Organizational unlearning and
organizational relearning: a dynamic
process of knowledge management
Yingxin Zhao, Yanqiu Lu and Xiangyang Wang
Yingxin Zhao is based at
the Department of
Technological Economics
and Management at School
of Management, Jilin
University, Changchun,
China. Yanqiu Lu and
Xiangyang Wang are both
based at the Department of
International Business
Management at School of
Management, Jilin
University, Changchun,
China.
This work was supported by the
Humanity and Social Science
on Young Foundation of Ministry
of Education of China
(12YJC630214) and National
Natural Science Foundation of
China (71302038).
Received 26 June 2013
Revised 29 August 2013
Accepted 30 August 2013
PAGE 902 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a model to explore the dynamic process of
knowledge management from the perspectives of organizational unlearning and organizational
relearning, which promote a favorable context for knowledge management.
Design/methodology/approach – The model is proposed based on extensive review of literatures.
According to this model, the evolutions of organizational unlearning and organizational relearning are
separately analyzed, and the interactions between them are revealed.
Findings – Organizational unlearning and organizational relearning are the indispensable factors to the
dynamic knowledge management. Organizational unlearning positively affects the dynamic knowledge
management by discarding the outdated and useless knowledge, while organizational relearning has a
positive influence on the dynamic knowledge management by acquiring the new knowledge.
Organizational unlearning and organizational relearning have synergies on the dynamic knowledge
management.
Research limitations/implications – This paper theoretically illuminates the relationships among
organizational unlearning, organizational relearning and knowledge management, and doesn’t offer an
empirical test.
Practical implications – This paper will provide insights to practitioners to better understand the
dynamic process of knowledge management. The practitioners need to provide favorable context to
ensure that organizational unlearning and organizational relearning can occur.
Originality/value – Most existing studies focused on the inflows of knowledge, but the outflows of
knowledge still lack sufficient attention, especially the dynamic process of knowledge management. The
framework provides guides in that process.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Knowledge, Knowledge management, Dynamic process,
Organizational relearning, Organizational unlearning
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In the knowledge-based economy, the fortunes and future growth of enterprises depend on
owning knowledge and the abilities to utilize them to create goods and services (Switzer,
2008; Srithika and Bhattacharyya, 2009). Knowledge has become one of the critical driving
forces for enterprises to achieve success (Wong, 2005). Effective knowledge management
contributes to enterprises to rapidly adapt to changing and turbulent environment.
Therefore, many enterprises have introduced knowledge management in order to establish
and sustain competitive advantage. Obviously, in the field of knowledge management, how
to achieve the dynamic management of knowledge within the organisations has brought
increasing interests of scholars. For enterprises, in order to achieve dynamic knowledge
management, the stock of knowledge can be increased by the inflows of external knowledge
through organisational learning/relearning and diminished by the outflows of internal
knowledge through organisational unlearning (Dierickx and Cool, 1989; DeCarolis and
Deeds, 1999; Fernandez and Sune, 2009). Srithika and Bhattacharyya (2009) suggested
j VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013, pp. 902-912, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/JKM-06-2013-0242
‘‘ By continuous inflows of new knowledge, knowledge
integration and knowledge creation, enterprises can establish
a new competitive advantage. ’’

