See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260511139

A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO
ORGANIZATIONAL UNLEARNING

Article March 2014

DOI: 10.18374/IJSM-14-1.3

CITATIONS READS

2 346

2 authors:

Eric Lague Khalil Rhaiem

Laval University Laval University
5 PUBLICATIONS 68 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Khalil Rhaiem on 26 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO ORGANIZATIONAL UNLEARNING

EricLagu,LavalUniversity,Quebec,Quebec,Canada
KhalilRhaiem,LavalUniversity,Quebec,Quebec,Canada

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to shed light on organizational unlearning as a part of managerial processes.
Organizational unlearning has been gaining more attention in the last decade. Nevertheless, studies on
organizational unlearning remain scarce compared to its counterpart, organizational learning. This paper
aims to update current knowledge on unlearning and to reinstate its importance in the knowledge value
chain/business model. We used portions of the literature that explicitly state unlearning as their main or
subsidiary topic and produced a scoping review that highlights the different concepts associated with
unlearning. Both the concept of organizational unlearning and its importance seem to be rather accepted
in current literature as no new definition of O.U. has emerged in literature since last reviewed in 2008. The
focus seems to have shifted from defining unlearning to defining its context and the parameters surrounding
its application. This paper is an attempt to pursue the work of Zahra and Tsang (2008) where they review
literatures organizational unlearning concepts. In the current paper, we review suggested/identified barriers
and facilitators related to the unlearning process.
Keywords: Review, organizational unlearning, organisational unlearning, barriers, facilitators

1. INTRODUCTION
In the knowledge economy, information and knowledge are recognized to foster performance,
competitiveness and growth (Hitt et al., 2001). Firms are faced with an ever changing environment,
therefore, firms need to evolve and adapt (Grossman and Helpman 1991). They revise their technology
and processes to increase their flexibility, efficiency and performance (Grteis, 1995). Such modifications
trigger needs which are answered through individual learning, which is then incorporated within the
organization, thus becoming organizational learning. In current working environments, knowledge
(embedded or not) has become a key factor in creating appraisable value for the client and contributes to
firms performance.
From a managerial perspective, learning (increase in the organizations stock of knowledge) has been
mainly viewed as a process purposefully engaged in to level a mismatch between current outcomes and
desired ones (Greve, 2002). Although committing efforts and resources, organizations are not always able
to achieve the desired outcomes. Therefore, empirical studies have first suggested, and then highlighted,
the need to foster unlearning as a component of managerial practices challenges and opportunities for
managing knowledge and productivity in organizations (Ashworth, 2006). Bennis et al., (1976) have
described unlearning as a planned organizational change that requires conscious, deliberate, and
collaborative effort to improve the operations of a human system.
Unlearning has thus been viewed as memory elimination in a system (Greeno, 1971). Empirical
researches has shown that the need to unlearn manifests itself at various degrees in the different levels of
organizations (Chinowsky & Carrillo, 2007; Lynn, 1998). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that
unlearning currently inadequate responses is a prerequisite to learning new or more adequate responses
(Martin de Holan and Phillips, 2004; Becker 2008; Starbuck, 1996). Those findings also seem to propose
that this need is present in most industries, at various levels. Unlearning is now perceived as being both
essential to surviving in a competitive market and/or to develop a competitive advantage (Shankar et al.,
2013).
Unlearning has been described form various perspectives (the concept of unlearning as it appears through
literature is reviewed elsewhere in this paper). From an overview of the literature, unlearning is often
associated to keywords such as forgetting, knowledge loss and knowledge destruction. Those are also
often depicted in dyads: Unlearning/learning (Akgn et al., 2003), forgetting/retaining, knowledge loss/
knowledge acquisition, knowledge destruction/ knowledge creation.
Though there has been extensive development of literature on learning, its counterpart has been relatively
ignored until early twenty-first century (Martin de Holan et al., 2004). To follow Tsang and Zahras work
(2008), this paper is a review of a selected portions of the literature concerning unlearning (and a few
related concepts as organizational forgetting and knowledge loss).
Tsang and Zahras paper is theoretical and aims to define the concept of unlearning. They also suggest
that future research should include conceptual development, processes, barriers and facilitators, as well
as organizational and institutional contexts and point out that our knowledge about ways of facilitating
organizational unlearning is limited and leads to contradictory recommendations. Hence, we ought to seek
better understanding of organizational unlearning and to survey barriers and facilitators of organizational
unlearning.

2. PAPERS LAY OUT

Following the introduction, we will present the method we used to identify papers that are relevant to
organizational unlearning and those further used in this scoping review.
We position various frameworks relevant to our understanding of organizational unlearning such as
organizational knowledge, unlearning and forgetting before depicting the main topics encountered in
organizational unlearnings literature (section analysis of hindrances and catalyzers) and generating a
comprehensive list of the different facilitators and barriers that are to be considered when trying to manage
unlearning in an organization (see the tables). We conclude with few remarks that may be of further interest.
The main strengths of a scoping study lie in its ability to extract the essence of a diverse body of evidence
and give meaning and significance to a topic that is both developmental and intellectually creative. As with
other approaches to research and evidence synthesis a more standardized approach is required.

2.1. Method
Included articles were identified using select keywords: unlearning, organi(s/z)ational forgetting along with
knowledge: destruction, forgetting, deterioration, extinction, loss) through ABI/Complete. This highlighted
1263 peer reviewed articles. Further screening was done using previously mentioned keywords but
searches were limited to title and abstract field. 11 articles having unlearning in their title were identified
along with 109 articles depicting keywords in their abstract (11 for Organi(s/z)ational forgetting, 73 for
unlearning, 24 for knowledge loss and 1 for knowledge deterioration). Among the last 120 selected articles,
60 were available through either Universit Laval or Universit de Montral accesses. Those articles
constituted the pool of articles reviewed for this scoping review on organizational unlearning.
When reviewing the literature, keywords such as unlearning, forgetting, etc. are often encountered along
with other terms like adjustive unlearning, reinventive unlearning or organized forgetting. We recognized
the validity of the attempts to generate a set of keywords that may help depict the processes intensity that
firms and organizations members are going through. However, we believe that those subtleties are not of
interest to the current paper and the general idea that we are sharing.
 Figure 1 : scoping review method

