Unlearning in the Workplace: A Mixed Methods...

Unlearning in the Workplace:

A Mixed Methods Study

Karen Louise Becker BBus(Mgt) QUT, MBA CSU

School of Learning and Professional Studies,

Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology

Submitted for the award of Doctor of Philosophy

2007

i

Keywords

unlearning, learning, adult learning, organisational learning, workplace learning,

resistance to change, change, organisational change, innovation, individual inertia,

organisational culture, organisational memory, explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge,

frames of reference, transitions

Short Abstract

Contemporary organisations face a raft of challenges in coping with

competing demands and rapidly changing environments. With these demands and

changes comes the need for those within the organisation to be adequately skilled to

meet these challenges both now and into the future. There is a growing concern that

the rate of change is such that learning will not be sufficient and that individuals will

need to be skilled in unlearning or letting go of past practice and behaviour.

This research investigated individual unlearning as it applies in the

workplace, and enabled the development of a process model of unlearning that

provides specific indication of factors affecting unlearning during times of change.

In particular, this thesis highlights the critical importance of elements of a

more personal and affective nature; often referred to as “soft” issues. Six key factors

at the level of the individual were identified as impacting unlearning; positive prior

outlook, individual inertia, feelings and expectations, positive experience and

informal support, understanding the need for change, and assessment of the new way.

Two factors emerged from the organisational level that also impact

unlearning; organisational support and training and history of organisational change.

Many change efforts will fail because of lack of attention to individuals, how they

unlearn and the level of feelings and expectations that accompany change. This

research demonstrates that organisations must provide resources and education to

provide both those in supervisory roles and those impacted by change with the

necessary skills to unlearn and to embrace change at an individual level.

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ............................................................................................................ v List of Figures .......................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................. vii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ viii Publications Arising From This Thesis..................................................................... x

Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................... 1 Contribution to Knowledge....................................................................................... 2 Definition of Unlearning........................................................................................... 4 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 6 Overview of Methodology ........................................................................................ 6 Thesis Structure......................................................................................................... 7 Chapter Summary...................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2 Literature Review...................................................................................... 9 Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................... 9 Introduction............................................................................................................. 10 Adult Learning ........................................................................................................ 11

Early Learning Theories...................................................................................... 12 Adult Learning Theories ..................................................................................... 15 Experience as Learning ....................................................................................... 19 Workplace Learning............................................................................................ 22 Types of Knowledge ........................................................................................... 25 Knowledge Creation ........................................................................................... 26 Adult Learning Principles ................................................................................... 28

Organisational Learning, Change and Innovation .................................................. 33 Knowledge Management .................................................................................... 36 Organisational Change........................................................................................ 36 Models of Organisational Change....................................................................... 38 Resistance, Emotions and Change ...................................................................... 41 Innovation ........................................................................................................... 42

Chapter Summary.................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 3 Development of a Conceptual Framework ............................................. 46

Chapter Overview ................................................................................................... 46 Current Models and Theories of Unlearning and Individual Change ..................... 51 Resistance to Change .............................................................................................. 57 Developing a Framework for Unlearning ............................................................... 61

Level One............................................................................................................ 62 Level Two ........................................................................................................... 64 Level Three ......................................................................................................... 68

The Unlearning Framework .................................................................................... 74 Chapter Summary.................................................................................................... 75

Chapter 4 Research Design & Methodology ........................................................... 76 Chapter Overview ................................................................................................... 76 The Research Question ........................................................................................... 77 Overview of Mixed Methods Approach ................................................................. 78 Operationalising the Research Question ................................................................. 80 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................ 83 Phase One: Qualitative Phase ................................................................................. 85

iii

Overview............................................................................................................. 85 Case Study Methodology .................................................................................... 86 Interview Question and Process Development ................................................... 86 Pilot Study Phase One and Outcomes................................................................. 88 Phase One Sampling ........................................................................................... 89 Data Collection ................................................................................................... 91 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 94 Validity and Reliability ....................................................................................... 96

Phase Two: Quantitative Phase............................................................................... 98 Overview............................................................................................................. 98 Survey Questionnaire Methodology ................................................................... 98 Survey Instrument Development......................................................................... 99 Pilot Study Phase Two ...................................................................................... 101 Survey Questionnaire Revision following Pilot Study ..................................... 102 Phase Two Sampling......................................................................................... 103 Data Collection ................................................................................................. 104 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 105 Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................... 108

Chapter Summary.................................................................................................. 110 Chapter 5 Phase One Results ................................................................................. 111

Chapter Overview ................................................................................................. 111 Pilot Study............................................................................................................. 112

Research Process and Methods ......................................................................... 112 Pilot Study Participants ..................................................................................... 113 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 116 Pilot Study Process Findings............................................................................. 117 Pilot Study Content Findings ............................................................................ 118 Pilot Study Conclusions .................................................................................... 123

Phase One Results ................................................................................................. 124 Organisation A ...................................................................................................... 125

Research Participants ........................................................................................ 127 Explicit and Tacit Knowledge........................................................................... 129 Personality and Frames of Reference................................................................ 131 Summary – Individual Factors .......................................................................... 132 Organisational Inert Knowledge ....................................................................... 133 Organisational Memory and Culture................................................................. 135 Summary – Organisational Factors................................................................... 138 Expanding the Process Model........................................................................... 139

Organisation B ...................................................................................................... 140 Research Participants ........................................................................................ 141 Explicit and Tacit Knowledge........................................................................... 142 Personality and Frames of Reference................................................................ 146 Summary – Individual Factors .......................................................................... 148 Organisational Inert Knowledge ....................................................................... 148 Organisational Memory and Culture................................................................. 151 Summary – Organisational Factors................................................................... 155 Expanding the Process Model........................................................................... 156

Organisation C ...................................................................................................... 157 Research Participants ........................................................................................ 158 Explicit and Tacit Knowledge........................................................................... 160

iv

Personality and Frames of Reference................................................................ 161 Summary – Individual Factors .......................................................................... 162 Organisational Inert Knowledge ....................................................................... 162 Organisational Memory and Culture................................................................. 163 Summary – Organisational Factors................................................................... 167 Expanding the Process Model........................................................................... 167

Cross-Case Analysis ............................................................................................. 168 Individual explicit and tacit knowledge and unlearning ................................... 168 Frames of reference and unlearning.................................................................. 171 Inert organisational knowledge and unlearning ................................................ 172 Organisational memory/organisational culture and unlearning ........................ 172 Other individual contingent factors................................................................... 174 External factors ................................................................................................. 174 Emerging Themes ............................................................................................. 175

Chapter Summary and Process Model Revision................................................... 176 Chapter 6 Phase Two Results ................................................................................ 178

Chapter Overview ................................................................................................. 178 Organisation Overview ......................................................................................... 179 Response Rate and Data Preparation .................................................................... 179 Demographics ....................................................................................................... 180 Background Information ....................................................................................... 182 Resistance to Change Scale Results...................................................................... 185 OCAI Results ........................................................................................................ 186 Principal Components Analysis ............................................................................ 188

Testing for Factorability.................................................................................... 188 Factor Retention................................................................................................ 189 Emerging Factors .............................................................................................. 190 Reliability Results ............................................................................................. 192 Factor 1. Understanding the need for change.................................................... 194 Factor 2. Organisational support and training................................................... 195 Factor 3. Assessment of new way.................................................................... 195 Factor 4. Positive experience and informal support......................................... 196 Factor 5. History of organisational change ...................................................... 196 Factor 6. Positive prior outlook........................................................................ 197 Factor 7. Feelings and expectations ................................................................. 197 Factor 8. Individual inertia............................................................................... 198 Principal Components Analysis Summary........................................................ 198

Correlation of Resistance to Change Scale and Unlearning Factors..................... 201 Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................................................... 202

Regression of RTC Subscales ........................................................................... 203 Regression of RTC Overall............................................................................... 204

Chapter Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................... 205 Chapter 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 206

Chapter Overview ................................................................................................. 206 Review of Conceptual Framework and Process Model ........................................ 207 Discussion of Findings.......................................................................................... 208

The Relationship between Explicit Knowledge, Tacit Knowledge and Individual Unlearning......................................................................................................... 209 The Relationship between Individual Frames of Reference and Individual Unlearning......................................................................................................... 211

v

The Relationship between Inert Organisational Knowledge and Individual Unlearning......................................................................................................... 212 The Relationship Between Organisational Memory, Organisational Culture and Individual Unlearning ....................................................................................... 213 Other Contingent Factors that may impact Individual Unlearning................... 214

Contributions of the Research............................................................................... 215 Contribution to Theory...................................................................................... 215 Contribution to Practice .................................................................................... 218

Research Limitations............................................................................................. 219 Directions for Future Research ............................................................................. 220 Thesis Summary.................................................................................................... 221 References ............................................................................................................. 222 Appendix A. Information Sheet and Consent Form.............................................. 240 Appendix B. Questions for Phase One Pilot and revised for Phase One .............. 241 Appendix C. Initial Interview with Organisational Contact (Phase 1) ................. 242 Appendix D. Table of codes ................................................................................. 244 Appendix E. Survey Instrument for Phase Two ................................................... 246 Appendix F. Development of Survey Instruments from Constructs in Process Model .................................................................................................................... 259 Appendix G. Detailed analysis of Phase One Pilot interviews ............................. 263 Appendix H. Synthesis and Emerging Themes of Phase 1 Pilot ......................... 271

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Existing Definitions of Unlearning............................................................. 5 Table 2.1 Laws of Learning (Thorndike, 1914, 1932 as cited in Vincent & Ross,

2001) and Proposed Implications for Unlearning developed for this research.. 13 Table 2.2 Andragogy factors (Newstrom & Lengnick-Hall, 1991, p. 46) ................ 17 Table 2.3 Levels of Learning (Snell and Chak, 1998, p. 340) ................................... 18 Table 2.4 Development of skill levels (Dreyfus, 1982, p. 147) ................................. 27 Table 2.5 Learning/Renewal in Organisations (Crossan, Lane & White, 1999, p.525)

............................................................................................................................ 34 Table 2.6 Change Terminology ................................................................................. 37 Table 2.7 Models of Organisational Change.............................................................. 39 Table 2.8 Dimension of Change (adapted from Nicholson, 1990) ............................ 40 Table 2.9 Strategic Innovation Process (based on Abraham & Knight, 2001) .......... 43 Table 2.10 Inhibitors of disruptive innovation (based on Assink, 2006)................... 44 Table 3.1. Existing Definitions of Unlearning ......................................................... 49 Table 3.2 Old Way/New Way Elements (Lyndon, 1989)......................................... 55 Table 3.3. A typology of Learning Situations (Newstrom, 1983, p. 37) ................. 56 Table 3.4. Possible factors in resistance to change and unlearning ......................... 71 Table 5.1 Phase One Pilot Study participants ......................................................... 114 Table 5.2 Organisation A research participants ...................................................... 128 Table 5.3 Organisation B research participants ...................................................... 141 Table 5.4 Organisation C research participants ...................................................... 159 Table 6.1 Training/qualification of respondents ...................................................... 181 Table 6.2 Age group of respondents ........................................................................ 181 Table 6.3 Years in organisation, position & type of work ....................................... 182

vi

Table 6.4 Awareness of change occurring .............................................................. 183 Table 6.5 Length of time using old way ................................................................. 183 Table 6.6 At present the new way is... .................................................................... 184 Table 6.7 How advanced is the organisation in the implementation of the new way?

.......................................................................................................................... 184 Table 6.8 The level of change to your job since the implementation ...................... 185 Table 6.9 Resistance to Change Scale results ......................................................... 186 Table 6.10 OCAI results ......................................................................................... 187 Table 6.11 Crosstabulation of OCAI results and years in organisation.................. 187 Table 6.12 Crosstabulation of OCAI results and position ...................................... 188 Table 6.13 KMO and Bartlett's Test results ............................................................ 189 Table 6.14 Factor loadings from PCA .................................................................... 191 Table 6.15 Cronbach's Alpha Results ..................................................................... 193 Table 6.16 Test-Retest correlations for pilot surveys ............................................. 193 Table 6.17 Correlation of Resistance to Change and Unlearning Factors (n=181) 201

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Overall thesis structure ............................................................................. 8 Figure 2.1. Chapter 2 structure..................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.2. Literature review fields........................................................................... 10 Figure 2.3. Individual and Organisational Learning .................................................. 11 Figure 2.4. Four Stages of Learning (Delahaye et al., 1994) .................................... 16 Figure 2.5. Experiential learning process and knowledge forms (Kolb, 1984) ........ 20 Figure 3.1. Chapter 3 structure................................................................................... 46 Figure 3.2. Links between learning and unlearning.................................................. 47 Figure 3.3. Extent models of unlearning (Klein, 1989, p. 292) ................................ 53 Figure 3.4. Unlearning Model Level 1...................................................................... 62 Figure 3.5. Unlearning Model Level 2...................................................................... 65 Figure 3.6. Unlearning Model Level 3...................................................................... 68 Figure 3.7. The Unlearning Framework.................................................................... 74 Figure 4.1 Chapter 4 structure.................................................................................... 76 Figure 4.2. Sequential Exploratory Design (Creswell et al., 2003, p. 225) .............. 79 Figure 4.3 Research process flowchart ...................................................................... 80 Figure 5.1 Chapter 5 structure.................................................................................. 111 Figure 5.2 Revised conceptual framework............................................................... 121 Figure 5.3 Unlearning Process Model...................................................................... 122 Figure 5.4 Unlearning Process Model after Case A................................................. 139 Figure 5.5 Unlearning Process Model after Case B................................................. 156 Figure 5.6 Safety and production trends 1993-2005 (T/Employee to LTIFR) ........ 166 Figure 5.7 Unlearning Process Model after Case C................................................. 168 Figure 5.8 Revised process model of unlearning..................................................... 176 Figure 6.1. Chapter 6 structure................................................................................. 178 Figure 6.2. Scree plot ............................................................................................... 190 Figure 6.3. Unlearning process model after PCA .................................................... 200 Figure 6.4. Regression analysis findings.................................................................. 204 Figure 7.1. Chapter 7 structure................................................................................. 206

vii

Figure 7.2. Emergence of the Unlearning Process Model from the Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 207

Figure 7.3. The Unlearning Process Model ............................................................ 216

List of Abbreviations CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CRA Critical Reflection of Assumptions

CVF Competing Values Framework

EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis

HRD Human resource development

HRM Human resource management

LSI Learning Styles Inventory

LTIFR Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate

OCAI Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument

OIUI Organisational and Individual Unlearning Inventory

RTC Resistance to Change

Statement of Original Authorship

“The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.”

Signature: ____________________________________

Date: ___________________________

viii

Acknowledgements

As with any major undertaking, this thesis was written while many other things in

my life were occurring (and sometimes it happened in spite of them!). There are a

number of people in particular who have my eternal thanks for their contribution to

this achievement….

My parents, Norman and Desley – although from a young age, my “why”

questions drove you crazy, you have given me a thirst for knowledge and

encouraged me to look for the learning opportunities in any situation however

bad it may seem at the time.

My best friend and life partner, Paul – for your unquestioned love,

encouragement, support, and the more than occasional presentation of

“alternate” points of view. I know that understanding what I was undertaking

often made it easier for me and harder for you. You walked a difficult line

between wanting to support me and leaving me to work things out for myself,

but you walked it with style!

My daughter Clare, and siblings, Jodie, Lisa and Scott – for your support

even when you didn’t really understand my struggles, and for reminding me

what life is really about.

My principal supervisor, Associate Professor Brian Delahaye– for your

wisdom and guidance, for the lengthy chats about life, work, career, PhD and

everything in-between, for your ability to ask those “difficult” questions in a

way that always steered me in a better direction, and most importantly for

your reassurance and belief that everything would work out when even I

wasn’t so sure.

ix

My associate supervisor, Dr Fiona Spencer– for your careful attention to

detail that so often left me wondering “how could I have missed that?” and

for your willingness to help at any stage I needed it; patiently explaining the

intricacies of regression analysis during maternity leave is way beyond the

call of duty!!

The Head of School who started my journey into the strange new world of

academia, Bruce Acutt – for the support you gave me in an official capacity

during the early stages of this study, but most importantly for the opportunity

to continue to engage with you on both a personal and professional level.

The fact that you agreed to provide feedback on this thesis is something I

value greatly.

A terrific group of friends and valued colleagues, Sharon, Ange, Gerry,

Kieren, and Claudine – for your input, suggestions, feedback, encouragement,

support, many coffees, and for asking “how is it going?” even when I am sure

you really didn’t want to know.

The General Managers, Human Resource Managers, Operations Managers

and all other Managers and Supervisors with whom I worked – you gave me

access to your organisation and your staff freely even though there were

many other issues that demanded your attention.

Finally, my individual research participants – without your preparedness to

share sometimes very personal information and thoughts, this would have

been an impossible task.

I will always be grateful to have had the pleasure of the company of this wonderful

collection of individuals on my journey through the PhD and beyond…

x

Publications Arising From This Thesis

Parts of this thesis have been published in the following peer refereed publications

(earlier ones published under Windeknecht)

Journal Articles

Becker, K. (2005). Individual and organisational unlearning: directions for future research. International Journal of Organisation Behaviour, 9(7), 659-670.

Becker, K., & Karayan, J. (2005). Leading people and communities through change:

the case for unlearning. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 18(1), 121-130. Hyland, P., Becker, K., & Acutt, B. (2006). Considering unlearning in HRD

practices: an Australian study. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(8), 608-621.

Conference Papers

Becker, K., & Davidson, P. (2007), Individual and organisational dimensions of change management for IHRM, Paper presented at the 9th International Human Resource Management Conference 12-15 June, Tallinn, Estonia.

Becker, K. (2006, 8-12 September). Unlearning: a people development issue for

sustainable change and innovation. Paper presented at the 7th International CINet Conference, Lucca, Italy. (Highly commended in the Best Paper Award for the Conference)

Becker, K., & Delahaye, B. (2006, 14-16 June). Unlearning as a lifelong learning

strategy: an important pathway for transitions. Paper presented at the 4th International Lifelong Learning Conference, Yeppoon, Australia.

Delahaye, B., & Becker, K. (2006, 14-16 June). Unlearning: a revised view of

contemporary learning theories? Paper presented at the 4th International Lifelong Learning Conference, Yeppoon, Australia.

Becker, K. (2005, 7-10 December). Changing culture to facilitate organisational

change: a case study. Paper presented at the 19th Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, Canberra, Australia.

Windeknecht, K., & Hyland, P. (2004, 13-16 June). When Lifelong Learning isn't

Enough: the importance of individual and organizational unlearning. Paper presented at the 3rd International Lifelong Learning Conference, Yeppoon, Australia.

xi

Windeknecht, K., & Delahaye, B. (2004, 8-11 December). A Model of Individual and

Organisational Unlearning. Paper presented at the 18th Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, Dunedin, NZ.

Windeknecht, K. (2003, 2-5 December). Managing Change in regionally-based

organisations; understanding the need for individual and organisational unlearning. Paper presented at the 17th Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Conference, Fremantle, Australia.

Chapter 1. Introduction 1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Contemporary organisations face a raft of challenges in coping with

competing demands and rapidly changing environments. With these demands and

changes comes the need for those within the organisation to be adequately skilled to

meet these challenges both now and into the future. There is a growing concern that

the rate of change is such that simply learning, at the individual level and at an

organisational level, will not ensure the sustainability of organisations. The two

areas of adult learning in a workplace context and organisational learning are not

new topics of research. They have been studied for decades in one form or another,

and they continue to be key elements of human resource management and

development strategy.

What has not been as well investigated is the link between individual and

organisational learning, and the more recently discussed concept of unlearning. This

research investigates individual unlearning as it applies in an organisational context.

Particularly in times of rapid and continuous organisational change, it is imperative

to understand how individuals unlearn, and what influence both individual and

organisational factors have on this process. Gaining this understanding can be

expected to have effects at the organisational level; providing organisations with a

better knowledge of ways to support individuals through times of change.

Hedberg (1981), one of the seminal authors in the field of unlearning,

eloquently summarises the challenge with which many organisations continue to

struggle:

There is too much waste of human resource, capital, knowledge, and

enthusiasm in letting organizations develop with learning abilities only. Such

organizations build walls around them, and grow defensive. They become

insensitive to signals from the environment, and they accumulate so many

resources that they cannot afford to move when times are changing. That is

why abilities for learning, unlearning, and relearning must be equally

developed. To learn, unlearn, and relearn is the organizational walk:

development comes to an end when one of these legs is missing (Hedberg,

1981, p. 23)


Contribution to Knowledge

Although many have written about the notion of unlearning, there is a

genuine lack of empirical studies relating to unlearning. In fact, many of the articles

written on the topic of unlearning have been written by practitioners and consultants

(Duffy, 2003; Kerfoot, 1999; Magrath, 1997; Mariotti, 1999; Sherwood, 2000).

Whilst these are based upon informed opinions and experience within organisations,

more robust research in this area would assist in either proving or disproving many

of the assumptions, recommendations and theories offered relating to unlearning

(Easterby-Smith & Araujo, 1999).

Several authors have pointed to this lack of research. For example, Easterby-

Smith (1997, p. 1108) proposes that “..further work should be conducted into how

individual and shared cognitive maps can change”, whilst Delahaye (2000, p. 49)

notes,

it is interesting to reflect that the concept of unlearning only recently has

become a phenomenon worthy of consideration in adult and organisational

learning. Centuries ago, an individual’s knowledge would last a lifetime,

indeed knowledge would be passed down generations and still be highly

useful. This has changed during this century until, as we pass into the new

millennium, knowledge becomes rapidly obsolete – hence the need to

consider the unlearning process. Surprisingly, there has been very little

written on the topic.

Moreover, French & Delahaye (1996, p. 22) point out “at present, there is

little information on individual change in organizations because approaches to

managing change have been developed at a group or systems level”.

Along the same lines, LePine, Colquitt and Erez (2000) suggest that to

address the rapidly changing organisational environment, rather than providing

development programs that can often be quickly outdated, organisations may choose

to develop their employees in terms of their ability to adapt and to handle change;

and it can be inferred, to unlearn. They too caution that “although this approach has

great potential, research in this area is fairly new and there are many issues that need

to be resolved before it can be used effectively in applied settings” (LePine et al.,

2000, p. 564). Kim (1993, p. 46) suggests that “individual mental models play a

pivotal role, yet that is precisely an area where we know little and there is little to

observe. One challenge is to find ways to make these mental models explicit;


another is to manage the way these mental models are transferred into the

organizational memory.” Again, this suggests that the mental models, referred to in

this thesis as frames of reference, and organisational memory, have strong ties to the

way organisations deal with change, and to the process of unlearning.

The importance of focussing on the organisational context even though the

major consideration of this study is individual unlearning has been recognised

previously, as many organisational change programs commence by focussing upon

the individual and their awareness of self in order to enable unlearning (Garrety,

Badham, Morrigan, Rifkin, & Zanko, 2003; Kiel, Rimmer, Williams, & Doyle,

1996). Therefore although the focus of this research is the individual, it cannot be

overlooked that individuals operate within an organisational environment, and it has

been recognised that “positive individual change has a positive organisational

impact” (Kiel et al., 1996, p. 71). Kim (1993, p. 37) suggests that “…organizations

ultimately learn via their individual members. Hence, theories of individual learning

are crucial for understanding organizational learning.” Judge, Thoresen, Pucik and

Welbourne (1999, p. 107) likewise emphasise, “research dealing with organizational

change has been largely dominated by a macro, systems-oriented focus”, suggesting

that consideration of individuals at the micro level may add to the current body of

knowledge in organisational change.

Hedberg (1981, p. 3) considers unlearning to be as crucial as gaining new

knowledge, and maintains that the lack of ability to engage in unlearning is reported

as a “crucial weakness of many organizations.”. Newstrom (1983) claims that the

most relevant competencies for guiding the unlearning process is an understanding of

adult learning and an understanding of organisational change. This is the key reason

for turning to the adult learning and organisational learning and change literature in

Chapter 2, as the starting point for this research.

The reason for considering unlearning in the broader organisational context,

and often as the first step in organisational learning and change, has been succinctly

summed up by Hedberg (1981, p. 6) who states, “individuals’ learning is doubtless

important in organizational learning. Organizations have no other brains and senses

than those of their members.” Along the same lines, Coghlan (1993, p. 10) proposes,

“resistance to change by individuals in organizations is a natural phenomenon and is

an essential element in understanding any change process”. All of these claims


highlight the importance of grounding this research in both the adult learning and

organisational learning and change literature.

Based upon an extensive literature review, it is clear that although unlearning

is being more regularly discussed, there are few theories backed up by empirical

evidence to identify how individuals unlearn and what factors may influence this

unlearning. It is also clear that investigating this area within a broader organisational

context, linking it to previously conducted research, is critical. Tsang (1997) is

critical of organisational learning and the learning organisation research agendas,

commenting “… the studies are noncumulative in the sense that current studies

seldom build on past research results. Each tries to dig a fresh hole in the field”

(Tsang, 1997, p. 82). Sun and Scott (2003) also believe that there has been a “lack of

attention paid to certain areas of the learning process (eg. link between individual

and organizational learning)…” (Sun & Scott, 2003, p. 207). As a way forward,

Tsang (1997) makes a call for more research combining descriptive and prescriptive

research. This call suggests that using both qualitative and quantitative methods is

an appropriate approach to address the gaps in knowledge and understanding; one of

the key reasons for choosing a mixed methods approach to this study.

Definition of Unlearning

Those who have used the term unlearning have used it in a number of

different contexts. Some have referred to this concept in terms of individuals

undergoing a process of releasing old ways and embracing new behaviours, ideas or

actions (Baxter, 2000; Bridges, 1991; Duffy, 2003). Others have focussed more

upon organisations, as a system, letting go of previous methods and approaches in

order to accommodate changing environments and circumstances internal to the

organisation (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Harvey & Buckley, 2002; Hedberg, 1981;

Klein, 1989). De Holan, Phillips and Lawrence (2004) actually classify unlearning

as one of four methods of organisational forgetting. More recently, Navarro and

Moya (2005) recognise the existence of two levels of unlearning; individual and

group. Many other authors have used the term unlearning and not provided a

definition (Buchen, 1999; Hurd, 2003; Rampersad, 2004; Schein, 1993; Sotirakou &

Zeppou, 2004) perhaps assuming that the term is generally understood; an

assumption that is of concern.


A number of authors who have written about unlearning have provided

definitions. Table 1.1 summarises some of the more common definitions found in

the literature:

Table 1.1 Existing Definitions of Unlearning

Author Definition

Cegarra-Navarro & Dewhurst

“Organisational unlearning… is defined as the dynamic process that identifies and removes ineffective and obsolete knowledge and routines, which block the collective appropriation of new knowledge and opportunities” (Cegarra-Navarro & Dewhurst, 2006, p. 51)

Hedberg “Knowledge grows, and simultaneously it becomes obsolete as reality changes. Understanding involves both learning new knowledge and discarding obsolete and misleading knowledge” (Hedberg, 1981, p. 3)

Newstrom “…the process of reducing or eliminating preexisting knowledge or habits that would otherwise represent formidable barriers to new learning.” (Newstrom, 1983, p. 36)

Prahalad & Bettis “Unlearning is simply the process by which firms eliminate old logics and behaviours and make room for new ones.” (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986, p. 498)

Starbuck “Unlearning is a process that shows people they should no longer rely on their current beliefs and methods” (Starbuck, 1996, p. 727)

In comparing and contrasting these definitions, it is apparent that in some

cases the definition of unlearning is referring to the unlearning undertaken by

individuals, and others are referring specifically to organisational unlearning. All the

definitions generally recognise unlearning as a process rather than a discrete event,

and secondly they acknowledge the close link between learning or acquiring new

knowledge, and unlearning. Therefore, the definition of unlearning for the purposes

of this research is.

Unlearning is the process by which individuals and organisations

acknowledge and release prior learning (including assumptions and mental

frameworks) in order to accommodate new information and behaviours.


Research Questions

Following an extensive review and synthesis of the literature in the areas of

individual and organisational learning, the overall purpose of the research was to

answer the following question:

How do individuals unlearn in the workplace, and what is the nature and

extent of the factors that influence an individual’s capacity for unlearning?

Based upon this broader overall research purpose and the conceptual framework

developed from the literature review, the following key questions were identified:

1. What is the relationship between individual explicit knowledge and individual

unlearning?

2. What is the relationship between individual tacit knowledge and individual

unlearning?

3. What is the relationship between individual’s frames of reference (influenced by

cognitive ability, cognitive style, learning style and personality) and individual

unlearning?

4. What is the relationship between inert organisational knowledge and individual

unlearning?

5. What is the relationship between organisational memory and individual

unlearning?

6. What is the relationship between organisational culture and individual

unlearning?

7. Are there other individual contingent factors that influence individual

unlearning?

Overview of Methodology

Based upon the overall research aim and specific research questions, the

research involved a mixed methods study relating to factors influencing individual

unlearning within work organisational contexts. A conceptual framework was built

as a result of the analysis and synthesis of existing literature, and this framework was

used to guide the research.

Mixed methods studies allow for the inclusion of both qualitative and

quantitative methods of data collection and/or analysis to achieve a range of


outcomes (Creswell, 2005; Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). Use of mixed

methods as distinct from either qualitative or quantitative methodology is growing in

popularity and this approach has been more widely recognised with the release of

publications dealing specifically with mixed methodologies (for example see

Creswell, 2003; Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). In this

particular study, a mixed methodology was adopted to allow for initial generation of

rich data in relation to the relatively unexplored area of unlearning, and then to

expand this knowledge with the added benefits of a quantitative phase of study.

The study was broken into two distinctly separate phases: Phase One

involving the use of qualitative methods to gain a more detailed understanding of

unlearning, and Phase Two building on the outcomes of Phase One to conduct

quantitative analysis on a larger number of individuals. Three case study

organisations undergoing change were used for Phase One, and a range of

individuals in each of these organisations was interviewed to gain a further

understanding of the issues involved in unlearning. The outcomes are provided in

Chapter 5. Phase Two involved the administration of instruments identified or

developed as a result of Phase One, in another organisation undergoing change. The

results of Phase Two are presented in Chapter 6. The second phase builds on the

first, and the overall study provides further insight into unlearning in the workplace

as a result of change.

Thesis Structure

This thesis began by providing a background to the study into individual

unlearning. The justification for the research based upon an extensive literature

review in the areas of individual and organisational learning and unlearning is

provided in Chapter 2. As a part of this literature review, a conceptual framework

for individual and organisational unlearning is developed, and Chapter 3 finalises

this framework.

Based upon the literature review and resulting framework, a methodology for

the research project is presented in Chapter 4, providing a rationale for the chosen

mixed methods approach, the method for participant selection, and the data

collection and analysis techniques. The data collected is then presented and findings

discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. The thesis concludes by outlining in Chapter 7 the

unique contribution to knowledge and practice provided by the research outcomes


and highlights future directions for research. Figure 1.1 provides the overall

structure of this thesis based upon the methodology employed.

Figure 1.1. Overall thesis structure

Chapter Summary

This first chapter of the thesis provided an overview of the research; the purpose, the

unique contribution to knowledge that it represents, the research questions and a

broad overview of the key literature that currently exists in the field of unlearning. A

brief overview of the methodology employed for this research was also provided.

The following two chapters provide firstly an overview of the background literature

to this study, and then a more specific focus on the unlearning literature and the

construction of a conceptual framework to guide the study.

Conclusions and Implications

Chapter 7.

Theoretical background and literature review

Chapter 2. Literature Review Chapter 3. Conceptual Framework

Phase 1 Results

Chapter 5.

Phase 2 Results.

Chapter 6.

Research Design Chapter 4. Methodology

Chapter 2. Literature Review 9

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Chapter Overview

The previous chapter provided an introduction to the research and an

overview of the thesis structure. This chapter provides a review of the literature in

the areas of individual and organisational learning. The chapter structure is outlined

in Figure 2.1.

Adult LearningOrganisational

Learning, Change and Innovation

Early Learning Theories

Adult Learning

Experience as Learning

Workplace Learning

Types of Knowledge

Knowledge Creation

Adult Learning Principles

Defining Organisational

Learning

Knowledge Management

Models of Organisational

Change

Resistance and Emotions

during Change

Innovation

Chapter Summary

Figure 2.1. Chapter 2 structure


Introduction

When commencing a research project relating to unlearning in an

organisational context, there are a number of existing bodies of literature that provide

some insight into the concept of unlearning; even if this specific term has not been

utilised in those literatures. Whilst a wide variety of literature was scanned in

relation to the topic, the key fields requiring further exploration are shown as Figure

2.2.

Figure 2.2. Literature review fields

Predominantly, adult learning and workplace learning at an individual level,

and organisational learning at the organisational level have provided a focus for the

research. In addition, bodies of literature such as organisational change and

innovation, organisational culture, knowledge management and individual change

and transition have also provided different perspectives on unlearning; what it is,

how it might occur and what factors may influence an individual’s capacity to

unlearn. This chapter provides grounding in these fields and a basis upon which to

develop a conceptual framework for this study in the next chapter. A conceptual

framework is defined as “providing a description of the relationships between the

concepts being used” (Fisher, 2004, p.96). The key purpose of this literature review


therefore is to identify the concepts to be considered further within this project and

then to theorise about the relationships between these (Fisher, 2004), enabling a

graphic representation of this conceptual framework to be built as the literature

review progresses.

The study of learners has spanned many centuries. Whilst venturing down

the path of the history of adult learning, it is difficult to identify exactly where to

commence the literature review. Early philosophers such as Socrates and Plato

certainly made contributions to the learning and thinking fields of knowledge and

many of the more recent authors have embraced the underlying principles of these

early philosophers. Through the centuries, the field has developed further, looking

not only at adult learning, but in the particular context of an organisational

environment, and then to the more recently embraced pursuit of lifelong learning.

Figure 2.3 commences the development of the model and identifies the first

two fields for consideration; that of individual and organisational learning, and the

mutual interaction between the two. These two fields are analysed through this

chapter, with particular consideration given to individual issues, and for both areas,

the possible links to unlearning for further consideration in Chapter 3.

INDIVIDUALLEARNING

ORGANISATIONALLEARNING

Figure 2.3. Individual and Organisational Learning

Adult Learning

To inform further investigation in the area of adult learning, the recent history

of the literature in this field was reviewed. This history provides an understanding of

the concepts that have been considered, and also provides a basis for understanding

the different approaches and schools of thought that have developed in this field.


This review of adult learning provides an overview of the recognised works in this

area, but also aims to identify the possible links to the more specific area of

unlearning. As many of the theories presented were aimed at enhancing learning, the

link to unlearning is not as clear, but in many cases can be inferred.

Early Learning Theories

Without returning to the philosophers in the thinking and learning field, Delahaye

(1991, p. 159) notes that by the mid-nineteenth century, James Hole proposed at least

three key tenets of adult learning which remain applicable today:

• that learning and education should not be considered only in terms of children

and/or youth, but should be considered a lifetime pursuit;

• that teaching via involvement of learners is more effective than simply

presentation of information via lectures for example; and

• that to improve the knowledge and abilities of adults, we must first

acknowledge the current level of knowledge (Hole as cited in Delahaye,

1991).

Importantly, the final point highlights the potential significance of unlearning

by recognising that existing knowledge plays a key role in the learning process.

One of the most widely recognised early theories in relation to learning,

focussed heavily on learning that occurs as a result of association with particular

stimuli, or more generally focussing on human behaviour in relation to stimulus and

response (S-R) relationships. This form of learning was referred to as classical

conditioning. Ivan Pavlov (1927 as cited in Bitterman, 2006) is recognised as the

key contributor to this concept. Classical conditioning is based upon the theory that

learning can occur through association. We can learn to associate our behaviours

with certain stimuli and thus become conditioned to expect particular outcomes

(Bouton, 2000).

Thorndike in 1898 (cited in Skinner, 1953) first began considering learning as

a result of consequences of our behaviour, or what was to become known as operant

conditioning. Later Skinner (1953) expanded upon this work, looking not only at

individuals but also considering the impact of operant conditioning upon people in

groups and also making early assessment of cultures and how they are established

and maintained. In essence, operant conditioning suggests that we learn as a direct

result of consequences of our behaviour, referred to as reinforcement; either positive

or negative (Skinner, 1953). Whilst a great deal of the research carried out by


Thorndike (as cited in Skinner, 1953) involved laboratory settings (often with non-

human subjects), there were six laws proposed in relation to this theory which remain

the basis of much of our human resource development practices even today. These

laws are shown in Table 2.1 based on descriptions of each of the laws developed by

Vincent and Ross (2001), and then for the purpose of this study have been

extrapolated to propose implications for unlearning.

Table 2.1 Laws of Learning (Thorndike, 1914, 1932 as cited in Vincent & Ross, 2001) and Proposed Implications for Unlearning developed for this research

Laws of Learning

Descriptions Proposed Implications for Unlearning

The Law of Readiness

The learner must be ready or motivated to learn in order to gain from the experience.

The learner must likewise be ready or motivated to unlearn.

The Law of Exercise

The more a learner uses particular knowledge or behaviours, the stronger the likelihood of this being maintained.

The more a particular action or behaviour has been used, potentially the more difficult it will be to unlearn. It also means that the learner must not utilise the knowledge or behaviour once unlearning is occurring.

The Law of Effect

If there is reward or pay-off for the action or behaviour then the likelihood of this behaviour being repeated is increased.

If there is reward or pay-off for the unwanted action or behaviour being unlearnt, then this will be counterproductive to the unlearning process.

The Law of Primacy

Whatever occurs first is remembered by learners.

Unlearning older behaviour that has been reinforced over a longer period of time may prove difficult.

The Law of Recency

Linked also to the law of primacy, this law refers to learners remembering well those things that occur most recently.

The more recent behaviour that is at the forefront of an individual’s mind is likely to also be difficult to unlearn.

The Law of Intensity

Learners are more likely to learn if they are actively engaged, and the learning experience is intense and stimulating.

The unlearning process will need to offer engagement and involvement. When behaviours have been intensely held for a long period of time, it will be extremely difficult for an individual to then relinquish these behaviours.

Bouton (2000) succinctly summarises the difference between the two

concepts of operant and classical conditioning, explaining that classical conditioning

is about learning from relationships between signals and certain events or outcomes,

whilst operant conditioning is about learning from relationships between behaviour

and certain events or outcomes. Whilst both operant and classical conditioning


provide a useful explanation of behaviour and learning, neither concept explains

fully some of the complex behaviours encountered in organisations today. They do

however highlight the importance of consequences in the learning process indicating

that if certain behaviours are associated with positive outcomes, there may be little

motivation to unlearn these behaviours.

In response to the theories of classical and operant conditioning, Bandura

(1977) suggests that learning is socially-situated and therefore is not as easily

explained as either of the previous two theories purport; and therefore expanded the

concept of operant conditioning. It was suggested that learning does not occur only

from first-hand personal experience, but may also occur as a result of observing

others. This phenomenon became known as “modelling” or “observational

learning”. As Bandura (1977, p. 12) suggests,

…virtually all learning phenomena resulting from direct experience occur on

a vicarious basis by observing other people’s behaviour and its consequences

for them. The capacity to learn by observation enables people to acquire

large, integrated patterns of behaviour without having to form them gradually

by tedious trial and error.

The essence of social learning theory is that, “… people are neither driven by

inner forces nor buffeted by environmental stimuli. Rather, psychological

functioning is explained in terms of a continuous reciprocal interaction of personal

and environmental determinants” (Bandura, 1977, p. 11). This theory in particular

emphasises the importance of considering not only the individual but also the

organisational context when researching unlearning.

In support of this theory of social learning, Lave and Wenger (1991) used the

term “situated learning”, suggesting once again that learning occurs in social

situations, not in isolation. The term “legitimate peripheral participation” is used by

Lave and Wenger (1991) and is explained by claiming that “…learners inevitably

participate in communities of practitioners and that the mastery of knowledge and

skill requires newcomers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural

practices of a community” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 29).

Unlearning therefore cannot be considered in relation to just individuals. It is

also important to consider the context in which they are learning and unlearning; in

this particular study, as part of a work organisation. If the learner is observing

certain behaviours, these will be reinforced if the learner also observes positive


outcomes as a result of these behaviours. In an unlearning situation then, it could be

claimed that changes to, or removal of, these communities of practice is critical to

facilitating unlearning.

Adult Learning Theories

Knowles (1980) became a renowned author in the field of adult education in the

1950’s and 1960’s producing a number of compelling arguments about the need to

recognise the difference between child and adult learners, or what was to become

known as those with low or high learner maturity. As a result, the term “andragogy”

was utilised to describe a teaching orientation focussed on the particular

characteristics of adult learners, which was then redefined as a focus on mature

learners. In particular, Knowles (1980) suggested that four assumptions underlying

andragogy provided some key considerations for those involved in the education of

mature learners. These four assumptions and the possible implications for

unlearning are:

1. Concept of the Learner: that mature learners will place increasing emphasis

on self direction, therefore meaning that in unlearning, it will also be

important for the learner to feel a sense of control over their unlearning.

2. Role of the Learner’s Experience: that the experience accumulated as we

learn needs to be viewed as valuable to a learning process, and that mature

learners learn more via experience and experimental means rather than by

more passive means. For unlearning therefore, it will also be critical to allow

learners to reflect on experience and to engage in experiential activities in

order to facilitate unlearning.

3. Readiness to Learn: mature learners will be ready and willing to learn when

they see a need for the knowledge. Therefore, if unlearning is to be

successful, it too will need to be seen by the learner as important, and the

learner will need to be convinced of the necessity to unlearn past behaviours

or knowledge.

4. Orientation to Learning: learning for life principles are held strongly by

mature learners as they want to see the usefulness of learning and want the

learning to benefit them in a holistic sense. Therefore, in unlearning it will

also be important to ensure that the learner sees the long term benefit of

relinquishing previous behaviours or knowledge.


It is these concepts from Knowles (1980), based on prior general theories of

learning, that became the foundation of a new approach to the teaching of adults and

gave a new view of their orientation towards learning.

Even the term andragogy has undergone some further analysis and

development. When first identifying the term, Knowles (1970) subtitled his text

“andragogy versus pedagogy”. A subtle but important difference between this first

edition and the second edition is the subtitle which became “from andragogy to

pedagogy” (Knowles, 1980), indicating a continuum rather than terms that are

mutually exclusive. It has been suggested that both from a teaching and a learning

perspective, it is too simplistic to suggest this to be an either/or relationship. In fact,

research conducted by Delahaye, Limerick and Hearn (1994) suggest that rather than

considering andragogy and pedagogy on a continuum, these two concepts sit at right

angles, therefore allowing learners to be either high or low on each of the two

continuums (refer Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4. Four Stages of Learning (Delahaye et al., 1994)

It is suggested by Delahaye et al. (1994) that Stages 1 and 3 on this model can

be easily related to the work by Knowles (1980) however Stages 2 and 4 are less

straightforward. Stage 4 represents situations involving a learner who is extremely

self-reliant and autonomous, to the point of not requiring a facilitator for learning.

Stage 2 represents the point at which learners are looking for the self-direction and

self-reliance of the assumptions of andragogy, but are not prepared to relinquish the

comfort and structure of pedagogical assumptions (Delahaye et al., 1994).

halla

This figure is not available online. Please consult the hardcopy thesis available from the QUT Library


It could be claimed that regardless of where a learner falls on this model, this

orientation to learning may also have implications for unlearning. For example, at

Stage 1, it will be important for the focus on unlearning to be structured and the

benefits made clear to the learner. In contrast, at Stage 3, it may be more important

for the learner to recognise the need to unlearn, and be offered support but not

necessarily structure to facilitate the unlearning process. Specifically in terms of

unlearning however, there is no research basis for these propositions.

Following Knowles (1980), Newstrom and Lengnick-Hall (1991) further

developed the concept of andragogy, suggesting that even within this approach to

learning, learners must be assessed to determine the degree to which a number of

factors (outlined in Table 2.2), are present.

Table 2.2 Andragogy factors (Newstrom & Lengnick-Hall, 1991, p. 46)

halla

This table is not available online. Please consult the hardcopy thesis available from the QUT Library


Much overlap can be seen between these dimensions and the models

mentioned previously, in particular Knowles’ (1980) model of andragogy. This

again provides a focus for further considering the impact of unlearning on the adult

learning process. In particular, it could be claimed that those more resistant to

change as identified by Newstrom and Lengnick-Hall (1991) may be less inclined to

engage in unlearning.

In the same era as Knowles (1970), Argyris and Schon (1978) highlighted the

different types of learning that can occur at both an individual and organisational

level. They introduced the concept of single-loop and double-loop learning. Single

loop learning is described as learning aimed at correcting error. Double-loop

learning involves the analysis of the assumptions and processes which may lead to

error, and attempts to address these (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Some have related

double-loop learning to the term “deutero learning” introduced by Bateson (1972),

described as “learning how to learn”. Sun and Scott (2003) suggest that double-loop

learning requires the learner to discard obsolete knowledge and question

assumptions, and thus is advocating that unlearning must form part of the double-

loop learning process.

Triple-loop learning has been introduced more recently by other authors (for

example see Foldy & Creed, 1999; Romme & Witteloostuijn, 1999; Snell & Chak,

1998) and is defined as a “new processes for generating mental maps” (Snell &

Chak, 1998, p. 339); in some ways appearing to equate with deutero-learning. The

differences between the manifestations of not learning, single-, double- and triple-

loop learning are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Levels of Learning (Snell and Chak, 1998, p. 340)

halla



If, as a part of triple-loop learning, it is important to identify new ways of

learning or developing mental models, then unlearning would need to occur prior to

any triple-loop learning occurring. Referring to the descriptions of double-loop

learning, it would also be necessary for unlearning to occur if not before, then at least

as a part of this process.

Experience as Learning

Kolb (1984) also had a large impact upon the understanding of learning as an

ongoing process, suggesting that the behavioural theories of learning did not fully

explain the learning process. The term “experiential learning” was used by Kolb

(1984, p. 21) to describe “a holistic integrative perspective on learning that combines

experience, perception, cognition, and behaviour”. The underlying assumption of

this model is that a number of factors can impact upon learning, and therefore must

be considered. The experiential learning model proposed by Kolb (1984) was based

upon three different but interrelated models: Lewin’s model of action research (1951

cited in Kolb, 1984), Dewey’s model of learning (1938 cited in Kolb, 1984) and

Piaget’s model of learning and cognitive development (1970 cited in Kolb, 1984).

This model is shown as Figure 2.5.


Figure 2.5. Experiential learning process and knowledge forms (Kolb, 1984)

This model suggests that any learning situation or opportunity involves an

experience, which is then reflected upon, conceptualised and then further explored,

resulting in learning; hence involving experience, cognition, perception and

behaviour (Kolb, 1984). This model suggests that learners show preferences for

certain parts of this process. A self-report inventory was developed around this

process, called the Learning Styles Inventory (LSI), allowing the learner to identify

their individual profile in terms of preferences for each of the four learning

orientations shown in Figure 2.5. The concept of learning styles has been used in a

variety of terms, sometimes causing confusion as to what is meant by the term.

Sadler-Smith (1996) suggests that a broader term such as “personal style” which

encompasses learning preferences, learning style and cognitive style may be more

useful to describe “distinct but complementary attributes” (Sadler-Smith, 1996, p.

30) of a learner.

Whilst Kolb’s (1984) learning cycle and model relating to learning styles is

well recognised and utilised, it does not specifically recognise the role of previous

knowledge within the experiential learning process. It could be suggested that if via

the LSI, or an equivalent instrument, an individual learner’s orientation to learning

can be measured, this orientation also presents the possibility that those individuals

with differing learning styles engage differently in the unlearning process.

halla



Focussing still on experience as a catalyst to learning, Mezirow (1990)

defined learning as “the process of making a new or revised interpretation of the

meaning of an experience, which guides subsequent understanding, appreciation, and

action” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 1). However, Mezirow (1990; 1991) suggests that

reflection and action cannot be as easily distinguished as suggested by Kolb (1984),

and believes that “reflection becomes an integral element of thoughtful action.”

(Mezirow, 1990, p. 6). The work of Mezirow (1990; 1991) focuses heavily on the

effect of underlying assumptions and premises (referred to as frames of reference) on

our thinking and decision making, and therefore impacts upon the things we attend to

and consequently what we learn and do not learn. Critical reflection of assumptions

(CRA) was the term used to denote the learning that occurs from reflecting upon the

premises upon which decisions and actions are made (Mezirow, 1998). It is

suggested that these underlying assumptions and beliefs have a profound impact

upon what is learnt; in fact at times serving to prevent learning and possibly

unlearning. Mezirow (1990, p. 4) suggests that “when experience is too strange or

threatening to the way we think or learn, we tend to block it out or resort to

psychological defense mechanisms to provide a more compatible interpretation.”

Mezirow (1990) drawing on the work of Habermas (1971) identifies three

different levels of learning; instrumental, communicative and transformative

learning. Instrumental learning can be equated with the process of problem solving;

reflecting on an action to determine whether or not our assumptions were correct,

whether we considered all options and assessing the outcomes achieved. It is

suggested that instrumental learning “involves the process of learning to control and

manipulate the environment or other people” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 8). Communicative

learning, in contrast, is not necessarily about how to control the environment or

outcomes, but is related to the understanding of ideas and concepts (Mezirow, 1990).

This is a more social form of learning, requiring interaction and discussion with

others in an attempt to search for meaning. The existence of critical reflection is

highlighted as an important part of communicative learning.

Transformative learning, as the third level of learning, occurs when an

individual engages in reflective discourse; specific dialogue aimed at critically

evaluating assumptions held by the individual (Mezirow, 2000). Transformative

learning often happens when an individual encounters a disorientating dilemma

which forces an examination of previously held beliefs and assumptions, and a


subsequent change of perspective (Mezirow, 1990). It could be suggested that at this

level of learning, unlearning will be particularly critical, requiring the individual to

reflect on and release previous assumptions in order to learn. To facilitate the

process of transformative learning, emancipatory education was suggested by

Mezirow (1990, p.18) to be “an organized effort to help the learner challenge

presuppositions, explore alternative perspectives, transform old ways of

understanding, and act on new perspectives.” It is these underlying assumptions and

ways of thinking that may also impact upon the unlearning process of individuals.

The implication of this theory for unlearning is the possibility that if these defence

mechanisms exist in an individual they may inhibit not only new learning but also

the discarding of existing knowledge.

Workplace Learning

The broader work in the field of learning has moved into the organisational

arena, with a prime focus on learning within an organisation for purpose of personal

or professional development. Thus the area of workplace learning has emerged;

moving from the traditional classroom-based learning, to that of learning as integral

to an individual’s job and occurring within the workplace. Some researchers have

begun to focus specifically on this area (for example see Billett, 1995, 2001, 2002;

Boud & Garrick, 1999; Collis & Winnips, 2002; Illeris, 2003). Particularly as

organisations come to terms with a rapidly changing internal and external

environment, and the widely recognised knowledge era progresses, learning in the

workplace has become an important focus. Researchers in this area tend to focus

more upon development of vocational skills, and it is within this area of workplace

learning, an emergence of the issue of informal learning has occurred (Bell, 1977;

Eraut, 2000; Garrick, 1998; Gorard, Fevre, & Rees, 1999; Lohman, 2000).

Informal learning can be seen to have strong links to the previously

mentioned Social Learning Theory espoused by Bandura (1977). Informal learning

has been defined by many authors in a number of different ways however it is most

frequently used to describe learning via experience, guidance, coaching, modelling or

mentoring, as opposed to involvement in specific facilitated programs of training or

development. Bell (1977, p. 280) defines purposeful informal learning as “planned

learning which occurs in a setting or situation without a formal workshop, lesson

plan, instructor or examination”. This is not to infer that informal learning is of


lesser value or effectiveness, in fact many of the authors in this area would argue to

the contrary.