that relative knowledge helped organisations achieve the goals and outdated knowledge
hindered the growth of organisations. Acquiring relative knowledge and eliminating
outdated and useless knowledge are the keys for organisations to achieve the dynamic
knowledge management. Most existing studies focused on knowledge acquisition,
knowledge conversion, knowledge integration, knowledge transfer and knowledge
creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Teece, 1998; Gold et al., 2001; Bontis and Fitz-enz,
2002), but the unlearning process of knowledge was still lack of sufficient attentions.
Organisational unlearning is the dynamic process in which an organisation identifies and
gets rid of useless and obsolete knowledge and routines, which hinder the acquisition and
creation of new knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Cegarra-Navarro and Moya, 2005).
Organisational unlearning significantly facilitates the dynamic knowledge management.
With the changes in the environment, previously acquired knowledge gradually becomes
obsolete and loses its values. These outdated and useless knowledge blocks the inflows of
new knowledge so that organisations cannot update their knowledge in time. In particular,
new external knowledge may conflicts with old knowledge within the organisation (Huber,
1991; Becker, 2010). In addition, these outdated knowledge rooted within the organisations
for a long time gradually forms the organisational routines and beliefs, which inhibit the
inflows of new knowledge. Therefore, discarding outdated knowledge, routines and beliefs
promotes organisations to acquire new external knowledge and facilitates the dynamic
knowledge management. Obviously, organisational unlearning also is necessary to the
dynamic knowledge management. Accordingly, in order to achieve the dynamic knowledge
management, organisations should pay more attention to the synergies of organisational
unlearning and organisational relearning on knowledge management.
This study aims to explore the dynamic knowledge management from two perspectives of
organisational unlearning and organisational relearning. To fulfil this goal, the authors first
establish the model of dynamic knowledge management. Based on this model, the authors
conduct research on the evolutions of organisational unlearning and organisational
relearning, and analyse the interactions between them. Finally, the authors conclude that
organisational unlearning and organisational relearning have the synergies on dynamic
knowledge management. Through their studies, the authors strive to extend theory
regarding knowledge management. More specifically, the authors suggest that
organisational unlearning and organisational relearning are the key factors to the dynamic
knowledge management.
This paper is organised as follows. After introduction, the authors propose the model of
dynamic knowledge management. In section 3 and section 4, the authors separately explore
the evolutions of organisational unlearning and organisational relearning. In section 5, the
authors focus on the interactions between organisational unlearning and organisational
relearning. Then the authors discuss the contributions in section 6. The last section is
conclusion, including implications, limitations and future directions.

2. Dynamic knowledge management

The market change and development of new technologies usually result in the more
uncertain environment and destroy the existing competitiveness of enterprises. In order to
deal with these uncertainties, enterprises need to continue to acquire new knowledge from
the outside. By continuous inflows of new knowledge, knowledge integration and knowledge

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 903
 creation, enterprises can establish a new competitive advantage. It is an effective way for
enterprises to cope with environment uncertainties by acquiring new knowledge from the
outside. Organisational learning was a continuous process (Azmi, 2008). Obviously,
organisational learning promotes the dynamic knowledge management by the inflows of
new knowledge.
Organisational knowledge helps enterprises effectively respond to the changes in external
environment. However, when external environment changes, the prior knowledge gradually
become outdated, inefficient and useless (Hedberg, 1981), which resulted in organisations
becoming slower to recognise changes (Dickson, 1992; Akgün et al., 2007a), and even
baffled organisations to adapt to the environmental changes. Since they inhibited the
evaluation of new external knowledge (Mezias et al., 2001) and hindered the perception of
new knowledge (Akgün et al., 2007a), widely recognised organisational beliefs and routines
have negative effects on dynamic knowledge management. When an organisation has a
large amount of obsolete knowledge, organisational unlearning is the premise of knowledge
acquisition and creation. Organisational unlearning was the process that the organisation
rejected the obsolete and misleading knowledge (Hedberg, 1981). Cegarra-Navarro and
Moya (2005) suggested that organisational unlearning was the dynamic process in which
outdated and invalid knowledge and routines were abandoned and eliminated.
Organisational unlearning Organizational unlearningprises to acquire new knowledge,
which usually conflicts with the existing knowledge, especially for those enterprises who try
to adapt to environmental change. In order to better achieve sustainable development,
these enterprises ceaselessly seek for new routines and ideas (Boiral, 2002, 2009).
Therefore, the contribution of organisational unlearning is relative to its ability to prepare the
ground for the acquisition and creation of new knowledge (Wang et al., 2013).
It is well known that organisations should strongly implement dynamic knowledge
management in order to establish a sustainable competitive advantage. The dynamic
knowledge management includes two processes: the inflows of new knowledge through
organisational learning/relearning and the outflows of outdated and useless knowledge
through organisational unlearning. Dynamic knowledge management was a continuous and
on-going process of learning, unlearning and relearning (Azmi, 2008). Obviously,
organisations need to learn, unlearn and relearn (Azmi, 2008). The process of unlearning
needs to be followed by the process of relearning (Azmi, 2008). Therefore, the dynamic
knowledge management is composed of three sub-processes: organisational learning,
organisational unlearning and organisational relearning. Figure 1 shows the process of
dynamic knowledge management. Through these sub-processes, organisations achieve
continuous inflows of external new knowledge and outflows of outdated and useless
knowledge.
In this model, the sub-process of organisational learning is similar to the organisational
relearning. In addition, organisational unlearning and organisational relearning jointly
represent a cycle of knowledge flow. Therefore, this study mainly focuses on dynamic
knowledge management from these perspectives of them.

