↓ Skip to main content

Intentional Forgetting in Organizations: The Importance of Eliminating Retrieval Cues for Implementing New Routines

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intentional Forgetting in Organizations: The Importance of Eliminating Retrieval Cues for Implementing New Routines
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette Kluge, Norbert Gronau

Abstract

To cope with the already large, and ever increasing, amount of information stored in organizational memory, "forgetting," as an important human memory process, might be transferred to the organizational context. Especially in intentionally planned change processes (e.g., change management), forgetting is an important precondition to impede the recall of obsolete routines and adapt to new strategic objectives accompanied by new organizational routines. We first comprehensively review the literature on the need for organizational forgetting and particularly on accidental vs. intentional forgetting. We discuss the current state of the art of theory and empirical evidence on forgetting from cognitive psychology in order to infer mechanisms applicable to the organizational context. In this respect, we emphasize retrieval theories and the relevance of retrieval cues important for forgetting. Subsequently, we transfer the empirical evidence that the elimination of retrieval cues leads to faster forgetting to the forgetting of organizational routines, as routines are part of organizational memory. We then propose a classification of cues (context, sensory, business process-related cues) that are relevant in the forgetting of routines, and discuss a meta-cue called the "situational strength" cue, which is relevant if cues of an old and a new routine are present simultaneously. Based on the classification as business process-related cues (information, team, task, object cues), we propose mechanisms to accelerate forgetting by eliminating specific cues based on the empirical and theoretical state of the art. We conclude that in intentional organizational change processes, the elimination of cues to accelerate forgetting should be used in change management practices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 24 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 17 25%
Psychology 12 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,341,350
of 25,476,463 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,779
of 34,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,219
of 449,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#71
of 529 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,476,463 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,407 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 529 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.