Deconstructing Organizational Learning: How knowledge is retained, reused and forgotten

(1)

Deconstructing

Organizational Learning

- How knowledge is retained, reused and forgotten

Bachelor’s Thesis 15 hp

Department of Business Studies Uppsala University

Fall Semester of 2019

Date of Submission: 2020-01-17

Oskar Finnström

Jakob Gustafson

Supervisor: Jan Lindvall

(2)

We would like to thank our supervisor, Jan Lindvall, for his continuous support, helpful feedback and encouragement during the writing process. We would also like to thank the participants of our seminar group for providing valuable insight and discussion. Last but not least, we would like to thank the ski school of SkiStar Sälen and the respondents for allowing us access to their organization and participating in the study. Thank you!

________________________ ________________________

Oskar Finnström Jakob Gustafson

(3)

Abstract

This study set out with the purpose of gaining an understanding for how organizational learning occurs, and how the knowledge gained is retained, and perhaps forgotten. To this end a case study of a Swedish ski school was conducted. The top management team of the organization was interviewed, and data in the form of internal documents was gathered. The results show that a systematic way of working with organizational learning, routinizing the capturing, evaluation, and implementation of improvement ideas was a contributing factor in enabling continuous improvement to the organization’s systems and routines. Knowledge sharing enabled learning in organizational memory to spread to different areas of the organization.

Keywords: Organizational Learning, Organizational Unlearning, Organizational Memory, Organizational Forgetting

Sammandrag

Studiens syfte är att skapa en förståelse för hur organisatoriskt lärande sker, hur kunskapen behålls och möjligen glöms bort. För att uppnå studiens syfte genomfördes en fallstudie på en svensk skidskola. Organisationens ledning intervjuades och data i form av interna dokument samlades in. Resultaten visar på att ett systematiskt sätt att arbeta med organisatoriskt lärande, där rutinsering av fångandet, utvärderingen och implementeringen av förbättringsidéer var en bidragande faktor till fortlöpande förbättring av organisationens system och rutiner. Genom kunskapsdelning kunde lärdomar som sparats i organisatoriskt minne spridas till andra delar av organisationen.

Nyckelord: Organisatoriskt lärande, Organisatoriskt minne, Organisatoriskt glömmande

(4)

1. Introduction

In today’s era of constant change in business environments, it is vital for organizations to continuously improve their ways of working in order to thrive in ever more competitive markets (Glaveski, 2019). However, organizational change is not easy; it requires transformation, sometimes at a fundamental level (Euske et al., 1993; Hames, 1994; Kloot, 1997; Marquardt and Reynolds, 1994).

Organizational change is not simply done by the flip of a switch; rather, it requires significant effort over long periods of time to reach a desired end state (Tasler, 2017). Without consistent effort, organizations risk falling back into old routines, not really getting anywhere.

Likewise, changes are not guaranteed to lead to improvement. Therefore, it is important to determine what changes make sense and will be beneficial to the organization. To figure out what changes are fitting to their situation, organizations must learn from past experiences and what is happening in their surroundings. In other words, they must gather relevant information about themselves, and their environment, in order to analyze and learn from it (Crossan et al., 1999; Kloot, 1997; Simons, 1995). When data has been gathered and the necessary information is readily at hand, organizations are able to gain valuable insights into their business and what can be done to improve the organization.

However, simply looking at data will not create learning (Deschamps & Mattijs, 2018).

As an illustration, consider your favorite sports team in a losing position. While the team may know why they are losing (i.e. they have the necessary insight) they may still not be able to turn the match around unless the coach implements changes to their strategy. Thus, in the same way, organizational learning relies not only on the accumulation of information, but also on how the information is used by managers (Barrados & Mayne, 2003; Moynihan & Landuyt, 2009).

In other words, organizational learning is, in part, reliant on managers properly harnessing information and experience, learning from it, and using it to implement improvements through organizational change (Argote, 2011). This may sound simple, but an idea’s journey from intuitive concept to institutionalized reality is long and complex, with many barriers standing in the way (Schilling & Kluge, 2009). To put it simply, organizational learning leading to improvement through organizational change is not as straightforward as it appears.

In addition, for organizations to learn, new knowledge must in some way be stored in the organization’s memory (Crossan et al., 1999; Huber, 1991; Walsh & Ungson, 1991). By

(6)

2

memorizing specific solutions to issues or routinizing new ways of working, organizations can recall knowledge about what worked when, and in what context. But what can be memorized can also be forgotten (de Holan & Philips, 2004), which raises the question: how do organizations go about retaining beneficial knowledge to harness it repeatedly, or getting rid of unwanted knowledge that hinders the organization? Consider again the example of your favorite sports team. If the team memorizes the strategy it used to best their opponents, but also the situation in which the strategy was successful, they will be able use it again the next time they face a similar situation. But, if the strategy is forgotten, the team will have to go through the process of reinventing the strategy in order to win again next time. Getting to the core of how organizational learning works, and how to keep the knowledge gained from being forgotten, could therefore be of both practical and theoretical relevance.

The purpose of this thesis is to gain an understanding of how organizational learning occurs, and how the knowledge gained is retained, and perhaps forgotten, in an organization in the service industry. To accomplish this, the two following questions will be addressed:

- First, from where, and how, does organizational learning originate, and how is the knowledge learned retained in organizational memory?

- Second, what happens to the knowledge after it is ingrained in organizational memory?

To this end, a case study of the ski school of SkiStar Sälen was conducted. SkiStar is the largest corporate group in the ski tourism industry in Scandinavia with a reported revenue of 2676 MSEK and a profit of 460 MSEK after taxes (SkiStar, Annual report, 2018/2019).

Furthermore, the leadership and service strategies of SkiStar are to have a corporate culture based on learning, and a leadership with a drive to "improve the improvements" (SkiStar, Annual report, 2018/2019). The report also underlines how the employees within SkiStar possess experience and knowledge that is shared through meetings between executives of the different resorts, which according to SkiStar enables learning across the organization.

This paper is organized as follows. First, previous research is reviewed, resulting in a theoretical framework for the study. Second, the methodology is gone through in detail. Third, the empirical findings are presented along with an analysis. Fourth, a discussion of the empirical findings is held. Lastly, the paper is concluded, followed by suggestions for future research.

