ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

While the information technologies provide organizational members with explicit concepts, such as writing instruction manuals, the 'organizational memory' provides individuals with tacit knowledge, such as systematic sets, routines and shared visions. This means that individuals within an organization learn by using both the organizational memory and the information technologies. They interact to reduce organizational information needs contributing to improve organizational innovativeness. However, the utilization of the organization memory or the technology infrastructure does not guarantee that appropriate information is used in appropriate circumstances or that information is appropriately updated. In other words, previous memories reflect a world that is only partially understood and assimilated, which might lead individuals to doing the wrong things right or the right things wrong. This paper examines the relative importance and significance of the existence of unlearning to the presence and nature of 'organizational memory and technology'. We further examine the effect of the existence of organizational memory and information technology on conditions that promote organizational innovativeness. These relationships are examined through an empirical investigation of 291 large Spanish companies. Our analysis found that if the organization considers the establishment of an unlearning culture as a prior step in the utilization of organization memory or the technology infrastructure through organizational innovativeness, then organization memory and technology have a positive influence on the conditions that stimulate organizational innovativeness.
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 1479-4411 1 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Reference this paper as
Cegarra-Navarro, J, Cepeda-Carrion, G and Jimenez-Jimenez, D. (2010) “Linking Unlearning with
Innovation through Organizational Memory and Technology” Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management Volume 8 Issue 1 (pp1 - 10), available online at www.ejkm com
Linking Unlearning with Innovation through Organizational
Memory and Technology
Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro1, Gabriel Cepeda-Carrion2, and Daniel Jimenez-
Jimenez3
1Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Spain
2Universidad de Sevilla, Spain
3Universidad de Murcia, Spain
juan.cegarra@upct.es
gabi@us.es
danieljj@um.es
Abstract: While the information technologies provide organizational members with explicit concepts, such as
writing instruction manuals, the ‘organizational memory’ provides individuals with tacit knowledge, such as
systematic sets, routines and shared visions. This means that individuals within an organization learn by using
both the organizational memory and the information technologies. They interact to reduce organizational
information needs contributing to improve organizational innovativeness. However, the utilization of the
organization memory or the technology infrastructure does not guarantee that appropriate information is used in
appropriate circumstances or that information is appropriately updated. In other words, previous memories reflect
a world that is only partially understood and assimilated, which might lead individuals to doing the wrong things
right or the right things wrong. This paper examines the relative importance and significance of the existence of
unlearning to the presence and nature of ‘organizational memory and technology’. We further examine the effect
of the existence of organizational memory and information technology on conditions that promote organizational
innovativeness. These relationships are examined through an empirical investigation of 291 large Spanish
companies. Our analysis found that if the organization considers the establishment of an unlearning culture as a
prior step in the utilization of organization memory or the technology infrastructure through organizational
innovativeness, then organization memory and technology have a positive influence on the conditions that
stimulate organizational innovativeness.
Keywords: unlearning, technology, organizational memory, and innovation
1. Introduction
There are two types of storage ‘bins’: human and no-human (Cross and Baird, 2000). By storage ‘bin’,
Tsang and Zabra mean “a location where information is stored” (2008: 1444). Organizations
frequently increase their information base by using the organizational memory and the technology
infrastructure. While organizational memory may be thought as being comprised of stocks of data,
information and knowledge (the memories) that have been accumulated by an organization over its
history (Walsh and Ungson, 1991), the technology infrastructure represents a collection of tools for
capturing and sharing of people's knowledge, promote collaboration, and provide unhindered access
to an extensive range of information (Zack, 1998).
If an organization wants to start its innovation culture by bringing together these two storage ‘bins’:
human and no-human, then it should begin to remove the obstacles that inhibit the utilization of its
organizational memory and its technology infrastructure. The accuracy of that memory and the
technology structures under which that knowledge is distributed and used as a constraint become
crucial characteristics of organizing. While the organizational memory is comprised of all active and
historical information about an organization that is worth sharing, managing and preserving for later
reuse (Megill, 1997), the technology infrastructure is responsible for maintaining the networks that
organizational members use to run their activities, including the data centres and software that enable
the information to be used as a platform upon which the decisions are made (Gold et al., 2001).
However, there is a problem with the arguments above in that technology tools, and therefore
information and organizational memory, can become obsolete at both an explicit and tacit levels.
Regarding this, the negative impacts of theories in use (in terms of biases in recall, belief systems and
blind spots) on decision-making have been discussed by several authors (e.g. Larwood and Whitaker,
1997). In addition, technologies can also become obsolete (Gold et al., 2001). For instance, when a
company decides to come up with a new version of Windows, some old software become obsolete,
and some old hardware become too inadequate to support the requirements of the new version. As
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 8 Issue 1, 2010 (1 - 10)
Tsang and Zabra, (2008) noted, the age of an organization often gives rise to ossified routines in
organizational memory.
The renewal of organizational memory or the technology infrastructure requires what Akgün et al.
(2007) refer to as the ‘unlearning context,’ that is, the context through which the management
supports the proactive questions of existing assumptions and beliefs potentially leading to being
ignored, modified, deleted or replaced. In this paper we propose that the result of this unlearning
context will be the updated information stored in the organizational memory and shared by using
technologies. Thus, this study aims to examine the impact of an organization’s ‘unlearning context’ on
the challenging of basic beliefs or processes that are explicitly or tacitly represented in organizational
memory and technology systems. We also examine the effect of the existence of organizational
memory and information technology on conditions that promote organizational innovativeness. In the
following we examine the concepts discussed above and explore potential relationships between
them.
2. Contextual framework
An environment’s discontinuities are difficult for firms to manage because they demand different
product architectures, they change the economics of the industry, destroy existing firm competences,
create new value networks in which to compete and require technology investments with highly
uncertain outcomes (Christensen and Rosenbloom, 1995). In this context, innovation is increasingly
considered to be one of the key drivers of the long-term success of a firm in today’s competitive
markets. The reason is that companies with the capacity to innovate will be able to respond to
environmental challenges faster and better than non-innovative companies (Damanpour and
Gopalakrishnan, 1998). Innovation has been conceptualised in a variety of ways in the literature,
depending on the perspective from which it has been studied. It has been considered as a process; a
result of both and different types of innovation have been distinguished. According to Damanpour and
Gopalakrishnan (1998), innovation could be understood as the adoption of a new idea or behaviour in
an organization. Literature classifies innovation between technical and administrative innovations.
