Journal of http://jmi.sagepub.

com/
Management Inquiry

Reflections on Organizational Memory and Forgetting

Andrea J. Casey and Fernando Olivera
Journal of Management Inquiry 2011 20: 305 originally published online 15 May 2011
DOI: 10.1177/1056492611408264

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jmi.sagepub.com/content/20/3/305

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Western Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Management Inquiry can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jmi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jmi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jmi.sagepub.com/content/20/3/305.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Aug 17, 2011

OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 15, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at UNIV OF VIRGINIA on November 2, 2013

408264
ey and OliveraJournal of Management Inquiry
JMIXXX10.1177/1056492611408264Cas

Dialog
Journal of Management Inquiry

Reflections on Organizational 20(3) 305­–310

© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
Memory and Forgetting sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1056492611408264
http://jmi.sagepub.com

Andrea J. Casey1 and Fernando Olivera2

Abstract
Organizational memory plays a central role in theories of organizational learning and forgetting. However, we still know
little about how knowledge becomes embedded in organizational memory or the reasons and processes through which
organizational memory decays. The objective of this article is to clarify the relationship between organizational memory
and forgetting, and identify areas that require development if we are to improve our understanding of these constructs.
Specifically, we point to the importance of theorizing about (a) the dynamic nature of organizational memory and forgetting,
(b) the role of time in theories and research of organizational memory and forgetting, and (c) the processes through which
individuals maintain, discard, or remember knowledge, including the dynamics of power.

Keywords
organizational memory, organizational forgetting, organizational learning

Organizational memory plays a central role in theories of The objectives of this article are to clarify the relationship
organizational learning and forgetting. Researchers have between organizational memory and forgetting and to iden-
argued that organizational learning requires that new knowl- tify areas that require development if we are to improve our
edge be somehow stored in organizational memory (e.g., understanding of memory and forgetting. Specifically, we
Argote, 1999; M. Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Huber, 1991). point to the importance of theorizing about (a) the dynamic
From this perspective, organizational memory is the mecha- nature of organizational memory and organizational forget-
nism through which organizations retain and make accessi- ting, (b) the role of time in theories and research on organi-
ble organizational knowledge (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). zational memory and forgetting, and (c) the processes through
Martin de Holan and Phillips (2004) defined organizational which organizations maintain, discard, or remember knowl-
forgetting as “the loss, voluntary or otherwise, of organiza- edge, including the role of power in these processes.
tional knowledge” (p. 1606) and argued that forgetting occurs
when organizations fail to incorporate new knowledge into
organizational memory or when knowledge that was part of Organizational Memory
the organization’s memory is somehow lost. The predominant perspective in research on organizational
Although it has been almost 20 years since the publication memory is based on the ideas presented by Walsh and Ungson
of Walsh and Ungson’s (1991) seminal article on organiza- (1991). Their review of the organizational memory literature
tional memory, there has been little theoretical development was instrumental in bringing the construct to researchers’
and empirical research on this topic. In their citation analysis attention. They defined organizational memory as “stored
of Walsh and Ungson’s article, Anderson and Sun (2010) found information from an organization’s history that can be brought
that the article was cited frequently (in 301 articles between to bear on present decisions” (Walsh & Ungson, 1991, p. 61).
1991 and 2007) but that very few articles had been critical of They conceptualized organizational memory in terms of
or attempted to develop its central ideas. Our review of the
organizational memory literature from 1991 to 2002 (Casey
& Olivera, 2003) reached a similar conclusion: The concept 1
The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
2
of organizational memory was widely cited but mostly in a University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
peripheral manner, and few studies had attempted to develop
Corresponding Author:
or empirically examine the concept. Thus, we still don’t Andrea J. Casey, The George Washington University,
know much about how knowledge becomes part of, is main- 2134 G Street NW, Washington, DC, WA 20052, USA
tained in, or lost from organizational memory. Email: acasey@gwu.edu
306 Journal of Management Inquiry 20(3)

