Abstract
Although the field of organizational unlearning has recently gained increased interest, its conceptual foundations and raison d’être are still debated. In this review, we aim to revisit various discourses and arguments to advance the understanding of organizational unlearning in management and organization studies. Using an integrative literature review approach with systematic elements, we examine the existing body of research on organizational unlearning. We review the literature from different perspectives, focusing on a process-based understanding in terms of why and how organizations intentionally discard knowledge. Based on our review, we develop an integrative framework that portrays organizational unlearning as a dynamically unfolding process over time. We propose implications and offer research directions that will allow future researchers to develop a more profound understanding of the concept.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Organizational unlearning implies that organizations intentionally and deliberately discard undesired, obsolete, or harmful knowledge—often to make room for the creation of new knowledge (Tsang and Zahra 2008). To this end, organizational unlearning can target different knowledge structures, such as systems, routines, basic assumptions, values, or norms. Moreover, it can occur in various contexts, such as innovation (Wang et al. 2013; Yang et al. 2014; Açıkgöz et al. 2021), mergers and acquisitions (Tsang 2008; Wang et al. 2017), organizational change (Grisold et al. 2020), and social care (Brook et al. 2016), among others.
Despite the considerable uptake of organizational unlearning in research, the concept has sparked controversy, primarily owing to its conceptual ambiguities (see Klein 1989; Martin de Holan 2011b; Howells and Scholderer 2016; Tsang 2017a, b; 1989); Klammer et al. 2019b). Along these lines, it has been argued that the term organizational unlearning conveys the impression that knowledge can be eliminated from organizations, essentially insinuating that targeted knowledge structures can be objectified and selectively erased (Turc and Baumard 2007; Howells and Scholderer 2016; Grisold et al. 2017). The main objection to these claims is that a large share of organizational knowledge is embedded in mental models, practices, and routines, which cannot be removed or taken out in any literal sense (e.g., Cowan et al. 2000; Tsoukas and Vladimirou 2001).
In response to these claims, emerging arguments emphasize that organizational unlearning should be understood as a process (e.g., Fiol and O’Connor 2017a, b; Grisold et al. 2017; Kluge and Gronau 2018; Peschl 2019; Burton et al. 2023). These arguments depart from the observation that organizational knowledge is deeply embedded in collective beliefs and routines. If some of these knowledge structures are to be unlearned, one has to focus on how they become less dominant over time. In other words, from a process-based perspective, organizational unlearning implies that organizational actors gradually reduce the influence of unwanted or harmful knowledge structures by blocking or preventing their enactment (Grisold et al. 2017; Kluge and Gronau 2018). As this process progresses, old knowledge becomes less likely to be used (and new knowledge, if any, becomes more likely to be used).
Such process-based views of unlearning evoke considerable interest in the field. They not only resonate with perspectives from other fields, such as psychology and cognitive sciences (e.g., Kluge and Gronau 2018; Peschl 2019; Haase et al. 2020), but also inform practical interventions to enable or support unlearning initiatives (Klammer et al. 2019a; Grisold et al. 2020). However, we lack a systematic understanding of what we know about the process behind organizational unlearning. Some open questions include the following: what does this process imply? How does it evolve? Why and when does it succeed or fail?
Existing reviews of organizational unlearning (e.g., Tsang and Zahra 2008; Klammer and Gueldenberg 2019; Sharma and Lenka 2022a, b) highlight various important aspects, but do not establish a process-based understanding of organizational unlearning. Hence, in this review, we pursue the following questions: what do we know about the process of organizational unlearning, and how can we synthesize existing perspectives? To answer these questions, we develop a multi-perspective and integrative view to explain how organizational unlearning evolves over time.
2 Review approach
We followed an integrative review approach, including systematic elements, to search for relevant literature. Due to the field’s fragmented understanding, we deem it necessary and suitable to bring different perspectives together to surface the nature of the concept, develop implications, and provide avenues for future research. This procedure is motivated by the observation that organizational unlearning is discussed within the broader realm of management and organization studies (MOS), but its conceptual assumptions and conversation topics remain within rather insulated communities in specific sub-fields, thereby fostering and reproducing different perspectives on the same concept.
We (the authors) ascribe ourselves as researchers in the broader field of MOS, although each of us has researched organizational unlearning from a different perspective, based on different scholarly communities. This enabled us to adopt different perspectives to examine the same phenomenon. We initially engaged in several rounds of discussion and sensemaking to establish our position and define the scope of our review (Cronin and George 2023). In the time between these discussions, each author conducted initial, non-systematic searches (Rojon et al. 2021) to bring in different perspectives. We then established our final position that organizational unlearning is a processual phenomenon warranting attention to the antecedents, outcomes, and dynamics of intentionally discarding undesired or outdated knowledge from organizations.
After establishing our position, we applied various systematic steps to build the foundation for our review (Tranfield et al. 2003). We searched for literature on organizational unlearning written in English from 1981 (Hedberg’s book chapter as the starting point) to February 2024. Using the keywords [organization* AND unlearn*], we conducted a title and abstract search in Web of Science, EBSCOhost (Business Source Premier), ProQuest (ABI/INFORM), and Elsevier (ScienceDirect) databases (n = 1104). Next, we merged all results from the databases into a list and, subsequently, deleted duplicate results (n = 759). In an initial review, we read all titles and abstracts and applied two specific criteria to exclude false positives. First, we removed literature from research fields that have no connection to the broader domain of MOS (e.g., clinical psychology). Second, we excluded studies that only serendipitously mentioned the term unlearning in the title or abstract (n = 246). Next, we screened and assessed the remaining full texts. At this stage, we identified literature that fell outside our scope. In doing so, we eliminated non-substantive works that use the term “unlearning” in the title or abstract, while not thoroughly addressing or discussing the phenomenon in the remainder of the paper (n = 88).
As an important additional step, we added an integrative dimension to maximize the comprehensiveness of our review. We conducted hand-searching, snow-balling, and citation-tracking to identify relevant literature that did not fit our search criteria and might have been missed (cf. Trullen et al. 2020). Additionally, we integrated literature from our respective communities to acquire different perspectives (cf. Cronin and George 2023). This approach allowed us to incorporate relevant literature beyond our initial, systematic search strings. In doing so, we illustrated that some works examine, at their core, intentional loss of knowledge in the context of MOS, without actually using the term unlearning (e.g., Polites and Karahanna 2012; Pentland et al. 2020), but are deemed useful to further the understanding of the phenomenon (n = 124) (Fig. 1).
We analyzed and synthesized the final sample using an Excel data extraction template to elicit both quantitative (e.g., authors, publication information) and qualitative (e.g., methodology, findings) information. In terms of the content, we identified relevant perspectives that previous researchers have used to empirically investigate and theorize about organizational unlearning, and which are relevant to examining organizational unlearning as a process.
3 Findings
3.1 Organizational unlearning as a process: Definitions and viewpoints
The concept’s raison d’être has been discussed from various perspectives. Starbuck (in: Nguyen 2017) explains the origins of unlearning as an organizational phenomenon in MOS. Hedberg and Starbuck observe that organizations find it difficult to adapt to crises and changing environments; they face failure, reluctance, or hesitancy to unlearn (e.g., Hedberg et al. 1976; Starbuck et al. 1978; Nystrom and Starbuck 1984; Starbuck 1996). While some assert that unlearning is subsumable under organizational learning (Huber 1991), or argue for its inclusion in the wider context of learning dynamics (Visser 2017), others recognize the merits of treating organizational unlearning as a distinct, isolated, and stand-alone phenomenon (Tsang 2017a, b; Becker 2019).
