Social Remembering and Organizational Memory

Abstract

Organizational Memory Studies (OMS) is limited by its managerialist, presentist preoccupation with the utility of memory for knowledge management. The dominant model of memory in OMS is that of a storage bin. But this model has been rejected by psychologists because it overlooks the distinctly human subjective experience of remembering, i.e. episodic memory. OMS also fails to take account of the specific social and historical contexts of organizational memory. The methodological individualism that is prevalent in OMS makes it difficult to engage with the rapidly expanding sociological and historical literature in social memory studies, where a more social constructionist approach to ‘collective memory’ is generally favoured. However, for its part social memory studies derived from Maurice Halbwachs neglects organizations, focusing primarily on the nation as a mnemonic community. From a critical perspective organizations can be seen as appropriating society’s memory through corporate sites of memory such as historical visitor attractions and corporate museums. There is scope for a sociological and historical reorientation within OMS, drawing on social memory studies and focusing on corporate sites of memory, such as The Henry Ford museum complex, as well as the mnemonic role of founders and beginnings in organizations. Taking a social constructionist, collectivist approach to social remembering in organizations allows connections to be made between memory and other research programmes, such as organizational culture studies.

Collective Memory Meets Organizational Identity: Remembering to Forget in a Firm's Rhetorical History

“…They also exemplify the type of print media that Benedict Anderson (1991) identified as instrumental in creating an imagined community, namely media that allow for a shared sense of belonging for multiple generations of community members. These bulletins therefore constitute a form of collective memory: one that moves beyond a strictly methodologically individualist approach to memory (Rowlinson et al 2010). …”

“…Meanwhile organizational analysis has largely overlooked the role of collective memory in its own research agenda (Rowlinson, Booth, Clark, Delahaye, & Procter, 2010). An influential article by Walsh and Ungson (1991) generated a surge of interest in organizational memory, but this literature has mainly treated memory as a fairly static product rather than a historical construction (Ackerman, 1998;Argote, 1999;Feldman & Feldman, 2006;Huber, 1991;Moorman & Miner, 1998;Walsh, 1995).…”

Game Changer: The Topology of Creativity

“…In order to be creative, the team needs the requisite diversity of stylistic elements available for reworking. In cultural fields, where teams assemble, dissolve, and reassemble in the episodic project form, the knowledge base of the team does not reside in an organizational repository (Bird 1994;Rowlinson et al 2010). Instead, it is a function of its members' experience with various styles during prior episodes of production.…”

Novas Fontes, Novas Versões: Contribuições do Acervo da Comissão Nacional da Verdade

“…Assumindo que tanto a memória quanto o esquecimento acerca dos fatos históricos podem ser instrumentos de dominação, de legitimação e de construção de identidade organizacional (Decker, 2013;Rowlinson, Booth, Clark, Delahaye, & Procter, 2010), pode-se perguntar como as empresas se apropriam de seu passado e contam hoje a sua história e a sua atuação na sociedade durante o período da ditadura civil-militar brasileira. Expurgam o que não é considerado por seus clientes e acionistas como ético?…”