retention facilities or bins, which included individuals, cul- 2000; Spender, 1996). This notion is consistent with recent
ture, transformations, organizational structures, ecology, ways of theorizing about collective constructs, as proposed
and external archives. They also described key processes by Morgeson and Hofmann (1999). They posit that the
associated with the functioning of organizational memory structure of collective constructs such as organizational
(acquisition, retention, and retrieval) and the types of knowl- memory should be theorized as dynamic patterns of interac-
edge (what, why, who, etc.) that each retention bin could tions among individuals within organizational contexts (see
contain. Based on this theoretical foundation, they devel- also Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In particular, Morgeson and
oped propositions relating organizational memory to various Hofmann noted that
organizational processes, including decision making and
change management. They also proposed a research agenda the structure of any given collective (e.g., a work
to address the structure, process, and consequences of orga- team) can be viewed as a series of ongoing events, and
nizational memory, arguing that future research on organiza- event cycles between the component parts (e.g., indi-
tional memory could inform our understanding of organizational viduals). This structure, in turn, forms the basis for the
phenomena such as change, design, and structure. This per- eventual emergence of collective constructs. (p. 252)
spective on organizational memory has indeed been applied
to a variety of organizational phenomena, including learning They argued that we can conceive the structure of organi-
(Argote, 1999), innovation (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997; zational memory as interactions among individuals aimed
Moorman & Miner 1997), decision making (Lomi, Larsen, at recalling past events through probing (their own memo-
& Ginsberg, 1997), and improvization (M. Crossan, Cunha, ries and the organization’s information systems) and
Vera, & Cuhna, 2005). sensemaking.
Martin de Holan and Phillips’ (2004) framework of orga- A dynamic view of the structure of organizational mem-
nizational forgetting is consistent with Walsh and Ungson’s ory takes into account the social nature of memory (Corbett,
(1991) view of organizational memory. They argued that 2000). Rather than viewing memory as knowledge stored in
forgetting occurs as organizations fail to incorporate new a collection of retention bins, the emphasis is on memory as
knowledge into organizational memory (a failure in knowl- continually constructed and reconstructed by humans inter-
edge acquisition) or as knowledge is lost (a failure of reten- acting with each other and their organizational environment
tion). Like Walsh and Ungson, they recognize that knowledge (Corbett, 2000; Johnson & Paper, 1998). From this perspec-
acquisition and retrieval may happen automatically and in tive, memory and forgetting are inextricably linked: The pro-
unwanted ways, but it may also be a purposeful, controlled cesses through which organizational knowledge is enacted
activity (as in the case of unlearning). Finally, as is the case are also processes of creation, retention, and decay.
with memory, Martin de Holan and Phillips noted that for- The work of M. S. Feldman (2000) on organizational rou-
getting may have both positive and negative consequences tines is a useful illustration of both the dynamic nature of
for organizations. memory and its relationship to forgetting. Feldman views
In the following sections, we propose three areas that we routines as dynamic and evolving, rather than static (e.g.,
believe provide promising avenues for further development M. S. Feldman 2000). Some elements of routines remain sta-
of our understanding of organizational memory and forget- ble, but how routines are enacted varies over time. Feldman
ting. These areas stem from recent developments in theoriz- noted that most theorizing on routines has focused on their
ing of collective constructs (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; static characteristics, omitting “the possibility that routines
Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999) and organizational knowledge are continually changing” (M. S. Feldman, 2000, p. 612; see
as well as process approaches to concepts such as organiza- also M. S. Feldman & Pentland 2003). Her research further
tional identity (Hatch & Schultz, 2002) and culture (Hatch, described routines as a dynamic process of ongoing change
2004). Although these areas build on the ideas presented by affected by agency, the goal-directed behavior of actors.
Walsh and Ungson (1991), they are also meant to stimulate Routines are a “cycle of plans, actions, outcomes and ideals”
new or different approaches to thinking about organizational (p. 622) where there are ongoing actions of “repairing,
knowledge. expanding and striving that change routines” (p. 623).
Similarly, Pentland and Rueter (1994) suggested that “an
organizational routine is not a single pattern but rather a set
Structure, Memory, and Forgetting of possible patterns—enabled and constrained by a variety of
Walsh and Ungson (1991) conceptualized the structure of organizational, social, physical and cognitive structures—
organizational memory as formed by retention bins. from which organizational members enact particular perfor-
Subsequent work has emphasized the importance of recog- mances” (p. 491). We can thus think of routines as a form of
nizing the dynamic, dispersed, and interrelated nature of organizational memory and the processes through which
organizational knowledge (Anderson & Sun, 2010; Olivera, they are created, recreated, and expanded, as processes of
Casey and Olivera 307

