Abstract
Organizational memory is the knowledge that has been accumulated from past experiences, which resides in the organization and can be used towards making decisions. This article explicates some of the subtleties of organizational memory and explores its impact on organizations. By reviewing existing research on the understanding of antecedents and consequences of organizational memory, we suggest future research needs further clarification on the antecedents of memory, the level in which memory occurs and the performance implications of memory. We also introduce the concept of ‘global shared memory’, which reflects recent advancements of knowledge storage beyond organizational boundaries.
Organizational memory is the knowledge that has been accumulated from past experiences, which resides in the organization and can be utilized towards making decisions (Walsh and Ungson 1991; Olivera 2000; Argote 2012). The temporal processes in organizational memory where information is acquired, interpreted and retained constitute a complex phenomenon that extends far beyond the mere collection and storage of information. Information has to be internalized as organizational knowledge, retained and be readily available for use. Consequently, not all information is retained by an organization. Actors select according to the importance of information and the availability of organizational capabilities required for retaining the information. Organizations also need specific storage and retrieval processes, so that they can easily access and present the information as useful knowledge at the specific moment that a decision is made.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download reference work entry PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Organizational memory is the knowledge that has been accumulated from past experiences, which resides in the organization and can be used towards making decisions. It is built through processes that facilitate information acquisition, integration, retention and retrieval. This cache of retained knowledge can prove valuable to organizational decision makers when drawing on past experience.
Organizational Forgetting
Organizational memory sometimes changes due to a changing task environment, new knowledge requirements or evolving organizational capabilities (Argote 2012); and thus while knowledge is often added, some older knowledge is lost. The process of organizational memory decay is called organizational forgetting (Argote and Epple 1990; Benkard 2000; Casey and Olivera 2011; David and Brachet 2011; Holan 2011).
Organizational forgetting occurs because knowledge is outdated (Benkard 2000), information processing and storage systems are imperfect (Meschi and Métais 2013) or the organization experiences a structural reorganization or significant employee turnover (David and Brachet 2011). Consequentially, memory maintenance is important to keep the memory updated (Stein 1995).
Antecedents of Memory: Levels of Organizational Memory
Since the foundational work of Nelson and Winter (1982) and Walsh and Ungson (1991), we have begun to understand that memory has different mechanisms and can exist at different places in the organization, such as at the individual, group and organizational levels.
Individual memory within organizations consists of declarative and procedural memory (Cohen 1991; Moorman and Miner 1998; Miller et al. 2012). Declarative memory is the storage of ‘know-what’, such as past organizational facts, knowledge and events. Procedural memory is the storage of ‘know-how’, and it is akin to skills and routines that can be automatically retrieved. Procedural memory is useful for improvising with specific tasks because of its rapid nature, whereas declarative memory is more useful for facilitating richer and complex solutions as it slows down decisions (Cohen 1991; Moorman and Miner 1998).
Group-level processes, such as transactive memory (Wegner 1987; Ren et al. 2006; Argote and Ren 2012; Argote 2015), are also important for organizational memory. Transactive memory is the storage of ‘know-who’ (Miller et al. 2012), and is the knowledge that resides within a group of individuals. Transactive memory decreases the response time of knowledge retrieval and improves decision-making (Ren et al. 2006). The benefits accrue because it allows for knowledge specialization, builds trust between actors and improves task coordination (Argote and Ren 2012). Transactive memory is facilitated by having access to others who possess similar knowledge, being within smaller groups and having frequent interactions with these actors in order to be able to recall this knowledge.
Organizational-level processes also facilitate organizational memory. organizational routines are tied to memory (Cohen and Bacdayan 1994; Miller et al. 2012). Over time, the repetition of successful routines strengthens organizational memory and reduces the need for search. Organizational narratives and identity help memory (Garud et al. 2011; Schultz and Hernes 2013) as these processes allow organizations to sense-make unusual experiences and retain this knowledge in a meaningful way. For example, Schulz and Hernes’ (2013) study of the LEGO Company found that the evoking of different organizational memory forms influenced the scope of future identity claims.
The antecedents of organizational memory require further research, such as investigating other antecedents. For example, the role of top management teams and governance in ensuring adequate information systems and databases, and the effect of socially undesirable actions on organizational memory may prove to be fruitful avenues of research.