3. The evolution of organizational unlearning

Organisational unlearning was the process of abandoning useless, outdated or misleading
knowledge, especially changing rigid beliefs, standards, values and routines (Baker and

‘‘ Organizational unlearning facilitates enterprises to acquire

new knowledge, which usually conflicts with the existing
knowledge, especially for those enterprises who try to adapt
to environmental change. ’’

j j
PAGE 904 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
Figure 1 The dynamic process of knowledge management

Dynamic
knowledge
management

Organizational Organizational Organizational

learning unlearning relearning

Sinkula, 1999; Akgün et al., 2003; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2010). Since the organisation does
not have the mental activities, it cannot unlearn (De Holan and Phillips, 2004;
Cegarra-Navarro and Sanchez-Polo, 2008). Spender (1998) believed that organisation
could not unlearn and only people could do so. Organisational unlearning often can be
achieved by the individuals. The process of organisational unlearning includes individual
unlearning, group unlearning (Hedberg, 1981) and organisational unlearning (Klein, 1989).
Individual unlearning is the process of substituting new behaviours, ideas and actions for
previous ones (Duffy, 2003). Cegarra-Navarro and Dewhurst (2003), Cegarra-Navarro and
Moya (2005) claimed that individual unlearning referred to the capacity of individuals to
reflect on their performance in order to identify and promote actions that resulted in
improved performance. The individual abilities and willingness of eliminating outdated
knowledge and routines are crucial for organisational unlearning. Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995) pointed out that creative chaos can generate pressure to motivate members of the
organisation to carry out individual unlearning and promote change. When individuals
identify outdated knowledge or routines, they will eliminate them through individual
unlearning. Cegarra-Navarro and Moya (2005) believed that individual unlearning was
divided into three phases: identification of problem, changing of cognitive pattern,
incorporation of new measures of control. Specifically, organisational unlearning first begins
with the identification of outdated knowledge. When individuals identify them, they will
change their cognitive structures, which results in individual unlearning.
The process of unlearning consists of individual unlearning, group unlearning and
organisational unlearning. Group unlearning and organisational unlearning begin with
individual unlearning (Becker et al., 2006). The process of organisational unlearning is the
continuous evolution of individual unlearning – group unlearning – organisational
unlearning. Figure 2 shows the evolution of organisational unlearning. Nonaka and Konno
(1998) claimed that knowledge elimination needed the strong communication and
interactions at different levels. Individual unlearning is frequently driven by personal
motivations when the environment changes. Individual unlearning gradually penetrates into
the group level and promotes group unlearning, and eventually reaches to the organisational

Figure 2 The evolution of organizational unlearning

Individual Group Organizational

unlearning unlearning unlearning

Next cycle

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 905
 level and results in organisational unlearning. Further, organisational unlearning facilitates
individual unlearning, which means the beginning of new unlearning circle.
Akgün et al. (2003) considered group unlearning as the process of changing its beliefs,
norms, values and routines. Since they have been deeply rooted in the group, group
unlearning would suffer more resistance than individual unlearning. Group unlearning also
includes three phases: knowledge disintegration, knowledge sharing and elimination of
knowledge (Cegarra-Navarro and Moya, 2005). Specifically, individuals identify outdated
knowledge and transfer it to the members of group, which means the beginning of
knowledge disintegration. Knowledge sharing was the process of socialisation in which
individuals shared knowledge with others (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). The environment of
knowledge sharing effectively facilitates group unlearning. If group members have common
values, missions and visions, they are willing to share outdated knowledge with others,
which leads to transformation from tacit knowledge of the individuals to explicit knowledge of
the groups. At the stage of knowledge elimination, groups achieve unlearning through
discarding useless or outdated knowledge.

4. The evolution of organizational relearning

Pratt and Barnett (1997) suggested that organisational relearning was a process that an
organisation adapted to new mental models, procedures and routines. Organisational
relearning was an adaptive process in which new knowledge structures replaced the
outdated ones and routines were changed (Akgün et al., 2007b). Azmi (2008) suggested
that organisational relearning was a continuous process of organisational renewal, where
traditional and outdated systems were replenished with life and vigor. Organisational
relearning facilitated organisations to build new competitiveness (Akgün et al., 2007b).
Since it does not have the mental activity, the organisation itself cannot relearn. Therefore,
organisational relearning can be achieved by individuals. The process of organisational
relearning consists of three levels: individual relearning, group relearning and organisational
relearning.
Since organisations lack the ability of relearning, organisational relearning begins with
individual relearning. Individual relearning is the starting point for organisational relearning.
Individuals initiate relearning for their own interests when environment changes, such as
promotion or salary. Through the evaluation and acquisition of new knowledge, individuals
change their knowledge structures and enhance the ability to solve problems. Based on the
previous analysis, the authors believe that individual relearning consists of three phases:
acquisition of new knowledge, change of knowledge structures and establishment of new
routines. Specifically, individuals continue to obtain new knowledge to respond to the
changing environment for their interests. Inflows of new knowledge inevitably change the
existing knowledge structures of individuals and gradually form new effective routines which
can help individuals improve their capabilities and performance. Therefore, individual
relearning is the process in which new routines are established.
The knowledge that individuals acquire through individual relearning is tacit knowledge,
which may be lost with the turnover in individuals. How to transform tacit knowledge to
explicit knowledge is imperative for organisational relearning. Group relearning plays a vital
role in the process of transformation. Group relearning consists of three phases: knowledge
sharing, knowledge transformation, the establishment of new routines. Individuals share new
knowledge within the groups, which means the beginning of group relearning. Knowledge
transformation is the process of integration and creation of knowledge. In the process of
knowledge utilisation, groups gradually establish new routines to help them quickly adapt to
changing environment. The establishment of new routines in the groups is a symbol of the
achievement of group relearning.
It should be stressed that the process of organisational relearning is a continuous evolution
of individual relearning – group relearning – organisational relearning, which is driven by the
sharing environment of an organisation. Figure 3 shows the evolution of organisational
relearning. Specifically, individuals initiative to relearn for their interests when the

j j
PAGE 906 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
 Figure 3 The evolution of organizational relearning

Individual Group Organizational

relearning relearning relearning

Next cycle

environment changes. Individual relearning gradually penetrates into the group level and
promotes group unlearning, and eventually reaches to the organisational level which results
in organisational relearning. Further, organisational relearning facilitates individual
relearning, which means the beginning of new relearning circle.