Whereas technical innovations include new technologies, products and services, administrative ones
refer to new procedures, policies and organizational forms (Dewar and Dutton, 1986). Similarly,
organizational innovativeness characterizes an organization by being supportive and permeable to
innovation in terms of developing new products or processes, opening new markets, or simply
developing a new strategic direction (Wang and Ahmed, 2004).
As we have discussed above, organizational memory and technology infrastructure use different
retention structures. On the one hand, the most obvious structures for encoding technologies include
information systems such as corporate manuals, databases, filing systems, etc (Cross and Baird,
2000). These systems are continually being updated and analysed and are thus capable of
generating new streams of information, thereby expanding knowledge (Zuboff, 1988). On the other
hand, Walsh and Ungson (1991) suggest that organizational memory is ‘represented’ by many
diverse aspects of an organization, for example: the organization’s culture, transformations
(production processes and work procedures), structure (formal organizational roles), ecology (physical
work settings) and information archives (both internal and external to the organization).
It is obvious that all information stored in the organizational memory or the technology infrastructure
does not stay there permanently. In this regard, researchers have taken several approaches to
unlearning or forgetting (Akgün et al., 2007). On one hand, in situations where organizations and their
members face changing environments it is necessary that the old ‘knowledge’ represented in the
organizational memory be challenged prior to the addition of new knowledge (Akgün et al., 2007).
This idea is recognized by Huber (1996), who suggested that the basic requirement for real learning
consists of abandoning manners, experience, knowledge and beliefs that are vivid and were once
useful, but are not valuable in the present. On the other hand, technology infrastructure can quickly
become outdated as technology, personnel and business lines change, so regularly scheduled plan
maintenance and regular testing are essential to ensure team leaders are familiar with the new
technology and how it relates to the company's overall business (Gold et al., 2001).
The above considerations lead us to argue that for a given organization, both the organizational
memory and the technology infrastructure, needs to be critically examined since it may no longer be
relevant. The unlearning context, at its heart, attempts to reorientate organizational values, norms
and/or behaviours by changing cognitive structures (Nystrom and Starbuck, 1984), mental models
www.ejkm.com 2 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, et al.
(Day and Nedungadi, 1994), dominant logics (Bettis and Prahalad, 1995), and core assumptions
which guide behaviour (Shaw and Perkins, 1991). If this is so, the context where unlearning can take
place could be considered the genesis of a competitive advantage (Sinkula et al., 1997). According to
Bogenrieder (2002), managers need to foster an unlearning context which opens the way for new
habits, patterns, ways of doing and interpreting things to take place. To this end, Sinkula et al. (1997)
propose that open-mindedness (i.e., a willingness to consider ideas and opinions that are new or
different) is associated with the context of unlearning, through which the management supports the
proactive questions of existing organizational routines, assumptions and beliefs potentially leading to
being ignored, modified, deleted or replaced. Following Cegarra and Sanchez’s (2008) suggestions,
we identify the following three interaction processes that characterize an unlearning framework:
The examination of lens fitting, which refers to an interruption of the employees' habitual,
comfortable state of being, and it is through such framework that individuals of an organization will
have access to new perceptions.
The framework for changing the individual habits, which refers to the challenge of inhibiting wrong
habits when an individual has not only understood the new idea, but is quite motivated to make
the change.
The framework for consolidating the emergent understandings, which refers to the organizational
process that can free employees up to apply their talents by implementing new mental models
based on adaptation to new knowledge structures.
Thus, we propose H1 and H2 based on the importance of unlearning old knowledge as a prior step to
the utilisation of organizational memory and the technology infrastructure and of the negative
consequences of yielding to inertial forces (Akgün et al., 2007). From this perspective, the unlearning
process can be seen as the abandonment of practices that were dominant but are now standing in the
way of new learning and therefore of organizational competitiveness. Therefore:
H1: Unlearning process
Technology infrastructure
H2: Unlearning process
Organizational memory
As noted above, an unlearning context fosters an interruption of the employees' habitual, comfortable
state of being (e.g. identifying problems, initiating projects or introducing novelties). A sudden change
in those habits forces individuals to reconsider their old basic attitudes toward customers, competitors,
suppliers, etc. However, at this stage updated-knowledge (e.g. new meanings) is individual rather
than social, and tacit rather than explicit. This knowledge then needs to be embedded through the
organizational memory and the technology infrastructure in order to become a dominant design,
otherwise innovation processes will not take place (Akgün et al., 2007). In this aim, new knowledge
may be further ‘consolidated’ through the emergent understandings that are created by group
members when they interact (Schein, 1992), or by new technological tools that may offer a better way
to deliver information (Cross and Baird, 2000). Considering this, we argue that unlearning may have
an indirect effect on innovation processes by providing support through the use of new technologies
and by changing the ways individuals interact or come to interpret things. Regarding this,
organizational memory and technology infrastructure have often been presented as constructs with
beneficial effects on innovation processes of an organization. For example, scholars have argued that
by routinizing search activities in the form of standard operating procedures, individuals can learn to
become more efficient at performing them (Walsh and Dewar, 1987). Organizational memory and
technology infrastructure can also provide support to individuals by retaining a broader range of
potential responses, thus providing more options for organizational decision makers when they
respond to the variety presented to them by changes in the organizational environment. March has
asserted that ‘for most purposes, good memories make good choices’ (1972).
Since much of the organization’s innovation is created as a consequence of the utilization of the
organizational memory and the technology infrastructure interaction, it is likely to be no longer
relevant due to outdated assumptions about the use of technologies. Therefore:
H3: Technology infrastructure
Innovativeness
H4: Organizational memory
innovativeness
www.ejkm.com 3 ISSN 1479-4411
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 8 Issue 1, 2010 (1 - 10)
3. Methodology
The population used in this study includes Spanish organizations with more than 100 employees. Like
other studies on these topics, this study was designed to cover a wide range of industries (excluding
the agricultural and construction sectors). 2,160 companies, from the SABI database, were located
and contacted for participation. The information was collected via a postal survey directed to the R&D
or innovation executive. The information-collecting period lasted from January to April 2008. The unit
of analysis for this study was the company. 291 questionnaires were obtained. It is thus within the 10-
20 percent average range for top-management survey response rates (Menon et al., 1996).
