

ir p

artn

er (

eith

er a

s th

e on

e te

lling

the

sto

ry o

r th

e on

e lis

teni

ng),

they

hav

e a

muc

h ea

sier

tim

e ac

cess

ing

thei

r ow

n cr

eativ

e ca

paci

ties.

The

sto

ryte

llers

lear

n th

at h

avin

g an

as

sist

ant

read

y to

hel

p at

any

mom

ent

allo

ws

them

to

trav

el fu

rthe

r af

ield

cr

eativ

ely.

The

y tr

ust

that

hel

p w

ill b

e th

ere.

Tabl

e 2.

(co

ntin

ued)



Gagnon et al. 319

the improvisation skills, participants are more able to work on this principle, further developing their ability to do so through practice. Similarly, learning how trust can be built with others in a particular context enables one to continue to do so over time, con-tributing to the creation of a collaborative environment. The third learning principle involves sharing control. Again, the training provides heightened awareness of the ben-efits that this can bring and the confidence to practice further, in addition to concrete skills connected to this ability. There is thus a strong tie to HRD with respect to capacity building and organizational development in the work group and potentially, more broadly (Werner & DeSimone, 2008).

The building of relationships spurred within the training is another element within the model that is transferred into the workplace and thus continues over time. In this case, the improvisation workshop serves to jump-start relationship-building and appli-cation of the improvisation skills within workplace relationships, in a way that would be unlikely to occur otherwise. The potential for transferring relationships into the workplace distinguishes this type of training, we believe, from much normative work on the development of leadership skills (London & Maurer, 2004). The workshop and indeed follow-up workshops or training can be used to initiate a high quality relation-ship between colleagues and within teams. In turn, this links to HRD in assisting orga-nizational members to continue to build the relationships connected to affiliative leadership within the regular day-to-day business of the workplace (Crevani et al., 2010). In this sense, possibilities for further relational learning that occurs through social connectivity, dialogue and inclusion (Cunliffe, 2002; English, 2006), should transcend the workshop context.

Second, our model along with the nature of the training illustrated here envision that participants will be enabled and encouraged to transfer the broader philosophy of collec-tive learning into their own work settings. For example, collective learning through action and experimentation, as well as humor and a nonevaluative environment, help to construct a philosophy of learning that participants can work to develop in their own workplace. Such collective learning and collaboration are not easy to accomplish and should not be confused with amiability or cooperation (Thomson, 2003). Not a mere reference to possessing “a generous and modern spirit,” rather:

. . . collaboration (in improvisational theatre) is a verb not a noun, a process of engagement, a map more than a destination. The process fosters a community of makers, who engender a shared vision, which in turn fuels individual cre-ation. A single (artist), working alone, cannot achieve that same vision and the accompanying discoveries. (p. 118)

This philosophy, embodied in the training, further helps to show participants how leadership may be practiced as a function of everyday processes in which organi-zational members interdependently construct direction and space for action, and where the potential for leadership in every social interaction is emphasized (Crevani et al., 2010; Fletcher, 2005). Unlike role-play or other forms of experiential learning in workshop settings, improvisation training requires more rapid and frequent responses




to stimuli, in a fully “unscripted” sense. In role-play, there is most typically a script for the players to follow, at minimum in the sense of guiding who they are in the role, as well as a particular expected outcome or resolution to the scenario being played out. In improvisation training, the scenario itself is in construction, there is no script what-soever beyond a brief scene description, or merely a word, from which the participants are then asked to create a story. Although both are action learning methods, improvisa-tion is more spontaneous and open-ended, and thus more fully dependent on collabora-tion of those engaged in the activity. In the words of the third author, “It’s not about ‘me’, it’s about ‘us’; and not only some of us, but all of us.”

More generally, the use of improvisation acting to enhance leadership teaching is consistent with the emerging stream of research that emphasizes how art can be a valu-able tool for improving the understanding and practice of leadership (e.g., Bolman & Deal, 1991; Harrison & Akinc, 2000). For example, Callahan, Whitener, and Sandlin (2007) point to the art of storytelling, as found in popular cultural artifacts including film and fiction, to be highly promising in teaching leadership. Other HRD scholars have made close links between the arts and organizational development, for example in its ability to facilitate culture change (Pruetipibultham & Mclean, 2010). The link to rapidly changing contexts and individuals’ ability to improve “powers of perception and creativity” is also invoked in this work. An increasingly turbulent environment, along with global interconnectedness and decreasing costs of experimentation, all sug-gest the timeliness for leadership of skills that artists rely on for innovation and adapta-tion to change (Adler, 2006). Arts-based methods have the potential to enhance leadership training by providing transferrable skills, fostering reflection, aiding in identifying universal essences or truths, and enabling one to flourish through creating something (Taylor & Ladkin, 2009). If improvisational theatre is indeed the most col-laborative of all the arts, we suggest that it has a key role to play within the different arts being brought to bear on the building of contemporary leadership.

