Cited by 96Management and Organizational StudiesOrganizational Learning and LeadershipMemory, History, Trauma, Identity

Organizational Memory Studies

Open access
Foroughi, Hamid, Coraiola, Diego M., Rintamäki, Jukka, Mena, Sébastien, Foster, William M.·2020·Organization Studies

Abstract

This paper provides an overview and discussion of the rapidly growing literature on organizational memory studies (OMS). We define OMS as an inquiry into the ways that remembering and forgetting shape, and are shaped by, organizations and organizing processes. The contribution of this article is threefold. We briefly review what we understand by organizational memory and explore some key debates and points of contestation in the field. Second, we identify four different perspectives that have been developed in OMS (functional, interpretive, critical and performative) and expand upon each perspective by showcasing articles published over the past decade. In particular, we examine four papers previously published in Organization Studies to show the distinctiveness of each perspective. Finally, we identify a number of areas for future research to facilitate the future development of OMS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0170840620974338

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A key challenge in maintaining organizational memory is ensuring that knowledge is not confined to individual leaders but is shared and institutionalized throughout the organization.

    “The study by Foroughi, et al. [68] expressed that a key challenge in maintaining organizational memory is ensuring that knowledge is not confined to individual leaders, but rather shared and institutionalized throughout the organization.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Foroughi, H., Coraiola, D. M., Rintamäki, J., Mena, S., & Foster, W. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Portsmouth (GB)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • Hertie School (DE)
Corresponding author
Foroughi, Hamid
Venue
Organization Studies
Published
2020-11-27
Volume
41
Issue
12
Pages
1725-1748
ISSN
  • 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3044
OpenAlex
W3095975385
Cited by
96
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11
FWCI
8.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Organization Studies (publishedVersion)
  • UVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) (submittedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OPUS 4 (Zuse Institute Berlin) (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Learning and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Memory, History, Trauma, Identity
Keywords
institutional memory, memory and forgetting, organizing processes, functional perspective, interpretive perspective, critical perspective, performative perspective, future research directions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review