(7)

3

2. Literature Review

The ability of adapting to change is tremendously difficult to acquire for organizations (Starbuck & Hedberg, 1977; Pettigrew, 1985; Miller, 1993; Hames, 1994), and many organizations try to resist change in fundamental operating paradigms (Levinthal, 1991; Miller, 1993; Hames, 1994). This attitude of passivity can lead to limitations for organizations when trying to implement changes adapted to new paradigms.

With that said, there are organizations that understand the need for change and implementation of new strategies and structures (Dent, 1990). These organizations strive to manage the process of transformative change (Hames, 1994) and in turn are willing to question the existing paradigms within the organization in order to survive (Senge, 1990). Such organizational change is also known as organizational learning (Argyris, 1977, 1990; Senge, 1990).

2.1 Organizational learning

Broadly, organizational learning can be described as a parallel to learning in individuals:

organizational experience leads to organizational learning that, in turn, creates organizational knowledge, which is then stored in organizational memory (de Holan & Phillips, 2004). There are several types of organizational learning. Early work defined organizational learning as a process where members of an organization responds to internal and external changes in the environment, and through the detection of errors adjust behaviors to align them with the strategy and goals of the organization (Argyris, 1977). This process is called single loop learning and, if successful, helps an organization obtain its goals through, sometimes, minor changes to existing systems and routines. When the learning of an organization not only detects and corrects the perceived errors, but also questions the reasons behind them, as well as if current operating routines are the right way to do things, it is referred to as double loop learning (Argyris, 1977).

To further understand organizational learning, it is important to clarify that organizational learning and a learning organization are not the same thing. A learning organization is a form, while organizational learning is a process (Örtenblad, 2001; Aksu &

Ozdemir, 2005). These two concepts are however often understood synonymously. Although several studies have been conducted to determine the characteristics of a learning organization there seems to be no conformity on the definition of a learning organization (Stewart, 2001).

(8)

4

Therefore, to avoid complexity, this thesis focuses on organizational learning as a concept, rather than as an organizational form.

2.2 Capturing ideas and institutionalizing learning

Business performance can be improved by harnessing employees’ ability to generate ideas and implementing those ideas into work processes (de Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Crossan et al.

(1999) share a similar view, and argue that individuals have the potential to change organizations: “Organizational learning starts at the individual level without the presumption of authority; any employee can intuit and interpret, potentially starting the process of organizational learning”. This lends credence to the idea that organizations can benefit much from attempting to capture ideas from their employees, in order to enable organization learning.

However, enabling organizational change from the individual, to the group and to the organization, and then back again the opposite way (making sure the learning spreads), is anything but easy (Crossan et al. 1999). To implement an improvement that originally spawned as an idea within an individual employee, the idea must travel from the individual level, all the way to the organizational level, where it can be institutionalized. In the context of organizational learning, institutionalization becomes the process of implementing what has been learned into the organization’s systems and routines. Routines are most often defined as “repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions, carried out by multiple actors” (Feldman &

Pentland, 2003) and can also be viewed as one of the products of organizational learning (Argote, 1999).

Inspired by Crossan et al. (1999; 2011), we describe institutionalizing as follows:

Institutionalizing is the process of defining tasks, specifying actions, and setting up organizational mechanisms to routinize desired actions. The institutionalizing process occurs as a response to integrated learning, originally spawned by individuals and groups in the organization. Institutionalizing occurs at the organization-level, which means that the rules and routines that are eventually institutionalized will persist independently of any individual in organizational memory.

Parallels can be drawn between institutionalizing as a process and a routine for organizational learning. Learning routines have been said to enable constant regeneration through either improvement or transformation (Tranfield et al., 2000).

This institutionalization of knowledge can be likened to acquiring and retaining knowledge in organizational memory (Walsh & Ungson, 1991; de Holan & Philips, 2004).

(9)

5

2.3 Organizational memory

While several definitions of organizational memory exist, spanning both behavioral and cognitive knowledge research (de Holan & Philips, 2004), this study focuses on the aspects located in the systems, routines, rules and procedures of an organization. In other words, institutionalized learning. The reason for this is that it gives a more pragmatic understanding for how organizations can leverage learning, and systematically incorporate what has been learned into the organization itself.

The end state of organizational learning, organizational memory, offers insight into the mechanism through which organizations store organizational knowledge, and make that knowledge available for application on present decision making (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). The concept of organizational memory, as described by Walsh & Ungson (1991), consists of acquisition, retention, and retrieval of knowledge, where acquisition is the result of learning, retention is the storing of what has been learned, and retrieval is the recollection and use of what has been learned previously.

Organizational memory has been conceptualized from several perspectives. For example, it can be conceived as “interactions among individuals aimed at recalling past events through probing (their own memories and the organization’s information systems) and sensemaking” (Casey & Olivera, 2011), which is one way of retrieving knowledge from organizational memory. More tangibly, organizational memory can be viewed as a part of the routines, processes, and structure of an organization (ibid., 2011; Crossan et al., 1999). From the latter perspective, routines become a form of organizational memory, and the way in which routines are developed, iterated upon, and expanded are processes of acquisition – and retention – of knowledge (Casey & Olivera, 2011).

2.4 Organizational unlearning and forgetting

Knowledge retained in organizational memory, gained through learning, does not simply exist permanently. Just as humans tend to forget, this can also be the case with organizations (Benkard, 2000; Day, 1994a; de Holan & Phillips, 2004; Hedberg, 1981; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984; Starbuck, 1996). The concept of organizational forgetting brings insight into what happens to knowledge after it has been stored in organizational memory. Two distinct approaches to organizational forgetting exist in research (de Holan & Phillips, 2004).

On the one hand, organizational forgetting has been highlighted as the deliberate unlearning of old knowledge as a prerequisite to learning something new. From this approach,

(10)

6

forgetting means to cease the use of an existing routine, a structural feature of an organization, or even entire strategies (Greve, 1995; Miller, 1990, 1994) in order to avoid that institutionalized learning stands in the way of new learning (Crossan et al., 1999). On the other hand, organizational forgetting can happen accidentally, leading to negative consequences as organizations get stuck reinventing their successful practices over and over (Day, 1994b).