Respondent and non-respondent companies were compared in terms of size and performance. No
significant differences were found between those two groups, suggesting no response bias.
This study mainly used existing scales from literature. The questionnaire constructs comprised (see
items in the Appendix):
We modelled ‘unlearning context’ as a formative second-order construct. We assessed ‘unlearning
context’ by three first-order factors or dimensions: ‘consolidation of emergent understandings’, ‘the
examination of lens fitting’, and ‘the framework for changing individual habits’. The measures relating
to the existence of a framework for ‘consolidating the emergent understandings’ scale consisted of 6
items taken from a scale designed by Cegarra and Sanchez (2008). To measure the framework for
examining the lens fitting, 5 items were used. The final depurated scale consists of 4 items. We
measured “the framework for changing individual habits” dimension through 7 items.
We adopt the formative way for our second-order construct. In this way, an increase in the level of
each dimension does not imply an increase in the level of the other dimensions. The measures
associated with technology are based on the infrastructure capabilities used by Gold, Malhotra, and
Segars (2001). The initial scale comprises 7 items, but after the depuration process, 3 items formed
this scale. Organizational Memory: We adopt a Chang and Cho (2008) scale comprises 4 items.
Finally, we have used organizational innovativeness construct. Innovation has been measured in a
variety of ways in previous research. In this study we measure how supportive and permeable to
innovation the company is in terms of developing new products or processes. Hence, we focus on
organizational innovativeness. According to Hurley and Hult (1998), innovativeness is understood as
"the notion of openness to new ideas as an aspect of a firm's culture”. In this paper, we measured
innovativeness using a scale of 5 items adapted from Hurley and Hult. Three items make up this
depurated scale.
The hypotheses were tested simultaneously using partial least squares (PLS), a structural equation
modelling technique (Chin, 1998). PLS was selected due to the characteristics of our model and
sample. Our model uses formative indicators and our data is non-normal. For hypothesis testing, we
used the bootstrapping procedure recommended by Chin (1998). This study uses PLS-Graph
software. Using PLS involves following a two-stage approach. The first step requires the assessment
of the measurement model. This analysis is performed in relation to the attributes of individual item
reliability, construct reliability, average variance extracted (AVE), and discriminant validity of the
indicators of latent variables. For the second step, the structural model is evaluated. The objective of
this is to confirm to what extent the causal relationships specified by the proposed model are
consistent with the available data.
To analyse the relationships between the different constructs and their indicators, we have adopted
the latent model perspective, in which the latent variable is understood to be the cause of the
indicators and, therefore, we refer to reflective indicators for first-order constructs or dimensions.
Three constructs in the model are operationalized as reflective, while one constructs: ‘unlearning
context,’ is modelled as a second-order formative construct.
With regard to the measurement model, we began by assessing the individual item reliability (Table
1). The indicators exceed the accepted threshold of 0.707 for each factor loading (Carmines and
Zeller, 1979). From an examination of the results shown in Table 1, we can state that all of the
constructs are reliable. They present values for both Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and for a composite
reliability greater than the value of 0.8 for basic research (Nunnally, 1978). The AVE should be
greater than 0.5, meaning that 50% or more variance of the indicators should be accounted for
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All constructs of our model exceed this condition. We tested discriminant
www.ejkm.com 4 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, et al.
validity in two ways; we have compared the square root of the AVE with the correlations among
constructs, and we also reported the factor scores matrix in Table 1. On average, each construct
relates more strongly to its own measures than to others.
Table 1: Factor loadings of rellective constructs
Table 1: Factor Loadings of reflective constructs
Understanding Lens
Indiv idua l
H abits Innovation O . Mem ory Technology
p1v1 0.829 0.396 0.495 0.523 0.063 0.43 4
p1v2 0.720 0.415 0.354 0.475 0.226 0.34 6
p1v3 0.828 0.180 0.314 0.537 0.087 0.22 7
p1v4 0.844 0.467 0.537 0.497 0.063 0.50 1
p1v5 0.845 0.443 0.550 0.488 0.041 0.45 2
p1v6 0.790 0.476 0.678 0.441 0.145 0.47 2
p2v1 0.387 0.791 0.383 0.317 0.135 0.29 5
p2v2 0.235 0.791 0.233 0.191 0.102 0.13 8
p2v3 0.382 0.802 0.352 0.282 0.170 0.30 9
p2v4 0.454 0.837 0.503 0.389 0.086 0.36 7
p3v1 0.501 0.460 0.822 0.363 0.171 0.436
p3v2 0.459 0.422 0.872 0.320 0.078 0.365
p3v3 0.377 0.344 0.871 0.233 0.109 0.379
p3v4 0.487 0.381 0.873 0.311 0.029 0.352
p3v5 0.361 0.354 0.845 0.263 0.130 0.217
p3v6 0.425 0.359 0.846 0.310 0.055 0.242
p3v7 0.447 0.400 0.760 0.287 0.174 0.309
p6v1 0.503 0.379 0.400 0.877 0.189 0.347
p6v2 0.507 0.375 0.388
0.887 0.259 0.338
p6v3 0.412 0.253 0.326 0.884 0.297 0.356
p12v1 0.128 0.132 0.124 0.232 0.821 0.120
p12v2 0.080 0.126 0.092 0.247 0.735 0.111
p12v3 0.077 0.097 0.087 0.222 0.715 0.107
p12v4 0.165 0.152 0.124 0.283 0.866 0.171
p14v1 0.485 0.391 0.450 0.379 0.162 0.90 6
p14v2 0.538 0.409 0.497 0.383 0.179 0.92 3
p14v3 0.376 0.291 0.363 0.288 0.039 0.83 1
The evaluation of formative dimensions of the high-order construct: ‘unlearning context’, is different
from that of reflective ones. One examines the weights (Mathieson et al., 2001), which represent a
canonical correlation analysis and provide information about how each indicator contributes to the
respective construct (see Table 2). Weights do not need to exceed any particular benchmark because
a census of indicators is required for a formative specification (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer,
2001). The concern with formative dimensions is potential multicolinearity with overlapping
dimensions, which could produce unstable estimates (Mathieson et al., 2001). Results of a colinearity
test show the variance inflation factor (VIF) scores of the second-order construct for all dimensions is
far below the common cut-off of 10. In addition, we confirmed the validity of the formative dimensions
using the procedures suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981).
