Typologizing organizational amnesia

This article proposes that a major problem limiting an organization's ability to develop organizational learning capacity is of organizational amnesia. To understand organizational amnesia, it is necessary to look at the various ways that organizational learning is defined. Organizational learning is not merely the process of acquiring knowledge. Rather, the learning that takes place at the individual's level has to be diffused to other parts of the organization. This, in turn, enables the organizations to make decisions that will enable it to respond and adapt to change and uncertainty. Specifically, this adaptation is brought about through double‐looping learning and involves a re‐examination of fundamental assumptions. This article defines organizational amnesia as the failure of organizations to learn reliably at the organizational level. Builds upon the work of Crossan et al. who provide a framework of organizational learning that involves four processes of learning. They argue that organizational learning involves the processes of intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalising. It is proposed that organizational amnesia happens primarily due to the failure to effectively undergo the integrating and institutionalizing stage.

[1]  John Redding,et al.  Hardwiring the learning organization , 1997 .

[2]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[3]  J. Bloodgood,et al.  Citizenship Behavior and The Creation of Social Capital in Organizations , 2002 .

[4]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Book review:Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak. Harvard Business School Press, 1998. $29.95US. ISBN 0‐87584‐655‐6 , 1998 .

[5]  M. Dodgson Organizational Learning: A Review of Some Literatures , 1993 .

[6]  Roderick E. White,et al.  An Organizational Learning Framework : From Intuition to Institution Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[7]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[8]  J. Burgoyne,et al.  Towards the Learning Company , 1989 .

[9]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[10]  T. G. Cummings,et al.  Organization Learning Disorders: Conceptual Model and Intervention Hypotheses , 1998 .

[11]  M. Schulz Limits to Bureaucratic Growth: The Density Dependence of Organizational Rule Births. , 1998 .

[12]  Nicholas Bahra,et al.  Competitive Knowledge Management , 2001 .

[13]  K. Farr Organizational learning and knowledge managers , 2000 .

[14]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[15]  M. Robertson,et al.  Knowledge management practices within a knowledge‐intensive firm: the significance of the people management dimension , 2000 .

[16]  M. Schulz THE UNCERTAIN RELEVANCE OF NEWNESS: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE FLOWS , 2001 .

[17]  Steven Henderson,et al.  Black swans don’t fly double loops: the limits of the learning organization? , 1997 .

[18]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Knowledge Creating Company , 2008 .

[19]  Jacky F. L. Hong,et al.  Structuring for organizational learning , 1999 .

[20]  Wenpin Tsai Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance , 2001 .