Accidental forgetting is often the result of inadequate memory systems, allowing knowledge to fade away over time (Argote et al., 1990). A memory system can be a routine, documentation, or other things that allow organizations to store knowledge. In other words, forgetting can be both beneficial to an organization, if done deliberately to implement new learning, and detrimental, if it occurs accidentally, leading to organizations reinventing what it should already know.

Planned forgetting has been referred to as organizational unlearning, while accidental forgetting is simply called organizational forgetting. Organizational unlearning is the process of purposefully discarding and eliminating old organizational knowledge and routines from organizational memory (Klammer & Gueldenberg, 2019). Unlearning allows organizations to efficiently and effectively learn and change (Becker, 2010). As for organizational forgetting, there is an often-cited definition coined by de Holan and Phillips (2004): “the loss, voluntary or otherwise, of organizational knowledge”. Organizational knowledge in this case refers to the knowledge stored in organizational memory.

An example of organizational unlearning could be educating the workforce in how a new routine changes the way they are supposed to work, why the new routine is replacing the old one, and why it is important not to rely on the old way of working. Later, following up on the result of the routine change can help make sure that the organization has, indeed, unlearned the old routine. Conversely, an example of forgetting appears when a knowledgeable, highly experienced worker leaves their job. With the worker’s departure, undocumented knowledge, or efficient ways of working that were not properly institutionalized or adequately stored in organizational memory.

2.5 Summary of literature & analytical framework

To summarize, for an organization to learn, it must capture the ideas of individuals working within it. Based on these ideas, organizations institutionalize learning in the form of changes to routines, systems, and rules and procedures. These routines (etc.) act as memory storage for the organization, from which employees can access and reuse knowledge pertaining to their work.

(11)

7

For example, when in doubt on how to proceed with a specific task, employees may be able to look to internal documentation that describes what to do in certain work situations. In doing this, they are accessing organizational memory.

Nevertheless, memories do not necessarily last forever. They can be forgotten, either deliberately, or accidentally. For this study we choose to differentiate between intentional forgetting, i.e. organizational unlearning, and accidental forgetting, i.e. organizational forgetting. The reason for this is that it allows for a nuanced view of memory, where unlearning comes in the form of changes to, or replacing of, existing routines, and forgetting instead represents accidental loss of memory. The above is summarized in the analytical model below:

2.6 Expectations

Considering the collection of concepts discussed so far, we have several expectations of the results of the case study. First, if organizational learning is occurring, there should be a system in place to make sure that what has been learned can be retained (institutionalized) in organizational memory. We expect a strong reliance on memory systems in the case organization, considering its seasonal character. Second, organizational memory does not necessarily last forever. We expect to see deliberate organizational unlearning when existing routines are replaced, improved upon, or discarded. Lastly, we expect some knowledge to be lost accidentally, especially since there is a long natural break in business for the case organization every year. Although, we realize that this may be hard to investigate, since the fact that knowledge has been lost may in itself be forgotten.

Capturing Ideas Institutionalizing Learning

Organizational

Memory Unlearning

Forgetting Reuse

• Systems

• Routines

• Rules &

Procedures

(12)

8

3. Methodology

The following section describes the methodology of the study, starting with research design and strategy, followed by data collection, choice of framework, analysis of empirical data and a discussion of the reliability and validity of the study.

3.1 Research strategy

In order to conduct the study, a case study approach was selected. A case study design can be used to investigate a phenomenon in depth in its actual context where the boundaries of the phenomenon and its context are not clearly defined (Yin, 2014). Therefore, the benefit of this choice is that it enables investigation of how organizational learning and organizational memory works in its actual context, in this case, in the form of a ski school. A common criticism of case studies is how the results are hard to generalize and apply to other scenarios (Bell et al, 2019).

Despite this, most writers agree that the goal of case study analysis is not generalization, but rather to concentrate on the "uniqueness of the case and to develop a deep understanding of its complexity." (Bell et al, 2019, p.65). Hence, we argue that a case study design is suitable for this study.

The case organization, SkiStar, was chosen for several reasons. First and foremost, the setting of a ski school offers a somewhat unique opportunity to study organizational learning and memory due to the seasonal character of the business. The organization has a high business activity from December to April, but then more or less shuts down completely for the rest of the year. The exception is top management, which, among other things, takes part in planning and administrative tasks, such as recruitment for the upcoming season, and enabling booking and purchasing of ski lessons through the SkiStar homepage. For a business of this character, organizational memory in the form of routines, systems, and other institutionalized forms are there to make sure that when the next season begins, everything goes according to plan and works just as well as, or better than it did, the year before. Considering these conditions, the organization appears to offer a fitting context for studying organizational learning, memory, and forgetting.

Second, SkiStar themselves claim to be an organization that focuses on learning and improving the ways in which they do work (SkiStar, Annual report, 2018/2019). Since learning is the focus of this study, it is vital that the case organization actually learns, or there would not

(13)

9

be much to analyze. With that in mind, we consider SkiStar’s commitment to learning to be a solid reason for their suitability as a candidate for this study.

Third, SkiStar is the largest actor in the ski industry in Scandinavia, and the particular ski school investigated, located in Sälen, Sweden, (SkiStar Sälen) is the largest ski school, with 180 employees and 43 523 of a total of 77 930 students of SkiStar’s fully owned ski schools, with the total amount of ski school students in Sweden being 155 000 (SkiStar, Annual report, 2018/2019; SLAO). The size of the organization perhaps makes it more fitting for a study focused on organizational learning, as larger organizations experience more obstacles to learning (Deschamps & Mattijs, 2018).

Last, the choice of organization is in part motivated by access to, and knowledge of, the organization, as one of the authors of this study is a former employee and manager of the organization. Bell et al. (2019) describe this as a convenience sample; we do not however consider this to be the main reason for the choice. Rather, it simply allowed advance knowledge that learning, in one form or another, is taking place in the organization.

3.2 Data collection

The data collection consisted of two parts: data collected from interviews and data collected from various documents from the organization. These two methods are further explained below.