Table 2: Weights of formative construct dimensions
Table 3: Weights of formative construct dimensions
High order constructs and their dimensions weights t de
Student
Unlearning Context
Consolidation of emergent understandings 0.55 4.49
The examination of lens fitting 0.21 2.10
The framework for changing individual habits 0.38 2.88
Table 2
Table 3: Weights of formative construct dimensions
High order constructs and their dimensions weights t de
Student
Unlearning Context
Consolidation of emergent understandings 0.55 4.49
The examination of lens fitting 0.21 2.10
The framework for changing individual habits 0.38 2.88
Table 2
4. Results
The structural model resulting from the PLS analysis is summarized in Figure 1, where the explained
variance of endogenous variables (R2) and the standardized path coefficients (β) is shown. As is
observed, all hypotheses presented are significant, and therefore, have been verified. Since PLS
makes no distributional assumptions in its parameter estimation, traditional parameter-based
techniques for significance testing and model were used (Chin, 1998). One consequence of the
comparison between covariance structure analysis modelling approaches and PLS is that no proper
overall goodness-of-fit measures exist for models using the latter (Hulland, 1999). The structural
www.ejkm.com 5 ISSN 1479-4411
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 8 Issue 1, 2010 (1 - 10)
model is evaluated by examining the R2 values and the size of the structural path coefficients. The
stability of the estimates is examined by using the t-statistics obtained from a bootstrap test with 500
resamples. Figure 1 sets out the model statistics and the path coefficients with the level of
significance achieved from the bootstrap test. Consistent with hypotheses 1 and 2, the paths between
Unlearning context and Technology infrastructure (β=0.598, p<0.001) and Organizational memory
(β=0.236, p<0.001) indicate positive and significant relationships among them (see Figure 1).
Additionally, hypotheses 3 and 4 are supported because the two path driven to innovativeness, from
technology infrastructure (β=0.493, p<0.001) and from organizational memory (β=0.184, p<0.01) are
also positive and significant. What means the propensity to innovate is influenced by the technology
infrastructure and the organizational memory. Finally, we performed the Stone-Geisser test of
predictive relevance to assess model fit in PLS analysis (Chin, 1998). When q-square is greater than
zero, the model has predictive relevance. In our model, q-square was 0.11. Regarding the effect of
Technology infrastructure and Organizational memory on innovativeness, the results further suggest
that the effect associated with the technology infrastructure is stronger than the effect associated with
the organizational memory.
Unlearning
Context
Technology
In f r as tr u c t ur e
Organizational
memory
Inn ovativene ss
0.598***
0.236***
0.493***
0.184**
R2=0 .35 8
R2=0.056
R2=0.323
Unlearning
Context
Technology
In f r as tr u c t ur e
Organizational
memory
Inn ovativene ss
0.598***
0.236***
0.493***
0.184**
R2=0 .35 8
R2=0.056
R2=0.323
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (based on t
(
49 9
)
, one-tailed test)
Unlearning
Context
Technology
In f r as tr u c t ur e
Organizational
memory
Inn ovativene ss
0.598***
0.236***
0.493***
0.184**
R2=0 .35 8
R2=0.056
R2=0.323
Unlearning
Context
Technology
In f r as tr u c t ur e
Organizational
memory
Inn ovativene ss
0.598***
0.236***
0.493***
0.184**
R2=0 .35 8
R2=0.056
R2=0.323
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (based on t
(
49 9
)
, one-tailed test)
Figure 1: estimated casual relationships in the structural model
5. Discussion
This research’s first contribution derives from the results of the model’s empirical test. As shown in
Figure 1, the results indicate that the updating of the organizational memory and the technology
infrastructure depends on the unlearning context, and that ‘organizational innovativeness’ is unlikely
on an organizational basis without being fostered by ‘the organizational memory and the technology
infrastructure’. A possible explanation for that could be that organizational members are unaware of
the negative consequences of the outdated values, beliefs, underlying assumptions, attitudes, and
behaviors shared though the organizational memory and the technology infrastructure. Under this
framework, individuals become less creative and they allow individual relationships to become ‘fixed’
and unresponsive, thus potentially reducing the degree of innovativeness. Therefore, the paper’s first
contribution stresses that companies may be over-investing in the adoption of the organizational
memory and the technology infrastructure, and under-investing on mechanisms to facilitate the
updating of the organizational memory and the technology infrastructure.
In testing H1 and H2, our findings demonstrate a bi-directional association between the unlearning
context and the technology infrastructure, and between the unlearning context and the organizational
memory. Thus, potentially ‘unlearning context’ provides an environment that supports the modification
of organizational memory when this proves necessary. These findings support the proposition by
Sinkula et al. (1997) that through the creation of an ‘unlearning context’ in the form of ‘supporting
small changes, encouraging the taking of risks and cooperation’ managers can change both the
technology infrastructure (e.g., through justifying modifications to existing technologies or even the
abandonment of previously used technologies) and also organizational memory (erasing or revising
older routines or organizational procedures). Therefore, the ‘unlearning context’ acts as “a company’s
capacity for organizational self-renewal and innovation through the revision of the organizational
memory and the technology infrastructure in order to provide updated access to a wide range of
www.ejkm.com 6 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, et al.
information and knowledge”. It means that through the unlearning context, organizations foster a
capacity where teams and their members are continuously able to increase their abilities to articulate
knowledge and use technology tools.
With regard to H3 and H4, our findings suggest that organizational innovativeness is driven by the
utilization of technology and the exploitation of what has already been learned and stored into the
organizational memory. The results further suggest that the effect associated with the technology
infrastructure is stronger than the effect associated with the organizational memory. This result is
worthy of further investigation. One conclusion that might be drawn from this result is that people
usually take advantage of technologies after colleagues direct them to a specific location in a system
for lessons or tools (Gold et al., 2001).
The study is not without limitations. Firstly, although in this paper, we have structured the process flow
only in one direction from the unlearning context to the innovativeness, we think that there are
different ways of unlearning. Under this framework, while unlearning and innovativeness could be
parallel processes in a specific context, in another context the same process flow should consider
unlearning as a prior step. Secondly, in the same way that each person tries to invent his or her own
memorization techniques, each organization will have basic ideas on which are the capacities of each
one, a circumstance which is going to facilitate the unlearning of outdated knowledge. This means
that other factors, which have not been included in this study, might also affect the constructs and
relationships between them. In fact, some common problems for each company would be established,
which are seen and used differently by each one of them.