knowledge acquisition and retention. The notion of routines Time, Memory, and Forgetting
as sets “of possible patterns” constrained by organizational
factors suggests that organizational structures and processes The concepts of organizational memory and forgetting both
can account for the loss of organizational knowledge, either imply the passage of time. Surprisingly, there has been little
intentionally or unintentionally. theorizing about the role of time in organizational knowl-
Characterizing organizational memory as a source of sta- edge. A common assumption in the organizational learning
bility and change is also consistent with process-based theo- literature is that memory decays over time. This decay has
ries of collective memory, grounded in the sociological work been attributed in part to individual-level forgetting and to
of Durkheim (1985) and Halbwachs (1980). Schwartz’ work organizational turnover (Argote, 1999; Huber, 1991; Martin
on collective memory suggests that there is a critical, recur- de Holan & Phillips, 2004). However, we know little about
sive relationship between change and stability in the core the specific mechanisms through which organizational
elements of memory. He defined collective memory as “the knowledge decays, the rate at which this decay is likely to
representation of the past embodied in both historical evi- occur, or which aspects of memory are likely to experience
dence and commemorative symbolism” (Schwartz, 2000, p. 9). rapid versus slow decay. There is evidence, for instance, that
History is “objectively conceived” (Schwartz, 2000, p. 10) recent events are more likely to be recalled in organizations
and sustained and constrained by evidence. Commemoration than distant ones (Casey, 1997) as well as events that threaten
stems from the “Latin term com, together, and memorare, to the survival of the organization or bring organizational iden-
remember” (Schwartz, 2000, p. 9). Commemo­ ration, or tity into question (Casey, 2010; Whetten, 2006). There has
remembering together, chooses events from history that are been little theorizing, to our knowledge, about the rate at
most reflective of the identity of the collective (Schwartz, which we could expect other kinds of organizational knowl-
2000). Commemoration guides new patterns of perception or edge to decay, the conditions under which decay is likely to
thinking in a culture while sustaining the core elements of accelerate, or the implications of varying decay rates for
old ones. organizational memory and forgetting.
Collective memory reflects the essential tension between Second, the cyclicality of organizational activities is
history, the recording of accounts of primary events, and likely to affect the permanence of organizational memory.
commemoration, the symbolizing of these events to meet Campbell-Kelly’s (1996) analysis of the British census illus-
needs of the present (Schwartz, 2005). The peripheral ele- trates how the recurrent activities of the census organization
ments of memory are mutable, while maintaining a core served to maintain organizational memory, even though the
meaning. Schwartz’s research found that the collective census occurred only once a decade. Although some forget-
memory of a national figure such as Lincoln has varied ting occurred due to personnel changes, the census forms
from one generation to another and within subgroups in a served as reminders of the organization’s accumulated
generation, yet it reflects elements of a common cultural knowledge. Even though many activities in organizations are
identity schema through generations. Commemorative patterns structured in terms of cycles, such as monthly quotas, quar-
of interpretations are formed through redundancy, stored terly reports, annual meetings, and so on, we know little
with historical accounts in symbols and social institutions, about how organizational cycles affect organizational mem-
and communicated across generations (Schwartz & Schuman, ory and forgetting. Yet these cyclical activities are likely to
2000). be critical. For example, project cycles punctuate retrieval
At the organizational level, research suggests that col- and encoding activities when project teams assess past proj-
lective memories of critical events or figures in organiza- ects, review lessons learned, and generate new products that
tions may shift or change over time as the organization may be subsequently recalled (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996).
responds to its external environment, yet core elements of Recurrent activities, such as audits, training, and performance
these memories remain constant, reflecting the organiza- reviews, may compensate for the natural decay of organiza-
tion’s identity (Casey, 1997). Elements of what is recalled tional memory.
about these events or figures may change, and some Finally, consideration for the future may affect the struc-
events may rise to the surface while others recede, yet it is ture and functioning of organizational memory. Research on
the core schema of organizational identity that makes them corporate museums illustrates how organizations purpose-
memorable. fully reconstruct the past in consideration of how it will be
In sum, a dynamic perspective of organizational memory remembered in the distant future (Nissley & Casey, 2002). In
allows us to recognize the interrelation between processes of contrast, postmortems at the end of projects may only be
enacting or remembering and processes of forgetting and concerned with short-term benefits. In their analysis of inci-
change. Research on routines and collective remembering dent reports at National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
has developed useful insights that can be integrated into our Miller and Olivera (2006) found that many of the reports
understanding of memory and forgetting. were not indexed, they were stored at various facilities, and
308 Journal of Management Inquiry 20(3)