3.2.1 Interviews

Due to the purpose of the study, to gain an understanding of how organizational learning occurs, and how the knowledge gained is retained, and perhaps forgotten, an inductive approach using semi-structured interviews was deemed appropriate. A semi-structured interview was preferred over a structured interview due to it giving a somewhat more general frame of reference, rather than a fixed questionnaire. This gave us, as interviewers, more latitude to ask further questions in response to the replies of the respondent (Bell et al, 2019). Hence, the interview structure gave us more flexibility and allowed the respondents to more freely formulate their answers.

An interview template was written (See Appendix 1) and tested with a pilot interview on a former manager of the organization. The purpose of the pilot was to lower the risk of poorly designed questions (Bell et al, 2019). The template was sufficient in most parts, but some minor adjustments were made to questions that were misunderstood by the manager. The template was used for all interviews. The audio from all interviews was recorded with the permission of the respondents and transcribed shortly after. The environment where the interviews were

(14)

10

conducted was an office provided by SkiStar, with only the interviewer and the respondent present.

The questions asked were designed with the intent of operationalizing the theoretical concepts discussed in the previous research section of this paper. Regarding capturing ideas, the respondents were asked about routines in place for capturing and documenting ideas at all levels of the organization. As for institutionalization, questions were asked about the organization’s process of implementing changes and improvements to current systems and routines. For organizational memory, ways of making sure that routines kept working during upcoming season were asked. Last, questions pertaining to forgetting were about examples of routines or ways of working being lost in the organization.

The sampling of the respondents was in line with Bell et al.’s (2019) definition of purposive sampling. The respondents were therefore not chosen on a random basis but rather in a strategic way so that those sampled were able to offer insight relevant to our research question. By this logic we chose to interview the top managers of the ski school, since they likely had the most knowledge about the organizational learning and memory within the organization. They could also offer valuable insights into the way the ski school worked in general. To this end, the entirety of the top management team, consisting of the only three employees that work year-round, was interviewed. One interview was conducted with each manager. The interviews are shown in the table below:

Respondent Role Interview length

Manager 1 Area manager 26:48 minutes

Manager 2 Business manager 30:55 minutes

Manager 3 Area manager 21:31 minutes

Follow-up questions regarding further clarification were asked over e-mail, providing more insight when necessary.

The interviews were conducted in Swedish, and quotations have therefore been translated to English for use in this paper.

3.2.2 Documents

In addition to the interviews we were also able to access secondary data through various documents related to the different routines, introduction presentations and evaluation protocols that were used by the organization. This enriched our empirical findings and gave a better view of the ski school. The documents spanned 76 pages and detailed intricately the way that the

(15)

11

case organization works with teaching staff, implementing new systems and routines, as well as how evaluation is carried out. Results of evaluative meetings were also provided, as an example of how the organization documents and discusses suggestions from workers.

3.3 Choice of framework

To accomplish the purpose of examining how organizations retain knowledge gained through learning, the study looks at changes made to systems, routines, rules and procedures in the case organization to gain insights regarding how those changes came to be, and what caused the organization to implement them. We believe that the concept of institutionalizing, as defined by Crossan et al. (1999), very adequately describes the aspects of learning and memorization that we aimed to capture. This because it allows for examination of organizational systems, routines, rules, and procedures as an end-state of organizational learning, bearing many similarities to the concept of organizational memory. Hence, the definition appeared fitting for this study. In addition, attention was given to organizational unlearning and forgetting, for which we borrowed one of the most prevalent definitions from de Holan and Phillips (2004).

However, since the definition is slightly too broad when speaking strictly about institutionalized learning (routines, systems etc.), it was narrowed slightly to fit better with this study specifically.

3.4 Analysis

The analysis of the collected data originated from the research questions of the study and in a search of data to answer them. The initial analysis can be argued to have taken place after the first interview and during the transcription of it, since it to some extent influenced us moving forward with the study. This made us more observant of some things that were mentioned during the first interview when continuing our data collection. After transcribing every interview, the authors read through every transcript and provided document, while writing down emerging ideas. This let us get familiarized with our data. During this phase the theoretical framework of the study was not considered. The analysis of the data in this phase was in this sense data driven rather than theoretically driven.

When the entirety of the data had been read and discussed we started to note down topics and occurring themes in what Bell et al. (2019) describe as a thematic analysis. Through the different topics that appeared we could then apply our theoretical framework to analyze the

(16)

12

data. Organizational learning was linked to whether the organization succeeded through their routines to achieve what the study defines as institutionalization.

3.5 Trustworthiness

Many researchers that focus more on qualitative studies have discussed whether the concepts of reliability and validity adequately describe and explain qualitative research (Bell et al., 2019).

There is an alternative to reliability and validity, which instead brings forth two primary criteria, trustworthiness and authenticity (Guba, 1985; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Authenticity has not been too influential in qualitative research, due to focusing on the wider impact of research and being controversial (Bell et al., 2019). Hence, the authors have chosen to not use this criterion, instead focusing on the trustworthiness criteria. Trustworthiness consists of four different criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability), each of which has a comparable criterion in quantitative research.

In order to maintain credibility, every interview was recorded, and shortly after transcribed, which reduced the risk of misinterpreting the respondent’s descriptions and opinions. The interviews were also done in person in order to catch any shifts in body language that would not have been visible using other forms of communication.

Acknowledging Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) view on transferability, the authors realize that the generalization of the study may perhaps be limited. However, considering that the analytical framework of the study should be applicable to many other types of organizations, analytical generalization of the results of the study should be possible. In addition, the description of the case could serve as a database, which others can use to make their own judgments regarding transferability.

To attempt to heighten the dependability of the study, complete records were kept of several phases of the research. The records include transcriptions of interviews, internal documents, fieldwork notes etc.

As with any qualitative research method, there is a risk that the bias of the authors influences the analysis. Throughout the research process the authors were aware of the need for objectivity and did their best to not let personal values and beliefs affect the research or the findings of it. Keeping this in mind, confirmability is not something that can be completely guaranteed, but precautions to ensure it were made by the authors, such as attempting to be as transparent as possible in the methodological section above.

(17)

13

4. Findings and analysis

4.1 Capturing ideas

An organization that routinizes the process of capturing and documenting improvement ideas at all levels of the organization creates possibilities for learning. While improvement ideas may spawn anywhere in an organization at any given time, if the ideas are not captured and remembered, the organization will not be able to act on any of them. Thus, if the learning process itself is institutionalized in systems and routines, learning and implementing new ideas appears to become easier for organizations. This is illustrated in the case organization, which captures ideas at all levels of the organization, and has put formal routines in place to better accomplish this.