The leadership which improvisation can assist in developing, is egalitarian and democratic in orientation. New ontologies of leadership emphasize that leadership dynamics are no longer understood as between leader or power-holder on one hand, and follower on the other. Leadership is not fixed within the individual but is con-tained in social interaction. We have aimed to demonstrate that improvisation skills can greatly improve the quality of that social interaction, and thus the likelihood that multiple voices will be brought to bear on the creation of direction and space for action, that is, on leadership (Crevani et al., 2010). Future research could examine these relationships more closely, through empirical study of leadership processes within particular contexts, following training in improvisation. Such research could further explore the connections in practice between the different elements within our model of developing affiliative leadership.

In closing, we draw attention to a key caveat within our argument. As eloquently argued by Fletcher (2005), the transformational power of post-heroic leadership forms, embedded in a logic of effectiveness that is relational and interdependent, will not flourish in organizational structures and systems built exclusively on principles of



Gagnon et al. 321

individualistic meritocracy. In posing a radical challenge to more conventional work practices, structures, and norms, the new forms may in practice be co-opted or brought into the traditional discourse on leadership in ways that will silence their potential (Fletcher, 2005). We hope that our model of the development of affiliative leadership assists in giving practical weight to the potential of these newer forms of leadership through identifying core learning principles and skills, and proposing a method for their development. We hope further that this work spurs additional research into how best to build skills for affiliative, “unscripted” leadership.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adler, N. J. (2006). The arts & leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we do? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5, 486-499.

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543-571.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.

Barrett, F. J. (1998). Creativity and improvisation in jazz and organizations: Implications for organizational learning. Organization Science, 9, 605-622.

Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public Administra-tion Quarterly, 17, 112-121.

Bloch, S., & Whiteley, P. (2007). How to manage in a flat world. London, UK: Prentice Hall.Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role

in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848.Buus, I., & Saslow, S. (2005). The evolution of leadership development. Strategic HR Review,

4, 28-31.Callahan, J. L. (2010). Constructing a manuscript: Distinguishing integrative literature reviews

and conceptual and theory articles. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 300-304.Callahan, J. L., Whitener, J. K., & Sandlin, J. A. (2007). The art of creating leaders: Popular culture

artifacts as pathways for development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9, 146-165.Carden, L. L., & Callahan, J. L. (2007). Creating leaders or loyalists? Conflicting identities in a

leadership development programme. Human Resource Development International, 10, 169-186.




Cho, Y., & Egan, T. M. (2009). Action learning research: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Human Resources Development Review, 8, 413-462.

Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic lead-ers can make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58, 1419-1442.Conger, J. A. (2004). Developing leadership capability: What’s inside the black box? Academy

of Management Executive, 18, 136-139.Cooke, R. A., & Kernaghan, J. A. (1987). Estimating the difference between group versus indi-

vidual performance on problem-solving tasks. Group and Organizational Management, 12, 319-342.

Crevani, L., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2010). Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 77-86.

Crossan, M. M. (1998). Improvisation in action. Organization Science, 9, 593-599.Crossan, M. M., & Hurst, D. K. (2006). Strategic renewal as improvisation: Reconciling the ten-

sion between exploration and exploitation. Advances in strategic management, 23, 273-298.Crossan, M. M., White, R., Lane, H., & Klus, L. (1996, Spring). The improvising organization:

Where planning meets opportunity. Organizational Dynamics, 20-35.Cunha, M. P., Kamoche, K., & Cunha, R. C. (2003). Organizational improvisation and leader-

ship: A field study in two computer-mediated settings. International Studies of Management & Organization, 33(1), 34-57.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2002). Managers as practical authors: Reconstructing our understanding of management practice. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 351-371.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2009). The philosopher leader: On relationalism, ethics and reflexivity—A criti-cal perspective to teaching leadership. Management Learning, 40(1), 87.

Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613.

Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multi-level, identity-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 360-373.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shankar Institute.

English, L. M. (2006). A Foucauldian reading of learning in feminist: Nonprofit organizations. Adult Education Quarterly, 56, 85-101.

Fletcher, J. (2005). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and trans-formational change. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 647-661.

Gagnon, S. (2008). Compelling identity: Selves and insecurity in global, corporate management development. Management Learning, 39, 375-391.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). Leadership: An alientaing social myth? Human Relations, 45, 113-129.



Gagnon et al. 323

Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

Grint, K. (2007). Learning to lead: Can Aristotle help us find the road to wisdom? Leadership, 3, 231-246.

Harrison, J. K., & Akinc, H. (2000). Lessons in leadership from the arts and literature: A liberal arts approach to management education through fifth discipline learning. Journal of Man-agement Education, 24, 391.

Hatch, M. J. (2002). Exploring the empty spaces of organizing: How improvisational jazz helps redescribe organizational structure. Organizational Studies, 20(1), 75-100.

Heckscher, C., & Adler, P. (2006). The firm as a collaborative community: Reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Heifitz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009, July-August). Leadership in a (permanent) crisis. Harvard Business Review, 1-7.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collabora-tion agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1159-1175.

James, K. T., & Arroba, T. (2005). Reading and carrying: A framework for learning about emo-tion and emotionality in organizational systems as a core aspect of leadership development. Management Learning, 36, 299.

James, K. T., Mann, J., & Creasy, J. (2007). Leaders as lead learners: A case example of facilitat-ing collaborative leadership learning for school leaders. Management Learning, 38(1), 79.

James, K. T., & Ladkin, D. (2008). Meeting the challenge of leading in the 21st century: Beyond the “deficit model” of leadership development. In K. T. James & J. Collins (Eds.), Leader-ship learning: Knowledge into action (pp. 13-34). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jameson, J., Ferrell, G., Kelly, J., Walker, S., & Ryan, M. (2006). Building trust and shared knowledge in communities of e-learning practice: Collaborative leadership in the JISC eLISA and CAMEL lifelong learning projects. British journal of educational technology, 37, 949-967.

Johnstone, K. (1987). Impro: Improvisation and the theatre. New York, NY: Theatre Arts Book.Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leader-

ship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper

(Ed.), Theories of group process (pp. 33-58). New York, NY: John Wiley.Kramer, M. W., & Crespy, D. A. (2011). Communicating collaborative leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 22, 1024-1037.




London, M., & Maurer, T. J. (2004). Leadership development: A diagnostic model for continu-ous learning in organizations. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 222-245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591-615.

Mabey, C., & Finch-Lees, T. (2008). Management and leadership development. London, UK: Sage.

Miner, F. C. (1984). Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(1), 112-124.

Mirvis, P. H. (1998). Practice improvisation. Organization Science, 9, 586-592.Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory.

Academy of Management Review, 23, 698-723.Newton, P. M. (2004). Leadership lessons from jazz improvisation. International Journal of

Leadership in Education, 7(1), 83-99.Oxford English Dictionary. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/Parker, P., & Carroll, B. (2009). Leadership development: Insights from a careers perspective.

Leadership, 5, 261-283.Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to

transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57.Pearce, C. L. (2007). The future of leadership development: The importance of identity, multi-

level approaches, self-leadership, physical fitness, shared leadership, networking, creativity, emotions, spirituality and on-boarding processes. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 335-359.

Pedler, M. (1997). Interpreting action learning. In J. Burgoyne (Ed.), Management learning: Integrating perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 161-176). London, UK: Sage.

Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J. L. (2010). Identity workspaces: The case of business schools. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(1), 44-60.

Pruetipibultham, O., & Mclean, G. M. (2010). The role of the arts in organizational settings. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 3-25.

Raelin, J. (2006). Does action learning promote collaborative leadership? Academy of Manage-ment Learning and Education, 5, 152.

Revans, R. W. (1982). Action learning. Journal of Management Development, 1(3), 64-75.Reynolds, M., & Vince, R. (2004). Critical management education and action-based learning:

Synergies and contradictions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3/4, 442-456.Sawyer, R. K. (2000). Improvisation and the creative process: Dewey, Collingwood, and the

aesthetics of spontaneity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58, 149-161.Sikora, P. B., Beaty, E. D., & Forward, J. (2004). Updating theory on organizational stress: The

asynchronous multiple overlapping change (AMOC) model of workplace stress. Human Resource Development Review, 3, 3-35.

Simmonds, D., & Tsui, O. (2010). Effective design of a global leadership programme. Human Resource Development International, 13, 519-540.



Gagnon et al. 325

Simonin, B. L. (1997). The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1150-1174.

Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the theater: A handbook of teaching and directing tech-niques (3rd ed.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Taylor, S. S., & Ladkin, D. (2009). Understanding arts-based methods in managerial develop-ment. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 55-69.

Thomson, L. M. (2003). Teaching and rehearsing collaboration. Theatre Topics, 13(1), 117-128.Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership

and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorga-

nizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 5.Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Theatrical improvisation: Lessons for organizations. Organiza-

tion Studies, 25, 727.Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organiza-

tion Science, 16, 203-224.Werner, J. M., & DeSimone, R. (2008). Human resource development. Mason, OH: South-

Western Cengage Learning.Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Winnicott, D. W. (1965). Maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in

the theory of the emotional development. London, UK: Hogarth Press.Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: Understand-

ing the performance imperatives confronting today’s leaders (pp. 3-41). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Bios

Suzanne Gagnon is Assistant Professor in the Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University. She studies the ways in which organizations construct diversity and inequality and their interrelation with leadership and situated leadership actors, and has a particular interest in leadership development. She is a co-lead for a five-year Community University Research Alliance (CURA) examining leadership diversity in large organizations, supported by Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Heather C. Vough is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University. She received her PhD from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Her research investigates identification with multiple targets at work, how employees construct the meaning of their work, and the development of individual, occupa-tional, and organizational identity over time.

Robert Nickerson is an actor, writer, produce and director. He has been using the art of impro-visation to teach leadership, collaboration and collective problem-solving to corporations, government agencies and academia for over twenty years. He can be found online at www .robnickersonimprov.com.



human resource development review - td cascadia services and information for human resource...

Documents