Who matters for memory: Sources of institutional memory in international organization crisis management

Article

Abstract

Scholarship on organizational learning has explored how international organizations (IOs) reform but has paid little attention to the origins of institutional memory. For IOs engaged in crisis management operations, acquiring knowledge about strategic errors is necessary for adopting reforms that could save lives. This study seeks to identify the sources that affect whether or not IO elites will contribute knowledge to an IO’s institutional memory in crisis management. The study employs a survey experiment in the field on 120 NATO elites who decide on and plan operations. Findings indicate that when the United States introduces knowledge of a strategic error, NATO elites are significantly less likely to share it. This deterrent effect on knowledge-sharing illustrates an unexpected way in which the US influences international crisis management. The study also finds that an IO’s secretariat can somewhat increase elites’ likelihood of contributing to the IO’s institutional memory.

Keywords

Institutional memory NATO Crisis management International security Organizational learning United States International organization 

Supplementary material

11558_2017_9281_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.5 mb)
ESM 1(DOCX 3555 kb)
11558_2017_9281_MOESM2_ESM.do (14 kb)
ESM 2(DO 13 kb)
11558_2017_9281_MOESM3_ESM.dta (16 kb)
ESM 3(DTA 15 kb)

References

  1. Abbott, K., & Snidal, D. (1998). Why states act through formal international organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010). International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. The Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 315–344.Google Scholar
  3. Aberbach, J., & Rockman, B. (2002). Conducting and coding elite interviews. Political Science & Politics, 35(4), 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldrich, R. J. (2009). Global intelligence co-operation versus accountability: new facets to an old problem. Intelligence and National Security, 24(1), 26–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allegret, J.-P., & Dulbecco, P. (2006). The institutional failures of International Monetary Fund conditionality. The Review of International Organizations, 2(4), 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning, 42(4), 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Auerswald, D. P., & Saideman, S. M. (2014). NATO in Afghanistan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Avant, D. (2016). Netting the empire: Relationships and US roles governing small arms and military and security services. In D. Avant & O. Westerwinter (Eds.), The New Power Politics: Networks and Transnational Security Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Avant, D., & Sigelman, L. (2010). Private security and democracy: Lessons from the US in Iraq. Security Studies, 19(2), 230–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Axelrod, R., & Borzutzky, S. (2006). NATO and the war on terror: the organizational challenges of the post 9/11 world. The Review of International Organizations, 1(3), 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baldwin, R. (2016). The World Trade Organization and the future of multilateralism. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(1), 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the world. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Benner, T., Mergenthaler, S., & Rotmann, P. (2011). The new world of UN peace operations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berman, S. (2012). Ideational theorizing in the social sciences since “policy paradigms, social learning, and the state.” Governance, 26(2), 217–237.Google Scholar
  15. Blease, D. (2010). Lessons from NATO’s military missions in the western Balkans. Connect, 9(3), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Butler, D. M., et al. (2014). Ideology, learning, and policy diffusion: Experimental evidence. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4), 37–49.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, S. P. (2008). When process matters: The potential implications of organisational learning for peacebuilding success. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 4(2), 20–32.Google Scholar
  18. Cilliers, J., Boshoff, H., & Aboagye, F. (2010). Somalia: The intervention dilemma. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies.Google Scholar
  19. Clair, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2007). A “total” responsibility management approach to crisis management and signal detection in organizations. In International Handbook of Organizational Crisis Management (pp. 299–313). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  20. Daalder, I. H., & Lindsay, J. M. (2003). America unbound. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dafoe, A., Renshon, J., & Huth, P. (2014). Reputation and status as motives for war. Annual Review of Political Science, 17(1), 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Davies, P. H. (2001). Spies as Informants: Triangulation and the Interpretation of Elite Interview Data in the Study of the Intelligence and Security Services. Politics, 21(1), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dijkstra, H. (2012). Efficiency versus sovereignty: Delegation to the UN secretariat in peacekeeping. International Peacekeeping, 19(5), 581–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dijkstra, H. (2015). Functionalism, multiple principals and the reform of the NATO secretariat after the Cold War. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 128–145.Google Scholar