Peerreviewedarticlesidentifiedusingselectedkeywords
1263articles

Keywordsspecificallyfoundintitleorabstract
120articles

Keywordsintitle Keywordsinabstract
Identified

Organi(s/z)ational Knowledge Unlearning Organi(s/z)ational Unlearning Knowledgeloss

forgetting loss forgetting /deterioration
7 4 44 11 73 26
Available/used

Organi(s/z)ational Knowledge Unlearning Organi(s/z)ational Unlearning Knowledgeloss

forgetting loss forgetting /deterioration
5 3 9 9 15 22

3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.1. Organizational knowledge
Knowledge can be explicit/codified/tangible just as it can be tacit/non-codified/intangible (Kim, 1998;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Organizational knowledge is mainly composed of tacit knowledge (Kim, 1998)
which is critical in strategic decision making (Brockmann and Anthony, 2002) and innovation (Yamin and
Otto, 2004).
Organizational knowledge is conceptualized as a stock resulting from the ongoing sum of flows as cleverly
depicted by (Dierickx and Cool, 1989, DeCarolis and Deeds, 1999) in their bath reference. As a stock,
organizational knowledge is encompassed as either repositories, routines or structures; whereas, as a flow,
knowledge has to be considered in regard to is movement across the different boundaries. The first form
of organizational knowledge is routines and patterns. These are structured knowledge passed on in the
organization amongst employees. They are thought to be known best practices to perform a particular task
(Nag et al., 2007). The second form of organizational knowledge is considered to be the organizational
structures that are established rights, responsibilities, duties and communication lines within the
organization (Walsh and Ungson, 1991). The third form of organizational knowledge are the repositories
also known as organizational memory systems. They represent codified knowledge owned by the
organization (Olivera, 2000). Theorization of knowledge as flow arises from the perceived instability of
knowledge in organizations over time. However, further studies have demonstrated that this instability
results from both forgetting and from changes in firms environment. Again, the bathtub comparison really
helps to represent both forgetting (leakage) and changes in environment (added water) (Dierickx and Cool,
1989; DeCarolis and Deeds, 1999).
Knowledge is associated with innovation and the development of competitive advantage (Kaufmann and
Tdtling, 2002; Lee et al., 2010). In order to develop or maintain that competitive advantage, firms and
organizations have tried to foster learning and acquisition of knowledge (Nonaka et al., 2000). Although
committing more and more resources to learning, organizations have not been able to achieve desired
outcomes. This has proven that knowledge cannot simply be accumulated within the organization. From
further analysis, evidences have shown that unlearning is required to incorporate new knowledge and
achieve desired outcomes. This can be simply depicted as making room for new knowledge. Although
capacities are not the only reason to foster organizational unlearning, this simply illustrates that unlearning
is a prerequisite for learning in organization.

3.2 Unlearning
Unlearning has been often defined in literature. When reviewing the 60 articles on our list, it seems to have
first been described as an organizational trait by Greeno (1971): Unlearning has thus been viewed as
memory elimination in a system. Greeno (1971) and Bennis (1976) have described unlearning as a
planned organizational change that required conscious, deliberate, and collaborative effort to improve
the operations of a human system. During the 80s, unlearning was defined by various authors as The
process of reducing or eliminating pre-existing knowledge or habits (Hedberg, 1981; Newstrom, 1983), and
beliefs (Alba and Hasher, 1983; Goldman, 1986).
Unlearning was then closely related with learning in Tsang and Zahras (2008) article which states that
unlearning is a gradual, continuous process that occurs more or less simultaneously with learning. When
old routines are replaced by new ones, they are gradually removed from an organizations memory. This
illustrates Anand et al.s idea (1998): The disruption and re-creation of portions of the organizations
memory and Bettis and Prahalads concept (1995) who described it as an essential part of learning:
strategic learning and unlearning of the kind involved in the dominant logic are inextricably intertwined.
Beckers group adds another dimension when they claim that unlearning can occur at an individual level :
the process by which individuals and organizations acknowledge and release prior learning (including
assumptions and mental frameworks) in order to accommodate new information and behaviors (Becker,
2005, p. 661).
On the other hand, many authors have been sceptical about the validity of the research on unlearning. John
Howells, Nathalie Mitev and Joachim Scholderer are known detractors of research on unlearning. In their
article: Forget Organisational Unlearning: A Sceptical Look at the Use of the Concept of Unlearning in
Organisational Analysis they have brought several arguments that support their claim. In their paper, they
clearly demonstrated that the use of unlearning is improper because the correct meaning of unlearning is,
as they report, to unteach, to remove from knowledge or memory and should describe actual reversal of
learning (Oxford English Dictionary as cited by Howells et al. (2009).
In their claims, they do not recognize that unlearning (removal from memory) occurs, neither from a social
perspective nor a technological perspective of memory. From the social perspective of memory (Cross and
Baird, 2000) they argue that: Upon learning, certain elements of the previous understanding are discarded
from application rather than discarded from memory; old knowledge is not unlearnt but retained, although
no longer seen as applicable to current circumstances. From a technological perspective of memory, they
argue that Discard occurs when new and substituting understanding of alternative practice has become
compelling (Howells, 2009).
We believe that unlearning has to be defined as an organizational dynamic capacity (Teece et al., 1990;
Easterby-Smith, 2011) and/or process to remove no longer needed knowledge from memory. We do not
deny that unlearning/removal from memory occurs at the individual level but it is unlikely that self-directed
unlearning at an individual level requires planning. At the individual level, unlearning should be considered
as a personal research of truth and inner alignment (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
From an operational perspective, unlearning can be seen as a noticeable change in organizational beliefs,
norms, values, procedures, behavioral routines, and/or physical artifacts (Tushman, 1986; Walsh, 1991;
Akgn et al., 2003; Sinkula, 2002).
As many authors before us (Martin de Holan, 2011), we feel compelled to distinguish between unlearning
and forgetting. From a social perspective of knowledge (Cross and Baird, 2000), unlearning refers to the
intentional discarding of knowledge in such that it requires both intentionality/will and requires voluntary
actions (Tsang and Zahra 2008). Hence, unlearning implies carrying out a series of programmed tasks,
whereas forgetting happens in spite of intentions and/or voluntary actions (Easterby-Smith, 2011).
Therefore, forgetting cannot be targeted to a specific set of knowledge as it is an unconscious process.
In literature, forgetting is both happening at an individual and organizational level. In an organization it
relates either to losing the original rationale for establishing habits and organizational routines or to losing
old routines, procedures, and systems themselves. (Easterby-Smith, 2011). Nevertheless, forgetting is an
important concept with regard to unlearning as forgetting (either individual or organizational) can hinder or
facilitate unlearning.
In the following section, we present elements that have been described in the literature that may act as
either barriers and/or facilitators to unlearning.