Consequences of Memory: the Effects of Organizational Memory on Performance
There is still no consensus on whether memory improves organizational performance. Empirical evidence has shown that transactive memory is useful for making informed decisions in a timely manner (Ren et al. 2006), but we have not found any articles with direct links between organizational memory and performance. While it seems likely that there should be a positive link, a body of theoretical work suggests otherwise. Organizational memory is often associated with increased inertia that prevents the organization from adapting to new information (Walsh and Ungson 1991). Automatic retrieval of a decision response when a non-routine response is necessary can lead to superstitious acts (Walsh and Ungson 1991; Moorman and Miner 1998).
Moreover, managers often have significant latitude in selecting tools for organizational memory. These situations force managers to discriminate and decide which experiences are worthy of recording into repositories of knowledge (Cross and Baird 2000; Casey and Olivera 2011). Managers are unlikely to be able to select the appropriate memory-enhancing tools as actors are cognitively and politically limited within organizations (Cyert and March 1963) and memory-enhancing tools are often uncertain, context-dependent (Ackerman 1996) and costly in the near term (e.g., requiring the management of databases and information technology).
Empirical Techniques to Study Organizational Memory
Early research on organizational memory mainly relied on qualitative evidence. For example, Ackerman’s (1996) case studies of organizational memory systems at six organizations showed that the idealized view of organizational memory and actual organizational memory differed as organizations face technical limitations of storage and retrieval. Similarly, Olivera’s (2000) field studies of six offices of a multinational business consulting firm showed that several memory systems utilized within the organization included overlapping systems of social networks, knowledge centres and computer-based information systems. Qualitative research from the past 5 years (Garud et al. 2011; Schultz and Hernes 2013) use observational study and interviews to show that managers use narratives and oral forms of memory to understand both experiences and the organization’s identity.
More recent research tends to rely on quantitative techniques. Surveys are common. For example, Flores and colleagues (2012) used a self-reported survey instrument to measure organizational memory and Heavey and Simsek (2016) administered a survey instrument of transactive memory system on top management teams. In other survey research, researchers have found that memory can play a positive role in improving organizational innovation (Chang and Cho 2008; Camisón and Villar-López 2011). Direct analysis of organizational memory using secondary data is common for research on forgetting, but explicit analysis of memory is more limited: we found only one article. Meschi and Métais’s (2013) survival analysis of acquisitions data found that organizational memory deteriorates over time because of inefficient coding of information, information decay and disuse.
Recently, simulations have begun to increase in popularity. For example, Levine and Prietula (2012) used simulations to show that fit between organizational memory and knowledge transfer aids memory and performance. Miller et al. (2012) found that procedural, declarative and transactive memory are all equally important to the ostensive aspect of organizational routines. Similarly, Jain and Kogut (2013) found that memory enables efficient development of organizational capabilities and consequently facilitates organizational evolvability and innovation.
Conclusions and Future Research
The organizational landscape has changed drastically since the original Walsh and Ungson (1991) article was published. With the widespread use of internet and cloud-based storage, organizational memory is no longer contained only within the confines of the organization. The bulk of it, at least that has been codified, exists within what we label as ‘global shared memory’, accessible by anyone, anywhere, over the Internet. This is not to suggest that local organizational memory is not important, however, and this is demonstrated by the fact that many organizations go to great lengths to ensure the integrity of their memory by restricting access to critical private information. New research should look into how global shared memory has affected organizational memory in terms of acquisition, retention and retrieval. Researchers could investigate how organizations decide what memory to retain internally versus what to store in the global shared memory.
There is still a need for more in-depth empirical studies. Past studies have primarily used survey, narratives or simulation data to measure organizational memory. Other sources of data (e.g., archival data) would strengthen the empirical findings on organizational memory. There is also the need for multilevel studies that connect individual, group (e.g., transactive memory) and organizational memory. Equally important is to understand the role of knowledge management where individual, group and external information is brought together in a timely manner (Anand et al. 1998).
Research is still inconclusive on what organizational factors affect memory. What effect does the size, structure and type of the organization have on memory? Investigating the antecedents and moderators of organizational memory would shed light on this issue. Similarly, confusion still exists on the role of organizational memory on performance, and more in-depth studies are necessary to clarify this relationship. The important relationship between organizational memory and organizational learning has been discussed repeatedly in the literature (Argote and Miron-Spektor 2011; Casey and Olivera 2011; Flores et al. 2012). Further research that explains when memory is conducive to learning versus when it is not can help identify the effectiveness of memory on learning.