For example, Billett (2002), argues strongly against the widespread use of the

term informal learning, warning that this may suggest it is less effective than formal

learning, or perhaps suggesting a more ad hoc, less valuable means of learning. He

warns that to define informal learning as what it “is not” and what it lacks, as

suggested by the definition from Bell (1977), does not recognise informal learning

for its full potential. Day (1998), based upon findings from the Centre for Workforce

Development, Massachusetts, suggests that informal learning not only promotes

practical skills, intra- and interpersonal skills and cultural awareness, but is also

considered needs-specific and therefore highly relevant, is incremental based upon

the individual’s learning needs, is immediately applicable and spontaneous, and it

also provides outcomes specific to individual needs. This ability to cater to

individual needs may also provide an opportunity to identify areas of required

unlearning at the individual level.

Many researchers of workplace learning consider learning to be a socially

constructed phenomenon, and therefore emphasise the understanding of the context

of the learning; in this case, the workplace, and the prevailing culture (Billett, 1995).

It has been said, “…the contributions of a workplace’s physical environment provide

important clues, cues and models that assist individuals’ thinking and acting and

hence their learning and understanding” (Billett, 2000, p. 272). Again, this is

suggesting that the work environment also plays a part in learning, and as an

extension, unlearning. It also identifies the strong link between individual and

organisational learning as proposed previously in Figure 2.3.

Within the workplace learning literature, Garrick (1999) suggests there are

four different models being utilised. Firstly, human capital theory is based upon the

assumption that in order to improve returns within the organisation, efficiency and

effectiveness must be addressed, and as the human resources are one part of the

production process, ensuring their development and learning should result in an

improved organisation. Secondly, the experience-based learning approach focuses

on learning being a socially and culturally constructed, and experience being the

foundation for learning. Thirdly, the area of cognition and expertise at work focuses

more on the cognitive psychology involved in learning and the development of

different types of knowledge and expertise. Finally, the generic skills, capabilities


and competence school of thought contends that learners must develop generic skills

that can be applied within a workplace setting and are transferable between

organisations and jobs. From these different perspectives there may also be a

different view of unlearning. For example, those using an experienced-based focus

may be more responsive to the recognition of unlearning as opposed to those

approaching from a human capital perspective. Those in the latter category may

require evidence of a direct pay-off such as shorter learning times and more effective

transfer of learning, in order to consider unlearning further.

Many approaches to facilitating workplace learning have been suggested,

particularly aimed at the sharing of knowledge and expertise of those experienced

within the workplace (Smith, 2001). In this context, mentoring has long been

considered an effective means of learning (Billett, 2000; Swap, Leonard, Shields, &

Abrams, 2001). Mentoring refers to senior or experienced staff assisting other staff

to develop additional skills or knowledge (Delahaye, 2005).

Workplace learning also relates to the previously mentioned work of Lave

and Wenger (1991) in relation to those less skilled learning from the experience of

others; via legitimate peripheral participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Much of the

research in this area compares traditional forms of learning via structured,

prescriptive means, to involvement in the workplace and the subsequent learning that

occurs.

Billett (1996) suggests that of these two approaches, the latter is more likely

to enable the acquisition of vocational knowledge, provided there is access to

authentic workplace activities. The shift in focus to workplace learning therefore

begins to blur the previously well-defined line between learning and working, and

has moved towards a focus on ensuring workplaces are also “effective learning

environments” (Billett, 2000, p. 272). However, Billett (1995) also recognises the

limitations of workplace learning and identifies the five key issues as, accessing

and/or constructing inappropriate knowledge; existence of barriers to accessing

authentic activities; reluctance of experts to provide guidance, coaching and

mentoring; an absence of expertise or limited access to expertise, and difficulty due

to the nature of “opaque” conceptual knowledge.

In particular, the point about accessing or constructing inappropriate

knowledge raises questions about learning from experienced individuals with

suboptimal knowledge and behaviour that has been reinforced over a long period of


time. In this situation, it is critical that organisations have ways to encourage

unlearning for these experienced individuals who are guiding the development of

those with less experience. Whilst most of the workplace learning literature has

focussed heavily on creating authentic learning environments, there is little

discussion found relating to recognition of previous knowledge and how it may be

recognised and released, or unlearnt.

Types of Knowledge

Learning focuses on the accumulation of knowledge and skills; however it is

often not recognised that the knowledge being acquired can differ greatly in nature.

Researchers in the area of knowledge management (for example, Newell, Robertson,

Scarbrough, & Swan, 2002; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Roy & Roy, 2002) have

identified the difference between explicit and tacit knowledge and suggest the former

refers to easily expressed and easily documented knowledge or information both at

an individual or organisational level. Debowski (2006) identifies two different types

of explicit knowledge: declarative and procedural. Declarative knowledge is

information or facts that can be shared with another person (Debowski, 2006).

Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of processes and how they are applied

(Debowski, 2006). Explicit knowledge is generally found in organisational

procedures and processes, and it could be assumed that even though this knowledge

has the potential to impact on the learning and unlearning process, as it is able to be

articulated, it is more easily addressed.

Tacit knowledge, sometimes referred to as implicit knowledge, relates to

information not easily explained or documented (Newell et al., 2002). Some authors

make the distinction between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge as “know

how” versus “know what” (Brockmann & Anthony, 2002). Trentin (2001) breaks

down tacit knowledge further, suggesting that there is a technical dimension and a

cognitive dimension to tacit knowledge; in simple terms, “tricks of the trade” and

ways of thinking. Importantly, it is this tacit knowledge that often makes the

difference between an average and an excellent employee; not necessarily what they

do, but knowing what to do and how to do it.

Many authors and researchers have studied the reasons tacit knowledge is not

shared (for example, see Connell, Klein, & Powell, 2003; Newell et al., 2002).

However the fact that it remains a focus of research serves to highlight the

importance of tacit knowledge to an organisation. Regardless of the reason tacit


knowledge may not be shared or made explicit, it is clear that if an individual is

unable to articulate knowledge that has the potential to impact their learning and

unlearning processes, it will be far more difficult to address than explicit knowledge.

Knowledge Creation

The creation of knowledge, whether it is tacit or explicit also has potential

implications for unlearning. Nonaka (1991) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)

proposed a model of four knowledge generation processes based on Polanyi’s (1997)

dimensions of tacit and explicit knowledge. The four knowledge generation

processes postulated by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) are combination,

internalisation, socialisation and externalisation.

Combination involves the conversion of explicit knowledge into more

complex sets of explicit knowledge by adding additional explicit knowledge (Nonaka

& Takeuchi, 1995). Learning processes include listening to lectures, becoming

engaged in discussions and reading documents. This process of combination would

seem to provide some support for Hedberg’s (1981) overwriting model which

suggests that knowledge can be unlearnt simply by overwriting with additional

knowledge.

Internalisation refers to converting explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge,

and is most easily recognised as “learning by doing” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

For example, there is a difference in reading about interviewing skills and practising

interviewing skills. It is reflecting on learning by doing or active learning that

translates explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. It is suggested that reflecting on

oral stories, models and diagrams can also internalise knowledge.

Socialisation, or converting tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge, is an osmotic

process where complex information is exchanged and often occurs where a learner

watches and interacts with an expert (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Socialisation is an

experience where various nuances and nonverbal messages are received and

synthesised.

Finally, externalisation refers to converting tacit knowledge to explicit

knowledge, and occurs when tacit knowledge is translated and expressed into forms

that are comprehensible to the conscious mind of the individual and to others

(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Externalisation tends to occur when attempting to

explain a thought or idea to others, using verbal or written communication.

Frequently, the communicator will use analogies, metaphors or models. The explicit


representation of the tacit knowledge, though, is usually a pale representation of the

rich tacit knowledge. It is the effort of articulating the tacit ideas that creates the

knowledge. The externalisation, internalisation and socialisation processes in

particular suggest that unlearning is more complex than the existing models of

unlearning developed by Hedberg (1981) and Klein (1989), which will be discussed

in more detail in Chapter 3. Depending on the particular knowledge creation process

occurring, unlearning could be anticipated to manifest itself differently within each

process.

The final model to be covered in terms of the creation of knowledge looks

specifically at the nature of expertise and how it is developed in an individual.

Dreyfus (1982) developed a model of the human skill-acquisition process suggesting

that there are four mental capacities that constitute expertise and can distinguish

between a novice and an expert; component recognition, salience recognition, whole

situation recognition and basis of decision making. Each of these capacities develops

within an individual over time, given sufficient learning and experience. The

differing levels of development of each these capacities have been described as five

distinct levels of skill as shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Development of skill levels (Dreyfus, 1982, p. 147)

As Benner (1984) further explains, the Dreyfus (1982) model reflects

differences in relation to three broad aspects of performance: firstly moving from the

use of abstract principles to the use of concrete experience, secondly moving from

seeing the situation as a group of parts to seeing the situation as a whole, and finally

halla



moving from being a detached observer to an involved participant (Benner, 1984, p.

13). Given this model has been developed to identify differences between levels of

skill, and hence the learning which has been undertaken by the individual, it will also

be useful to consider whether learners at different stages approach unlearning in

different ways, or encounter varying levels of difficulty with unlearning.

Adult Learning Principles

All of the previous authors with differing perspectives offer a rich field of

knowledge and theories relating to adult learning. Based on the works of many of

these earlier authors, Delahaye and Smith (1998) summarised the key considerations

for adult learning and proposed ten principles which serve to guide a great deal of the

HRD literature, systems and practices today. They are outlined below.

1. Whole or part

This principle refers to the decision which must be made in every learning

situation as to whether the information is presented as a complete whole, or in

sequenced reasonably sized parts (Delahaye & Smith, 1998; DeSimone, Werner,

& Harris, 2002). Some learning situations require the learner to gain information

simultaneously in order to learn, however other situations may lend themselves to

a set of successive development of knowledge or skills.

In determining whether to present the information or knowledge as a whole

or as progressive skill development, it can be suggested that consideration must

be given to previous knowledge and its impact. The ability and willingness of an

individual to engage in unlearning may also dictate to some extent the

importance of how the learning is structured (in terms of whole or part), to

maximise unlearning.

2. Spaced learning

Delahaye and Smith (1998) also recommend the spacing of learning to allow

for the information to be assimilated before presenting more information. This

may take the form of spacing learning over a period of time, or simply breaking

up learning opportunities by activities aimed at assisting the learner to apply what

has been learnt. In terms of unlearning, it is suggested that spacing learning

might also provide the time and opportunity for individuals to identify and

relinquish old skills and knowledge whilst at the same time acquiring new

knowledge.


3. Active learning

The principle of active learning reinforces the need to involve the learner

actively in the learning process. Kolb’s (1984) previously mentioned experiential

learning model reinforces the need for the learner to be involved in concrete

experiences in the learning process, and then have the opportunity to reflect upon

these experiences. Many of the processes recommended by those researching

informal learning also play a vital role in active learning (Billett, 2002; Day,

1998). Drawing from this principle, it can also be suggested that learners will

need to play an active role in consciously letting go of old habits and knowledge.

4. Feedback

The importance of feedback within any learning situation is important for

both the learner and the facilitator. It is important that the learner receives

feedback on their learning, and that the person responsible for facilitating the

learning understands whether the learner is understanding the information

(Delahaye & Smith, 1998). Feedback in a learning situation can be seen in

certain areas to link back to the principle of reinforcement in operant

conditioning theory (Skinner, 1953), and it also emphasises the importance of

feedback in unlearning. It can be assumed that feedback will also need to be

provided on the unlearning process.

5. Overlearning

Learners will forget information if it is not utilised (suggested by Thorndike’s

Law of Exercise (1914, 1932 as cited in Vincent & Ross, 2001)). However, what

is less recognised is the fact that even when we believe we have learnt certain

information, some forgetting does occur. It is suggested therefore that to combat

this, the learning experience needs to encourage the learner to practice beyond

the level of perfect recall; referred to as overlearning (Delahaye & Smith, 1998;

DeSimone et al., 2002). In terms of unlearning, it can be anticipated that

knowledge which has been the subject of overlearning will be more difficult to

relinquish, and therefore may require more attention than knowledge that is not

as deeply entrenched.

6. Reinforcement

The principle of reinforcement draws on the work of Thorndike (1914, 1932

as cited in Vincent & Ross, 2001) and of Skinner (1953) in operant conditioning.


Positive or negative reinforcement may be appropriate during the learning

process; either experiencing a positive outcome or removing a negative situation

because of the learning. It could also be anticipated that this principle will assist

the unlearning process by reinforcing new behaviours, or may hinder the

unlearning process if reinforcement of previous knowledge or behaviour is

continued.

7. Primacy and Recency

Thorndike (1914, 1932 as cited in Vincent & Ross, 2001) also referred to the

Law of Primacy and the Law of Recency, identifying that learners tend to better

recall information presented first or last. This reinforces that those responsible

for facilitating learning need to start and end with the most important

information. It may prove more difficult therefore to unlearn behaviours that

have been reinforced over many years and learnt early in a career. This law also

suggests that in relation to the concept of recency, recently acquired knowledge

may also present a challenge for unlearning because it is at the forefront of the

learner’s mind.

8. Meaningful Material

It is emphasised by Delahaye and Smith (1998) that the material being

presented must be meaningful to the learner in two ways. Firstly, it must connect

with information or experiences they have had in the past; along the same lines as

James Hole (as cited in Delahaye, 1991) suggested, when arguing the importance

of recognising the learner’s existing knowledge. Secondly, it is suggested that

the information must be considered important for the learner’s future in order to

ensure sufficient motivation to learn. Many of the authors in the adult learning

field have reinforced this principle (Brookfield, 1986; Knowles, 1980). It does

however mean that learners will also need to see the relevance of unlearning

previous knowledge and behaviours.

9. Multi-sense learning

Relating to Thorndike’s (1914, 1932 as cited in Vincent & Ross, 2001) Law

of Intensity, Delahaye and Smith (1998) suggest that the more intense and

stimulating the learning experience, the better. It is suggested that use of the

different senses of the individual best engage the learner. Rather than just

hearing, the learner should also be able to visualise, and have an opportunity to

be actively involved during the learning experience. This is also reinforced by


the research into different learning styles or orientations (for example see Kolb,

1984) suggesting that effective learning environments cater for different types of

learners. This would suggest that the unlearning process must also involve

multiple senses and recognised different learning styles to be effective.

10. Transfer of learning

The final principle relates to the structure of learning to ensure transfer back

to the workplace. The discussion earlier in this chapter about the merits of

informal workplace learning (Billett, 2002; Day, 1998) and situated learning

(Lave & Wenger, 1991) relate specifically to ensuring that what is learnt can be

applied in the workplace. Haire (1970) warned specifically about the dangers of

learning initiated and conducted entirely by divisions within the organisation

separated from the work environment such as a human resources department;

leading to what was called “encapsulated learning” (Haire, 1970). It was

suggested that encapsulated learning meant that the learner, whilst able to

perform new tasks or exhibit new knowledge in the learning environment, did not

transfer this learning back to the job, suggesting that unlearning of previous

behaviour may not have occurred.

In addition to these more universal principles, Delahaye and Smith (1998) also

added five additional principles which were considered to be exclusive to mature

learner. These principles may in some cases overlap with the previous ten principles:

11. Learner responsibility

Many of the assumptions relating to mature learners are based upon the

premise that learners increasingly take responsibility for their own learning,

rather than needing to be directed by an external facilitator (Brookfield, 1986;

Delahaye & Smith, 1998; Knowles, 1980). This indicates the importance of

individuals recognising the knowledge or behaviours which need to be enhanced

or replaced during the process of unlearning.

12. Learning-for-life applications

In addition, Delahaye and Smith (1998) also identify that in mature adults,

learning becomes a lifelong pursuit rather than being seen as a discrete activity

that has a beginning and an end. This may assist unlearning if the learner can see

the broader importance of “learning to unlearn” as a skill for life.


13. Learning by reflection on experience

In relation to the concept of critical reflection (Mezirow, 1990), it is also

suggested that learning occurs in mature learners by reflection on previous

experiences and the resulting outcomes, in order to determine the most

appropriate ways of behaving in future. It is anticipated that during this process

of reflection, individuals may be able to identify underlying assumptions or

knowledge that are not appropriate, thus enhancing the opportunity to unlearn

particular behaviours or knowledge.

14. Support and respect of fellow learners

Tied into the concept of collaborative learning, Brookfield (1986) and

Knowles (1980) also emphasise the importance of the shared experience of

learning, and gaining the respect of fellow learners. This again is supported by

the claims of those considering learning to be a socially-situated phenomenon. It

may also be important to consider this social environment in order to ensure a

similarly supportive setting during unlearning.

15. Learning by experimenting

Relating to the more general principle of active learning, learning by

experimenting builds on the concept of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), and

suggests that learners gain the most by being able to put into practice their

learning, and experiment with new ways and ideas. This is referred to as the

concept of “praxis” by Brookfield (1986), suggesting that learning becomes a

“continuous process of activity, reflection upon activity, collaborative analysis of

activity, new activity…” (Brookfield, 1986, p. 10). This process of

experimenting may also hold the key to unlearning. One of the strategies

suggested by Starbuck (1996) to facilitate unlearning is to ask the learner to

consider use of the new way as just an experiment. As Starbuck (1996, p. 729)

explains, “people who see themselves as experimenting are willing to deviate

temporarily from practices they consider optimal in order to test assumptions.

When they deviate, they create opportunities to surprise themselves.”

Whilst by no means exhaustive, this background to the area of adult learning

provides a context for further consideration of individual learning processes being

addressed within this research project. When considering the adult learning

principles summarised above, it is critical to note that each of these may also play a


role in facilitating the unlearning process. It is these issues which will be further

investigated as part of this research, and will be drawn upon to develop a conceptual

framework in Chapter 3.

Organisational Learning, Change and Innovation

In addition to the focus on individual learning, there has also developed a

focus on collective learning within organisations. It has become widely

acknowledged that in organisational terms, it is important to consider learning within

a context (Matthews & Candy, 1999). It is not intended for the purposes of this

study to look at all the literature in the vast areas of organisational learning, and the

learning organisation. This discussion focuses on theories, models and research

outcomes that shed light on the interrelationship between individual and

organisational learning, and the possible links to unlearning.

As the focus of this research is individual unlearning in an organisational

context, the interaction and overlap between individual and organisational learning

must be considered. As a result of the ever-growing awareness of the importance of

knowledge, there has also been a proliferation of academics and practitioners writing

about and researching the topic of organisational learning. However, the link

between the two areas of individual and organisational learning is critical and yet has

been the focus of very few studies (Tsang, 1997); with Kim (1993) being noted as

one of the few exceptions at the end of the 1990’s.

Since this lack of studies was noted by Tsang (1997), other researchers have

begun to concentrate on this issue. Crossan, Lane and White (1999) attempted to

address the divide between individual and organisational learning by proposing a

framework for organisational learning that follows a progression of learning from the

individual to group, to organisational level, referred to as the 4I’s and shown in Table

2.5.


Table 2.5 Learning/Renewal in Organisations (Crossan, Lane & White, 1999, p.525)

This model suggests that learning at each level has inputs and outcomes, and

that the processes may have slight overlaps. However it is very clear that at the first

level, only an individual is capable of intuiting and at the organisational level,

learning is closely related to the institutionalisation of routines and systems. This

model does show the progression of learning from an individual level to a wider

group and organisation, and as such has implications for unlearning; particularly in

considering the inputs and how they must be changed if unlearning is to occur.

Building upon the model of Crossan et al. (1999), Jarvinen and Poikela

(2001) developed a model that combines individual, group and organisational level

learning into a broader model of learning at work. The model proposes that Kolb’s

(1984) model used at the individual level, Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) model used

at the group level, and Crossan et al.’s (1999) model used at the organisational level

offer a chance to view learning in a work context. This model offers a useful

development in the modelling of learning at work and offers exploratory case studies

as examples, however further empirical testing of the model is required. These

models in particular begin to provide a framework for unlearning within

organisations to be further analysed.

The idea that organisations can adapt, and therefore can be considered to

learn, emerged in the mid-1960’s however twenty years later, this concept still

lacked clear definitions, agreed frameworks and useful empirical studies (Crossan et

al., 1999; Daft & Huber, 1987; Fiol & Lyles, 1985). In the early 1990’s the “learning

organisation” and “organisational learning” themes rose in prominence due to a focus

halla



on collective learning in addition to individual and workplace learning. It took the

focus off learning as an individual, and looked at the learning process in relation to

overall organisational accumulation and use of knowledge. For the purposes of this

research, there will be reference only to organisational learning as the social and

technical processes of collective learning in organisations; the learning organisation

concept is considered to be the operationalising of these theories and processes.

A number of definitions and explanations of organisational learning have

been offered in the literature. Hedberg (1981) suggests organisational learning

“includes both the processes by which organizations adjust themselves defensively to

reality and the processes by which knowledge is used offensively to improve the fit

between organizations and their environments” (Hedberg, 1981, p. 3). Hedberg

(1981) is suggesting that some level of change or advancement must occur for

learning to have taken place. This is sometimes referred to as the “improvement

bias” (Huysman, 1999). It has been argued however that an entity (in this case an

organisation) may learn even if a change in behaviour is not identified, or an increase

in effectiveness is not detected (Huber, 1991). Huber (1991) takes a more

behavioural perspective, suggesting that “an entity learns if through its processing of

information, the range of its potential behaviours is changed… an organization learns

if any of its units acquires knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful to the

organization” (Huber, 1991, p. 89). This does not necessarily require immediate

demonstration of change in behaviour.

The nature of knowledge at individual and organisational levels has also been

subject to scrutiny. Bierly, Kessler and Christensen (2000) added to the often used

hierarchy of data, information and knowledge, by declaring wisdom to be a fourth

level. At the level of the individual, it is claimed that experience, spirituality and

passion are the basis of individual wisdom (Bierly III et al., 2000), and this

individual wisdom can be transformed into organisational wisdom via a number of

means. The most important includes the use of transformational leadership, the

nature of organisational culture and structure, and ability to transfer knowledge

(Bierly III et al., 2000).

The nature of leadership, particularly the existence of transformational

leadership, is often linked to organisational learning ability (Appelbaum, St-Pierre, &

Glavas, 1998; Bryant, 2003), and as research undertaken by Balogun (2003) found,

rather than blaming middle managers in particular, for obstructing or resisting


change, they can be utilised to assist those individuals around them, through times of

turbulence and change. As Kiernan (1993, p. 9) emphasises, “organizational learning

will replace control as the dominant responsibility and test of senior management and

leadership”. These findings reinforce the role of leadership for maximising

organisational learning, and point to implications for unlearning efforts at the

individual and organisational levels. The importance of organisational culture, as

identified by Bierly III et al. (2000), is also highlighted in much of the organisational

learning literature (Argyris, 1980, 1994; Schein, 1993; West, 1994) and will also be

explored further in relation to the role it may play in unlearning.

Knowledge Management

Out of the concepts of the learning organisation and organisational learning,

came the movement to the discussion of knowledge management, and interest in this

concept continues to grow. It has long been believed that the effective management

of knowledge will be a key contributor to successful organisations in the new

millennium. As Newell et al. (2002, p. 16) state,

a reflection of this recognition of the importance of knowledge in

contemporary organizations has been a surge of interest at the end of the

1990’s in Knowledge Management practices. These are many and varied in

nature but tend to be focused on improving the ways in which firms facing

highly turbulent environments can mobilize their knowledge base (or

leverage their knowledge ‘assets’) in order to ensure continuous innovation.

The initial examination of knowledge management therefore began by

considering the impact of an increasingly turbulent organisational environment, and

the critical nature of knowledge. In this changing environment, organisations are

expected to balance between exploitation of existing knowledge and exploration in

search of new knowledge (Levinthal & March, 1993). In the context of exploration,

attention has also turned to the concept of innovation; a key field of research in its

own right. The critical issues in the innovation field and their possible links to

unlearning will be considered further in conjunction with organisational change in

the next section of this chapter.

Organisational Change

Discussion of organisational change abounds. Whether defining types of

change, determining the appropriate steps for change or showing graphical

representation of the change process, each suggests the existence of different types of


change, processes for change and elements of change. It is assumed that most

changes within an organisation will require at least some amount of unlearning.

Whilst organisational change and learning have not always been discussed in

the same context, there are some overlapping areas worthy of consideration in

relation to learning and unlearning. As explained by Garvey and Williamson (2002,

p. 5), “..because learning is so tied up with change, an organization that wishes or

needs to change will have to be constantly encouraging its people to learn in order to

achieve and progress that change. Learning and change are inextricably linked.”

Other authors such as van der Bent et al. (1999) also consider that strong links exist

between organisational learning and organisational change, leading to a need to

review at least the more widely recognised works in this area, to identify possible

links to the concept of unlearning. Adequate coverage of the wide array of literature

on organisational change is not possible, therefore a range of change models have

been reviewed specifically for reference or inference to unlearning. Many of these

authors also identify potential drivers and inhibitors of change and these have also

been drawn together in the synthesis that follows.

Across the wide range of authors who have written about change, there is a

recognition of the overlapping use of terms and many authors in this area have

attempted to define or characterise types of change (for example, see Levy, 1986).

Table 2.6 summarises the most common terminology in the area of type of change.

As these different terms have been utilised by a wide range of authors, they have not

been attributed specifically to one particular author.

Table 2.6 Change Terminology

Description of Change Terms Used

Relatively small changes to an existing situation, seen as an improvement rather than a significant change or departure from current processes or systems

Continuous improvement Gradual change Incremental change First order change Evolutionary change

Significant change that affects generally the entire organisation and is a radical shift from current processes or systems; in effect having a large impact on the nature of the organisation

Radical transformation Discontinuous change Second order change Transformational change Quantum change


Description of Change Terms Used

A more recently discussed term defined by Weick and Quin (1999 p. 363) as “question(ing) the adequacy of schemas themselves…”. It is suggested that the change is so radical that it challenges current organisational and societal norms and standards.

Third order change

This table illustrates that although terminology may vary, most authors

recognise the change varies according to the level, amount, impact and significance.

Pardo del Val and Martinez Fuentes (2003) warn however that it is dangerous to

consider changes in terms of absolutes; believing that they fall either in one category

or another. It is more appropriate to consider type of change as falling along a

continuum between two extremes. It would also be tempting to identify a particular

example of organisational change as falling into a particular change category.

Abraham and Knight (2001) make the important point however that it is possible for

the same change to fall into different categories when implemented in different

organisations, hence reflecting organisational context and culture. In considering the

impact of these types of change on organisational learning, it can be hypothesised

that a change with wide-reaching impacts such as radical transformation will have

more of an impact on individual and organisational learning and unlearning than

those requiring only minor adjustments to current practices.

Models of Organisational Change

One of the most widely recognised models of change was that proposed by

Lewin (1951 cited in Waddell, Cummings, & Worley, 2004) suggesting that there

exists three stages in the transition process: unfreezing, changing and refreezing.

Huber (1991) equates unlearning at the organisational level to the unfreezing stage of

Kurt Lewin’s change process. The unfreezing stage involves preparation for change

and ensuring a level of readiness within the organisation to cope with the pending

change. At the moving stage, the organisation is actually implementing the planned

changes; and finally at the refreezing stage, the changes made are being

institutionalised to ensure they endure.

Lewin’s model has been criticised by many as being too simplistic. For

example, Barrett, Thoman and Hocevar (1995) suggest change is more “dynamic and

recursive” than Lewin depicted by the three stage model which they consider to be

“linear and static” (Barrett et al., 1995, p. 370). However, more recent publications


have emerged that support this theory and providing further detail to enable a re-

appraisal of the Lewin model (Burnes, 2004). Regardless of whether the criticisms

offered are warranted or not, the basic premise of Lewin’s theory can often be seen

to underlie more complex models of organisational change, and has also been the

basis of various adaptations (for example see Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004).

It can be argued that regardless of the type of change in the organisation,

certain elements need to be given consideration, and many of the models have

offered these elements. For example, Kotter (1995) suggested eight steps in an

organisational change process as shown in Table 2.7. Within this framework, each

of the stages of Lewin’s model can be seen to encompass a number of the steps

outlined, and again during the early stages, particularly when establishing a sense of

urgency, it can be suggested that establishing the need to unlearn previous behaviour

in order to advance, will be critical.

Table 2.7 Models of Organisational Change

Kotter’s Model (1995) Mento, Jones and Dirndorfer’s Model (2002)

1. Establish a sense of urgency 2. Form a powerful guiding coalition 3. Create a vision, 4. Communicate the vision 5. Empower others to act on the vision 6. Plan for and create short-term wins 7. Consolidate improvements and produce

still more change 8. Institutionalize new approaches.

1. The idea and its context 2. Define the change initiative 3. Evaluate the climate for change 4. Develop a change plan 5. Find and cultivate a sponsor 6. Prepare your target audience, the

recipients of change 7. Create the cultural fit 8. Develop and choose a change leader

team 9. Create small wins for motivation 10. Constantly and strategically

communicate the change 11. Measure progress of the change effort 12. Integrate lessons learned

Mento, Jones and Dirndorfer (2002) also offer a framework for change based

upon three change management processes; Kotter’s 8 step model (Kotter, 1995),

Jick’s 10 step model (cited in Mento et al., 2002), and General Electric’s change

acceleration process (cited in Mento et al., 2002). These have been developed into a

12 step framework also shown in Table 2.7.

The model offered by Mento et al. (2002) is not dissimilar to many that have

been identified within the change management literature, however in terms of


considering individuals and organisational learning, it makes a distinction that is

worth noting. Within step four, developing a change plan, Mento et al. (2002) make

the point that there is a need to tailor the approach to change recognising that

individuals carry mental models or frames of reference which affect change efforts,

and that the level of an individual’s openness can have an impact on the level of

resistance encountered. When developing the conceptual framework in the next

chapter to guide this research, these frames of reference will be considered further.

Still considering the nature of a change in relation to learning and unlearning,

a model offered by Nicholson (1990) also identifies some factors worthy of further

consideration. Nicholson (1990) identifies nine different dimensions relating to the

nature of change which may impact upon the change cycle encountered by

individuals. These dimensions are explained in Table 2.8, along with an indication

of the possible links to unlearning.

Table 2.8 Dimension of Change (adapted from Nicholson, 1990)

Dimension Description Possible Implications for Unlearning

Speed The speed with which the transition cycles occur

Changes that include fast transition cycles may make unlearning more difficult

Amplitude How radical or drastic the change is considered to be

Changes that require radical change may be those that require the most unlearning

Symmetry Length of time spent in each stage of the transition phase

The more time spent early in the transition may provide more time for relinquishing old behaviours, and therefore prove more successful

Continuity The amount of significant connection between the transitions

The less continuity between transition cycles, the more important unlearning may prove to be, as multiple behaviours may require unlearning

Discretion Level of autonomy of the individual in the transition

Where autonomy is high, the individual will need to realise the importance of unlearning; where it is low, those enforcing the change will need to be aware of the issue of unlearning

Complexity Level of difficulty of the transition and requirement for multiple adaptions

Transitions high in complexity may also be more reliant on unlearning of more than one behaviour and therefore it may be crucial to consider which behaviours must be relinquished

Propulsion Reason for the transition – initiated by self or other

If the reason for the change has been recognised by the individual as requiring unlearning, this ownership may result in more successful change


Dimension Description Possible Implications for Unlearning

Facilitation Level of assistance provided to move through the transition

The assistance being provided during the change should also consider the releasing of old behaviours rather than just the introduction of new behaviours

Significance Level of significant change for the individual or the organisation

Those changes considered significant at an individual or organisational level may warrant particular consideration in terms of unlearning to ensure a smooth transition is achieved

This model offers some dimensions by which change can be categorised in

order to determine how effectively individuals will progress through the change

cycle, and as Table 2.8 suggests, these could also be extrapolated and applied to

unlearning. These potential implications will be further explored during this

research.

As can be seen in the key models discussed, it is apparent that learning and

unlearning at both an individual and organisational level is important for successful

and effective organisational change. It is therefore important to the study of

individual and organisational learning and unlearning that relevant concepts within

the field of organisational development and change are considered, particularly when

developing a conceptual framework to guide this research.

Resistance, Emotions and Change

Within many of the models of change, a level of resistance to change is

assumed. It has been claimed that “resistance is a natural emotion that must be dealt

with and not avoided. If one can look at the positive aspects of resistance to change,

by locating its source and motives, it can open further possibilities for realising

change” (Mento et al., 2002, p. 53). The range of research into resistance to change

has more clearly articulated the potential causes of resistance, and has even

challenged the often implied if not explicit assumption, that resistance to change is a

negative issue and merely an obstacle to be overcome. It is now being suggested that

if resistance to change is better understood, it may in fact have specific utility in a

change process (Waddell & Sohal, 1998). At the organisational level, Waddell and

Sohal (1998) suggest that resistance is a function of four factors: rational, non-

rational, political and management factors. At the individual level, George and Jones

(2001) recognise resistance to change as having cognitive and affective elements

whilst Macri et al. (2002) suggest that motivation and willingness to change can be


impacted by perceptions; emphasising that the change needs to be seen as desirable

and necessary.

The works emerging in this area of resistance to change show an emerging

recognition of the emotional aspects of change within organisations, and marks a

change from the belief that as long as a rational explanation and compelling reason is

provided, change will occur. It also points to the significance that unlearning may

have within an organisational change process. As Goodstone and Diamante (1998)

emphasise, it is not sufficient to believe that giving individuals information that

indicates the need for change will make them change. If organisations require

behavioural change at an individual level in order to change at an organisational

level, the issues of the emotional impact of change cannot be ignored. Likewise,

Diamond (1996) also identified as a result of research into the failure of technology

transfer, that there is an emotional component to change and that it cannot be viewed

as an entirely rational process; “successful innovation and adoption relies on an

individual’s openness to learning and change…” (Diamond, 1996, p. 223). Abraham

and Knight (2001, p. 25) suggest there are three conditions required in order to assist

significant change. These conditions are “a compelling case for change, a will for

change, and an effective approach to execute the transformation”; again emphasising

that a rational argument for change is insufficient, but must be backed up by the will

of participants and an effective approach.

It has also been identified that even with a wide range of models and

processes for organisational change, there is still a high failure rate in relation to

change, and at the least, organisational change is failing to deliver optimum

performance outcomes (Balogun & Jenkins, 2003). It is suggested that “existing

models do not adequately capture the complexity of the change process from the

perspective of the change recipients” (Balogun & Jenkins, 2003, p. 247). Again, this

reinforces the need to integrate the consideration of the individual within the context

of organisational change.

Innovation

Aside from the pure organisational change or development models, there are

also a number of models relating to strategic change and innovation within

organisations. In more recent times, the link between innovation and organisational

learning has been explored by a number of researchers (Garcia-Morales, Llorens-

Montes, & Verdu-Jover, 2006; Ismail, 2005; Kalling, 2007), and it has been asserted


that “learning is an essential part of innovation” (de Weerd-Nederhof, Pacitti, da

Silva Gomes, & Pearson, 2002, p. 20). Although organisational change, learning and

innovation have not always been closely linked in the literature, strategic

organisational change has been claimed to be a process of knowledge creation

(Balogun & Jenkins, 2003). Wang and Ahmed (2002) assert that triple-loop learning

via knowledge creation facilitates “creative quality”, which in turn leads to value

innovation that causes quantum leaps in the organisation. Another knowledge

creation model, the strategic innovation spiral developed by Abraham and Knight

(2001), suggests five phases within the ongoing process of strategic innovation.

These phases are described in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9 Strategic Innovation Process (based on Abraham & Knight, 2001)

Phase Description

1. Generating the commencement of the innovation process and considers the sharing of tacit knowledge and mental models as an integral part

2. Conceptualising transforming tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and identifying new concepts that may be useful within the organisation

3. Optimising taking the concepts identified and judging them against organisational criteria such as organisational vision, goals etc

4. Implementing taking the concepts chosen in Phase 3 and putting them into action, in effect the process also involves the creation of new explicit and tacit knowledge

5. Capturing capturing and sharing of new knowledge gained as a result of this process, to allow it to inform future cycles of innovation.

This innovation model considers the issues of learning and knowledge albeit

at a superficial level, particularly in phases 1, 2 and 5. It could be claimed that phase

1 in particular may be impacted by previous knowledge, which must be unlearnt

prior to or as a part of generating and conceptualising new ideas. Emphasising the

critical nature of learning in the innovation process, de Weerd-Nederhof et al. (2002,

p. 329) claim “the use of organizational learning concepts in the field of research and

development and product innovation has been relatively meager (sic) and this has led

to an oversimplification of the role and processes of learning”.

The innovation literature also provides additional findings which may assist

to identify potential enablers and inhibitors of unlearning. Assink (2006) identifies

five clusters of inhibitors of disruptive innovation (shown in Table 2.10); one of

which is identified as a “mindset” barrier, and names inability to unlearn as a key

component.


Table 2.10 Inhibitors of disruptive innovation (based on Assink, 2006)

Cluster of inhibitors Description

Adoption barrier

Dominant design, path dependency and successful concepts Organisational dualism Excessive bureaucracy Stifling of the status quo

“Mindset” barrier Inability to unlearn Lack of distinctive competencies Obsolete mental models and theory-in-use

Risk barrier

The learning trap (“not invented here” syndrome, groupthink) Lack of realistic revenue and ROI expectation High risks and uncertainty Risk averse climate Unwilling to cannibalise

“Nascent” barrier

Lack of creativity Lack of market sensing and foresight Senior management turnover Innovation process mismanagement

Infrastructure barrier Lack of mandatory infrastructure Lack of adequate follow-through

Whilst unlearning is identified specifically as a potential inhibitor, the other

clusters also imply that if previous knowledge is not relinquished, innovation will be

stifled. Unlearning therefore can be viewed as a critical element for effective

innovation. Buchen (1999) even claims that innovation cannot occur without

unlearning.

Another critical consideration for identification of enablers and inhibitors of

innovation is the question of leadership. Francis, Bessant and Hobday (2003)

identified five key organisational and managerial competencies common to

successful organisational transformation, and these include recognition of the

challenge, determination of a transformational strategy, demand and support

extensive innovation, manage systemic change and upgrade leadership processes.

The critical role of managers and leaders has been raised a number of times during

this literature review in relation to organisational learning, organisational change and

now innovation. It can be anticipated therefore that management and leadership may

also play a role in successful organisational and individual unlearning.


Chapter Summary

This chapter provided a broad overview of the critical literature in the areas

of individual learning, organisational learning and organisational change with a view

to examining the possible links to individual unlearning. A number of key models

and theories were identified during this chapter, particularly in the areas of adult and

workplace learning.

In particular, Knowles (1980) provides a framework of specific

characteristics of adult learners that may add to the understanding of how adults

unlearn. The experiential learning model by Kolb (1984) also provides an indication

that a learning cycle may apply to unlearning as much as it does to learning;

requiring individuals to reflect upon actions and learn from them in a cyclical

fashion.

When considering unlearning as a relinquishing of past practice, it becomes

apparent that in many cases, this change will require significant change to individual

frames of reference, referred to as transformative learning (Mezirow, 1990). The

discussion of transformative learning leads to a suggestion that unlearning will

require significant questioning by individuals of current beliefs, methods and

practices.

There also exist models relating to the development of skills and expertise

that have implications for unlearning. The model of skill acquisition by Dreyfus

(1982) may allow for analysis of unlearning in light of the proposed stages of

development of skills and expertise.

These models and theories provide some useful direction when considering

individual unlearning. There are also theories relating to organisational level issues

that may impact. Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to situated learning and the idea that

individuals learn not only from direct experience, but also from working within

communities of practice thus indicating some potential enablers or inhibitors of

unlearning for individuals. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) also suggest that

individuals create and share knowledge within organisations, which may present

opportunities to unlearn or at least to begin to question existing methods of

operation.

These models and theories will be drawn together with literature specifically

relating to unlearning, to develop a conceptual framework for this research in the

next chapter.

Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 46

Chapter 3 Development of a Conceptual Framework

Chapter Overview

The previous chapter provided a background of the literature in the broader

areas of adult learning, organisational learning and organisational change. This

chapter develops the literature review further by focussing specifically on unlearning

and the existing publications in this area. Through reviewing this literature, and

referring to the key literature identified in the previous chapter, a conceptual

framework is built to guide this research project. The chapter structure is outlined in

Figure 3.1.

Current Models & Theories of Unlearning

Developing a Framework for

Unlearning

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

The Unlearning Framework

Chapter Summary

Resistance to Change



The concept of unlearning has not received as much attention as that of

individual and organisational learning in the literature; most has been written in the

last twenty years. However, many writers in the areas of learning and change have

recognised the process of unlearning, even if they have not used this terminology.

For example, saying that “learning arises out of the tension between “new”

knowledge and the “old” knowledge stored in the memory of an individual…(and)

occurs when concepts, frameworks and capabilities are created or redeveloped in the

light of knowledge that is new to the individual” (Chell, 2001 in Anderson &

Boocock, 2002, p. 7) alludes to the impact that prior learning has on the learning

process, and the important element unlearning may prove to be. It has also been

stated that “some learning may make very little difference to the perspective of the

individual whereas more significant learning may lead to a reconceptualisation of

his/her underpinning assumptions and values” (Anderson & Boocock, 2002, p. 7). In

this situation, the reconceptualisation is again referring to previously held beliefs and

mindsets, and the fact that some form of unlearning is required to alter these.

What is being proposed in this chapter is that unlearning can occur at the

individual or the organisational level, but has some overlap with the more widely

recognised areas of individual learning and organisational learning. Figure 3.2

shows this connection as part of the ongoing development of a conceptual framework

for this study.

Figure 3.2. Links between learning and unlearning

As Hayes and Allinson (1998, p. 848) also point out, “in today’s turbulent

and complex environment, old ways of behaving may fail to produce the required


results and the organization may be faced with the need to change, to modify the

rules, and encourage new behaviours in order to ensure its continued competitiveness

and survival.” Francis, Bessant and Hobday (2003) also argue that organisations

facing transformational or radical change will need to be able to let go of old ways in

order to remain sustainable. The importance of modifying current frameworks and

methods leads once again to suggest that unlearning is critical to most change and

innovation processes.

Those who have used the term unlearning have used it in a number of

different contexts. Some have referred to this concept in terms of individuals

undergoing a process of releasing old ways and embracing new behaviours, ideas or

actions (Baxter, 2000; Bridges, 1991; Duffy, 2003). Others have focussed more

upon organisations, as a system, letting go of previous methods and approaches in

order to accommodate changing environments and circumstances internal to the

organisation (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Harvey & Buckley, 2002; Hedberg, 1981;

Klein, 1989). De Holan, Phillips and Lawrence (2004) actually classify unlearning

as one of four methods of organisational forgetting, albeit inferring a more structured

approach than the term forgetting implies. Sinkula (2002) suggests that unlearning

(referred to as total replacement/relearning), equates to the concept of double loop

learning introduced by Argyris and Schon (1978), and draws parallels with the

concept of generative learning defined by Senge (1990, p. 14) as “learning that

enhances our capacity to create”.

More recently, Navarro and Moya (2005) have recognised the existence of

two levels of unlearning: individual and group. Many more authors have used the

term unlearning and not provided a definition (Buchen, 1999; Hurd, 2003;

Rampersad, 2004; Schein, 1993; Sotirakou & Zeppou, 2004) perhaps under the

misconception that the term is widely understood. A small number of definitions

have been offered and these were outlined in Chapter 1 and are revisited in Table 3.1.


Table 3.1. Existing Definitions of Unlearning

Author Definition

Cegarra-Navarro & Dewhurst

“Organisational unlearning… is defined as the dynamic process that identifies and removes ineffective and obsolete knowledge and routines, which block the collective appropriation of new knowledge and opportunities” (Cegarra-Navarro & Dewhurst, 2006, p. 51)

Hedberg “Knowledge grows, and simultaneously it becomes obsolete as reality changes. Understanding involves both learning new knowledge and discarding obsolete and misleading knowledge” (Hedberg, 1981, p. 3)

Newstrom “…the process of reducing or eliminating preexisting knowledge or habits that would otherwise represent formidable barriers to new learning.” (Newstrom, 1983, p. 36)

Prahalad & Bettis “Unlearning is simply the process by which firms eliminate old logics and behaviours and make room for new ones.” (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986, p. 498)

Starbuck “Unlearning is a process that shows people they should no longer rely on their current beliefs and methods” (Starbuck, 1996, p. 727)

All of these definitions refer primarily to reduction or elimination of

behaviour. However, Huber (1991) takes a different approach, suggesting “in

attempting to define unlearning, it is important to note that an entity can unlearn

behaviors, and it can unlearn constraints on behaviors. Thus unlearning can lead to

either a decrease, or an increase, in the range of potential behaviours” (Huber, 1991,

p. 104). In contrasting these definitions, it is apparent that in some cases the

definition of unlearning is referring to the unlearning encountered by individuals, and

others are referring specifically to organisational unlearning. These definitions are

similar in that they generally recognise unlearning as a process rather than a discrete

event, and secondly they also acknowledge the close link between learning or

acquiring new knowledge, and unlearning.

The term relearning has also been used by researchers in the area of learning,

however no specific definition has been offered to date. The context in which it has

been used would indicate that these researchers are in fact referring to the learning of

something different after unlearning has occurred, not simply learning over again

something that has been forgotten or unlearnt (Bailey, 1989; Hedberg, 1981;


Markoczy, 1994; Sinkula, 2002). Relearning is therefore considered to be no

different to the concept of learning for the purposes of this research.

Prior to further consideration of the literature on unlearning, it is also

important to define unlearning in terms of what it is not, for the purposes of this

particular research project. Much research has been undertaken in the area of

forgetting, and in particular, directed or intentional forgetting (Bailey, 1989; Fleck,

Berch, Shear, & Strakowski, 2001; Johnson, 1994; Mensink & Raaijmakers, 1988;

Miller & Armus, 1999; Oien & Goernert, 2003). These studies, whilst not irrelevant,

are not considered to be directly related to this research for a number of reasons.

Often, the research on forgetting, found mostly in the area of clinical psychology, is

focussed upon issues relating specifically to discrete information or actions being

forgotten, rather than the removal of entrenched, complex behaviours and cognitive

maps. In addition, the large majority of these studies have been performed in a

laboratory setting on animals, and as such any results should be generalised to human

behaviour in work organisations with caution.

Much of the research on forgetting relates to participants being given cues to

remember or forget prior to presentation of information. This differs significantly

from considering the retrospective removal of information, actions or behaviours

previously considered to be appropriate. Johnson (1994, p. 274) gives a definition of

intentional forgetting as “a motivated attempt to limit the future expression of a

specific memory content”. Intentional forgetting therefore is not considered to be the

same as unlearning in that it focuses more on overt recall of specific information

rather than behaviours relating to application of existing mental models or

frameworks. With this in mind, however, some of the research conducted offers a

sound starting point from which to begin considering the topic of unlearning, as it

does consider the impact of particularly operant conditioning on forgetting. This is

an important external consideration for unlearning (Bouton, 2000).

In addition to the area of forgetting, this study also does not explore in detail

the physiological aspects of unlearning. Research has been conducted into the

physiological aspects of unlearning, considering issues such as neurophysiological

data and neural networks (for examples, refer to Hinton, 2003; Linsker, 1992; Robins

& McCallum, 1999; Shadmehr & Brashers-Krug, 1997). It is not the intention of this

research to cover the physiological issues that may be involved in unlearning.


Taking into account the previous definitions of unlearning offered, and the

fact that neither the concept of forgetting nor the physiological side of memory will

be part of the scope of this research, the definition of unlearning for the purposes of

this research is:

Unlearning is the process by which individuals and organisations

acknowledge and release prior learning (including assumptions and mental

frameworks) in order to accommodate new information and behaviours.

This definition highlights a number of issues. Firstly, it is assuming that both

individuals and organisations as an entity are able to unlearn. Secondly, it highlights

that unlearning cannot be viewed in isolation. The major reason for encouraging or

engaging in unlearning is to allow the inclusion of new information or behaviours.

Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that unlearning is not believed to exist as an end in

itself but as a means to assisting learning, innovation and change.

Current Models and Theories of Unlearning and Individual Change

Although many writers and researchers have mentioned unlearning or

addressed it specifically within the context of individual or organisational change,

there are very few who have offered a specific model of unlearning and the factors

that may impact upon it. The two most widely recognised and referenced models are

those offered by Hedberg (1981) and Klein (1989). There is also research conducted

by Baxter (2000) based upon earlier work by Lyndon (1989) relating to ways of

assisting learners to relinquish past habits or behaviours that are not considered

optimum. Newstrom (1983) also offered some introductory hypotheses in relation to

levels of unlearning that also adds to this body of literature. These theories and

models will discussed in turn, along with some additional work relating to unlearning

found in the forgetting, organisational change, and individual change and transition

literature.

Hedberg (1981) suggests that new knowledge simply replaces old knowledge

as an individual or organisation learns and develops, suggesting that “knowledge

grows, and simultaneously it becomes obsolete as reality changes” (Hedberg, 1981,

p. 3). It is not considered to be the same as forgetting where information is lost

regardless of its usefulness. Hedberg (1981) sees the two processes of learning and

unlearning as happening simultaneously. This act of discarding, referred to as

unlearning, is seen to be as crucial as gaining new knowledge, and the inability to


engage in unlearning is reported as a “crucial weakness of many organizations.”

(Hedberg, 1981, p. 3). Hedberg (1981) also suggests that typically, unlearning is

triggered by either problems within the organisation, identification of opportunities,

or by people themselves. In particular, it is suggested that the emergence of specific

problems identifies the need for unlearning. Issues such as lack of resources,

declining margins or rapidly changing environments will often act as triggers for

questioning existing ways of operating. Referring to the discussion of innovation in

Chapter 2, Francis et al. (2003) also suggested that triggers such as these are often

catalysts for innovation.

The identification of opportunities such as additional markets, or recognition

of opportunities to undertake new and different activities was the second situation

identified by Hedberg (1981) that may also trigger unlearning. These opportunities

signal to the organisation that if new ways can be embraced, the organisation will

stand to benefit. Finally, it is identified that people, either internal or external to the

organization, have the potential to impact upon unlearning. New employees bring

new perspectives, and development of existing employees can also trigger

unlearning. When discussing these triggers, however, Hedberg (1981) is referring

predominantly to organisational unlearning rather than individual unlearning, and

even recognises that “the interplay between individual, group, and organizational

levels has been poorly described in the literature, and research into the interactions

between learning individuals and learning organizations is badly needed” (Hedberg,

1981, p. 7).

Klein (1989) alternately put forward a parenthetic model of unlearning

suggesting that old knowledge is not erased, but maintained (essentially in

parentheses) for situations where it is believed the new knowledge does not apply.

This model suggests that a decision is then made as to what behaviour is appropriate

based upon the context of a particular situation. In fact, there is caution expressed

about the widespread use of the term unlearning. Klein (1989) advocates that to

improve, it is essential to learn a new method for selecting responses in the first

instance – emphasising that if unlearning is being considered in the context of

improving organisations, then simply replacing one discrete action or skill with

another is insufficient. In this case, focussing upon the change of frames of

reference, mindsets or theories of action is being advocated.


In some respects, it is being argued by Klein (1989, p. 306) that focussing on

unlearning is not necessary:

the adaptable organization becomes so by utilizing rather than abandoning

both knowledge and those capable of acquiring it. And the effective

organizational friend is one who encourages the organization to see

knowledge acquisition not merely as the substitution of one response for

another but rather as a process of development, improvement, and growth.

Whilst this may be one argument, many others have identified that within the

process of development, improvement and growth, it is still essential to recognise

previous habits, knowledge and behaviours that are no longer optimal and relinquish

them (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984). In offering the

parenthetic model of unlearning, Klein (1989) also identified the models that were

currently in use in organisations relating to unlearning, combining the unit of

analysis (individual or organisational) with the type of knowledge change required

(loss or gain), leading to the development of the matrix shown as Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3. Extent models of unlearning (Klein, 1989, p. 292)

The extinction model implies that at an individual level, knowledge is being

lost or at least made less easily accessible. The replacement model refers to the idea

that knowledge can simply be overwritten by new information, such as the model

used by Hedberg (1981). In the exorcism model (at the organisational level), it is

suggested that many organisations encourage unlearning past theories of action by

removing those in senior positions, thus exorcising the organisation of those with

substantial power over current ways of thinking (for example, refer to Nystrom &

Starbuck, 1984). Huber (1991) also recognises this as a strategy used by

organisations for unlearning purposes. Finally, the salvation model refers to the step

often taken to introduce a new “hero” to the organisation with the intention that this

individual brings necessary changes to enable the way forward.

halla



In the case of this salvation model, Huber (1991) suggests that socialisation

of a new employee (such as this “hero”) may result in unlearning that is not in the

best interest of the organisation, particularly if this employee has been hired

specifically for their different approach or knowledge. In this case, it is being argued

that through the socialisation process, the organisation’s culture may cause

unlearning of desired behaviours of an individual who has been specifically

employed to be a catalyst for unlearning in other employees. This acknowledgement

of the social nature of learning and unlearning in an organisation can be seen to link

directly back to the earlier work in relation to social learning theory by Bandura

(1977).