Table 1: Barriers influencing unlearning

Barriers Definitions Reference
It could be suggested that those considered to be experts in a
particular field may have the greatest difficulty unlearning as
they have invested a lot of time and resources into their current Zell (2003) cited by
knowledge and therefore may have quite entrenched beliefs and Becker 2006
individual level

behaviours most of which are internalised at the level of tacit

knowledge.
Personal investment

Knowles and Saxberg (1988) likewise suggest that those who

Knowles and
have invested heavily in their current knowledge may not be
Saxberg (1988) cited
willing to unlearn because of a perceived threat to existing
by Becker 2006
power relationships.
Becker (2008) argues that the level of experience and tacit
knowledge amassed by the individual has the potential to Becker (2008)
impact on unlearning.
The concept of organisational memory has arisen in the debate
organizational

around organisational learning, and as a consequence also

needs to be considered when addressing unlearning. Just as Markoczy (1994)
level

an expert in a particular field is likely to experience more cited by Becker 2006

difficulty in letting go of old ways and embracing new
possibilities
Following the insight of Newstrom (1983), we propose that the
quantity and type of effort required to forget depends on the
category of knowledge involved, and the relationship between Martin de Holan
Distance to
the new knowledge and the old one. Of particular interest are (2011) adapted from
knowledge
the situations in which the distance between the new Newstrom (1983)
knowledge and the one to be replaced is high, that is, where
the new knowledge is very different from the old one.
This happens when innovative knowledge, manifested in
innovative practices (that is, activities that differ significantly Dougherty and Hardy
from current ones, see Greve & Taylor, 2000), is perceived as 1996); Dougherty
Illegitimacy
illegitimate (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996; Dougherty & Heller, and Heller (1994)
of knowledge
1994) by the organization and, consequently, is unable to cited by Martin de
make the transition from intuition to institution (Crossan, Lane, Holan (2011)
& White, 1999) ultimately preventing organizational learning.
Perceived For transformation to occur, an organization must address not Nag et al., (2007)
utility / only its knowledge content, but also its knowledge-use cited by Martin de
necessity practices. Holan (2011)
Both reported in Globerson (1987): lack of continuous
Baloff (1970),
improvement was attributed to workers' dissatisfaction with the
Lack of Gershoni (1971)
new pay scheme (Baloff, 1970) or improvements in
Incentive cited by Globerson
performing an operation followed a conventional learning curve
(1987)
only when incentive schemes were applied Gershoni (1971).
Personal Will (2011) in her study suggests some organisational Will (2011) cited by
motivation strategies, such as social and intrinsic motivation, global Shankar (2013)
 incentives, to address employee motivations and increase
knowledge sharing within organisations.
Moreover,attheindividuallevel,learninganxietyandsurvival Coutu(2002)cited by
Anxiety anxietymayinhibitpeoplefromunlearningwhattheyknowinorder Tsang and Zahra
tolearnsomethingnew. (2008)
The unlearning arguments outlined above seem to contradict
absorptive capacity theory. In fact, absorptive capacity is the
Low principle that assimilating new knowledge requires prior
Zhara and George
absorptive knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Similarly, absorptive
(2002)
capacity capacity can be conceptualized as a set of organizational
abilities to manage knowledge, assimilate it, and apply it to
their ends.
Lopez and Sune
new knowledge will dissipate quickly. Conversely, a
(2013) and Martin de
recognition of the differences between new and old knowledge
Holan et al. (2004)
can lead to changes in the methods used to introduce it into
Recency
the memory system (as was the case with a manager who
The term recency is
decided to move away from the development of detailed rules
introduce by Shafer
in favor of situational training, )
et al. (2001)
Problems. However, the stage-gate approach often produces
unintended consequences that inhibit innovation. In some
firms, the stage-gate process confers too much certainty on
Managerial Hutchins & Muller
initial investment presumptions and encourages developers to
processes (2012)
march ahead more or less in lock-step.The binary Go/Kill
decision, taken too literally, can inhibit the natural, often non-
linear evolution of an emerging opportunity.
While at the individual level forgetting is operationalised
Refusal to though awareness and relinquishing (Becker, 2008), at the Becker (2008),
Relinquish organizational level relearning involves changing the way Nonaka and
and prior activities/routines are performed in the organization (Akgn et Takeuchi (1995)
need to al., 2007). People can only relinquish inappropriate cited by Cegarra-
acknowledge assumptions once they have admitted to making them (Nonaka Navarro et al. (2011)
and Takeuchi, 1995).
The unarticulated knowledge gained on complex skills and
Complexity/ processes during product development is not easy to capture.
Parise (2006) cited
difficulty to Retaining and transferring critical knowledge to the next
by Shankar (2013)
transfer generation of employees is recognised as an important but
challenging task for managers (Parise et al. 2006).
Argote et al. (2003) suggested that knowledge properties affect
Knowledge the rate at which knowledge is accumulated, how much is Argote (2003) cited
properties retained, where it is retained and how easily it diffuses within by Fernandez (2009)
and across firm boundaries.
Starbuck and
In particular, long-term success weakens the ability to unlearn
Long-term Hedberg, (2001)
radically and to reorient strategically (Starbuck and Hedberg,
success cited by Tsang and
2001).
Zahra (2008)
The age of an organization can become a barrier to unlearning.
Despite our knowledge of such a relationship between
organizational age and unlearning, we are ignorant about how Tsang and Zahra
The age of different types of routines evolve and become entrenched as (2008)
the an organization grows old, and the effective ways of discarding
organization routines in young versus old organizations.
Age is a source of inertia inhibiting change (Ginsberg and
cited by Tsang and
Buchholtz, 1990), and a barrier to organizational unlearning.
Zahra (2008)
These people are generally older and less receptive to change.
 Pfeffer (1983) also observes that an organization dominated by
employees of long-standing tenure is not attractive to younger,
ambitious individuals who may be receptive to new ideas.