  25. Domke, D., et al. (2000). Elite messages and source cues: moving beyond partisanship. Political Communication, 17(4), 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dragojlovic, N. (2013). Leaders without Borders: Familiarity as a moderator of transnational source cue effects. Political Communication, 30(2), 297–316.Google Scholar
  27. Dreher, A., Sturm, J. E., & Vreeland, J. R. (2009). Global horse trading: IMF loans for votes in the United Nations Security Council. European Economic Review, 53(7), 742–757.Google Scholar
  28. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace and Janovich.Google Scholar
  30. Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Faleg, G. (2017). The EU's Common Security and Defence policy: Learning communities in international organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Findley, M. G., Nielson, D. L., & Sharman, J. C. (2013). Using field experiments in international relations: a randomized study of anonymous incorporation. International Organization, 67(04), 657–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Foot, R., MacFarlane, S. N., & Mastanduno, M. (Eds.). (2003). US hegemony and international organizations: The United States and multilateral institutions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Fortna, V. P., & Howard, L. M. (2008). Pitfalls and prospects in the peacekeeping literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gallup. (2003). Many Europeans oppose war in Iraq. USA Today. Available at: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-02-14-eu-survey.htm.
  36. George, A., Hall, D., & Simons, W. (1971). The limits of coercive diplomacy. Boston: Little Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  37. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments. New York: W W Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  38. Gherardi, S. (2009). Organizational knowledge. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  39. Goldsmith, B. E., & Horiuchi, Y. (2009). Spinning the globe? U.S. public diplomacy and foreign public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 71(03), 863–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gourlay, C. (2004). European Union procedures and resources for crisis management. International Peacekeeping, 11(3), 404–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gribble, R., et al. (2014). British public opinion after a decade of war: Attitudes to Iraq and Afghanistan. Politics, 35(2), 128–150.Google Scholar
  42. Gutner, T., & Thompson, A. (2010). The politics of IO performance: A framework. Review of International Organizations, 5, 227–248.Google Scholar
  43. Haas, E. (1990). When knowledge is power. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D., & Weinstein, J. (2009). Coethnicity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  45. Hafner-Burton, E., & Montgomery, A. (2008). Power or plenty: How do international trade institutions affect economic sanctions? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(2), 213–242.Google Scholar
  46. Hafner-Burton, E. M., Hughes, D. A., & Victor, D. G. (2013). The cognitive revolution and the political psychology of elite decision making. Perspectives on Politics, 11(02), 368–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hafner-Burton, E. M., et al. (2014). Decision maker preferences for international legal cooperation. International Organization, 68(04), 845–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hardt, H. (2013). Keep friends close but colleagues closer: Efficiency in the establishment of peace operations. Global Governance, 19, 377–399.Google Scholar
  49. Hardt, H. (2014). Time to react: The efficiency of international organizations in crisis response. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Hardt, H. (2016a). From states to secretariats: Delegation in the African Union Peace and Security Council. African Security, 9(3), 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hardt, H. (2016b). How NATO remembers: Explaining institutional memory in NATO crisis management. European Security, 25(5), 1–29.Google Scholar
  52. Harnisch, S. (2011). Conceptualizing in the minefield: Role theory and foreign policy learning. Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(1), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hayes, D., & Guardino, M. (2011). The influence of foreign voices on U.S. public opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 831–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Herrmann, R., & Choi, J. K. (2007). From prediction to learning: Opening experts’ minds to unfolding history. International Security, 31(4), 132–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hirschmann, G. (2012). Organizational learning in United Nations' peacekeeping exit strategies. Cooperation and Conflict, 47(3), 368–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Howard, L. M. (2008). UN peacekeeping in civil wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Hurd, I. (2008). After anarchy: Legitimacy and power in the United Nations security Council. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Johnson, T. (2014). Organizational progeny. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Kang, H., et al. (2011). Source cues in online news: Is the proximate source more powerful than distal sources? Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(4), 719–736.Google Scholar
  60. Kay, S., & Kahn, S. (2008). NATO and counter-insurgency: Strategic liability or tactical asset? Contemporary Security Policy, 28(1), 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Khong, Y. F. (1992). Analogies at war. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Knopf, J. (2003). The importance of international learning. Review of International Studies, 29, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kollars, N. (2014). Military innovation’s dialectic: Gun trucks and rapid acquisition. Security Studies, 23(4), 787–813.Google Scholar
  64. Kuklinski, J. H., & Hurley, N. L. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. The Journal of Politics, 56(3), 729–751.Google Scholar
  65. LaPalombara, J. (2003). The underestimated contributions of political science to organizational learning. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (p. 137–160). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Layne, C. (2000). US hegemony and the perpetuation of NATO. Journal of Strategic Studies, 23(3), 59–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lebovic, J. H., & Voeten, E. (2006). The politics of shame: The condemnation of country human rights practices in the UNCHR. International Studies Quarterly, 50(4), 861–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lebow, R. N. (2006). The memory of politics in postwar europe. In R. Lebow, W. Kansteiner & C. Fogu (Eds.), The politics of memory in postwar Europe (p. 1–39). Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Levy, J. S. (1994). Learning and foreign policy: Sweeping a conceptual minefield. International Organization, 48(02), 279–312.Google Scholar
  70. Lipson, M. (2010). Performance under ambiguity: International organization performance in UN peacekeeping. Review of International Studies, 5(3), 249–284.Google Scholar
  71. MacPhail, L., & Edmondson, A. (2011). Learning domains: The importance of work context in organizational learning from error. In D. Hofmann & M. Frese (Eds.), Errors in Organizations (p. 177–198). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  72. McDermott, R. (2011). New directions for experimental work in International Relations. International Studies Quarterly, 55, 503–520.Google Scholar
  73. Mintz, A., Redd, S. B., & Vedlitz, A. (2006). Can we generalize from student experiments to the real world in political science, military affairs, and international relations? Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(5), 757–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mintz, A., Yang, Y., & McDermott, R. (2011). Experimental approaches to international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 698–723.Google Scholar
  76. NATO. (2011). The NATO lessons learned handbook. Second Edition. Lisbon: NATO.Google Scholar
  77. NATO. (2015). Defence expenditures data for 2014 and estimates for 2015, Available at: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_120866.htm.
  78. Nicholson, S. P. (2011). Dominating cues and the limits of elite influence. The Journal of Politics, 73(04), 1165–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.Google Scholar
  80. Pillar, P. R. (2011). Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy: Iraq, 9/11, and Misguided Reform. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Pouliot, V. (2010). International security in practice: The politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Renshon, J. (2015). Losing face and sinking costs: experimental evidence on the judgment of political and military leaders. International Organization, 69(3), 659–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rynning, S. (2012). NATO in Afghanistan: The liberal disconnect. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Sagan, S. D. (1994). Organized for accidents. Security Studies, 3(3), 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sagan, S. D. (1995). The limits of safety. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Shellman, S. (2006). Process matters: Conflict and cooperation in sequential government-dissident interactions. Security Studies, 15(4), 563–599.Google Scholar
  87. Smith, H. (1994). Intelligence and UN peacekeeping. Survival, 36(3), 174–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stevenson, J. (2007). The Somali Model? The National Interest, 90, 41–45.Google Scholar
  89. Tansey, O. (2007). Process tracing and elite interviewing: A case for non-probability sampling. PS: Political Science and Politics, 4(4), 765–772.Google Scholar
  90. Weaver, C. (2010). The politics of performance evaluation: Independent evaluation at the International Monetary Fund. The Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 365–385.Google Scholar
  91. Weiss, T. G., & Thakur, R. (2010). Global Governance and the UN. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Yost, D. S. (2014). NATO’s balancing act. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, School of Social SciencesUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations