FormalPara Definition

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Organizational forgetting occurs because knowledge is outdated (Benkard 2000), information processing and storage systems are imperfect (Meschi and Métais 2013) or the organization experiences a structural reorganization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.

See Also