Table 2: Facilitators influencing unlearning

Facilitators Definition Reference
Organizational when current knowledge is perceived as an obstruction to Anand et al. (1998)
change new knowledge
regular Regular rotation of personnel into and out of different Easterby-Smith and
rotation of positions and postings. It contributes to forgetting because Lyles (2011)
personnel most memory is situational; it depends on awareness of the
particular context in which events took place. Hence, the
introduction of systematic mobility reduces the connection
between individuals and the settings in which their
experiences took place.
Managerial Managerial turnover or long-term absence is also found as a Durst et al. (2011)
turnover restraining factor in knowledge management cited by Shankar
(2013)
Change Provide other intermediate services such as supply assembly, Cegarra-Navarro et
Business technical coverings, metallic moulding (e.g. cut and fold al. (2011)
orientation services), thermal treatments, maintenance, and other
technical services (e.g. design or soldiering), and therefore,
many of them depend on the quality of the services provided
Leadership It is found that if a knowledge-retention programme and Liebowitz (2011)
strong leadership are not present, the organisation sub- cited by Shankar
optimises and becomes vulnerable to knowledge loss (2013)
(Liebowitz 2011).
Disruption of While individuals may still remember their part in the Martin de Holan and
organizational organizational processes that led to a certain response to a Phillips (2004)
processes particular situation, the web of organizational knowledge that
produced a response to a specific situation has been
disrupted.
Crisis Episodic change is infrequent, discontinuous and intentional Weick and Quinn
(Weick and Quinn, 1999). Episodic change does not normally (1999) cited by
follow the model of variation and selective retention. Crisis is Tsang and Zahra
often the trigger of episodic change. (2008)
Governance One dimension of the context is the governance structure, Inkpen and Beamish,
structure such as joint venture versus wholly owned subsidiary. It has (1997) cited Tsang
been well established that inter-partner dynamics affect and Zahra (2008)
learning in joint ventures (Inkpen & Beamish, 1997) but we
know little about the effect of these dynamics on unlearning

4. ANALYSIS OF HINDRANCES AND CATALYZERS

Loss of information and knowledge over time is often referred in the literature as the effect of time passing.
However, although very intuitive, that notion of passage of time is unable to account for all encountered
loss of knowledge in organizations (White, 2012). According to the many definitions presented above, we
do not see any relevant difference in knowledge loss and forgetting as both terms imply an unwillingness
to let go of the knowledge. This is diametrically opposed to discarding knowledge, which implies a choice.
As we judge knowledge loss and forgetting to be equivalent concepts, we will use them interchangeably
herein.
The following sections describe the main factors found in our overview of the literature on organizational
unlearning. As you read, you will see that those can either be perceived as barriers or catalyzers depending
mainly on the outcomes desired and the underlying processes.

4.1 Forgetting caused by faulty memory systems

It has been suggested that the first occurrence of knowledge loss is usually related to memory systems. It
is usually described as a dissipation of the knowledges pool cause by faulty or inadequate memory systems
(Landry, 1999; Argote et al., 1990; Darr et al., 1995; Epple et al., 1991). Furthermore, information may be
degraded during storage, or storage capacity may be too small to hold all the desired information, access
may be compromised and retrieval may fail owing to problems in identifying the exact place in which the
relevant information is stored (Shankar, 2013; Blackler et al., 1999; Easterby-Smith, 2011). In addition, the
need to share and access information may lead to loss during processes of transformation which are often
required due to the many formats in which information can be encoded (Shankar, 2013). The need to rely
on memory systems to enact structures and procedures can ease the evolution of the organization that
strongly rely on them. As structures and procedures are upheld by the use of those memory systems, their
quick removal and replacement may disrupt organizational routines and therefore facilitate acceptance of
new structures, if the new memory systems are properly designed and in accordance with the desired
outcomes.

4.2 Unlearning through turnover

From our review, personnel turnover is mainly used a catalyzer of organizational unlearning. Although,
some loss of knowledge may result from the process, managers seem to consider the practice as effective.
However, the data on personnel turnover suggests that that practice is mainly (if not only) effective when
applied to top management (EasterbySmith,2011). Personnel turnover at other level, in an organization
seems to mostly result in organizational knowledge loss/forgetting.
It is relatively easy to picture how the departure of a key employee or a knowledgeable individual may
compromise both knowledge flows and knowledge stock (Argote and Epple, 1990). Yet the rapid hiring of
a new employee is as likely to disrupt organizational knowledge and cause loss. Hong et al. (2006) relate
to this by stating that when knowledge is transferred from one group, or organization, to another, it is often
necessary for the receivers to reframe knowledge into their own terms so that it fits with their existing
experience and they acquire ownership of it. Hence, exacerbating organizational knowledge loss through
sequential and repetitive knowledge transfer (Hong et al., 2006). Furthermore, other evidences suggest
that hiring leads to organizational knowledge loss as comprehensive transfer of the knowledge is not always
possible (Schmitt, 2012).

4.3 Effect of recency on unlearning

Interestingly, some authors refer to a new attribute to knowledge that can explain part of the propensity to
lose or discard knowledge. These authors use the term recency to qualify this dimension of knowledge.
The recency of a piece of knowledge refers to the time elapsed since its entry into memory systems
(Shafer et al., 2001). Newly acquired knowledge is simultaneously harder to incorporate and easier to lose
(Martin de Holan et al. 2004). This dual nature of knowledge would appear to have a direct link with the
passage of time. However, it is not related to times passing, but rather to knowledge integration processes
and whether knowledge has move from short-term memory to long-term memory (Darr et al., 1995). Martin
de Holan and Phillips stated: an organization is unable to retain a piece of new knowledge that enters the
organization through knowledge transfer or creation, but that has not been integrated into the memory
system (e.g., has not been transformed into a standard operating procedure), and so is quickly lost (Martin
de Holan and Phillips, 2004). This process could be known as failure to consolidate e.i. loss of knowledge
before it can become embedded in the organizations memory (Martin de Holan and Phillips, 2004). So
knowledge that has been accepted and practiced for a while becomes a barrier to unlearning. On the other
hand, innovation managers have found that it is possible to take advantage of that characteristic and used
knowledge recency to remove a piece of knowledge before it becomes embedded in the organizations
memory system such as innovations (usually from knowledge transfer) having unforeseen and undesired
effects on the organization or being inadequate in current organizational perspectives (Martin de Holan and
Phillips, 2004).
We would like to suggest that this concept of recency of knowledge could actually be a more precise
variable than the age of the organization in regard to the intensity of the unlearning process (Ginsberg and
Buchholtz, 1990; Tsang and Zahra, 2008).

4.4 Effect of intervals

This is a critical aspect of the management of knowledge as it is one over which managers have the most
power. It is accepted that repetition / use / reinforcement of knowledge leads to improvement of production
capacity and better retention of knowledge (the counterpart of forgetting) (Argote and Epple, 1990). Once
imprinted, this knowledge is harder to modify and hence constitutes a barrier to unlearning. On the other
hand such technique/repetition will be most effective when trying to implant new method or behavior during
unlearning/learning processes.
To overcome the barrier created by imprinting, managers can favor unlearning by modulating both the
length of time spent away from previous activities and how that time is spent.
It has been proven that the length of the interval for which the knowledge has not been used has a
proportional negative effect on production capacity (Ekstrand, 1967). Indeed, an interruption period, a
reallocation or even just shift hours affect the knowledge retention and the production capacities. That is
related to the activities undergone during that interval (White, 2012). This also suggest, that employees
being reallocated to another project not using specific knowledge and skills previously required may also
be at risk of forgetting key proficiencies (Smunt, 1987).

4.5 Distance to knowledge and incompatibility

These two factors affecting knowledge retention and loss are known as the distance to previous
knowledge (Newstrom, 1983) and incompatibility with previous knowledge (Dougherty and Hardy, 1996;
Dougherty and Heller, 1994). These two factors are major components of the barrier created when trying
to unlearn. Though related, these two concepts are not the same. They actually exist on a continuum,
incompatibility being at a pole and distance representing a degree of incompatibility. The two are found
both on individual basis and organizational basis. Distance to previous knowledge is proportionate to the
spread that exists between the newly acquired knowledge (or attempting to acquire) and existing knowledge
that is used and believed in (in every previously discussed forms of knowledge) (Martin de Holan and
Phillips, 2004). This is explained, in part, by the need of individuals to have clear understanding of the
purpose of modifying their responses and behaviors, which comes from the capacity to seize new
knowledge and tie it into previously and still required knowledge with a minimum of uncertainty. The bigger
the spread, the more difficult it will be to acquire and retain the new knowledge (Martin de Holan and Phillips,
2004). As previously stated, the distance to knowledge may arise from any aspect of organizational and
individual knowledge.

4.6 Commitment to learn

Commitment to learn could be considered as a state of mind that goes beyond motivation. In his article
Agency in Voluntary Organizational Forgetting (2011), Martin de Holan suggests that learning is subject
to intentionality and, consequently, to managerial agency. Similar observations have been made by Will
(2011), Baloff (1970) and Gershoni (1971), which suggests that commitment to learn is a trait that can be
perceived at the individual and the organizational level (Spraggon and Bodolica, 2008). Knowledge
retention, and hence knowledge forgetting studies have shown that learning-by-doing, though useful and
indispensable for some activities, has a counter-intuitive effect on knowledge retention. Research
demonstrates that learning and retention have a component that requires active commitment from the
individual (Martin de Holan and Phillips, 2004). The individual is required to feel the need to both learn and
retain the information and knowledge. Otherwise, knowledge dissipates faster when unused (Shankar,
2013). Again this is clearly depicted when observing data on pull-driven versus push-driven assimilation of
knowledge. Pull-driven knowledge is retained more effectively than pushed knowledge (Shankar, 2013),
most likely because the users feel the need to learn and have already created a rationale (the why and the
what is it good for) that will help them overcome most of the hurdles that they might encounter. In sum,
personal and organizational commitment to learn (and unlearn) is a facilitator. This could mean that, in the
current environment, one of the best choices for managers who try to input changes is to create the need
to learn, display the expected conduct and support their employees in their learning.

6. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Knowledge loss seems inevitable as loss is a natural process occurring when no energy or resources are
expended to compensate for it. Unfostered knowledge will eventually lead to knowledge loss or knowledge
obsolescence, increased reaction time and loss of capacities that can disrupt organizations ability to react
to changing environments (Martin de Holan, 2011). Knowledge loss/forgetting can be considered (most of
the time) as a facilitator to the unlearning process as it diminishes the strength of the different hindrances.
The attributes of knowledge from a social perspective make it possible to replace knowledge at the
individual level and avoid re-emergence of the application of discarded knowledge in the organization.
Due to the many characteristics of the different knowledge used in an organization, knowledge
management offers uncommon opportunities. If properly understood, organizational knowledge can be a
key asset with which to create leverage and value. On the other hand, if not fostered, knowledge can quickly
become a hurdle and may jeopardize the survival of the organization. Literature highlights many cases of
contradictory outcomes of knowledge management, thus highlighting the need to better understand which
parameters constitute either a hindrance or a catalyzer to the desired outcomes. Managers who recognize
the hindrances may take advantage of individual and/or organizational knowledge characteristics. However,
we conceive that it may be difficult to implant a new culture in an organization. It requires both resources
and some kind of faith. It may also be more difficult if prior efforts have not lead to the desired outcome.
Outcomes of learning efforts are uncertain because their value and usefulness to solve particular problems
cannot be evaluated ex ante fully, not only because the outcomes of that learning may be remote in the
future or too complex to be understood but also because the retention of what has been learnt is imperfect
(Martin de Holan. 2011).
Organizational learning is very important in the present knowledge economy. Firms and organizations have
deployed lots of resources to increase their organizational knowledge and subsequent capacities. Though
increasing the sum of knowledge and capacities available to the organization is to be considered a good
thing, empirical research has demonstrated that knowledge features can hinder learning and subsequent
development of capacities (both at the individual and organizational level). Therefore, it has been suggested
that unlearning specific/targeted portions of the integrated knowledge may be a prerequisite to efficiently
learning new knowledge that is incompatible to integrated knowledge. Furthermore, findings illustrate that
unlearning is inefficient (or cannot happen) if the void created by the unlearning efforts is not filled by new
knowledge which further integrate with still useful knowledge. Learning after unlearning cannot only be seen
as an act of grafting new knowledge to fill a void. Learning and unlearning are co-happening processes;
learning will occur spontaneously as unlearning progress. The void/emptiness created by the unlearning
process cannot remain and will be filled either by new knowledge or by a return of previously integrated
knowledge that was targeted to be eliminated (Martin de Holan and Phillips, 2004). This is probably due to
individuals varying levels of resilience to uncertainty and to the necessity/requirement to act without the
luxury to wait (see Coutu, 2002).
Even so, Tsang and Zahra (2008) theorize that unlearning and learning are two distinct concepts and that
unlearning can happen without concomitant learning. From our analysis, we support their claim that
unlearning and learning are distinct concepts with regard to the nature of the process. As such, unlearning
goes beyond learning: unlearning requires more personal capacities and resources than learning alone;
furthermore, learning can occur without unlearning (Tsang and Zahra, 2008). However, contrary to Tsang
and Zahra, we only conceive that unlearning can happen independently of learning when organizations are
faced with survival or implementing a strategic reorientation. Still, contrary to Tsang and Zahra, we believe
that organizational unlearning is linked to learning and therefore cannot be treated as distinct from it.
Furthermore, we believe that unlearning in the strict sense (i.e. removal from memory) is not a suitable aim
as the knowledge removed from practice may be of importance in an unforeseen future as depicted by
Anand et al. (1998) or may be basis to further innovation when synergizing with new knowledge. Therefore,
knowledge should be repositioned and responses/behaviours to stimuli should be invalidated and replaced
by more adequate/desired responses. Unlearning is not a goal, unlearning is a process aimed at reducing
identified hindrances strength impeding the adoption of the new knowledge (Bettis and Prahalad,1995).
Unlearning is a process that is planned and organized. It is part of the knowledge value chain; it requires
energy but improves the efficiency of learning.
Although individual unlearning is an imaginary concept and not an empirical process, unlearning at the
organizational level can be easily grasped. Therefore, the term can be used to share and communicate the
need and nature of the process throughout the organization. Managers using unlearning to refer to the
process may gain significant impact and acceptance through general preconceived world view as described
by Floyd (Floyd 2009). However, if we follow Howells et al. resolve, we would use the terms discard of
practice as a consequence of learning new and better fitted responses and not unlearning to describe
the process. Albeit, we are not sure that discard of practice could be applied to the organizational
knowledge that are values and culture.
Research seems to depict a discrepancy between unlearning/learning aimed towards innovation versus
aimed towards improvement of production. Though some could consider that the latter is incremental
innovation and that the former is abrupt innovation, we do not support the difference. Rather, we believe
that the difference between those two aims in terms of unlearning/learning process is related to
maintenance of knowledge instability (Argyris and Schn, 1978; Senge, 1990). Hence, in the process of
favoring innovation/abrupt innovation, an organization will attempt to maintain instability in knowledge and
foster a culture of uncertainty (to a certain extent) whereas others will try to reach the objectives and revert
to stability. This could easily relate to the emerging concepts of unlearning context described by Cegarra-
Navarro, & al. (2011).
Further empirical research, should aim to better define the conditions/context in which unlearning is
fostered. It could also be interesting to see if there are discrepancies in tolerable uncertainty levels (Zahra
and George, 2002; Coutu, 2002) with respect to the sector of activities or the organizational structure units.
In the same manner, it would be interesting to calculate the quantity of resources expended to maintain
both acquired knowledge and disequilibrium/uncertainty within the organization.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are in debt to Dr. Norrim Halilem, professor at Universit Laval, for his useful guidance and
comments. We would also like to thank Madeline Tyre for her most valuable help with revision and
comments on the manuscript.