6. Conclusions
Based on the above arguments, the main contribution of this research is to question the existing
models which relate organizational memory, technology infrastructure and organizational
innovativeness. In this paper, we warn companies about the cost of outdated technology
infrastructures and knowledge stored in organizational memory. Although organizational memory and
technology infrastructure potentially facilitates information sharing and joint sense making if
organizational memory is not updated appropriately individual learning is likely to suffer causing a
reduction in the value of knowledge. Regarding this, it is often stated that firms more often converge
rather than reorient, because of factors such as organizational inertia. A possible explanation for that
inertia may relate to outdated memories, which can affect the learning of an individual by: narrowing
the cognitive processes of individuals; hindering their ability to plan, reason and understand the
situation effectively; fostering a sense of the inadequacy of linkages between variables, such as
people and processes; and limiting individual’s prior knowledge of the potential interactions between
new processes and their consequences. This means that individuals come to rely on embedded
knowledge and reduce their participation in spontaneous interactions with their colleagues. Thus
individuals become less creative and they allow individual relationships to become ‘fixed’ and
unresponsive thus potentially reducing the value of new knowledge. Therefore, when an existing
stock of knowledge has already been stored by an organization, but appears counter-intuitive or
deeply flawed, this current “stock” should be ignored or at least set aside temporarily if we wish to give
a new idea or interpretation fair consideration. Otherwise, individuals will experience fear, pressure
and uncertainty and will feel confused at the prospect of unlearning an old habit and implementing a
new one, which could hinder the learning process.
7. Appendix 1: questionnaire items
The consolidation of emergent understandings: with respect to your organization indicate the degree of
agreement or disagreement (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree):
P1_1: Managers seem to be open to new ideas and new ways of doing things
P1_2: Management has tried to initiate projects and introduce innovations
P1_3: Managers recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it
P1_4: Managers adopt the suggestions of the personnel in the form of new routines and processes
P1_5: Managers tend to collaborate with members of the organization and to solve problems together
P1_6: Managers ensure that everyone knows how to respond when faced with unexpected events
The examination of lens fitting: with respect to your current position indicate the degree of agreement or
disagreement (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree):
P2_1: Employees are able to identify problems (new ways of doing things) easily
www.ejkm.com 7 ISSN 1479-4411
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 8 Issue 1, 2010 (1 - 10)
P2_2: Employees are able to see mistakes from my colleagues
P2_3: Employees are able to listen to my customers (e.g. complaints, suggestions)
P2_4: Employees are able to share information with my boss easily
P2_5: Employees try reflecting on and learning from their own mistakes
The framework for changing the individual habits: with respect to your personal skills indicate the degree of
agreement or disagreement (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree):
P3_1: New situations have helped individuals identify their own mistakes
P3_2: New situations have helped individuals recognize undesirable attitudes
P3_3: New situations have helped individuals identify improper behaviors
P3_4: Individuals recognize their ways of reasoning or of arriving at solutions are inadequate
P3_5: New situations have helped individuals change their behaviors
P3_6: New situations have helped individuals change their attitudes
P3_7: New situations have helped individuals change their thoughts
Technology: (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree):
P14_1: There are rules for formatting or categorizing knowledge in my organization
P14_2: There are specified keywords that need to be used for categorizing or searching for knowledge in my
organization
P14_3: There are common technologies available for everyone in my organization
Organizational memory: Prior to the project, my division had (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree):
P12_1. A great deal of knowledge about this product category
P12_2 A great deal of experience in this product category
P12_3. A great deal of familiarity in this product category
P12_4. Invested a great deal of R&D in this product category
Organizational innovativeness: (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree):
P6_1. Technical innovation, based on research results, is readily accepted
P6_2. Management actively seeks innovative ideas
P6_3. Innovation is readily accepted in program/project management
P6_4. People are penalized for new ideas that don't work (R)
P6_5. Innovation is perceived as too risky and is resisted (R)
References
Akgün, A.E., Byrne, J.C., Lynn, G.S. & Keskin, H. (2007) “Organizational unlearning as changes in beliefs and
routines in organizations”. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol 20, No.6, pp. 794-812.
Bettis, R.A. & Prahalad, C.K. (1995) “The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol 16, No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Bogenrieder, I. (2002) “Social architecture as a prerequisite for organizational learning”, Management Learning,
Vol 33, No. 2, pp. 197-216.
Carmines, E.G. & Zeller, R.A. (1979) Reliability and validity assessment. London: Sage.
Cegarra, J.G. & Sanchez, M. (2008) “Linking the individual forgetting context with customer capital from a seller’s
perspective”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol 59, No. 12, pp. 1614-1623.
Chang, D.R. & Cho, H. (2008) “Organizational memory influences new product success”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol 61, No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Chin, W.W. (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. G. A. Marcoulides, Ed.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
Christensen, C.M. & Rosenbloom, R.S. (1995) “Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms,
organizational dynamics, and the value network”, Research Policy, Vol 24, No. 2, pp. 233-257.
Cross, R. & Baird, L. (2000) “Technology is not enough: improving performance by building organizational
memory”, Sloan Management Review, Vol 41, No. 3, pp. 69-78.
Damanpour, F. & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998) “Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: The
role of environmental change”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol 15, No. 1, pp. 1-
24.
Day, G.S. & Nedungadi, P. (1994) “Managerial representations of competitive advantage”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol 58, No. 2, pp. 31-44.
Dewar, R.D. & Dutton, J.E. (1986) “The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis”,
Management Science, Vol 32 No. 11, pp. 1422-1433.
www.ejkm.com 8 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro, et al.
Diamantopoulos, A. & Winklhofer, H. (2001) “Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale
development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.37, No 2, pp. 269–277.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981) “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.27, No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. & Segars, A.H. (2001) “Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities
perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol 18, No. 5, pp. 185–214.
Huber, G.P. (1996) Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature. Organizational
Learning, M.D. Cohen and L.S. Sproull, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hulland, J. (1999) “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent
studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 20, No. 2, pp. 195– 204.