5. The interactions between organizational unlearning and organizational relearning

Organisational unlearning is the process that outdated knowledge and routines are
abandoned. Organisational relearning is the process that new knowledge is acquired and
new routines are developed. Sinkula et al. (1997) believed that organisational unlearning
was the process of relearning, in which new knowledge structures replaced the old ones
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Starbuck (1996) pointed out that organisational relearning
could not happen unless organisational unlearning. De Holan and Phillips (2004) considered
that organisational unlearning was the premise of organisational relearning because it
encouraged individuals to challenge widely accepted beliefs and routines. Obviously,
discarding the outdated knowledge and routines is the guarantee of organisational
relearning. Organisational unlearning made the process of organisational relearning more
smoothly and spontaneous (Wijnhoven, 2001). Therefore, the interactions between
organisational unlearning and organisational relearning have undoubtedly become a key
to dynamic knowledge management. The interactions between them are shown as Figure 4.
This study mainly focuses on the interactions from two levels: the interaction between
individual unlearning and individual relearning, the interaction between group unlearning
and group relearning.

5.1 The interactions between individual unlearning and individual relearning

The interactions between individual unlearning and individual relearning largely determine
the inflows of new knowledge. In general, individual beliefs, habits, values and behaviours
depend on the knowledge and experiences which individuals hold. When the existing
knowledge and experiences become obsolete and useless, the previous beliefs, habits,
values and behaviours are not optimal, even passive. This has a negative impact on the
personal judgments and perceptions of external knowledge, which baffles individual
relearning. In addition, individuals tend to persist in their current beliefs and routines.

Figure 4 The interactions between organizational unlearning and organizational relearning

Individual Group Organizational

unlearning unlearning unlearning

Tacit Explicit
knowledge knowledge

Individual Group Organizational

relearning relearning relearning

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 907
 However, outdated or incorrect beliefs and routines may result in erroneous judgment and
behaviour (Rousseau, 2001). Therefore, it is necessary for individuals to identify that the
previous behaviours and routines are no longer optimal.
Since individual unlearning and individual relearning occurs at the individual level, the
interactions between them rely on the personal values and beliefs. If individuals share
common values, missions and visions with organisations, they are glad to implement positive
change when the problems are found. At three different stages of individual relearning,
individual unlearning plays a decisive role in them. The continuous interactions between
individual unlearning and individual relearning promote the achievement of dynamic
knowledge management at the individual level.

5.2 The interactions between group unlearning and group relearning

Organisation can be characterised as bundles of routines (Kilduff, 1992; Sinkula, 2002).
Group routines were defined as repetitive patterns of interdependent actions carried out by
multiple organisational members involved in performing organisational tasks (Feldman and
Rafaeli, 2002; Feldman and Pentland, 2003). In general, Group routines which include rules,
norms and paradigms determine the abilities of groups. It is the promise that groups achieve
their goals. Group unlearning is the process of discarding outdated routines, and group
relearning is the process of developing new routines. Therefore, the interaction between
them is the process of dynamic management of routines.
Specifically, the outdated routines in the groups block the generation of new routines. By
eliminating the outdated routines, the groups pave the way for the establishment of new
routines. Obviously, group unlearning promotes group relearning. In addition, with the
change of environment, the new routines that are developed by group relearning gradually
become obsolete and have a negative effect on group performance. In this context, the next
cycle of group routines management begins and the dynamic management on routines can
be achieved. Therefore, the interactions between group unlearning and group relearning are
crucial for sustaining the competitiveness through the dynamic management on routines.

6. Discussions
Effective knowledge management is a vital factor for enterprises to respond to the changing
environment. How to achieve dynamic knowledge management is a serious challenge for
enterprises. The authors believe that organisational unlearning and organisational relearning
are important factors to the dynamic knowledge management. Organisations achieve the
inflows of new knowledge through organisational relearning and the outflows of outdated
knowledge through organisational unlearning. The dynamic knowledge management can
be achieved by the synergies of organisational unlearning and relearning, which provides a
new perspective for dynamic knowledge management. Therefore, this study offers a
valuable contribution to knowledge management. In order to achieve dynamic knowledge
management, senior managers should not only pay attention to the evolutions of
organisational unlearning and organisational relearning, but also the interactions between
them.
Organisational unlearning which can help organisations discard outdated and useless
knowledge, is an essential process of dynamic knowledge management. The research on
evolution of organisational unlearning is the premise that organisations effectively manage
organisational unlearning. The results show that the process of organisational unlearning is
the evolution of individual unlearning – group unlearning – organisational unlearning. In
other words, the organisational unlearning is triggered by individual unlearning. Individual
unlearning promotes group unlearning and eventually results in organisational unlearning.
Nonaka and Konno (1998) proposed that the process of elimination of knowledge needed
individual initiatives and effective management promoted individual unlearning. In particular,
top managers play crucial roles in the organisational unlearning. Managers should
recognise that outdated and useless knowledge negatively affects knowledge
management, and actively create a favourable environment for the organisational

j j
PAGE 908 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
‘‘ Organizational unlearning and organizational relearning are
the indispensable factors to the dynamic knowledge
management. ’’

unlearning. In addition, they efficiently manage organisational unlearning according to the

evolution of organisational unlearning, which provides supports for organisational
relearning.
Organisational relearning which helps enterprises acquire new external knowledge
facilitates dynamic knowledge management. This study focuses on the evolution of
organisational relearning which help enterprises effectively manage organisational
relearning. The process of organisational relearning which is driven by sharing
environment of an organisation is the continuous evolution of individual relearning – ’
group relearning – organisational relearning. Specifically, environmental changes trigger
individual relearning which promotes group relearning, and ultimately organisational
relearning is achieved. In order to successfully carry out organisational relearning,
managers should create better environments to activate individual relearning. Meanwhile,
they should carry out effective management of the evolution of relearning to facilitate
organisational relearning.

7. Conclusion
In this study, the authors examine the relationships among organisational unlearning,
organisational relearning and dynamic knowledge management, and propose a frame on
dynamic knowledge management from the perspectives of organisational unlearning and
organisational relearning. According to this frame, the authors separately conduct research
on the evolutions of organisational unlearning and organisational relearning, and the
interactions between them. The results show that organisational unlearning and
organisational relearning are the indispensable factors to the dynamic knowledge
management. Organisational unlearning positively affects the dynamic knowledge
management by discarding the outdated and useless knowledge, while organisational
relearning has a positive influence on the dynamic knowledge management by acquiring the
new knowledge. In short, organisational unlearning and organisational relearning have
synergies on the dynamic knowledge management.
Practitioners aiming to achieve dynamic knowledge management would:
1. Identify outdated and useless knowledge, and prepare for organizational
learning/unlearning/relearning. Practitioners should conduct self-examination of
individual behaviors, existing knowledge, beliefs and routines, which can help them
identify outdated and useless knowledge.
2. Weaken the resistance to organizational unlearning and successfully implement
organizational unlearning. In the circles of organizational learning/unlearning/relearning,
organizations often encounter great resistance and pressure when organizational
unlearning is carried out. How to effectively implement organizational unlearning is
crucial for practitioners. The authors suggest that they should adopt appreciative inquiry
(Srithika and Bhattacharyya, 2009), which can reduce distrust and conflict and help the
organizations overcome inertia (Sekerka et al., 2006).
3. Effectively manage the evolutions of organizational unlearning/relearning and facilitate
the transfer from individual unlearning/relearning to group unlearning/relearning.
Practitioners can manage the evolutions of organizational unlearning/relearning by the

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 909
 two ways: mandatory or inductive. The former is that top managers manage the
evolutions by the mandatory way, while the latter is that top managers inspirit individuals
and groups to voluntarily manage the evolutions.
4. Promote common values, missions and future vision. In order to achieve dynamic
knowledge management, practitioners should provide better context and help individuals
in sharing perceptions and gaining collective understanding through meetings,
conferences, and similar other forums (Srithika and Bhattacharyya, 2009).
Although the research contributes to the current literatures, this study has some limitations.
One of limitations is that the authors only conduct theoretical research on the relationships
among organizational unlearning, organizational relearning and dynamic knowledge
management, and do not offer an empirical test. In the future, the authors will develop
measures for them and make empirical research. Second, the evolutions of organizational
unlearning and organizational relearning are quite complex process, because they are
subject to many factors within the organizations. This study clearly describes the evolutions
of organizational unlearning/relearning, but does not mention the factors influencing the
evolutions. How to effectively identify these factors and manage the evolutions is the future
research for enterprises. Finally, the environmental change that results in outdated
knowledge is an important factor to trigger organizational unlearning and organizational
relearning. This article does not analyze the influence that the environmental change
impacts on the circles of organizational learning/unlearning/relearning. The authors should
continue to make in-depth research on the relationship between environmental changes and
organizational learning/unlearning/relearning.

References
Akgün, A.E., Byrne, J.C., Lynn, G.S. and Keskin, H. (2007a), ‘‘New product development in turbulent
environments: impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance’’, Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 203-230.

Akgün, A.E., Byrne, J.C., Lynn, G.S. and Keskin, H. (2007b), ‘‘Organizational unlearning as changes in
beliefs and routines in organizations’’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 794-812.

Akgün, A.E., Lynn, G.S. and Byrne, J.C. (2003), ‘‘Organizational learning: a socio-cognitive framework’’,
Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 839-868.

Azmi, F.T. (2008), ‘‘Mapping the learn-unlearn-relearn model imperatives for strategic management’’,
European Business Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 240-259.

Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), ‘‘The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning
orientation on organizational performance’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 411-427.

Becker, K. (2010), ‘‘Facilitating unlearning during implementation of new technology’’, Journal of

Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 251-268.

Becker, K., Hyland, P. and Acutt, B. (2006), ‘‘Considering unlearning in HRD practices: an Australian
study’’, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 608-621.

Boiral, O. (2002), ‘‘Tacit knowledge and environmental management’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 35
No. 3, pp. 291-317.

Boiral, O. (2009), ‘‘Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors’’, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 221-236.

Bontis, N. and Fitz-enz, J. (2002), ‘‘Intellectual capital ROL: a casual map of human capital antecedents
and consequents’’, journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 223-247.

Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Dewhurst, F.W. (2003), ‘‘Unlearning as a prior step in the creation of
intellectual capital in the organizational context: an empirical investigation’’, Proceedings of the
4th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Oxford University, Oxford, 18-19 September.

j j
PAGE 910 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Moya, B.R. (2005), ‘‘Business performance management and unlearning
process’’, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 161-170.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. and Sanchez-Polo, M.T. (2008), ‘‘Linking the individual forgetting context with
customer capital from a seller’s perspective’’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 59
No. 12, pp. 1614-1623.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Eldridge, S. and Martinez-Martinez, A. (2010), ‘‘Managing environmental
knowledge through unlearning in Spanish hospitality companies’’, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 249-257.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), ‘‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.

De Holan, P. and Phillips, N. (2004), ‘‘Remembrance of things past? The dynamics of organizational
forgetting’’, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1603-1613.
DeCarolis, D.M. and Deeds, D.L. (1999), ‘‘The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge
on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry’’, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 953-968.
Dickson, P.R. (1992), ‘‘Toward a general theory of competitive rationality’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56
No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989), ‘‘Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive’’,
Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 1504-1511.
Duffy, F.M. (2003), ‘‘I think, therefore I am resistant to change’’, Journal of Staff Development, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 30-35.

Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003), ‘‘Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of
flexibility and change’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 94-118.
Feldman, M.S. and Rafaeli, A. (2002), ‘‘Organizational routines as sources of connections and
understandings’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 309-331.

Fernandez, V. and Sune, A. (2009), ‘‘Organizational forgetting and its causes:an empirical research’’,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 620-634.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), ‘‘Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective’’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.

Hedberg, B. (1981), ‘‘How organizations learn and unlearn’’, Handbook of Organizational Design,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Huber, G.P. (1991), ‘‘Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures’’,
Organizational Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.

Kilduff, M. (1992), ‘‘Performance and interaction routines in multinational corporation’’, Journal of

International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 133-145.
Klein, J.I. (1989), ‘‘Parenthetic learning in organizations: toward the unlearning of the unlearning model’’,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 291-308.
Mezias, J., Grinyer, P. and Guth, W.D. (2001), ‘‘Changing collective cognition: a process model for
strategic change’’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 71-95.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), ‘‘The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation’’,
California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Pratt, M.G. and Barnett, C.K. (1997), ‘‘Emotions and unlearning in amway recruiting techniques:
promoting change through ‘safe’ ambivalence’’, Management Learning, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 65-88.
Rousseau, D.M. (2001), ‘‘Schema, promise and mutuality: the building blocks of the psychological
contract’’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 511-541.
Sekerka, L.E., Brumbaugh, A.M., Rosa, J.A. and Cooperrider, D. (2006), ‘‘Comparing appreciative
inquiry to a diagnostic technique in organizational change: the moderating effects to gender’’,
International Journal of Organization Theory and Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 449-489.

j j
VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 911
 Sinkula, J.M. (2002), ‘‘Market-based success,organizational routines, and unlearning’’, Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17, pp. 253-269.
Sinkula, J., Baker, W. and Noordewier, T. (1997), ‘‘A framework for market-based organizational learning:
linking values, knowledge, and behavior’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 305-318.
Spender, J.C. (1998), The Dynamics of Individual and Organizational Knowledge, Sage, London.
Srithika, T.M. and Bhattacharyya, S. (2009), ‘‘Facilitating organizational unlearning using appreciative
inquiry as an intervention’’, Vikalpa, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 67-77.
Starbuck, W.H. (1996), ‘‘Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies’’, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 11 Nos 7/8, pp. 725-737.
Switzer, C. (2008), ‘‘Time for change: empowering organizations to succeed in the knowledge
economy’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 18-28.
Teece, D. (1998), ‘‘Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how
and intangible assets’’, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 55-79.
Wang, X.Y., Lu, Y.Q., Zhao, Y.X., Gong, S.L. and Bai, L. (2013), ‘‘Organisational unlearning,
organisational flexibility and innovation capability: an empirical study of SMEs in China’’, International
Jouranl of Technology Management, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 132-155.
Wijnhoven, F. (2001), ‘‘Acquiring organizational learning norms: a contingency approach for
understanding Deutero learning’’, Management Learning, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 181-200.
Wong, K.Y. (2005), ‘‘Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and
medium enterprises’’, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 261-279.

About the authors

Yingxin Zhao is presently working on her PhD in the Department of Technological Economics
and Management at Jilin University. She earned her Master’s degree from the School of
Management at Jilin University in 2011. Her areas of research include international economic
and technical co-operation, and knowledge management.
Yanqiu Lu is a Professor and PhD Mentor in the Department of International Business at the
School of Management, Jilin University. She earned her Doctor degree of engineering from
the School of Traffic at Jilin University in 2002. Her areas of research include international
economic and technical co-operation, and innovation management. Her current research
interest lies in the cross-border technology alliances and cooperative innovation.
Xiangyang Wang is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Business at
the School of Management, Jilin University. He earned his PhD in management from the
School of Management at Jilin University in 2009. His areas of research include international
economic and technical co-operation, knowledge management and innovation
management. His current research interest lies in the knowledge transfer in cross-border
M&A and technological innovation. Xiangyang Wang s the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: wangxiangyang@jlu.edu.cn

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
PAGE 912 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 17 NO. 6 2013