several were not accessible. One interpretation of this find- Power dynamics are also reflected in decisions and
ing is that the organization had not considered the impor- assumptions about what constitutes organizational knowl-
tance of making these reports accessible for future use. edge. Consider the problem of knowledge ownership in
Another interpretation of the findings could be that the lack organizations. Who owns the knowledge that is produced in
of indexing, and therefore minimal accessibility, was an the process of work? There is a natural tension between
intentional or unintentional process of forgetting influenced individual ownership of knowledge versus yielding knowl-
by the “politics of forgetting”(Nissley & Casey, 2002) or as edge to the organization (Constant, Kiesler, & Sproull,
Sturken proposed “organized forgetting” or “strategic for- 1994; Gray, 2001). Power may also affect what is remem-
getting” (Sturken as cited in Nissley & Casey, 2002). bered (both purposefully and automatically) by organiza-
tional members (Nissley & Casey, 2002) in addition to the
power of the founder’s influence on organizational identity
Power, Memory, and Forgetting over time. The adaptive or nonadaptive effects of memory
The role of power in organizational memory and forgetting may be due to the extent to which change affects power
has not received much attention in the literature. Wexler’s relationships and how those who are affected evoke the
(2002) proposed multiple models of organizational memory, past to resist change or use it to adapt to everchanging
including a political resource model that frames the potential environments.
effects of power on organizational memory. Power dynam- Power is implicated in the theories of collective memory
ics are implicit in much empirical research on processes that are part of the well-developed work on the sociology of
associated with organizational memory and forgetting. For memory and commemoration. These theories address how
example, a key underlying assumption in theoretical and and why the past is recalled (Schwartz, 2000) across time
empirical work on memory in information systems (Anand, and cultures. Schwartz (2000) delineated three theoretical
Manz, & Glick, 1998; Stein & Zwass 1995), memory sys- approaches to the relationship between power and collective
tems (Olivera, 2000), product development (Moorman & memory. The revisionist approach proposes that the images
Miner, 1997), and organizational learning (Argote, 1999) is of historical figures are reconfigured to meet present needs,
that organizational memory can be managed and controlled with power as a major factor in how memory is reshaped. A
to be useful to organizational functioning. The emphasis in second approach posits that collective memory and power
this work is on understanding how organizational memory are grounded in multiculturalism and a way by which “the
can contribute to organizational effectiveness and how man- privileged maintain their hegemony” (Schwartz, 1997, p.
agers can “assess and control the effects of organizational 23), with power being diffused and memory emerging across
memory” (Stein, 1995, p. 17) with the goal of achieving “well networks of people. The third approach refutes the revision-
managed organizational memories” (Wijnhoven, 1999, p. 121). ist perspectives and proposes a compromise regarding how
This research has assumed that managers and organizational and why an event or person is recalled. Schwartz proposed
structures have the power and the privilege to control and that stories remain because they are part of a deeper and
manage how memory is used and structured. more permanent part of collective consciousness that spans
An extensive literature in organizational theory has rec- and connects generations in collectives. He expanded this
ognized the role of power in shaping organizational struc- idea with the premise that there is an essential tension
tures and processes (e.g., Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). However, between history or the factually based knowledge of the past
there has been relatively little work on how power affects in an organization and commemoration or remembering
organizational learning and related concepts (Vince, Sutcliffe, together past events. He asserts that this essential tension
& Olivera, 2002) such as organizational memory and forget- exists to preserve essential elements of the past as well as
ting. Power relations are likely to affect both the structure adapt to future environmental needs.
and functions of organizational memory. Power dynamics, Drawing from this well-developed work on memory
for instance, can shape the interactions among actors that are could expand our understanding of memory and forgetting.
the underpinnings of memory structures. Easterby-Smith Recent work such as R. M. Feldman and Feldman’s (2006)
and Lyles (2011 [this issue]), for example, draw our atten- essay on organizational remembering has begun to address
tion to how organizations may purposefully change social some of these avenues. R. M. Feldman and Feldman call for
structures to facilitate forgetting or unlearning. Martin de a reconceptualization of organizational memory to focus on
Holan (2011 [this issue]) also argues that the effectiveness of remembering as a “collective, historically and culturally sit-
voluntary forgetting will depend in part on the quality of uated practice” (p. 880) that is guided by traditions that are
agency exerted over various repositories of knowledge, includ- “heterogeneous, flexible and interconnected” (p. 881). They
ing social structures. These arguments highlight the potential take a critical approach that gives voice to multiple perspec-
of purposeful use of power and agency to shape what organi- tives and surfaces “socially contested issues such as power,
zations remember and forget. morality and reflexivity” (p. 861).
Casey and Olivera 309