Hurley, R.E. & Hult, G.T.M. (1998) “Innovation, market orientation and organizational learning: An integration and
empirical examination”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 62, No. 3, pp. 42-54.
Larwood, L. & Whitaker, W. (1997) “Managerial myopia: Self-serving biases in organizational planning”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol 62, No. 2, 194-198.
March, J.G. (1972) “Model bias in social action”, Review of Educational Research, Vol 42, No. 4, pp. 413-429.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E. & Chin, W.W. (2001) “Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of
perceived user resources”, The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, Vol 32, No. 3, pp. 86-112.
Megill, K.A. (1997) The corporate memory. Information management in the Electronic Age. London: Bowker &
Saur.
Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S.G. & Howell, R. (1996) “The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: Effects of
functional and dysfunctional conflict in intra-organizational relationships”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol 24, No. 4, pp. 299-313.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nystrom, P.C. & Starbuck, W.H. (1984) “To avoid organizational crises, unlearn”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol
12, No. 4, pp. 53-65.
Schein, E.H. (1992) Organizational culture and leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaw, R.B. & Perkins, D.N. (1991) “Teaching organizations to learn”, Organization Development Journal, Vol 9,
No. 4, pp. 1-12.
Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E. & Noordewier, T. (1997) “A framework for market-based organizational learning:
Linking values, knowledge and behaviour”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol 25, No 4,
305-318.
Tsang, E. & Zabra, S. (2008) “Organizational unlearning”, Human Relations, Vol 61, No. 10, pp. 1435-1462.
Walsh, J.P. & Dewar, R.D. (1987) “Formalization and the organizational life cycle”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol 24, No. 3, pp. 216-231.
Walsh, J.P. & Ungson, G.R. (1991) “Organizational memory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol 16, No.
1,pp. 57-91.
Wang, C.L. & Ahmed, P.K. (2004) “The development and validation of the organisational innovativeness
construct using confirmatory factor analysis”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol 7, No. 4,
pp. 303-131.
Zack, M.H. (1998) “An MIS Course Integrating Information Technology and Organizational Issues”, Data Base,
Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 73-87.
Zuboff, S. (1988) In the age of the smart machine. New York: Basic Books.
www.ejkm.com 9 ISSN 1479-4411
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 8 Issue 1, 2010 (1 - 10)
www.ejkm.com 10 ©Academic Conferences Ltd
... Bu doğrultuda geçmiş bilgi ve deneyimleri kapsayan örgütsel hafıza hem yenilik fikrinin ortaya çıkısı hem de yenilik sürecinin işleyişinde önemli rol oynamaktadır. Literatürde örgütsel hafıza ve yenilikçilik ilişkisini inceleyen çalışmalar yapılmıştır (Akgün, Keskin ve Byrne, 2012;Cegarra-Navarrol, Cepeda-Carrion ve Jimenez-Jimenez, 2011;Kmieciak, 2019). Ancak özellikle KOBİ'lerde yapılmış araştırmalar kısıtlıdır. ...
Article
Full-text available
Bu çalışmada öğrenme yeteneği, teknolojik öğrenme, örgütsel hafıza ve firma yenilikçiliği arasındaki ilişkileri ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, Kocaeli’nde faaliyet gösteren firmalarda çalışan 329 KOBİ yöneticisinden anket yoluyla veri toplanmıştır. Araştırma hipotezleri yapısal eşitlik modeli ile test edilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları, öğrenme yeteneği ile hem teknolojik öğrenmenin hem de örgütsel hafızanın pozitif ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte teknolojik öğrenmenin firma yenilikçiliği ile pozitif ilişki olduğu saptanmıştır. Son olarak, örgütsel hafıza boyutlarından deklaratif hafızanın firma yenilikçiliği ile pozitif ilişkili olduğu, prosedürel hafıza ile firma yenilikçiliği arasında ise herhangi bir anlamlı ilişki bulunmadığı tespit edilmiştir.
... (e.g.,Becker, 2010;Cegarra-Navarro, Cepeda-Carrion, & Jimenez-Jimenez 2010;Leal-Rodríguez et al., 2015;Sheaffer & Mano-Negrin, 2003;Wang et al., 2019). For instance, Leal-Rodriguez and colleagues(Leal-Rodríguez et al., 2015) found statistically positive and significant relationships among organizational unlearning, innovation outcomes, and overall performance in 145 firms producing automotive components in the manufacturing sector.Wang et al. (2019) also showed that organization-wide unlearning facilitates knowledge transfer in cross-border mergers and acquisitions in Chinese firms. ...
Article
In the fast‐changing world of business, organizations including individuals and groups/teams need to unlearn old knowledge and learn new knowledge and routines to stay competitive. The purpose of this study is to review the current studies on unlearning in organizations and to integrate the findings to provide insights on how to better manage and facilitate the process of unlearning. We reviewed 37 empirical and related studies to reveal the current research perspectives on unlearning in the workplace. We also identified 30 antecedents promoting unlearning and 44 outcomes of unlearning at the individual, group, and organizational levels. These antecedents and outcomes related to learning, knowledge, and innovation are key HRD research topics. Discussion, implications, and recommendations for future research are presented.
... Bosua and Venkitachalam (69) classified memory as memory containing information obtained from separate events, meaningful memory, and procedural (such as learned skills) memory. Cegarra-Navarro et al. (70) defined organizational emotional memory as abilities that arise from internal or external obligations and beliefs and are associated with declarative and procedural knowledge. ...
Book
If you thought so far only people have emotional memories, I have a breaking news for you: Institutions also have emotional memories! In Corporate EQ - Understanding and Managing Emotions, which is the first Organizational Emotional Memory book ever written in the world in English, I have written the emotional memories of institutions and their performance, innovation, relationship-oriented leadership and employer brand perspectives. In this book, which was written during the Covid-19 period, I also shared my perspective on how to proceed in situations that negatively affect the world. I wish the readers to add value with what they have learned.
... A knowledge sender should be encouraged to reflect on his or her knowledge and to question previous beliefs and assumptions. Such critical reflection leads to rejecting obsolete knowledge through unlearning (Matsuo, 2018), which releases creativity (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2010). ...