It is suggested by Klein (1989) that none of these four previously described

models (refer Figure 3.3) are sufficient to adequately explain what is occurring when

one behaviour is used in preference to another, occurring as a process of learning.

The parenthetic model of learning was therefore suggested by Klein (1989) in

preference to these models. The parenthetic model suggests that individuals learn to

identify the context in which certain behaviours are more appropriate, and that they

do not actually lose the old knowledge or behaviour, but it remains for a context

where it may be more applicable. Whilst this offers a more likely explanation than

“overwriting”, it does not recognise the point at which old knowledge can no longer

be recalled due to lack of use.

There is also another approach to unlearning, with its origins based in

educational psychology, which was first proposed by Lyndon (1989) and utilised as

an approach to remedial teaching in the education system. It was noted that, “…for

teachers and parents…when confronting errors of … children, they are confronting a

problem of knowledge, not its absence” (Lyndon, 1989, p. 33). In this research,

Lyndon (1989) identified that the psychological phenomenon known as proactive

inhibition was the major issue preventing the transfer of knowledge, as it works to

protect the knowledge already acquired thus advocating for the use of specific

techniques to encourage unlearning. Lyndon (1989) offered a number of key

principles underpinning a suggested approach to teaching which became known as

“Old Way/New Way”. These are outlined in Table 3.2.


Table 3.2 Old Way/New Way Elements (Lyndon, 1989)

In essence, what is suggested by the Old Way/New Way approach (Lyndon,

1989), is that rather than ignore previous knowledge, it must be acknowledged and

actively worked with, in order to allow incorporation of new knowledge and

behaviours. This can be seen to link directly to the issue of unlearning, even if this

terminology has not been used in the model.

Based on the work of Lyndon (1989), Baxter, Lyndon, Dole, Cooper,

Battistutta and Blakeley (1997) conducted field trials of Conceptual Mediation,

which has been used particularly within the vocational education arena. Conceptual

Mediation has been implemented in industry and other arenas with adults to correct

either physical or cognitive skills or behaviours. Results from an experimental field

trial, observing error rate, speed of learning and persistence of learning suggest that

there is significant benefit in acknowledging existing knowledge and bad habits as an

integral part of attempting to assist in knowledge or skill development. In particular,

Conceptual Mediation has been found to accelerate learning and ensure that changes

and improvements in behaviour endure (Baxter et al., 1997). This is a strong

argument for the consideration of unlearning as part of any effective learning process

and links back to some of the basic adult learning principles discussed in Chapter 2

such as recognising the role of the learner’s experience and the readiness of the

learner (Knowles, 1980).

halla



Existing knowledge has also been considered in a model developed by

Newstrom (1983, p. 37) who suggests that trainees “do not have a clean slate, but a

deeply entrenched behavioural pattern that has been reinforced for years.” The

amount of impact this behavioural pattern will have on unlearning is suggested by

Newstrom (1983) to be impacted by the type of change being sought, as proposed in

Table 3.3.

Table 3.3. A typology of Learning Situations (Newstrom, 1983, p. 37)

The letters in this table denote behaviours. “A” represents a new behaviour,

“B” represents an existing behaviour, and “C” and “D” represent different

behaviours. Newstrom (1983) is suggesting that unlearning will play an important

part, particularly in situations where individuals are being asked to totally replace

one behaviour with another, as shown in Table 3.3, Situation 6. Whilst this

proposition has inherent logic, it has not been supported by any conclusive empirical

research.

A number of the researchers in the area of forgetting can also shed some light

on the issue of how individuals unlearn. This research supports the theory that

knowledge is not destroyed totally but remains, even if it is not used. For example,

Bouton (1994; 2000) in studying forgetting, extinction, lapse and relapse in

behaviour change makes the point that extinction of behaviour is not the same as

unlearning, as lapse and relapse can occur when the context in which the individual

finds themselves, is manipulated. Therefore, it is being proposed that extinction does

not in fact remove the learning altogether; it simply reduces the likelihood of the

behaviour in certain contexts. Hence the proposal by Hedberg (1981) that new

halla



learning “overwrites” old learning and the knowledge is replaced, is not necessarily

supported by this research.

There have also been models developed relating to individual change and

transition which can be seen to relate closely to the concept of unlearning. Some of

these can be found in the applied management literature, and some are adapted from

clinical psychology literature and research. French and Delahaye (1996) for

example, contend that the current models of individual change are based upon

assumptions which may not always apply. These assumptions include that change

transition has a linear progression, that it is a finite process, that resistance is treated

as a certainty and that the change transition is an externally forced process. A model

of individual change is therefore suggested involving four phases of security,

anxiety, discovery and integration, in a cyclical and ongoing process of change

adaption (French & Delahaye, 1996). Within this model, it is assumed that at stages

within the process, individuals are able to show a level of self-awareness, and during

this process will experience a certain level of anxiety “caused by the loss of old

familiar patterns and processes” (French & Delahaye, 1996, p. 25). Here it is being

suggested that unlearning is an integral and important part of individual change and

transition.

Likewise, in analysing individual change and transition, Chell (1993) refers

to a model by Adams, Hayes and Hopson (1976 in Chell, 1993) to explain the

process through which individuals progress during change. The seven step model

includes stages of immobilization, minimization, depression, acceptance of reality,

testing, search for meaning and internalization. In this model, the step of Acceptance

of Reality/Letting Go can be seen to be closely linked to the concept of unlearning,

suggesting that a part of individual change is the awareness and acknowledgement of

the impending change, and the subsequent release of past behaviours.

Resistance to Change

Researchers have also emerged focussing specifically on resistance to change

and the underlying causes of this resistance. When considering unlearning, it is

possible that the inability or unwillingness to unlearn may be closely related to, if not

synonymous with resistance to change. Much of the change management literature,

whilst dealing with the issue of change implementation, is quite detached in

discussing resistance. However, many of the more recent researchers in the area


have acknowledged the emotional element of change (for example, see Eriksson,

2004; George & Jones, 2001; Seo, 2003).

For example, Goodstone and Diamante (1998) considered the implementation

and use of a 360° feedback system to encourage individual change, but make the

point that information alone does not provide a compelling reason for change at an

individual level and that sometimes resistance and an existing mindset can impede

change. Additionally, Goodstone and Diamante (1998) highlight the sometimes

erroneous assumption that providing information is enough to enact change,

effectively ignoring that there may exist an emotional element to resistance to

change. Paoli and Pencipe (2003) likewise suggest that “emotions, fairly neglected

in the organisation theory and behaviour literature, are very much part of individual

learning processes since effective learning takes place when emotions are involved”

(Paoli & Prencipe, 2003, p. 153).

Considering further this issue of resistance and whether it can offer insight

for unlearning, it is important to consider the possible underlying causes of resistance

to change in the workplace. Macri, Tagliaventi and Bertolotti (2002) relate the level

of resistance to the level of innovativeness within an organisation. The less

innovation in an organisation, the more resistance to change will occur. Macri et al.

(2002) then suggest that innovativeness is linked to economic environment, the

nature of the industry and organisational features, all of which may influence the

level of resistance to change at an organisational level. At an individual level, Macri

et al. (2002) suggest that motivation and willingness to change can be impacted by

perceptions; the change needs to be seen as desirable and necessary, relating directly

to the learning principle of readiness (Knowles, 1980) as discussed in Chapter 2.

Motivation and willingness may also prove to be crucial in unlearning.

Rather than viewing resistance as an all or nothing phenomenon, others have

identified the changing nature of resistance within a change process. For example,

Zell (2003) whilst researching resistance to change in a professional bureaucracy,

noted the similarity between the stages encountered within a change and the stages

identified in the Kubler-Ross (1969 as cited in Zell, 2003) model of death and dying.

The research indicated that the emotions and behaviours encountered during the

implementation of change reflected at both an individual level and a work group

level, the stages of death and dying. Connor (1992) made similar observations,

offering an adapted version of an existing model to suit an organisational context.


In a similar light, Diamond (1996) and Alcorn Jnr (2001) utilise the models

of loss and grief, and apply them in an organisational change context. The four

stages of grief identified by Diamond (1996) are numbing, yearning,

disorganisation/despair, and reorganisation, which can be applied to any situation in

which a loss is felt; even if this may be the loss of established processes and systems

within an organisation. Within these models, it is acknowledged that resistance will

vary in amount and nature as the various stages of the grieving process are

encountered. In many ways, these grieving processes can be applied to unlearning

situations where individuals are required to let go of habits and behaviours that have

served them well in the past, to make way for new and unfamiliar behaviours. In

unlearning, it may be important to understand that the loss of past knowledge or

behaviours may surface feelings such as unease, concern or despair and must be dealt

with as part of the process.

Zell (2003) summarises the potential reasons for resistance to change from a

number of researchers as including “fear of the unknown, disruption of routine, loss

of control, loss of face, loss of existing benefits” (Zell, 2003, p. 74). Diamond

(1996) emphasised the human element in change, suggesting that failure to

effectively implement change is often a “failure to recognise change and innovation

as a human process and the consequential resistance to change and learning”

(Diamond, 1996, p. 221). Goltz and Hietapelto (2002) suggest that resistance to

change is linked to power structures in an organisation. As these various authors

identify, many causes have been attributed to resistance to change. Regardless of

specific causes, it is clear that awareness and understanding of resistance to change

will also be important where unlearning is required.

There have also been a number of researchers who have identified methods

and approaches to overcoming individual and group resistance within organisational

change processes. A number of researchers identify the role of leader and effective

leadership as being crucial for successful change (Lung & Braithwaite, 1992;

Pearlmutter, 1998). Likewise, Macri et al. (2002) emphasise the role of management

in overcoming possible resistance to change, whilst also highlighting the fact that

emotional capability , or emotional intelligence, can play a key role in the level of

resistance encountered. Diamond (1996) advocates the use of a transitional space

within the change process to allow for individuals to work through change issues,

and to allow for resistance to be overcome. This is an attempt to encourage


“grieving over the way things were and then letting go of the old way and trying on

the new way…” (Diamond, 1996, p. 225). It is also an example of the spaced

learning principle as discussed in Chapter 2 (Delahaye & Smith, 1998).

Zell (2003) when suggesting that resistance moves through stages similar to

the Kubler-Ross (1969 as cited in Zell, 2003) model of death and dying, proposes

that within each of these stages, action can be taken to assist individuals and groups

to overcome resistance. For example, during the denial phase, provision of

compelling evidence to support the reasons for change may assist in overcoming

resistance. Zell (2003) also advocates the use of dialogue and discussion as a way of

dealing with change and encouraging “letting go” of old ways. All of these methods

and approaches may also prove useful to facilitate unlearning.

In relation to the issue of resistance, there is also the question of an

individual’s ability to cope with change. Balogun and Jenkins (2003) considered a

number of concepts closely related to organisational knowledge when advocating

that organisational change be reconceived from a knowledge creation perspective.

One of the concepts considered within this framework was absorptive capacity,

explained by saying, “absorptive capacity is to do with the ability to absorb new

knowledge... (and) will be higher when there is already prior knowledge of a

particular specialist area, making it easier to absorb new knowledge about this

specialism” (Balogun & Jenkins, 2003, p. 249). This indicates that with more

knowledge, resistance is lessened. This appears to be a contradiction of the

previously identified claim however that proactive inhibition caused by the existence

of prior knowledge results in inability to take on new information or knowledge

(Lyndon, 1989). It could be argued that as long as the new information or

knowledge does not create dissonance then absorptive capacity will be higher, and

resistance may be lessened. Regardless of the relationship, both arguments suggest

that prior knowledge can have an impact on learning and unlearning, and hence this

claim is proposed to be tested as part of this research.

More recent research in relation to resistance to change has focussed on

articulating the potential causes of resistance, and have even challenged the often

implied if not explicit assumption, that resistance to change is a negative issue and

merely an obstacle to be overcome. Dent and Powley (2002) question the often-

made assumption that employees will resist change on an irrational basis; showing

results of a study that find that often employees embrace change. It is now being


suggested that if resistance to change is better understood, it may in fact have

specific utility in a change process (Waddell & Sohal, 1998). At the organisational

level, Waddell and Sohal (1998) suggest that resistance is a function of four factors;

rational, non-rational, political and management factors. At the individual level,

George and Jones (2001) recognise resistance to change as having cognitive and

affective elements whilst Macri et al. (2002) suggest that motivation and willingness

to change can be impacted by perceptions thus emphasising that the change needs to

be seen as desirable and necessary.

The concept of coping in relation to change at an individual level, has also

been considered by many researchers. Based upon a review of literature in the

personality area, Judge et al. (1999) identified seven traits considered to be linked to

the ability to cope with change including, locus of control, generalised self-efficacy,

self-esteem, positive affectivity, openness to experience, tolerance for ambiguity and

risk aversion. Based on this research, it was possible to reduce these seven factors to

two which reflect these traits. These were labelled positive self-concept and risk

tolerance, which were then linked to the ability to cope with change (Judge et al.,

1999). This research also identified that these traits which were linked to coping

were also linked to extrinsic variables such as salary and job level, and intrinsic

factors such as commitment and job satisfaction. Again, links to individual factors

and organisational factors, both internal and external, are identified as impacting on

coping with change, leading to the likelihood that these may also have an impact on

unlearning. This approach to analysing factors at the individual and organisational

level, will be used in the following sections to develop a conceptual framework for

this study.

Developing a Framework for Unlearning

Even though models exist which recognise unlearning, there are relatively

few that relate specifically to this concept. Therefore, the overall purpose of this

research is to investigate how individuals unlearn in the workplace, and what factors

may influence this unlearning. There are many indications, however, that specific

variables have the potential to influence unlearning and how it occurs. It is the aim

of this chapter to draw these factors together into a framework that reflects the range

of possible issues, and can be utilised for this research.


Particular variables in isolation have been the subject of previous research,

and have been grouped in a variety of ways by researchers. For example, Bouton

(2000) suggests that unlearning can be influenced by four factors. These factors are

the current context in terms of external cues, the internal state, recent events, and

time. Most of these have been the subject of research to better understand resistance

to change. Coghlan (1993) also suggests that resistance can originate in either

personality or interaction with the environment; categorising influencing factors as

either internal or external.

In a review of the literature on knowledge and learning, there is recognition

of different factors which may influence unlearning and these have been highlighted

previously during the literature review in Chapter 2. These factors have been drawn

together and will be developed into a framework in the following sections. It is

being suggested within the framework, that at level one, there is knowledge within

individuals and organisations easily accessible and therefore able to be addressed for

the purposes of unlearning. At the second level, the knowledge and learning is less

easily accessed, and at the final level, underlying assumptions and ways of viewing

the world are considered. All of these have the potential to influence the process of

unlearning. As the framework is developed, specific research questions will evolve.

Level One

At the first level, as indicated in Figure 3.4, there exists explicit knowledge

within individuals, and what has been referred to as inert knowledge (Delahaye,

2005) at an organisational level. These two types of knowledge have been reviewed

in relation to the impact upon individual and organisational learning and unlearning.

Figure 3.4. Unlearning Model Level 1


Explicit Knowledge. Many researchers and writers in the learning and

knowledge management areas have identified the difference between explicit and

tacit knowledge. These concepts were discussed during Chapter 2 when analysing

the nature of knowledge. Explicit knowledge is widely accepted as knowledge that

is recognised by the individual and is therefore easily expressed or articulated

(Durrance, 1998; Newell et al., 2002; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Roy & Roy, 2002).

Explicit knowledge is sometimes referred to as codified knowledge.

Explicit knowledge forms over time as an individual learns more, and is the

basis of many decisions made by individuals within organisations. Whilst this

knowledge is easily articulated and therefore easily challenged by others, it still

serves to shape an individual’s thinking and learning. The model of learning by

Knowles (1980) discussed in Chapter 2 suggests that in adult learning terms, an

individual’s experience and prior knowledge should be viewed as valuable.

However, it may also be the case that this knowledge can serve to inhibit unlearning

as proposed by Lyndon (1989) when referring to the possible impact of proactive

inhibition during the learning and unlearning process. Therefore, this research will

address the following question:

What is the relationship between explicit knowledge and individual

unlearning?

Inert Knowledge. At an organisational level, explicit knowledge is generally

found captured in a static form and is therefore referred to as inert knowledge. This

knowledge, which is easily articulated and therefore documented, can be found in

organisational policies, procedures and processes as well as in documentation such as

performance management systems and position descriptions. The framework

constructed for this research utilises the term inert knowledge (Delahaye, 2005) to

indicate the relatively stable nature of such information, and the fact that it can be

captured, stored and shared either in hard copy or electronically (Connell et al.,

2003). Collective explicit knowledge has been recognised to exist in organisations,

just as it does in individuals (Starke, Dyck, & Mauws, 2003). Therefore, just as

explicit knowledge may influence learning and unlearning in an individual, it is

possible that inert knowledge has an influence on organisational learning and

unlearning, and indirectly therefore, on individual learning and unlearning.


Organisational structure is often considered a reflection of prior

organisational learning and current knowledge, and therefore can be seen to have the

potential to impact on future learning and unlearning. Some writers have considered

the existence of two particular systems at work in organisations. These have been

referred to as the legitimate and shadow systems of the organisation (Delahaye,

2000; Stacey, 2003). The legitimate system refers to the system within the

organisation involving overt rules, processes, policies, reporting structures all of

which focus upon single loop learning and maintenance of the status quo. The

legitimate system has captured a great deal of the knowledge referred to in this

model as inert knowledge. In contrast, the shadow system represents creativity,

double loop learning and the informal, self-organising groups within the organisation

(Stacey, 2003) which can be paralleled with more tacit forms of knowledge within

the organisation, and is referred to at the second level of this framework.

These manifestations of knowledge at an organisational level can be seen to

have the potential to influence unlearning both at an individual and organisational

level. Levitt and March (1988) suggest that even successful organisations face the

possibility of falling into the “competency trap” whereby they are achieving certain

positive outcomes with a less than perfect technology or procedure and therefore are

not as likely to let go of this particular explicit knowledge in order to improve.

Therefore, this research will address the following question:

What is the relationship between inert organisational knowledge and

individual unlearning?

Level Two

At the second level, as indicated in Figure 3.5, there exists tacit knowledge at

an individual level and the equivalent concept of organisational memory at an

organisational level. These two concepts have been reviewed in relation to the

impact upon individual and organisational learning and unlearning.



Tacit Knowledge. Tacit (or implicit) knowledge, also discussed in Chapter 2,

relates to information not easily explained or documented, and is often referred to as

know-how (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Tacit knowledge has been the focus of

many studies at both an individual and organisational level. In particular, it is of

interest to researchers, the ways in which tacit knowledge is created and shared.

Swap, Leonard, Shields, and Abrams (2001, p. 95) suggests that “knowledge with

rich tacit dimensions, is transferred informally through processes of socialization and

internalization”. In relation to the creation of tacit knowledge in the first instance

however, many researchers have eluded to the fact that tacit knowledge is

accumulated through personal experience over time (Brockmann & Anthony, 2002;

Bryant, 2003; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Again this leads to the question of the

role of personal experience in not only the acquisition of new knowledge but also in

the discarding of previously held knowledge.

Even though for purposes of the model, explicit and tacit knowledge are

treated separately, recognition is given to the fact that these are not easily separated.

It has been suggested that those considered to be experts in a particular field may be

the worst at unlearning as they have invested a lot of time and resources into their

current knowledge and therefore may have quite entrenched beliefs (Zell, 2003) most

of which are internalised at the level of tacit knowledge. Knowles and Saxberg

(1988) likewise suggest that those who have invested heavily in their current

knowledge may not be willing to unlearn.


Linking back, particularly to some of the earlier adult learning theories,

propositions such as the Laws of Exercise and Effect (Thorndike, 1914, as cited in

Vincent & Ross, 2001) suggest that those who have acquired and used knowledge

over a long period of time, and this behaviour has been reinforced or rewarded, are

likely to learn effectively. This raises the question as to whether, due to this use and

reinforcement, it may also be more difficult for an individual to unlearn. Long-held

views and knowledge acquired and reinforced over a long period of time may be

considered more difficult to unlearn than recently acquired knowledge, to which the

individual has less of an emotional attachment.

A contrary viewpoint discussed previously however is provided by Balogun

and Jenkins (2003) when discussing absorptive capacity, claiming that with more

knowledge, resistance is lessened. Regardless of whether it is of assistance to

unlearning or a hindrance, it would appear that previously acquired knowledge is

recognised as having the potential to influence unlearning. Tacit knowledge in

particular, raises issues in relation to unlearning due to the fact that it is less easily

identified or articulated, meaning it may be less easily challenged as a part of the

unlearning process. Therefore, this research will address the following question:

What is the relationship between tacit knowledge and individual unlearning?

Organisational Memory. The second level of the model, collective tacit

knowledge, is believed to reside in organisations and is referred to as organisational

memory. Stein (1995) defines organisational memory as organisations having “the

means to retain and transmit information from past to future members…” (Stein,

1995, p. 17). Stein (1995) also emphasises that organisational memory has

implications for and relates directly to learning and unlearning issues. Levitt and

March (1988, p. 319) define organisational memory as “how organizations encode,

store, and retrieve the lessons of history despite the turnover of personnel and the

passage of time”.

Tsang (1997) suggests that “…lessons learned in the past, if properly stored

in the organizational memory, are an important source of knowledge for members of

the organization to draw upon” (Tsang, 1997, p. 79). Paoli and Prencipe (2003)

suggest that organisational memory comprises both schemata (intangible elements

such as mental models) and standard operating procedures (tangible elements). All

of these references to organisational memory recognise that not just explicit

knowledge is captured by an organisation; tacit knowledge is also stored. The fact


that organisations have tacitly embedded knowledge which remains even after key

employees have left the organisation provides an indication of the existence of

organisational memory (Starke et al., 2003).

Systemic memory, equated with organisational memory, is discussed by

Anand, Manz and Glick (1998) as distinct to group or individual memory, and these

researchers suggest that being able to access “soft knowledge” or tacit knowledge, is

essential for organisations to function effectively. Argyris and Schon (1978)

likewise acknowledge the role of organisational memory recognising that “…in order

for organizational learning to occur, learning agents’ discoveries, inventions, and

evaluations must be embedded in organizational memory” (Argyris & Schon, 1978,

p. 19). It could then be assumed that this organisational memory may play a role in

unlearning, just as tacit knowledge may at the individual level.

To research the link between organisational culture, organisational memory

and decision making, Berthon, Pitt and Ewing (2001) operationalise organisational

memory by claiming is it a function of age and size, although still acknowledging the

limitations of this measure and recognising other factors may also impact. The

argument is that as organisations age and gather experience, this is transferred to

organisational memory. Likewise, as an organisation grows in size it also

accumulates more experience, in turn adding to organisational memory. This revives

the argument from the individual level that may also be applicable at the

organisational level; the more experience and expertise gained, the less likely the

organisation is likely to question assumptions and therefore learn or unlearn. The

concern is that, “on one hand, memory development enables learning from

experience, while on the other hand, memory can constrain the search for and

creation of future possibilities…. Simply, memory has inertia that can constrain

future organizational change” (Berthon et al., 2001, p. 138).

Just as it has been claimed that an expert in a particular field is likely to

experience more difficulty in letting go of old ways and embracing new possibilities,

it is being suggested that organisations as a whole also face this dilemma. Markoczy

(1994, p. 10) claims that “as a result of learning, organizations attain a higher level of

efficiency in carrying out their routines but, at the same time, they build competency

barriers against adopting new routines.” Argyris and Schon (1978) likewise warn

that organisational memory may encourage single-loop learning rather than double-

loop learning, as experience becomes entrenched in the organisation. This has been


criticised by Nonaka (1994) however, who claims that this reflects an underlying

assumption that organisations are still functioning under a mechanistic system, and

leaves little recognition of those operating in a more systemic, open systems way,

that therefore having knowledge creation and double-loop learning as an integral part

of their modus operandi.

Both organisational memory and organisational culture (which will be

explored further at the third level in this framework) are very clearly linked to

organisational learning. Berthon et al. (2001, p. 138) suggest “if culture is about the

values and assumptions that guide organizations, memory development is about the

capacity to encode experience and accumulate learning”. Van der Bent et al. (1999)

also suggest that organisational memory acts as a vehicle or carrier of culture, rules,

processes, and systems of the organisation. Based on the previous discussion of the

range of literature in the area of organisational memory, it is clear that organisational

memory plays a role in organisational learning and unlearning and therefore may

impact on the individual as a result. Therefore, this research will address the

following question:

What is the relationship between organisational memory and individual

unlearning?

Level Three

At the third and final level, as indicated in Figure 3.6, individual frames of

reference and organisational culture are recognised. These two concepts have been

reviewed in relation to the impact upon individual and organisational learning and

unlearning.



Frames of reference. At the final level of the model, the term “frames of

reference” has been utilised to incorporate a wide range of variables that influence

the way individuals view their surroundings. Mezirow (2000) uses the terminology

frames of reference, however many other terms can be found in the literature such as

mental models (Kim, 1993), cognitive maps (Huber, 1991), cognitive style (Sadler-

Smith, 1999), schemas (Barrett et al., 1995), theories of action (Hedberg, 1981) and

paradigms (Markoczy, 1994). For the purposes of this study, a broad perspective

will be taken on frames of reference, and it will be considered to encompass or

equate with all of these terms.

In conjunction with this level, it is considered that a number of key factors

that serve to form and shape an individual’s frames of reference including cognitive

ability, cognitive style, learning style and personality. These will also be considered

in relation to specifically unlearning.

Cognitive style or structure has been suggested to influence individual change

(Fatt, 2000; Hayes & Allinson, 1998; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984) and this element

can in turn influence frames of reference. Cognitive style is defined as “a person’s

preferred way of gathering, processing and evaluating information” (Hayes &

Allinson, 1998, p. 850). Nystrom and Starbuck (1984) refer to the need to change

cognitive structures in order to unlearn. These cognitive structures are considered to

manifest themselves through “perceptual frameworks, expectations, world views,

plans, goals, sagas, stories, myths, rituals, symbols, jokes, and jargon” (Nystrom &

Starbuck, 1984, p. 55), indicating some overlap with culture at an organisational

level. Barrett, Thoman, and Hocevar (1995) suggest that these mental models play a

large part in successful change, emphasising “effective change requires that

organisation members alter their cognitive schemas for understanding and

responding to organisational events” (Barrett et al., 1995, p. 356).

Acknowledging the existence of these frames of reference or cognitive

schemas helps to address the misconception that when trying to implement individual

change or to encourage learning, new information can simply be presented and will

be integrated into current knowledge and/or behaviours, often referred to a the “clean

slate fallacy” (Newstrom, 1983). On the contrary, as discussed earlier in this chapter,

Newstrom (1983, p. 37) suggests that trainees have “a deeply entrenched behavioural

pattern that has been reinforced for years” and therefore these patterns must be

acknowledged and released to enable unlearning.


It can be argued that frames of reference have the potential to influence an

individual’s unlearning. As Hedberg (1981, p. 18) suggests, “unlearning makes way

for new responses and mental maps”, and thus may also “threaten.. a learner’s theory

of action” (Hedberg, 1981, p. 19). It is also asserted that

one of the most viable explanations for the difficulties of unlearning and

relearning at the paradigm level is that the managers identified by members

of organizations with these routines are still in dominant decision-making

positions. These managers see their security in the unchanged routines, in

part because their authority gained legitimacy in the context of this belief

system (Markoczy, 1994, p. 21).

This indicates that changing paradigms is crucial for unlearning.

A number of studies have also focussed upon the individual’s learning style

and how this may impact upon how the individual approaches and manages the

unlearning process. Hayes and Allinson (1998) also consider learning style, which

they view as a component of cognitive style, to impact upon ability to assess and

change behaviours when necessary. Learning styles such as those identified by Kolb

(1984) were discussed previously in Chapter 2. As the close link between learning

and unlearning has been established previously, it could therefore be claimed that the

learning style of an individual may also impact upon their unlearning.

Cognitive ability is also considered when determining how able individuals

are to unlearn, and how likely it is that they may resist change. At least two different

studies have shown the link between an individual’s cognitive ability, and their

ability to cope with change at a personal level (LePine et al., 2000; Oreg, 2003).

Markoczy (1994) has also suggested that resistance encountered in unlearning and

relearning could be explained as simply related to limited capacity to cope with the

change; some individuals are more able to deal with change in a positive way than

others.

The personality of an individual has also been proven to impact upon an

individual and their capacity for change (LePine et al., 2000; Oreg, 2003) and may

also influence an individual’s frames of reference. Oreg (2003) has developed a

scale measuring the level of resistance individuals may show towards change, and

identifying four personality factors of interest including routine seeking, emotional

reaction to imposed change, short-term focus and cognitive rigidity. It has been

established that the higher these personality traits, the more likely individuals are to


resist change. It is anticipated that this scale could be used during the collection of

data from individual participants in this study.

A number of other studies have also identified issues relating to personality

which may impact particularly upon the ability of some individuals to adapt to

change, and hence unlearn. These studies are listed in Table 3.4, with the factors

found to impact upon unlearning, and openness to change.

Table 3.4. Possible factors in resistance to change and unlearning

Study Factors identified that assist unlearning or decrease resistance to change

Back & Seaker (2004) In MBTI, high in intuitiveness and in perceiving most strongly correlate with double-loop learning (in which it is hypothesised that unlearning must occur)

Barrick and Mount (1991)

High in openness to experience and extraversion (identified as predictors of training proficiency which can be linked to learning and unlearning)

Le Pine et al. (2000) High cognitive ability, high openness, low conscientiousness

Lewin & Stephens (1990 as cited in Mullins & Cummings, 1999)

High tolerance for ambiguity, high openness to experience

Oreg (2003) Low in routine seeking, emotional reaction and short-term focus

As can be seen, the final level in the model covers a wide range of issues, and

possible influencing factors. Therefore, this research will address the following

question:

What is the relationship between an individual’s frames of reference

(including influencing factors of cognitive ability, cognitive style, learning style and

personality) and individual unlearning?

Organisational Culture. Culture at the organisational level can be likened to

the previously discussed frames of reference at the individual level. Huber (1991) in

fact uses the term organisational frames of reference when referring to organisational

culture. Culture has long been seen as the shared or commonly held beliefs,

assumptions, values and taken-for-granted norms and behaviours that govern

organisations (Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Goodman, Zammuto, & Gifford, 2001;

Schein, 1996). Balogun and Jenkins (2003) suggest that culture is really a reflection

of tacit knowledge held within the organisation and Finne (1991) also suggests that

organisational routines which either assist or hinder change embody a large amount


of tacit knowledge. Walsh and Ungson (1991, p. 63) suggest “culture embodies past

experience that can be useful for dealing with the future” and envisage culture as one

of the retention facilities of organisational memory.

Levitt and March (1988) propose that organisations learn;

by encoding inferences from history into routines that guide behaviour. The

generic term “routines” is widely used and includes the forms, rules,

procedures, conventions, strategies and technologies around which

organizations are constructed and through which they operate. It also

includes the structure of beliefs, frameworks, paradigms, codes, cultures, and

knowledge that buttress, elaborate, and contradict the formal routines (Levitt

& March, 1988, p. 320).

It is therefore being proposed in this unlearning framework that routines and

paradigms may impact on unlearning; either positively or negatively.

Dominant logic is another term used by Prahalad and Bettis (1986) to suggest

that frames of reference exist not only at the individual level but also at the

organisational level. Dominant logic is defined as “a mind set or a world view or

conceptualization of the business and the administrative tools to accomplish goals

and make decisions in that business. It is stored as shared cognitive maps (or set of

schemas) among the dominant coalition” (Prahalad & Bettis, 1986, p. 491).

Markoczy (1994) similarly refers to paradigmatic routines which exist in

organisations and “reflect a cognitive structure developed by members of a group or

organization in a given social, institutional context” (Markoczy, 1994, p. 10). These

are often taken for granted by those within an organisation, but may have profound

impact on attempts to implement changes and may make organisations more resistant

to change, in an effort to maintain these routines.

Culture can manifest itself in many ways including routines, stories, rituals,

symbols, structures or systems of control (Markoczy, 1994), and all of these may

also play a part in either assisting or hindering change processes. Just as frames of

reference may influence learning and unlearning at the individual level, it is

suggested that organisational culture as a reflection of inert knowledge and

organisational memory, may play a part in organisational learning and unlearning.

Although for the purposes of this study the conceptual framework separates these

two concepts (organisational memory and organisational culture), they are in fact

closely aligned, reflected by much of the research and publications in this area.


Paoli and Prencipe (2003, p. 148) believe that organisations are:

characterised by knowledge structures, frames of reference, givens, causal

maps, shared mental models, and the like, through which they perceive,

categorise, and give meaning to events. These mechanisms act as filters in

the process of assimilation of new information. Moreover, they have a

bearing on and actually constrain decision-making processes as well as the

generation of actions.

This quote is referring to culture as reflecting organisational tacit knowledge.

Marsick and Watkins (1999) take this discussion further, suggesting that an

organisation’s culture and structure shape the action of individuals. Markoczy

(1994) likewise suggests that organisations have two types of routines dictating their

behaviour and ability to learn and these are operational routines and paradigmatic

routines. Operational routines refer to processes, systems and practices (referred to

in the conceptual framework as inert knowledge), and paradigmatic routines refer

again to the shared mental models or “cultural web” within the organisation.

Even though culture has been discussed by many organisational researchers,

few have attempted to quantify the concept. However, the Competing Values

Framework, originally developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981; 1983), and

subsequently developed into the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument

(OCAI) by Cameron and Freeman (1991) and Cameron and Quinn (1999) presents a

possible measure of organisation culture. The framework classifies organisational

culture on a matrix relating to process, from organic to mechanistic, and focus; from

internal to external. It is therefore proposed that organisational cultures fall into one

of four broad categories: hierarchy (mechanistic processes, internal focus), market

(mechanistic processes, external focus), adhocracy (organic processes, external

focus), and clan (organic processes, internal focus). Having been previously

validated in a wide range of organisations (Cameron & Quinn, 1999), this instrument

represents a possible measure for inclusion in this study.

The discussion of cultural webs and less formal ways of operating lead back

to the previously discussed issue of the two systems operating within organisations:

the legitimate system and the shadow system. The shadow system in particular

encourages an organisation to challenge the status quo and to continue evolving

(Delahaye, 2000). The shadow system relies more on self-organisation, rather than

the more structured and stable legitimate system. It can be suggested that the culture


within the organisation may in fact influence or play a role in this shadow system by

encouraging old ways to be challenged.

Organisational culture is often identified as an important consideration for

successful change. Diamond (1996) claims that organisational culture can make an

organisation either defensive or resilient and that bureaucratic organisational cultures

have ritualistic defenses that censor information and feedback against the status quo

and therefore inhibit the identification of the need for change. Whereas the

alternative, organisational resilience, is seen as “a minimally defensive social system

of collaboration and participation that is capable of responding to change” (Diamond,

1996, p. 226). In essence, it is being suggested that organisational culture can either

encourage feedback making individuals within the organisation resilient and more

able to change, or the culture can include defensive routines which inhibit change

and unlearning. Regardless of the type of impact it has, there is widespread

acknowledgement of the role culture may play during times of change and therefore

unlearning. Therefore, this research will address the following question:

What is the relationship between organisational culture and individual

unlearning?

The Unlearning Framework

Figure 3.7. The Unlearning Framework

In finalising the proposed framework of unlearning, it is recognised also that

there may be factors in the organisation’s external environment which influence


learning and unlearning as represented in Figure 3.7. These contextual factors may

include the nature of the industry, economic, technological, political and social

factors (Ahmed, 1998; Boer, 2004). For example, Tsang (1997) suggests that

ethnicity in the workplace may impact upon organisational learning, which in turn

may be impacted by individual approaches to learning. Hedberg (1981) in discussing

learning and unlearning in organisations identifies that external environments have

the potential to affect learning. These factors are outside the bounds of this particular

study but are recognised to have the potential to influence the organisation and

individuals within it, hence having the potential to also influence learning and

unlearning.

A number of key points need to be emphasised about the model. Firstly, the

overlapping of learning and unlearning at both the individual and organisational level

is intended to ensure that unlearning is not seen as an end in itself. As Huber (1991,

p. 104) notes, “unlearning is conceptually subsumable under learning. Use of the

word “unlearning” serves primarily to emphasize a decrease in the range of potential

behaviours, rather than to indicate a qualitatively different process.” The framework

also serves to emphasise the large interplay between the range of possible factors

involved in learning and unlearning at both the individual and organisational level.

Finally, the framework suggests that this learning and unlearning takes place in a

particular context, acknowledging the external environment of the organisation as a

possible influence. It is this framework that will be utilised as the basis for this

research.

Chapter Summary

This chapter highlighted a number of key areas in the overlapping areas of

individual and organisational learning, and also identified a number of possible

factors that influence learning and unlearning at both the individual and

organisational level. Figure 3.7 presented a framework drawing together these

concepts, which will be used as the basis for this research, and is the basis of the

research questions developed to guide the study. The framework firstly

acknowledged the key areas of individual learning and organisational learning. It

then identified both individual and organisational factors that may impact unlearning.

Finally, it acknowledged the potential for factors external to the organisation to also

have an impact upon unlearning.

Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 76

Chapter 4 Research Design & Methodology

Chapter Overview

Chapters 2 and 3 provided the literature review and conceptual framework

upon which this research is based. This chapter provides details of the research

methodology, its purpose and how it was designed and implemented. The chapter

structure is outlined in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Chapter 4 structure


The Research Question

From the review of the background literature in the area of unlearning, the

conceptual framework was developed to include a number of areas that have been

extensively researched in the literature (refer to Chapters 2 and 3). However, in

terms of researching these concepts in relation to their influence on unlearning, the

literature provides little direction, and these are highlighted as propositions within

the model developed. Of particular interest is how the factors of tacit knowledge,

explicit knowledge, and frames of reference at the individual level; and inert

knowledge, memory and culture at the organisational level, influence individual

unlearning in the workplace.

Therefore, the overall purpose of the research is to determine:

How do individuals unlearn in the workplace, and what is the nature and

extent of the factors that influence an individual’s capacity for unlearning?

The following questions, with the exception of the last one, are based upon this

overall purpose and emerged whilst developing the conceptual framework in the

previous chapter.

1. What is the relationship between individual explicit knowledge and



unlearning?

3. What is the relationship between an individual’s frames of reference

(influenced by cognitive ability, cognitive style, learning style and

personality) and individual unlearning?

4. What is the relationship between inert organisational knowledge and



unlearning?


unlearning?


unlearning?

The final question did not emerge specifically from the literature review, but allows

for identification of other possible influencing factors during the research.


Overview of Mixed Methods Approach

Mixed methods studies allow for the inclusion of both qualitative and

quantitative methods of data collection and/or analysis to achieve a range of

outcomes (Creswell, 2005; Greene et al., 1989). Use of mixed methods as distinct

from either qualitative or quantitative methodology is growing in popularity and this

approach has been more widely recognised with the publication of a number of texts

dealing specifically with mixed methodologies (for example see Creswell, 2003;

Greene & Caracelli, 1997; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). These publications

represent significant advancement in the recognition of mixed methods as an

alternative to qualitative or quantitative approaches. Importantly, these authors have

also sought to provide frameworks that explain and recognise the different

approaches taken within the mixed methods frame, rather than classifying them all

broadly as mixed methodologies.

Based upon the overall purpose of the study and the research questions

identified, the research used a mixed methods approach relating to factors

influencing individual unlearning in the workplace. The conceptual framework used

to guide the study was developed as a result of the literature review and was shown

in the previous chapter as Figure 3.7. In this study, a mixed methodological

approach was adopted to allow for initial generation of rich data in relation to the

relatively unexplored area of unlearning, and then to expand this knowledge with the

added benefits of a broader study to reveal more general findings. Rocco et al.

(2003) suggest that studies utilising mixed methods for this reason are “explicitly

seeking a synergistic benefit from integrating both the post-positivist and

constructivist paradigms. The underlying assumption is that research is stronger

when it mixes research paradigms, because a fuller understanding of human

phenomena is gained” (Rocco et al., 2003, p. 21). This research aimed to exploit the

strengths of both the qualitative and quantitative approaches to research, to obtain the

synergy described by Rocco et al. (2003).

Based upon Greene et al.’s (1989) identification of five different purposes for

the utilisation of mixed method studies, this particular research is categorised as

developmental since it proposes to utilise the outcomes from one method to develop

and inform the other. The initial qualitative data collection method, referred to as

Phase One, was used to inform a second stage of quantitative data collection, Phase


Two. This approach can be categorised as a two-phase approach (Creswell, 1994),

with the advantage of this particular mixed method approach being that “the two

paradigms are clearly separate; (and) it also enables a researcher to present

thoroughly the paradigm assumptions behind each phase” (Creswell, 1994, p. 177).

Therefore, throughout the description and explanation of the methodology for this

study, the two phases have been described separately to ensure the differing

perspectives are adequately represented.

Creswell (2003) classifies the approach taken in this research as a sequential

exploratory design, shown in Figure 4.2 and based upon the notation system

introduced by Morse (1991 as cited in Creswell, Plano Clark, Gutman, & Hanson,

2003). Creswell et al. (2003) suggest that this approach utilises the qualitative

findings to provide input for the quantitative stage of the project, and notes it is

particularly useful where the research question seeks to first understand more about

an emergent theory, prior to conducting a quantitative study; a situation which

applies to this study of unlearning. In particular, it is suggested that the qualitative

stage proves useful particularly for locating or developing an instrument for use

during the subsequent quantitative stage (Creswell, 2003).

Figure 4.2. Sequential Exploratory Design (Creswell et al., 2003, p. 225)

The research project was therefore broken into two distinct phases: a

qualitative phase (Phase One) and a quantitative phase (Phase Two).

Operationalising the research question within this approach is first discussed, and is

followed by a detailed explanation of each of the research phases including an

overview, sampling methods, data collection and data analysis methods. The issues

of reliability and validity of each phase and the ethical considerations of the project

are also discussed.

It is important to note that no results from the application of this methodology

are presented in this chapter. Results of Phase One are presented in Chapter 5, and

halla



results of Phase Two are presented in Chapter 6. The process flow of the research as

it was conducted is shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Research process flowchart

Operationalising the Research Question

In operationalising this research, a number of decisions were made to assist in

conducting the phases, and have been identified prior to providing details of each

phase. Firstly, during Phase One and Phase Two, participants were asked to consider

a particular episode involving change that had impacted on them. For the purposes

of this research, an episode is defined as an event within the organisation requiring

changed behaviour by individuals.


It is acknowledged that from a research perspective, the opportunity to

conduct a longitudinal study allowing the researcher to follow the actual change

process and observe and record information as the change progressed would have

been useful. However due to the time constraints of this study, and the need to

identify such a small window of opportunity, this was not possible. Thus, the

episodes chosen were either in the process of occurring, or had occurred. In order to

minimise the possible impacts of lack of recall of particular events, it was

emphasised that the episode being discussed must have occurred within six (6)

months of data collection commencing.

Secondly, it was considered critical that the change episode being recounted

met certain criteria in order to provide sufficient insight into unlearning processes.

Therefore, the criteria relating to the change episode were that a previous practice,

system or process was being or had been replaced by a new one, and the change was

of reasonable significance at a business unit or divisional level and involved complex

changes in behaviour.

The first criterion allowed for testing of the claim by Newstrom (1983) that

unlearning is of greatest significance when a previous behaviour is being replaced by

another. The second criterion ensured that the changes had significant impact and

did not relate to simple tasks which may have been considered relatively easy to

unlearn. This also ensured that when relying on an organisational contact (in most

organisations the Human Resources Manager or an operational Manager) to provide

examples of change episodes, and identify individuals involved, they were more

likely to be aware of these types of changes.

Thirdly, consideration was given to the types of organisations included in the

research, and the following criteria were set as medium to large work organisations,

with paid employees, an identifiable Human Resource Management function (not

necessarily a HR Department) and operating in a production-oriented environment.

Involving medium to large organisations (categorised as fifty (50) or more

employees) with an identifiable human resources function ensured that a larger

number of participants were able to be accessed within each organisation, and in

terms of considering particularly organisational factors in the model, were more

likely to have identifiable and documented policies, procedures and systems.

Involving only work organisations with paid employees ensured that additional

social and cultural factors were not introduced, as may occur if considering


associations with voluntary staff. Finally, choosing a production-oriented

environment allows for a breadth of possible organisations without introducing

another variable that may influence unlearning. It is widely recognised that the

service sector has specific cultural norms and organisational needs, and much work

has been done focussing on this area (for example, see Francis & D'Annunzio-Green,

2005; Furrer, Liu, & Sudharshan, 2000; Kasper, 2002; Sin & Tse, 2000; Skålén &

Strandvik, 2005). It was considered important to reduce the likelihood of this

specific sector impacting the findings.

Finally, the nature of the individual participants was considered. In order to

establish some constraints on the range of participants being chosen, it was decided

to choose participants employed at an operational level (including supervisory

employees) in the sample organisations. Schein (1996) claims that within

organisations, there exist three different cultures related specifically to broad

occupational categories, with differing but shared frames of reference and

assumptions. These cultures are described as operator culture, engineer culture and

executive culture (Schein, 1996). The operator culture involves those at an

operational level, including first line management, directly involved in the

production and/or delivery of the good or service. The engineer culture is held by

those specialists within the organisation involved in the designing and monitoring of

the underlying technology involved in the good or service. Finally, the executive

culture includes those in senior management positions holding overall responsibility

for the results of the organisation.

Schein (1996) suggests that, in particular, the operator group are often those

most likely to identify improvements and innovations, and have an understanding of

the interactions between operations and the people involved. Typically, it is this

group that is the focus of change programs in organisations. The engineer culture,

and as a flow-on, the executive culture it is claimed, are more likely to seek solutions

which may not involve people as the key element, with their focus more on technical

aspects of the work, and delivering outcomes (Schein, 1996). If these different

shared mental models do exist, it is considered important to limit the impact.

Therefore it was decided to involve in this study, only those determined to be within

the operations culture of the organisation; that is workers and line managers.


Ethical Considerations

Prior to the conduct of this study, an ethics application was submitted to the

Queensland University of Technology, University Human Research Ethics

Committee (UHREC) and the research project was granted ethical approval (QUT

Ref No 3828H).

Patton (2002) provides a comprehensive framework identifying ten key

ethical issues within research projects including explaining purpose, promises and

reciprocity, risk assessment, confidentiality, informed consent, data access and

ownership, interviewer mental health, advice, data collection boundaries, and ethical

versus legal. Each of these will be addressed in turn.

The purpose of the research was explained clearly to both the Organisational

Contacts (the researcher’s first point of contact) and the individuals within the study.

When providing directions and explaining the study on information sheets, language

appropriate to the audience was used. In relation to promises and reciprocity, all

information provided about the study clearly identified the possibility that

individuals may not benefit from the research but the results would be used to inform

those responsible for the implementation of change in organisations; something

which has already commenced through the publication and dissemination of parts of

this thesis. In particular, it was reinforced with Organisational Contacts that

information would not be provided in a format that would identify individuals.

Every person involved in the research however was offered the opportunity to

request a copy of the final report on this study. It was made clear to all individuals

that they would not be in any way impacted regardless of their decision to participate

or not in this study, and were free to withdraw at any stage. For the survey

questionnaire in Phase 2, however, it was reinforced that due to the nature of the

instrument, consent could not be withdrawn after submission of the completed

survey.

An assessment of the risk relating to the organisations and the individuals

involved was conducted prior to commencing the research and this project was

considered to be low risk. The possibility that reflecting upon issues and concerns

relating to workplace change may have caused anxiety for individuals was noted, and

if required, the researcher had contacts available for counselling and debriefing.

Even though these services were available, none of the participants required referral.


Confidentiality was guaranteed to all organisations and individuals involved

in the research. For Phase One participants, the identities of the organisations and

the individuals were maintained confidential by the use of a code rather than names.

The codes were allocated to the individuals by the researcher and these identities

were maintained in a secure location. All participants were also ensured that the

level of analysis conducted and the reporting of findings would not allow for the

identification of individuals. All data gathered for this research was stored in a

secure location and will be maintained for a period of five years as required by the

QUT Code of Conduct for Research, Policy D/2.6.

Informed consent was gained for all components of the study. Consent was

firstly gained from the Organisational Contact (or the nominated responsible line

manager) in order to gain access to the organisation. For Phase One, each individual

was then provided with an Information Sheet and Consent Form relating to the study

(refer Appendix A) for clarification and endorsement prior to the conduct of

interviews. At all times it was made clear that interviewees were free to withdraw

from the study at any stage. For Phase Two, the survey questionnaire provided an

introductory explanation and the opportunity to volunteer to complete the survey.

Completion of the survey questionnaire was considered to be informed consent and

participants were advised that they could withdraw up to any point until the survey

was submitted.

Data access and ownership was also considered as an ethical issue for this

study. In line with UHREC Requirements, all hard copy data were stored in a secure

location. In debriefing the organisations about the information gathered from Phase

One, a verbal report was provided, not identifying any individuals nor providing

sufficient details to allow identification of individuals. In Phase Two, the

organisation used internal computer systems to collect the online survey data from

their employees and therefore, they also retained a copy of this data. Staff were

familiar with this method of survey distribution and were aware that the data would

be used for this study and also retained within the organisation.

Interviewer mental health and advice were not considered critical issues in

relation to this specific study; however, the researcher called on the supervisors of

this study for debriefing, input and advice when required. Likewise, the issue of data

collection boundaries and how far to go in attempting to collect data was not a major

issue. Those participating were volunteers and were all generally able to provide the


required input. Where interviewees had difficulty answering questions in Phase One,

rephrasing and feedback was used to assist without exerting undue pressure on the

interviewee. Finally, the issue of ethical versus legal requires the researcher to

identify the ethical framework that guides the study. The framework used for this

study was the direction and guidelines set by the QUT UHREC and the QUT Code of

Conduct for Research, Policy D/2.6.

Phase One: Qualitative Phase

Overview

Phase One was the qualitative phase of the project, and was aimed at

exploring the concept of unlearning in the workplace. Based on the conceptual

framework developed from the literature review, a research process appropriate to

addressing the research questions was identified for use during this phase. This

phase consisted of the collection of interview data from individuals as well as the

collection of contextual data from the organisations in which they worked. The data

was analysed against the conceptual framework to identify converging or diverging

areas of interest. Finally a cross case analysis was conducted to draw together the

findings in preparation for Phase Two.

The interview process was piloted at an individual and an organisational level

prior to the actual conduct of Phase One. The first part of the pilot study involved

two separate individuals from differing organisations, and the second part involved a

case organisation with four participants.

Following this pilot study, analysis was conducted not only on the content,

but more importantly on the process of data collection to identify areas of

improvement. Following refinement of the data collection methods based on the

outcomes from the pilot study, three case organisations were then chosen for the

main qualitative study of Phase One. They are referred to within this study as

Organisation A, Organisation B and Organisation C. Each organisation had recently

encountered a change, or was still undergoing change that required unlearning on the

part of individuals. For each case organisation, organisational level data were

collected, along with data from selected individuals within the organisation. Specific

details of the methodology, pilot study and main study including case organisation

and participant selection, data collection and analysis are detailed below.


