From organizational learning to organizational mnemonics: Redrawing the boundaries of the field

Abstract

In this article, we advocate for a more balanced approach to the study of the past in management and organization studies. We define organizational mnemonics as a broader field of inquiry focused on theorizing the past as an integral part of organizational life, including three major epistemic communities—that is, functionalist, interpretive, and critical. We contend that much of organizational mnemonics research has been dominated by functionalism, at the expense of other approaches. To remediate this situation, we first characterize organizational mnemonics’ core epistemic communities. Second, we look at the boundary work at the interstices of these communities to explore possibilities of dialogue among them. We argue that the future of the study of the past in organizations should acknowledge different perspectives, the intersections among them, and make a conscientious effort to maintain diversity of scholarship in the field.

Organizational Memory Studies

“…That is, it is possible for organizations to store, or imprint, information or knowledge into organizational memory and to retrieve it at will. This 'storage bin' (Walsh & Ungson, 1991), or database, approach to how organizational memory operates was, and to an extent continues to be, how organizational memory is characterized in discussions of organizational learning (Coraiola & Murcia, 2019).…”

“…Our characterisation is merely to indicate that many of the current debates about organizational memory have embraced multiple ways of understanding memory in organizations. These studies helped generate a baseline understanding of mnemonic processes within organizations which paved the way for the renewed interest in memory in management and organization studies (Coraiola & Murcia, 2019).…”

“…Efforts to distinguish the past from the perception of and narratives about the past have been developed elsewhere (Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2014;Weatherbee, Durepos, Mills, & Mills, 2012). There have been fewer efforts to distinguish between the associated constructs of history, memory, and knowledge (i.e., Coraiola & Murcia, 2019;Decker, Rowlinson & Hassard, 2020). In particular, we believe that it will be crucial for further theorizing for scholars to delineate and distinguish between these constructs.…”

“…In hindsight, these early studies of organizational memory generated a baseline understanding of mnemonic processes within organizations which helped animate discussions that eventually led to a renewed and broadened interest in memory in management and organization studies (Coraiola & Murcia, 2019; Rowlinson et al, 2010). This early work also emboldened others to offer critiques of the limiting aspects of these overly mechanistic explanations of organizational memory (Feldman & Feldman, 2006; Nissley & Casey, 2002; Rowlinson et al, 2010).…”

“…The authors conceptualize organizational memory as ‘a structure of repositories in which different forms of knowledge are stored, and from which knowledge can be retrieved’ (Fiedler & Welpe, 2010, p. 382). Though many functional investigations of organizational memory approach the topic from a post-positivist perspective to social science (Coraiola & Murcia, 2019), at the time of publication few quantitative studies had been conducted.…”