Through these routines, ideas can travel through the organization from the bottom up.

At the lowest level of the case organization, these routines take the form of employee evaluations. The evaluations are biannual (one at the start of the winter season, and one at the end) and involve an employee and her closest manager sitting down together to discuss items like personal goal setting, the employees’ feelings about work, etc. Through these evaluations, employees are given the opportunity to air any ideas about improvements to existing routines, or other suggestions, they may have. In addition to the biannual employee evaluations, weekly work group meetings take place as a routine, which among other things allow for discussion among coworkers and managers. In one way, the group meetings act as a forum for employees to bring up ideas, suggestions, or complaints they may have in a group environment. Further, web-based employee surveys are conducted four times a year, through which the case organization receives concrete ideas for improvement from its staff.

Middle level managers are instructed to document any ideas that pop up, not just during the employee evaluations, but also at any point during the season. Manager 2 described the significance of this way of working as follows:

As a leader, you are responsible for capturing improvement ideas in your work group, and that is not only done at start-of-season and end-of-season evaluations. That is done when you are there [among your staff], and when you listen to your staff. So that is a very large part of improvement, and therefore, as a leader, you have a responsibility to remember, document, and find a system for how to remember [those ideas].

The other top managers all share the view that capturing improvement ideas from individuals is of utmost importance. Albeit, one manager emphasizes the fact that since many employees

(18)

14

are recent high school graduates working their first job, it is important to create an atmosphere of openness to encourage new employees, who may not feel like they are in a position to criticize, to speak up if they have an idea. Thus, making sure that staff are aware that their feedback is valued and important to the organization can perhaps help companies in capturing ideas.

4.2 Institutionalizing learning

The case organization makes a conscious effort to gather ideas from individuals in an effort to learn and improve. However, organizational learning cannot be said to have taken place before improvement ideas are institutionalized, and the knowledge gained is retained in organizational memory (Crossan et al., 1999; de Holan & Phillips, 2004). To achieve this, ideas that spawn at the individual level must travel through multiple levels of an organization until it reaches a level where it can be implemented as a change to a routine, system, rule, or structure. Once it reaches a high enough level, managers with decision making power are able to implement the idea.

With this in mind, how organizations create learning from improvement ideas and eventually institutionalize that learning offers insight into how organizational memory is created. In other words, making changes to systems, routines, rules, or structures is, in a way, the act of storing knowledge in organizational memory.

Decisions about what changes to make are not always easy, and it can be difficult to know which changes will lead to improvements. Focusing on the needs of the organization when deciding which changes to pursue can help avoid the scenario of “changing for the sake of changing”. Manager 1:

We do not [make changes] just to change. Instead, it is our operation that determines whether we reorganize. We seldom go through reorganization because we think it will save us tons of money … We let the needs steer the organization.

Creating a forum for discussion regarding what changes to implement might offer a way for organizations to discern what changes are worth making, and which ideas can be dismissed.

Routinizing the process of discussion of improvement ideas could potentially benefit learning, as shown in the case organization.

At the end of the winter season, all the managers in the case organization gather for a two-day long conference, referred to as “the evaluation days”. At the conference, the managers look back on the season that just passed. They ask themselves how the season went, how they themselves experienced it, what they need to do differently, and what they must improve upon,

(19)

15

or change. These evaluations are in part based on performance measures, such as customer and employee satisfaction rates, as well as financial goals. With that said, discussions also bring up and examine the ideas that have been gathered throughout the season, which in some cases lead to changes in systems or routines.

An example of such a change took place in one of the ski schools subunits. Originally the subunit was, together with its ski instructors, split into two different geographic locations, separated by a relatively large distance. The subunit was overseen by a manager and an assistant manager. However, experienced personnel and the managers felt that the distance between the locations made it hard to maintain a continuous dialog, resulting in a divided work group.

Manager 1 describes below:

Subunit managers and established staff thought it was hard to get a continuity in how you meet your leaders daily, and how one should lead a divided work group. So then we reconsidered [and decided on] two work locations that are geographically closer to each other to make it easier to travel between [them], and to simply create a better work group.

Because of this feedback, the case organization chose to restructure the subunit and its management. One of the two locations became its own subunit, with a single manager, while the other, smaller group, was integrated into its geographically closest subunit, a mere 15- minute walk away.

What started as a suggestion from individuals became a topic of discussion within a subunit, made it all the way to a higher level in the organization. From there, measures to solve the apparent issue were discussed, developed, and eventually implemented in the form of a structural change to several subunits. Such a change is a clear example of something that the organization has learned becoming institutionalized in its structure. This means that knowledge gained from learning was both acquired and retained in organizational memory, as this study looks at memory as formalized structures, systems and routines. Looking at the case organization as an example, it can be speculated that integrating routines for evaluation at all levels of the company naturally bring ideas that appear at lower levels up to higher levels in the organization, and as such enables learning to reach its final state, institutionalization.

4.3 Organizational memory

Once institutionalized, learning is retained in the memory of the organization, from which knowledge may be accessed and used (Casey & Olivera, 2011; Crossan et al., 1999). In order to access organizational memory, employees and managers need look only to documentation

(20)

16

available within the organization in order to retrieve necessary knowledge. However, knowledge from organizational memory can also be retrieved through interaction with colleagues. Interactions may be spontaneous, or more formal, through meetings.

Meetings that are specifically designed to make sure that every part of the organization is caught up to speed on how to work are a form of interaction that purposely probes organizational memory in order to facilitate improvements. Routinizing knowledge sharing, for example between departments and subunits, can perhaps help learning spread quickly throughout organizations. The case organization provides one such instance where the managers responsible for human resources-related questions for each department had a meeting and reached the conclusion that the ski school was the only department using a weekly, and not monthly scheduling system for staff. Manager 3:

… Every other department was working with monthly schedules, and we were working with weekly schedules. So we wanted to [change to monthly schedules], in part to make the scheduling process easier for subunit managers, but also so that the staff would be able to plan their time better. Because it has also been a request from the staff. Is it possible [to make the change]? Absolutely, we will make it happen!