Case Study Methodology Case studies are a common approach to the conduct of qualitative research

(Burns, 2000) and provide a way to collect data to develop further understanding of a

particular phenomenon or topic (Creswell, 2005; Stake, 2000), and in this study,

unlearning. Where little theory exists in relation to a concept, case study research is

considered an invaluable tool from which to build theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). In

particular, case study research has the strengths of allowing for the generation of new

or novel theories, generating theory that is likely to result in constructs and

hypotheses which are testable, and producing theories which are empirically valid

(Eisenhardt, 1989). It is also acknowledged that, as with any research methodology,

potential weaknesses also exist. In case study research, this may be the development

of overly complex theories due to the richness of data collected, or the development

of theory that is too narrow to be of significance to a range of situations (Eisenhardt,

1989). On the balance, the strengths of taking a case study approach were

considered to far outweigh the potential weaknesses for this particular research. As

with any potential drawbacks, the awareness of the existence of these weaknesses is

the first step in ensuring they do not impact on the research to a significant extent.

Interview Question and Process Development As Phase One aimed to further extend the emerging theories relating to

unlearning, the use of convergent interviewing was identified as an appropriate data

collection method. The questions used in the convergent interviewing process

emerged from the literature review and conceptual framework. Convergent

interviewing can be utilised as both a data collection and data analysis method.

The concept of convergent interviewing was described by Dick in 1984, with

the concept being traced back to the mid-1970’s. In a later edition of this

publication, Dick (1990) explains that convergent interviewing is an iterative process

whereby the actual content of the interview is not structured but left to the participant

to direct. In contrast, the process of interviewing and across interviews is relatively

structured. One of the key advantages of convergent interviewing as opposed to

general in-depth interviews is seen to be the “more structured way of processing

interviews and analysing data” (Rao & Perry, 2003, p. 237). As interviews progress,

the objective is to identify areas of agreement and disagreement between participants

until convergence occurs; both within the interviews and across interviews, and any


divergence remaining can be adequately explained. As Dick (1990, p. 7)

emphasises, “the best time to design the data-collection procedures is at the end of

the program. By then you may know enough to understand what you should have

asked, of whom, and how you should have asked it”. Convergent interviewing aims

to address this dilemma by providing the opportunity during the process of data

collection to refine questions and determine appropriate participants and sample size.

When using any form of interviewing, following a quality process is key to

reliable data collection (Glesne, 1998; Yin, 2003). Therefore, it was important to

ensure a number of elements were present within all interviews. The interview

process should be designed to allow for time to establish rapport, conduct the

interview and then summarise and clarify at the end, prior to time taken for the exit

process (Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekaran, 2001). Dick (1990) suggests that it is

imperative to use an opening question that outlines the topic without applying

constraints, and is sufficiently broad to encourage discussion and allow for follow up

questions. He also suggests that this question should not evoke an emotional

reaction, nor the sharing of theories or general wisdom rather than specifics. Probe

questions are also important within the interviews to ensure that all areas identified

are explored, and that as the interviews progress, these probe questions are able to be

refined based upon the outcomes and analysis of prior interviews. Finally, at the

conclusion of an interview, the participant should be asked to summarise and

prioritise the key issues raised (Dick, 1990). The specific questions used during the

pilot for Phase One are shown in Appendix B along with the identified refinements

for use during Phase One.

Other important considerations during the interviewing process included

ensuring the use of unbiased questioning to avoid socially desirable responses, the

use of clarifying and rephrasing techniques by the interviewer, and the recording of

responses to allow for future reference and analysis (Dick, 1990; Glesne, 1998). In

this research, with the permission of the participants, interviews were recorded

digitally to capture all discussions, and brief notes were taken by the interviewer to

allow for analysis and further probing as the interview progressed. All of these

considerations provide a sound approach to interviewing, whilst also increasing the

reliability of the data collection (Cavana et al., 2001; Sekaran, 2003).


Pilot Study Phase One and Outcomes

Following the development of interview questions and an interviewing

process, a pilot study was undertaken to ensure that the research process and the data

collection and analysis methods would be appropriate and would achieve the desired

research outcomes. As Glesne (1998) suggests, a pilot study allows for not only

many aspects of the proposed research process to be tested but can also begin to

inform the researcher in relation to the topic. It is anticipated that “researchers enter

the pilot study with a different frame of mind from the one they have when going

into the real study” Glesne (1998, p. 38). Pilot study data was collected in the form

of individual interviews. First, two individuals from differing organisations were

interviewed with the intent of testing the predetermined interview questions to ensure

the appropriateness of wording, explanations and questions.

Following feedback from these two individual interviews, the interview

process was conducted within an organisation to test the interview process within the

context of a workplace setting. Yin (2003, p. 79) suggests that the pilot site could be

“congenial and accessible… or may have an unusual amount of documentation and

data”. This was certainly the situation within the pilot case organisation, where the

General Manager was able to supply a large amount of background data, and being

known personally by the researcher, was extremely interested in participating in the

study and allowed full access to the organisation beyond what might normally be

permitted. Yin (2003) asserts that choosing a pilot site on the basis of these criteria

is a useful approach to allow full testing of both the data content and the research

procedures.

There are a number of ways participants can be selected within a case

organisation. During the pilot the Organisational Contact was asked to provide a

small list of possible participants who were considered to have handled the

requirement to unlearn in different ways. Then as part of the interviewing process,

these participants were asked for referrals to other possible participants. This

approach has been referred to as snowball sampling (Cavana et al., 2001; Glesne,

1998), and is recommended by Dick (1990) as the most appropriate way to select

participants during a convergent interviewing process.

During the pilot this referral method was trialled however it proved difficult

both at an individual and organisational level. Due to the sometimes sensitive nature

of the topic of change and people’s perceived ability to cope, it became difficult to


obtain referrals, and when referrals did occur, those nominated were suspicious of

the reasons. Therefore, it was determined that for the remainder of the study, the

organisational representative would brief all likely participants and give them the

opportunity and choice to be involved or not. It is acknowledged that this approach

has the potential to skew the results due to self-selection however, from the analysis

of the participants and how they coped with unlearning, there appeared to be a spread

of levels of comfort with changes implemented. Those who were opposed to the

changes were just as likely to volunteer as those who were supportive.

The pilot study also highlighted the need to revise the criteria for type of

employee chosen. The pilot drew on operational staff including first level blue collar

workers, however those at this base level in the pilot organisation had difficulties

with self-reflection and often lacked the ability to articulate their experiences;

sometimes because awareness of broader organisational changes and issues were not

considered. It was determined that those at a more advanced level, including

supervisory/management level would be more appropriate to answer the level of

questioning required for this study.

Phase One Sampling

Case Organisation Selection. Following the pilot study (the full results of

which are included in Chapter 5), and subsequent revisions to the research process

and content, three (3) case organisations were selected. As Phase One was designed

to provide insight into the emerging topic of unlearning, and took a qualitative

approach to data collection, purposeful sampling (Glesne, 1998) was utilised.

Creswell (2005, p. 203) suggests that the key issue in purposeful sampling is to

identify “people or sites who can best help us understand our phenomenon”. As

convergent interviewing warns against the predetermination of a set number of

interviews, the size of the sample for Phase One was determined as a result of

ongoing analysis of the interviews. The intention of ongoing interviews was to

continue to gather data until such time as agreement was found between participants,

and any disagreement could be explained. Dick (1990) suggests that interviewing

can cease once two successive interviews provide little or no additional information

to be added to the analysis.

Choosing the sample size; in this study, the number of participants to use, is a

contentious issue as there is no one widely-recognised formula to suggest the

optimum number. As Patton (2002, p. 242) reinforces, “nowhere is … ambiguity


clearer than in the matter of sample size”. Purposeful sampling as used in this study,

can be further classified into a range of different approaches (Patton, 2002) and in

this study, typical case sampling was used. This refers to a sampling approach that

allows the researcher to “illustrate or highlight what is typical, normal, average”

(Patton, 2002, p. 243). In Phase One, the first case organisation was identified and

the case study was conducted. It was then determined that a second case

organisation was necessary for comparative reasons. When these were complete, a

third case organisation was chosen to provide further depth to the data. By the

conclusion of the third case organisation however, no significantly new data

appeared to be emerging and thus this phase of the research was completed at this

point. A total of twenty-three interviews were conducted across the three case sites.

Potential case organisations meeting the criteria of medium to large

organisations in a production environment with paid employees and an identifiable

human resource management function were identified based on the researcher’s

knowledge of organisations undergoing significant change. The method of sampling

to identify case organisations could be described as opportunity sampling (Burns,

2000), as it drew upon the networks of the researcher as a means of identifying

potential respondents. However, these networks and contacts covered a range of

industries and organisations. Whilst this could be identified as a possible limitation,

it was considered an advantage, as personal contact with and knowledge of the

potential “gatekeepers” made access easier and increased the rate of agreement to

participate.

Once the organisations were identified, a personal approach was made to an

organisational contact, generally the HR Manager or an operational Manager. If

interest was indicated, an official letter was sent requesting an opportunity to

interview a selection of staff and to collect additional background data. Upon signed

agreement to participate, the Organisational Contact or their nominee was

interviewed to collect background data (interview questions are shown in Appendix

C), identify an appropriate change episode, identify potential participants, and plan

an approach to the potential participants. Briefing of participants occurred either as a

group or individually depending on organisational requirements prior to conducting

the interviews.


Data Collection

Burns (2000, p. 469) identifies three principles for case study data collection:

use multiple sources, maintain a clear chain of evidence, and record data. In all case

organisations, a range of data was collected to allow for multiple perspectives on the

change being encountered and to allow for the input from individuals to be

contextualised. There are at least six sources of evidence that may be used during a

case study, and these are documentation, archival records, interviews, direct

observation, participant-observation and physical artefacts (Yin, 2003). Whilst a

great deal of the data gathered for Phase One came from the use of semi-structured

interviews, other information was also collected. All data collection methods are

explained below.

Organisational Contact. The Organisational Contact was the first point of

contact for the researcher within each of the organisations. This person was

interviewed to gather a range of available data relating to the organisation in general,

as well as the background to the change that was occurring. Information gathered

included company size, age, structure and labour turnover rates, as well as specific

information about the change episode. In some case organisations, other statistics

were also provided; however, this depended on both the level of data gathered by the

organisation and the extent to which the case organisation was prepared to make the

material available to the researcher. Organisational documentation was also

provided by the Organisational Contact.

Organisational Documentation. Organisational documentation gathered

included policies, procedures, company records and production data, all of which

assisted to contextualise the changes and the organisational imperatives for the

changes. Whilst much of the documentation was not provided in hard copy to the

researcher, the access to this documentation during the research provided a

background for the changes, and also clarified some of the comments and references

made by participants during interviews.

As the conceptual framework considers organisational factors as well as

individual factors, it was considered critical to contextualise the interview data

collected. By collecting data relating not only to the individuals interviewed within a

case organisation, but also in relation to the organisation and the change occurring, it

was possible to consider the possible impact of these organisational factors on

individual unlearning. Paton (2002, p. 447) emphasises that “case analysis involves


organizing the data by specific cases for in-depth study and comparison. Well

constructed case studies are holistic and context sensitive…”. Therefore, it was

important as an integral part of the research to collect not only data from each

individual, who might be considered a case study in their own right, but also from an

organisational contact to provide sufficient context.

Three organisations were chosen to provide an opportunity to analyse and

compare different workplace contexts as well as focussing on the individuals within

these three case organisations. This nesting or layering of cases within cases is an

accepted approach to case study methodology and recognises that “you can always

build larger case units out of smaller ones” (Patton, 2002, p. 447) but only when

sufficient data has been collected at all levels of analysis.

Participant Interviewing. All interviews were digitally recorded using a

voice recorder and then transcribed and reviewed by the interviewer for accuracy and

content. The transcripts from the pilot study were analysed manually to give the

researcher a closeness to the data, and allow for themes to emerge (Creswell, 2005).

As Creswell (2005) points out, analysing by hand is possible where there is only a

small number of transcripts and where the researcher has time to commit to the

process in order to achieve this intimate understanding of the themes emerging.

These transcripts were prepared with large margins in order for the researcher to

make notes and identify the themes throughout the document for ready reference

during the analysis.

For the conduct of Phase One within the three case organisations, NVivo was

used to analyse the data as this is better suited to large databases of information

where “a close inspection of every word and sentence to capture specific quotes or

meanings of passages” (Creswell, 2005, p. 234), is required. Programs such as

NVivo enable systematic analysis and have more advanced features than basic code-

and-retrieve programs. However it is also important to remember that technology

can never fully replace the critical issue of developing an understanding of the data

in order to build theory (Weitzman, 2000). NVivo and similar packages offer the

qualitative researcher the opportunity to conduct detailed searches of transcripts and

to maintain more thorough records of searches and outputs than traditional manual

forms of analysis (Bazeley & Richards, 2000; Gibbs, 2002), and for this reason

NVivo was used to assist with the analysis of Phase One.


Self-Administered Questionnaires. Two instruments were identified during

the literature review and development of conceptual framework. These were the

Resistance to Change Scale (Oreg, 2003) and the Organizational Culture Assessment

Instrument (OCAI) (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). These instruments were pre-

validated and during the literature review were noted as possible measures of

individual frames of reference, and organisational culture.

The Resistance to Change Scale developed by Oreg (2003) was designed to

directly measure an individual’s disposition to resist change. This instrument was

based on other studies of personality that indirectly assessed change, and then

developed specific items to measure resistance to change. Exploratory factor

analysis conducted on these items using a principal components analysis yielded four

factors relating to resistance to change including the extent to which individuals seek

routine (routine seeking scale), the level of emotional reaction to change (emotional

reaction scale), the short-term focus adopted during change (short-term focus scale),

and the ease and frequency with which individuals change their mind (cognitive

rigidity scale) (Oreg, 2003). Those scoring higher on each of the sub-scales, and

therefore on the Scale as a whole are more likely to resist change and to be

uncomfortable with the requirement to unlearn. An overview of the reliability and

validity of this instrument is provided in the Validity and Reliability section of this

chapter.

The Competing Values Framework, originally developed by Quinn and

Rohrbaugh (1981; 1983), and subsequently developed into the OCAI by Cameron

and Freeman (1991) and Cameron and Quinn (1999) provides an assessment of

organisational culture. The framework classifies organisational culture on a matrix

relating to process (from organic to mechanistic) and focus (from internal to

external). It is therefore proposed that cultures can be determined to fall into one of

four broad categories: hierarchy (mechanistic processes, internal focus), market


focus), and clan (organic processes, internal focus). The questionnaire for this

instrument uses six questions comprised of four statements, each relating to one of

the culture types. The respondents are required to use a constant sum approach; in

this case 100 points, and allocate this total amongst the statements according to the

likeness to their particular organisation. The result is identification by the individual

of their perception of organisational culture. In some cases, the distinction is a close


result and respondents therefore may have a split between two cultures. This model

was be used to categorise each participant’s interpretation of the culture of the case

study organisation.

It was decided that these two instruments would provide additional contextual

information to add to the interview data, and they were therefore administered to all

participants in Phase One following their interviews. The decision to administer the

two instruments following the interviews in Phase One was made to ensure that the

topics raised within either instrument did not contaminate the data collected during

the interview process. These results were then able to be used during the analysis in

combination with interview findings.

Data Analysis

It is generally accepted that case research should have an analysis strategy to

guide the analysis of all data collected (Yin, 2003). The main analytic technique

used for analysis of Phase One is referred to as pattern matching (Burns, 2000; Yin,

2003) and involves comparing results and patterns within a case study to a predicted

pattern or logic. In this study, the conceptual framework represented a theory of

unlearning and the factors impacting upon it, which was then tested to identify

whether the cases at an organisational and individual level, based on empirical

evidence, reflected the conceptual framework as predicted. The process of studying

each case organisation subsequently rather than in parallel, is referred to as literal

replication (Yin, 2003), where the same phenomenon across cases is being studied in

the expectation that similar results will emerge. This approach is advocated for

assisting to strengthen internal validity of the study (Yin, 2003), and “if the patterns

coincide and there is no pattern to fit rival alternative theories, then the case can

claim internal validity” (Burns, 2000, p. 472).

The interviews conducted during Phase One utilised convergent interviewing

which actually involves a level of analysis that is interwoven with data collection.

One of the strengths of convergent interviewing is the fact that data collection and

analysis occur on a cyclical and iterative basis during the interviewing phase. Both

during and following the interviews, the researcher must analyse the issues emerging

in terms of divergence and convergence (Dick, 1990). Following use of constant

comparison as an analysis procedure (Creswell, 2005), and based on these outcomes,

the probe questions are then refined for use in subsequent interviews to explore and

clarify any new issues emerging (Dick, 1990). Therefore, Dick (1990) emphasises


the importance of an interpretation session between interviews in order to

systematically identify the emerging themes and to develop the summary report of

data collected to that point and to identify any refinements to the interview process.

These interpretation sessions should occur immediately following an interview,

examining the findings in a systematic way and commencing the ongoing

identification of common themes (convergence) and areas of difference (divergence).

This cyclical process of interviewing, interpretation, and refinement should

continue until subsequent interviews raise no further issues or areas of divergence

can be explained. This process was used within each organisation, and each

individual organisation was completed before commencing with the next case

organisation. This ongoing process of interpretation and documentation also meant

that data reporting and analysis could occur simultaneously with data collection, to

further inform the research and the researcher. As the cases and interviews

progressed, a range of issues emerging were identified and documented particularly

for use during coding for a more detailed analysis.

As a result of the pilot study, a number of themes emerged and these were

used as codes during the analysis of Phase One. In most situations these themes

could also be seen to link back to the issues identified in the review of the literature

and development of the conceptual framework however the themes initially were not

restricted in any way. Each transcript was analysed to identify these themes and to

code these appropriately. Where applicable, comments falling into a number of

categories were coded multiple times. After completion of all three organisational

cases, the codes and emerging data were reviewed and some codes were refined or

combined where overlap was identified. The key codes used within the analysis are

included in Appendix D. Early in the pilot study it became obvious that a level of

forced coding was necessary as the respondents varied widely in their ability to

express themselves, and in the terminology they used to explain the processes they

had encountered during the change.

In addition to the analysis of the interview transcripts, the results of the

Resistance to Change Scale (Oreg, 2003) and the OCAI (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)

were scored for each individual and these were analysed and correlated with the

results from each interview.

The final stage in the analysis of Phase One involved the conduct of a cross

case analysis. From the analysis of each subsequent individual case, a model began


to emerge of the processes which an individual encounters during unlearning and the

elements that may impact upon this process either positively or negatively. When

each of these elements, and the unlearning process were examined in further detail

across the individual and organisational cases, a comparison of similarities and

differences was made. The most regular and relevant issues impacting on unlearning

in a number of different situations were then identified. This provided additional

strength to the data from Phase One, however Yin (2003) warns against resorting to

quantitative measures in a cross case synthesis such as this, asserting that this type of

analysis should “rely strongly on argumentative interpretations, not numeric tallies”

(Yin, 2003, p. 137).

Validity and Reliability

Validity and reliability of a research study is as applicable to qualitative

approaches as it is to quantitative approaches. As Phase One of this study is

predominantly a qualitative approach, there are certain aspects that must be

considered in relation to reliability and validity. Burns (2000) identifies potential

issues of subjective bias, generalisation, reliability and validity, particularly in

relation to case studies. Each of these will be discussed in turn.

Subjective bias is the first concern often raised in relation to case studies. It

is claimed that this type of research has the potential to allow personal views or

presuppositions to influence the outcomes of the study. Whilst this may be a valid

concern, it is no less applicable to other investigation methods, including those

considered quantitative in nature (Burns, 2000). Nonetheless, this potential for

subjectivity can be minimised in a number of ways, and steps were taken during

Phase One to address this concern. In particular, multiple case studies were used and

multiple sources of evidence sought.

In terms of the trustworthiness of this approach to data collection and

analysis, Dick (1990) suggests that by utilising the process of convergent

interviewing, the researcher can determine as the data collection progresses, the

amount of variation in the data and therefore the appropriate sample size. It can also

allow the participants to direct content, hence avoiding the potential impact of

interviewer bias by utilising a rigid set of predetermined questions. Dick (1990) also

advocates the importance of a skilled interviewer who is actively searching for areas

of divergence and convergence within the data as it is being collected, thus achieving

a “healthy scepticism” (Dick, 1990, p. 10), and in turn improving trustworthiness.


Also, as a part of the interview, Dick (1990) advocates the use of specific summary

techniques to ensure that the respondent has not been misinterpreted by the

interviewer. Again this increases the trustworthiness of the data as it is collected and

analysed. All these steps were taken during Phase One in order to maximise the

trustworthiness of the data collection and analysis.

The second concern raised by Burns (2000) is that of lack of generalisability;

identifying that often case studies are not able to generalise results to a wider

population. Whilst the assumption in this criticism is that such generalisation is the

only goal of research, it is worth remembering that what is found in one case may not

translate directly to other cases. Phase One does not seek to obtain generalisation,

however the use of multiple case studies in a group of similar organisations provides

some indication that generalisation to similar situations and organisations may be

possible. The point needs to be made however that Phase One was designed to

further explore the notion of unlearning; not to fully explain it, nor to develop

generalisable propositions.

Reliability is the third issue raised by Burns (2000) who reinforces that using

a case study methodology “it is impossible to establish reliability in the traditional

sense” (Burns, 2000, p. 475), however in its broadest sense, reliability relates to the

stability and accuracy of results. Qualitative researchers often refer to

trustworthiness of data (Glesne, 1998) rather than reliability. A number of steps were

taken within Phase One to enhance the trustworthiness of the data. Firstly, all

approaches to data collection were clearly documented, and when approaches were

refined, these changes were also documented. Heavy focus was placed on the

systematic recording of all data collected, and transcription was conducted as soon as

practicable to allow for content checking by the interviewer. The use of multiple

sources of data within each of the case organisations also gives an opportunity for

providing corroboration to outcomes; referred to as triangulation (Gillham, 2000;

Glesne, 1998).

The final consideration, identified by Burns (2000), is that of validity. In

basic terms this means that “the instrument measures what it is supposed to measure”

(Patton, 2002), and in this study, the instrument being used is a case study. The use

of an analytic strategy such as the pattern matching used in this study has been

proven to strengthen the internal validity of a case study approach to research (Burns,

2000). It is also worth noting that in qualitative studies, and in particular the


presentation of case studies, there is the intent that readers of the study can relate it to

their own context and that they find the results applicable and relevant (Burns, 2000).

In this way, it is important that the audience for whom the study is intended see

usefulness in the findings which in a sense provides significant validation to the

researcher.

Phase Two: Quantitative Phase

Overview

Phase Two was the quantitative component of the research and involved the

development, administration and analysis of a survey questionnaire. The instrument

was developed based upon the results of Phase One, in order to provide an initial test

of the process model that emerged from that phase. As Creswell et al. (2003)

emphasise, it is important to allow the findings of the qualitative phase to inform the

quantitative stage, with the necessary changes to the quantitative stage being made

following analysis of the qualitative stage. Therefore, the objective of Phase Two

was to better understand the interplay within the unlearning process, and between the

unlearning and the enablers and inhibitors of unlearning. The specific details of

instrument development, case and participant selection, data collection and analysis

have been detailed below.

Survey Questionnaire Methodology

The terms survey and questionnaire are often left undefined in research texts

and publications, or are used in a variety of contexts, sometimes interchangeably (for

example, compare Creswell, 2002; Sekaran, 2003; Zikmund, 2000). In this study,

the term survey questionnaire has been used purposefully throughout to refer to the

instrument used for data collection. This term was developed based on the fact that a

survey in the broadest sense, gathers data on a particular issue but not necessarily

from an entire population (Babbie, 1989). A survey may use a number of data

collection techniques including personal interviews, telephone interviews, direct

observation or self-administered questionnaires (Scheaffer, Mendenhall, & Ott,

1990). In this study, the data collection technique used to survey was a

questionnaire; hence the term survey questionnaire.

Survey questionnaires are recognised as an appropriate method of collecting

data from a large number of research participants when the researcher is able to

clearly articulate the information of interest and have appropriate measures of


variables (Sekaran, 2003). McClelland (1994) also reports that survey questionnaires

have a range of advantages including accessing a large and often geographically

dispersed population, gathering of data via unobtrusive means, reducing the bias

introduced when an interviewer may be involved, and minimising time requirements

when surveys are well-designed and as a result are self-explanatory. The sequential

exploratory design of this research, as described previously is well suited to the use

of an instrument that has been developed or located as a result of a qualitative stage

of study (Creswell, 2003).

Survey Instrument Development

Design of survey questionnaires is critical to effective research and three

issues have been highlighted as being important in this process. These are question

wording, categorisation and coding of the variables, and general appearance

(Sekaran, 2003). Each of these was considered in the development of the survey

questionnaire for Phase Two. The wording was specifically developed based on

wording and outcomes from Phase One and used an external panel for additional

quality checks. The categorisation of variables was done prior to the instrument

development by careful planning of analysis around the research questions. Finally,

the appearance was assessed by the use of the expert panel, and as an integral part of

the pilot study.

Survey Questionnaire Construction. The survey instrument that was

developed for Phase Two comprised six sections (for a full copy of the survey

questionnaire see Appendix E). The first section included demographic data relating

to the individual including age, sex, qualifications and position type. This

information was collected as nominal data, and specific rationale was used to

develop the groupings. For example, the age groups identified corresponded with the

generational cutoffs used for Baby Boomers, Generation Y and Generation X, as it

has often been claimed that these generations exhibit different values and preferences

(Chaminade, 2005).

Data was also gathered in Section 1 about the individual’s length of tenure in

the organisation, in their current position and in similar positions in either the current

organisation or others. As discussed in the literature review, an individual

accumulates both explicit and tacit knowledge over time. Therefore, whilst not an

extensive or exhaustive measure, it was proposed to use the length of time

individuals have spent in their position, their organisation and in similar positions


across organisations as an indicator of experience, and provide some insight into

depth of knowledge.

Three sections then followed which were developed from the outcomes of

Phase One, and presented statements to which participants responded using likert

scales. These sections of the survey will be referred to as the Organisational and

Individual Unlearning Inventory (OIUI). The process of development of the

statements for the OIUI are outlined in the next section of this chapter. The final two

sections of the survey questionnaire included the two instruments used during Phase

One; the Resistance to Change Scale (Oreg, 2003) and the OCAI (Cameron & Quinn,

1999). Both instruments were outlined previously in this chapter.

Scale Selection. Choosing suitable scales is a highly contentious issue and

has been subject to extensive research (for example, see Downey & Huffman, 2001;

Hughes, 1969; McCloy, Heggestad, & Reeve, 2005; Pallant, 2000; Sheridan & Niwa,

2003). A common debate is whether scales represent ordinal or interval level data.

Many researchers treat scales as interval data however it has been claimed that “the

level of information captured by any scale falls somewhere in-between the

definitions of ordinal and interval level data” (Darbyshire & McDonald, 2004, p. 18).

For example, an argument often made is that the researcher cannot guarantee that in

the respondent’s mind, the distance between the 2 and the 3 is the same as that

between the 3 and the 4. This is even more of an issue when verbal scales are used

instead of numerical scales (Darbyshire & McDonald, 2004). It has however become

accepted that, even though they may officially be considered ordinal data, with large

sample sizes, scales can be analysed using inferential parametric statistical tests

(Singh & Smith, 2000).

Overall length of scales, labelling and balancing are the three most

controversial issues when choosing response scales (Darbyshire & McDonald, 2004).

It is also claimed that scales with only labelled end points provide more flexibility

for analysis as long as respondents can understand the meaning of the scale

(Darbyshire & McDonald, 2004). Research has also shown that longer scales often

have no more reliability than those that are shorter; for example 11-point versus 5-

point (Darbyshire & McDonald, 2004). Darbyshire & McDonald (2004, p. 25)

suggest that three key questions should guide the development of scales; do I want to

perform statistical analysis?, does the scale need to offer a “neither” option?, and will

the respondents understand the meaning of the scale if it is not fully labelled?


Statistical analysis was required so a scale appropriate to conducting multivariate

analysis was necessary. It was determined that a balanced five-point scale with

labelled end points only would be able to be understood by respondents, however

they should be given the opportunity for a neutral response by the provision of a mid-

point.

Development of Survey Questionnaire Statements. The statements within the

OIUI were developed to reflect findings from the first phase of the study and were

developed around the constructs present in the process model resulting from Phase

One (see Appendix F for the table used to develop the statements relating to these

constructs). Where possible, the items developed as a result of Phase One used

verbatim comments or common phrasing from Phase One to ensure the

appropriateness of wording.

The OIUI was subject to pretesting by an expert panel; a process designed to

address tautological issues, to clarify statements and to ensure that the instrument

would address the research questions in an appropriate manner (Singh & Smith,

2000). It is also acknowledged that use of a pretest contributes to the overall

reliability and validity of the instrument (McClelland, 1994), something which will

be examined in further detail in a subsequent section of this chapter. The expert

panel consisted of the two supervisors of the research, two external researchers

engaged heavily in quantitative research and particularly quantitative analysis, and a

researcher with expertise in wording of survey instruments.

As part of the OIUI development, a test-retest reliability was also conducted.

The pilot study participants were asked to complete the instrument twice at least a

week apart which gave the opportunity to assess whether responses were

significantly different at two different points in time.

Pilot Study Phase Two

Following refinements based on input from the expert panel, the OIUI was

then used in a pilot study organisation. The instrument was distributed within a

financial division of a tertiary education institution and of 70 staff invited to

complete the survey questionnaire, 38 responded representing a response rate of

54%. These participants were asked to complete the OIUI a second time after a time

lapse of approximately one week, with 30 replying to a retest (response rate of 43%).

The survey questionnaires were matched and test-retest reliability analysis was

conducted as well as eliciting feedback from the participants relating to the clarity,


readability and ease of understanding of the instrument. The process of refining the

OIUI based on feedback from the pilot study is explained in the following section.

The detailed analysis and results of the test-retest reliability analysis are contained in

Chapter 6.

Survey Questionnaire Revision following Pilot Study

Feedback from respondents was sought in relation to the OIUI, its clarity and

ease of use. No issues were identified with the wording of the instrument, with

respondents reporting ease of completion. The data was entered into a SPSS data file

and was checked for indications of structural issues or potential format problems.

One issue was identified with the collection of demographic data from the question

“Number of years you have been in this type of work (including other

organisations)”. The space allocated for the response to this question was positioned

on the page in a place that was significantly different to the questions previous or

following. This formatting factor was attributed to the increased missing data for

this question. This was addressed when the survey was developed for the

administration during Phase Two. No other issues were identified from the pilot

study.

Additional input regarding the survey questionnaire was sought from

organisational experts for the purpose of design. It was believed that their

knowledge of the particular organisational context would be valuable to ensure that

the instrument would be appropriate to the target audience in terms of wording. Only

minor changes were suggested by these internal reviewers; relating mostly to the

collection of demographic data. The nature of the position was changed to reflect the

organisational grouping of jobs. The age grouping for Baby Boomers was split, as it

was anticipated that this group would comprise a large number of respondents and

therefore may be more useful broken down further. The cut-off used, was a

generally accepted retirement age for Australian workers, as much attention is being

given to the retention of older workers (Bourke, 2005; Equal Employment

Opportunity Network of Australia, 2005). One organisational representative also

requested the inclusion of an open-ended question for internal use. No other issues

were identified by the organisational experts.


Phase Two Sampling

Case Organisation Selection. The case organisation was chosen because it

was known to the researcher as having undergone significant changes in recent years.

In particular, the organisation was in the final stages of implementing a large,

organisation-wide system transformation that has meant significant change

throughout the business. This method of sampling is described as opportunity

sampling (Burns, 2000) or convenience sampling (Creswell, 2005), as it drew upon

the networks of the researcher and awareness of current large-scale change occurring

in industry. The organisation was also operating within a similar environment to

those involved in the case studies; a production-oriented organisation with paid

employees and an identifiable human resource management function.

Participant Selection. Within the organisation, the group of target employees

chosen were those in management and supervisory positions who had taken a lead

role within the operational units in the implementation of the new system, and

therefore had first-hand knowledge of and experience with the changes. This group

comprised 238 staff located statewide who were invited to be involved in the survey

questionnaire on a voluntary basis. Determination of sample size for reliable

research is subject to some debate, and the application of broad rules of thumb often

expressed as either a minimum sample size or a minimum ratio of number of

observations to number of variables. These guidelines applied without regard to

specific aspects of a given study has drawn criticism (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang,

& Hong, 1999), however in a review of recommended sample sizes, MacCallum et

al. (1999) identify recommendations made by a range of authors on ratios of

minimum sample size to number of variables ranging anywhere between 3:1 and

10:1. A common recommendation is the need to have at least 100 responses in order

to conduct factor analysis, and a ratio of at least five observations for every variable

being considered, with a ratio of 10:1 being even more preferable (Hair (Jnr), Black,

Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006).

In this survey questionnaire, eleven variables were being considered, and

these were awareness, expectations, unlearning process, enablers/inhibitors (in

particular, colleagues, manager/supervisor, inert knowledge, training, personal

experience and change processes), resistance to change and organisational culture.

Given these variables, and considering the recommended guidelines, it can be seen

that the use of the 189 responses which were received represents a ratio of


approximately 17:1 and is therefore more than adequate for the purposes of further

analysis.

Data Collection

The survey questionnaire was administered online using the program, Survey

Monkey™. Although research, and in particular, administration of surveys has been

assisted by technology for at least twenty-five years (Evans & Mathur, 2005), the use

of online surveys is still a contentious issue. The potential strengths and weaknesses

of online surveying have been studied in many contexts (for example, see Ilieva,

Baron, & Healey, 2002; Zimitat & Crebert, 2002), and strong empirical evidence is

lacking to answer many of the concerns and questions that currently exist. Evans &

Mathur (2005) provide a comprehensive list of major strengths and potential

weaknesses of online survey methods, which can be readily assessed in relation to

this research.

The strengths of online surveying that were capitalised on during this

research include the speed and timeliness of administration, the convenience, the

ease of data entry and analysis, low administration costs, controlled sampling and

ease of follow up (Evans & Mathur, 2005). In addition, technological innovations

ensure that the survey can have diverse features embedded to ensure easier

completion for the respondent and less likelihood of invalid responses. For example,

the survey tool used in this survey enabled the OCAI questions requiring a constant

sum response to be programmed so that respondents not entering a total equating to

100 were warned of this situation. In addition, the tool also allowed for “go to

capabilities” (Evans & Mathur, 2005), meaning where completion of certain sections

of the survey were contingent upon a “yes” answer, those responding “no” would

automatically be redirected to the next set of questions applicable to them.

The potential weaknesses of online surveys which are identified by Evans &

Mathur (2005) include issues of sampling relating to the skewed attributes of internet

users, potential issues with respondents lack of online experience or expertise,

variation in technologies used by respondents, and questions about the

representativeness of samples. Many of these apply to the more broad use of online

surveying and therefore were not considered significant in relation to this particular

survey questionnaire. The organisation involved in the study had been regularly

using this particular online survey tool during the change project; approximately two

years at this time of the study, and it was therefore considered the most appropriate


method for data collection. All users were accustomed to this approach and the

sampling was controlled by administering the survey questionnaire to a particular list

identifying all those in specific positions within the organisation. Whilst the

response rate of online surveys has been a subject of strong debate (Ilieva et al.,

2002), as the current respondents were accustomed to this approach, it was

anticipated that the response rate was likely to be higher than more traditional

methods and this proved to be the situation with the 189 responses representing a

response rate of 80.4%.

Data Analysis

The results from Phase Two were statistically analysed to address the specific

research questions 2-7 and identify relationships between particular factors and

unlearning. In particular, the process model developed as a result of Phase One was

tested. The statistical analysis program SPSS was used in this process. All results

for Phase Two are provided in Chapter 6 however the specific methods used, and

their rationale are explained in this chapter.

The use of Survey Monkey™ allows for all data to be collected electronically

and downloaded into an Excel spreadsheet. Some manipulation of data within Excel

was necessary prior to uploading to SPSS. Once loaded into SPSS, the first step

taken was to clean the data and examine the database for missing data (Creswell,

2005). This stage was significantly reduced by the use of the surveying tool which

restricted input to valid responses, however missing data was still an issue. Any

respondents providing only demographic responses and answering no further

questions were eliminated from the data set. If a respondent answered most items,

any that were missed were coded as missing results and reported accordingly. Those

respondents choosing to answer the initial sections of the survey questionnaire and

not the Resistance to Change Scale (Oreg, 2003) or the OCAI (Cameron & Quinn,

1999) were included in the analysis of the initial sections, but were not reported in

the analysis combining these results with these two instruments. The Resistance to

Change Scale (Oreg, 2003) and the OCAI (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) were also

scored and the results entered into the data set for each individual.

Descriptive Statistics. The first stage of the analysis involved drawing

descriptive statistics in relation to all the demographic questions and the items

developed from Phase One findings. For those items with nominal or ordinal scales,

frequency distribution was calculated. For those with interval scales, further analysis


was conducted including calculation of measures of central tendency and measures

of skewness and kurtosis.

This stage of the analysis allows for an initial overview of the findings and

provides the researcher with an opportunity to identify trends in the data (Creswell,

2005). When this initial data was examined, there were some obvious questions and

trends that were further explored by the use of cross tabulation of results, the details

of which are explained in the results in Chapter 6.

Testing for Factorability. A factor analysis was proposed to examine the data

collected in the OIUI; the items developed as a result of Phase One. Prior to

conducting any factor analysis, the data must be tested for factorability, that is, the

extent to which the data is suitable for developing into a set of factors. The Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

are two measures which can inform this decision. The KMO measures the degree to

which intercorrelations exist amongst the variables, and therefore make the data

appropriate for factor analysis (Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006). The result of this test ranges

from 0 to 1 and the following guidelines for interpretation have been set: .80 or

above meritorious, 0.7 or above, middling; .60 or above, mediocre; .50 or above,

miserable; and below .50, unacceptable (Kaiser, 1970 as cited in Hair (Jnr) et al.,

2006, p. 114-5). The Bartlett Test of Sphericity is another statistical test providing

the “probability that the correlation matrix has significant correlations among at least

some of the variables” (Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006, p. 114). Both these tests were

conducted to ensure the items within the survey questionnaire were able to be

subjected to factor analysis.

Factor Analysis. In this particular study Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

was used. A great deal of controversy has arisen in more recent times about EFA

versus Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), their uses and whether in fact, the

distinction is worth making (for example, see Hurley et al., 1997). CFA is generally

accepted to be appropriate to test specific hypotheses, and EFA is exploratory in

nature and most appropriate for scale development (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum,

& Strahan, 1999; Hurley et al., 1997). For this reason, EFA was deemed most

appropriate for the initial testing of the process model developed as a result of Phase

One.


Principle Components Analysis. The factor extraction method used in this

study was principal components analysis (PCA). It is generally assumed that the

original variables (items) are correlated, and that PCA will assist to develop a new

group of variables that are uncorrelated (Chatfield & Collins, 1980). In the use of

PCA, issues such as normality, homoscedasticity, and linearity are not of importance

(Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Multicollinearity, the extent to

which one variable can be explained by another variable in the analysis, which is

normally avoided is indeed desirable when using PCA, as the original assumption is

that the variables will be interrelated to a certain extent (Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006).

Factor Extraction, Rotation and Retention. In addition to choosing the

approach to extraction in factor analysis; in this study PCA, the other decision that

will impact upon the results is the chosen approach to rotation. Rotation refers to the

approach taken to rotation of axes in order to assist with interpretation of results

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). The decision in relation to rotation depends on the

extent to which the researcher believes that correlation exists between factors

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). In this study, oblique rotation (in the form of direct

oblimin) was used, as it was believed that the underlying factors may be correlated to

some extent.

An initial PCA was conducted identifying factors with an Eigenvalue of

greater than 1, and a scree plot was also examined. Further factor analysis was then

conducted, reducing the number of factors until the number of factors giving the

cleanest loading resulted. It is recommended that all items loading onto only one

factor of 0.3 or greater can be considered to be unidimensional (Coakes, Steed, &

Dzidic, 2006). Those that load on more than one factor are considered to be

multidimensional and if used with further analysis, have the potential to be

problematic when interpreting results (Singh & Smith, 2000). Therefore, once the

PCA was conducted, any items which fell into this category were identified and give

further consideration prior to inclusion in any analysis (Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006). The

rationale for specific retention or exclusion of these items is explained during the

analysis in Chapter 6.

Factor Reliability. The factors resulting from the PCA were then tested for

reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. Cronbach’s alpha measures internal reliability by

computing the average inter-item correlation within each of the factors emerging.

Only those factors resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.6 or greater are considered to


be reliable and therefore useful for further analysis as part of a specific variable (Hair

(Jnr) et al., 2006). It should be noted that any items loading negatively onto a factor

had to be recoded in order to conduct the Cronbach’s alpha. This is necessary

because all items within a factor must be unidirectional in order to conduct a

Cronbach’s alpha (Nichols, 1999).

Correlation Analysis. Once the factors resulting from Sections 2, 3 and 4

were identified and tested for reliability, a correlation analysis was then conducted to

determine whether a relationship existed between these factors and the Resistance to

Change Scale results.

Multiple Regression Analysis. Multiple regression analysis was also

conducted, to determine the extent to which each of the factors resulting from the

PCA were able to provide an explanation or prediction of the Resistance to Change

results (Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006). In this case, the unlearning factors emerging from

the PCA were treated as the independent variable, and the RTC result for the

individual was treated as the dependent variable, in line with the process model

developed from Phase One, and informed by theory. The stepwise estimation search

method was used to provide the opportunity to identify the relative contribution of

each of the factors to the overall regression model (Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006).

Validity and Reliability

Issues of validity and reliability were integral to the previous methodology

discussion and to the decisions made for the collection and analysis of data; however

it is considered sufficiently critical to warrant some specific comments. Each of the

three instruments: the Resistance to Change Scale, the OCAI and the Organisational

and Individual Unlearning Inventory is discussed in turn.

The Resistance to Change instrument by Oreg (2003) reports an overall

reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of .92, with the subscale coefficients being

.81, .82, .71 and .68, the latter considered only marginally acceptable (Oreg, 2003),

however, the overall result suggesting that this instrument has an acceptable level of

internal reliability.

The OCAI (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) is a widely used instrument and

therefore has multiple studies reporting its reliability and validity. Quinn and

Rohrbaugh (1981; 1983) commenced the model development which was further

extended by Cameron and Freeman (1991) and Cameron and Quinn (1999). Quinn

and Spreitzer (1991) used this instrument with 796 executives working in 86


different organisations and reported Cronbach alpha coefficients of .74 for the clan

culture, .79 for the adhocracy culture, .73 for the hierarchy culture and .71 for the

market culture. Yeung, Brockbank and Ulrich (1991), in a study involving 10,300

executives in 1064 organisations found similar levels of reliability with coefficients

of .79 for the clan culture, .8 for the adhocracy culture, .76 for the hierarchy culture

and .77 for the market culture. All of these studies indicate more than acceptable

levels of reliability, and further examples of testing of this instrument can be found in

Cameron and Quinn (1999).

The critical reliability and validity issues focussed on during the analysis

therefore, were related to the OIUI developed as a result of Phase One. Considering

first the question of internal validity, content validity refers to the extent to which the

content of the assessment uses adequate items to tap the concept under consideration,

with face validity being one of the most basic measure of content validity (Sekaran,

2003). Content validity was addressed by ensuring that the items in the instrument

reflected the findings from Phase One and were acceptable to the respondents, as

tested by the pilot study. In addition, expert panels are often used as a way to ensure

content validity (Burns, 2000), as was the case with this study, using both the expert

panel at the survey questionnaire design stage, and the panel from the case study

organisation.

Construct validity measures the extent to which the results of a study fit the

theory that is being tested (Cavana et al., 2001) and in the case of the survey

questionnaire used during Phase Two, the factor analysis (PCA) and the correlation

analysis were the key methods of determining construct validity; the results of which

are detailed in Chapter 6. External validity refers to the extent to which results can

be generalised to other situations and individuals (Cavana et al., 2001).

Generalisability is not being claimed in this study due to the non-random selection of

participants.

Reliability is concerned with the extent to which outcomes are reproducible;

that is they yield consistent results often across time and changes in other variables.

Test-retest reliability of the items in Sections 2, 3 and 4 was assessed during the pilot

by the administration of the instrument twice and then assessing the correlation

between the results at time 1 and time 2 (Burns, 2000). The full results of this testing

is provided in Chapter 6. The second measure of reliability considered the internal


consistency by measuring the Cronbach alpha for each of the factors resulting from

the PCA (Burns, 2000).

Chapter Summary

This chapter provided a detailed explanation of the research design and the

methods employed to enable collection and analysis of data capable of answering the

research questions. An overview of the mixed methods approach was provided,

along with detailed explanations of each of the two phases within the study. Phase

One, the qualitative phase, used a case study methodology and the development of

interview questions and process were explained. The quantitative phase, Phase Two,

was also explained, identifying the survey questionnaire development and analysis

process. Integral to the discussion was consideration of the ethical elements of the

study as well as issues of reliability and validity. The following chapter provides the

findings from the first phase of the study.

Chapter 5. Phase One Results 111

Chapter 5 Phase One Results

Chapter Overview

Chapter 4 provided a detailed discussion and justification for the use of a

mixed methodology for this research. This chapter provides specific details of Phase

One (including the Pilot Study), the research participants, data analysis and findings

and the chapter structure is outlined in Figure 5.1. The aim of Phase One was to

further refine the conceptual framework developed in Chapter 3 as a result of the

literature review.

Pilot Study Overview &

Analysis

Organisation A Analysis

Pilot Study Process Findings

Pilot Study Content Findings

Findings & Expanding the Process Model

Individual Factors

Organisational Factors


Individual Factors


Organisation B Analysis

Individual Factors



Chapter Summary & Process Model

Revision

Pilot Study Conclusions

Organisation C Analysis

Cross Case Analysis

Figure 5.1 Chapter 5 structure


To answer the first research question in relation to how individuals unlearn in

different organisational contexts, a search of the major research databases identified

many models and theories (Hedberg, 1981; Klein, 1989; Magrath, 1997; Mariotti,

1999; Newstrom, 1983; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984; Sherwood, 2000; Sinkula, 2002;

Starbuck, 1996). However, no empirical research studies were identified to use as a

starting point.

Therefore, Phase One was designed to further explore the concept of

unlearning and what it means for individuals working within organisations, in an

attempt to operationalise the concept for Phase Two. Taking a qualitative approach

to this initial stage was intended to illuminate the concept of unlearning, and provide

some insight into how it occurs in everyday work life. Patton (2002, p. 39) explains

that in qualitative approaches, “the research takes place in real-world settings and the

researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest”. A qualitative

approach, therefore, allowed the Pilot Study and Phase One to be directed by the

research participants. This reduced the likelihood of pre-empting possible findings

or outcomes. The adoption of this method was aimed at providing a rich source of

data from which to glean a better understanding of unlearning to inform Phase Two.

Pilot Study

A Pilot Study was used to trial issues of content and process prior to the

conduct of Phase One. It provided an opportunity to refine the process of sampling

and interviewing to be utilised in Phase One, and also to refine content questions.

Research Process and Methods

The Pilot Study was broken into two parts: Part A and Part B. The aim of

Part A was to validate the proposed questions for use in a convergent interviewing

process. The questions developed for the interviewing process were aimed at

drawing out as much information as possible in relation to unlearning and were

therefore broad in nature. These questions are shown in Appendix B, along with

revisions and additions made as a result of the Pilot Study. These revisions will be

explained in a later section, when detailing the outcomes of the Pilot Study. A

convenience sample was selected of two individuals working in two different

organisations, who had recently encountered change. Each interview from Part A

was recorded, transcribed and analysed to identify concerns or problems with the


questions utilised and to allow for preliminary identification of themes emerging.

The outcomes of these interviews are discussed during the analysis and synthesis in

this chapter.

Part B of the Pilot Study was aimed at further validating the questions, and

also to ensure the adequacy of the process of sampling within a specific organisation

for the purposes of convergent interviewing. Using purposeful sampling, an

organisation was chosen based upon the researcher’s knowledge of recent large-scale

changes in the organisation. The General Manager was approached and invited to be

involved in the study, first using personal contact, and then followed up by a letter of

explanation and formal invitation to take part. Upon acceptance of the invitation, a

meeting was conducted with the General Manager and the Human Resources

Manager to obtain an understanding of the changes encountered, and to gather

background data. The Human Resources Manager had invited two individuals

within the organisation to be involved. They were considered to have approached

the change in contrasting ways (as is suggested by Dick, 1990). Each participant was

then asked to nominate another person who they believed had been affected

differently to them by the change, making a total of four participants utilising a

snowball sampling technique (Glesne, 1998).

Each interview from Part B was also recorded, transcribed and analysed to

dentify emerging themes. These themes either served to reinforce the themes

identified from the literature or identify themes not found in the literature to be

investigated further during Phase One interviews. In line with convergent

interviewing process, both during interviews and between interviews, areas of

convergence and divergence were identified and explored. The findings of these

interviews are discussed during the analysis and synthesis in this chapter and

conclusions are drawn based upon this analysis and synthesis of the findings from

both parts of the Pilot Study.

Pilot Study Participants

Table 5.1 provides background data of the participants involved in the Pilot

Study.


Table 5.1 Phase One Pilot Study participants

Yea

rs e

xper

ienc

e in

…

Part

icip

ant

Age

G

ende

r Po

sitio

n he

ld

Org

anis

atio

n ty

pe

Cur

rent

pos

ition

O

rgan

isat

ion

Sim

ilar

posi

tions

T

he in

dust

ry

P001

25

M

ale

Subj

ect C

oord

inat

or (t

each

er)

Priv

ate

high

scho

ol

3 3

4 4

P002

24

Fe

mal

e Se

cret

ary

Uni

vers

ity

2 2

7 2

P003

35

Fe

mal

e Pr

oduc

tion

Coor

dina

tor

Com

mer

cial

Lau

ndry

4

9 14

14

P004

25

Fe

mal

e La

undr

y W

orke

r C

omm

erci

al L

aund

ry

.25

2.25

2.

25

2.25

P005

50

M

ale

Prod

uctio

n Co

ordi

nato

r C

omm

erci

al L

aund

ry

.25

6.5

6.5

6.5

P006

35

Fe

mal

e B

usin

ess S

ervi

ces S

uppo

rt W

orke

r C

omm

erci

al L

aund

ry

.75

.75

1.25

.7

5


Part A used individual participants to test interview questions, and therefore

no organisational data was collected prior to these interviews. However, in order to

understand the context in which the change occurred in the Pilot Study Part B

organisation, background information was gathered. In particular, the nature of the

organisation, the nature of the employees and the background to the changes were

considered to be important.

The organisation is a commercial laundry located in an Australian capital

city, and has been in operation since 1889. It is owned by a religious organisation

and is a not-for-profit entity. It provides employment for individuals with

intellectual disabilities referred from a government agency. These employees are

referred to as business service employees within the organisation, however the

organisation also has what they refer to as mainstream staff; those who are not

employed through the government agency but directly from the general labour

market. The organisation employs approximately 140 mainstream staff (some part

time and a small number of casuals) and 38 business service employees. All

interviews for this study were conducted with mainstream employees to ensure

informed consent could be gained. It is emphasised that even though this was a not-

for-profit organisation, all those interviewed were paid employees in line with the

criteria set out in Chapter 4 Methodology.

The organisation keeps no official labour turnover figures, however the

Human Resources Manager reported that there are a large number of long term

employees particularly at the operational level. At the management level there had

been significant changes with the introduction of a new General Manager and

appointment of a new senior management team. These major changes were initiated

by the governing body, because of concerns with the ongoing viability of the

organisation. The new General Manager was employed with the mandate of

analysing the business and identifying whether it was possible to salvage the

business given the operational losses being incurred. In addition, the operation was

encountering issues of variable quality, process bottlenecks and as a result,

significant client dissatisfaction. Clients include large conference venues and health

care facilities where quality and reliability of service are critical. As a result of this

directive to review the organisation, the General Manager implemented a change in

organisational structure and accompanying roles and responsibilities to more


effectively ensure ownership of processes. The implementation of a new roster

system based upon input and feedback from staff transferred the laundry to seven day

operations and has proved successful in addressing issues of throughput.

In the context of these changes, the participants were asked to consider what

they had to learn to do differently, and what past behaviours had to be relinquished.