Conclusions Casey, A., & Olivera, F. (2003). Learning from the past: Organiza-
tional memory and its implications for organizational learning.
Despite the intuitive appeal of organizational memory and Proceedings of the Organizational Learning: Fifth Interna-
forgetting, and the extensive attention that the former has tional Conference. Lancaster University, Lancaster, England,
received in the literature, we have seen little theoretical CD-ROM proceedings not paged.
development and empirical research on these constructs. Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1994). What’s mine is
This paucity in development is likely due in part of the com- ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing.
plexity of the constructs themselves and to the challenge of Information Systems Research, 5, 400-421.
conducting meaningful empirical research on constructs that Corbett, J. M. (2000). On being an elephant in the age of oblivion:
continue to be underspecified. Our approach in this article Computer-based information systems and organisational mem-
has been to identify areas that provide opportunities to ory. Information, Technology, and People, 13, 282-297.
develop our thinking on organizational memory and forget- Crossan, M., Cunha, M. P. E., Vera, D., & Cuhna, J. (2005). Time
ting. Specifically, we argue that we can improve our theoriz- and organizational improvisation. Academy of Management
ing about memory and forgetting by considering the dynamic Review, 30, 129-145.
nature of organizational knowledge, the role of time in how Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organiza-
organizations retain knowledge, and the role of power tional learning framework: From intuition to institution. Acad-
dynamics in what and how organizations choose to remem- emy of Management Review, 24, 522-537.
ber and forget. Although this is not meant to be an exhaus- Durkheim, E. (1985). The rules of the sociological method
tive list of topics, it represents areas where we can benefit (M. Thompson Trans.). In K. Thompson (Ed.), Readings from
from integrating theory and research that is underway in Emile Durkheim (pp. 63-89). New York, NY: Tavistock. (Orig-
related fields. inal work published in 1938)
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of con-
Authors’ Note tinuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611-629.
Authors are listed in alphabetical order. Both authors contributed Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing orga-
equally to this article. nizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94-118.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Feldman, R. M., & Feldman, S. P. (2006). What links the chain:
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to An essay on organizational remembering as practice. Organiza-
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. tion, 13, 860-887.
Gray, P. H. (2001). The impact of knowledge repositories on power
Funding and control in the workplace. Information Technology, & People,
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, 14, 368-384.
authorship, and/or publication of this article. Halbwachs, M. (1980). The collective memory (F. J. Ditter &
V. Y. Ditter, Trans.). New York, NY: Harpert Colophon
References Books. (Original work published in 1950)
Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1998). An organizational Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R., (1997). Technology brokering and
memory approach to information management. Academy of innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Sci-
Management Review, 23, 796-810. ence Quarterly, 42, 716-750.
Anderson, M. H., & Sun, P.Y.T. (2010). What have scholars Hatch, M. J. (2004). Dynamics in organizational culture. In
retrieved from Walsh and Ungson. (1991). A citation context M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organiza-
study. Management Learning, 41, 131-145. tional change and innovation (pp. 190-211). London, England:
Argote, L. (1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining Oxford University Press.
and transferring knowledge. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). Organizational identity dynam-
Publishers. ics. Human Relations, 55, 989-1018.
Campbell-Kelly, M. (1996). Information technology and organi- Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing pro-
zational change in the British census, 1801-1911. Information cesses and the literature. Organization Science, 2, 88-115.
Systems Research, 7, 22-36. Johnson, J., & Paper, D. J. (1998). An exploration of empowerment and
Casey, A. (1997). Collective memory in organizations. In P. Shrivastava, organizational memory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 10, 503-520.
A. Huff, & J. Dutton (series Eds.) & J. Walsh & A. Huff (Vol. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A levels approach to theory
Eds.), Advances in strategic management: Organizational and research in organizations. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski
learning and strategic management (Vol. 14, pp. 111-151). (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organiza-
Greenwich, CT: JAI. tions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Casey, A. (2010). The role of collective memory in organizational Lomi, A., Larsen, E. R., & Ginsberg, A. (1997). Adaptive learning
identity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Acad- in organizations: A system dynamics-based exploration. Journal
emy of Management, Montreal, Canada. of Management, 23, 561-583.
310 Journal of Management Inquiry 20(3)

Martin de Holan, P. M., & Phillips, N. (2004). Remembrance of Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing organizational mem-
things past? The dynamics of organizational forgetting. Man- ory with information systems. Information Systems Research,
agement Science, 50, 1603-1613. 6, 85-117.
Miller, S. B., & Olivera, F. (2006). The memory of mishaps in Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in con-
NASA. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual text: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Sci-
Meeting, August 2006, Atlanta, GA. ence Quarterly, 41, 685-719.
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. (1997). The impact of organizational Vince, R., Sutcliffe, K., & Olivera, F. (2002). Organizational
memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of learning: New directions. British Journal of Management, 13,
Marketing Research, 34, 91-106. S1-S7.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, P. (1991). Organizational memory. Acad-
function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel emy of Management Review, 16, 57-90.
research and theory development. Academy of Management Wexler, M. N. (2002). Organizational memory and intellectual
Review, 24, 249-266. capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3, 393-414.
Nissley, N., & Casey, A. (2002, September). The politics of the Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthen-
exhibition: Viewing corporate museums through the paradig- ing the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Manage-
matic lens of organizational memory. British Journal of Man- ment Inquiry, 15, 219-234.
agement, 13, S35-S46. Wijnhoven, F. (1999). Development scenarios for organizational
Olivera, F. (2000). Memory systems in organizations: An empirical memory information systems. Journal of Management Infor-
investigation of mechanisms for knowledge collection, storage mation Systems, 16, 121-147.
and access. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 811-832.
Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines Bios
as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, Andrea J. Casey, EdD, is an associate professor of human and
484-510. organizational learning at The George Washington (GW) University
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of orga- where she teaches managerial and organizational cognition, organi-
nizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: zational culture, and research courses in traditional and executive
Harper & Row. doctoral programs. Her research interests include organizational
Schwartz, B. (1997). Memory as a cultural system: Abraham Lin- memory and learning as well as organizational identity. Before
coln in World War I. International Journal of Sociology and joining the GW faculty in 2000, she was a consultant for more than
Social Policy, 1, 22 -57. 15 years to nonprofit and state and federal government organiza-
Schwartz, B. (2000). Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National tions focusing on organizational change, strategic planning, and
Memory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. leadership development.
Schwartz, B. (2005). The new Gettysburg Address: Fusing history
and memory. Poetics, 33, 63 -79. Fernando Olivera is an associate professor of organizational
Schwartz, B., & Schuman, H. (2000). The meanings of collective behavior at the Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of
memory. Newsletter of the Sociology of Culture Section, Ameri- Western Ontario. He holds a PhD in organizational behavior and
can Sociological Association, 14, 1 -3. theory, and an MS in industrial administration from Carnegie
Spender, J.-C. (1996). Organizational knowledge, learning and Mellon University. His research focuses on learning processes in
memory: Three concepts in search of a theory. Journal of Orga- organizations, including learning from errors, transfer of learning,
nizational Change Management, 9, 63-78. contribution behaviors, and organizational memory and forgetting.
Stein, E. W. (1995). Organizational memory: Review of concepts His research has been published in the Academy of Management
and recommendations for management. International Journal Review, Management Information Systems Quarterly, and Small
of Information Management, 15, 17-33. Group Research among other outlets.