The ski school chose to imitate the other departments and quickly implemented the monthly scheduling format. Through cross-departmental discussion and communication in the form of a formalized meeting, the ski school was able to access and retrieve knowledge from organizational memory.

By searching outside one’s immediate surroundings, expanding the search to different parts of the organization, leaders can gain knowledge about practices that may be better than the ones that are currently in use. In other words, they retrieve knowledge that is retained in organizational memory. With that said, for the case organization, it remains to be seen if this specific solution is better than the previous scheduling format, as it is being tested in the upcoming season.

For seasonal businesses, memory systems in the form of solid routines and documentation appear perhaps even more important. Manager 1 stressed the importance of storing knowledge for use in upcoming seasons:

We are such a big organization, and things happen all the time in a large corporation like SkiStar that minor things get lost in the rest of it all. And we do not remember things from spring to fall, you’re not going to [remember] 100% [of everything]. You should not have to keep those things in your head, so we have to learn to document those things, and make them relevant.

(21)

17

4.4 Organizational unlearning

Organizational unlearning is the process of getting rid of unwanted organizational knowledge to make room for what is important. Unlearning takes place when changing routines, systems, structures, and ways of working in general. Transitioning from one way of working to another can pose a challenge to organizations, as employees and managers are used to doing things in specific ways. Hence, unlearning previous ways of working can aid organizations in making successful transitions. This is where the case organization for this study separates itself from many other companies. The nature of seasonal business itself provides a unique environment when it comes to organizational unlearning. High turnover of staff is a hallmark of seasonal businesses in general (Sims, 2007) and provides an environment where perhaps changes are more easily implemented, and old routines are more easily unlearned. If a large percentage of the staff is newly employed, they do not possess any previous knowledge of routines, systems, rules and so on. In this sense, the new employees are a blank canvas for the organization in that new routines can be taught without unlearning the old ones. The high turnover, combined with the long period in which business shuts down each year, may be the reason one of the managers of the case organization described the process of structural change as “...rather simple to implement, last year we did it that way, this year we want to try to do it this way. And this works pretty smoothly since we choose to close down the entire [business]...in the summer.”

In addition to high turnover and business seasonality perhaps affecting the difficulty with which old routines can be unlearned, so do systems and routines for teaching staff about changes to ways of working. Making sure that everyone in the organization is cued in on how things are going to work brings an organization one step closer to unlearning old ways of working. However, it is most likely also important to follow up on change by making sure that managers and staff avoid relying on old routines. Very similar to the popular saying: “what gets measured gets done”. This can be seen in the case organization’s 6-week introductory plan for teaching managers about routines, both new and old. The plan attempts to make certain that managers are onboard with any newly implemented changes before a season starts. The managers are given time to unlearn old ways of working and at the same time learn new ways of working. This is partly done through a retrospective routine, taking place early on during the 6-week period. The retrospective uses documented material from previous seasons evaluation days. The retrospective involves different topics such as areas of improvement, things that the case organization does well, and things that has been done and the organization wants to continue doing. Months after the 6-week introduction, a follow-up meeting is held to make sure

(22)

18

that everything is going according to plan and working as intended. The fact that there is a follow-up likely gives subunit managers a sense of urgency in trying to implement new routines.

Manager 3 discusses the challenge of change:

... There is always a transition phase that is a bit difficult for [subunit] managers, [in this case] going from working with weekly scheduling to monthly scheduling. So there is going to be more work now, but I think it will benefit us in the future. And then we will … follow up and talk about pros and cons.

4.5 Organizational forgetting

While organizational unlearning is deliberate, and necessary when changing existing systems and routines, organizational forgetting is accidental, and most of the time detrimental.

In the case organization, one example of organizational forgetting was discovered. A routine for requesting doctor’s notes from staff on sick leave over time received less attention from subunit managers, to the point that the routine could basically be considered forgotten.

With that said, in this case the routine had been spearheaded by several subunit managers that are no longer working at the company. With many of these managers being replaced, the routine was partly lost, and in a way, forgotten. Manager 3:

I think a lot of it is being clear. I remember two year ago we talked a lot about being clear about sick leave. When you call in sick, we require a doctor’s note if we are to pay out sick pay. That year we were very clear about this, but next year I think we were not as clear … it was forgotten a bit.

Perhaps this routine was not fully institutionalized, since the very definition of institutionalization is that, for example an organizational routine, exists regardless of any one person’s influence. The above illustration shows the significance of ingraining routines in organizational memory. Doing so may help organizations avoid the detrimental effects of organizational forgetting; without proper documentation and institutionalization, routines (etc.) may be more prone to being forgotten.

Throughout our findings, one point keeps repeating itself. Routinizing the very process of learning, and systematically evaluating the ways in which an organization does work and what it can improve upon, seemingly enables organizational learning to take place rather effectively. In addition, making sure to keep updated documentation of systems, routines, rules, and procedures goes hand in hand with a richer organizational memory. Once knowledge has been retained in memory, routines for sharing practices, for example between different departments, can help spread what has been learned and implemented throughout the

(23)

19

organization. On the other hand, a lack of institutionalization can lead to organizational forgetting.

5. Discussion

Our findings indicate that successful learning in part can be attributed to solid routines for learning. I.e. routines that are in place to capture ideas at all levels of the organization, institutionalize ideas that are believed to lead to improvement in organizational systems and routines, and spread those routines to all levels of the organization. The findings are in line with some existing research (Tranfield et al., 2000) on routines for learning, which suggests that:

Learning routines enable constant regeneration. They might focus on Improvement (do what you do better) or transformation (do something different). In each case they enable the questioning and development of existing patterns and structures. Also, they can be introduced at any level in the company so that learning and change permeate throughout and are not just the prerogative of the senior management team.

The case organization seems to concern itself mainly with improvement, focusing on bettering what they already do. With that said, there does not appear to be anything hindering a different organization from using the same sort of routines for learning, but instead with a focus on transformation. However, considering the unique position the case organization finds itself in, being a seasonal business that more or less completely shuts down during the warmer half of the year, implementing similar routines may not be feasible for some other types of businesses.