Article
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the effects of two types of trust (vertical and horizontal trust) on knowledge sharing (knowledge donating and knowledge collecting) and the impact of knowledge sharing on innovative work behavior (idea generation and idea realization). The study also explores the mediating role of knowledge sharing. Design/methodology/approach Partial least squares path modeling and data collected from 252 participants at one large Polish capital group were used to test the research hypotheses. Findings The results showed that both vertical trust and horizontal trust are positively related to knowledge donating and knowledge collecting. Contrary to knowledge collecting, knowledge donating is significantly related to idea generation, which is highly correlated with idea realization. There is no direct relation between knowledge sharing behavior and idea realization. Knowledge donating mediates the relationship between vertical trust and idea generation. Research limitations/implications Self-reports and the cross-sectional nature of the data collection are the main limitations of this study. Practical implications The results allow managers to better understand what factors and processes contribute to greater employee innovativeness. Originality/value To the best of the author's knowledge, the study is the first to examine the relationships among vertical trust, horizontal trust, knowledge donating, knowledge collecting, idea generation and idea realization in an integrated way. This paper answered the questions (1) which type of trust is more important for knowledge sharing, and (2) which type of knowledge sharing behavior is more important for innovative work behavior. This paper investigated whether differences in the strength of relationships between constructs are significant.
... Ils attestent que les gestionnaires doivent fournir un contexte de désapprentissage approprié pour soutenir l'ouverture des individus à de nouvelles idées. Sinon, les individus peuvent être craintifs ou confus par la perspective de désapprendre les vieilles habitudes et les procédures [22]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
La concurrence mondiale accrue, le contexte économique dynamique et fluctuant ainsi que la multitude des facteurs de contingences auxquelles est exposée l'entreprise d'aujourd'hui lui imposent d'agir sur les différentes dimensions de performance telles que la qualité de ses produits et de ses processus, de revoir son style de management en introduisant des innovations afin de pallier à l'obsolescence rapide des produits et des connaissances qu'elle incarne et par conséquent acquérir un avantage concurrentiel et réduire son time-to-market ainsi que ses coûts. Le lean thinking est une innovation organisationnelle qui annonce cinq principes nécessaires pour la création de la valeur et la satisfaction du client. Ces principes agissent sur quatre composantes essentielles de l'entreprise à savoir la philosophie de l'entreprise, les processus, le personnel et les partenaires ainsi que la résolution des problèmes, ce qui permet aux organisations d'adapter facilement leurs processus aux changements de l'environnement, de saisir les opportunités du marché et d'être plus performantes. Le lean thinking dépasse les pratiques du lean manufacturing, qui se focalise sur la réduction des gaspillages des processus et sur l'efficacité opérationnelle, et s'étend vers un état de pensée lean qui permet aux différents acteurs de determiner les gaspillages et le temps perdu dans leurs tâches et de mieux collaborer afin de réduire ces gaspillages. Cependant, pour atteindre cet objectif d'entreprise lean et innovante, il est indispensable d'abandonner les anciennes connaissances et habitudes, uniquement celles devenues inutiles et obsolètes, pour développer de nouvelles grâce au désapprentissage organisationnel qui permet de ressortir le personnel de sa zone de confort et de le rendre conscient des nouvelles perceptions, d'améliorer sa capacité de résolution de nouveaux problèmes et développer son aptitude d'évaluation critique au lieu du suivi d'instructions. Le présent article propose un modèle conceptuel basé sur les principes du lean thinking et du désapprentissage organisationnel dont le but est d'aider l'entreprise à mieux définir ses facteurs clés de succès et de progrès, ainsi que d'améliorer la capacité de son personnel à s'aligner aux objectifs fixés par celle-ci et par conséquent améliorer sa performance globale. Abstract-The increasing global competition, the dynamic and fluctuating economic environment and the multitude of contingencies factors which the company is exposed to, require it to act on the different performance dimensions such as product and process quality, to review its management style by introducing innovations to overcome the rapid obsolescence of products and knowledge it embodies and hence gain competitive advantage and reduce time-to-market. Lean thinking is an organizational innovation that introduce five necessary principles to value creation and customer satisfaction. These principles act on four essential components of the company that are the its philosophy, processes, staff and partners as well as problem solving, which allows organizations to easily adapt their processes to environment changes, seize market opportunities and become more efficient. The lean thinking goes beyond the practices of lean manufacturing, which focuses on reducing processes waste and on operational efficiency, and extends to a lean state of mind that allows different actors to determine waste and time lost in their tasks and better collaborate to reduce this waste. However, to achieve the objective of lean and innovative company, it is essential to abandon old habits and knowledge in order to develop new ones thanks to organizational unlearning which takes staff out of his comfort zone and make it aware of the new perceptions, improve its ability to resolve new problems and develop their critical appraisal skills instead of following instructions. This article proposes a conceptual model based on the principles of lean thinking and organizational unlearning that aims to help the company to better define its success and progress key factors, as well as improve the capacity of its staff to align with its objectives and therefore improve its overall performance.
... Ils attestent que les gestionnaires doivent fournir un contexte de désapprentissage approprié pour soutenir l'ouverture des individus à de nouvelles idées. Sinon, les individus peuvent être craintifs ou confus par la perspective de désapprendre les vieilles habitudes et les procédures [22]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article proposes a conceptual model based on the principles of lean thinking and organizational unlearning that aims to help the company to better define its success and progress key factors, as well as improve the capacity of its staff to align with its objectives and therefore improve its overall performance.
Thesis
Full-text available
The main aim of the study is to examine the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between organizational memory and workforce agility according to opinions of academic staff. The correlational design, one of quantitative research designs, was implemented. The sample of the study consisted of 557 academic staff who work at Anadolu University, Eskisehir Osmangazi University and Eskisehir Teknik University in Eskisehir and they were chosen by using stratified sampling method. Data of the study were collected with “Workforce Agility Scale”, “Organizational Memory Scale”, “Work Engagement Scale” and “Personal Information Form”. Workforce Agility Scale was developed by the researcher by utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods together. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA), correlation analyses, hierarchical regression analyses, structural equation modelling (SEM) and bootstrapping method. According to results of the structural equation modelling, indirect effect of organizational memory on workforce agility with the partial mediation of work engagement was confirmed. Bootstrapping method showed that this indirect effect is statistically significant. Besides, results of the study indicate that opinions of academic staff on research variables are high and relationships between these variables are moderate, positive and statistically significant. Lastly, findings related with demographics features revealed that there are statistically significant differences among opinions of academic staff on organizational memory, work engagement and workforce agility according to their ages and academic titles.
Article
Full-text available
This paper links parallel discussions of territoriality and organizational forgetting to examine why public organizations may experience difficulties during political shifts using public accounts of the U.S. EPA. To accomplish this task, the metaphor of tattoo removal is explored through the criminal justice literature. In particular, tattoo removal provides an analogous set of concepts to understand, frame, and evaluate the enduring physical and psychological residues of organizational territoriality generally, and marking behavior specifically. Residues of political and other organizational changes can produce marks that are not easily removed or forgotten, stunting daily managerial practices. Difficulties with instituting corrective action can result when employees actively mark to remember.
Article
Full-text available
In the literature, the subject of unlearning is discussed less than organisational learning and learning organisation. Thinking the dynamics of today’s economy and the business world, having an unlearning ability is especially important for firms that focus on innovation and sustainable development. This research aims to explore the process of unlearning in an innovative company with a high capability of R&D, to determine the type of unlearning and its antecedents affecting the unlearning process, and also to find the positive outcomes of unlearning for the company and to establish a model as a result of these findings. In line with the purpose of the research, this investigation was undertaken by using the case study method and doing semi-structured interviews with company officials in an R&D company that offers advanced technological products and services to the defence, environment and energy industries in Turkey. According to the research findings, it is seen that company A can unlearn and the processes related to unlearning. When the findings obtained in terms of the unlearning process and its sub-dimensions are combined, it is noteworthy that the company sees unlearning at the centre of development and improvement. A model was proposed through the findings.
Article
Purpose Although employees' innovative work behaviors are crucial for innovativeness and the success of modern organization, the impact of individual unlearning and critical reflection on innovative work behaviors is underresearched. This study's goal is to empirically examine relationships between job characteristics, critical reflection, unlearning and innovative work behaviors. Design/methodology/approach This study uses survey data from 252 Polish employees and the partial least squares method. Findings The results indicated that, among three considered job characteristics, only problem-solving demands were related to critical reflection. This study also shows that critical reflection is both direct and indirect, through individual unlearning, related to both idea generation and idea realization. However, nonmanagers have stronger relationships between unlearning and innovative work behaviors than do managers, while managers have stronger relationships between critical reflection and innovative work behaviors. Practical implications Results of this study may be used by human resource development managers to improve employees' innovative work behavior. Originality/value The study contributes to the limited empirical research on the role of critical reflection and individual unlearning for innovative work behavior. This study also explores which job characteristic affects critical reflection.
Article
Full-text available
Provides a nontechnical introduction to the partial least squares (PLS) approach. As a logical base for comparison, the PLS approach for structural path estimation is contrasted to the covariance-based approach. In so doing, a set of considerations are then provided with the goal of helping the reader understand the conditions under which it might be reasonable or even more appropriate to employ this technique. This chapter builds up from various simple 2 latent variable models to a more complex one. The formal PLS model is provided along with a discussion of the properties of its estimates. An empirical example is provided as a basis for highlighting the various analytic considerations when using PLS and the set of tests that one can employ is assessing the validity of a PLS-based model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Full-text available
The role of organisational innovativeness, or innovative capability, in attaining competitive advantage has been widely discussed. Most research examines innovation activities and their associations with organisational characteristics, or investigates certain perspectives of innovative capability, such as product innovation. Much less attention, however, has been paid to develop and validate measurement constructs of organisational innovativeness. Through an extensive literature review, five dimensions of an organisation's overall innovativeness are identified. These five dimensions form the component factors of the organisational innovativeness construct. Following a three-step approach, a final 20-item measurement construct is validated. Theoretical and methodological issues in relation to application of the organisational innovativeness construct are discussed in light of these findings.
Article
Advances in causal modeling techniques have made it possible for researchers to simultaneously examine theory and measures. However, researchers must use these new techniques appropriately. In addition to dealing with the methodological concerns associated with more traditional methods of analysis, researchers using causal modeling approaches must understand their underlying assumptions and limitations.
Article
Knowledge management promises to improve business performance by using technology to share the lessons of experience. One way to make organizational learning more tractable is to consider it as the development of an organization's memory. Explicit knowledge is essential for the ability of an organization to solve problems and create new knowledge. Technology can be a tool for building relationships. Important learning events are often critical, often a kind of business initiatives. The social bonding among a group's members is more important, while technology helps supports communities.
Article
Crises force organizations to replace top managers, so top managers should try to avoid crises through continuous unlearning. The authors suggest ways in which top managers can help themselves unlearn.
Article
Managers use mental models of markets to simplify and impose order on complex and ambiguous competitive environments and isolate points of competitive advantage or deficiency. In this study of senior managers of 190 businesses, the authors found four different types of mental models or representations of competitive advantage, varying in the emphasis placed on customer or management judgments about where and how competitors differ. These representations were influenced equally by pressure points in the environment and choice of strategy. The type of representation was also strongly associated with constrained patterns of information search and usage, raising the possibility that the necessary simplifications and narrowing of perspective may come at the cost of myopia and insensitivity to challenges from unexpected directions. There was also a strong association between the completeness of the managerial representation and relative financial performance, which supports related studies on the profitability of a market orientation.
Article
In this article we argue that the extant representations of the concept of organizational memory are fragmented and underdeveloped. In developing a more coherent theory, we address possible concerns about anthropomorphism; define organizational memory and elaborate on its structure; and discuss the processes of information acquisition, retention, and retrieval. Next, these processes undergird a discussion of how organizational memory can be used, misused, or abused in the management of organizations. Some existing theories are reassessed with explicit attention to memory. The paper closes with an examination of the methodological challenges that await future researchers in this area.
Article
The theoretical importance of formalization has often been obscured in empirical investigation. This article discusses two outcomes of formalization: administrative efficiency, and influence. As formalization contributes to administrative efficiency, it also bestows upon the administrator power and influence. While some theoretical attention has been paid to the efficiency theme, influence has been largely ignored. The article suggests that formalization as code, as channel, and as standard can be best understood in the context of the organizational life cycle. Formalization (as efficiency) is likely to contribute to effectiveness early in an organization's history. Later in the life cycle, however, formalization (as influence) may contribute to organizational ineffectiveness and decline.