The role of unlearning in metamorphosis and strategic resilience

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to conceptualize what it means to be resilient in the face of our current reality of indisputable turbulence and uncertainty, suggest that continual metamorphosis is key to resilience, demonstrate the role of unlearning in that metamorphosis and suggest that problem formulation is a key deliberate mechanism of driving continual cycles of learning and unlearning. Design/methodology/approachThe paper entails a conceptual analysis. FindingsIt is found that both the unlearning and resilience literature streams are stuck in a paradigm whereby organizational behavior entails adaptation to the external environment and reaction to crisis. This paper suggests that, given a world of turbulence and uncertainty, a more useful paradigm is one where organizations take action before action is desperately needed, and that they proactively contribute to enacting their environment via their own continual metamorphosis. Research limitations/implicationsFuture research should explore further the factors that can facilitate sensing the early warning signs, and facilitate the cyclical learning-unlearning process of metamorphosis. Practical implicationsThe primary practical implication is that to ensure strategic resilience, managers must be able to identify early warning signs and initiate metamorphosis. This means understanding the processes needed to support unlearning, namely, problem formulation. Originality/valueThe originality and value of the present paper lies in that it suggests a shift in paradigm from adaptation and reaction, to action and enactment. Further, it proposes a cyclical process of learning and unlearning that together define periods of metamorphosis, and suggests problem formulation, whereby the mission statement is assessed and revised, as a mechanism in that endeavor.

Intentional Forgetting in Organizations: The Importance of Eliminating Retrieval Cues for Implementing New Routines

“…Questions have been raised regarding: whether the concept of unlearning can be subsumed under the concept of learning; whether it is a precondition of learning, or whether learning and unlearning are distinct types of organizational change (Nguyen, 2017 ; Rupčić, 2017 ); whether unlearning is one type of forgetting (see Figure 1 and Nguyen, 2017 ); and whether unlearning is the discarding of obsolete and misleading knowledge or the abandoning of any knowledge without evaluating the status of the knowledge (Hislop et al, 2014 ; Nguyen, 2017 ). Unlearning is mainly considered as an organizational reaction to a threat or serious crisis (Starbuck, 2017 ), turbulence (Morais-Storz and Nguyen, 2017 ) or exogenous disruption or destabilizing triggers (Fiol and O'Connor, 2017a , b ). One of the main themes in the unlearning debate is the alternation between unlearning and learning, in which an external adverse stimulus triggers unlearning.…”

How to unlearn and change – that is the question!

“…Readers are encouraged to review further suggestions pertaining to the two remaining phases or sub-processes. The paper by Morais-Storz and Nguyen (2017) complements the model by Fiol and O'Connor (2017) in several ways. They provide a broader picture of the change process indicating that companies should move from the paradigm of reacting to crisis and finding means to adapt, toward a paradigm or organizational behavior by which resilience is strengthened through continual metamorphosis.…”

“…The process of continuous metamorphosis should be supported by both learning and unlearning. Morais-Storz and Nguyen (2017) suggest that the mechanism that drives both processes is problem formulation. The way the problem is defined strongly influences how it would be solved.…”

Are There Typological Characteristics of Individual Unlearning?

“…In times of shift in organizational processes, such as the introduction of a new product, or a technological advance, unlearning is needed to perform in new ways based on the previous competency level. Unfortunately, individuals within organizations may be unable, or unwilling to abandon current knowledge base, beliefs, processes, and values rapidly enough, or unlearn, when confronted with new and updated information [6]; [7].…”