Naturally, most businesses are unable to shut down in order to run improvement implementation programs for many weeks at a time. Likewise, one interviewed manager speculated that being in a business of seasonal character simplifies the implementation of improvements (i.e.

institutionalization) to a large degree, since the process of implementation does not interfere with day-to-day operations. Thus, aspects of this study may apply mostly to other seasonal businesses, such as in the tourism industry.

Although the seasonal character of the business could play a part in how easily and effectively the case organization learns, there are most likely other factors that influence organizational learning as well. For example, some research mentions culture as one of those factors. Some organizational cultures learn better than others (Popper & Lipshitz, 2000). It could be that the case organization is successful in its learning in part due to its culture and people, and not only because of its seasonal character. One manager described the case

(24)

20

organization’s staff as “very motivated and eager to improve … and not avert to change as long as it is made for good reasons.”. Another manager blatantly states that making sure that the organization keeps improving is both a matter of culture and structure. This falls outside the theoretical framework of the study, but as mentioned has ties to other research within the field of organizational learning. Among it, Popper and Lipshitz (2000) argue that for organizational learning to be productive, the organization must possess a culture that has a commitment to learning, valid knowledge, transparency, issue orientation, and accountability. While our study has not examined culture, we would argue that hints of these attributes are present in the case organization. Especially, a commitment to learning is shown in the organization’s systematic evaluative routines, where among other things potential improvements and changes to current systems and routines are brought up for discussion. This type of evaluative practice, where operating paradigms themselves are questioned, also has clear ties to Argyris’ (1977) early research on organizational learning, specifically what he coined as double-loop learning.

One thing that is clear in the case organization is that a lot of attention is given to the very process of learning and improving. Every step is planned and routinized in order to encourage everyone to contribute to the continued improvement of the organization. Evaluation and discussion are a focal point of the organization’s drive to improve, which seemingly allows for the right changes to be made more often than not. Hence, one question comes to mind. What happens when an organization does not routinize learning to the same extent as the case organization? Can an organization still learn and improve to the same degree, or better? Or will changes made in an organization without systematic capturing, evaluation, and institutionalization of ideas fall flat, and be detrimental to the organization more often? While this is purely speculative, it seems to fall within the bounds of logic that learning would have a different outcome, or perhaps be a lot less present, in an organization without specific routines in place to support it. We believe this to be an opportunity for further research, which could act as a contrast to this study.

6. Conclusion

6.1 Organizational learning through routines

This study set out with the purpose of gaining a deeper understanding for how organizational learning occurs, and how the knowledge gained is retained, and perhaps forgotten. To this end, we set out to answer two questions: First, from where, and how, does organizational learning originate, and how is the knowledge learned retained in organizational memory?

(25)

21

Second, what happens to the knowledge after it is ingrained in organizational memory? Further, we expected to see a system in place to make sure that what has been learned can be retained (institutionalized) in organizational memory. The reliance on the memory systems of the case organization were expected to be high, considering its seasonal nature. Also, organizational unlearning and perhaps examples of forgetting were both expected. The expectations were met to a large degree. The systematic way of working with organizational learning found in the ski school of SkiStar Sälen, routinizing the capturing, evaluation, and institutionalization of improvement ideas was seemingly effective and successful, enabling continuous improvement.

Through knowledge sharing, learning retained in organizational memory was able to spread to different areas of the organization.

To answer the first question: knowledge gained from organizational learning originates from individuals and can be captured using routines that encourage staff at all levels of the organizations to share what they think about current practices and what they think could be done differently. In the case organization, the routines that aided in capturing ideas included employee surveys, one-on-one employee-manager evaluation meetings, weekly work group meetings, and making sure that managers documented suggestions from their staff that come up during day-to-day activities.

After evaluation and discussion, ideas that were chosen to be implemented into the systems and routines of the organization can be institutionalized through routines that teach managers and staff about how work is to be done hereafter. Routines for how to handle the very implementation of new systems and routines can help ease the transition from one way of working, to a new one. Once institutionalized, what has been learned is ingrained in organizational memory in the form of systems, routines, and other documentation. This brings us to the second question:

Knowledge retained in organizational memory can, among other ways, be accessed through routinized interaction with colleagues. For example, in the case organization, a scheduling routine change occurred after a routine meeting between managers from different departments. The scheduling routine existed in organizational memory and could therefore be accessed through interaction.

Memory does not necessarily last forever, it can be forgotten accidentally, or unlearned deliberately. Unlearning is an important part of improvement, as falling back on old routines could potentially hinder progress. As mentioned above, having a routine for the institutionalization of new systems and routines can seemingly help with the process of

(26)

22

unlearning. When it comes to organizational forgetting, on the other hand, it seems to not occur as often if institutionalization was successful. If it was not successful, however, forgetting can potentially appear, for example, when experienced personnel leaves an organization.

6.2 Future research

As this study examined organizational learning in a seasonal business, extending the scope and studying organizations of other types, operating in other environments, may be of interest. In doing so, the results of this study would have something to be compared to, which brings nuance to the results. Another environment in which a similar study could potentially be of interest is an organization where routines for learning look different than in the case organization, or perhaps learning is taking place without any set-in-stone routines.

Other research could also embrace the seasonal aspect of the case organization in this study, and further the concept of organizational learning in, for example, the tourism industry.

Future studies could examine optimal ways of doing change work in seasonal businesses, which would bring more practical relevance.

6.3 Limitations

A limitation of the study is how only one department in a single organization was studied. If the study had a broader scope it would have given a more nuanced view of the phenomenon.

Another limitation is the interpretation of data, which is based on the authors view of it, hence the risk of it becoming the subjective perspective of the authors.

The subject organization of this study was a business of seasonal character. While the concepts of organizational learning should be the same for other types of organization, further research is recommended in order to solidify the results of this study.

(27)

23

References

Aksu, A., & Özdemir, B. (2005). Individual Leaming and Organization Culture in Leaming Organizations. Five star Hotels in Antalya Region of Turkey. Managerial Auditing Journal, 4, 422-441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686900510592098

Argote, L. 1999. Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.

Argote, L., 2011. Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning 42, 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611408217

Argote, L., S. L. Beckman, D. Epple. 1990. The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Sci. 36(2) 140–155.