While terms, such as knowledge, dominant logics, or routines are loosely used to describe what organizational unlearning entails, existing studies fall short of clearly defining the kinds of knowledge structures being investigated, respectively unlearned. We found that cognitive and behavioral knowledge structures are two of the most widely used perspectives for pinpointing the locus of the unlearning process (Akgün et al. 2007b; Tsang and Zahra 2008). While the cognitive perspective describes how unlearning helps discard knowledge that has been collectively interpreted, the behavioral perspective refers to how routines, habits, or procedures are collectively abandoned (Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2011). The collective lens of shared beliefs and assumptions is thought to be a vital part of the unlearning process (Turc and Baumard 2007). Sinkula (2002) suggests that organizational unlearning starts with changing cognitive structures, mental models, dominant logics, and other core assumptions that guide behavior. In turn, organizations can destabilize and eliminate behaviors, such as routines, habits, or procedures (Martin de Holan and Phillips 2004b; Fiol and O’Connor 2017a, b).
Visser (2017) highlights the interplay of complex social processes as organizational unlearning necessitates individuals to let go of part of their identities as enacted practices are strongly connected to social identities (McKeown 2012). In addition, unlearning has also been explored from emotional (Pratt and Barnett 1997; Rushmer and Davies 2004) and normative perspectives (Yildiz and Fey 2010). Hence, organizational unlearning is a multi-faceted term yielding multiple associations regarding the dynamics of knowledge loss.
3.2 Organizational unlearning mechanisms and conceptualizations
Several studies aim to shed light on different mechanisms of unlearning explaining how organizations discard existing knowledge. Bowker (1997), for example, distinguishes between clearance and erasure of organizational knowledge. Similarly, unlearning has been described as the process by which organizational members gradually refrain from enacting existing routines over time by removing cues (Kluge and Gronau 2018). Organizations might unlearn through tailored interventions, such as inactivating specific knowledge structures or rivaling enforced enactment (Turc and Baumard 2007).
Several quantitative empirical studies investigate the mechanisms of organizational unlearning. For example, the “unlearning context,” introduced by Cegarra-Navarro and Sánchez-Polo (2008) includes sequential unlearning steps from the individual to the organizational level. This model has been widely used in other studies (e.g., Cegarra-Navarro et al. 2010, 2011a, b, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2021; Cepeda-Carrion et al. 2012a, b; Cegarra-Navarro and Cepeda-Carrion 2013; Ortega-Gutiérrez et al. 2015, 2022; Wensley and Cegarra-Navarro 2015; Cegarra-Navarro and Wensley 2019; Lyu et al. 2022). Akgün et al. (2006, 2007a, b) operationalize unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines, a conceptualization that has been used in several other studies (e.g., Wang et al. 2013, 2017; Yang et al. 2014; Xi et al. 2020; Zhao and Wang 2020).
Qualitative empirical studies paint a more fine-grained picture of unlearning mechanisms in organizations. Mechanisms to facilitate organizational unlearning might vary, depending on the timing of their occurrence or the desired outcomes of the process (e.g., Grisold et al. 2020; Xu et al. 2023). Rezazade Mehrizi and Lashkarbolouki (2016) outline the cognitive and behavioral dynamics of organizational unlearning when discarding troubled business models including the stages of realizing, revitalizing, parallelizing, and marginalizing. Similarly, Tsang (2008) finds organizational unlearning mechanisms at different stages of knowledge transfer to acquisition joint ventures. Stage-driven process models are often found in practitioner articles that typically provide advice on how managers can help their organizations unlearn as they follow a sequence of steps (Reese 2017; Klammer et al. 2019a; Govindarajan et al. 2020, 2021).
Another way to unpack organizational unlearning mechanisms is to sketch its recursive nature. The key assumption here is that unlearning is a fragile and highly dynamic process wherein discarding and learning activities unfold interchangeably (Nygren et al. 2017), or sometimes occur simultaneously (Fiol and O’Connor 2017a, b). Organizational unlearning cycles (Pratt and Barnett 1997; Cegarra-Navarro and Wensley 2019; Hamza-Orlinska et al. 2024) or spirals (Macdonald 2002; Grisold and Kaiser 2017) provide additional insights into the recursive nature of the process. Peschl (2019) argues that the exact process of unlearning cannot be defined; embracing an unknown future means to embark on an uncertain and emergent process.
Further, we identified studies that relate organizational unlearning to learning and relearning, often contextualized in sequential learning-unlearning-relearning steps (e.g., Azmi 2008; Rupcic 2019; Sharma and Lenka 2019; Zhao and Wang 2020). This idea stresses that unlearning occurs in relation to existing knowledge (prior learning) and relearning (new learning of knowledge). From this viewpoint, new learning cannot be acquired before established knowledge has been removed. Existing views on mechanisms and conceptualizations share the commonality that organizational unlearning is a process characterized by context-specific dynamics in terms of discarding and/or acquiring knowledge.
3.3 Levels of unlearning
We found different views regarding the levels as well as their interdependence and interplay during unlearning processes. Generally, unlearning is portrayed as an organizational phenomenon that helps describe learning, adaptation, and change, or how firms deal with crises (Nguyen 2017; Vu and Nguyen 2022). Researching organizational unlearning, however, also requires an understanding of individuals and groups, as organizations do not have cognitive capabilities per se (Hedberg 1981; Brooks et al. 2022).
For example, awareness and relinquishing capabilities are strongly connected to intentional knowledge loss of individuals (Becker 2008, 2010). Individual unlearning can also be described as a transformative journey of discernment including receptivity, recognition, and grieving (Macdonald 2002). Further, individual unlearning in organizational contexts has been typologized into routine unlearning, wiping, and deep unlearning depending on the depth of the discarding process (Rushmer and Davies 2004; Hislop et al. 2014).
A conceptual attempt to explain the interplay between different levels suggests that individual unlearning first promotes group and, subsequently, organizational unlearning, or vice versa (Zhao et al. 2013). We identified two viewpoints on how unlearning transfers across levels: top-down and bottom-up. The idea of unlearning as a top-down activity refers to instances wherein organizational decision-makers introduce changes that require individuals to discard existing assumptions, mental models, behaviors, or routines (e.g., Nystrom and Starbuck 1984; Martin de Holan et al. 2004; Martin de Holan and Phillips 2004a; Nguyen 2017; Grisold et al. 2020; Klammer 2021). On the other hand, unlearning as a bottom-up activity describes the effects of individuals’ decisions to discard existing knowledge structures of an organization (e.g., Becker 2008, 2010; Hislop et al. 2014; Matsuo 2019a). Additionally, we found studies that specifically deal with the individual level (Tanaka 2023; Yin 2023) or group levels (e.g., Akgün et al. 2006, 2007a; Klammer and Gueldenberg 2020; Açıkgöz et al. 2021). The process of organizational unlearning can differ significantly, depending on whether and how unlearning unfolds within or between different organizational levels and entities over time.
3.4 Timing of organizational unlearning
Existing research highlights how the process of unlearning depends on timing-related decisions. To ensure strategic resilience in a world of turbulence and uncertainty, organizations should take action before it is desperately needed, thus unlearning should be a proactive process (Morais-Storz and Nguyen 2017). Managers should be able to identify early warning signs of an inflection point, that is, a shift in the external environment causing change that alters the basic assumptions upon which a business is built (McGrath 2019; Sharma and Lenka 2024). An early warning system may help identify and unlearn basic assumptions that are no longer applicable (McGrath and Euchner 2020).
Numerous studies indicate, however, that this approach can be challenging. First, it is difficult to anticipate the exact timing of environmental change (Martignoni and Keil 2021) to initiate the process of organizational unlearning. Second, organizations might find it difficult to find and adopt new operating methods because they have become firmly dependent on past methods (Starbuck 2017; Snihur 2018) and might be stuck in competence traps due to inertia arising from prior success (Leonard-Barton 1992). Third, it is not easy to tell whether companies render an old belief obsolete (Nguyen 2017), because it can often only be known retrospectively if an organization’s belief has become obsolete and, therefore, should have been discarded (Martignoni and Keil 2021). Fourth, unlearning requires a collective decision-making process, challenged by specialized personnel, who see their careers as tied to existing strategies and their core beliefs (Starbuck 2017).
We found two conflicting paradigms regarding the timing of organizational unlearning: (i) the reactive paradigm, which suggests that unlearning can only take place after noticeable failures or major interruptions, and (ii) the proactive paradigm, which implies that unlearning should occur prior to inflection points. We observed that many empirical studies empirically investigate organizational unlearning from the perspective of the reactive paradigm. For example, organizations tend to introduce technical and organizational change only after the occurrence of catastrophic failures, as in the case of NASA during the Challenger disaster (Starbuck and Milliken 1988). Conversely, only very few studies investigate proactive unlearning approaches at the organizational level. For example, Burt and Nair (2020) investigate how an organization proactively discards deeply held assumptions about its business logic, and thus initiates strategic change. Hence, the point of initiating the purposeful discarding of knowledge seems vital to navigating unlearning processes in organizations.
3.5 Critical views of organizational unlearning
We also found that critical approaches shed light on the process of organizational unlearning. These approaches are considered “critical” because they fit in with what Fournier and Grey (2000; cf. Alakavuklar and Alamgir 2018) called “non-performative intent,” an important theme in critical management studies. In general, they highlight the importance of unlearning, but reject “the instrumental and performative use of unlearning in the sole service of attaining organizational goals” in the neoliberal system (Visser 2017, p. 49). In this regard, these views differ from many other MOS approaches to organizational unlearning.
Although Contu et al. (2003, p. 934) do not directly address the concept itself, they offer a useful starting point for the critical understanding of organizational unlearning in MOS and identify two central issues as learning can become “antithetical:” to learn is to disorganize and increase variety, but to organize is to reduce variety. That is, learning can be used as a tool to enhance organizational performance, but it can also have a wider impact beyond managerial concerns and may violate the common social good. These views have important implications for a critical understanding of the organizational unlearning process.
Brook et al. (2016, p. 371) contend that there is a cultural tendency to see learning as an unquestionably “good thing,” which altogether is exacerbating rather than resolving the problems confronting business and societies (cf. Contu et al. 2003; Hsu 2013). In Brook et al.’s (2016) account, organizational unlearning is a necessity because it not only problematizes the self-evident, positive views of learning, but also reveals the political nature of learning; they applied the concept of organizational unlearning in the field of (critical) action learning and argue that unlearning is particularly relevant to address “wicked problems,” like global warming.
Drawing upon Foucault’s (1991) governmentality, Chokr (2009, p. 61) perceives unlearning as a reflective, enduring capability for individuals “not to be governed” by “the illusory world of all the ideas, notions and, beliefs that hem, jostle, whirl, confuse and oppress them.” Ultimately, for Chokr (2009, p. 49), unlearning should generate “well-trained minds and individuals capable of questioning, critical thinking, imagination, creativity and self-reflective deliberation as engaged citizens.” Pedler and Hsu (2014) apply this approach to MOS and suggest that power is an inseparable, unmanageable, and uncontrollable dimension of learning, and that unlearning implies an individual’s capability to recognize the inevitable power relations in the process of learning, and making ethical judgments over time. Hsu (2021) articulates three capabilities implied by an on-going attempt of unlearning in the field of management education: the capability to think differently, to approach knowledge autonomously, and to act as self-governed, self-reflective, self-engaged citizens.
Antonacopoulou (2009, p. 424) views unlearning as an on-going practice of “asking different questions by extending the outcomes sought” which is “in sharp contrast to previous conceptualizations” to remove “old knowledge in favour of new knowledge.” Unlearning ought to trigger “difference” (Deleuze 1994). Hsu (2013) contends that unlearning, as a practice, bears liberating and emancipatory implications as it enables individuals to develop a capability to problematize institutionalized ideologies and actions; epistemologically, unlearning assists the rediscovery of what Foucault (1980) called “subjugated knowledge.” Such subjugated knowledge may include that wisdom has been marginalized within predominant theories and practices, for example, the wisdom of non-action (Hsu 2013). Drawing upon a feminist, de-colonial, and arts-based perspective, Krauss (2019) views unlearning as a collective practice that assists individuals in creating alternative forms of living while breaking with the promise of economic advancement and growth. Taken together, these views suggest that the process of organizational unlearning requires several skills and practices associated with the capability or possibility of individuals and collectives to question and discard knowledge.
3.6 Summary of key findings
The following table provides an overview of the key points of each perspective in the process of organizational unlearning (Table 1). Our findings form the foundation of the implications, the integrative framework as well as future research directions.
4 Implications
The current body of literature shares three common underlying assumptions about the concept:
-
(1)
Organizational unlearning is perceived as a process that is based on an organization’s intention to discard—often multiple and intertwined—existing organizational knowledge structures;
-
(2)
Organizational unlearning evolves through mechanisms that assume different shapes and forms, depend significantly on the context, and are mostly introduced reactively to ensure organizational survival during crises, facilitate organizational change and learning, and improve innovativeness; and
-
(3)
Organizational unlearning is regarded as a highly complex organizational phenomenon as it dynamically unfolds within and across multiple levels, such as groups or individuals.
Our review, however, also reveals that the concept of organizational unlearning is imbalanced and fragmented (cf. Martin de Holan and Phillips 2011; Klammer and Gueldenberg 2019) which has led to its contestation (cf. Klein 1989; Howells and Scholderer 2016; Tsang 2017a, b), because our understanding of how unlearning unfolds in organizational settings over time is still vague.
Three issues stand out. First, studies use different underlying assumptions about the concept, each typically arising from and remaining within its own domain. Using different terminologies (e.g., intentional forgetting, unlearning) or using the same terminology to describe different underlying assumptions about unlearning (e.g., unlearning following a sequential, recursive, or dialectic logic) leads to discrepancies and hampers our understanding of the concept. This also pertains to the process of unlearning; for instance, do organizations try to overwrite established knowledge by enacting new knowledge, or is knowledge aimed to be erased? Second, existing literature tends to focus on specific aspects of organizational unlearning (e.g., levels, antecedents, outcomes) without setting studies in a wider context, thereby leading to fragmentation. This perpetuates existing conceptual issues regarding the process of unlearning. Third, and in contrast to the previous point, other studies disregard the clarification of underlying assumptions about organizational unlearning (e.g., problematization or clearly defining levels), fostering a lack of decipherability.
We find that literature lacks an encompassing perspective that synthesizes existing conceptualizations and empirical studies to clarify why unlearning occurs, what it entails, and how the process actually unfolds. We propose and visualize an integrative framework that considers the issues outlined above and incorporates various fragments and streams in the field of organizational unlearning. To build a framework that is applicable across all communities within MOS, we assert that viewing unlearning as a process and making the concept dynamic are key to bringing different perspectives together. In the following, we articulate and discuss four implications that help future studies navigate through the profound and dynamic nature of organizational unlearning.
4.1 Implication 1: Organizational unlearning involves multiple levels
Unlearning entails a profound interdependence and interplay between and within different levels of an organization. However, existing research reflects a distinction between levels, with studies typically focusing on the individual level (Hislop et al. 2014; Matsuo 2018, 2019a, b), the group level (Akgün et al. 2006; Lee and Sukoco 2011; Klammer and Gueldenberg 2020), or the organizational level (Yang et al. 2014; Snihur 2018). Whether initiated top-down or bottom-up (Klammer et al. 2019a; Padan and Nguyen 2020; Grisold et al. 2020), unlearning cannot be perceived as an isolated phenomenon. It dynamically and sometimes even simultaneously affects all entities including individuals, groups as well as the entire organization. Literature highlights the vital role of individuals and groups in the process of unlearning (Zhao et al. 2013; Hislop et al. 2014; Kluge 2023); since these claims are conceptual, however, we know little about the dynamics that unfold across these levels.
We suggest that the unlearning process manifests at all organizational levels. It is crucial to stress that in order to understand unlearning at the collective level, one cannot aggregate and extrapolate individual-level cognitive processes (Grisold and Kaiser 2017). Rather, collective unlearning involves complex feedback mechanisms that either reinforce or diminish the influence of old knowledge on organizational practices, which, in turn, spills over to collective activities (e.g., Crossan et al. 1999).
4.2 Implication 2: Motives behind organizational unlearning need to be translated into interventions
Organizational unlearning is enabled by intentional interventions that specifically aim to support the process of discarding obsolete knowledge structures over time. Several empirical studies offer initial insights into the workings and dynamics of interventions as mechanisms of organizational unlearning.
Perhaps the most challenging and complex intervention is to reduce the influence of old knowledge over time. While explicit, codified knowledge, such as written rules and regulations can be discarded relatively easily, implicit knowledge structures, like assumptions, beliefs, values, or norms are unequally harder to be unlearned. For this intervention, it is important to eliminate retrieval cues that make individuals draw less from old knowledge or habits over time (Kluge and Gronau 2018). This also holds true when no new knowledge should be implemented; reducing the influence of old knowledge is key in discarding an organization’s obsolete cognitive and behavioral knowledge structures to free up space for future possibilities (Peschl 2019). Combining both approaches, appreciative inquiry, for example, can facilitate the discarding of old knowledge while simultaneously addressing the creation of new knowledge (Srithika and Bhattacharyya 2009). Additionally, the benefits of the “new” should be constantly reinforced through feedback and clear communication (Grisold et al. 2020).
4.3 Implication 3: Processes of organizational unlearning differ in form, antecedents, and outcomes
We suggest that antecedents can be based on reactive and proactive grounds, and that the (desired) outcomes of organizational unlearning can only be fully known once the process has been completed. Generally, scholars promote the understanding that organizational unlearning is a reactive phenomenon (Snihur 2018) typically triggered by problems (Hedberg 1981; Nystrom and Starbuck 1984) or different cues (Sinkula 2002). More recent studies show that organizational unlearning also entails a proactive dimension and is advantageous when executed proactively (Morais-Storz and Nguyen 2017). In terms of outcomes and consequences, unlearning is generally perceived as a positive phenomenon. It is regarded as a facilitator of organizational change (e.g., Johannessen and Hauan 1994; Turc and Baumard 2007; Martin de Holan 2011a; Mull et al. 2023; van Oers et al. 2023; Hamza-Orlinska et al. 2024) and an enabler of innovation and innovative behavior (e.g., Becker 2008; Cepeda-Carrion et al. 2012a; Leal-Rodríguez et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2022; Zhao et al. 2022; Klammer et al. 2023).
Researchers have seldom questioned the positive value of organizational unlearning. However, as knowledge is intertwined throughout the organization and embedded in assumptions, world views, values, habits, routines, processes, etc., unlearning specific knowledge structures might lead to a decrease of value or functioning of other parts (Zahra et al. 2011). Therefore, it is difficult to judge the value of (to-be) discarded knowledge. Organizational unlearning prompts a clash between the past, present, and future and involves different elements, such as culture, assumptions, beliefs, structures, strategies, routines, or habits. Hence, and contrary to managerial expectations (Govindarajan et al. 2021), the outcome of organizational unlearning can only be fully understood once the process is complete.
4.4 Implication 4: Prevalent organizational contexts highly influence the unlearning process
Researchers need to acknowledge that organizational unlearning comes with different reasons, decisions, and strategies. Studying idiosyncratic features of a given organizational context contrasts with the prevalent focus in organizational unlearning research. Some studies provide in-depth insights about how unlearning unfolds in a specific organizational context (Martin de Holan and Phillips 2004b; Rezazade Mehrizi and Lashkarbolouki 2016; Burt and Nair 2020). The contexts or situated features in which unlearning occurs, however, remain elusive as the main interest is often placed on abstract sequences or phases that characterize unlearning (e.g., Nygren et al. 2017; Cegarra-Navarro et al. 2021; Kim and Park 2022). This comes at the cost of understanding how organizational unlearning actually unfolds and what elements it entails.
Empirical studies that embrace the processes through which organizational phenomena unfold typically find that these processes are tied to the specific situated context of organizations (Langley et al. 2013). Based on this line of thinking, we argue that the elaboration of an empirically examined unlearning process should be tied to its organizational context and other prevailing situated features.
We summarize and visualize our implications in an integrative framework (Fig. 2) to highlight the characteristics of the organizational unlearning process. Unlearning in organizations depends on a variety of factors that can alter the course of the process. In the following, we propose future research avenues that can further our understanding of organizational unlearning.
5 Future research directions
5.1 Forging organizational unlearning research as process-based studies
Discarded knowledge that has once been enacted in organizations is difficult to capture. Researchers have attempted to capture this process using cross-sectional surveys (e.g., Sheaffer and Mano-Negrin 2003). We believe that—although efforts to operationalize unlearning are immensely valuable—existing questionnaires fall short of capturing the full extent of the organizational unlearning process; not capturing the full extent of unlearning does not allow for explaining non-linear dynamics that underlie the process (e.g., actors may find it more difficult to unlearn initially, but it becomes significantly easier after knowledge has been used less often). We assert that researchers need to study the concept more profoundly and longitudinally by examining different antecedents, processes, interventions, outcomes, levels, knowledge structures, and so on, from a process-based perspective (Langley and Tsoukas 2017). This can be achieved through methods, such as ethnography or case study research, that capture discarded knowledge and allow for a deep observation of the organizational unlearning process.
New research methods for generating insightful data may contribute to a clearer understanding of the phenomenon. One of the issues in survey-based research, for example, is knowledge retrieval; asking subjects if they currently need to unlearn, or have unlearned knowledge recently, might trigger an association with old knowledge. Hence, the process of unlearning could be disturbed. Methods that track the development and paths of knowledge to make it more explicit are especially interesting (Kluge et al. 2019).
Turning to research methods in digital environments, for example, may allow researchers to generate fresh insights into organizational unlearning. The increasing availability of digital trace data, i.e., digital footprints that are automatically recorded whenever actors use information technology, such as ERP systems (Pentland et al. 2020) or online platforms (Lindberg et al. 2016), renders promising opportunities. Digital trace data are considered particularly useful by organizational researchers because they provide an unobtrusive and unbiased way of studying organizational work (e.g., Berente et al. 2019). Using digital trace data to study unlearning processes allows researchers to gain an accurate picture of the more and less frequently adopted actions, and how processes change over time (e.g., before and after an unlearning-related intervention). Therefore, using digital trace data could open entirely new avenues for investigating organizational unlearning. Researchers could conduct in-depth analyses to examine whether, and/or how, interventions yield desired outcomes, undesired routines vanish, or single actions disappear over time.
Process-based studies can also shed a more nuanced light on mechanisms, antecedents, or outcomes (Langley et al. 2013). Our findings on the timing of unlearning imply that organizations, although seldom investigated empirically, do not always wait until they have no other choice but to unlearn. This challenges the assumption that organizational unlearning is caused exclusively by endogenous or exogenous shocks and, in turn, raises questions about the antecedents and expected outcomes of the process. Diagnosing antecedents and outcomes seems to be a major challenge, often because we can only observe organizational unlearning retrospectively.
If organizations understand how knowledge abandonment can help them achieve specific goals, they can design a setup for the type of unlearning that matches their objectives. For example, for organizations that want to improve gradually and continuously, shallow unlearning would be a good option because it contributes to day-to-day adaptation without destroying operational stability. Organizations that want to challenge their deeply held beliefs or taken-for-granted assumptions might require a proactive and deep unlearning approach. Following this line of thinking, we suggest for future studies to focus on the dynamic nature of the concept to highlight the specific facets and interventions of organizational unlearning processes, and provide in-depth explanations of how organizations intentionally refrain from using old knowledge over time. Focusing on such dynamics might also provide fresh perspectives on the interdependence and interplay at different organizational levels. These insights are needed, from our point of view, to strengthen the conceptual understanding of the organizational unlearning phenomenon, and demarcate it from related concepts, such as organizational learning and change (Howells and Scholderer 2016).
5.2 Highlighting contextual features and the nature of the unlearning process
Putting increased focus on the context of an organization may shed light on how or why organizations detach from—or keep adhering to—old routines, assumptions, and beliefs. Foregrounding the idiosyncratic features of old knowledge and how they are tied to the context of an organization might inform the design of effective interventions in a given situation. As such, unlearning interventions have both explanatory and normative value for organizational unlearning research. From an explanatory perspective, focusing on the context of unlearning interventions enables researchers to outline why an unlearning process unfolds the way it does. Differences in the width and depth of unlearning interventions, paired with the desired outcomes of the process, may explain how organizations intentionally remove knowledge from points A to B in a specific context. From a normative perspective, the awareness of contextual features can guide organizations, policy-makers, and other stakeholders in initiating and guiding different unlearning processes.
This also corresponds with emerging claims that MOS researchers should increasingly engage in real-world problem solving (e.g., Hideg et al. 2020; Howard-Grenville 2021). For example, scholars in the field of MOS have increasingly focused on grand challenges, questioning how organizations can effectively address complex social and environmental threats (e.g., Ambos and Tatarinov 2022; Voegtlin et al. 2022; Sele et al. 2024). One underlying theme in this stream of research is that organizations need to replace their established logics and routines, which are often profit-oriented, with new and more conducive ones. The transition from old to new ways of doing things, however, rarely works smoothly. Several studies have found that organizations tend to fall back on old detrimental knowledge as they tackle grand challenges (e.g., Wright and Nyberg 2017; van Wijk et al. 2020). Focusing on contextual features and the in-situ nature of unlearning processes helps researchers understand the latent, sub-conscious facets of why knowledge abandonment might or might not unfold in a given situation.
5.3 Spotlighting power, power relations, and politics in unlearning processes
Critical perspectives of unlearning, informed by critical management studies, problematize the predominant managerial understanding of organizational unlearning, because they recognize that the process is highly power-laden. Such views differ from the vast majority of existing unlearning literature. While critical perspectives do not forsake the idea of unlearning and learning, they suggest that these processes may have far-reaching effects, for which organizations and managers purport to take responsibility. However, to date, critical views of unlearning have had little impact on mainstream MOS literature, but may enrich the aforementioned research possibilities.
First, future studies could focus on the power relations embedded in the process of organizational unlearning. For instance, managerial intervention in the unlearning process inevitably reflects different interests and may generate resistance because unlearning, like learning, is also a socially constructed entity with relations of power (Pedler and Hsu 2014). It is important to understand the different stakeholders and organizational politics involved in this process, including the beneficiaries and victims of organizational unlearning. Second, the critical views of unlearning may legitimize what Pedler and Hsu (2019) called an “alternative paradigm” of learning organizations. Future studies could explore how the unlearning process stimulates incompatible organizational purpose that collides with the prevailing one. Researchers may also explore different forms of wisdom and their relationship with organizational unlearning, and how unlearning helps inspire alternative organizational realities.
6 Practical implications
Organizational unlearning, particularly seen as a process that evolves over time, has significant practical implications for how organizations progress, innovate, and adapt to changing environments. By actively unlearning outdated or inefficient practices, organizations can adopt innovative methods and technologies more effectively (Di Maria et al. 2023). This process is crucial in rapidly changing industries where clinging to old ways can be a significant disadvantage. Unlearning, when understood as an on-going and persistent effort, helps to create a culture of agility and flexibility. Organizations become more adept at responding to market changes, customer needs, and emerging trends.
Furthermore, leaders and managers play a crucial role in initiating, modelling, and facilitating unlearning. This process calls for adaptable and self-aware leaders capable of challenging the status quo. It also requires them to be effective communicators in guiding their teams through unlearning processes. Organizational unlearning encourages a culture of critical thinking and open-mindedness, which is essential for strategic planning and problem-solving. To summarize, understanding organizational unlearning as an on-going effort requires deliberate strategies and a supportive organizational culture as it involves systematic approaches to identify what needs to be unlearned, mechanisms to facilitate the unlearning process, and the integration of new learning and knowledge into an organization's operations.
7 Conclusion
Our review of the existing literature in the broader context of MOS and its respective domains reveals a fragmented field of organizational unlearning, including studies based on different underlying assumptions about the concept. To bring different viewpoints together and highlight concerns about the phenomenon, we propose implications and possible future research directions that will help researchers navigate through the jungle of different understandings of unlearning. Table 2 presents exemplary research questions that can serve as starting points for future research. Organizational unlearning is best understood and researched as an intentionally initiated and dynamically unfolding process that aims to discard or reduce undesired knowledge structures over time.
Data availability
The authors do not generate new datasets in this literature review. All articles and works included in this literature review can be accessed through the databases mentioned in the text.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate works analyzed in the literature review.
*Açıkgöz A, Demirkan I, Latham GP, Kuzey C (2021) The relationship between unlearning and innovation ambidexterity with the performance of new product development teams. Group Decis Negot 30:945–982
*Akgün AE, Lynn GS, Byrne JC (2006) Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development teams. J Prod Innov Manag 23:73–88
*Akgün AE, Byrne JC, Lynn GS, Keskin H (2007a) New product development in turbulent environments: impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance. J Eng Technol Manag 24:203–230
*Akgün AE, Byrne JC, Lynn GS, Keskin H (2007b) Organizational unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines in organizations. J Organ Change Manag 20:794–812
*Alakavuklar ON, Alamgir F (2018) Ethics of resistance in organisations: a conceptual proposal. J Bus Ethics 149:31–43
Ambos TC, Tatarinov K (2022) Building responsible innovation in international organizations through intrapreneurship. J Manag Stud 59:92–125
*Antonacopoulou EP (2009) Impact and scholarship: unlearning and practising to co-create actionable knowledge. Manag Learn 40:421–430
*Azmi FT (2008) Mapping the learn-unlearn-relearn model: imperatives for strategic management. Eur Bus Rev 20:240–259
*Becker KL (2008) Unlearning as a driver of sustainable change and innovation: three Australian case studies. Int J Technol Manag 42:89–106
*Becker KL (2010) Facilitating unlearning during implementation of new technology. J Organ Change Manag 23:251–268
*Becker KL (2019) Organizational unlearning: the challenges of a developing phenomenon. Learn Organ 26:534–541
Berente N, Seidel S, Safadi H (2019) Research commentary––data-driven computationally intensive theory development. Inf Syst Res 30:50–64
*Bowker GC (1997) Lest we remember: organizational forgetting and the production of knowledge. Account Manag Inf Technol 7:113–138
*Brook C, Pedler M, Abbott C, Burgoyne J (2016) On stopping doing those things that are not getting us to where we want to be: unlearning, wicked problems and critical action learning. Hum Relat 69:369–389
*Brooks J, Grugulis I, Cook H (2022) Unlearning and consent in the UK Fire and Rescue Service. Hum Relat 75:2300–2317
*Burt G, Nair AK (2020) Rigidities of imagination in scenario planning: strategic foresight through ‘unlearning.’ Technol Forecast Soc Change 153:119927
*Burton N, Vu MC, Hawkins M (2023) Secular discernment: a process of individual unlearning and collective relearning. Manag Learn 54:680–704
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Cepeda-Carrion G (2013) Implementing telemedicine technologies through an unlearning context in a homecare setting. Behav Inf Technol 32:80–90
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Sánchez-Polo MT (2008) Linking the individual forgetting context with customer capital from a seller’s perspective. J Oper Res Soc 59:1614–1623
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Wensley AKP (2019) Promoting intentional unlearning through an unlearning cycle. J Organ Change Manag 32:67–79
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Eldridge S, Martinez-Martinez A (2010) Managing environmental knowledge through unlearning in Spanish hospitality companies. J Environ Psychol 30:249–257
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Cepeda-Carrion G, Eldridge S (2011a) Balancing technology and physician–patient knowledge through an unlearning context. Int J Inf Manag 31:420–427
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Sánchez-Vidal ME, Cegarra-Leiva D (2011b) Balancing exploration and exploitation of knowledge through an unlearning context: an empirical investigation in SMEs. Manag Decis 49:1099–1119
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Martinez-Martinez A, Ortega-Gutiérrez J, Leal-Rodríguez AL (2013) Environmental knowledge, unlearning, and performance in hospitality companies. Manag Decis 51:341–360
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Eldridge S, Wensley AKP (2014) Counter-knowledge and realized absorptive capacity. Eur Manag J 32:165–176
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Sánchez-Vidal ME, Cegarra-Leiva D (2016) Linking unlearning with work-life balance: an initial empirical investigation into SMEs. J Small Bus Manag 54:373–391
*Cegarra-Navarro JG, Wensley AKP, Batisic S, Evans M, Cubillas Para C (2021) Minimizing the effects of defensive routines on knowledge hiding though unlearning. J Bus Res 137:58–68
*Cepeda-Carrion G, Cegarra-Navarro JG, Jimenez-Jimenez D (2012a) The effect of absorptive capacity on innovativeness: context and information systems capability as catalysts. Brit J Manag 23:110–129
*Cepeda-Carrion G, Cegarra-Navarro JG, Martinez-Caro E (2012b) Improving the absorptive capacity through unlearning context: an empirical investigation in hospital-in-the-home units. Serv Ind J 32:1551–1570
*Chokr NN (2009) Unlearning or ‘How NOT To Be Governed?’ Societas, Charlottesville
*Contu A, Grey C, Örtenblad A (2003) Against learning. Hum Relat 56:931–952
Cowan R, David PA, Foray D (2000) The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Ind Corp Change 9:211–253
Cronin MA, George E (2023) The why and how of the integrative review. Organ Res Methods 26:186–192
Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE (1999) An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Acad Manag Rev 24:522–537
*Deleuze G (1994) Difference and repetition. Athlone Press, London
Di Maria M, Walter D, Schoormann T, Knackstedt R (2023) Practical support for unlearning—a systematic review to organize the field. In: Aenestad M, Klein S, Tarafdar M (eds) Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Information Systems
*Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (2011) In praise of organizational forgetting. J Manag Inq 20:311–316
*Fiol CM, O’Connor EJ (2017a) Unlearning established organizational routines—Part I. Learn Organ 24:13–29
*Fiol CM, O’Connor EJ (2017b) Unlearning established organizational routines—Part II. Learn Organ 24:82–92
*Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Pantheon Books, New York
Foucault M (1991) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Penguin Books, London
*Fournier V, Grey C (2000) At the critical moment: conditions and prospects from critical management studies. Hum Relat 53:7–32
Govindarajan V, Srivastava A, Grisold T, Klammer A (2020) COVID-imposed opportunity to selectively unlearn past practices. In: California Management Review Insight. https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2020/10/selective-unlearning. Accessed 2 March 2023
Govindarajan V, Srivastava A, Grisold T, Klammer A (2021) Resist old routines when returning to the office. In: Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/05/resist-old-routines-when-returning-to-the-office. Accessed 3 March 2023
*Grisold T, Kaiser A (2017) Leaving behind what we are not: applying a systems thinking perspective to present unlearning as an enabler for finding the best version of the self. J Organ Transform Soc Change 14:39–55
*Grisold T, Klammer A, Kragulj F (2020) Two forms of organizational unlearning: insights from engaged scholarship research with change consultants. Manag Learn 51:598–619
*Grisold T, Kaiser A, Hafner J (2017) Unlearning before creating new knowledge: A cognitive process. In: Bui TX, Sprague Jr. R (eds) Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp 4614–4623
Haase J, Matthiesen J, Schüffler AS, Kluge A (2020) Retentivity beats prior knowledge as predictor for the acquisition and adaptation of new production processes. In: Bui TX, Sprague Jr. R (eds) Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, New York, pp 4796–4805
*Hamza-Orlinska A, Maj J, Shantz A, Vassilopoulou J (2024) Unlearning diversity management. J World Bus 59:101519
*Hedberg BLT (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn. In: Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH (eds) Handbook of organizational design: adapting organizations to their environments. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–27
*Hedberg BLT, Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH (1976) Camping on seesaws: prescriptions for a self-designing organization. Adm Sci Q 21:41–65
Hideg I, DeCelles KA, Tihanyi L (2020) From the editors: publishing practical and responsible research in AMJ. Acad Manag J 63:1681–1686
*Hislop D, Bosley S, Coombs CR, Holland J (2014) The process of individual unlearning: a neglected topic in an under-researched field. Manag Learn 45:540–560
Howard-Greenville J (2021) Grand challenges, Covid-19 and the future of organizational scholarship. J Manag Stud 58:254–258
*Howells J, Scholderer J (2016) Forget unlearning? How an empirically unwarranted concept from psychology was imported to flourish in management and organization studies. Manag Learn 47:443–463
*Hsu S-w (2013) Alternative learning organization. In: Örtenblad A (ed) Handbook of research on the learning organization: adaptation and context. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 358–371
*Hsu S-w (2021) Exploring an alternative: Foucault-Chokr’s unlearning approach to management education. Int J Manag Educ 19:100496
Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organ Sci 2:88–115
*Johannessen JA, Hauan A (1994) Organizational unlearning. Create Innov Manag 3:43–53
*Kim EJ, Park S (2022) Unlearning in the workplace: antecedents and outcomes. Hum Resour Dev Q 33:273–296
*Klammer A (2021) Embracing organisational unlearning as a facilitator of business model innovation. Int J Innov Manag 25:2150061
*Klammer A, Gueldenberg S (2019) Unlearning and forgetting in organizations: a systematic review of literature. J Knowl Manag 23:860–888
*Klammer A, Gueldenberg S (2020) Honor the old, welcome the new: an account of unlearning and forgetting in NPD teams. Eur J Innov Manag 23:581–603
*Klammer A, Grisold T, Gueldenberg S (2019a) Introducing a “stop-doing” culture: How to free your organization from rigidity. Bus Horiz 62:451–458
*Klammer A, Grisold T, Nguyen N (2019b) Guest editorial: opportunities and interdisciplinary perspectives for organizational unlearning. Learn Organ 26:445–453
*Klammer A, Hora W, Kailer N (2023) Opposites attract: How incumbents learn and unlearn in coopetitive relationships with start-ups. Ind Mark Manag 112:85–97
*Klein JI (1989) Parenthetic learning in organizations: toward the unlearning of the unlearning model. J Manag Stud 26:291–308
*Kluge A (2023) Recent findings on organizational unlearning and intentional forgetting research (2019–2022). Front Psychol 14:1160173
*Kluge A, Gronau N (2018) Intentional forgetting in organizations: the importance of eliminating retrieval cues for implementing new routines. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00051
*Kluge A, Schüffler AS, Thim C, Haase J, Gronau N (2019) Investigating unlearning and forgetting in organizations: research methods, designs and implications. Learn Organ 26:518–533
*Krauss A (2019) Unlearning institutional habits: an arts-based perspective on organizational unlearning. Learn Organ 26:485–499
Langley A, Tsoukas H (2017) The SAGE handbook of process organization studies. SAGE, Thousand Oaks
Langley A, Smallman C, Tsoukas H, Van de Ven AH (2013) Process studies of change in organization and management: unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Acad Manag J 56:1–13
*Leal-Rodríguez AL, Eldridge S, Roldán JL, Leal-Millán AG, Ortega-Gutiérrez J (2015) Organizational unlearning, innovation outcomes, and performance: the moderating effect of firm size. J Bus Res 68:803–809
*Lee LTS, Sukoco BM (2011) Reflexivity, stress, and unlearning in the new product development team: the moderating effect of procedural justice. R&D Manag 41:410–423
Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strat Manag J 13:111–125
Lindberg A, Berente N, Gaskin J, Lyytinen K (2016) Coordinating interdependencies in online communities: a study of an open source software project. Inf Syst Res 27:751–772
*Lyu C, Zhang F, Ji J, Teo TSH, Wang T, Liu Z (2022) Competitive intensity and new product development outcomes: the roles of knowledge integration and organizational unlearning. J Bus Res 139:121–133
*Macdonald G (2002) Transformative unlearning: safety, discernment and communities of learning. Nurs Inq 9:170–178
*Martignoni D, Keil T (2021) It did not work? Unlearn and try again—unlearning success and failure beliefs in changing environments. Strat Manag J 42:1057–1082
*Martin de Holan P (2011a) Agency in voluntary organizational forgetting. J Manag Inq 20:317–322
*Martin de Holan P (2011b) Organizational forgetting, unlearning, and memory systems. J Manag Inq 20:302–304
*Martin de Holan P, Phillips N (2004a) Organizational forgetting as strategy. Strat Organ 2:423–433
*Martin de Holan P, Phillips N (2004b) Remembrance of things past? The dynamics of organizational forgetting. Manag Sci 50:1603–1613
*Martin de Holan P, Phillips N (2011) Organizational forgetting. In: Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (eds) Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Wiley, Chichester, pp 433–451
*Martin de Holan P, Phillips N, Lawrence TB (2004) Managing organizational forgetting. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 45:45–51
*Matsuo M (2018) Goal orientation, critical reflection, and unlearning: an individual-level study. Hum Resour Dev Q 29:49–66
*Matsuo M (2019a) Critical reflection, unlearning, and engagement. Manag Learn 50:465–481
*Matsuo M (2019b) The unlearning of managerial skills: a qualitative study of executive officers. Eur Manag Rev 16:303–315
McGrath RG (2019) Seeing around corners: How to spot inflection points in business before they happen. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston
McGrath RG, Euchner J (2020) Seeing around corners: an interview with Rita McGrath. Res-Technol Manag 63:12–17
*McKeown I (2012) Teaching old dogs new tricks: Why unlearning matters in SMEs. Int J Entrep Innov 13:25–34
*Morais-Storz M, Nguyen N (2017) The role of unlearning in metamorphosis and strategic resilience. Learn Organ 24:93–106
*Mull M, Duffy C, Silberman D (2023) Forgetting to learn and learning to forget: the call for organizational unlearning. Eur J Train Dev 47:586–598
*Nguyen N (2017) The journey of organizational unlearning: a conversation with William H. Starbuck Learn Organ 24:58–66
*Nygren NV, Jokinen A, Nikula A (2017) Unlearning in managing wicked biodiversity problems. Landsc Urban Plan 167:473–482
*Nystrom PC, Starbuck WH (1984) To avoid organizational crises, unlearn. Organ Dyn 12:53–65
*Ortega-Gutiérrez J, Cegarra-Navarro JG, Cepeda-Carrion G, Leal-Rodríguez AL (2015) Linking unlearning with quality of health services through knowledge corridors. J Bus Res 68:815–822
*Ortega-Gutiérrez J, Cepeda-Carrión I, Alves H (2022) The role of absorptive capacity and organizational unlearning in the link between social media and service dominant orientation. J Knowl Manag 26:920–942
*Padan T, Nguyen N (2020) Responsible management unlearning. In: Laasch O, Suddaby R, Freeman RE, Jamali D (eds) Research handbook of responsible management. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 501–515
*Pedler M, Hsu S-w (2014) Unlearning, critical action learning and wicked problems. Action Learn Res Pract 11:296–310
*Pedler M, Hsu S-w (2019) Regenerating the learning organization: towards an alternative paradigm. Learn Organ 26:97–112
*Pentland B, Liu P, Kremser W, Hærem T (2020) The dynamics of drift in digitized processes. MIS Q 44:19–47
*Peschl MF (2019) Unlearning towards an uncertain future: on the back end of future-driven unlearning. Learn Organ 26:454–469
*Polites GL, Karahanna E (2012) Shackled to the status quo: the inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance. MIS Q 36:21–42
*Pratt MG, Barnett CK (1997) Emotions and unlearning in Amway recruiting techniques: promoting change through ‘safe’ ambivalence. Manag Learn 28:65–88
*Reese S (2017) Putting organizational unlearning into practice: a few steps for the practitioner. Learn Organ 24:67–69
*Rezazade Mehrizi MH, Lashkarbolouki M (2016) Unlearning troubled business models: from realization to marginalization. Long Range Plan 49:298–323
Rojon C, Okupe A, McDowall A (2021) Utilization and development of systematic reviews in management research: what do we know and where do we go from here? Int J Manag Rev 23:191–223
*Rupcic N (2019) Learning-forgetting-unlearning-relearning—the learning organization’s learning dynamics. Learn Organ 26:542–548
*Rushmer R, Davies HTO (2004) Unlearning in health care. BMJ Qual Saf 13:ii10–ii15
Sele K, Mahringer CA, Danner-Schröder A, Grisold T, Renzl B (2024) We are all pattern makers! How a flat ontology connects organizational routines and grand challenges. Strat Organ. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270231215685
*Sharma S, Lenka U (2019) Exploring linkages between unlearning and relearning in organizations. Learn Organ 26:500–517
*Sharma S, Lenka U (2022a) Counterintuitive, yet essential: taking stock of organizational unlearning research through a scientometric analysis (1976–2019). Knowl Manag Res Pract 20:152–174
*Sharma S, Lenka U (2022b) On the shoulders of giants: uncovering key themes of organizational unlearning research in mainstream management journals. Rev Manag Sci 16:1599–1695
*Sharma S, Lenka U (2024) How does transformational leadership impact organizational unlearning: insights from persistence theories. J Organ Change Manag 37:150–172
*Sheaffer Z, Mano-Negrin R (2003) Executives’ orientations as indicators of crisis management policies and practices. J Manag Stud 40:573–606
*Sinkula JM (2002) Market-based success, organizational routines, and unlearning. J Bus Ind Mark 17:253–269
*Snihur Y (2018) Responding to business model innovation: organizational unlearning and firm failure. Learn Organ 25:190–198
*Srithika TM, Bhattacharyya S (2009) Facilitating organizational unlearning using appreciative inquiry as an intervention. Vikalpa 34:67–78
*Starbuck WH (1996) Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies. Int J Technol Manag 11:725–737
*Starbuck WH (2017) Organizational learning and unlearning. Learn Organ 24:30–38
Starbuck WH, Milliken FJ (1988) Challenger: fine-tuning the odds until something breaks. J Manag Stud 25:319–340
*Starbuck WH, Greve A, Hedberg BLT (1978) Responding to Crises. J Bus Adm 9:111–137
*Tanaka S (2023) Effects of goal orientation and unlearning on individual exploration activities. J Workplace Learn 35:57–74
Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Brit J Manag 14:207–222
Trullen J, Bos-Nehles A, Valverde M (2020) From intended to actual and beyond: a cross-disciplinary view of (human resource management) implementation. Int J Manag Rev 22:150–176
*Tsang EWK (2008) Transferring knowledge to acquisition joint ventures: an organizational unlearning perspective. Manag Learn 39:5–20
*Tsang EWK (2017a) How the concept of organizational unlearning contributes to studies of learning organizations: a personal reflection. Learn Organ 24:39–48
*Tsang EWK (2017b) Stop eulogizing, complicating or straitjacketing the concept of organizational unlearning, please. Learn Organ 24:78–81
*Tsang EWK, Zahra SA (2008) Organizational unlearning. Hum Relat 61:1435–1462
Tsoukas H, Vladimirou E (2001) What is organizational knowledge? J Manag Stud 38:973–993
*Turc E, Baumard P (2007) Can organizations really unlearn? In: McInerney CR, Day RE (eds) Rethinking knowledge management: from knowledge objects to knowledge processes. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–146
*van Oers L, Feola G, Runhaar H, Moors E (2023) Unlearning in sustainability transitions: insight from two Dutch community-supported agriculture farms. Environ Innov Soc Transit 46:100693
van Wijk J, van Wijk J, Drost S, Stam W (2020) Challenges in building robust interventions in contexts of poverty: insights from an NGO-driven multi-stakeholder network in Ethiopia. Organ Stud 41:1391–1415
*Visser M (2017) Learning and unlearning: a conceptual note. Learn Organ 24:49–57
Voegtlin C, Scherer AG, Stahl GK, Hawn O (2022) Grand societal challenges and responsible innovation. J Manag Stud 59:1–28
*Vu MC, Nguyen LA (2022) Mindful unlearning in unprecedented times: implications for management and organizations. Manag Learn 53:797–817
*Wang X, Lu Y, Zhao Y, Gong S, Li B (2013) Organizational unlearning, organizational flexibility and innovation capability: an empirical study of SMEs in China. Int J Technol Manag 61:132–155
*Wang X, Xi Y, Xie J, Zhao Y (2017) Organizational unlearning and knowledge transfer in cross-border M&A: the roles of routine and knowledge compatibility. J Knowl Manag 21:1580–1595
*Wensley AKP, Cegarra-Navarro JG (2015) Overcoming knowledge loss through the utilization of an unlearning context. J Bus Res 68:1563–1569
Wright C, Nyberg D (2017) An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Acad Manag J 60:1633–1661
*Xi Y, Wang X, Zhu Y (2020) Organizational unlearning and knowledge transfer in cross-border M&As: the mediating role of knowledge integration from a routine-based view. J Knowl Manag 24:841–860
*Xu N, Wu X, Du J, Li S (2023) Organizational unlearning: a process of tension imposition, integration, and splitting. Eur Manag Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12586
*Yang KP, Chou C, Chiu YJ (2014) How unlearning affects radical innovation: the dynamics of social capital and slack resources. Technol Forecast Soc Change 87:152–163
*Yildiz HE, Fey CF (2010) Compatibility and unlearning in knowledge transfer in mergers and acquisitions. Scand J Manag 26:448–456
*Yin J (2023) Effects of the paradox mindset on work engagement: the mediating role of seeking challenges and individual unlearning. Curr Psychol 42:2708–2718
*Zahra SA, Abdelgawad SG, Tsang EWK (2011) Emerging multinationals venturing into developed economies: Implications for learning, unlearning, and entrepreneurial capability. J Manag Inq 20:323–330
*Zhang F, Lyu C, Zhu L (2022) Organizational unlearning, knowledge generation strategies and radical innovation performance: evidence from a transitional economy. Eur J Mark 56:133–158
*Zhao Y, Wang X (2020) Organisational unlearning, relearning and strategic flexibility: from the perspective of updating routines and knowledge. Technol Anal Strat Manag 32:1251–1263
*Zhao Y, Lu Y, Wang X (2013) Organizational unlearning and organizational relearning: a dynamic process of knowledge management. J Knowl Manag 17:902–912
*Zhao Y, Wang Z, Feng T, Kong T, Zhang Q (2022) Organizational unlearning and inclusive innovation: the moderating role of green control ambidexterity. Sustain Dev 30:539–555
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Liechtenstein. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Klammer, A., Grisold, T., Nguyen, N. et al. Organizational unlearning as a process: What we know, what we don’t know, what we should know. Manag Rev Q (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00430-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00430-3
Keywords
- Organizational unlearning
- Unlearning
- Unlearning process
- Knowledge loss
- Literature review
- Integrative literature review