The two individuals initially nominated by the Human Resources Manager were both

in supervisory positions and had an operational role. In their interviews, these

participants provided information about the changes to their work in relation to the

roster system and changed roles and responsibilities of the supervisors. Notably they

also highlighted the way they came to terms with a new culture in the organisation as

a result of changed leadership.

Previous General Managers were knowledgeable in the processes and

operations of a commercial laundry, however the new General Manager had a more

marketing and business focus. This change of focus had a significant impact on the

culture of the organisation, and this change was something with which these

supervisors were struggling. The supervisors were also being encouraged to take

more of a leadership role and were given substantially more operational information

than previously. For example, the participants mentioned now understanding

operational outcomes such as output per operator hour and how that has been

positively impacted by the change in roster, and is a direct reflection of the changes

in how they as supervisors staff the operation. Hence, not only can the data be

examined in terms of operational changes, but can also be analysed in terms of

changes in complex behaviour patterns relating to changing organisational culture,

leadership styles and management expectations.

Data Analysis

The data analysis was conducted for each individual participant, identifying

emerging themes and issues relating to content, and linking them back to the

literature where applicable. The text analysis for the Pilot Study was carried out

manually by the researcher in order to ensure that a full appreciation of the data was

gained prior to the use of more sophisticated or automated means of analysis. For

the analysis of each interview relating to both content and process refer to Appendix

G. Once each of the Pilot Study interviews and analysis was complete, the themes

were analysed across the range of interviews, and findings relating to both process

and content are presented in the following sections.


Pilot Study Process Findings

Three key issues were identified during the Pilot Study in terms of the

research process design and implementation and these were sampling method,

interview wording and questions, and selection of change episode.

Whilst Dick (1990) recommends the use of snowball sampling with

convergent interviewing, the Pilot Study interviews highlighted the difficulties that

emerge at a practical level when using referral as a sampling technique. Whilst it

was explained that they should choose someone who reacted differently from them to

the change, it was more likely that they nominated someone who was approachable

and prepared to participate rather than making an informed choice. Those nominated

were also suspicious of the reasons for being chosen. This process of referral of

participants was also difficult at the organisational level because of inability to plan

for the release of an individual for an interview. Therefore, as outline in Chapter 4, a

process of nomination by the Organisational Contact was developed for use during

Phase One.

In relation to interview wording and questions, it was clear that some

individuals were more able than others to provide adequate information and

reflection. The interview with Participant P004 in particular reinforced the need to

continue to develop more specific questions for probing in the convergent

interviewing process particularly when the participant finds it difficult to remember

or articulate their reflections on experience. The list of initial questions, along with

the revised questions as a result of Pilot Study outcomes is shown in Appendix B.

Analysis of the transcripts from the interviews showed that a more

comprehensive introduction to the interview would assist to yield more focussed

answers. As most participants are accustomed to discussing changes in work

environment, the term change and not unlearning was often used within the

interview. The interviewer introduced the term unlearning at the start of the

interview, and throughout did ask about new ways and old ways. However, it is

considered that a more detailed introduction to the interview to orient the participant,

and encourage them to focus specifically on what they remember about the process

of letting go of the old way and adopting the new way of behaving, would assist

participants to provide more insightful details.

The Pilot Study also highlighted the importance of choosing an episode of

change that would allow participants to reflect on a complex behavioural change; not


simply a straightforward procedure or behaviour. Whilst the example of a change

chosen for Part B of the Pilot Study related to an overall change of organisational

culture that included a new management team, new roster system and changed roles,

some of the participants at the basic operational level were unable to comprehend, or

at least articulate, the impact of these changes; preferring to reflect only on the

physical change to a different roster. However, those in the supervisory roles in Part

B were able to better reflect on the range of changes occurring, reinforcing the need

for careful selection of participants for Phase One.

Finally, the results of Part B of the Pilot Study exposed the importance of

interviewing with an understanding of the context of the individual; in this case, the

organisation in which they work. Whilst convergent interviewing should be able to

focus specifically on the issue at hand, seeking an individual’s responses and

insights, it was clear that gathering contextual information about the organisation

prior to interviewing provided a source of rich data, and served to orient the

interviewer prior to the conduct of interviews. For this reason, it could be argued

that the methodology being utilised combines the use of convergent interviewing as a

data collection and analysis tool within a case study methodology. Whilst some

researchers identify these as separate qualitative methods (for example, see Rao &

Perry, 2003), it is considered appropriate to combine these for the purposes of

analysing individual responses to questions regarding unlearning in the context of

data gathered about a case study organisation.

Pilot Study Content Findings

Based upon the interview transcripts from the Pilot Study, specific themes

were identified. Appendix G provides a detailed analysis of each of the interviews,

and Appendix H draws together the emerging themes, providing an indication where

possible of direct quotes from participants. Where this was not possible, but the

interviewer determined that the theme was still present during the course of the

interview, this has been indicated. This synthesis of findings allows for comparison

across interviews to determine the relative strength of the themes emerging during

the Pilot Study. Whilst the primary aim of conducting the Pilot Study was to validate

and refine the research design and process, it has also provided the opportunity to

consider the conceptual framework developed as a result of the literature review, and

to refine some areas for further investigation during Phase One.


Considering first the individual’s explicit and tacit knowledge, in many cases

the participants referred to their previous skills and behaviours before discussing the

new ways of working. The participants often linked the amount of time they had

spent in the organisation or the industry to their level of knowledge and many used

this factor to speculate as to how others with more or less knowledge would have felt

in relation to the same change.

The way an individual perceived the changes and the necessary learning was

also a strong theme from the Pilot Study results. The comments made by participants

in relation to their individual approach to the change, or outlook on the unlearning

required was related to the individual’s specific personality characteristics and

frames of reference. Most participants referred to their own approach and contrasted

it to others indicating individual differences when encountering the same change and

being required to unlearn. Again, this offers at least initial reassurance that these

individual factors of personality and frames of reference are worthy of further

consideration.

The existence of organisational inert knowledge in the form of policies,

procedures, processes, systems and structures was identified as a possible influence

on individuals and their experience of unlearning. Whilst this did not receive as

much consideration as some of the individual issues, or the deeper organisational

issues such as culture, some references were made by Participants P003 and P005 as

to how a past practice, structure or system made it difficult for individuals during the

transition period.

Organisational memory in this research is operationalised by considering it to

be a function of longevity and size of the organisation (Berthon et al., 2001), and

identified as representing the learning held not by individuals but within the

organisation as a collective (Levitt & March, 1988). As part of relaying their stories

of unlearning, many of the participants referred to the length of time they had been in

the organisation and what they had seen during that time. In particular, the

significant age of the organisation in part B of the Pilot Study was highlighted by a

number of the participants, providing at least early indications that this is considered

worthy of further investigation when reflecting upon the unlearning process. Some

of those more experienced in their roles, also acknowledged the contribution they

made to providing newer employees with background information about the


organisation. This may or may not be considered helpful to the unlearning process,

but will be the focus of ongoing consideration.

One of the single-most identified issues from the interviews conducted during

the Pilot Study, was that of organisational culture, being raised by every participant.

When asked to reflect upon the things that helped and hindered the unlearning

processes, all participants provided many examples which can be regarded as part of

the culture of the organisation. Many related examples and stories of how the culture

of the organisation either supported and encouraged the change to occur or,

particularly in the case of Participant P002, how it hindered the ability for some to

embrace the changes occurring. Many links between unlearning and organisational

culture can be drawn from the literature, and these preliminary findings from the

Pilot Study indicate that it is a factor that requires further analysis in relation to

unlearning.

As the external environment was only identified specifically by one

participant as impacting on the change process, this Pilot Study has reinforced the

previous decision based on the literature to exclude further consideration of this

factor. Although it may have the potential to affect an individual’s ability to unlearn,

these findings suggest that there are individual and organisational factors more

commonly identified by individuals as having the possibility to either help or hinder

the unlearning process.

The initial findings from the Pilot Study indicate that the conceptual

framework developed as a result of the review of existing literature is a useful

starting point for further research. The original framework was based on factors

gleaned from the literature focussing on both individual and organisational issues;

however it is also clear that there are potentially other factors not as commonly

identified in the literature. For example, the organisation in Part B is a not-for-profit

entity with a specific governance structure occurring because it is owned by a

religious organisation. Whilst this is a contextual issue for unlearning purposes, it

does not fit neatly into one of the three levels identified in the model. Similarly, at

the individual level, issues such as an individual’s personality, learning style, age,

gender, ethnic background and other demographical information may also be

considered factors. The term frames of reference, was initially utilised in the model

to encompass some of these factors however a broader interpretation would be

required to encompass such a broad range of issues.


As can be seen, many specific examples did fit into one of the three levels at

either the individual or organisational level. Therefore, the conceptual framework

has been modified to reflect the possible existence of other factors shown as

Individual and Organisational Contextual factors in Figure 5.2. This is not a major

change to the model; however it is important to recognise at this point in the research

that there may well be other factors influencing unlearning that cannot be easily

classified at one of the three levels. The previous model showing three boxes on

each implied these were the only factors impacting upon individual and

organisational learning and unlearning. Yet this that may not be the case.

Figure 5.2 Revised conceptual framework

As well as providing an opportunity to test the research process, the Pilot

Study has also prompted consideration of the first research question, “How do

individuals unlearn in the workplace?” From the initial discussions, it appears that

unlearning occurs as a process, with particular situations or actions acting as either

enablers or inhibitors of this process. The conceptual model for this study was aimed

at encompassing the critical issues emerging from the literature in relation to

unlearning. This framework has been used as a basis to commence the development

of a model to identify the process through which an individual transitions during

unlearning. Figure 5.3 commences the development of a process model of

unlearning, suggesting that there are individual enablers and inhibitors of the process


of unlearning. Many of these enablers and inhibitors, we would anticipate to be

found in the conceptual framework under the guise of contextual factors. The middle

section of this model takes the individual unlearning box from the conceptual

framework and question the process of unlearning and how it actually occurs.

In the process model, the Awareness Phase relates to the point at which an

individual becomes aware that a change is imminent; they may not be aware at these

early stages that there is unlearning required. At the end of the process

(Relinquishing), it can be assumed that the ultimate goal of unlearning is that the

individual relinquishes the past knowledge or behaviour in favour of new ways. In

between these two points, it is believed unlearning occurs, but at this stage of the

research it is not clear how this unlearning occurs. It is anticipated that the data

collected within Phase One will enable this process model to be further enhanced,

and that the black box of unlearning will be further understood as a process.

Figure 5.3 Unlearning Process Model


Pilot Study Conclusions

Even though this research is in its early stages, this Pilot Study had outcomes

in three areas, and these were interview process, conceptual framework and emerging

process model.

The convergent interviewing process proved a valuable method for the

researcher to probe for areas of convergence and divergence between interviews, and

the opportunity to continue to refine research questions. The process of referral for

selection of participants however proved difficult for both individuals and the

organisation, so this process was refined to an invitation and self-nomination for

Phase One. The process of convergent interviewing appeared to raise issues pertinent

to the conceptual framework developed as a result of the literature review, and the

research process proved to be logistically possible and effective. As a result of the

Pilot Study, this process with the adaptations identified earlier in this chapter, was

used during Phase One in conjunction with a case study approach to gather

information about organisational context.

Secondly, the Pilot Study set out to validate the conceptual framework

underpinning the study. The results provide an indication that the key issues

emerging from the literature and developed into a conceptual framework were

relevant to the respondents interviewed. In particular, it appears that both individual

and organisational contextual factors play a part in either assisting or obstructing

unlearning by individuals. The decision to exclude factors external to the

organisation during this research was also reinforced; with only one participant

identifying these factors as having any bearing on the transition process between an

old way and a new way.

Finally, the Pilot Study enabled the use of the conceptual framework as a

starting point for the development of a process model to show how unlearning

occurs. At this stage of the research, this process model is broad, and it is anticipated

that further data will assist to either disprove the model or develop the model further.


Phase One Results

Phase One involved data collection within three case study organisations.

Twenty-three interviews in total were conducted with individuals encountering

change which required unlearning. Interviews were also conducted with appropriate

management staff to obtain background information and to source documentation

relating to the changes. The case studies chosen for Phase One all met the criteria

specified previously of medium to large work organisations with paid employees and

an identifiable Human Resource Management function operating in an industrial

production environment.

This section provides an analysis of each of the individual case organisations

prior to combining these in a cross-case analysis to identify areas of convergence and

divergence. In analysing each case, the analysis first presents an overview and

background of the organisation and the changes occurring in the work environment

that required unlearning on behalf of individuals. Then a summary table is provided,

showing the data collected from each individual in terms of personal demographics,

their experience and length of time in the industry, organisation, and position. This

background data has been coupled with the results of the Resistance to Change Scale

and the OCAI, both of which were administered on completion of the interview.

The Resistance to Change Scale (Oreg, 2003) is “designed to tap an

individual’s tendency to resist or avoid making changes, to devalue change generally,

and to find change aversive across diverse contexts and types of change” (Oreg,

2003, p. 680). The Scale comprised four subscales relating to the level of routine

seeking behaviour, the emotional reaction, the extent of focus on short term and the

level of cognitive rigidity, and each of the summary tables provides these results for

each participant. Each scale can range between 0 and 6; 0 indicating the least level

of resistance to change. This measure (and the sub-scales where appropriate) will be

used within future analysis as an indicator of unlearning; the dependent variable

within this study.

The Competing Values Framework, originally developed by Quinn and

Rohrbaugh (1981; 1983), and subsequently developed into the OCAI by Cameron

and Freeman (1991) and Cameron and Quinn (1999) provides an assessment of

organisational culture. The framework classifies organisational culture on a matrix

relating to process (from organic to mechanistic) and focus (from internal to


external). It is therefore proposed that cultures can be determined to fall into one of

four broad categories: hierarchy (mechanistic processes, internal focus), market


focus), and clan (organic processes, internal focus).

The analysis of the three cases in Phase One identified issues linked back to

the conceptual framework of this study, as well as other emerging factors from the

interviews, and where appropriate the analysis links this information to the findings

from the OCAI and the Resistance to Change Scale. Reference to the conceptual

framework during the analysis in this chapter is made under the following headings:

• Explicit and tacit knowledge

• Personality and frames of reference

• Organisational inert knowledge

• Organisational memory and culture

It is important to note that in some interviews, the research participants

reflected upon their own experiences during the change process and the factors that

assisted and hindered their own unlearning processes. In other cases, they provided

an account of the unlearning processes they observed of those around them. In the

analysis, it is made clear as to which of these categories (self-reflection or reflection

on others) the comments are related. In particular where the research participants

had responsibility for other employees in some form of supervisory role, they

provided insights and observations into the unlearning processes of those for whom

they were responsible. This was done in most cases because they had the

responsibility for implementation of the changes occurring in the organisation.

Organisation A

Organisation A is an engineering maintenance and manufacturing

organisation which is part of a global organisation. The history of ownership of the

organisation is lengthy involving previous ownership first in the UK and then more

recently the organisation became controlled by US interests. Recently, the

organisation has merged with another competitor in Australia and is currently in the

process of integrating these operations and establishing a new organisational

structure within Australia.


The site of the organisation used for this research is located in a large

regional centre, servicing a broader area of regional Australia. This site has been in

existence for nine years and was previously operating at another site in the same

location under a different name. At the time of the research, the organisation

employed between 120-150 staff, fluctuating with work demands. The operation

services the mining industry, renowned for tight production schedules and expecting

fast turnaround times from contract service organisations such as this.

The structure at this site includes three sections including an engineering,

sales and service function, a production coordination and planning function, and an

operations function. The operations function is by far the largest sector of the

workforce and is separated into operational areas such as machining, electronics,

fabrication and hydraulics. The work cells within these areas have team leaders,

leading hands, and operational workforce including tradespersons and trades

assistants.

Even though the Manager reports that labour turnover is relatively low, there

is an increasingly shortage of skilled tradespersons available to staff the operation.

The Manager had been in his position for over 12 months when the research was

undertaken and had already increased the number of apprentices employed on the

site to 50 (from fewer than 10). This however was not going to solve the

organisation’s skills shortage issues in the shorter term.

As the organisation was involved in a broader change process, merging two

sites into one, the Operations Manager also implemented a new strategy to increase

the numbers in the workforce by recruiting part-time trades assistants to work during

school-friendly hours. This strategy was aimed at targeting predominantly women

with school-age children who would be able to work for limited times during the

working week. Employed in teams, these new employees were trained to perform

routine tasks which were previously done by tradespersons. This allowed for those

with trade qualifications to be more effectively utilised for higher level skilled work.

Prior to these changes, the culture of the organisation was heavily impacted

by the extremely high percentage of males. The introduction of this new workforce

therefore had more impact than simply a redistribution of work. Many of those

working at the site, including the Manager, referred to the resultant impact on the

culture of the organisation and the impact on the work environment.


I am a believer that the days of a hairy chested workplace are over. I was

looking forward to increasing the number of females at our site, not only the

standard token females, like HR and secretarial roles, but women as part of

the active direct labour workforce. Why not? What is stopping us spreading

the distribution of jobs similar to the normal distribution of the male/female

ratios in society? Attitudes mainly…

The teams of girls are highly productive, quick learners, do not get involved

in site politics and I believe they truly enjoy coming to work. The guys had a

mixed reaction, most believed it would never work out and didn't know what

to think when it did. Some could not swallow their pride and moved to other

work cells. A couple of primadonnas actually left the business.

Today I have two well adjusted and productive hydraulic valve repair teams

that meet our business needs of flexibility, capability and skills. It has been a

pleasure establishing these teams and they are now a key part of

[Organisation A] defeating some key issues that reduce our business

effectiveness. (Manager addressing a local Australian Institute of

Management function)

Participants for interviewing came from the operational and planning sections

of the workforce, and included tradespeople, trades assistants, planners, and

supervisors. These employees had been impacted in different ways by the recent

changes such as the business merger and expansion, new systems as a result of the

merger, and new working practices and procedures as a result of the new employees

within the workforce. The interviews with the staff focussed on this wide range of

issues and provided the individuals with an opportunity to identify the changes most

heavily affecting them. These changes were then discussed in more detail in terms of

how they approached the unlearning required.

Research Participants

Table 5.2 provides a background and profile of the research participants in

Organisation A. In choosing the change of most significance to them, some of the

interviewees focussed on the new workforce within the organisation, and others were

a part of this new workforce. Others were more heavily impacted by the merging

companies and changes in systems so chose to focus on these. Generally similar


issues were raised in relation to the unlearning that needed to occur, regardless of the

specific change on which they focussed.

Table 5.2 Organisation A research participants

Parti

cipa

nt

Age

G

ende

r Po

sitio

n H

ighe

st qu

alifi

catio

n Y

ears

in

posi

tion

Yea

rs in

or

gani

satio

n Y

ears

in

sim

ilar

posit

ions

Cul

ture

type

re

porte

d C

ogni

tive

rigid

ity

Emot

iona

l re

actio

n R

outin

e se

ekin

g Sh

ort-

term

fo

cus

A00

1 52

M

ale

Fitte

r Tr

ade/

Trai

nees

hip

1 1

20+

Hie

rarc

hy

3.25

2.

25

2.8

2

A00

2 45

Fe

mal

e Pl

anne

r Ju

nior

9

12

12

Mar

ket

4.75

4.

25

2.6

4

A00

3 37

M

ale

Lead

ing

Han

d H

ydra

ulic

Trad

e/Tr

aine

eshi

p 0.

33

7 7

Mar

ket

3 3.

5 3.

4 3.

25

A00

4*

- M

ale

Supe

rvis

or

- -

-

- -

- -

-

A00

5 33

M

ale

Proj

ect

Estim

ator

Tr

ade/

Trai

nees

hip

0.5

8 8

Cla

n/M

arke

t sp

lit

3.75

2.

25

2.2

2.75

A00

6 27

Fe

mal

e Tr

ade

assis

tant

Ju

nior

0.

25

0.25

1

Cla

n 2.

5 2.

25

2.6

2.75

A00

7 29

Fe

mal

e Tr

ade

assis

tant

Se

nior

0.

25

0.25

5

Hie

rarc

hy

3.5

4.75

2

3.25

A00

8 39

Fe

mal

e Tr

ade

assis

tant

Ju

nior

0.

25

0.25

.2

5 H

iera

rchy

3.

75

4.75

3.

4 3.

25

A00

9 42

M

ale

Plan

ner

Trad

e/Tr

aine

eshi

p 7

8.5

8.5

Mar

ket

3.5

3 2.

2 2.

75

* A

004

did

not r

espo

nd to

the

surv

ey p

rovi

ded


Explicit and Tacit Knowledge

The first issue arising from the conceptual framework, was the extent to

which existing explicit and tacit knowledge impacted the unlearning process.

In relation to changing roles and circumstances, the participants talked about

previous knowledge and how it assisted or hindered their unlearning process. For

example:

I’ve taken a bit of the old planning skills with me, but I’ve got to forget about

the production control and all the scheduling – I’ve got – when I’m setting up

a job, try and not think about how the workshop is going to man it and how

they’re going to do it (A005)

In the case of this individual, he had changed roles and was finding some of

his previously acquired knowledge in a different role helped at times but also

hindered. In another case, the individual also recognised his previous role as having

an impact, but felt it didn’t hinder as much, instead believing his new role required a

new way of thinking:

I don’t think the trade background hinders me – I think it’s a big transition to

make from a trade to the sort of what I’m doing now. I don’t think it’s a

hindrance as such … (but) Definitely a different way of thinking …(A005)

These two previous interview quotes show an emerging theme relating to

breadth of knowledge and the fact that it may potentially assist unlearning.

Another individual in this organisation related to the changing IT system and

the significant differences between the old and the new. In reflecting on the

unlearning of previous ways of entering data and extracting reports, he discussed the

approach of both his colleagues and himself. In particular, he observed other

employees with extensive experience in the previous system trying to make sense of

the new one and suggested they were still using old ways of thinking:

…you don’t try and work out how to make the new system do what the old

one did – you’ve got to look at a new whatever – a new process or something

and go “righto well how does this work and how can I best make it work for

me” rather than going “oh OK well I used to do this, how can I make that do

this”. There are still people here trying to make SAP the same as … we’ve

spent 6 or 7 years on it now and there are still people who… (try to make the

new system do what the old one did) (A009)


People who did seem to have trouble with it were the ones that had been on

the old system and couldn’t really get away from it. Then they went to a

different sort of SAP [the name of the new system] which was alright and now

they’ve gone to the new one but it is all just doing the same job and the only

real unlearning you’ve got is where to go for certain things. (A009)

In contrast to the prior examples relating to breadth of knowledge, this

interview quote refers to the depth of knowledge as a potential inhibitor of

unlearning.

For those who had been with this particular organisation for a longer period

of time, there was also reference to the history of the organisation and their

recollection of previous events. This depth of knowledge of things that had

happened in the past, was also used as an explanation for being resistant to

unlearning:

someone will have an idea and they’ll go “Oh yeah that sounds good” and

then they will come along and go “from now on we’re going to do it this

way” and we look at it and go “well 3 years ago we tried to do it that way

and it didn’t work” so we just keep doing what we’re doing (A009)

It was also of note that one individual referred to previously tacit knowledge

needing to be externalised (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) in order to accommodate new

work practices prior to any unlearning that may need to occur:

It’s effecting me quite a bit, because its made me pull my finger out and

getting procedures working whereas before it was just handed down from

bloke to bloke sort of thing, but because, its not just the girls either I’ve got to

say that, we have got a lot of new starters, a lot of guys coming in without any

hydraulic experience at all so it’s… it’s getting to a stage where they’ve got

to get something (written documentation) in place (A003)

The analysis of this component of the conceptual framework for Organisation

A, has not only indicated that previous knowledge and experience plays a part in

unlearning, but it has also shown a close link between explicit knowledge, tacit

knowledge and frames of reference, with some individuals referring to previous

knowledge and then reflecting that the unlearning requires them to adopt new ways

of thinking. This description has often been equated with changing frames of

reference which is the next emerging theme to be analysed.


Personality and Frames of Reference As well as the link between explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge and

unlearning, many individuals in this organisation also referred to their personal style

or personality as having an impact on their unlearning. Very few in this organisation

reflected on the personality of others in relation to their response to unlearning.

When considering the comments of those individuals who engaged in self-reflection,

the Resistance to Change (RTC) Scale results were also considered to provide further

insight into the individual.

I like procedure, I like structure; some people don’t, and I think because I

like it I find it easier to make the change, to me its just a new ruling that has

to be adhered to so I do it … sometimes I baulk at it like sometimes,

particularly when I can see more work is being handed off to us because

someone else doesn’t want it – I’m very vocal - so if it is just a meeting I will

stand up and be counted but I will go away and put into a practice what I’ve

been told to change. (A002)

I get very emotional and very cranky and frustrated but I do it, give it a go

and sometimes you get there and you find out well alright this isn’t so bad

after all if we just do these few things a little bit differently it’s going to work

again (A002)

Notably, this individual scored one of the highest of all individuals surveyed

for Phase One in relation to the Cognitive Rigidity element of the RTC, scoring 4.75

from a possible 6. Emotional reaction was also high with a score of 4.25. From the

comments above, it would appear that this individual has a high level of self-

awareness of her own personal approach, which may have assisted her in the

unlearning process even though she has a high level of cognitive rigidity.

The interviewee quoted above highlights a theme that emerged in many of the

interviews; discussing a feeling of unease or discomfort when testing out the new

way and then a process of learning to work with the new way. Quotes such as these

provide possible insight for the unlearning process which currently sits as a black

box within the unlearning process model.

Another individual who is a part of the new workforce referred to her

approach to being placed in a very new working environment:


I’m probably about the last person who I thought would have been able to do

something like this, I really have no self confidence at all but I came in and I

was prepared to give it all I had and still now there’s days I come in and I

think I can’t do this… I just can’t. And I get in there and I just get the job

done. Yeah I’m a very nervy person and I worry myself sick about

everything, so yeah this is huge for me to come in and it’s a huge – like my

whole life turned upside down pretty much (A008)

This individual also scored relatively high on all scales within the Resistance

to Change Scale, with the cognitive rigidity score (3.75) and the emotional reaction

score (4.75) being the highest two scale results.

Finally, one individual who was also required to adopt the new IT system and

unlearn ways of operating the previous system, referred to a different personal

outlook and being more open to changes:

Changes for me are a bit of a challenge and I don’t mind, actually I would

probably prefer that to happen than the same old thing (A009)

In this case, the individual scored lower on the routine seeking scale (2.2) and

was lower than the previous individuals on the cognitive rigidity scale (3.5) and the

emotional reaction scale (3). This would indicate a different personality style that

may facilitate unlearning.

Summary – Individual Factors

These results from Organisation A in relation to individual factors and

unlearning, show that current knowledge and ways of thinking certainly play a part

in unlearning; both how much unlearning is required and the extent to which an

individual is able to unlearn. The question of breadth versus depth of knowledge was

a regular theme in interviews, referring to both explicit and tacit knowledge. The

individuals in this organisation also appeared to know inherently the level to which

their personal style and personality impacted on their own change and unlearning

which was something reinforced by the quantitative data within the Resistance to

Change Scale. In particular the subscales of Cognitive Rigidity and Emotional

Reaction were high in the individuals reporting difficulty unlearning, and the Routine

Seeking subscale was lower in an individual who reported a comfort with change.

These findings are used to extend the process model during the analysis at the end of

Case Study A. The factors arising from this data are drawn together during the cross

case analysis at the end of this chapter.


Organisational Inert Knowledge

As well as seeking information about individual factors and how they might

impact on unlearning, information was also sought on the organisational factors that

impact on individuals when they are unlearning. In this organisation, factors relating

to the inert knowledge within the organisation emerged in a number of different

ways. Policies and procedures, or in some cases lack thereof, was identified as an

issue for those who were attempting to come to terms with a new process. In the

operational areas of the organisation, it appears that the new workforce has been the

catalyst for the establishment of standard procedures to assist all employees to come

to terms with new processes:

now it’s better now because it’s all on paper so everyone has the same

procedures to follow… (previously) I’ve had a lot written down in my own

personal book (A001)

Although operational policies and procedures existed, they were not always

helpful due to the wording and the assumptions of prior knowledge of the individuals

using the documentation:

…the guys have pretty much written it to the way they talk – like guy

language (laugh) – like get the rattle gun and do – and I’m like “yeah right -

what’s a rattle gun?” (laugh) But yeah, it’s just a matter of if you are unsure

you just ask one of the guys and they clarify it for you (A008)

However, in the areas that were trying to adapt to new IT and planning

systems, the unlearning was reported to be hindered by a lack of a common process

and documentation:

Just asking basically, you know, most people are willing to help you out,

that’s it basically… it’s really only the way you can find anything out - this

place is shocking for documentation... so yeah, here, … it’s just a case of

asking (A003)

I think this is the biggest thing we encounter. Nothing is done the same... it

would be so easy to teach someone to fill in for each of us if everything was

done the same way. But it is not…(A002)


they also want me now to do procedures for testing all the machines, which

should have been done bloody years ago when they invented the thing..

(A003)

At times, individuals did report using this lack of documentation, or lack of

what they considered to be appropriate documentation to justify not following policy,

and reverting back to previous practice:

so you’ve got your job description and there is a OP26 (operating procedure)

which is supposed to be how planning is done… procedure written by people

who don’t plan… (A009)

The merger of two organisations also caused some issues for those

individuals required to use the systems of the other organisation. It was reported that

when unlearning a previous system and learning a new system, where support and

procedures were lacking, the individuals struggled to adjust:

I’ve had to use – try and learn umm the (other company’s) system so they

have got their own intranet, they’ve got their own report procedures, they’ve

got their own drawings … everything’s different and I am not getting any

help there. I’m really struggling actually a bit because I’ve still got all this

other stuff and on top of that I am trying to learn a whole new thing and I’ve

got to … there’s procedures on there but I don’t know where to find them…

(A009)

Another key element mentioned by most individuals was the availability of

training, the appropriateness of training and the level of detail provided.

someone will make the statement “oh but the planners have had training in

production orders” so therefore everyone thinks you’re an expert (A002)

if they implement it with some training it’s a lot easier. If they just tell you

that you are doing something and all the best, makes it a bit tough… (A004)

I think in this company when they decide to do things like change procedures,

policies, (for example) the old SAP upgrade we had not long ago – their

training is not always very good… they don’t seem to provide enough support

(A005)


Importance was also placed on the level of reinforcement and making the

training appropriate to the purpose. For those new in the workforce, they had quite

specific issues when attempting to learn what was often for them, quite foreign

concepts:

by the time the next week comes around they have probably forgotten what

they were learning the week before unless it’s a job of 20 or 30 where there is

repetition… (A003 talking about supervising the new workforce)

They tried to show us the pieces of paper but they mean nothing to me, I’m

more um – they can show me what to do - I can remember how to do it – not

off drawings because they don’t mean anything to me. It’s more just

remembering it (A007)

It was apparent from these interviews that at times training could have been

improved to ensure that unlearning occurred and new practices were reinforced and

supported on an ongoing basis.

Organisational Memory and Culture

When using the OCAI in Organisation A, three individuals identified the

culture as Market (externally focussed and mechanistic), and three individuals

identified it as a Hierarchy (internally focussed and mechanistic), one indicated a

Clan culture (internally focussed and organic), and one was a Clan/Market split.

This indicates that the large majority saw the organisation as mechanistic Market or

Hierarchy both represent a mechanistic approach) regardless of the fact that there

was an even split on the focus of the organisation; internal versus external.

A review of the split of internal versus external focus indicates that the three

individuals in planning and supervisory roles saw the organisation as externally

focussed, perhaps related to the fact that their role required them to deal more with

external clients and suppliers on a daily basis. Those who viewed the organisation as

internally focussed were in positions less likely to have this focus and were in more

operational roles. This indicates that the posit by Schein (1996) that organisations

may have sub-cultures has legitimacy.

In relation to the impact of organisational memory and culture on the

unlearning of individuals, it was difficult to distinguish sufficiently between the two.

Generally, the individuals spoke of the background and history of the organisation as

having a direct relationship with the culture. In particular, all respondents with the


exception of those from the new workforce, referred to the history of different

ownership and the impact on the organisation. Some of these individuals were not

even employed at the time of such mergers and acquisitions. This merging of

companies but lack of cultural integration was often identified as the source of

concern for individuals unlearning previous ways:

it’s amazing – the (old company/new company) integration… hasn’t

happened so you still have got your ridgy didge (new company) and your

ridgy didge (old company) and your US versus UK and neither one wants to

let go of the power… and you are stuck in the middle and I think this is why it

has taken so long to sort some of the problems out (A002)

We basically had two or three I think because there was (original company) I

think it was, (current company), (family company) and (additional company)

I think was another one and you had – so they had these all their own

cultures and when someone said now we are all one they never became one

(A009)

I have met a couple (of people from the other company), but the company

doesn’t tend to (share information and) the UK has been doing it for a

hundred years… and all the information on the best ways to do things…

doesn’t flow on. (A004)

… and then you find a lot of times the people that are in those positions

aren’t there because they’re great they’re there because of where they came

from or who they know – you know like there’s a thing they call the (previous

family company) Mafia. When (new company) and (family company) merged

well all of sudden all these (family company) blokes started rising… and you

look back they went to school together, they’re married to each other’s sisters

– very incestuous – shocker (laughs) (A009)


You feel an effect I suppose because the product range is growing which is

very hard to even keep up with half of it let alone all of it. And then the

change in management that always follows – now the yanks aren’t so bad.

They seem fairly ruthless but the Poms are just lying mongrels – everyone

hates the Poms (A005)

These quotes from participants highlight the extent to which past information

is stored within the organisation, and potentially represents a significant barrier to

unlearning. Knowing about the history of the organisation, particularly whilst facing

a merger, was highlighted as an obstacle to letting go of past practice. This finding

provides an indication that a strong organisational memory based upon a lengthy

organisational history may be an inhibitor to unlearning and will assist to further

develop a process model of unlearning.

When asked to focus on the current organisational climate and to identify its

impact on unlearning, the individuals referred often to the atmosphere created by

management and colleagues as a significant element:

I was really concerned about coming into a male dominated environment and

not knowing anything and I thought – you know these guys are going to have

it all over us girls, and umm … I just come in and do my job and you know,

just chat on to the guys like we’re equals really – I mean they don’t treat us

like we’re any lesser than they are (A008)

but our new manager who is in control of operations is not like that. He is

like “Ok this is a continuing problem, how do we change this or how do we

fix it”. So he is willing to go outside the comfort zone to try and put things

into place yeah and I think that is the difference (A002)

Yeah, the only thing I – that you really need from a manager especially in

that change time is umm you just need to know that they are there if you run

into a problem that you can’t solve and you need to know that they’re not

only there but willing to listen to you but that they have actually got the skills

or knowledge to help you through and if they haven’t got that then they may

as well not be there. (A009)


In addition to line supervisors and managers, most respondents also

mentioned the outlook and attitudes of their colleagues as having an impact on their

own view of the change. It was also clear that where assistance and support was

given by a colleague, unlearning was more likely to be successful:

I think one thing would be important to make… to make a transition is to

have that support from someone almost like a mentor. (A005)

Just the…attitude of our peers, over where we are in the hydraulics and

because we haven’t had a lot to do with a lot of other people, it’s mostly in

that particular area … their attitude in wanting to get in and help us and give

us a go… we’ve just found that incredible you know. (A008)

One respondent made reference to how making a transition between roles is

made much easier by management support, but also by not being called upon to use

the old knowledge at the same time as having to come to terms with new knowledge:

I think one thing would be important to make… to make a transition is to

have that support from someone almost like a mentor…I think that is very

important, how you really do that, through a long transition… I think that

makes the transition easiest… the boss now is very supportive and very

helpful and that I suppose has helped me to move into this new role a lot

easier and a lot quicker and I’ve got my work done … though I sort of had to

leave behind what I used to do it sort of you know, what I used to do, sort of-

- (pause) sort of all the knowledge of what I used to do has come with me but

the actual day to day things I used to do - sort of stopping that hasn’t been as

difficult or – because I suppose I get the support there… I’m not sort of you

know helping the person who has filled into my old role – so that’s what

made that transition a lot easier (A005)

Summary – Organisational Factors

Based on the findings from Organisation A, it is apparent that for individuals

in the unlearning process, organisational memory and culture can help or hinder.

Where there is supportive management, supportive colleagues and an integrated

culture, change can be instigated and individuals have a sense of comfort in

unlearning. Where the organisation is clearly split into different elements and results

in a lack of consistent systems, this can lead individuals to have difficulty unlearning.

In particular, it was highlighted that consistent and up-to-date policies, and


availability of sufficiently detailed training with reinforcement on the job were

critical; often the lack of such measures was highlighted as an inhibitor to

unlearning.

Expanding the Process Model

Based on the findings at the individual and organisational level from Case

Study A, a number of modifications can be made to the Unlearning Process Model

(refer to Figure 5.4). This case study has provided some specific indicators or

possible inhibitors and enablers of the process of unlearning, as well as suggesting

that there does exist a process within unlearning. This process demonstrates

potential to be iterative in nature. This process was highlighted by a number of

interviewees who spoke about testing out new ways, feeling uncomfortable, giving it

a go, and so on. This indicates a process occurring between awareness and

relinquishing that it is anticipated may be expanded in subsequent case studies.

Figure 5.4 Unlearning Process Model after Case A


Organisation B

Organisation B is a coal-fired power station that forms part of a larger

corporation involved in power generation. The broader organisation is a government

owned corporation that was formed when the Australian electricity industry was

deregulated in 1997. This organisation has a number of sites throughout Australia,

including coal-fired thermal, wind and hydroelectric power generation facilities. The

site in which this case study was undertaken is located in a regional area of

Queensland. The power station had 165 employees employed in a range of trades,

engineering, production, maintenance and general support roles at the time this

research was undertaken and was experiencing labour turnover of 5.5%.

The organisational structure includes a range of functional areas reporting to

the Power Station Manager, who in turn reports to head office in Brisbane. These

areas include Production, Maintenance, Asset Performance, Outage, and Projects.

The power station has historically employed a different approach to task and role

structure than is common within the industry by using a multi-disciplinary team

based approach, in some respects similar to a matrix organisational structure. Within

the production area of the power station which was the main focus of this research,

the employees were allocated to semi-autonomous teams with responsibility for a

certain area of the plant. These teams include employees from a range of disciplines

including engineers, tradespersons, trades assistants, operators, and administrative

support.

At the time of the study, the power station had recently been involved in a

corporate wide change in relation to their approach to safety in the workplace. The

strategy adopted known as High Energy, High Impact (HEHI) was aimed at

introducing a more rigorous and controlled approach to safety, driven in part by the

need to comply with legislative requirements.

In particular, the Electricity Safety Act governing all roles connected with the

installation and maintenance of electrical work had been tightened. These changes

were made predominantly for domestic and commercial operators, but had also

impacted on the staff employed in industrial electrical roles such as those in this

power station. All of the employees involved in this study had been affected in some

way by this new approach to safety in the power station, even though it was a

strategy driven by the corporate office as a corporate-wide initiative.




Organisation B.

Table 5.3 Organisation B research participants

Parti

cipa

nt

Age

G

ende

r Po

sitio

n H

ighe

st

qual

ifica

tion

Yea

rs in

po

sitio

n Y

ears

in

orga

nisa

tion

Yea

rs in

si

mila

r po

sitio

ns

Cul

ture

ty

pe

repo

rted

Cog

nitiv

e rig

idity

Em

otio

nal

reac

tion

Rou

tine

seek

ing

Shor

t-te

rm

focu

s

B00

1 43

M

ale

Syst

ems

Tech

nolo

gist

–

Ope

ratio

ns

Ass

ocia

te

Dip

lom

a –

Elec

t En

gine

erin

g

5 13

25

H

iera

rchy

3.

5 3.

25

3.2

3

B00

2 36

M

ale

Team

Lea

der

Post

gra

d 4

10

15

Cla

n 3

3.25

2.

8 2.

5

B00

3 42

M

ale

Isol

atio

n A

dmin

istra

tor

Ass

ocia

te

Dip

lom

a –

Mec

h En

gine

erin

g

4 13

13

H

iera

rchy

3.

5 3.

5 2.

8 3

B00

4 33

M

ale

Plan

t Eng

inee

r (M

echa

nica

l) B

ache

lor o

f En

gine

erin

g .5

2.

5 5

Hie

rarc

hy

5.25

1.

25

1.8

2

B00

5 40

M

ale

Syst

em

Tech

nolo

gist

A

ssoc

iate

D

iplo

ma

– En

gine

erin

g

3 14

23

H

iera

rchy

1.

75

2 1.

6 1.

75

B00

6 27

M

ale

Elec

trica

l Te

chni

cian

Tr

ade,

Ass

ocia

te

Dip

lom

a –

Engi

neer

ing

4 4

7 H

iera

rchy

3.

25

3.25

3.

2 2.

5

B00

7 23

M

ale

App

rent

ice

Elec

trica

l/ In

stru

men

tatio

n

Seni

or

4.25

4.

25

4.25

H

iera

rchy

2.

5 4

2.6

4.75

B00

8 18

M

ale

App

rent

ice

Elec

trica

l/ In

stru

men

tatio

n

Seni

or

.25

.25

.25

Hie

rarc

hy

2.25

1.

75

1.8

2



Those in Organisation B referred often to previous methods and their level of

experience as contributing to their struggle with the changes being implemented.

Many with a long history in the organisation felt that the previous methods were

quite acceptable and did not require change, hence they were more resistant to

unlearning. In particular, those who were resistant could not see the benefit in the

new practices being implemented:

Everything you used to know how to do had all changed. So where a task

that you might have done, not saying unsafely, but say you did it in a different

format where you still undertook isolations and risk assessments, etc., etc.,

have now got additional components to them. (B006)

so this has been fine (gestures to his shirt) for fifty years you know… All of a

sudden, we need to wear fireproof clothing so the all the crap comes out

about the guys won’t do this unless they’ve got the fireproof clothing...

(B001)

there was nothin’ wrong with what we were doing – all this was doing was

slowing down the job (B001)

when you go through a long period of time of doing a certain thing, a certain

way, without any incidents. For example, it’s hard to try and comprehend

why you’d want to go from one system to the other. (B006)

When you get a new hurdle that’s put in front of you from a job that might

have taken an hour to do last time, which now takes three hours, there’s a

fair bit of a barrier there. Do we follow it, or do we go round and keep doing

what we used to do, and slowly change? It’s been a tough battle. It’s slowly

getting there ... (B006)

When reflecting on the reactions of others, previous experience was likewise

acknowledged as an important factor:

the initial reaction was highly critical. It wasn’t that people didn’t want to

comply with the law, it was more around “I’ve worked this way … for so


many years and I’ve never had a problem, now this change is being imposed

on me and it doesn’t change the safety outcome” (B002)

In one case, the individual reported that when attempting to use the new way,

there was often a tendency to revert back to the previous way when the new way was

uncomfortable. It is important to note that this employee was not one of the longer

serving respondents:

You undergo all the training, which is a fair bit to undergo in a short period

of time. So you’re not really familiar on where you have to apply it all, and

how it all rolls out. And everyone else at the top end doesn’t know how

smoothly it’s going to roll out; whether it’s easy or not. So I suppose the first

time you go through it, it still takes a very long time to do all of it. You might

do a certain section of it, get fed up and go back the other way. (B006)

The disclosure of reversion to old ways by this participant indicates that

unlearning does not occur in a linear fashion. This leads to the suggestion that

unlearning is a process or a cycle through which an individual passes prior to

relinquishing old ways.

One respondent also recognised the importance of allowing those with

previous skills sufficient time to learn the new ways and acknowledge the fact that

new methods or practices will take longer initially because of the lack of comfort on

behalf of individuals:

I guess you need to provide them with an opportunity to actually use some of

the new skills and that will take time, it will take energy… in a lot of cases it

will probably introduce a lot of inefficiency because you’re actually

expecting them to do something different (B004)

This respondent referred to a process of testing out new ways, particularly

trying the new way in a certain context and over time, becoming more comfortable.

This process of trying out the new way in context as a means of overcoming unease

again lends weight to the argument for a process of learning that occurs with a

passage of time.

Some participants felt that the requirement to change practices was a slight on

their expertise gained over many years:

…if you’re talking to a 20 year tradesman, it’s like teaching them to suck

eggs you know? (B001)


I mean, yeah, I mean some things you’ve gotta accept… but it’s just …. oh I

don’t know – it’s an insult sometimes to you, that you have to do this ‘cause

it’s so meaningless.. so frustrating… you know, they employed me as an

electrician you know, now they’re telling me I’ve gotta do all this –isn’t that

my job? (B003)

When the change comes through, for better or worse, the process is probably

slower, or there’s more resistance there to change; depending on what the

policy or procedure was. In our case… it’s been very difficult because

there’s been such a big change from the way it used to be to now, that it’s

hard, I suppose from their point of view, to get it instigated, because they’re

just taking a whole different direction now, because they have to. Where

from our point of view, we look at the old one, and compare them. And we

try to use those comparisons to justify a different direction of our own.

(B006)

The last quote show a level of comparison between the old way and the new

way being undertaken by individuals. This was a common theme in many of the

interviews.

When considering the impact of level of experience and the willingness to

unlearn, it was most common for respondents to reflect more broadly on those with

whom they worked to distinguish between those unwilling to change and those who

were more accepting. Some referred to age although in a lot of cases, this was

closely equated with years of experience:

I think the younger people have a whole lot easier time accepting this if

they’ve come into a system that’s already like that – no problem (B001)

I mean, I might be breaking the rules but I don’t know, you know? Or we,

that’s how, I guess we rely on a lot of our experience, technical knowledge…

oh I guess the older you get, it’s harder (laugh) (B003)

I think for people who have had a fairly specialist approach to things, it is a

lot more difficult, because a lot of their experiences do revolve around say

one particular area, one particular process, one method for achieving the


outcome …. so I think for those people it probably does become a lot harder

to begin making changes away from some of their core specialties (B004)

So I think we’re fairly used to change here. It gets thrown up on us quite a

bit…I think some of the older guys struggle. (B005)

The older people who were used to using the system hated the new change,

because they’d already adapted to the old one. They’ve got their set ways,

set pathways of doing it… I would say that there’s more negative resistance

from certain individuals out there, and the majority of those have still been in

the workplace for a long period of time. I’d say even new starters that have a

lot of experience still welcome change, because it’s a new environment for

them. It’s a new workplace. And they’re not there to put up a resistance…

It’s something different from where they’ve come from, so they still welcome

change. (B006)

One interviewee however distinguished clearly between those with a long

history in the one organisation versus those, also with extensive knowledge, but

gained in a variety of organisations:

Certainly how much industry, or experience you have doing your particular

job played a factor in how accepting you were of change. Another factor is, I

think how long you’ve been here, like in one place… if you’ve worked in a

multitude of workplaces over the last few years, you’ll find different

businesses have different approaches to things… and as you go and work for

them, you learn a new way and that’s part of the game. If you’ve been here

ten years and you’ve done the same thing for ten years, and then all of a

sudden there’s this change imposed on you, there’s a lot more

resistance…They um, yeah, they were the ones that raised most of the speed

bumps. I find that, I guess demographically, younger people tend to be more

accepting. Whether it’s an experience thing or whether (it’s an age thing)… I

don’t know… (B002)

The two previous quotes provide reinforcement of the findings emerging

from Organisation A concerning the depth versus breadth of knowledge. Those with

a deeper knowledge in a particular area are often seen to struggle with unlearning.


In contrast to reflecting on those with extensive experience, some

interviewees chose to consider the individuals with less experience and their ability

to unlearn:

I suppose the greener people change quickly, because … you don’t have a set

routine, the way you do things. You adapt easily because you’re not familiar

with how things are done anyhow, so any change won’t really affect you.

You’d probably welcome it in fact, because you might not understand the old

way of doing things. Now everyone has got to be on par with you, because

everyone has got to learn it. (B006)

A phenomenon that first appeared in the Pilot Study, was also raised by one

of the less experienced individuals in this organisation. Whilst the very large

majority of respondents identified that those with less experience find it easier to

unlearn than those with extensive experience, there appears to also be a point early in

the development of skills where it is also difficult to unlearn.

Some of the younger fellows in my situation, they have learnt the old ways,

and now they were being taught the new ways, and it was a bit confusing.

Whereas me, I was kind of just coming straight to the ATW, so it wasn’t too

bad for me. (B007)

This would indicate that while the two factors are related, it is not as simple

as saying that as level of experience increases, ease of unlearning decreases. It

appears that these two factors may not have a simple linear relationship. This

situation points to a particular level of skill development early in the learning process

(but not at the stage of absolute beginner), where an individual finds unlearning very

difficult. Referring to the developmental model of skills acquisition developed by

Dreyfus (1982), it could be suggested that whilst those at Novice level have very

little difficulty in unlearning, those at Advanced Beginner level struggle with

unlearning. This proposition is discussed in more detail during the Cross Case

Analysis.

Personality and Frames of Reference

Respondents in this organisation also referred heavily to individual’s

personality or personal approach as influencing unlearning ability. It is worthwhile

noting that most of the comments made in relation to frames of reference and their

impact on unlearning were made in relation to others. Very few of the respondents


when asked about personal style spoke of the impact of their own style and

personality:

it’s about your personal paradigm, view of the world, whatever…I guess

when you’re thinking about change, you’re thinking about how it affects you

… and the systems that you work within, and other people that you work with.

So, you’re taking this change and you’re going, you’re comparing against

what you know. Some changes though change everything around you… In

my crew, I’ve got a couple of guys who are quite accepting of you know,

you’re the boss, you pay the money, whatever you say is a good thing, and

they’ve just accepted whatever’s come, they’ve asked questions about

learning how to change themselves to meet this need – they were easy…

there’s other guys that their personal style is you know, they’ve done it a long

time, they know what they’re doing, people in Brisbane who’ve never worked

on that sort of job don’t have a clue, and they raised all this – all the reasons

why they shouldn’t change…so it didn’t really contribute towards them

moving forward. It was like here’s some road blocks and I’m not moving

past them. So yeah personal style depends – will depend a lot on how quickly

people make the transition (B002)

I see there’s a lot of different personalities working there. Some people who

were more just introverted I guess, or more easier accepted. Some people

were outgoing would say you know, “I don’t like these new changes”, so they

struggled in that way (B007)

One respondent who was reasonably inexperienced in comparison to the

other interviewees, related to the change in how he had to view the job. He found

difficulty because as an electrical apprentice he was accustomed to observing for

technical aspects in order to learn his trade. Under the new system, he was called

upon to observe for entirely different reasons; focussing only on safety aspects of a

job. He referred to this as having to refocus his frame of reference to a totally

different element of the job:

I think it was a bit hard to adapt to, because it’s probably a different role

thing. An observer, you’re not really focusing on how the job is being done,

you’re trying to think of safety aspects, not really concentrating on how he’s

doing the job, but how he’s doing it safely. (B007)


Another individual believed that his variety of work experience gave him a

broader frame of reference and an ability to be proactive about changes. However,

the reference to proactivity would indicate that he likes to be in charge of what he is

learning and unlearning. Interestingly, when discussing this he also admits that he is

still rather “set in his ways”, something borne out by his extremely high Cognitive

Rigidity score of 5.25. It is also interesting to note (although merely coincidence),

that prior to being employed by Organisation B, this participant was employed by

Organisation C:

Probably in terms of helping, probably just a general willingness to get

involved and have a go. And, I guess from a little bit of history, I actually

started work in the mining industry, spent some time overseas doing some

volunteer work, came back and worked a little bit with (Organisation C), and

then came here to (Organisation B) so, I guess the range of experiences that

I’ve had in the past.. has probably enabled me to take a fairly proactive

approach when it relates to change and various behaviours. I’m probably

still fairly set in my ways, like if you had a look at what I actually did you’d

think well you said you didn’t do anything different, but I probably adapt

reasonably well (B004)


The analysis of individual factors raised in the study of Organisation B shows

further reference to breadth versus depth of knowledge as a potential impact on

unlearning. Individuals in this organisation also raised the issue of being provided

with sufficient information to understand the need for change. It was from the

awareness phase, individuals showed indications of having certain expectations even

prior to the commencement of the change. This is considered further at the end of

this case in terms of implications for the process model.


The changes to the safety system and requirements of individuals and work

groups required a considerable amount of unlearning, particularly for those

experienced in the previous methods of operation. However, organisational factors

were reported by most to have played a significant role in the facilitation (or lack

thereof) of unlearning for individuals. There was widespread concern about the

implementation of new policies and the lack of consultation which was claimed to

have resulted in unworkable or sometimes contradictory policies:


This place is death by… words, it’s just going up. If something happened,

and someone knew where to look for everything, you could find three policies

that contradict each other. You’d find words that were just opposite to each

other somewhere (B003)

Often the respondents made the distinction between procedures and policies;

claiming that the latter were driven from the corporate office and did not address the

specific needs of this site which provide justification at times for non-compliance or

at least resistance to the change:

We’ve got reasonably good procedures. They’re easy to find. Policy

changes, I guess another one that’s directly affected me is the Electricity Act

changes, with wearing protective clothing and protective gear. That wasn’t

very well handled. We had a corporate policy, but we had all these other little

bits under it saying “oh no, no, you don’t really need to do that”. So even

though the policies were there, spelled out, some of the stuff wasn’t

happening. (B005)

There was also concern that those policies and procedures that were

documented were not being adequately used, nor was their use being monitored at a

supervisory level, often because the supervisors themselves were not clear of the

required process or not supportive of them:

probably 90% of the guys that I worked with really hadn’t used the High

Energy High Impact control guides at all in their risk assessment processes

to that point in time. Now that was about … six to twelve months after it had

first been introduced, but there hadn’t been a process to ensure that OK they

understood it, they were using it, they were actually getting some benefit out

of it. So we actually started from scratch with a lot of these guys …. a lot of

area coordinators who are effectively some of our key people within the

organisation weren’t familiar with that process… and that was twelve months

down the track and I think that’s probably indicative of some of the changes

we’ve seen where we just haven’t seen it through (B004)

In contrast, one of the interviewees who was less experienced noted that the

existence of documented information was of assistance to him. Even when the

training provided did not clearly explain the requirements of the new safety system,

he had the documentation to which he could refer:


I didn’t really understand too much about it at the time (of the training), but

they handed out documents that explained exactly what our responsibilities

were, and what was a description of live work or wasn’t live work. Or how

we had to go about the system to actually implement safety changes into ATW

process... I kept that document for myself, printed it out, and have got that

filed away. So whenever I go to do a job that needs an ATW, I always look

that up. I guess now that I’ve been doing it for a while, sort of more mundane

jobs that I do all the time, you don’t really think about it. But definitely if it’s

somewhere different that I haven’t tried before, I’ll just look it up and just

refresh myself… At first that wasn’t really explained very well I thought.

But I didn’t really understand it at the time because it was pretty fresh. But

those policies that we were given, I don’t know if anyone else kept it, but I

know I kept it and it has definitely helped me a fair bit. I think if that sort of

information had of been brought out earlier, it would have helped definitely

(B007)

The final element in relation to the more formal organisational aspects of change

implementation was training. Most of the respondents mentioned training in relation

to how it helped, or in most cases, failed to help in the unlearning process:

It seems that they set a date, it’s got to be done by this date. And the people

they had doing the training were probably not the right people to do it. They

were external contractors trying to give us training on our plant. And to be

honest, some of them were terrible basically. And they admitted up front. He

said we’ve just been paid to do this, he said I’m not too sure about what we

should be doing with this sort of stuff. (B005)

the actual follow up evaluation very seldom occurs, and that not only relates

to the… use of new processes, but also as it relates to things like training,

that we haven’t been adequately identifying peoples training needs,... and we

don’t really take the time to sit down with people and say well here’s some

training that we’ve identified,... “look here are the behaviours that we’ve

seen, this is where we’d like you to improve, here’s some follow up evaluation

activities that once we’ve provided you with this training, this is what we’d

like to see at the other end” (B004)


and the focus of that training was more around what our corporate standard

said… if you look at our corporate standards, they’re what I call a “what”

document – this is what you’ve got to do, but it doesn’t explain how…so,

there was a lot of questioning around that … how to make that work at a

practical level…so, the formal training left the guys with, it gave the guys

some knowledge, but no… way of operationalising it (B002)

Oh you know, they’ll tick their box off that there was training delivered, but

it’s just too big for them. After the HEHI training I mean noone knew

anything because – that’s from corporate. Corporate had a vested interest to

roll it out, nothing else … you know, they had deadlines to do it, and it was

just done – they get ticks in their boxes and their payments. After it was

rolled out, there was no support given, the training was just crap like it

always is, ‘cause it’s just thrown together, you know, wham bam, gone, and

you’re left with it (B003)

The importance of training to the individuals was very clear during the

interviews, as these few quotes indicate. Many indicated that appropriately detailed

training reinforced on the job, would have assisted in the unlearning and change

process.


The results from the OCAI for this organisation were the strongest of all three

case study organisations, with seven interviewees indicating the culture was a

Hierarchy (internally focussed and mechanistic) and the remaining one considering it

to be Clan (internally focussed and organic). It was therefore unanimously agreed

that the organisation had an internal focus, perhaps an indication of the industry in

which they operate. Although now operating in a deregulated market, there are still

relatively few organisations involved in power generation and the industry has a long

history of regulation. Reflection on the one individual varying from the group

reveals no significant or obvious differences from the other interviewees other than

that fact that he was the only one with a postgraduate qualification.

It was apparent, particularly in the case of the more experienced interviewees,

that the concerns about the documented policies originating from the corporate office

were indicative of a much deeper problem relating to the culture within the

organisation:


a lot of my bug bears have been OK they talk compliance or consistency, OK

I can understand that as an organisation you need consistency across your

sites with your processes and principles. But we wear a lot because the

hydro need this part of the document for them, and our corporate aims at

paperwork level not the principle level (B003)

…because there’s a lot of people with experience here, that have a lot of good

ideas. But if it wasn’t their (corporate’s) idea… it didn’t happen (B005)

The other thing is, I guess, there’s been a shift in our corporate culture from

extensive consultation to directive behaviour. For example, like I said,

Brisbane said, “here’s your paperwork, go make it work” … which is one

way of operating a business. Unfortunately what that does when you’re

coming from a consultative environment, you have this expectation that “I’ve

issued an instruction, now I’m gonna get 100% compliance tomorrow”

(B002)

The shift in corporate culture to which this respondent is referring, relates to a

previous CEO who had significant impact on the organisation as a greenfield site,

and brought in a structure and approach to the operation of the power station that was

significantly different to the industry norm. This history was so heavily embedded

that even those who had not worked in the organisation at that time were very aware

of it. Most of the respondents referred to this changing culture in some way during

the interviews.

(ex-CEO) formed this place and it was all totally new team environment, you

did your own work, self-managed, you made your own decision, ran your own

life basically. That’s been eroding, and eroding and eroding back to the way

it was. Corporate office is bigger than this place – got the same amount of

people as basically one power station (B003)


(the) team concept that they did have at one point in time when (ex-CEO) was

here as the CEO, I think to a large extent that’s now gone out the window.

It’s been replaced with a very heavy.. compliance, risk-management type

culture, so I think that the whole organisation’s probably in transition right

at this.. moment, just coming to grips with that different management style …

(B004)

as an observation … I find that people stop thinking for themselves, they

become scared to make a decision … like because we’re a focal point (as an

administrator of the system) – people come to us. And you know, they’re

asking us stuff that 5 years ago they would have known for themselves (B003)

The recent changes to management within the organisation, both at a local

and a corporate level were noted as having an impact on how willing employees

were to embrace changes, and the extent to which they committed to unlearning. As

might be expected, the closer the management level to the individual, the more

impact was reported:

… the organisational culture and how management team works does affect

how quickly a change can come in and the type of change. Some of those

factors would have to be whether they’ve got experience with the change as

well, so in our case, most of the front line leadership had come off the floor

so they had some idea of what was going on (B002)

it depends on the individual. We just had new management come through

now, from the top down, just a couple of people. It’s actually uplifted a lot of

the spirits of the workers, because you can see a new change coming through,

so you’re optimistic about how they might approach things. So you almost

would welcome the change for a while; to see how they’re going. (B006)

One individual reflected on the different sites within the organisation and

alluded to an existence of different cultures across these sites. In direct relation to

the emergence of depth of experience in an individual and the resistance to

unlearning, this individual also suggests that in an organisational sense, the culture

can progress to a point that makes the organisational group as a whole resistant to

unlearning and change:


(Another power station within the organisation) has been in operation for 40

years or something… a lot of the people there have been there a very long

time, and there is much more – it’s much more difficult to get a transition out

of them… (another site – wind generation) for example, where there’s a

larger contract workforce, they’re not there fulltime so they’re doing other

jobs; much easier – “here’s a change in policy, here’s what you’ve got to

do”, alright, out they go and do it. Here’s (this power station) sort of

somewhere in between… you got more people so there’s a lot more talking

goes on which is – can be good and bad… but yeah, certainly size of the

corporation, or the business unit, and … how long it’s been in business does

make a difference, cause I guess you get on your own personal formula for

doing something successfully and if that changes it somehow, you’re

questioning you know, “am I still doing the right thing, or is the company still

doing the right thing?” (B002)

Colleagues were again mentioned as impacting unlearning during interviews

in Organisation B. In particular, the impact of informal rather than formal leaders

was recognised as a strong element in influencing the outlook of individuals either

positively or negatively:

there’s probably quite a broad range of people and sometimes leadership is

actually coming from in the team itself rather than an external party.. and so

yeah, I think.. those influential relationships have a huge impact on how well

people adopt it and who people are taking their lead from as well. Whether

it’s somebody who’s formally recognised as a leader within the organisation,

through position for instance, and the types of information that they’re

putting out, or whether it’s people who are, perhaps fairly set in their ways

and influential within the team who may actually be stopping um some of

these new processes.. from getting up (B004)

if you’re all working together – feed off each other … and sort of share that

experience…obviously you can learn bad things too, but goes both ways. A

whole lot easier to instigate the change if you’re all working together (B001)


I spent more time with the people who wanted to understand the intent,

simply because a good outcome with them will probably feed into the other

guys as well (B002 as a supervisor and trainer of others)

But you’ve still got to take into account peer pressure and everything. If you

believe that okay, I accept it, I can see where it’s coming from, and you work

with two or three other guys on a daily basis. You rely on them for safety, for

jobs, the whole lot, and they’re on a different point of view, you might

actually succumb to that peer pressure. Okay, I’ve got three guys here

opposing it. I don’t mind doing it. What avenue do you take? Do you try

and oppose the guys that you work with every day? Or do you just go okay;

well I’d better support them, because if I had an issue, they’d support me.

You’ve got to think of that pathway too. There’s a lot of that around here.

I’m not just saying union versus management type thing, there’s a lot more

smaller groups than that. (B006)

These findings from Organisation B give an indication of the issues that arise

when a changing culture intercepts the additional need to unlearn particular

workplace behaviours. It was very clear during the interviews that organisational

memory was strong, and most of those interviewed expressed concern about change

processes based upon their memory of how changes had been handled differently in

the past.


The organisational factors emerging from Organisation B were similar in

many respects to those from Organisation A. The leadership and management within

the organisation was a common theme. Colleagues were also believed to be very

important in relation to unlearning, with mention of peer pressure not to accept

change. In particular, this organisation emphasised the importance of the informal

relationships in the organisation such as the opinion leaders who may not have a

formal role, but have significant interpersonal impact.

This organisation also reinforced the critical importance of adequately

detailed training, and policies and procedures that align organisational requirements

with the action of those at an operational level. Much of the discussion also

reinforced the importance of due consideration to organisational memory and culture.

The previous history of this organisation was a common discussion point, and the


existence of a “splintered” culture appeared to have significant impact on unlearning

even at the individual level.


The analysis of Organisation B presents some useful additional themes, as

well as reinforcing findings from Organisation A. The previous summary of

individual factors noted the emergence of what appeared to be an additional step in

the unlearning process and that was the development of expectations prior to

unlearning. This step has now been added to the model as shown in Figure 5.5.

More has also emerged in relation to the middle process of unlearning (shown in

Figure 5.5 as a cycle) with a testing phase, unease with new way, and comparison of

old and new way emerging as a possible cycle. This is further explored during Case

Study C prior to inclusion in the model. The process model has also been revised

with the inclusion of additional individual and organisational factors that emerged

during Case Study B.

UneaseTesting

Comparison

AWARENESS

RELINQUISHING

Individual Enablersand Inhibitors

(breadth vs depthof knowledge, personal

outlook on change, personality)

Organisational Enablers and

Inhibitors(policies,

management, colleagues, opinion

leaders, culture, memory, training)

EXPECTATIONS

Figure 5.5 Unlearning Process Model after Case B


Organisation C

The third case study organisation (Organisation C) is a minerals extraction

and processing operation. The company began exploration in the early 1980’s and

commenced operations in 1991 as part of a larger group of companies. Ownership of

the organisation has changed a number of times, most recently being purchased

approximately 12 months prior to this study, by an American-based publicly-listed

capital fund that invests particularly in mining operations that are in growth and

development phases of operation. The site at which this study was undertaken is

located in a regional area, reporting to a corporate office in an Australian capital city.

The operation is comprised a mine, a processing plant, and relevant support

functions.

At the time the study was undertaken, the operation had 213 staff, including

full time, part time and casual employees. In addition to this core workforce, the

organisation also had a relationship with three key contracting firms that provide an

additional 130 contract staff to the operation. Labour turnover at the site was 20%

and had stabilised following a period of higher turnover (reaching up to 25%). The

management of the operation attribute this high turnover in part to the uncertainty

accompanying overall ownership and possible buy-outs, coupled with a booming

coal mining industry in the region attracting employees to similar positions with high

levels of remuneration.

Eighteen months prior to this study, the organisation embarked on a lengthy

culture change process to change the way safe work practices were viewed and used

in the organisation. In contrast to Organisation B, this change was driven by a

growing awareness of potential safety risks and the occurrence of minor incidents in

the workplace, rather than being driven from a legislative compliance perspective.

The organisation developed a comprehensive strategy for the change, commencing

with strategic commitment to the process from senior management. The organisation

then commenced a process of employee workshops, communication, involvement

and ongoing development to implement a behaviourally based safety system

(referred to in the organisation as the BBS).

Results to date indicate that this system has had significant impact on safety

indicators within the organisation, reducing the lost time injury frequency rate

(LTIFR), a common measure in industrial settings, to below industry average for the


first time in the history of the organisation. Ongoing commitment to this system and

the continued enhancement to the system has lead to widespread adoption throughout

the workforce. The interviews in this organisation were conducted predominantly

with operational staff impacted by the system, and the support staff responsible for

the implementation and maintenance of the system.

In contrast to the other organisations, a larger and more detailed range of

organisational data was available for use in this case analysis. Those responsible for

implementing the changes were committed to measuring the outcomes of the changes

implemented to ensure that unlearning had occurred in terms of change of attitude

and behaviour, as well as ensuring that this change was reflected by standard

measures used in the industry.



Organisation C. It is noted that all respondents in this organisation were male. This

is recognised as a limitation in the final chapter of the thesis.


Table 5.4 Organisation C research participants

Doc

umen

t A

ge

Gen

der

Posi

tion

Hig

hest

qu

alifi

catio

n Y

ears

in

posi

tion

Yea

rs in

or

gani

satio

n Y

ears

in

sim

ilar

posi

tions

Cul

ture

ty

pe

repo

rted

Cog

nitiv

e rig

idity

Em

otio

nal

reac

tion

Rou

tine

seek

ing

Shor

t-te

rm

focu

s

C00

1 45

M

ale

Seni

or

Tech

nica

l Se

rvic

es

Engi

neer

Bac

helo

r 3

3 15

M

arke

t 2.

75

2.75

1.

8 2.

5

C00

2 50

M

ale

Ass

ista

nt

Supe

rvis

or

Juni

or

.2

.25

18

Cla

n 4

3.25

3

3

C00

3 62

M

ale

Seni

or S

afet

y C

oord

inat

or

Bac

helo

r 15

15

32

A

dhoc

racy

3.

25

2.5

1.6

1.75

C00

4 38

Fe

mal

e Sa

fety

C

oord

inat

or

TAFE

cer

tific

ate

.5

.5

5 C

lan

4.5

2.75

1.

4 1.

75

C00

5 35

M

ale

Ass

ista

nt

Supe

rvis

or

Seni

or

1 5

16

Hie

rarc

hy

2.75

3.

75

2.2

2.25

C00

6 43

M

ale

Dea

dbur

n O

pera

tor

Seni

or

1.3

1.3

26

Hie

rarc

hy

4.5

2.5

2 2.

75



When reflecting upon unlearning past behaviours in relation to safety, many

of the respondents referred to the more experienced employees as encountering the

most difficulty. In particular, they observed those who had worked for a long period

of time in the organisation, struggled more than those who had only been employed

for a short period of time or had experience across a range of organisations:

Probably the less experienced people took it on board a bit quicker. The

other industries I’ve worked in, and it’s mostly been in the meat industry, but

the individuals that you have coming through a great turnover of labour, it

opens their eyes to see how safety conscious this place is. (C002)

In particular, this organisation had a high proportion of employees with a

lengthy tenure, some having been on site for the entire 15 years of operation. This

was an element considered to impact unlearning by many of the respondents, all of

whom indicated that this length of service may have lead to an insular approach to

work, and a lack of willingness to try alternate methods.

And it depends on how long they’ve been in the job for. So from my

understanding quite a few people here are lifers, as I like to call them,

because I have never gone into a business or worked where people have been

there for 15 years or more, so I just think they’re lifers. (C004)

It's like anything when you get people working here for 14 years that are in a

routine as such it just takes times…I think it's just the way people are. If

they've been doing something for so long you know they just naturally resist

change if they can't see the benefit, or if it looks too hard. It's just the way we

are. (C005)

it’s probably the old school, the way they done things in the past, and safety

wasn’t such a big issue back in their days, where they’ve come through and

they see all of a sudden there’s a change, an emphasis on safety and I’ve seen

that rile them up, and you’ve just got to keep working on those people.

Sitting down and talking with them, you know. (C006)

Again, these quotes from participants reinforce the recurring theme of the depth

versus the breadth of experience. Depth of knowledge is reported as a potential


inhibitor to unlearning, and breadth of knowledge may assist in the unlearning

process as the individual has a range of perspectives upon which to draw.

Personality and Frames of Reference

Most interviewees reflected on the reactions and personalities of other staff

with whom they worked when asked about unlearning. Very few considered their

own personality, inferring that although they supported the change, other individuals

may not have had the same commitment because of their personal style or approach:

there was a fair bit of belief that this wouldn’t work, this was just a whole

heap of fairy land stuff. Some of the strongest advocates of that are probably

now some of our best champions in the system. They… I was gonna call them

dinosaurs but that’s not the right word because there’s some young people

there as well… they were pretty much believing they were here to do their

job, they did their job, they went home, and that was the end of the story…

There were people coming to work believing it was an inherent part of their

job to get hurt, just by doing the job. And that was scary. (C003)

But there’s always going to be people out there that don’t want to change,

regardless of how old they are, the young ones, the old ones, the old guys

don’t see the point of it because you know, we’ve been doing it this way for

how many years, why change now? That’s their attitude… . I think it’s just

their way of thinking, the way that they’ve been doing things is a mindset

more than anything. (C004)

I think it all depends quite a lot on the attitude of the person too. You get

some people that are pretty negative towards things like this. Whether they

come to terms with accepting it or whatever, I don’t know, but at the end of

the day you come to work to do your job, it’s part of your job, so you just do

it. (C006)



The findings from these participants relating to individual factors clearly

highlighted the importance of openness to change as being critical for unlearning; a

measure of which can be found in the Resistance to Change Scale. This level of

comfort with change is clearly an individual factor that impacts upon unlearning;

however this case study shows that this factor must be addressed in order to assist

unlearning. Organisation C embarked on an extensive communication and

implementation strategy that was reported to have made a difference even at the level

of the individual when individuals initially had a negative outlook on change.


The approach to the change implemented in this organisation was structured

and comprehensive. A great deal of information was documented about the process,

and implementation of the BBS system. The change also included an extensive

consultation, training and implementation process, which was reported by many to

have assisted in the adoption of a new safety culture.

The formal training provided to all individuals affected by the new system

was noted by many as extremely useful in assisting them to think about safety in a

way that was different to previously:

I think the education, the seminars that they had here and everyone went and

different people went at different times and they all went and had their

sessions. I think the explanations given then sort of helped a little bit (C002)

We went through and had the roll-out. It went very well, very well accepted.

Lots and lots of involvement. And during that period we also started the

development of the observation. The safety observation was the key to this -

going out and watching people doing their jobs, not technically, but

behavioural, what the actions I’ve got to do to make sure I do this job safely.

So we taught people how to draw up behaviours, break the task down –

“what are the steps in that task, what are the behaviours? What do you want

to see people physically do to make this job safe?” We had to get people to

start thinking differently… (C003)


I guess it’s sitting down, training, with the implementation itself, it’s forms

and how they need to be filled out correctly. Explaining it to the staff.

Making them aware of why it’s being done. This is how, why we need to do

this, what the outcome of it is. Yes, I guess it’s trying to get people to accept

it, being a change. Yes, that’s what it’s all about … ownership, trying to give

people ownership of it. (C006)

Even one individual who did not feel the training was as good as it could

have been (but on questioning did not really indicate any key issues in relation to the

training) remarked:

The training side of it could have been handled a little bit better, it wasn't

bad, they got most of the people through. I think people are coming to accept

that it's here and they can see the good points of it. (C005)

Of interest, in relation to inert knowledge, was the lack of specific mention of

policies, procedures and documentation. Whilst all respondents noted there were

policies and forms to support the new system, the focus when considering unlearning

was more on the training and support mechanisms rather than formal documentation.

In the previous two case studies, lack of current documentation was cited as a

potential reason for unwillingness to relinquish past behaviour. This case study has

highlighted that in addition to current documentation, this documentation is most

effective when coupled with sufficient training and support.


The results of the OCAI from Organisation C showed that two individuals

believed the culture was Clan (internally focussed, organic) and two believed it was

Hierarchy (internally focussed, mechanistic). Both these groups are in roles that are

heavily operational and generally focussed only on interaction within their own small

work team. Of the other interviewees, one believed the organisation to be a Market

(externally focussed, mechanistic) and one believed it to be an Adhocracy (externally

focussed, organic). Both these positions were at a more senior level and were in

more specialised positions.

The Senior Safety Coordinator provided some background about a measure

of safety culture that was used prior to implementation of the BBS and its finding:

(we) initially conducted a culture survey to find out where we stood so they

could actually develop a programme to meet our needs. I don’t know if

you’ve heard of the five C’s culture format?... That’s where you go from rules


based, up to (performing safe acts) because it’s now part of your psyche. The

report survey, showed us somewhere between rules and compliance. So we’re

still very much rules based, but we had a few people who accepted rules in

the compliance stage, still having the rule book with them. There were a

couple of people a little bit higher up the ladder than that, that didn’t need to

carry rules books around, they now had an understanding of what’s required,

but not a lot. Most people were still down the rules and the compliance to

rules area. So we had a pretty good base there to work on. (C003)

Based on the implementation process, the Senior Safety Coordinator reported

the impact in terms of the changing safety culture:

I think we’re on track. At the end of the two year period, the target was to

have people thinking safety as a tacit task. Now that’s part of their psyche,

they do things without thinking. We’ll never get 100%, it just doesn’t happen.

At this point in time I reckon we’re sitting somewhere around 50% of our

people would do that now without even thinking about it. 30% do it but may

need a little prod now and again, and the rest just don’t do it or don’t

understand it or don’t want to understand it or whatever the case may be – or

not forced into doing it. (C003)

Most of the respondents were well aware of the impact that organisational

culture can have on implementation of changes, and believed it to be something that

had to be addressed in order for unlearning to occur:

there’s just the general inertia of a company that’s used to ignoring certain

documents and so you have to apply some amount of force to get over that

inertia (C001)

I think ultimately where you'd want to be was where you could get rid of the

formal paperwork, and just have people doing them all the time. Whenever

somebody sees someone else doing something just have a look and see how

they're doing it. And I think that's ultimately where you went to be, but

there's a little way to go yet. (C005)

One interviewee was in the unique position of having previously been

employed in the organisation, left and then returned some years later. This

interviewee remarked on the change in the culture and how the new culture was


much more supportive and therefore individuals were more likely to try to adopt

changes:

they’re a lot more friendly towards you, not making a mistake and if you look

like you’re going to make (a mistake) they pull you up a lot quicker. It might

be just my perception but I find that compared to before whereas you know,

the old ticket system, ‘You stuffed up, here’s a ticket’ or ‘I’ll report you on

that’.(C002)

This support from management was reported as having substantial impact by

creating a culture of acceptance and willingness to learn.

In particular, the impact of the management on the organisational culture and

on the extent to which individuals were prepared to unlearn was mentioned by at

least half of the respondents:

Supervisors particularly (have an impact). Because the guys learn from the

supervisors, if your supervisors going to do a crud job, well the boys going to

do a crud job. So that’s been a big push, the supervisors showing them, well

this is how it’s done (C004)

We got some managers there who believe in this, understand what we’re

doing, know that the result is going to improve our overall programme. And

we have one manager in particular but another manager not so much, who

does not believe in this safety. ‘Pain in the butt’. And obviously this reflects.

Those are the areas we’re having the most trouble in getting full commitment.

Some people are saying, well my boss doesn’t want to do this, why should I

worry about it? (C003)

Work colleagues were also mentioned often as having an impact on

individual’s perceptions of the changes:

People I work with, just their attitude, ‘What is it with this pappy load of crap

we’re having to do?’ and you know they’d say that, and you hear it, and then

it colours one’s attitude and it sticks in your mind, so it’s just that initial

resistance of ‘Oh, what are they doing to us now?’. So there’s that, and then

again that was part of the inertia that had to be overcome. (C001)

The willingness of the management to implement the changes in stages to

allow for unlearning was also acknowledged as being helpful:


I think management has done a good job of the way that they haven't tried to

– they started off by okay we'll just do BBS observations in our area. Once

people have got the hang of it and sort of accepted doing it, now they're sort

of branching out at a later stage to say all right, we'll do observations in

other areas. I think if they'd just jumped straight in and said we want people

to do other areas it would have been a bigger… that would have had more

opposition against it and people wouldn't have done it. (C005)

They sort of stepped it, it was a small introduction and they just did an area

and now they're progressing with it. I think the biggest thing is you've got to

make people feel comfortable and wait until they're comfortable and keep

offering them the support there if they need it (C005)

Organisation C relied very heavily on the culture of the organisation to assist

individuals in their transition. It is apparent from the interviews as well as the data

collected that the changes made are being accepted and unlearning has occurred. In

particular, the organisation is able to demonstrate that the safety culture has changed

and unlearning has occurred. One measure of the change is the LTIFR (lost time

injury frequency rate); a measure of safety in most industrial settings. This measure

shows a significant decrease since the introduction of the BBS system. In Figure 5.6,

the graph shows LTIFR from 1993-2005, showing an obvious decrease following the

introduction of BBS in 2001.

Figure 5.6 Safety and production trends 1993-2005 (T/Employee to LTIFR)


In contrast to Organisation B, it appears that Organisation C made a

conscious effort to change the culture within the organisation, and so built this into

the approach to change. This encouraged individuals to approach the change in a

positive manner and was reported to have helped most individuals to unlearn. There

were individuals however who still resisted the changes regardless of this approach.

Again, the findings reinforce that particularly the climate and culture established

within the organisation can have significant impact on an individual’s willingness to

unlearn.


The organisational factors emerging from this case served to reinforce many

of the previous findings. Training and communication were two issues raised by

most participants as having contributed in a positive way to their unlearning.

Contrary to the previous case, the communication and training offered by

Organisation C was reported to have lessened individual concerns about the change,

and provided sufficient information to encourage individuals to accept the changes.

It was also clear that the use of informal opinion leaders within the formal change

process, harnessed those with the potential to negatively influence unlearning and

provided them with an opportunity to assist unlearning. The overall culture of the

organisation characterised by an environment where employees were encouraged to

learn, gave most individuals the chance to unlearn previous habits and build more

productive, new habits.


The revised process model based upon findings from Case C is shown in

Figure 5.7. The findings from Case C have predominantly served to reinforce the

findings from the previous two cases; hence the decision to finalise this phase after

three case studies. The most significant change to the model has been the inclusion

of a proposed cycle of unlearning in the centre of the model. The three case studies

have shown a cyclical process of testing or trying out the new way, feeling a level of

unease, albeit sometime minor, and then embracing even if only under some

circumstances. This cycle can complete itself a number of times before relinquishing

occurs. This model is discussed in more detail during the Cross Case Analysis.


Figure 5.7 Unlearning Process Model after Case C

Cross-Case Analysis

Having analysed the three cases individually to identify issues relating to the

conceptual framework, it is next appropriate to draw together these findings to

identify areas of convergence and divergence and identify emerging issues. The

following discussion relates the findings from Phase One to the conceptual

framework and the process model of unlearning, and relates these findings

specifically to the research questions outlined in Chapter 4.

Individual explicit and tacit knowledge and unlearning

In the list of specific research questions for this study, the first two questions

were, “what is the relationship between individual explicit knowledge and individual

unlearning?” and “what is the relationship between individual tacit knowledge and

individual unlearning?”

During the analysis of the three cases, it became clear that distinguishing

between explicit and tacit knowledge was not possible. Across all three cases there

was evidence of a strong link between the inability to let go of past behaviours and

the level of expertise and knowledge of the individual in general. Those who had


gained extensive experience in previous methods or practices, and therefore can be

assumed to have amassed a great deal more explicit and tacit knowledge in relation

to the issue in question, were observed to be the most resistant to relinquishing a past

practice or behaviour. The strongest references to this situation came from

Organisation B and Organisation C, as the changes being encountered in these two

organisations were relating to more specific task elements of their work, namely

safety systems and procedures, rather than a change in the broader culture and

mindset as was the situation at Organisation A.

It was generally observed that those with more experience in the position or

those who had been in the organisation or position longer reported difficulty in

unlearning past practice. They often refered back to what occurred previously in

order to orient themselves to the new way of working, or to explain how the new way

was in some way deficient or inferior to the old way. It was also the case that

individuals observed others with more experience or expertise finding unlearning

more difficult. There was reported to be a level of concern about the loss of power

that may be associated with giving up a previous practice or behaviour, and in

particular relinquishing what may have been considered expert status and power. In

contrast to this, those who appeared to have a breadth of knowledge (either across

multiple roles or multiple organisations) tended to find it easier to come to terms

with relinquishing past practice in favour of something new.

As training and development often uses formal processes to develop both

explicit and tacit knowledge, the implications of training and development for

unlearning were also explored. The extent of previous training and development

afforded to the individual also appeared to have some impact on their reported

unlearning process. Those who had been given a wide range of development

opportunities, and hence were operating within an environment of learning, were

more likely to be comfortable with the unlearning process, particularly when the

training and development afforded them the opportunity to identify for themselves

the benefits of adopting and applying the new knowledge or processes.

Organisation C showed the benefits of adopting a consultative and structured

approach to a change that stepped out a process of implementation in order to assist

unlearning. This organisation was able to demonstrate that the process used to

facilitate unlearning and the implementation of the new safety system was very

successful, both in terms of the changed individual beliefs in relation to safety issues


as measured by a culture survey, and in terms of organisational performance

measured via the reduction in LTIFR even with increases in production. In contrast,

Organisation B showed the repercussions when adequate attention is not paid to

assisting individuals to make transitions, particularly when time is not given to allow

individuals to understand the reasons for changes being made. The individuals from

Organisation B reported a lack of standard implementation of the new policies and

practices even after some time had elapsed since implementation, and a general

resistance to the changes, often because the reasons for the changes were not clear.

Given these findings, it could be suggested that the more depth of experience,

the more difficult it becomes to unlearn. Newstrom (1983) certainly suggests this is

the case, and that where a totally new behaviour is required to be replaced by

another, then unlearning is a critical element. However, the relationship may not be

this simple. Some of the data reported (both from self-reflection and from

observation of others), indicates that there is a point early in the development of

skills or knowledge where the individual is no longer considered a beginner but is

early in their adoption or application of knowledge where they too become very

resistant to unlearning. As mentioned previously, the Dreyfus model (1982) may

provide a framework to assess this further.

Dreyfus (1982) suggests that there are four mental capacities that constitute

expertise and can distinguish between a novice and an expert. These are component

recognition, salience recognition, whole situation recognition and basis of decision

making. Each of these develop within an individual and differing levels of

development of these capacities have been described as five distinct stages of

expertise development including novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient

and expert. At the level of advanced beginner all mental capacities are in a primitive

state with the exception of component recognition. This may indicate that at the

point when the learner is coming to understand their environment and situational

elements (component recognition) but cannot identify the relative importance of

particular aspects (salience recognition), nor look at the situation from a holistic and

make intuitive decisions, they are very resistant to unlearning. Dreyfus (1982) points

out that at this stage, learners require set guidelines to direct behaviour, and this

resistance may occur due to the need to change certain elements or components

within the workplace with which they have only just become accustomed. A change

often means that guidelines have to be changed; something which may cause concern


to an Advanced Beginner. Based on these findings it can be stated that the level of

experience of an individual will have an impact on their ability to engage in

unlearning.

Frames of reference and unlearning

The third research question for this study was, What is the relationship

between an individual’s frames of reference (influenced by cognitive ability,

cognitive style, learning style and personality) and individual unlearning?

The data collected was also analysed in terms of the impact that individual

frames of reference had on the unlearning process. In operationalising the concept of

frames of reference, it was identified that this term could potentially cover a wide

range of issues such personality, perspectives, and motivators to name but a few. It

was apparent that some individuals were simply more comfortable with change and

unlearning than others; something many of them were able to attribute to individual

personality, often referred to as personal style. The history of the individual, both

personal and professional also appeared to have some influence on unlearning. In

particular, the individual’s motivation for working and their level of commitment to

career and organisation, appeared to play a part in how prepared the interviewees

were to change. Those who were nearing the end of their career did not see the need

to change, particularly when they believed their existing processes had been

sufficient for some time. Those who had built a career as an expert in the previous

system were also less likely to embrace the change, however there were some who,

even though they were widely experienced, had identified the need for change and

therefore were more willing to unlearn. This shows the importance of allowing

particularly experts to come to terms with required changes, the reasons for them and

the benefits to them of relinquishing past practice.

Most respondents made specific reference to individual style or personality as

impacting on an individual’s ability to unlearn. A wide range of terminology was

used however the message was similar: there are certain elements of a person’s make

up that make them less receptive to change and less prepared to unlearn. This issue

was generally raised when asked about the factors that helped or hindered

unlearning. Generally after discussion about other elements both individual and

organisational such as level of expertise or level of management support, many

interviewees indicated some were just less likely to let go of a past behaviour

because “that’s the way they are”.


Based on these findings it can be stated that the personal style of the

individual will have an impact on their ability to engage in unlearning. It is likely

that those scoring high on the sub-scales relating to Cognitive Rigidity and Routine

Seeking on the Resistance to Change Scale may be less open to unlearning than

others. This is considered further during Phase Two.

Inert organisational knowledge and unlearning

The fourth research question was, What is the relationship between inert

organisational knowledge and individual unlearning?

The existence of documentation, policies and procedures, and the effect these

can have on individuals’ unlearning was also mentioned. It did not feature however

as prominently in discussions. Particularly documented policies and procedures were

of concern at Organisation A and Organisation B who reported that when these were

slow to change, it often caused confusion amongst individuals and more resistance to

a change, hence inhibiting unlearning. In contrast, Organisation C had adopted a

very streamlined approach to the development of policies and procedures with the

appointment of a position to maintain quality and training systems. The interviewees

from this organisation noted the contribution this made to assisting in the unlearning

and change process.

The structure of the organisation was discussed in terms of its contribution to

unlearning. Organisations A and B were both parts of much larger organisations,

with the total corporation spread across multiple sites. In contrast, Organisation C is

a single operation located on only two sites in the same district. For the two multi-

site organisations (Organisation A and Organisation B), when organisational

communication does not filter to all sites, or when changes are seen to be made

centrally, there is a level of scepticism about the reasons behind changes. This

means that at times, the individuals used the perceived lack of understanding of

operational issues on behalf of those in the ‘head office’ as a reason for not

relinquishing past behaviours. They were seeking a level of reassurance that the

proposed new methods would in fact be better than the old.

It can therefore be seen that inert knowledge also has the potential to assist or

inhibit unlearning.

Organisational memory/organisational culture and unlearning

The fifth research question was, What is the relationship between

organisational memory and individual unlearning?, and the sixth research question


was what is the relationship between organisational culture and individual

unlearning? These two questions have been analysed simultaneously, as most

individuals discussed these areas simultaneously.

Evidence of organisational memory in the interviews was often raised during

discussions about previous practice, about standards and norms that have emerged

within the organisation and about practices that occur due to organisational history.

Some interviewees were relating this second-hand as they had not been present at a

particular point (may not have even been employed) but were aware of how

situations (policies or practices or even culture) had developed. In fact, just as the

original research design amalgamated the research questions about individual explicit

and tacit knowledge into one question, based on the findings thus far it is evident that

organisational memory and culture can be addressed together. These two concepts

are very difficult to distinguish between when analysing interviewee responses, and

in many of the examples are intertwined. For this reason, the relationship between

organisational memory/culture, and individual unlearning has been considered as one

issue.

The interviews provided a strong link between organisational culture and

unlearning. All three case studies, and a range of interviewees, provide an indication

that certain aspects of an organisation’s culture will either help or hinder the

implementation of change and the relinquishing of past practice or behaviour. In

particular, a key issue identified by many of the interviewees, was the role played in

the unlearning process by peers and management. Where support from these two

groups was present, there was a level of reassurance that the individual would not be

left to make the transition on their own. A key issue raised by all interviewees was

the role of management and the fact that the nature of organisational leadership

provided in times of unlearning is critical to the process. In particular, it was

identified that in the cases where there was the support and presence of mentors who

agreed with the new ways of working, the process of unlearning was much less

traumatic.

It was also clear however that these same people, managers and work

colleagues alike, had the ability to strongly influence unlearning in a negative way.

In some instances, individuals reported not being opposed to the change personally,

but feeling a need to conform when their colleagues or managers showed opposition;

often quoting peer pressure as a strong influence on their behaviour. It may even be


the case that a negative outlook on the change by others may have more of a negative

effect on unlearning than those with a positive outlook. This proposition is further

tested during Phase Two.

Other individual contingent factors

The final research question was, Are there other contingent factors that will

influence individual unlearning?

Demographic and background data was also collected about Phase One

participants and were reported in tables throughout this chapter. Coupled with the

comments about level of expertise and knowledge, is the question about the impact

of length of service on unlearning. A number of interviewees referred to those in the

organisation with longer tenure being less likely to embrace unlearning. Some

individuals also reflected on the fact that those who are more likely to regularly

change employers were also more likely to be prepared to consider change or

relinquishing past practice.

Finally, fitting with this question of level of experience and length of tenure,

is the question of age. It is difficult to distinguish between these three variables as

they are often linked, however a number of employees did refer to age (or even

proximity to retirement) as an influencing factor on unlearning.

Whilst it might be possible to speculate about these demographic factors

based on the data from Phase One, the sample size is too small to make any

generalisations. Data about age, length of time in current position, length of time in

organisation and length of time in similar positions (including other organisations),

along with age, gender and highest training/qualification were collected as part of the

survey questionnaire in Phase Two and can therefore be analysed further using a

larger sample size.

External factors

Although external factors were included in the original conceptual

framework, very few were identified by individuals when discussing their

unlearning. It would seem that their concerns and identification of impacting

variables do not extend to reflecting upon the impact external factors such as industry

development or a changing business world has on their own experiences and ways of

unlearning. This was anticipated, and this finding reinforces the decision not to

include in any detail, the further investigation in this research of factors external to

the organisation and their impact on the unlearning of an individual.


Emerging Themes

The cross case analysis provides a chance to examine and enhance the

previously developed process model as it has evolved through this chapter. Phase

One has also drawn out other issues surrounding unlearning that also require further

consideration and discussion.

First, the nature of the change and the motivation for making the change was

highlighted specifically by a number of the participants. Mandated change and

discontinuous change were reported to provide a better environment for unlearning.

This is not inferring that individuals immediately release past knowledge or

behaviour in these circumstances; often they keep the old and at times justify its use,

but evolution tends to make it more difficult to unlearn. It appears that when a longer

timeline is given for individuals to unlearn, the more likely individuals are to fall

back into previous practice.

Even though it was identified that mandated or discontinuous change assisted

the unlearning process, it was also very clear that unless this change was

accompanied by appropriate strategies and processes, unlearning was likely to prove

difficult. Many of the interviewees discussed organisational infrastructure issues

such as policies and procedures, memos and other organisational documents as

having the potential to either assist or hinder unlearning. In particular, when

organisational documents such as policies and procedures are slow to change in

response to the implementation of changes, some individuals can use this as a

justification for continuing to use past practice or behaviour. In essence, this refers

to the change management strategy adopted by the organisation. Organisation C

gave a good example of a change process that was planned and executed with

specific goals and objectives, and used multiple communication strategies as an

integral part of the process.

Finally, it was clear that the process of unlearning has an emotional element;

with many participants relating to the change using ‘feeling’ and emotive

terminology. This element is often overlooked when considering change strategies.

This serves to reinforce the claim by Mento et al. (2002) that resistance is in fact a

normal emotion and therefore if the emotion of change is understood, then it should

serve to assist the change process.


Chapter Summary and Process Model Revision

The analysis from Phase One provides a solid basis to further develop the process

model which emerged from the Pilot Study. The final process model from Phase

One is shown as Figure 5.8.

Figure 5.8 Revised process model of unlearning

It is now possible to identify some specific enablers and inhibitors of unlearning, and

begin to explain the process encountered by individuals during unlearning. The

central focus of this model is on the individual and the process by which they unlearn

including testing, unease or resistance (either active or passive) and contextual

embracing. Prior to the commencement of this process, there must be an increased

level of awareness in the individual that there exists an “old way” and a “new way”.

This may be facilitated by either internal or external forces, and does not mean that

the individual necessarily agrees with the new way but simply they are aware. In

addition to Awareness, the additional step of Expectations has been added to the

model. It is acknowledged that awareness leads to certain expectations by the

individual which may be based on previous experience, messages from co-workers

or managers, or other formal mechanisms.


The cyclical process of unlearning then commences. The individual will test

the new practice or behaviour in some way and encounter a level of discomfort. This

may take the form of active resistance of the new way, or for those who are

embracing the change, it will be a time of unease as they begin to release their

previous practices or behaviours. Once through this phase, the individual begins to

embrace the new way, albeit in a context of where they believe the new way applies.

Contextual embracing reflects the concept from Klein (1989) that there is a time in

which the individual keeps the past behaviour in parentheses for times with the new

way seems inappropriate. At the end of this cycle, the individual will eventually

relinquish past behaviour. This is the desired process of unlearning. The length of

time it will take an individual to move through this process will depend on a wide

range of individual and organisational factors.

However, it is also acknowledged that during this process, the individual may

slow or come to a standstill depending on a range of factors either individual or

organisational, acting as either enablers or inhibitors. These factors have emerged

from the analysis in this chapter.

A process model has evolved from the research during Phase One showing

specific interplays both within the process of unlearning, and between certain

organisational and individual enablers and inhibitors. The next Phase of the research

aims to test the process model and show the strength of these factors by asking

specific questions related to the elements of the model and the interaction between

them.

Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 178

Chapter 6 Phase Two Results

Chapter Overview

Chapter 5 outlined the data collection, analysis and findings from Phase One

of the study. Emerging from these findings was a process model to be tested during

Phase Two. This chapter provides specific details of Phase Two, the research

participants, data analysis and findings. The chapter structure is outlined in Figure

6.1.



Organisation Overview

The organisation involved in Phase Two is a Government Owned

Corporation operating within the Australian energy industry. The organisation was

formed in the late 1990’s when the industry underwent significant restructuring and

was a result of the amalgamation of six regional organisations. Although operating

predominantly in one state in a regulated market, the organisation also competes at a

national level in a contestable market. The organisation has approximately 5000

employees and revenue of over $2.2 billion per annum.

One of the results of the amalgamation of the previous organisations into one

corporation was the large number of inherited systems, many of which duplicated

information or approached similar tasks in different ways. Each organisation had its

own systems and procedures prior to amalgamation, and given the size of the

corporation, the streamlining of these was a major undertaking. Over two years ago,

a large corporate-wide project was established to engage all parts of the business in

the development and implementation of a system capable of fulfilling the needs of all

users. The aim of the system was to replace the many previous systems and

eliminate the replication and duplication of information and activities.

The systems being replaced covered an extensive range of functions

including budgeting, asset performance and monitoring, cost management, payroll,

materials planning and procurement, works programs and requests, job allocation,

and human resource management. The project involved a large number of

employees in the development and implementation of the system, but impacted on

most positions across the corporation in terms of how their jobs are done on a daily

basis. As the project required employees to let go of old ways and adopt new ways,

and was widespread, this gave a sufficiently large population of individuals for

sampling purposes for the quantitative analysis in Phase Two.

Response Rate and Data Preparation

The survey questionnaire administered for Phase Two (refer to Appendix E)

was sent to the 235 staff involved in the support and implementation of the new

system, in the form of an email invitation to participate which included a hyperlink to

the online survey questionnaire. A total of 189 responses were received, providing

an overall response rate of 80.4%. Once the data was downloaded from the online

survey tool into an Excel file, it was transferred into SPSS. The data was then


reviewed for anomalies and omissions, and a further five respondents were identified

as not having answered more than the demographics in the survey. These were

discarded from the final analysis, leaving a total of 184 total usable responses to be

reported within this analysis.

It was also noted during the cleaning of data, that three respondents did not

complete either the Resistance to Change Scale or the OCAI, and a further nine did

not complete the OCAI. It was anticipated that some respondents would not

persevere to answer these additional instruments, hence the decision was made at

design phase to position them at the end of the survey questionnaire. These

respondents are not included in any analysis relating to either of these instruments,

but are reported in the initial analysis of Sections 1 to 4.

Demographics

Section 1 of the survey questionnaire gathered data about the background of

respondents and is presented in this section to give an overview of the individuals

who responded. In summary, over 60% of respondents were at least degree qualified

(Table 6.1) and fell within the age bracket of 26-45 years of age (Table 6.2). From

Phase One results, the level of training received by an individual was speculated to

have some impact upon their unlearning, so this data was gathered to further

understand the group of respondents. Phase One participants also commented often

about age and its possible impact on unlearning, albeit that at times, they did not

make the distinction between age and level of accumulated experience. It is

therefore of note that almost 50% of respondents were ten years or less from

retirement age, indicating a large number of respondents who might be categorised as

having substantial levels of life experience, if not experience in this particular

organisation or job.


Table 6.1 Training/qualification of respondents Training or qualification Percent (n=184)

Year 10/Junior or below 2.7

Year 12/Senior 3.8

Trade/Cert III/IV 9.8

Diploma 21.2

Undergraduate degree 21.7

Postgraduate qualification 40.8

Total 100.0

Table 6.2 Age group of respondents Age grouping Percent (n=184)

26-45 years 52.2

46-55 years 37.5

56 years or older 10.3

Total 100.0

To further understand levels of experience, the time spent in the organisation,

the position and this type of work was also gathered. Table 6.3 shows the number of

years respondents had spent in the organisation and its predecessor organisations, in

the position and in their type of work respectively. The means indicate that on

average, respondents had over ten years of experience in both the organisation and

their current type of work, however the average for length of time in their current

position is less than three years; something that may reflect the many recent

structural changes within the organisation. The positive skewness result for years in

the position indicates relatively few high values, reflected also in the minimum,

maximum and mean for this variable. The negative results for kurtosis of years in

organisation and years in this type of work indicate a relatively flatter distribution for

these two variables (Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006).


Table 6.3 Years in organisation, position & type of work

Experience in years N Min Max Mean Std

Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Years in organisation 184 1.00 43.00 13.3141 11.49768 .751 -.664

Years in position 183 .20 19.00 2.8913 2.23426 2.990 .180

Years in this type of

work 182 .20 48.00 14.4874 9.72408 .765 -.125

Of note, 80% of respondents were male, meaning that results need to be

analysed with caution when assuming findings apply equally to both genders. In

relation to the level of position held by respondents, over 75% of respondents fell at

Level 3 or below (two levels below direct reports to the CEO); a similar level to

those interviewed in Phase One, and meeting the criteria set for this research to

analyse only middle to operational levels of an organisation.

Background Information

This analysis reports the information from a number of items in the survey

questionnaire relating to awareness of the change and level of experience with the

previous system. Respondents were also asked about their current outlook on the

system and the level of impact on their job. These results provide a background

upon which the process model is being tested.

Table 6.4 shows that the large majority of the respondents (66.8%) had been

aware of the impending change for over 12 months. In relation to the process model

being tested, this result is of importance as it provides a measure of the Awareness

and Expectation stages. A large majority had been aware for over 12 months and

therefore can be expected to have had sufficient time prior to the change to establish

expectations of the new system and the proposed change process.


Table 6.4 Awareness of change occurring Time since learning about impending change Percent (n=184)

Less than 6 months ago 1.1

4-7 months ago 13.6

8-11 months ago 18.5

13-18 months ago 66.8

Total 100.0

Table 6.5 shows that 75% of respondents had been using the previous system

for more than two years. This result also provides a background for testing the

process model of unlearning which provides an initial assessment of how accustomed

respondents were to the previous system.

Table 6.5 Length of time using old way Time using the old way Percent (n=184)

less than 6 months 9.8

6 months - less than 12 mths 4.9

12 mths - less than 2yrs 9.8

2-5 yrs 45.7

More than 5yrs 29.3

Missing .5

Total 100.0

In relation to the outlook on the change and its implementation at the time of

surveying, Table 6.6 shows that the respondents overwhelmingly reported initial

problems, but a belief that this situation would eventually improve and that

ultimately the new way will be an improvement on the old way. This question

provides an indication of where within the unlearning process, respondents saw

themselves, and whether they had at least trialled the new way to sufficiently make a

judgement. This result indicates that in terms of the unlearning cycle within the

process model, the large majority of respondents had at least tested the new way and

moved towards contextual embracing.


Table 6.6 At present the new way is... Current view of the new way Percent (n=184)

Much better than the old way 9.2

Problematic but I think it will be better than the old way 78.3

No better or worse than the old way 7.1

Problematic and is only going to get worse 3.3

Much worse than the old way 1.6

Missing .5

Total 100.0

Respondents were also asked to indicate the extent to which the new way had

been implemented at the point of survey. A majority of respondents saw the change

implementation as being only partially implemented (Table 6.7), with 62%

identifying the midpoint between fully implemented and not implemented. Again in

relation to the process model, this provides a context for final conclusions that the

respondents were still working their way through the unlearning although most saw

themselves as being at least at the midpoint of this process.

Table 6.7 How advanced is the organisation in the implementation of the new way? Assessment of implementation Percent (n=184)

Fully implemented .5

2 14.1

3 62.0

4 21.7

Not implemented 1.1

Missing .5

Total 100.0

In terms of the perceived difference to their job since implementation of the

new system, Table 6.8 shows over 20% of respondents reported major difference in

their job. However, the largest group rates the midpoint, indicating that the change

to individual jobs was not large even though the change of system was considered a

significant shift for the organisation on the whole.


Table 6.8 The level of change to your job since the implementation Level of change to job Percent (n=184)

Very different 1.6

2 20.7

3 41.3

4 26.1

No difference 9.8

Missing .5

Total 100.0

Resistance to Change Scale Results

The Resistance to Change Scale (Oreg, 2003) was completed by 181

respondents. The instrument was scored and the results are shown in Table 6.9. As

explained in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5, this instrument is “designed to tap an

individual’s tendency to resist or avoid making changes, to devalue change generally,

and to find change aversive across diverse contexts and types of change” (Oreg,

2003, p. 680). The Scale comprised four subscales relating to the level of routine

seeking behaviour, the emotional reaction, the extent of focus on short term and the

level of cognitive rigidity. Table 6.9 shows the amalgamated results for these four

subscales as well as an overall result gained by calculating the mean of these

subscales. Each scale and the overall result can range between 0 and 6; 0 indicating

the least level of resistance to change. This measure (and the sub-scales where

appropriate) will be used within future analysis as an indicator of unlearning; the

dependent variable within this study.

The results indicate that respondents on average rated highest on the

cognitive rigidity sub-scale in terms of the mean result, and this sub-scale also had

the highest minimum rating and the highest maximum rating. This sub-scale refers

to the ease and frequency with which respondents change their mind (Oreg, 2003).

The lower result particularly for Short-Term Focus provides reassurance that most of

the individuals surveyed are prepared to deal with shorter term change issues if they

can envisage longer term benefits (backed up by previously discussed responses).


These results give a very broad understanding of the respondents, however

they are most useful when considered in conjunction with the results from the

Organisational and Individual Unlearning Inventory. This level of analysis is

outlined in future sections of this chapter.

Table 6.9 Resistance to Change Scale results Sub-scale N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation

Routine Seeking 181 1.00 4.40 2.1856 .59816

Emotional Reaction 181 1.00 5.00 2.4116 .83943

Short term focus 181 .75 3.75 2.0138 .65602

Cognitive rigidity 181 1.75 5.75 3.5428 .80097

RTC overall 181 1.35 4.01 2.5397 .49873

OCAI Results

Unlike the Resistance to Change Scale results which are useful when

considered at the individual level in conjunction with other results, the OCAI results

(Cameron & Quinn, 1999) are most useful when aggregated to obtain an assessment

of the organisational culture by all respondents.

This instrument was completed by 172 respondents and the results are shown

in Table 6.10. The OCAI categorises the individual’s perceptions of the organisation

culture on a matrix relating to organisational process (from organic to mechanistic)

and organisational focus (from internal to external). It is therefore proposed that

cultures can be determined to fall into one of four broad categories: hierarchy

(mechanistic processes, internal focus), market (mechanistic processes, external

focus), adhocracy (organic processes, external focus), and clan (organic processes,

internal focus).

As the results show, the large majority saw this organisation as a hierarchy

with mechanistic processes and an internal focus. The next largest group saw the

organisation operating as a clan, still with an internal focus, but having processes that

were more organic in nature. With over 5000 staff and a history of government

ownership, it is not surprising that the large majority saw the culture as internally

focussed whether it be a hierarchy or a clan.


Table 6.10 OCAI results Percent (n=184)

Hierarchy 57.1

Clan 22.8

Market 10.9

Adhocracy 2.7

Missing 6.5

Total 100.0

From this result, the question could be raised as to whether those who rated

the culture differently had any distinguishing characteristics. Two obvious questions

are whether those who had been in the organisation for a longer period of time were

more likely to perceive the culture differently, and whether those who held different

positions had a different viewpoint on culture as indicated by Schein (1996). To

further analyse these results and address these questions, crosstabulations of the

OCAI results were conducted against the length of time respondents had spent in the

organisation and the level of position (refer to Table 6.11 and Table 6.12).

Table 6.11 Crosstabulation of OCAI results and years in organisation

Years in organisation Competing Values Result 2 years or less more than

2yrs - 5 yrs

more than 5yrs - 10

years

more than 10 years

Total

Clan 8 11 4 19 42

Adhocracy 1 2 1 1 5

Market 2 5 5 8 20

Hierarchy 11 28 16 50 105

Missing 3 4 3 2 12

Total 25 50 29 80 184


Table 6.12 Crosstabulation of OCAI results and position

Position level Missing Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy Total

Level 1 Executive General Manager (EGM)

0 2 0 0 2 4

Level 2 Direct report to EGM 3 11 2 7 14 37

Level 3 Report to direct report to EGM 2 15 2 5 48 72

Level 4 2 12 1 4 28 47

Other positions 5 2 0 4 11 22

Total 12 42 5 20 103 182

The results of these crosstabs do not indicate any major differences in the

rating of the organisational culture in terms of the level of position or length of

service of respondents. It can be assumed therefore that the difference in rating of

the organisational culture was more specific to the individual, and potentially factors

other than position or length of tenure.

Principal Components Analysis

As explained in Chapter 4, a principal component analysis (PCA) was

conducted, using the scale data collected in the Organisational and Individual

Unlearning Inventory (OIUI) which was Sections 2-4 of the survey questionnaire

developed as a result of Phase One. A PCA is a form of factor analysis that

“transforms all the variables into a set of composite variables that are not correlated

to one another” (Sekaran, 2003, p. 408). In this survey, PCA was used on the items

included in the OIUI, excluding the items with nominal responses which were

reported earlier in this chapter. This analysis was conducted to identify the key

factors emerging from the data and following are the outcomes.

Testing for Factorability

The first stage in factor analysis is to test for factorability. The Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, and Bartlett’s Test of

Sphericity are two such tests. The results of these tests are shown in Table 6.13.

KMO ranges between 0 and 1, and a result above .7, as is the case with this study, is

considered acceptable (Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006). This indicates that there is a


reasonable level of intercorrelations between the variables, making them appropriate

for factor analysis. Bartlett’s Test is also high indicating that there is correlation

between at least some of the items on the correlation matrix, reinforcing that the

items within the survey are acceptable for factor analysis.

Table 6.13 KMO and Bartlett's Test results

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy .706

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2592.964

Df 903

Sig. .000

Factor Retention

Factor analysis was conducted to reduce the number of items in the OIUI into

a smaller group of separate factors (Conway & Huffcutt, 2003). Using principal

components analysis with direct oblimin rotation, thirteen factors resulted with

Eigenvalues greater than 1. On review of these factors, some were quite minor,

reinforcing the claim by Hayton, Allen and Scarpello (2004) that the number of

factors emerging from this test should be considered the uppermost boundary, but not

necessarily the final number of major factors.

A Scree test was also conducted to show a graphical representation of the

Eigenvalues of each of the factors extracted. The result is shown in Figure 6.2.

When viewing the scree plot, the researcher is looking for obvious discontinuities or

breaks in the factors in order to determine the number of final factors (Hayton et al.,

2004). In the scree test for this research, three major factors can be identified. After

this point, it is more difficult to determine a definite break however a minor drop can

be seen between Factors 9 & 10.


43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

987654321

Component Number

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Eige

nval

ue

Figure 6.2. Scree plot Given the results of the Eigenvalues and Scree plot, a number of factor

analyses were then conducted (using principal components, direct oblimin rotation

and specifying the number of factors to be used) with eight factors showing the

cleanest loading of most items on a single factor. One item was removed prior to the

final PCA, and this was Item 27 (“During the change: I found myself using trial and

error when starting to use the new way”). This item consistently returned no clear

loading on any factor, and review of the wording indicates that perhaps use of the

term trial and error may not have represented the intended measure of the testing

stage of the cycle of unlearning. This statement may have been interpreted as a

negative reflection on the individual, hence creating some level of social desirability

and ambiguity in results. The PCA conducted for eight factors without this item

showed the most statistically rigorous and plausible results and it was therefore

determined to continue the analysis using these eight factors. The details of these

eight factors are provided below.

Emerging Factors

The following sections provide the outcomes of the PCA conducted to extract

eight factors. The loadings are shown in Table 6.14. It is recommended that all

items loading onto only one factor of 0.3 or greater can be considered to be

unidimensional (Coakes et al., 2006). Those that load on more than one factor are


considered to be multidimensional and if used with further analysis, have the

potential to be problematic when interpreting results (Singh & Smith, 2000). Any

items which fell into this category were identified and given further consideration

prior to inclusion in any analysis. The rationale for specific retention or exclusion is

explained further during the discussion of factors.

Table 6.14 Factor loadings from PCA

Component

Item No. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10. .496 .084 .162 .033 -.059 .185 -.180 -.068

11. -.293 .172 .275 -.052 -.219 .122 .251 .492

12. -.087 -.091 -.023 .001 .011 -.062 .566 .207

13. -.333 .093 .048 -.158 -.151 -.020 .149 .544

14. -.431 -.026 -.062 .089 .332 -.037 .480 -.038

15. .292 -.190 .205 .045 .111 -.004 .507 -.070

16. -.049 -.107 .062 .390 -.354 .476 -.148 -.130

17. -.014 -.001 -.008 .126 -.041 .037 .808 -.062

18. -.107 .162 -.186 -.256 .117 .848 .160 .011

19. .151 .002 .018 .064 -.033 .768 -.082 .084

20. .452 -.046 .036 .102 .108 .607 .025 .036

21. -.025 .151 .056 .272 -.626 -.076 .159 -.063

22. .195 .128 .332 .263 -.057 .246 -.165 -.234

23. .291 .231 .195 .232 .089 .165 -.065 .144

24. -.158 .122 .200 -.148 -.207 -.091 .409 .037

25. .132 -.031 .270 .140 .247 .103 .067 .428

26. .169 .194 -.148 -.477 .134 -.248 .066 .219

28. .015 .207 .143 -.127 -.068 .044 .366 -.584

29. .049 .245 .046 .604 -.088 -.057 .069 .065

30. -.114 .207 -.236 .672 .284 -.017 -.090 .103

31. -.016 -.078 -.109 .760 -.197 .035 .091 -.050

32. .090 -.145 -.069 .256 -.070 -.066 .054 .219

33. -.216 .157 .138 -.230 -.165 -.076 .385 .040

34. .178 .172 .378 .462 -.067 -.094 -.304 -.138

35. .074 .149 -.050 .654 .273 .047 .010 .114

36. -.038 -.046 .160 .106 .760 .023 .083 -.071

37. .170 .485 .200 .135 -.008 -.155 .135 -.094

38b. .032 .739 -.175 .069 .005 .142 .157 -.059

38c. .018 .734 -.192 .139 -.109 .036 -.005 -.051


Component

Item No. * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

38d. .084 .710 -.182 -.185 -.080 .068 .080 -.053

39b. -.033 .793 .091 .109 -.005 -.091 -.107 .026

39c. -.076 .793 .103 .029 -.032 -.029 -.206 -.078

39d. -.072 .757 .138 -.035 .034 .053 .026 -.025

39e. -.053 .821 .024 .066 -.007 .085 -.109 -.022

43. .110 .653 -.134 -.075 -.020 .029 -.022 .262

44. .740 -.070 .090 -.059 .049 .120 -.024 -.033

45. -.709 -.129 .248 .022 -.103 .039 -.106 .159

46. .147 .038 .676 .004 -.009 -.043 .143 -.046

47. -.661 -.105 .090 .017 .336 -.091 .164 -.193

48. -.006 -.072 .672 -.184 .010 -.127 .124 .139

49. -.132 -.372 .594 -.041 .011 .062 .049 -.037

50. -.311 .120 .540 -.075 .303 .037 -.041 .016* For full item statements, refer to Appendix E

Reliability Results

Internal reliability. The factors that emerged were tested for internal

reliability using Cronbach’s alpha which indicates the average inter-item correlation

within each of the factors. Those factors resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.6 or

greater are generally considered to be reliable and therefore useful for further

analysis as part of a specific variable (Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006). The Cronbach’s alpha

results are shown in Table 6.15. It is acknowledged that the final factor falls below

the recommended level of 0.6 however due to the relative closeness to this cut-off, it

was retained as a factor.


Table 6.15 Cronbach's Alpha Results Factor Items* Cronbach’s Alpha

1. Understanding the need for change 10,44,45,47 .721

2. Organisational support and training 38b,38c,38d,39b,39c,39d,39e,43 .911

3. Assessment of new way 46,48,49,50 .668

4. Positive experience and informal support 26,29,30,31,35 .665

5. History of organisational change 21,36 .628

6. Positive prior outlook 18,19,20 .736

7. Feelings and expectations 12,15,17,24,33 .624

8. Individual Inertia 11,13 .591 For full item statements, refer to Appendix E

Test-Retest Reliability. As explained in Chapter 4, the items that were

developed for the OIUI (Organisational and Individual Unlearning Inventory) as a

result of Phase One, were subject to a pilot test to assess the test-retest reliability of

the instrument. Once the factors from the full survey were identified, these were

tested in the pilot surveys, which had been completed twice by respondents at least a

week apart.

Table 6.16 shows the correlations for each factor between Time 1 and Time

2, that is, the first time and the second time the respondent completed the survey.

This is based on a sample survey of 30 respondents. The analysis shows correlations

on all factors, with Factor 4 returning the weakest correlation. Overall however,

these results suggest that the OIUI has an acceptable level of test-retest reliability.

Table 6.16 Test-Retest correlations for pilot surveys

Pearson Correlation .647(**)Factor1 Understanding the need for change

Sig. (2-tailed) .000Pearson Correlation .817(**)Factor2

Organisational support & training


Assessment of new way Sig. (2-tailed) .000Pearson Correlation .473(**)Factor4

Positive experience & informal support


History of organisational change


Positive prior outlook Sig. (2-tailed) .000


Pearson Correlation .827(**)Factor7 Feelings & expectations Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Pearson Correlation .536(**)Factor8 Individual inertia Sig. (2-tailed) .002

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Factor 1. Understanding the need for change

The following statements were included in this factor:

• Prior to the change I understood why we needed to change from the old

way

• My views today: I understand why the organisation decided to use this

new way

• My views today: I think the old way was better than the new way (loads

negatively)

• My views today: I am worried about whether the organisation has made

the right decision (loads negatively)

It is important to note some items loaded negatively on this factor due to

negative wording. Bearing in mind the negative loadings, this factor is heavily

related to an individual’s understanding of the need for change, and overall is

positive in nature. This factor contains statements relating to cognition in relation to

the change, understanding reasons for the change, not only prior to the change, but

most importantly after the change is at least partially implemented. Even though this

is an individual’s understanding, this factor can be expected to be heavily impacted

upon by organisational issues, particularly the organisational approach to change,

and the time devoted to engaging individuals in the change process.

The Cronbach's Alpha result of .721 is above the recommended level (Hair

(Jnr) et al., 2006) and these items were therefore retained as a factor. In subsequent

analysis, this factor is referred to as the Understanding the need for change factor, as

it is related closely to the individual’s understanding of why the organisation has

made the decision to change.


Factor 2. Organisational support and training


• The written information was: useful and relevant

• The written information was: able to be readily applied to my job

• The written information was: distributed in time to help me to learn the

new way

• The training/information sessions: were useful and relevant

• The training/information sessions: gave real-life examples to help me

understand the new way

• The training/information sessions: gave me a chance to practice using the

new way

• The training/information sessions: gave information that could be readily

applied when I got back to work

• My views today: The speed of implementation between planning and then

implementing the new way made it easier to change to the new way

This group emerged as a strong factor, with all items consistently loading

only on this factor and a high Cronbach's Alpha, resulting in its retention as the

second factor in these results. This factor can be seen to relate particularly to the

support provided to the individual via training sessions, information sessions and

documentation. One statement appears to be slightly removed from the other items

and that is the final item relating to speed of change. This may be reflective of the

individual’s perception of the speed with which support such as training and

documentation was implemented. For future analysis, this factor is referred to as the

Organisational support and training factor.

Factor 3. Assessment of new way


• My views today: I am still getting used to the new way

• My views today: Getting used to the new way has been difficult for me

• My views today: The new way is more difficult than the old way

• My views today: At times, I still compare the old way and the new way

The items within this factor came from Section 4 of the OIUI, measuring

respondents’ views of the new way at the point at which they completed the survey

questionnaire. This factor requires a level of assessment between the old and the


new way, and implies a level of reluctance or difficulty in relinquishing past practice.

The Cronbach's Alpha result of .668 is above the recommended level (Hair (Jnr) et

al., 2006) and these items were therefore retained as a factor. In future discussions

and analysis, this factor is referred to as the Old way/New way factor.

Factor 4. Positive experience and informal support


• During the change: My work colleagues were opposed to the new way

(loads negatively)

• During the change: I had the support of my manager/supervisor during the

change

• During the change: My level of experience in my job made it easier for

me to make the change

• During the change: I had the support of my colleagues during the change

• During the change: My level of experience in the organisation made it

easier for me to make the change

Noting that the first item listed is negatively worded, but also loaded

negatively, this factor relates to the level of support provided during the change and

the role of the individual’s experience at this stage. This factor again has quite a

positive focus. It should also be noted that all the items in this factor came from

Section 3 of the survey questionnaire, relating to experiences of unlearning during

the change. The Cronbach's Alpha result of .665 is above the recommended level

(Hair (Jnr) et al., 2006) and these items were therefore retained as a factor referred to

as the Positive experience and informal support factor. The term informal support is

used to differentiate this factor from Factor 2, Organisational support and training.

Factor 2 relates to formal organisational measures to support change. This factor

relates however to a more personal level of support, often occurring informally

between colleagues or between individuals and their manager or supervisor.

Factor 5. History of organisational change


• Prior to the change changes in the organisation in the past had been well

handled (loads negatively)

• During the change: My experience with previous changes in this company

made me more concerned about this change


The two items in this factor are closely related to the history of change within

the organisation. The first item listed loaded negatively on this factor indicating that

individuals had reservations about this particular change due to past experience. In

relation to the process model, this history can clearly be categorised as an

organisational factor that impacts upon unlearning. The Cronbach's Alpha of .628 is

above the acceptable level for further use and is referred to as the History of

organisational change factor in future analysis.

Factor 6. Positive prior outlook


• Prior to the change I thought I would be well prepared for the new way by

the time it was introduced

• Prior to the change I had a positive overall view of the new way

• Prior to the change: I understood why the new way was needed

The items in this factor came from Section 2 and reflect the individual’s

outlook prior to the change. Again, all the items were positive in relation to the view

of the impending change, hence this factor is referred to in future analysis as the

Positive prior outlook factor. In relation to the process model for this research, this

factor appears to link closely to the Awareness and Expectations stages of the

unlearning process, occurring prior to the cycle of unlearning. The Cronbach's Alpha

of .736 is above the acceptable level for further use in analysis.

Factor 7. Feelings and expectations


• Prior to the change I thought the new way sounded more difficult than the

old way

• Prior to the change I expected the change to be difficult to make

• Prior to the change I felt apprehensive about the new way

• During the change: My level of experience with the previous way made it

difficult for me to make the change

• During the change: My level of comfort with the previous way made it

difficult for me to make the change

Reviewing the items in this factor, it can be seen that many contain emotive

words such as apprehensive and comfort that reflect an element of feeling, both prior

to and during the change. This factor is referred to in future analysis as the Feelings


and expectations factor, and is clearly an individual factor in terms of the process

model of unleaning. The Cronbach's Alpha of .624 is above the acceptable level for

further use in analysis.

Factor 8. Individual inertia


• Prior to the change I was comfortable with the old way of doing things

• Prior to the change I thought the old way was quite acceptable and didn't

need to change

The final factor emerged as two items from Section 2, relating to attachment

to the old way prior to the implementation of changes. These items reflect a level of

comfort in the old way, and infer a level of inertia within the individual towards the

impending change and hence are named the Individual inertia factor. It is noted that

the Cronbach's Alpha of .591 is not above the recommended level of 0.6 however

given its proximity, these items were retained as a factor.

Principal Components Analysis Summary

The results of the PCA provide clarity to the previously developed process

model of unlearning. Specific individual and organisational factors have been able to

be identified as impacting upon particular stages of the unlearning process allowing

for updating of the model as shown in Figure 6.3. Initially, the factors can be

grouped into either organisational or individual depending on the focus of the

statements included. Factors 2 and 5 relate to issues external to the individual, the

level of organisational support and training, and the history of organisational change.

Neither of these factors relates specifically to the individual involved in change, but

refers to factors external to the individual which may be at least influenced by wider

organisational approaches.

Factors 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were related more closely to the individual.

Understanding the need for change, assessing the new way, positive experience and

informal support, positive prior outlook, feelings and expectations, and individual

inertia, are related to the outlook, perspective and experience of the individual

undergoing change, and are therefore considered to be individual rather than

organisational factors. It should not be assumed, however, that processes at an

organisational level do not impact upon these factors. On the contrary, many

organisational actions will have direct impact upon the level to which an individual

understands the need for change, or the outlook of the individual prior to the change.


Once the factors were classified as being either individual or organisational,

these factors were then analysed further to identify which part of the unlearning

process as shown in the process model, they impacted most. Figure 6.3 shows the

proposed areas of impact of the eight unlearning factors. The statements emerging in

the Positive Prior Outlook factor related to issues of awareness of the change, and

also lead to particular expectations being formed. This factor was therefore

anticipated to have most impact at the beginning of the unlearning process.

The statements in the Individual Inertia factor related to the level of comfort

with the old way, and the lack of recognition of the need for change. This factor

therefore has the potential to impact both expectations and the unlearning process.

Feelings and expectations were strongly linked to the Expectation phase of the

process, as well as the experiences during the unlearning process. The Positive

Experience and Informal Support factor related directly to the support encountered

by individuals once in the unlearning cycle of testing, unease and contextual

embracing. Finally, the Understanding Need for Change and Assessment of the New

Way were all linked to views once the change was implemented and were therefore

linked to the level of ability and willingness for individuals to relinquish previous

ways of working.

In relation to the Organisational Factors, the History of Organisational

Change factor leads to particular expectations prior to the change occurring, and also

impacted during the unlearning process, and was therefore identified as impacting

expectations and the unlearning cycle. Finally, the Organisational Support and

Training factor emerged as a very strong factor relating to the level of assistance

provided by the organisation during the change, with the potential to assist

individuals to unlearn.


TEST

ING

Figure 6.3. Unlearning process model after PCA

The factors emerging from this analysis provide some quite specific areas that have

the potential to enable or inhibit unlearning. Of the eight factors identified, six relate

to the individual, and two relate to the organisational level. The potential

relationships between the unlearning factors and the unlearning process have been

proposed in Figure 6.3. However it is emphasised that these relationships represent

the outcomes of an exploratory factor analysis and have been inferred from the

previous analysis. It is important that this model undergo further analysis before

these relationships are confirmed. Data from a larger and more diverse sample

would be necessary, along with use of analysis techniques such as structural equation

modeling to confirm the relationships proposed.


Correlation of Resistance to Change Scale and Unlearning Factors

Once the factors emerging from the PCA were finalised, a correlation

analysis was conducted to identify whether a relationship existed between the results

of the Resistance to Change Scale and the unlearning factors. Table 6.17 shows the

results of this correlation analysis.

Table 6.17 Correlation of Resistance to Change and Unlearning Factors (n=181)

Routine Seeking

Emotional Reaction

Short term focus

Cognitive rigidity

RTC overall

Pearson Correlation -.247(**) -.195(**) -.281(**) -.025 -.259(**)Factor1

Understanding the need for change

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .008 .000 .736 .000

Pearson Correlation -.142 -.037 .015 .088 -.017Factor2

Organisational support & training

Sig. (2-tailed) .056 .623 .839 .240 .817

Pearson Correlation .069 .226(**) .184(*) .079 .209(**)Factor3

Assessment of new way Sig. (2-tailed) .354 .002 .013 .288 .005

Pearson Correlation -.205(**) -.191(**) -.164(*) -.061 -.219(**)Factor4

Positive experience & informal support

Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .010 .028 .416 .003

Pearson Correlation .104 .143 .004 .097 .132Factor5

History of organisational change

Sig. (2-tailed) .163 .055 .952 .193 .077

Pearson Correlation -.090 -.084 -.249(**) .029 -.132Factor6

Positive prior outlook Sig. (2-tailed) .226 .259 .001 .701 .075

Pearson Correlation .178(*) .368(**) .322(**) -.068 .287(**)Factor7

Feelings & expectations Sig. (2-tailed) .017 .000 .000 .365 .000

Pearson Correlation .149(*) .164(*) .162(*) .015 .173(*)Factor8

Individual inertia Sig. (2-tailed) .046 .027 .029 .839 .020

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The correlation was conducted on each of the sub-scales in the Resistance to

Change Scale as well as the overall result. The results highlight a number of

important issues. Firstly, it can be seen that neither Factor 2 nor Factor 5 correlated

with any of the scales in the Resistance to Change Scale instrument. This could be

expected given that Factors 2 and 5 were previously identified as organisational

factors not anticipated to be impacted by an individual’s personal traits.


The second finding from the correlation analysis relates to the Cognitive

Rigidity sub-scale in the Resistance to Change Scale. This sub-scale is not correlated

with any of the factors emerging from the PCA. This scale measures the extent to

which an individual is dogmatic or close-minded in relation to change (Oreg, 2003),

indicating that this is less likely to impact upon the unlearning factors than the results

in the other three scales. This is a noteworthy finding as it was previously indicated

(refer Table 6.9) that the average result on this sub-scale was highest of all the

subscales in this study. This lack of correlation supports the result of another study

by Oreg (2003) that found that the subscale of Cognitive Rigidity was the only

subscale not significant when conducting regression analysis of respondents’

reactions to a workplace change, against the Resistance to Change results.

The findings from this correlation analysis reinforce the previous division of

unlearning factors into individual and organisational categories. Five of the six

individual unlearning factors (Factors 1,3,4,7 and 8), correlated with the overall

Resistance to Change Scale. As the Scale is a measure of an individual’s personal

style, it could be anticipated that the individual unlearning factors will vary with

differences in the Resistance to Change Scale.

The only individual unlearning factor not to correlate with the Resistance to

Change Scale overall was Factor 6, Positive prior outlook. Unlike the other factors, it

did not correlate with the Routine Seeking subscale nor the Emotional Reaction

subscale. A negative correlation occurred between this factor and the Short Term

Focus subscale. This finding appears to match with the previously discussed results

relating to an individual’s outlook on the changes and shows that those who are less

likely to have a short term focus, are more likely to have a positive prior outlook.

Multiple Regression Analysis

A multiple regression analysis was used as the final stage of analysis of Phase

Two results, to explain the impact of a number of variables emerging from earlier

analysis of this phase on the level of resistance to change which is an issue critical to

unlearning. As the process model emerging from the analysis thus far has identified

eight factors relating to unlearning, these were treated as independent variables for

the purposes of regression. In addition to these variables, the result from the OCAI,

and the length of time the individual has spent in the position, organisation and type

of work were also considered independent variables. These were considered to be a

measure of experience, and as experience was an important element of the


conceptual framework for this study, it was also considered for the purposes of

regression.

The Resistance to Change Scale (RTC) result was considered to be the

dependent variable representing a de facto measure of unlearning and the level of

resistance an individual may have towards unlearning. Analysis was conducted on

the overall RTC Scale result, and separately on each of the subscales within the

Scale. Stepwise regression was used for this analysis and the results are outlined

below.

Regression of RTC Subscales

Regression analysis was firstly conducted on the Routine Seeking subscale.

Factor 1 Understanding the need for change, was the first explanatory variable for

this subscale (β= -.226), with the Competing Values result second (β=.188) and

Factor 4 Positive experience and informal support, third (β= -.158). The first beta

value indicates that there is an inverse relationship between Understanding the need

for change and Routine Seeking; the lower an individual’s need for routine, the

higher their level of understanding of the need for change is likely to be. The

coefficient of determination for this model (adjusted R2) was 0.102 (F=7.712, p<.05),

indicating that these three independent variables (Factor 1, 4 and OCAI result)

explained over 10% of the differences in Routine Seeking results.

In relation to the Emotional Reaction subscale, Factor 7, Feelings and

Expectations, was the first explanatory variable (β=.398), followed by the Competing

Values result (β=.148). The coefficient of determination for this model (adjusted R2)

was 0.157 (F=17.525, p<.05), indicating that these two independent variables

explained almost 16% of the differences in the Emotional Reaction results. Given

the nature of this subscale, it is to be expected that those reporting stronger feelings

about the changes and about their perceptions of the organisational culture, are also

more likely to have a higher result on the Emotional Reaction subscale.

Short-term Focus was the next subscale analysed. Factor 7 Feelings and

expectations, was the first explanatory variable for this subscale (β=.262), and Factor

1 Understanding the need for change (β= -.175) was the second. Similar to the

finding for the Routine Seeking sub-scale, the beta value for Factor 1 indicates that

there is a negative relationship between Understanding and Short-term Focus. Thus

the more focussed an individual is on the short term, the lower their level of


understanding of the need for change is likely to be. The coefficient of determination

for this model (adjusted R2) was 0.123 (F=13.390, p<.05), indicating that these two

independent variables (Factors 7 and 1) explained over 12% of the differences in the

Short-term Focus results.

The final subscale in the Resistance to Change instrument, Cognitive

Rigidity, did not yield any significant results when a stepwise multiple regression

analysis was conducted. This result could be anticipated following the lack of

correlation between this subscale and any of the unlearning factors (as explained in a

previous section of this chapter).

The results outlined above have been summarised graphically and are shown

as Figure 6.4. The relationships identified by the regression analysis are identified in

this diagram. As the overall Resistance to Change Scale is an amalgamation of the

four subscales, it is anticipated that only factors having strong explanatory value for

one or more of the subscales, will have explanatory value for the Resistance to

Change Scale overall.

Figure 6.4. Regression analysis findings

Regression of RTC Overall

When a multiple regression analysis was conducted on the overall Resistance

to Change Scale result, the coefficient of determination (adjusted R2) was .086

(F=9.242, p<.05). Results indicated that of all the independent variables considered

(the eight unlearning factors, the OCAI and the length of time the individual has

spent in the position, organisation and type of work), only Factor 7, Feelings and

expectations, was of significance (β=.302). Based on the coefficient of


determination, Factor 7 on its own explained over 8% of the variance in the overall

Resistance to Change result.

Chapter Summary and Conclusions

This chapter provided the findings and analysis of the quantitative phase of

the study. A survey questionnaire administered to 184 respondents in an

organisation undergoing major change allowed for further analysis of the unlearning

process and identification of factors that may act as enablers or inhibitors of this

process. This phase allowed for testing of the process model resulting from Phase

One.

The process model suggested the existence of individual factors and

organisational factors that may impact upon the unlearning process. Factor analysis

identified six individual factors and these were understanding the need for change,

assessment of new way, positive experience and informal support, positive prior

outlook, feelings and expectations, and individual inertia, as impacting on

unlearning. Organisational support and training, and the history of organisational

change emerged as the two organisational factors impacting unlearning. Initial

indications can also be given as to the specific part of the unlearning process these

factors may impact however further confirmatory analysis is required.

Correlation analysis confirmed that the individual factors identified from the

factor analysis were correlated with most of the subscales on the Resistance to

Change Scale, indicating the link between an individual’s personal style and their

approach to unlearning. The regression analysis then allowed for a more detailed

exploration of the unlearning factors and the extent to which they explained

differences in the Resistance to Change Scale subscales and overall result. The key

finding from this analysis highlighted the importance of the factor relating to

Feelings and Expectations. This was the only factor that had significant explanatory

power in relation to the Resistance to Change Scale.

The next chapter provides a synthesis of the results from Phases One and

Two and reviews the findings in light of the conceptual framework for the study, and

the literature and previous research upon which this study was based. The final

process model is discussed to identify the contributions to theory and practice made

by this research. Finally, the limitations of the study and areas for further research

are highlighted.

Chapter 7. Conclusion 206

Chapter 7 Conclusion

Chapter Overview

The previous chapter presented the findings from Phase Two which was the

quantitative phase of this mixed methods study. This chapter draws together the

results from both phases, and refers to the literature and the research questions to

address the key focus of the study. The final process model is discussed in term of

its fit with the conceptual framework developed prior to the research. Finally,

contributions made by this study to both theory and practice are highlighted. The

thesis concludes by identifying the limitations of this study and proposing areas for

future research. The chapter structure is outlined in Figure 7.1.

Contribution to Theory

Contribution to Practice

Thesis Summary

Contributions

Research Questions Key Literature

Research Limitations

Conceptual Framework

Unlearning Process Model

Directions for Future

Research

Conclusion

Findings



Review of Conceptual Framework and Process Model

Based on the literature review which evolved though Chapters 2 and 3, a

conceptual framework was built to guide the research. As Phase One progressed, a

process model of unlearning emerged which delved further into the individual

unlearning section of the conceptual framework. Figure 7.2 shows the final process

model with the unlearning factors identified during Phase Two. It also indicates how

this model emerged from the Individual Unlearning element of the conceptual

framework and drew on the three levels of potential influencing factors to assist in

framing the individual and organisational factors in the final process model.

INDIVIDUALUNLEARNING

ORGANISATIONALUNLEARNING

INDIVIDUALLEARNING

ORGANISATIONALLEARNING

External Environment

Explicit Knowledge

Tacit Knowledge

Frames ofReference

IndividualContextual Factors

Inert Knowledge

OrganisationalMemory

OrganisationalCulture

OrganisationalContextual Factors

Figure 7.2. Emergence of the Unlearning Process Model from the Conceptual Framework


Discussion of Findings

The key findings from the research are best examined by returning to the

purpose and questions underpinning the research. The overall purpose of the

research was to determine how individuals unlearn in the workplace, and the nature

and extent of the factors that influence an individual’s capacity for unlearning within

the workplace. Based upon this broader overall purpose and the conceptual

framework developed in Chapter 3, the key questions for the research were identified

as follows and findings for each are discussed in turn.

1. What is the relationship between individual explicit knowledge and individual

unlearning?


unlearning?

3. What is the relationship between an individual’s frames of reference (influenced

by cognitive ability, cognitive style, learning style and personality) and


4. What is the relationship between inert organisational knowledge and individual

unlearning?


unlearning?


unlearning?


unlearning?

How Individuals Unlearn in the Workplace

How individuals unlearn during times of change in the workplace was

explored during Phase One, with the development of the previously discussed

process model. Those interviewed showed a process of awareness of the change

which lead to particular expectations. These then fed into the unlearning cycle which

was observed to be an ongoing process of unease, testing and then embracing, albeit

in contexts where the individuals believed the new way applied. This finding

provides some indication that the parenthetic model suggested by Klein (1989) is a

valid interpretation of the process of unlearning. This cycle also demonstrates that

the adult learning principle of learning by experimenting (Delahaye & Smith, 1998)


as discussed in Chapter 2 is applicable to unlearning in that learners attempt to

implement knowledge, embrace and feel unease, all within a cycle of learning and

unlearning. It also reinforces the suggestion by Starbuck (1996) that those required

to change and unlearn should be allowed to view the new way as an experiment for

the purposes of encouraging at least initial testing by individuals.

At some point in this ongoing cycle, individuals will eventually relinquish the

past practice or behaviour if unlearning is successful. However, this relies to a great

extent on enablers and inhibitors that have been identified during this study and these

are discussed in more detail in answer to subsequent research questions.

Based on the findings of this research, the Hedberg (1981) model of

unlearning as overwriting, appears to be a somewhat oversimplified model for the

purposes of understanding how unlearning occurs. Learning a new practice or

behaviour requires the individual to test new ways, and to be given time to relinquish

past practice. Suggesting that one practice or behaviour will simply replace the other

without a dynamic and iterative process does not provide a useful lens through which

to view unlearning.

The Relationship between Explicit Knowledge, Tacit Knowledge and Individual

Unlearning

The research revealed a number of issues in relation to an individual’s

knowledge and the unlearning process. Particularly during Phase One, it became

clear that those who had amassed a great deal of knowledge, were more likely to

struggle to unlearn than those who were less developed in their level of knowledge.

Across all cases there was evidence of a strong link between the inability to let go of

past behaviours and the level of expertise and knowledge of the individual. Those

who had gained extensive experience in previous methods or practices, and therefore

possessing a great deal more explicit and tacit knowledge, were observed to be the

most resistant to relinquishing a past practice or behaviour.

This finding relates strongly to tacit knowledge which, due to its very nature,

is difficult to access and therefore to change. It also leads to questioning the issue of

absorptive capacity, which was discussed in the literature review and was claimed to

be a key to successful innovation (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). This concept refers to

the extent to which an organisation (or an individual) can “recognise the value of

new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends” (Cohen &

Levinthal, 1990, p. 128). It is also claimed, “absorptive capacity is to do with the


ability to absorb new knowledge... (and) will be higher when there is already prior

knowledge of a particular specialist area, making it easier to absorb new knowledge

about this specialism” (Balogun & Jenkins, 2003, p. 249). This indicates that with

more knowledge, resistance is lessened. This research does not support this claim.

However, the findings do concur with the argument by Lyndon (1989) that the issue

of proactive inhibition, caused by the existence of prior knowledge may result in

inability to take on new information or knowledge.

This result also provides weight to the discussion by Mezirow (1990), that

transformative learning is required to force an examination of previously held beliefs

and assumptions, and a subsequent change of perspective. It was proposed during

the literature review that at this level of learning, unlearning could be considered

critical. The findings of this research reinforce that point.

The other critical issue raised during Phase One related to depth versus

breadth of knowledge. It was generally observed that those with more experience in

the position or those who had been in the organisation or position longer reported

difficulty in unlearning past practice. They often referred back to what occurred

previously in order to deal with the new way, or to explain how the new way was in

some way deficient or inferior to the old way. There was also reported to be a level

of concern about the loss of power that may be associated with giving up a previous

practice or behaviour, and in particular relinquishing what may have been considered

expert status and power. In contrast, those who had a breadth of knowledge (either

across multiple roles or multiple organisations) found it easier to come to terms with

relinquishing past practice in favour of something new.

Given these findings, it could be suggested that the more depth of experience

held by an individual, the more difficult it becomes to unlearn. Newstrom (1983)

certainly suggests this is the case; as he claims that when a totally new behaviour is

required to be replaced by another, unlearning is a critical element. However, the

relationship may not be this simple. Some of the data reported from Phase One, both

from self-reflection and from observation of others, indicates that there is a point

early in the development of skills or knowledge where the individual is no longer

considered a beginner but is early in their adoption or application of knowledge

where they too become very resistant to unlearning. The Dreyfus model (1982)

discussed in Chapters 2 and 5, provides a framework to assess this further.


At the level of Advanced Beginner (Dreyfus, 1982) all mental capacities are

in a primitive state with the exception of component recognition. This may indicate

that at the point when the learner is coming to understand their environment and

situational elements (component recognition) but cannot identify the relative

importance of particular aspects (salience recognition), nor look at the situation from

a holistic perspective and make intuitive decisions, they are very resistant to

unlearning. Dreyfus (1982) points out that at this stage, learners require set

guidelines to direct behaviour, and this resistance may occur due to the need to

change certain elements or components within the workplace with which they have

only just become accustomed. A change often means that guidelines have to be

changed; something which may cause concern to an Advanced Beginner. It is

therefore suggested by the results that difficulty in unlearning does not simply

increase in direct relationship to level of experience and knowledge. Early in skill

development, unlearning may be high and then may decrease once competence is

reached before increasing once more.

The Relationship between Individual Frames of Reference and Individual Unlearning

The research findings also provided an indication of the impact that

individual frames of reference had on the unlearning process. In operationalising the

concept of frames of reference, it was identified that this term could potentially cover

a wide range of issues including personality, perspectives, motivations, to name but a

few. From the research, it is apparent that some individuals are simply more

comfortable with change and unlearning than others. Many individuals who were

interviewed put this down to individual personality, often referred to as personal

style.

Most respondents in Phase One made specific reference to individual style or

personality as impacting on an individual’s ability to unlearn. A wide range of

terminology was used however the message was similar; that there are certain

elements of a person’s make up that make them less receptive to change and less

prepared to unlearn. Phase One indicated that those scoring high on the sub-scales

relating to Cognitive Rigidity and Routine Seeking on the Resistance to Change

Scale (Oreg, 2003) were less open to unlearning that others. This was tested further

during Phase Two.

During Phase Two, six key factors at the level of the individual with the

potential to enable or inhibit learning were identified and included positive prior


outlook, individual inertia, feelings and expectations, positive experience and

informal support, understanding the need for change, and assessment of the new way.

All except one of these factors (positive prior outlook) correlated with the Resistance

to Change scale overall, and the three subscales of Routine Seeking, Emotional

Reaction and Short Term Focus. Notably, the Cognitive Rigidity subscale did not

correlate with any of the factors, which is a finding similar to Oreg (2003), the

original developer of the Scale. Of the factors identified, positive prior outlook,

individual inertia, and feelings and expectations, were seen to have close ties to

frames of reference.

As these factors emerged from the study, acknowledging the existence of

these frames of reference or cognitive schemas should address the misconception

discussed in the literature review that when trying to implement individual change or

to encourage unlearning, new information can simply be presented and will be

integrated into current knowledge and behaviours. This is referred to a the “clean

slate fallacy” (Newstrom, 1983). Yet, Newstrom (1983, p. 37) suggests that trainees

“do not have a clean slate, but a deeply entrenched behavioural pattern that has been

reinforced for years.” These behaviour patterns were identified during Phase One as

critical issues and also emerged from the factors during Phase Two.

The Relationship between Inert Organisational Knowledge and Individual

Unlearning

The existence of documentation, policies and procedures, and the effect these

can have on an individual’s unlearning was included in the conceptual framework

but did not emerge as strongly as individual factors during Phase One. It was

reported however that when policies and procedures were slow to change, it often

caused confusion amongst individuals and more resistance to a change, hence

inhibiting unlearning. The Phase One organisation that had adopted a very

streamlined approach to the development of policies and procedures appeared not to

suffer from the same level of resistance as those who did not have such rapid

responses.

This emphasises the claim by Crossan et al. (1999) and discussed in the

literature review that if learning and renewal at an organisational level is effective, it

should result in documentation of rules and procedures, and the embedding of these

within the organisation. This finding also reinforces the claim by Popper and Lipshitz


(2000) that leaders have a responsibility to implement structural foundations or

mechanisms to support organisational learning.

During Phase Two, organisational support and training emerged as a specific

organisational factor that impacted upon the unlearning process. This related heavily

to the existence of documentation to support the change, and the development of

knowledge and skills in relation to the new way, with formal documentation and

training seen as the key elements of this factor.

The structure of the organisation can also be claimed to be a manifestation of

inert knowledge, and was able to be studied to a limited extent across the different

organisations involved in the research. In a multi-site situation, when organisational

communication does not filter to all sites, or when changes are seen to be made

centrally, there is a level of scepticism about the reasons behind changes. This

means that at times, the individuals used the perceived lack of understanding of

operational issues on behalf of those in the head office as a reason for not

relinquishing past behaviours. It is emphasised however that there was only limited

opportunity to compare structures due to the research design requirement to have

organisations with relative similarities. Therefore the impact of organisational

structure on unlearning is an area requiring further study.

The Relationship Between Organisational Memory, Organisational Culture and

Individual Unlearning

Evidence of organisational memory in the Phase One interviews was often

raised during discussions about previous practice, about standards and norms that

emerged within the organisation and about practices that occur due to organisational

history. Some interviewees were relating this second-hand; they had not been

present at a particular point but were aware of how policies, practices or even culture

had developed. Distinguishing between the two concepts of memory and culture was

very difficult when analysing interviewee responses, and in many of the examples,

these concepts were intertwined. For this reason, the relationship between

organisational memory and culture, and individual unlearning was considered as one

issue.

The Phase One interviews provided a strong link between organisational

culture and unlearning. All three case studies, and a range of interviewees, provide

an indication that certain aspects of an organisation’s culture either helped or

hindered the relinquishing of past practice or behaviour. In particular, a key issue


identified by many of the interviewees, was the role played in the unlearning process

by peers and management. Where support from these two groups was present, there

was a level of reassurance that the individual would not be left to make the transition

on their own. A key issue raised by all interviewees was the role of management and

the fact that the nature of organisational leadership provided in times of unlearning is

critical to the process. This finding from Phase One was reinforced by additional

findings in Phase Two. This finding also reinforces the claim by Popper and Lipshitz

(2000) discussed in the literature review that leaders have a responsibility to establish

cultural and psychological conditions conducive to learning and unlearning.

However, it was also clear that these same people, managers and work

colleagues, had the ability to strongly influence unlearning in a negative way. Phase

One results indicated that although some individuals reported not being opposed to

the change personally, they felt a need to conform when their colleagues or managers

showed opposition, thus identifying peer pressure as a strong influence on their

behaviour. Phase Two results did not suggest this negative link as strongly but

certainly showed the emergence of an individual factor referred to as positive

experience and informal support that related to the level of support individuals

received during unlearning; often via informal mechanisms.

Other Contingent Factors that may impact Individual Unlearning

This research question was included to ensure that any other factors emerging

from the research were captured rather than focussing on the predetermined elements

of the conceptual framework to the exclusion of all else. Two issues emerged that

are worthy of comment.

First, the speed with which individuals are expected to embrace new ways

may have an impact on unlearning. This issue was identified during Phase One and

was further tested during Phase Two. It appears that a certain amount of speed may

help unlearning. This is contrary to speculation made in Chapter 2 in relation to the

dimensions of change model by Nicholson (1990). One of the elements of this

model, referred to the speed with which transitions cycles occur and as part of

preparation for this research it was hypothesised that fast implementation may make

unlearning more difficult. Within reason, this may not be the case, as many of the

participants reported the feeling of urgency and deadlines relating to change forced

upon them, assisted to progress in the cycle of unlearning.


This leads to another possible issue that may impact unlearning and that is the

reason behind the change. Whilst this was not specifically reflected in the

conceptual framework, the organisations involved in this research reflected a variety

of drivers behind the changes they had made. These included regulatory changes,

culture changes and system changes. A factor did emerge from the Phase Two

analysis which was predicted to have impact towards the end of the unlearning

process. This factor related to the understanding of the individual as to reasons

behind the change. Each organisation reflected some differences in reasoning for the

change and in the level of understanding individuals had of these reasons. However

this issue was not able to be fully explored in terms of its impact on unlearning and

therefore is an area for further research.

Demographic and background data was also collected about research

participants from both phases of the study. Whilst it might be possible to draw some

conclusions about these demographic factors and their impact on unlearning, the

sample size was considered too small in Phase One, and had an over-representation

of some demographic groups in Phase Two, to make any generalisations. This could

also be an area for future research when a larger number of participants can be

sourced.

Contributions of the Research

Contribution to Theory

The extensive literature review in Chapters 2 and 3 outline the existing

models and theories relating to unlearning and to the broader area of change

management. Whilst providing a useful framework for beginning the discussion

about unlearning, the two existing theories relating to unlearning (Hedberg, 1981;

Klein, 1989) are not adequate to explain how the process of unlearning occurs and

what may impact this process. This study has added to theory by providing not only

a more detailed explanation of how unlearning happens, but has also developed a

preliminary model of unlearning to inform practice (shown as Figure 7.3).


Figure 7.3. The Unlearning Process Model

Much of the change management literature does not identify in any detail, the

types of issues at an individual level that must be dealt with in order to effect

sustainable and worthwhile change. This study also addresses this need by

identifying specific key factors at both the level of individual and the organisation

that are necessary for effective unlearning of past practice or behaviour.

At the individual level, this model found that a positive prior outlook will

have an impact at the early stages of unlearning, at the point where awareness of the

change is raised and expectations begin to form. This positive prior outlook,

although interpreted at the level of the individual, is heavily impacted by the

individual’s previous history with the organisation and previous changes made

within the organisation. It is also a reflection of an individual’s personal style,

measured in this study using the RTC Scale (Oreg, 2003).

Also impacting prior to the required unlearning, and continuing to impact

during unlearning, were the two factors: individual inertia, and feelings and

expectations. These two factors are of an individual nature and are also a reflection

of the personal style of the individual involved. As mentioned previously in this

thesis, much of the change management literature is devoid of recognition of the


emotional impact of change at the individual level as a recognised shortcoming by

others in the field (Balogun & Jenkins, 2003; Goodstone & Diamante, 1998).

However the issue of feelings has emerged from this research as the strongest and

most enduring factor in successful unlearning. The literature in the areas of grief and

loss provide an important addition to the theory in this area (Alcorn Jnr, 2001;

Diamond, 1996), however until they are brought into mainstream change

management literature, they will continue to be viewed as only peripheral issues.

Two factors were identified as impacting during the cycle of unlearning

including the individual factor of positive experience and informal support, and the

organisational factor of organisational support and training. Both these factors relate

heavily to support mechanisms enacted during the change to allow individuals the

chance to unlearn both formally and informally. Some of the change models

recognise these two factors although often the formal is emphasised to the exclusion

of informal support.

Finally, the two individual factors of understanding the need for change and

assessment of the new way, impact towards the end of the unlearning process. This

is also a key finding, as much of the change management literature emphasises

understanding the need for change at the commencement of the change process

(Kotter, 1995; Mento et al., 2002). Whilst this may be important, this research has

shown that it is as important once change has been implemented to ensure that

unlearning occurs effectively and past practices are relinquished.

The organisational factor that emerged, in addition to the previously

discussed organisational support and training, related to the history of organisational

change. This factor is a direct reflection on previous change experiences in the

organisation and shows strong links to organisational memory. This factor reflects

not only an individual’s experience of past changes but will also reflect the memory

that exists within the organisation.

Even though organisational culture is discussed widely in the change

management literature (Kotter, 1995; Mento et al., 2002), this is often ill-defined or

left to cover such a broad array of issues as to be of limited use to those attempting to

implement organisational change. This model proposed in Figure 7.3 reflects

specific factors, some of which may be regarded as a reflection of organisational

culture, for example organisational support and training, however the factors are far

more specific to inform practice.


The final contribution to theory made by this research is the reinforcement of

unlearning as a process rather than a single event. The model presented shows the

unlearning process as it occurs for unlearning to be successful. It also identifies the

potential enablers and inhibitors that may impact upon the process. The unlearning

cycle of unease, testing and contextual embracing also emphasises the cyclical nature

of unlearning. If sufficient enablers are not presented, unlearning may take longer

than if they are present.

Contribution to Practice

The implication for management practice of this research relates particularly

to change management strategies implemented within organisations. As one of the

key findings related to the level of feelings and expectations linked to unlearning

during change, it is apparent that those implementing change must be skilled in

dealing with these issues. Yet this is something often overlooked in professional

development for those in supervisory positions. In dealing with these situations,

supervisors must be able to identify those individuals within the workgroup who will

require additional support due to differences in personal styles; something modelled

by Organisation C in Phase One of the study.

Other enabling factors emerging from the research also need to be considered

within organisational change processes. In particular, planning must occur for

adequate formal and informal support measures to be used during change. The

organisation studied during Phase Two and Organisation C in Phase One presented

effective implementation of formal support and training that positively contributed to

unlearning. Often, however, informal support is not recognised as an important

element of change processes.

The final element that presents an opportunity to practitioners is to consider

resistance to change as a natural process. This has already been suggested in a broad

sense by a number of researchers (Dent & Powley, 2002; Waddell & Sohal, 1998).

This research reinforces this point and suggests that resistance will occur even for

those individuals in favour of the change as they test a new process and feel initial

unease when asked to relinquish past practice.

Much of the popular work in change management read by practitioners is

informed by limited or no empirical research in the field. The challenge when

conducting research such as this, is to distribute findings in such a way that they are


able to be used by practitioners, whilst reinforcing that models and theories such as

those emerging from this research can be backed up by evidence.

Research Limitations

As with any study, this research has limitations that must be acknowledged

when interpreting the reported results. It is also important to ensure that readers

appreciate the boundaries of the study. In particular, although organisational

learning and organisational unlearning are often referred to, at no time does this

study purport to measure or develop either of these concepts. The focus of the study

was on the individual and how both individual and organisational factors impact

upon unlearning at this level. It is also important to reinforce that no link is being

inferred from individual unlearning to organisational effectiveness, efficiency or

profitability.

The limitations of the research have been grouped into three categories:

research design, research participants and conduct, and research outcomes. In terms

of research design a number of limitations exist. Firstly, it is recognised that in both

phases, the use of self-reporting carries with it limitations in terms of bias and

socially desirable responses. In particular, the study aimed to collect attitudinal data

as opposed to observation of actual behaviour, so if individuals’ perceptions do not

match their behaviour, the study was not able to identify this anomaly.

It is also recognised that designing the research around the use of

convenience sampling can introduce issues in terms of the representativeness of the

sample and therefore generalisability of the findings is not claimed. The design of

Phase Two using only one organisation is also recognised as a limitation of the study

because the results do not allow for comparisons between organisations of different

sizes, cultures or industries, which may also have an impact on unlearning.