8. REFERENCES
Akgn, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., and Keskin, H., Organizational unlearning as changes in beliefs
and routines in organizations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Volume 20, Number 6,
Pages 794-812, 2007.
Akgn, A. E., Lynn, G. S. and Byrne, J. C., Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework
Human Relations, Volume 56, Number 7, Pages 839-868, 2003.
Alba, J. W., and Hasher, L., Is Memory Schematic?, Psychological Bulletin, Volume 93, Pages 203231,
1983.
Anand, V., Manz, C.C., and Glick, W.H., An organizational memory approach to information
management , Academy of Management Review, Volume 23, Number 4, Pages 796-809, 1998.
Argote, L., Beckman, S.L., and Epple, D., The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings,
Management Science, Volume 36, Pages 140-154, 1990.
Argote, L. and D. Epple., Learning curves in manufacturing,Science, Volume 247, Pages 920924, 1990.
Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R., Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework
and review of emerging themes, Management Science, Volume 49, Pages 571-82, 2003.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A., Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesle, 1978.
Ashworth, M.J., Preserving knowledge legacies: workforce aging, turnover and human resource issues in
the US electric power industry, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Volume 17,
Number 9, Pages 1659-1688, 2006.
Baloff, N., "Startup Management", IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, Volume 17, Number 4,
November 1970.
Becker, K., Unlearning as a driver of sustainable change and innovation: three Australian case studies,
International Journal Technology Management, Volume 42, Number, Pages 89-106, 2008.
Becker, K., Individual and organisational unlearning: directions for future research, International Journal
of Organisation Behaviour, Volume 9, Number 7, Pages 659-70, 2005.
Becker, K., Hyland, P., and Acutt, B., Considering unlearning in HRD practices: An australian study,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Volume 30, Number 8, Pages 608-621, 2006.
Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., Chin, R., and Corey, K. E., The planning of change. New York : Holt, Rinechart
and Winston, 1976.
Bettis, R. A. and Prahalad, C.K., The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension, Strategic
Management Journal, Volume 16, Pages 5-14, 1995.
Blackler, F., Crump, N., and McDonald, S., Organizational learning and organizational forgetting, In M.
Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo, & J. Burgoyne (Eds.), Organizational learning and the learning organization
(pp. 194-216). London, UK: SAGE. 1999.
Brockmann, E. and Anthony, W., Tacit knowledge and strategic decision making, Group & Organization
Management, Volume 27, Number 4, Pages 436-55, 2002.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Dewhurst, F.W., Linking shared organizational context and relational capital
through unlearning: An initial empirical investigation in SMEs, Learning Organization, Volume 13, Pages
49-62, 2006.
Chinowsky, P. and Carrillo, P., Knowledge management to learning organization connection, Journal of
Management in Engineering Management Journal, Volume 23, Number 3, Pages 122-130, 2007.
Cohen W. M. and Levinthal D. A., Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation,
Administrative science quarterly, Volume 35, Number 1, Pages 128-152, 1990.
Coutu, D.L., The anxiety of learning, Harvard Business Review, Pages 6-100, March 2002.
Crossan, M., Lane, H. and White, R. E., An organizational learning framework organizational learning:
From intuition to institution, Academy of Management Review, Volume 24, Pages 522-537, 1999.
Cross, R. and Baird, L., Technology is not enough: Improving performance by building organizational
memory, Sloan Management Review, Volume 41, Number 3, Pages 69-78, 2000.
Darr, E.D., Argote, L., and Epple, D., The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service
organizations: Productivity in franchises, Management Science, Volume 41, Pages 1750-62, 1995.
Day, G. S., Continuous learning about markets, California Management Review, Volume 36, Pages 9-
31, 1994.
DeCarolis, D.M. and Deeds, D.L., The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm
performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry, Strategic Management Journal,
Volume 20, Pages 953-68, 1999.
DeLong, D., Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce: Oxford University Press,
New York, 2004
Dierickx, I. and Cool, K., Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage,
Management Science, Volume 35, Pages 1504-11, 1989.
Dohm, A., Gauging the Labor Force Effects of Retiring Baby-boomers, Monthly Labor Review, Volume
123, Number 7, Pages 17-25, 2000.
Dougherty, D. and Hardy, C., Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations: Overcoming
innovation-to organization problems, Academy of Management Journal, Volume 39, Pages 1120-1153,
1996.
Dougherty, D. and Heller, T., The illegitimacy of product innovation in established firms, Organization
Science, Volume 5, Pages 200-218, 1994.
Durst, S., Wilhelm, S., and Prometheus, Knowledge management in practice: insights into a medium-
sized enterprises exposure to knowledge loss, Journal of Knowledge Management, Volume 29, Number
1, Pages 23-38, 2011.
Easterby-Smith, M., and Lyles, M.A., In Praise of Organizational Forgetting, Journal of Management
Inquiry, Volume 20, Number 3, Pages 311-316, 2011.
Ekstrand, B.R., Effect of Sleep on Memory, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Volume 75, Pages 64-
72, 1967.
Epple, D.; Argote, L. and Devadas, R., Organization learning curves: A method for investigating intra-
plant transfer of knowledge acquired through learning by doing, Organization Science, Volume 2,
Number 1, Pages 58-70, 1991.
Fernandez, V. and Albert, S., Organizational forgetting and its causes: an empirical research, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Volume 22, Number 6, Pages 620-634, 2009.
Floyd, S.W., Borrowing' Theory: What Does This Mean and When Does It Make Sense in Management
Scholarship?, Journal of Management Studies, Volume 46, Number 6, Pages 1057-1058, 2009.
Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., Snchez-Vidal, M. E., and Cegarra-Leiva, D. Balancing exploration and
exploitation of knowledge through an unlearning context, Management Decision, Volume 49, Number 7,
Pages1099-1119, 2011.
Gershoni, H., "Motivation and Micro-Method When Learning Manual Tasks", Work Study and
Management Services, Volume 15, Number 9, September 1971.
Ginsberg, A. and Buchholtz, A., Converting to for-profit status: Corporate responsiveness to
radical change, Academy of Management Journal, Volume 33, Pages 445477, 1990.
Globerson, S. and Levin, N., Incorporating Forgetting into Learning Curves, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Volume 7, Number 4, Pages 80-94, 1987.
Goldman, A.L., Epistemology and cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1926.
Greene, K., Bye-bye Boomers? Companies May Face Exodus as Workers Hit Retiring Age, Wall
Street Journal, Volume September, 2005.
Greeno, J.G., James, C. and Depositor, F.J., A cognitive interpretation of negative transfer and
forgetting of paired associates, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Volume 10, Pages
331-45, 1971.
Greve, H. R., Sticky aspirations: Organizational time perspective and competitiveness, Organization
Science, Volume 13, Number 1, Pages 1-17, 2002.
Greve, H. R. and Taylor, A., Innovations as catalysts for organizational change: Shifts in organizational
cognition and search, Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 45, Number 1, Page 54, 2000.
Greve, H.R., Jumping ship: The diffusion of strategy abandonment, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Volume 40, Pages 44473, 1995.
Grossman, GM. And Helpman, E., Innovation and growth in the global economy, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1991.
Hedberg, B., How organizations learn and unlearn. In P.C. Nystrom & W.H. Starbuck (Eds),
Handbook of organizational design, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981, pp. 327.
Hitt, M.A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K. and Kochhar, R., Direct and moderating effects of human
capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource-based perspective,
Academy of Management Journal, Volume 44, Number 1, Pages 13-28, 2001.
Hong, J.F.L., Easterby-Smith, M. and Snell, R.S., Transferring organizational learning systems to
Japanese subsidiaries in China, Journal of Management Studies, Volume 43, Pages 1027-58,
2006.
Howells, J., Scholderer, J., Mitev, N., Forget organisational unlearning: A sceptical look at the use
of the concept of unlearning in organisational analysis. Danish Leadership Conference, 2009.
Hutchins, N. and Muller, A., Beyond stage-gate: restoring learning and adaptability to
commercialization, Strategy & Leadership, Volume 40, Number 3, Pages 30-35, 2012.
Inkpen, A.C. and Beamish, P.W. Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international
joint ventures, Academy of Management Review, Volume 22, Pages 22, Pages 177-202, 1997.
Kaufmann, A. and Tdtling, F., How effective is innovation support for SMEs? An analysis of the
region of Upper Austria, Technovation, Volume 22, Number 3, Pages 147159, 2002.
Kim, D.H., The link between individual and organizational learning, in Klein, D.A. (Ed.), The Strategic
Management of Intellectual Capital, Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA, 1998.
Klein, J., Parenthetic learning in organizations: Toward the unlearning of the unlearning model, Journal
of Management Studies, Volume 26, Pages 291-308, 1989.
Knowles, H.P. and Saxberg, B.O., Organizational leadership of planned and unplanned change,
Futures, Volume 20, Number 3, Pages 252-265, 1988.
Landry, J. R., Forgetful or bad memory? Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, 1999.
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B. and Park, J., Open innovation in SMEs: an intermediated network model,
Research policy, Volume 39, Number 2, Pages: 290-300, 2010.
Liebowitz, J., What practitioners need to know, KM World ,Volume 20, Number 2, Pages12-13, 2011.
Lynn, G. S., New product team learning: developing and profiting from your knowledge capital, California
Management Review, Volume 4, Number 4, Pages 74-93, 1998.
Markoczy, L., Modes of organizational learning: institutional change and Hungarian joint ventures,
International Studies of Management & Organization, Volume 24, Number 4, Pages 5-31, 1994.
Martin de Holan, P., Agency in Voluntary Organizational Forgetting, Journal of Management Inquiry,
Volume 20, Number 3, Page 317, 2011.
Martin de Holan, P. and Phillips, N., Remembrance of things past? The dynamics of organizational
forgetting, Management Science, Volume 50, Pages 1603-13, 2004.
Martin de Holan, P., Phillips, N. and Lawrence, T.B., Managing organizational forgetting, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Volume 45, Number 2, Pages 45-51, 2004.
Mehdi Bagherzadeh Niri, M.B., Mehrizi,M.H.R. and Atashgah, R.H., Lets Learn Unlearning: How Top
Managers Conceive and Implement Knowledge Active Forgetting, Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, Volume7, Number 5, Pages 605-614, 2009.
Merkens, H., Geppert, M. and Antal, D., Triggers of organizational learning during the transformation
process in Central European countries, Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge : Oxford
University Press, Pages 242-263, Oxford, 2001.
Nag, R., Corley, K. G., and Gioia, D. A., The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and
practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting, Academy of Management Journal, Volume
50, Number 4, 821-847, 2007.
Newstrom, J.W., The management of unlearning: Exploding the clean slate fallacy, Training and
Development Journal, Volume 37, Pages 36-9, 1983.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Nagata, A., A Firm as a Knowledge-creating Entity: A New Perspective on
the Theory of the Firm, Industrial and corporate change, Volume 9, Number 1, Pages 1-20, 2000.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H., To avoid organizational crises, unlearn, Organizational Dynamics,
Volume 12, Pages 53-65, 1984.
Olivera, F., Memory Systems in Organizations : An empirical investigation of mechanisms for
knowledge collection, storage and access, Journal of Management Studies, Volume 37, Number 6,
Pages 811-832, 2000.
Parise, S., Cross, R. and Davenport, T.H., Strategies for preventing a knowledge-loss crisis,MIT Sloan
Management Review, Volume 47, Number 4, Pages 31-38, 2006.
Pfeffer, J., Organizational demography. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds), Research in
organizational behavior, Volume 5, Pages 299-357, 1983.
Postman, L., Keppel, G. and Stark, K., Unlearning as a function of the relationship between successive
response classes, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Volume 69, Pages 111-8, 1965.
Schmitt, A., Borzillo, S. and Probst, G., Don't let knowledge walk away: Knowledge retention during
employee downsizing, Management Learning, Volume 43, Number 1, Pages 53-74, 2012.
Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Ramdom House,
London, 1990.
.Shafer. S, Nembhard, D. and Uzumeri, M., The effects of worker learning, forgetting, and heterogeneity
on assembly line productivity, Management Science, Volume 47, Number 12, Pages 1639-1653, 2001.
Shankar, R., Mittal, N., Rabinowitz, S., Baveja, A. and Acharia, S., A collaborative framework to minimise
knowledge loss in new product development, International Journal of Production Research, Volume 51,
Number 7, Pages 2049-2059, 2013.
Sinkula, J.M., Market-based success, organizational routines, and unlearning, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Volume 17, Pages 253-69, 2002.
Smunt, T. L., The impact of worker forgetting on production scheduling, International Journal of
Production Research, Volume 25, Pages 689-701, 1987.
Spraggon, M. and Bodolica. V., Knowledge creation processes in small innovative hi-tech firms,
Management Research News, Volume 31, Number 11, Pages 879-894, 2008.
 Starbuck, W.H. and Hedberg, B., Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge.:Oxford
University Press, Pages 327-50, Oxford, 2001
Starbuck, W.H., Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies, International Journal of Technology
Management, Volume 11, Pages 725-37, 1996.
Teece, D. J., G. Pisano and L. E. Shuen (1990), Firm Capabilities, Resources, and the Conept of
Strategy: Four Paradigms of Strategic Management, CCC Working Paper No. 90-8.
The Conference Board. 2005. Managing the Mature Workforce, New York: The Conference Board,
Inc. Report No. 1369.
Toosi, M., Labor Force Projections to 2012: The Graying of the US Workforce, Monthly Labor
Review, Volume 127, Number 2, Pages 37-57, 2004.
Tsang, E. and S. Zahra., Organizational Unlearning, Human Relations, Volume 61, Number 10,
Pages 1435-1462, 2008.
Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P., Technological discontinuities and organizational environments,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 31, Pages 439-65, 1986.
Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R., Organizational memory, Academy of Management Review, Volume 16,
Pages 57-91, 1991.
Weick, K.E. and Quinn, R.E., Organizational change and development, Annual Review of Psychology,
Volume 50, Pages 361-386, 1999.
Will, A.J., Motivating knowledge sharing in engineering and construction organizations: the power of
social motivations, Journal of Management in Engineering, Volume 27, Number 2, Pages193202, 2011.
White KG., Dissociation of short-term forgetting from the passage of time, Journal of experimental
psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, Volume 38, Number 1, Pages 255-259.
Yamin, M. and Otto, J., Patterns of knowledge flows and MNE innovative performance, Journal of
International Management, Volume 10, Number 2, Pages 239-58, 2004.
Zahra, S. and George, G., Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension, The
Academy of Management Review, Volume 27, Number 2, Pages 185-203, 2002.
Zell, D., Organizational change as a process of death, dying, and rebirth, The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Volume 39, Number 1, Pages 73-96, 2003.

9. Author Profile(s):
Eric Lagu, Ph.D. candidate at the University Laval, Quebec expected in 2013. Currently enrolled in
graduate program of the Faculty of medicine and MBA graduate of Faculty of Business Administration.
Khalil Rhaiem, M.Sc candidate at the University Laval, Quebec expected in 2014. Currently enrolled in
graduate program of Faculty of Business Administration.

View publication stats