References
Ackerman, M.S. 1996. Definitional and contextual issues in organizational and group memories. Information Technology and People 9: 10–24.
Anand, V., C.C. Manz, and W.H. Glick. 1998. An organizational memory approach to information management. Academy of Management Review 23: 796–809.
Argote, L. 2012. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.
Argote, L. 2015. An opportunity for mutual learning between organizational learning and global strategy researchers: Transactive memory systems. Global Strategy Journal 5: 198–203.
Argote, L., and D. Epple. 1990. Learning curves in manufacturing. Science 247: 920–924.
Argote, L., and E. Miron-Spektor. 2011. Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science 22: 1123–1137.
Argote, L., and Y. Ren. 2012. Transactive memory systems: A microfoundation of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Management Studies 49: 1375–1382.
Benkard, C.L. 2000. Learning and forgetting: The dynamics of aircraft production. American Economic Review 90: 1034–1054.
Camisón, C., and A. Villar-López. 2011. Non-technical innovation: Organizational memory and learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sustained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management 40: 1294–1304.
Casey, A.J., and F. Olivera. 2011. Reflections on organizational memory and forgetting. Journal of Management Inquiry 20: 305–310.
Chang, D.R., and H. Cho. 2008. Organizational memory influences new product success. Journal of Business Research 61: 13–23.
Cohen, M.D. 1991. Individual learning and organizational routine: Emerging connections. Organization Science 2: 135–139.
Cohen, M.D., and P. Bacdayan. 1994. Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science 5: 554–568.
Cross, R., and L. Baird. 2000. Technology is not enough: Improving performance by building organizational memory. MIT Sloan Management Review 41: 69–78.
Cyert, R.M., and J.G. March. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
David, G., and T. Brachet. 2011. On the determinants of organizational forgetting. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 3: 100–123.
de Holan, P.M. 2011. Organizational forgetting, unlearning, and memory systems. Journal of Management Inquiry 20: 302–304.
Flores, L.G., W. Zheng, D. Rau, and C.H. Thomas. 2012. Organizational learning subprocess identification, construct validation, and an empirical test of cultural antecedents. Journal of Management 38: 640–667.
Garud, R., R.L. Dunbar, and C.A. Bartel. 2011. Dealing with unusual experiences: A narrative perspective on organizational learning. Organization Science 22: 587–601.
Heavey, C., and Z. Simsek. 2016 (forthcoming). Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational ambidexterity: The influence of transactive memory systems. Journal of Management.
Jain, A., and B. Kogut. 2013. Memory and organizational evolvability in a neutral landscape. Organization Science 25: 479–493.
Levine, S.S., and M.J. Prietula. 2012. How knowledge transfer impacts performance: A multilevel model of benefits and liabilities. Organization Science 23: 1748–1766.
Meschi, P.-X., and E. Métais. 2013. Do firms forget about their past acquisitions? Evidence from French acquisitions in the United States (1988–2006). Journal of Management 39: 469–495.
Miller, K.D., B.T. Pentland, and S. Choi. 2012. Dynamics of performing and remembering organizational routines. Journal of Management Studies 49: 1536–1558.
Moorman, C., and A.S. Miner. 1998. Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review 23: 698–723.
Nelson, R.R., and S.G. Winter. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
Olivera, F. 2000. Memory systems in organizations: An empirical investigation of mechanisms for knowledge collection, storage and access. Journal of Management Studies 37: 811–832.
Ren, Y., K.M. Carley, and L. Argote. 2006. The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science 52: 671–682.
Schultz, M., and T. Hernes. 2013. A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science 24: 1–21.
Stein, E.W. 1995. Organization memory: Review of concepts and recommendations for management. International Journal of Information Management 15: 17–32.
Walsh, J.P., and G.R. Ungson. 1991. Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review 16: 57–91.
Wegner, D.M. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Theories of group behavior, ed. B. Mullen and G.R. Goethals. New York: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this entry
Cite this entry
Bhandary, A., Maslach, D. (2018). Organizational Memory. In: Augier, M., Teece, D.J. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_210
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_210
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-230-53721-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-00772-8
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences