Explaining institutional amnesia in government

Abstract

This article explains why different government agencies experience variations in organizational memory loss. It first explains institutional amnesia theoretically by expanding the formal‐institutional view of organizational memory to include agential and structural‐contextual properties, revealing a broader range of novel explanations for amnesia. Institutional amnesia is then explained empirically through an international analysis of memory loss in four Westminster systems (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom). This analysis, which principally relies on 100 interviews with ministers, policy officials, and public‐sector leaders across the four countries, leads to the introduction of four explanations for amnesia, relating to: organizational churn, absorptive capacity, strategic‐instrumental decision making, and historical storytelling.

Inaction and public policy: understanding why policymakers ‘do nothing’

“…An organisation may also be so focused on particular priorities that it blinds itself to other issues-in effect forgetting how to see, interpret and act upon them (Vetzberger 1998;Stark 2019). A study by Zegart (2007) of the CIA prior to the 9/11 attacks found an organisation unable to acknowledge and act on threats from Al Qaeda because it was still stuck in a Cold War mindset.…”

Institutional Amnesia and Humanitarian Disaster Management

“…The neglect of history can also be a consequence of a wilful disinterest in learning about the past. This may be because confronting the past will challenge powerful interests, involve reforming the status quo or, more commonly, create political problems for incumbents and contemporary policies (Stark 2019). Thus, amnesia can be created through a simple unwillingness to interrogate the past because that means challenging dominant norms in the present.…”

“…Although they are also subject to the whims of external funding, long-running centres will have significant levels of institutional memory. Indeed, specialisation and expertise within an organisation is often an indicator of the likelihood of strong memory (Stark 2019). However, other bodies also have untapped stores of external memory.…”

“…Around the world, public sector leaders have begun to identify memory-loss as a fundamental issue that undermines their attempts to learn about, design and deliver public policies (Stark 2018). In response, an amnesia-orientated research agenda has recently emerged within public policy and public administration scholarship (Corbett et al 2018;Stark 2019;Stark and Head 2019). That agenda complements pre-existing research about institutional memory, which is most commonly produced in psychology (Wright and Gaskell 1995;Baddeley 2007;Kliegel et al 2008), organisational studies (Walsh and Ungson 1991;Linde 2009;March 2010) and the social sciences (Connerton 1989;Halbwachs 1992;Misztal 2003).…”

Left on the shelf: Explaining the failure of public inquiry recommendations

“…Forms of memorialization, particularly in relation to traumatic events that inquiries have investigated, offer opportunities to recall past lessons, historical stories or the traditions of an agency (Linde ). Knowledge can also be recalled via training and human resource development practices within policy‐making agencies (Stark ) or via the creation of accountability mechanisms, specifically calibrated to inquiry‐driven reforms, which can ensure that agencies do not forget past failures (Stark ). Indeed, oversight is included in the model precisely because it connects with knowledge institutionalization and recall.…”