Argyris, C., 1977. Double Loop Learning in Organizations, Harvard Business Review, Sept – Oct, 59 – 72.

Argyris, C., 1990. The Dilemma of Implementing Controls: The Case of Managerial Accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 503 – 512.

Barrados, M., & Mayne, J. (2003). Can public sector organisations learn? OECD Journal on Budgeting, 3(3), 87–103.

Becker, K.L. (2010), “Facilitating unlearning during implementation of new technology”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 251-268.

Bell, E., 1968, Bryman, A., Bryman, A., 1947-2017 & Harley, B. 2019 , Business research methods, Fifth edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Benkard, C. L. 2000. Learning and forgetting: The dynamics of aircraft production. Amer.

Econom. Rev. 90(4) 1034–1054.

Casey, A.J., Olivera, F., 2011. Reflections on Organizational Memory and Forgetting. Journal of Management Inquiry 20, 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492611408264

Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., White, R.E., 1999. AN ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING FRAMEWORK: FROM INTUITION TO INSTITUTION 17.

(28)

24

Crossan, M.M., Maurer, C.C., White, R.E., 2011. REFLECTIONS ON THE 2009 AMR DECADE AWARD: DO WE HAVE A THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING? 16.

Day, G. S. 1994a. Continuous learning about markets. California Management Rev.

36(Summer) 9–31.

Day, G. S. 1994b. The capabilities of market-driven organizations. J. Marketing 58(October) 37–52.

de Holan, P.M., Phillips, N., 2004. Remembrance of Things Past? The Dynamics of Organizational Forgetting. Management Science 50, 1603–1613.

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0273

de Jong, J.P.J., Den Hartog, D.N., 2007. How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management 10, 41–64.

https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710720546

Dent, J., 1990. Strategy, Organization and Control: Some Possibilities for Accounting Research, Accounting Organizations and Society, 15, 3 – 25.

Deschamps, C., Mattijs, J., 2018. How Organizational Learning Is Supported by Performance Management Systems: Evidence from a Longitudinal Case Study. Public Performance &

Management Review 41, 469–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1462213

Euske, K. J., Lebas, M. J. and McNair, C. J., 1993. Performance Measurement in an International Setting, Management Accounting Research, 4, 275 – 300.

Feldman, M.S., Pentland, B.T., 2003. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 94.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620

Glaveski, S., 2019. Where Companies Go Wrong With Learning and Development. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/10/where-companies-go-wrong-with-learning-and- development (Accessed 2020-01-09)

Greve, H. 1995. Jumping ship: The diffusion of strategy abandonment. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40 444–473.

Hames, R. D., 1994. The Management Myth, Sydney, Business and Professional Publishing.

(29)

25

Hedberg, B. 1981. How organizations learn and unlearn. P. Nystrom, W. Starbuck, eds.

Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, NY, 3–27.

Huber, G.P., 1991. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures.

Organization Science 2, 88–115. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.88

Guba, E. G. (1985). ‘The Context of Emergent Paradigm Research’, in Y. S. Lincoln (ed.), Organization Theory and Inquiry: The Paradigm Revolution. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). ‘Competing Paradigms

in Qualitative Research’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Klammer, A., Gueldenberg, S., 2019. Unlearning and forgetting in organizations: a systematic review of literature. J of Knowledge Management 23, 860–888. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM- 05-2018-0277

Kloot, L., 1997. Organizational learning and management control systems: responding to environmental change. Management Accounting Research 8, 47–73.

Levinthal, D. A., 1991. Organizational Adaptation and Environmental Selection—

Interrelated Processes of Change, Organization Science, 2, 140 – 145.

Marquardt, M. and Reynolds, A., 1994. The Global Learning Organization, Illinios , Irwin . Miller, D. 1990. The Icarus Paradox. Harper Business, New York.

Miller, D., 1993. The Architecture of Simplicity, Academy of Management Review, 8, 116 – 138.

Miller, D. 1994. What happens after success: The perils of excellence.

J. Management Stud. 31(3) 327–358.

Moynihan, D. P., & Landuyt, N. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097–1105.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02067.x

Nystrom, P. C., W. Starbuck. 1984. To avoid organizational crises, unlearn. Organ. Dynam.

12(4) 53–76.

(30)

26

Pettigrew, A., 1985. The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in ICI, Oxford, Blackwell.

Popper, M., Lipshitz, R., 2000. Organizational Learning: Mechanisms, Culture, and Feasibility.

Management Learning 31, 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507600312003

Schilling, J., & Kluge, A. (2009). Barriers to organizational learning: An integration of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(3), 337–360.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00242.x

Senge, P. 1990, The Fifth Discipline, Random House, Sydney

Simons, R. 1995, Levers of control: how managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

SkiStar, Annual report, 2018/2019

Accessed 2019-11-27, available: https://www.skistar.com/sv/corporate/investerare/Finansiella- rapporter/

Sims, W. J. (2007). “Antecedents of Labor Turnover in Australian Alpine Resorts.” Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 6 (2): 1-26.

SLAO

Accessed 2019-12-13, available:

https://www.slao.se/content/uploads/2019/09/Branschrapport_sept2019_SLAO_5.pdf

Starbuck, W. 1996. Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies.

Internat. J. Tech. Management 11 725–737.

Starbuck, W. H. and Hedberg, B. L. T., 1977. Saving an Organization from a Stagnating Environment, in Thorelli, H. B. (ed.) Strategy 1 Structure 5 Performance, Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana University Press, pp. 249 – 258.

Stewart, D. (2001). Reinterpreting the Learning Organisation. The Learning Organization, 4, 141-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005607

Tasler, N., 2017. Stop Using the Excuse “Organizational Change Is Hard.” Harvard Business Review.

(31)

27

Tranfield, D., Duberley, J., Smith, S., Musson, G., Stokes, P., 2000. Organisational learning –

it’s just routine. Management Decision 38, 253–260.

https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740010326315

Walsh, J.P., Ungson, G.R., 1991. Organizational Memory. Academy of Management Review 16, 57–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1991.4278992

Yin, Robert, K. (2014). Case study Research: Design and methods (5.edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Örtenblad, A. (2001). On Differences between Organizational Learning and Leaming Organization. The Learning Organization. Conceptual Paper, 3 125-133.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470110391211