However, Spender (1996, p. 69) does warn that “we are threatened with endless

regress when we search for underlying universal laws” and does caution about

widespread use of positivist research in areas such as organisational learning when

the concept is context-dependent. Whilst this viewpoint is acknowledged, others

(Sun & Scott, 2003; Tsang, 1997) call for a more integrated approach, combining

both descriptive and prescriptive research, hence the use of the mixed

methodological approach to this research.


It is also acknowledged that the organisation in Phase Two was still in the

implementation phase, so the results represent a snapshot at that point in time rather

than a reflection after full implementation. For the purposes of this research, the aim

was to use the outcomes of Phase One for initial quantitative exploration. This is not

the definitive work and in areas of future research, possible approaches to building

on Phase Two outcomes will be highlighted.

The conduct of the research and the research participants themselves also

represented a number of limitations. It is firstly acknowledged that with any

research, the researcher brings biases and prior experience that may impact upon the

research outcomes. The researcher in this case, was familiar with the industry and

therefore was able to relate to terminology and concepts being discussed. This

brings benefits and drawbacks. It meant that the researcher was able to establish a

level of credibility with the participants however it also meant that the researcher had

pre-existing knowledge with the potential to impact on research outcomes.

It is also acknowledged that within the organisations in question, the gender

mix is biased towards a heavy representation of males. It is therefore noted that

generalising to industries with a heavy female population is not appropriate. It

should also be acknowledged that the gender of the researcher as a female may also

have had an impact particularly during interviews, given the male dominated

workplaces involved in the study.

Directions for Future Research

This research can be seen as a commencement of the journey into better

understanding unlearning at the individual level, and raises additional questions best

addressed by further research. In particular, the unlearning cycle of

unease/resistance, testing and contextual embracing which emerged from Phase One

could not be tested to any large extent in Phase Two. To understand cycles such as

this, it is necessary to use other forms of data collection. Longitudinal studies

measuring perspectives and attitudes before, during and after change would enable

this cycle to be tested further. Observation of behaviour in a change setting could

also provide additional data for analysis of an unlearning cycle.

Phase Two used a range of data analysis techniques to identify preliminary

findings. This phase used only exploratory factor analysis, and therefore future

research would require confirmatory factor analysis on a larger and more diverse


sample, and the use of techniques such as Structured Equation Modelling may assist

to further explore emerging models.

Finally, there is a range of other individual factors that may influence

unlearning that have not been subject to testing by this research. Demographic data

such as age, gender, cultural background and learning styles may also provide further

understanding of individual issues impacting upon unlearning. Organisational

variances such as industry, organisational size and organisational culture may also

show additional organisational factors for consideration. As explained previously,

this level of analysis was not possible due to the size and nature of the sample used.

Thesis Summary

The increasing need for all organisations to innovate and remain agile is

widely recognised. Often, change management and innovation processes are devoid

of serious consideration of the impact of such changes at the level of individuals

within the organisation. Some models recognise individuals, but often as

“recipients” of change, and their real needs are then lost in the overall structured,

objective and clinical perspective on dealing with change.

This thesis highlights, above all else, the critical importance of elements of a

more personal and affective nature, often referred to as “soft” issues. However, the

hard reality is that these issues make a real difference. Many change efforts will fail

because of lack of attention to individuals, how they unlearn and the level of feelings

and expectations that accompany change. Organisations committed to genuine

change and innovation must recognise these issues, not in the sense of a cursory

mention, but in real terms. As demonstrated by this research, these organisations

must provide resources and education to prepare both those in supervisory roles and

those impacted by the change with the necessary skills to unlearn and to embrace

change at an individual level.

References 222

References

Abraham, J. L., & Knight, D. J. (2001). Strategic innovation: Leveraging creative

action for more profitable growth. Strategy and Leadership, 29(1), 21-26.

Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of

Innovation Management, 1(1), 30-43.

Alcorn Jnr, M. W. (2001). Ideological death and grief in the classroom: mourning as

a prerequisite to learning. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and

Society, 6(2), 172-180.

Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1998). An organizational memory

approach to information management. The Academy of Management Review,

23(4), 796-809.

Anderson, V., & Boocock, G. (2002). Small firms and internationalisation: Learning

to manage and managing to learn. Human Resource Management Journal,

12(3), 5-24.

Appelbaum, S. H., St-Pierre, N., & Glavas, W. (1998). Strategic organizational

change: the role of leadership, learning, motivation and productivity.

Management Decision, 36(5), 289-301.

Argyris, C. (1980). Making the undiscussable and its undiscussability discussable.

Public Administration Review, May/June, 205-213.

Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business

Review, 72(4), 77-85.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action

perspective. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual

model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233.

Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research (5th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth

Publishing Company.

Back, K. M., & Seaker, R. (2004). Project performance: Implications of personality

preferences and double loop learning. Journal of American Academy of

Business, 4(1/2), 292-297.

Bailey, C. D. (1989). Forgetting and the learning curve: A laboratory study.

Management Science, 35(3), 340-352.

Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating

change intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 69-83.

References 223

Balogun, J., & Hope Hailey, V. (2004). Exploring strategic change (2 ed.). Essex:

Prentice Hall.

Balogun, J., & Jenkins, M. (2003). Re-conceiving change management: A

knowledge-based perspective. European Management Journal, 21(2), 247-

257.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Barrett, F. J., Thoman, G. F., & Hocevar, S. P. (1995). The central role of discourse

in large-scale change: A social construction perspective. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 31(3), 352-373.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Intertext Books.

Baxter, P. (2000). Mediational learning: Empowering individuals and enterprises to

take control of change and continuous innovation, STAC Unit, DETIR.

Retrieved 11 December 2003, from http://www.det.qld.gov.au/skillsmed/

Baxter, P., Lyndon, H., Dole, S., Cooper, T., Battistutta, D., & Blakeley, J. (1997).

Skill correction and accelerated learning in the workplace: An experimental

field trial of the Conceptual Mediation Program and Old Way/New Way:

Report on Australian National Training Authority Research Advisory Council

Grant No. 95026.

Bazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2000). The NVivo Qualitative Project Book. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

Bell, C. R. (1977). Informal learning in organizations. Personnel Journal, 56(6),

280-283,313.

Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing

practice. Meno Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Berthon, P., Pitt, L. F., & Ewing, M. T. (2001). Corollaries of the collective: The

influence of organizational culture and memory development on perceived

decision-making context. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29(2), 135-

150.

Bierly III, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational

learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 13(6), 595-618.

References 224

Billett, S. (1995). Workplace learning: Its potential and limitations. Education and

Training, 37(5), 20-27.

Billett, S. (1996). Accessing and engaging vocational knowledge: Instructional

media versus everyday practice. Education and Training, 38(2), 18-25.

Billett, S. (2000). Guided learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12(7),

272-285.

Billett, S. (2001). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Crows

Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Billett, S. (2002). Critiquing workplace learning discourses: participation and

continuity at work. Studies in the Education of Adults, 34(1), 56-67.

Bitterman, M. E. (2006). Classical conditioning since Pavlov. Review of General

Psychology, 10(4), 365-376.

Boer, H. (2004). Continuous Innovation: Challenges and Dilemma. Rockhampton:

Australian Institute of Management Presentation, 17 September 2004.

Boud, D., & Garrick, J. (1999). Understanding Learning at Work. London:

Routledge.

Bourke, J. (2005). Ageing gracefully. HR Monthly, October, 38-41.

Bouton, M. E. (1994). Conditioning, remembering, and forgetting. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20(3), 219-231.

Bouton, M. E. (2000). A learning theory perspective on lapse, relapse, and the

maintenance of behavior change. Health Psychology, 19(Suppl), 57-63.

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change.

Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Brockmann, E. N., & Anthony, W. P. (2002). Tacit knowledge and strategic decision

making. Group & Organization Management, 27(4), 436-455.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in

creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 32-44.

Buchen, I. H. (1999). Creating the future: innovation and the unlearning

organisation. Foresight, 1(2), 117-123.

Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal.

Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977-1002.

References 225

Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to Research Methods (4th ed.). Sydney: Pearson

Education Australia.

Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruence, strength and type:

Relationships to effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and

Development, 5(1), 23-58.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational

Culture; based on the competing values framework. Massachusetts: Addison

Wesley.

Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research:

Qualitative and quantitative methods. Brisbane: John Wiley & Sons.

Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Dewhurst, F. W. (2006). Linking shared organisational

context and relational capital through unlearning. The Learning Organization,

13(1), 49-62.

Chaminade, B. (2005). Generation Gap. HR Monthly, October, 26-29.

Chatfield, C., & Collins, A. J. (1980). Introduction to multivariate analysis. London:

Chapman & Hall.

Chell, E. (1993). The Psychology of Behaviour in Organizations (2nd ed.). London:

The Macmillan Press Ltd.

Coakes, S. J., Steed, L., & Dzidic, P. (2006). SPSS Version 13.0 for Windows:

analysis without anguish. Milton: John Wiley & Sons.

Coghlan, D. (1993). A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14(4), 10-14.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective

On Learning And Inno. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.

Collis, B., & Winnips, K. (2002). Two scenarios for productive learning

environments in the workplace. British Journal of Educational Technology,

33(2), 133-148.

Connell, N. A. D., Klein, J. H., & Powell, P. L. (2003). It's tacit knowledge but not as

we know it: Redirecting the search for knowledge. The Journal of the

Operational Research Society, 54(2), 140-152.

Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the Speed of Change: How Resilient Managers

Succeed and Prosper where others Fail. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

References 226

Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory

factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research

Methods, 6(2), 147-168.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: planning, conduction, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed

Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: planning, conduction, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutman, M. l., & Hanson, W. E. (2003).

Advanced Mixed Methods Research Designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning

framework: from intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review,

24(3), 522-537.

Daft, R. L., & Huber, G. P. (1987). How organizations learn: a communication

framework. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5(1), 1-36.

Darbyshire, P., & McDonald, H. (2004). Choosing response scale labels and length:

Guidance for researchers and clients. Australasian Journal of Market

Research, 12(2), 17-26.

Day, N. (1998). Informal learning gets results. Workforce, 77(6), 30-34.

de Holan, P. M., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Managing Organizational

Forgetting. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(2), 45-51.

de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Pacitti, B. J., da Silva Gomes, J. F., & Pearson, A. W.

(2002). Tools for the improvement of organizational learning processes in

innovation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(8), 320-331.

Debowski, S. (2006). Knowledge Management. Milton: John Wiley & Sons.

Delahaye, B. (1991). The Personality Characteristics of Learners who Prefer

Learner Controlled Learning Strategies in Management Education. Griffith

University, Brisbane.

References 227

Delahaye, B. (2000). Human Resource Development: principles and practice.

Brisbane: Wiley.

Delahaye, B. (2005). Human Resource Development: Adult learning and knowledge

management (2nd ed.). Brisbane: Wiley.

Delahaye, B., Limerick, D. C., & Hearn, G. (1994). The relationship between

andragogical and pedagogical orientations and the implications for adult

learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(Summer), 187-200.

Delahaye, B., & Smith, B. (1998). How to be an effective trainer (3 ed.). Brisbane:

John Wiley & Co.

Dent, E. B., & Powley, E. H. (2002). Employees actually embrace change: The

chimera of resistance. Journal of Applied Management and

Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 56-69.

DeSimone, R. L., Werner, J. M., & Harris, D. M. (2002). Human Resource

Development (3rd ed.). Mason: Thomson Learning.

Diamond, M. A. (1996). Innovation and Diffusion of Technology: A Human Process.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 48(4), 221-229.

Dick, B. (1990). Convergent Interviewing (3rd ed.). Brisbane: Interchange.

Downey, D. J., & Huffman, M. L. (2001). Attitudinal polarization and trimodal

distributions: measurement problems and theoretical implications. Social

Science Quarterly, 82(3), 494-505.

Dreyfus, S. E. (1982). Formal Models vs Human Situational Understanding: inherent

limitations on the modeling of business expertise. Office: Technology and

People, 1(1), 133-165.

Duffy, F. M. (2003). I think, therefore I am resistant to change. Journal of Staff


Durrance, B. (1998). Some explicit thoughts on tacit learning. Training and


Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and

Critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085-1113.

Easterby-Smith, M., & Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational Learning: Current Debates

and Opportunities. In M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne & L. Araujo (Eds.),

Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: Developments in

theory and practice. London: Sage.

References 228

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The

Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Equal Employment Opportunity Network of Australia. (2005). 2005 Australasian

Diversity & Equality Survey. Retrieved 11 January, 2007, from

http://www.eeon.com.au/Documents/2005%20ADES%20results%2025%20J

uly%202005.doc

Eraut, M. (2000). Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work. The

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113-136.

Eriksson, C. B. (2004). The effects of change programs on employees' emotions.

Personnel Review, 33(1), 110-126.

Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The Value of Online Surveys. Internet Research,

15(2), 195-219.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999).

Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.

Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.

Fatt, J. P. T. (2000). Understanding the learning styles of students: Implications for

educators. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,

20(11/12), 31-45.

Finne, H. (1991). Organizational Adaptation to Changing Contingencies. Futures,

23(10), 1061-1074.

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. The Academy of

Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.

Fisher, C. (2004). Researching and Writing a Dissertation for Business Students.

Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Fleck, D. E., Berch, D. B., Shear, P. K., & Strakowski, S. M. (2001). Directed

Forgetting in Explicit and Implicit Memory: The role of encoding and

retrieval mechanisms. The Psychological Record, 51(2), 207-221.

Foldy, E. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (1999). Action learning, fragmentation, and the

interaction of single-, double-, and triple-loop change: A case of gay and

lesbian workplace advocacy. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

35(2), 207-227.

Francis, D., Bessant, J., & Hobday, M. (2003). Managing radical organisational

transformation. Management Decision, 41(1), 18-31.

References 229

Francis, H., & D'Annunzio-Green, N. (2005). HRM and the pursuit of a service

culture: Managerial encounters with competing discourses. Employee

Relations, 27(1/2), 71-85.

French, E., & Delahaye, B. (1996). Individual change transition: moving in circles

can be good for you. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

17(7), 22-28.

Furrer, O., Liu, B. S.-C., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationships between culture

and service quality perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation

and resource allocation. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 355-371.

Garcia-Morales, V. J., Llorens-Montes, F. J., & Verdu-Jover, A. J. (2006).

Antecedents and consequences of organizational innovation and

organizational learning in entrepreneurship. Industrial Management & Data

Systems, 106(1), 21-42.

Garrety, K., Badham, R., Morrigan, V., Rifkin, W., & Zanko, M. (2003). The use of

personality typing in organizational change: Discourse, emotions and the

reflexive subject. Human Relations, 56(2), 211-235.

Garrick, J. (1998). Informal Learning in the Workplace: Unmasking Human Resouce

Development. London: Routledge.

Garrick, J. (1999). The dominant discourses of learning at work. In D. Boud & J.

Garrick (Eds.), Understanding Learning at Work. London: Routledge.

Garvey, B., & Williamson, B. (2002). Beyond Knowledge Management: Dialogue,

creativity and the corporate curriculum. Essex: Pearson Education.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2001). Towards a process model of individual change

in organizations. Human Relations, 54(4), 419-444.

Gibbs, G. R. (2002). Qualitative Data Analysis: explorations with NVivo.

Maidenhead, Birkshire: Open University Press.

Gillham, B. (2000). Case Study Research Methods. London: Continuum.

Glesne, C. (1998). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction. New York:

Longman.

Goltz, S. M., & Hietapelto, A. (2002). Using the operant and strategic contingencies

models of power to understand resistance to change. Journal of

Organizational Behavior Management, 22(3), 3-22.

References 230

Goodman, E. A., Zammuto, R. F., & Gifford, B. D. (2001). The competing values

framework: Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality

of work life. Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 58-68.

Goodstone, M. S., & Diamante, T. (1998). Organizational Use of Therapeutic

Change: Strengthening Multisource Feedback Systems Through

Interdisciplinary Coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice &

Research, 50(3), 152-163.

Gorard, S., Fevre, R., & Rees, G. (1999). The apparent decline of informal learning.

Oxford Review of Education, 25(4), 437-456.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in Mixed-Method

Evaluation: The Callenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual

Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation

and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Habermas. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hair (Jnr), J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).

Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson

International Education.

Haire, M. (1970). Psychology in Management. Sydney: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1994). Competing for the Future. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Harvey, M., & Buckley, M. R. (2002). Assessing the "conventional wisdoms" of

management for the 21st century organization. Organizational Dynamics,

30(4), 368-378.

Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of

individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51(7),

847-871.

Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor Retention Decisions in

Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Tutorial on Parallel Analysis. Organizational

Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205.

Hedberg, B. (1981). How Organizations Learn and Unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. H.

Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design (Vol. 1). London:

Cambridge University Press.

References 231

Hinton, G. (2003). The Ups and Downs of Hebb Synapses. Canadian Psychology,

44(1), 10-13.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the

literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.

Hughes, G. D. (1969). Some confounding effects of forced-choice scales. Journal of

Marketing Research, 6(2), 223-226.

Hurd, M. (2003). Enterprise decision making. Baylor Business Review, 21(1), 10.

Hurley, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A.,

Vandenberg, R. J., et al. (1997). Exploratory and confirmatory factor

analysis: guidelines, issues, and alternatives. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 18(6), 667-683.

Huysman, M. (1999). Balancing Biases: a Critical Review of the Literature on

Organizational Learning. In M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne & L. Araujo

(Eds.), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization:

Developments in theory and practice. London: Sage.

Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N. M. (2002). Online surveys in marketing research:

pros and cons. International Journal of Market Research, 44(3), 361-376.

Illeris, K. (2003). Workplace learning and learning theory. Journal of Workplace

Learning, 15(4), 167-178.

Ismail, M. (2005). Creative climate and learning organization factors: their

contribution towards innovation. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 26(8), 639-654.

Jarvinen, A., & Poikela, E. (2001). Modelling reflective and contextual learning at

work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(7/8), 282-289.

Johnson, H. M. (1994). Processes of successful intentional forgetting. Psychological

Bulletin, 116(2), 274-292.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial

Coping With Organizational Change: A Dispositional Perspective. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 84(1), 107-122.

Kalling, T. (2007). The lure of simplicity: learning perspectives on innovation.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 65-89.

Kasper, H. (2002). Culture and leadership in market-oriented service organisations.

European Journal of Marketing, 36(9/10), 1047-1057.

References 232

Kerfoot, K. (1999). Creating the forgetting organization. Pediatric Nursing, 25(1),

77-78.

Kiel, F., Rimmer, E., Williams, K., & Doyle, M. (1996). Coaching at the Top.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 48(2), 67-77.

Kiernan, M. J. (1993). The new strategic architecture: Learning to compete in the

twenty-first century. The Executive, 7(1), 7-21.

Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan


Klein, J. I. (1989). Parenthetic Learning in Organizations: Toward the Unlearning of

the Unlearning Model. The Journal of Management Studies, 26(3), 291-309.

Knowles, H. P., & Saxberg, B. O. (1988). Organizational Leadership of Planned and

Unplanned Change. Futures, 20(3), 252-265.

Knowles, M. (1970). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy versus

Pedagogy. New York: Association Press.

Knowles, M. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to

Andragogy. New York: Cambridge.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning

and Development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard

Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral

participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task

contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and

openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 563-593.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic

Management Journal, 14(special edition), 95-112.

Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational Learning. Annual Review of

Sociology, 14, 319-340.

Levy, A. (1986). Second order planned change: definition and conceptualization.

Organizational Dynamics, 15(1), 5-20.

Linsker, R. (1992). Local synaptic learning rules suffice to maximize mutual

information in a linear network. Neural Computation, 4(5), 691-702.

References 233

Lohman, M. C. (2000). Environmental inhibitors to informal learning in the

workplace: a case study of public school teachers. Adult Education Quarterly,

50(2), 83-101.

Lung, M., & Braithwaite, D. (1992). Management of Change: A case study in nurse

education. Health Manpower Management, 18(2), 17-21.

Lyndon, H. (1989). I Did it My Way! An Introduction to "Old Way/New Way"

Methodology. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 13(1), 32-37.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in

factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99.

Macri, D. M., Tagliaventi, M. R., & Bertolotti, F. (2002). A grounded theory for

resistance to change in a small organization. Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 15(3), 292-310.

Magrath, A. J. (1997). The importance of unlearning. Across the Board, 34(2), 39-

41.

Mariotti, J. (1999). Change requires learning - and unlearning. Industry Week,

248(12), 59-59.

Markoczy, L. (1994). Modes of organizational learning: Institutional change and

Hungarian joint ventures. International Studies of Management &

Organization, 24(4), 5-31.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Envisioning new organisations for learning.

In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding Learning at Work. London:

Routledge.

Matthews, J., & Candy, P. (1999). New dimensions in the dynamics of learning and

knowledge. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding Learning at

Work. London: Routledge.

McClelland, S. B. (1994). Training needs assessment data-gathering methods: Part 1,

Survey questionnaires. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(1), 22-

26.

McCloy, R. A., Heggestad, E. D., & Reeve, C. L. (2005). A silk purse from the sow's

ear: retrieving normation information from multidimensional forced-choice

items. Organizational Research Methods, 8(2), 222-248.

Mensink, G.-J., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1988). A Model for Interference and

Forgetting. Psychological Review, 95(4), 434-455.

References 234

Mento, A. J., Jones, R. M., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process:

Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1),

45-59.

Mezirow, J. (1990). How Critical Reflection Triggers Transformative Learning. In J.

Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J. (1998). On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(3), 185-

198.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of adult learning

theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as Transformation: Critical

Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, W. S., & Armus, H. L. (1999). Directed Forgetting: Short-term memory or

conditioned response? The Psychological Record, 49(2), 211-220.

Mullins, J. W., & Cummings, L. L. (1999). Situational strength - A framework for

understanding the role of individuals in initiating proactive strategic change.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 462-479.

Navarro, J. G. C., & Moya, B. R. (2005). Business performance management and

unlearning process. Knowledge and Process Management, 12(3), 161-170.

Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2002). Managing Knowledge

Work. New York: Palgrave.

Newstrom, J. W. (1983). The Management of Unlearning: Exploding the ''Clean

Slate'' Fallacy. Training and Development Journal, 37(8), 36-39.

Newstrom, J. W., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1991). One Size Does Not Fit All.

Training and Development, 45(6), 43-48.

Nichols, D. P. (1999). My coefficient alpha is negative! Retrieved 11 January, 2007,

from http://www.ats.ucla.edu/STAT/SPSS/library/negalpha.htm

Nicholson, N. (1990). The Transition Cycle: Causes, Outcomes, Processes and

Forms. In S. Fisher & C. Cooper (Eds.), On the Move: the Psychology of

Change and Transition (pp. 83-108). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review,

69(6), 96-104.

References 235

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.

Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: how

Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1984). To Avoid Organizational Crises, Unlearn.

Organizational Dynamics, 12(4), 53-65.

Oien, K. M., & Goernert, P. N. (2003). The Role of Intentional Forgetting in

Employee Selection. The Journal of General Psychology, 130(1), 97-110.

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Differences

Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680-693.

Pallant, J. F. (2000). Development and validation of a scale to measure perceived

control of internal states. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75(2), 308-337.

Paoli, M., & Prencipe, A. (2003). Memory of the Organisation and Memories within

the Organisation. Journal of Management & Governance, 7(2), 145-162.

Pardo del Val, M., & Martinez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature

review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41(1/2), 148-155.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). London:

Sage Publications.

Pearlmutter, S. (1998). Self-efficacy and organizational change leadership.

Administration in Social Work, 22(3), 23-38.

Polanyi, M. (1997). The tacit dimension. In L. Prusack (Ed.), Knowledge in

organizations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Installing mechanisms and instilling values: The

role of leaders in organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 7(3),

135-145.

Prahalad, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. (1986). The Dominant Logic: A new linkage

between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 7(6),

485-501.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to

organizational effectiveness. Public Policy Review, 5(2), 122-140.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria:

Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis.

Management Science, 29(3), 363-377.

References 236

Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values

culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on

quality of life. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5(1),

115-142.

Rampersad, H. K. (2004). Learning and Unlearning in Accordance with

Organizational Change. Organization Development Journal, 22(4), 43-60.

Rao, S., & Perry, C. (2003). Convergent interviewing to build a theory in under-

researched areas: Principles and an example investigation of Internet usage in

inter-firm relationship. Qualitative Market Research, 6(4), 236-247.

Robins, A., & McCallum, S. (1999). The consolidation of learning during sleep:

Comparing the pseudorehearsal and unlearning accounts. Neural Networks,

12(7-8), 1191-1206.

Rocco, T. S., Bliss, L. A., Gallagher, S., & Perez-Prado, A. (2003). Taking the Next

Step: Mixed Methods Research in Organizational Systems. Information

Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 21(1), 19-29.

Romme, G., & Witteloostuijn, A. v. (1999). Circular organizing and triple loop

learning. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(5), 439-454.

Roy, P., & Roy, P. (2002). Tacit knowledge management in organizations: A move

towards strategic internal communications systems. Journal of American

Academy of Business, 2(1), 28-32.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1996). Learning styles: a holistic approach. Journal of European

Industrial Training, 20(7), 29-36.

Sadler-Smith, E. (1999). Intuition-analysis cognitive style and learning preferences

of business and management students: a UK exploratory study. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 14(1), 26-38.

Scheaffer, R. L., Mendenhall, W., & Ott, L. (1990). Elementary survey sampling (4th

ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

Schein, E. H. (1993). How Can Organizations Learn Faster? The Challenge of

Entering the Green Room. Sloan Management Review, 34(2), 85-92.

Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229-240.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Method for Business: A Skill Building Approach (4th

ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

References 237

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning

Organization. Sydney: Random House.

Seo, M.-G. (2003). Overcoming emotional barriers, political obstacles, and control

imperatives in the action-science approach to individual and organisational

learning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(1), 7-21.

Shadmehr, R., & Brashers-Krug, T. (1997). Functional stages in the formation of

human long-term memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 17(1), 409-419.

Sheridan, T., & Niwa, Y. (2003). An experiment on measuring belief: asking the

same question in different ways. Cognition, Technology & Work, 5(1), 206-

210.

Sherwood, D. (2000). The unlearning organisation. Business Strategy Review, 11(3),

31-40.

Sin, L. Y. M., & Tse, A. C. B. (2000). How does marketing effectiveness mediate the

effect of organizational culture on business performance? The case of service

firms. The Journal of Services Marketing, 14(4), 295-309.

Singh, P. J., & Smith, A. J. R. (2000). Process of Validating a Quality Management

Measurement Instrument. Paper presented at the 4th International and 7th

National Research Conference on Quality Management, Sydney.

Sinkula, J. M. (2002). Market-based success, organizational routines, and unlearning.

The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(4), 253-269.

Skålén, P., & Strandvik, T. (2005). From prescription to description: a critique and

reorientation of service culture. Managing Service Quality, 15(3), 230-244.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311-321.

Snell, R., & Chak, A. M.-K. (1998). The learning organization: Learning and

empowerment for whom? Management Learning, 29(3), 337-364.

Sotirakou, T., & Zeppou, M. (2004). The "MATE" model: a strategic knowledge

management technique on the chessboard of public-sector modernization.

Management Decision, 42(1/2), 69-88.

Spender, J.-C. (1996). Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three

concepts in search of a theory. Journal of Organizational Change

Management, 9(1), 63-78.

References 238

Stacey, R. D. (2003). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The

Challenge of Complexity. London: Prentice Hall.

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook

of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Starbuck, W. H. (1996). Unlearning ineffective or obsolete technologies.

International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7/8), 725-737.

Starke, F. A., Dyck, B., & Mauws, M. K. (2003). Coping with the sudden loss of an

indispensable employee: An exploratory case study. The Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 39(2), 208-228.

Stein, E. (1995). Organizational Memory: Review of Concepts and

Recommendations for Management. International Journal of Information

Management, 15(2), 17-32.

Sun, P. Y. T., & Scott, J. L. (2003). Exploring the divide - organizational learning

and learning organization. The Learning Organization, 10(4), 202-215.

Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and

storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management

Information Systems, 18(1), 95-114.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.).

New York: Harper Collins.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social

& Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Trentin, G. (2001). From formal training to communities of practice via network-

based learning. Educational Technology, 41(2), 5-14.

Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization: A

Dichotomy Between Descriptive and Prescriptive Research. Human

Relations, 50(1), 73-89.

van der Bent, J., Paauwe, J., & Williams, R. (1999). Organizational learning: an

exploration of organizational memory and its role in organizational change

processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(5), 377-404.

Vincent, A., & Ross, D. (2001). Personalize training: determine learning styles,

personality types and multiple intelligences online. The Learning

Organization, 8(1), 36-43.

References 239

Waddell, D. M., Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2004). Managing Organisation

Development and Change: Pacific Rim 2nd ed. Melbourne: Thomson

Learning.

Waddell, D. M., & Sohal, A. S. (1998). Resistance: a constructive tool for change

management. Management Decision, 36(8), 543-548.

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of


Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2002). Learning through quality and innovation.

Managerial Auditing Journal, 17(7), 417-423.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development.

Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.

Weitzman, E. A. (2000). Software and Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

West, P. (1994). The learning organization: Losing the luggage in transit? Journal of

European Industrial Training, 18(11), 30-38.

Yeung, A. K. O., Brockbank, J. W., & Ulrich, D. O. (1991). Organizational culture

and human resources practices: An empirical assessment. Research in

Organizational Change and Development, 5(1), 59-81.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Zell, D. (2003). Organizational change as a process of death, dying, and rebirth. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 73-96.

Zikmund, W. G. (2000). Business Research Methods (6th ed.). Orlando: Dryden

Press.

Zimitat, C., & Crebert, G. (2002, 7-10 July). Conducting online research and

evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual International Higher Education

Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), Perth.

Appendixes 240

Appendix A. Information Sheet and Consent Form

Information Sheet and Consent Form Thank you for agreeing to be involved in my research looking at Unlearning in the Workplace, which is being conducted as part of my PhD studies with Queensland University of Technology. The purpose of this study is to provide further understanding of the issues faced by individuals who, as a part of organisational change, are required to change past habits or behaviours. Whilst your involvement in this study may not benefit you personally, it is hoped that this research will inform those within organisations responsible for implementation of change. As a participant in this research, you are guaranteed confidentiality. This research will be reported within my PhD report, and elements of it will be reported at conferences and in journals. In all of these situations, neither individuals nor organisations will be identified, and the level of information provided about participants will not allow for identification. My thanks again for your involvement Karen Becker Email: [email protected] Telephone: (07) 4930 9468 Fax: (07) 4930 9700 By signing below, you are indicating that you:

• Have read and understood the information provide above about this project • Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction • Understand that if you have additional questions you can contact the research team • Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time without comment or penalty • Understand that you can contact the research team if you have any questions about

the project, or the Research Ethics Officer on (07) 3864 2340 or [email protected]

• Agree to participate in this project

Name:

Signature:

Date: Please feel free to request of copy of this consent form once signed, for your future reference.

Appendixes 241

Appendix B. Questions for Phase One Pilot and revised for Phase One

Pilot Questions Revised/New Questions

I am interested in a change you have faced in your workplace in the last 6 months where you had to stop doing something the way you had in the past, and do it differently. Can you tell me about it? (probe for – what did it involve, what were you expected to learn, how did you feel about the change before, during and after)

This research relates to how individuals learn, and in particular, how they learn to do something differently to how they have done it in the past, something I’m going to call unlearning. You might not have really thought about it too much, but in your recent change from X to Y, I want to focus particularly on telling me about how you unlearnt.

Describe for me what you encountered during the change. (probe for feelings, stages of learning, reactions etc) Where are you in the process now? What helped the process of you stopping using the “old way”, and instead using the “new way”? (probe for individual and organisational factors) What hindered the process of you stopping using the “old way”, and instead using the “new way”? (probe for individual and organisational factors)

Tell me about the old way of doing things. Tell me about the new way. Describe for me what you encountered during the change from the old way to the new way What helped the process of you unlearning? (probe for individual and organisational factors) What hindered the process of you unlearning? (probe for individual and organisational factors)

Probe Questions (if required) What role if any, do you think your level of knowledge and experience played in your unlearning? What role if any, do you think your own style or personality played in your unlearning? What role if any, do you think the policies and procedures played in your unlearning? What role if any, do you think the age and size of the organisation played in your unlearning? What role if any, do you think the leaders and managers in the organisation played in your unlearniing?

Anything further you want to add? We have discussed a lot of things that could have an impact on you unlearning. Just to finish our discussion, could you give me a quick summary of what you see as the key issues, in order of priority that you believe helped unlearning? That you believe hindered unlearning?

Appendixes 242

Appendix C. Initial Interview with Organisational Contact (Phase 1)

Contact Name

Contact Position

Organisation Name

Age of organisation

Number of employees (FTE)

Labour Turnover rate (estimate if unknown)

Organisational Structure

Appendixes 243

From the criteria, an identified episode and description

Organisational perspective on level of success or otherwise of the change

Possible staff to interview and arrangements for contact

Appendixes 244

Appendix D. Table of codes Code Types of data Application Comments relating to application of the new

knowledge to assist unlearning Attachment to old way Comments about how difficult it was to release the

previous way and their level of commitment to it Changing behaviour Comments about changes to behaviour as a result of

new ways Colleagues Comments about the influence colleagues had either

in hindering or helping the unlearning process. Also comments in relation to the role of colleagues as mentors in the unlearning process. (these may be colleagues outside the organisation eg unions or inside)

External factors Comments relating to factors external to the organisation influencing change and unlearning

Feedback Comments about the use of feedback on changes made (or lack thereof) and the role this plays in unlearning

Feelings Any references to emotions or personal reactions to the change, any mentions of feelings etc

Frames of reference Comments that eluded to the existence of particular ways of thinking by the individual in the unlearning process, their outlook, motivations, perspectives

Justification of resistance Comments justifying why a change was being resisted or why the previous methods or behaviours were more appropriate

Level of experience and skill References to the breadth or depth of experience and skills, as well as comments relating to length of time in organisation or industry

Org culture Reference to the particular culture of the organisation and how it helped or hindered the process of unlearning.

Org memory Reference to age, size or history of the organisation as impacting upon the unlearning process

Org infrastructure Comments relating to policy, procedures, organisational structure, documents and other mechanisms and their impact on the unlearning process

Org support Reference to the support for change given by the organisation and the way in which particularly the management and leadership acted, and how this impacted on individual’s willingness or ability to unlearn

Personal style Any comments relating to individual personality, way of thinking, personal approach or style and the impact that had on unlearning

Appendixes 245

Code Types of data Planning for change Reference to the way change was planned and

implemented and the impact that had on unlearning Reinforcement and benefits Comments about either the communication of

reasons for change and benefits of the new way prior to change, or about those involved in unlearning receiving reinforcement (or lack thereof) or seeing the benefits of the new way

Training and development Reference to training and development provided to support the implementation of new methods or practices and the impact that had on unlearning

Trial and error References to the trial and error approach in the learning process as either helping or hindering unlearning

Type of change Comments about the nature of the change, the reasons for it and how that impacted on reactions to change and unlearning

Appendixes 246

Appendix E. Survey Instrument for Phase Two

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

“Unlearning in the Workplace”

Research Team Contact Karen Becker, PhD Researcher

(07) 4930 9468 [email protected]

Description

Thank you for agreeing to be involved in this research looking at Unlearning in the Workplace, which is being conducted as part of my PhD studies with Queensland University of Technology.

The purpose of this study is to provide further understanding of the issues faced by individuals who, as a part of organisational change, are required to change past habits or behaviours. This questionnaire asks your views on the implementation of a recent change, your views on your organisation, and your views on changes at work in general.

Participation

Your participation in this project will involve completion of the questionnaire which is estimated to take 20 minutes. Completion of the questionnaire is voluntary and your decision of whether to participate or not will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT or CQU. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from participation at any time without comment or penalty prior to completing the questionnaire. However, as the questionnaire is anonymous, it is not possible to withdraw once your questionnaire has been submitted.

Appendixes 247

Expected benefits

It is expected that this project will not benefit you personally but it is hoped that this research will inform those people within organisations who are responsible for implementing change.

Risks

There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.

Confidentiality

All comments and responses are anonymous and will be treated confidentially. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. Results will be reported within the PhD thesis, and elements of it will be reported at conferences and in journals. In all of these situations, neither individuals nor organisations will be identified, and the level of information provided about participants will not allow for identification.

Consent to Participate

The return of the completed questionnaire is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this project.

Questions / further information about the project

Please contact the researcher named above to have any questions answered or if you require further information about the project.

Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project

QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. If you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on (07) 3864 2340 or [email protected]. The Researcher Ethics Officer is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Appendixes 248

SECTION 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Highest completed training or qualification

Year 10/Junior or below

Year 12/Senior

Trade/Cert III/IV

Diploma

Undergraduate Degree

Postgraduate qualification (Masters, Grad Dip, etc)

2. Job classification (choose the one that best reflects the work you do)

Manager (determine the policy of the organisation or department, and direct its functioning, usually through other managers)

Professional (perform analytical, conceptual and creative tasks through the application of theoretical knowledge and experience)

Tradesperson and related workers (perform a variety of tasks, applying a body of trade or industry specific technical knowledge and operate a wide variety of complex precision machinery or plant)

Clerical, Sales and Service workers (perform a range of organisational, administrative, service and liaison tasks)

Production and Transport workers (operate plant, machinery, vehicles and other equipment)

Labourers and Related workers (perform routine tasks usually working under close supervision)

Other

3. Number of years in the organisation _________

4. Number of years in current position _________

5. Number of years you have been in this type of work (including other organisations) _________

6. Age range

25 or younger

26-45 years

46 years or older

7. Gender

Male Female

Throughout this questionnaire, you will see statements referring to

the “old way” and

the “new way”

This is asking you about the way you used to do your job prior to the implementation of the change and the way you do your job now.

Appendixes 249

8. How long ago was it when you became aware that the change would be occurring?

Less than 4 months ago

4-7 months ago

8-11 months ago

12 months or longer

9. How long had you been using the old way prior to the change?

Less than 6 months

6months - less than 12 months

12 months – less than 2 years

2-5 years

More than 5 years

Appendixes 250

SECTION 2. PRIOR TO THE CHANGE

This section asks you about to think back to when you first became aware that the new way was being introduced and you had heard enough to have some initial thoughts about it, but it had NOT been implemented.

At that time… Strongly agree Strongly

disagree

10. I understood why we needed to change from the old way 1 2 3 4 5

11. I was comfortable with the old way of doing things 1 2 3 4 5

12. I thought the new way sounded more difficult than the old way 1 2 3 4 5

13. I thought the old way was quite acceptable and didn’t need to change 1 2 3 4 5

14. I was worried about whether the organisation had made the right decision

1 2 3 4 5

15. I expected the change to be difficult to make 1 2 3 4 5

16. My colleagues were positive about the proposed new way 1 2 3 4 5

17. I felt apprehensive about the new way 1 2 3 4 5

18. I thought I would be well prepared for the new way by the time it was introduced

1 2 3 4 5

19. I had a positive overall view of the new way 1 2 3 4 5

20. I understood why the new way was needed 1 2 3 4 5

21. Changes in the organisation in the past had been well handled 1 2 3 4 5

22. My manager/supervisor was positive about the proposed new way 1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 251

SECTION 3. DURING THE CHANGE

This section asks you about your experiences during the change from the old way to the new way.

Strongly agree Strongly

disagree

23. Once I had heard about it, I was eager to try out the new way as soon as possible

1 2 3 4 5

24. My level of experience with the previous way made it difficult for me to make the change

1 2 3 4 5

25. I wanted to see in detail how the new way worked before I had to use it

1 2 3 4 5

26. My work colleagues were opposed to the new way 1 2 3 4 5

27. I found myself using trial and error when starting to use the new way 1 2 3 4 5

28. The opinion of my colleagues influenced my outlook on the new way

1 2 3 4 5

29. I had the support of my manager/supervisor during the change

1 2 3 4 5

30. My level of experience in my job made it easier for me to make the change

1 2 3 4 5

31. I had the support of my colleagues during the change 1 2 3 4 5

32. The speed of implementation between planning and then implementing the new way seemed to be fast

1 2 3 4 5

33. My level of comfort with the previous way made it difficult for me to make the change

1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 252

34. My manager/supervisor was positive about the new way 1 2 3 4 5

35. My level of experience in the organisation made it easier for me to make the change

1 2 3 4 5

36. My experience with previous changes in this company made me more concerned about this change

1 2 3 4 5

37. The opinion of my manager/supervisor had an influence on my outlook on the new way

1 2 3 4 5

38. Did you receive any written information about the new way (this might include policies, procedures, worksheets, handouts or manuals)?

No – please skip to Question 39

Yes – please respond to the following:

The written information was … Strongly agree Strongly

disagree

useful and relevant 1 2 3 4 5

able to be readily applied to my job 1 2 3 4 5

distributed in time to help me to learn the new way 1 2 3 4 5

39. Did you attend any training or information sessions about the new way?

No – please skip to Question 40

Yes – please respond to the following:

The training/information sessions … Strongly agree Strongly

disagree

were useful and relevant 1 2 3 4 5

gave real-life examples to help me understand the new way 1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 253

gave me a chance to practice using the new way 1 2 3 4 5

gave information that could be readily applied when I got back to work

1 2 3 4 5

SECTION 4. YOUR VIEWS TODAY

40. At present the new way is:

Much better than the old way

Problematic but I think it will be better than the old way in the future

No better or worse than the old way

Problematic and is only going to get worse in the future

Much worse than the old way

Fully implemented Not

implemented

41. In your opinion, how advanced is the organisation in the implementation of the new way?

1 2 3 4 5

Very different No difference

42. How would you rate the level of change to your job since the implementation of the new way?

1 2 3 4 5

These questions relate to your views of the change today:

Strongly agree Strongly

disagree

43. The speed of implementation between planning and then implementing the new way made it easier to change to the new way

1 2 3 4 5

44. I understand why the organisation decided to use this new way 1 2 3 4 5

45. I think the old way was better than the new way 1 2 3 4 5

Appendixes 254

46. I am still getting used to the new way 1 2 3 4 5

47. I am worried about whether the organisation has made the right decision

1 2 3 4 5

48. Getting used to the new way has been difficult for me 1 2 3 4 5

49. The new way is more difficult than the old way 1 2 3 4 5

50. At times, I still compare the old way and the new way 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION 5. YOUR APPROACH TO CHANGE

Listed below are several statements regarding general views and attitudes of changes at work. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement.

Statement Stronglydisagree Disagree

Inclined to

disagree

Inclined to

agree Agree Strongly

agree

51. I generally consider changes to be a negative thing. 1 2 3 4 5 6

52. I'll take a routine day over a day full of unexpected events any time. 1 2 3 4 5 6

53. I like to do the same old things rather than try new and different ones.

1 2 3 4 5 6

54. Whenever my life forms a stable routine, I look for ways to change it. 1 2 3 4 5 6

55. I'd rather be bored than surprised. 1 2 3 4 5 6

56. If I were to be informed that there's going to be a significant change regarding the way things are done at work, I would probably feel stressed.

1 2 3 4 5 6

57. When I am informed of a change of plans, I tense up a bit. 1 2 3 4 5 6

58. When things don't go according to plans, it stresses me out. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Appendixes 255

Statement Stronglydisagree Disagree

Inclined to

disagree

Inclined to

agree Agree Strongly

agree

59. If one of my managers changed my performance indicators, it would probably make me feel uncomfortable even if I thought I'd do just as well without having to do any extra work.

1 2 3 4 5 6

60. Changing plans seems like a real hassle to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

61. Often, I feel a bit uncomfortable even about changes that may potentially improve my life.

1 2 3 4 5 6

62. When someone pressures me to change something, I tend to resist it even if I think the change may ultimately benefit me.

1 2 3 4 5 6

63. I sometimes find myself avoiding changes that I know will be good for me.

1 2 3 4 5 6

64. I often change my mind. 1 2 3 4 5 6

65. I don’t change my mind easily. 1 2 3 4 5 6

66. Once I’ve come to a conclusion, I’m not likely to change my mind. 1 2 3 4 5 6

67. My views are very consistent over time. 1 2 3 4 5 6

Appendixes 256

SECTION 6: TYPE OF ORGANISATION

This section asks your opinion of the organisation and what type of a place it is to work. Each item contains four descriptions of organisations. Please distribute 100 points among the four descriptions depending on how similar the description is to your organisation. None of the descriptions are any better than the others; they are just different. For each question, please use all 100 points.

For example: In question 70 if organisation A seems very similar to yours, C seems somewhat similar, and B & D do not seem similar at all, you might give 70 points to A and the remaining 30 points to C as follows:

EXAMPLE ONLY

Points

70 Organisation A is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves.

Organisation B is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.

30

Organisation C is very results oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done. People are very competitive and achievement oriented.

Organisation D is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do.

68. Organisational Characteristics (Please distribute 100 points)

Points

Organisation A is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves.

Organisation B is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.

Organisation C is very results oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done. People are very competitive and achievement oriented.

Organisation D is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do.

Appendixes 257

69. Organisational Leadership (Please distribute 100 points)

Points

The leadership in Organisation A is generally considered to exemplify mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.

The leadership in Organisation B is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking.

The leadership in Organisation C is generally considered to exemplify a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus.

The leadership in Organisation D is generally considered to exemplify coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency.

70. Management of Employees (Please distribute 100 points)

Points

The management style in Organisation A is characterised by teamwork, consensus, and participation.

The management style in Organisation B is characterised by individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.

The management style in Organisation C is characterised by hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.

The management style in Organisation D is characterised by security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships.

71. Organisational Glue (Please distribute 100 points)

Points

The glue that holds Organisation A together is loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organisation runs high.

The glue that holds Organisation B together is a commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge.

The glue that holds Organisation C together is the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and winning are common themes.

The glue that holds Organisation D together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organisation is important

72. Strategic Emphasis (Please distribute 100 points)

Points

Organisation A emphasises human development. High trust, openness and participation persist.

Organisation B emphasises acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.

Organisation C emphasises competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant.

Organisation D emphasises permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are important.

Appendixes 258

73. Criteria of Success (Please distribute 100 points)

Points

Organisation A defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people

Organisation B defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.

Organisation C defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key.

Organisation D defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low-cost production are critical.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY

Appendixes 259

Appendix F. Development of Survey Instruments from Constructs in Process Model

Fit t

o Pr

oces

s M

odel

C

onst

ruct

– b

ased

on

findi

ngs f

rom

Pilo

t &

Phas

e 1

Item

/s

Aw

aren

ess

Aw

aren

ess

How

long

ago

was

it w

hen

you

beca

me

awar

e th

at th

e ch

ange

wou

ld b

e oc

curr

ing?

(8 -

nom

inal

)

Expe

ctat

ions

Pe

rcep

tion

of c

urre

nt

syst

em p

rior t

o ch

ange

/ E

xpec

tatio

ns o

f new

sy

stem

prio

r to

chan

ge

/ Exp

ecta

tions

of t

he

chan

ge p

roce

ss p

rior t

o ch

ange

I und

erst

ood

why

we

need

ed to

cha

nge

from

the

old

way

(2-1

0)

I was

com

forta

ble

with

the

old

way

of d

oing

thin

gs (2

-11)

I tho

ught

the

new

way

soun

ded

mor

e di

fficu

lt th

an th

e ol

d w

ay (2

-12)

I tho

ught

the

old

way

was

qui

te a

ccep

tabl

e an

d di

dn’t

need

to c

hang

e (2

-13)

I was

wor

ried

abou

t whe

ther

the

com

pany

had

mad

e th

e rig

ht d

ecis

ion

(2-1

4)

I exp

ecte

d th

e ch

ange

to b

e di

ffic

ult t

o m

ake

(2-1

5)

I tho

ught

I w

ould

be

wel

l pre

pare

d fo

r the

new

way

by

the

time

it w

as in

trodu

ced

(2-1

8)

I had

a p

ositi

ve o

vera

ll vi

ew o

f the

new

way

(2-1

9)

I und

erst

ood

why

the

new

way

was

nee

ded

(2-2

0)

Unl

earn

ing

proc

ess

Perc

eptio

n of

pro

gres

s th

roug

h un

lear

ning

pr

oces

s

At p

rese

nt I

thin

k th

e ne

w w

ay is

- M

uch

bette

r tha

n th

e ol

d w

ay, D

iffic

ult b

ut I

thin

k it

will

be

bette

r tha

n th

e ol

d w

ay in

the

futu

re, N

o be

tter o

r wor

se th

an th

e ol

d w

ay, D

iffic

ult a

nd is

onl

y go

ing

to g

et w

orse

in th

e fu

ture

, Is m

uch

wor

se th

an th

e ol

d w

ay (4

-40

- nom

inal

)

In y

our o

pini

on, h

ow a

dvan

ced

is th

e or

gani

satio

n in

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

new

way

? (4

-41)

How

wou

ld y

ou ra

te th

e le

vel o

f cha

nge

to y

our j

ob si

nce

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

new

way

? (4

-42)

Te

stin

g

Onc

e I h

ad h

eard

abo

ut it

, I w

as e

ager

to tr

y ou

t the

new

way

as s

oon

as p

ossib

le (3

-23)

I wan

ted

to se

e in

det

ail h

ow th

e ne

w w

ay w

orke

d be

fore

I ha

d to

use

it (3

-25)

I fou

nd m

ysel

f usi

ng tr

ial a

nd e

rror

whe

n st

artin

g to

use

the

new

way

(3-2

7)

Appendixes 260

Fit t

o Pr

oces

s M

odel

C

onst

ruct

– b

ased

on

findi

ngs f

rom

Pilo

t &

Phas

e 1

Item

/s

U

neas

e/R

esis

tanc

e I f

elt a

ppre

hens

ive

abou

t the

new

way

(2-1

7)

I und

erst

and

why

the

com

pany

dec

ided

to u

se th

is n

ew w

ay (4

-44)

I thi

nk th

e ol

d w

ay w

as b

ette

r tha

n th

e ne

w w

ay (4

-45)

I am

wor

ried

abou

t whe

ther

the

orga

nisa

tion

has m

ade

the

right

dec

isio

n (4

-47)

The

new

way

is m

ore

diff

icul

t tha

n th

e ol

d w

ay (4

-49)

C

onte

xtua

l Em

brac

ing

I am

still

get

ting

used

to th

e ne

w w

ay (4

-46)

Get

ting

used

to th

e ne

w w

ay h

as b

een

diff

icul

t for

me

(4-4

8)

At t

imes

, I st

ill c

ompa

re th

e ol

d w

ay a

nd th

e ne

w w

ay (4

-50)

Enab

lers

&

Inhi

bito

rs

Wor

k co

lleag

ues

My

colle

ague

s wer

e po

sitiv

e ab

out t

he p

ropo

sed

new

way

(2-1

6)

My

wor

k co

lleag

ues w

ere

oppo

sed

to th

e ne

w w

ay (3

-26)

The

opin

ion

of m

y co

lleag

ues i

nflu

ence

d m

y ou

tlook

on

the

new

way

(3-2

8)

I had

the

supp

ort o

f my

colle

ague

s dur

ing

the

chan

ge (3

-31)

M

anag

er/s

uper

viso

r M

y m

anag

er/s

uper

viso

r was

pos

itive

abo

ut th

e pr

opos

ed n

ew w

ay (2

-22)

I had

the

supp

ort o

f my

man

ager

/sup

ervi

sor d

urin

g th

e ch

ange

(3-2

9)

My

man

ager

/sup

ervi

sor w

as p

ositi

ve a

bout

the

new

way

(3-3

4)

The

opin

ion

of m

y m

anag

er/s

uper

viso

r had

an

influ

ence

on

my

outlo

ok o

n th

e ne

w w

ay (3

-37)

Appendixes 261

Fit t

o Pr

oces

s M

odel

C

onst

ruct

– b

ased

on

findi

ngs f

rom

Pilo

t &

Phas

e 1

Item

/s

In

ert k

now

ledg

e (p

olic

ies,

proc

edur

es,

docu

men

tatio

n)

Did

you

rece

ive

any

writ

ten

info

rmat

ion

abou

t the

new

way

(thi

s mig

ht in

clud

e po

licie

s, pr

oced

ures

, wor

kshe

ets,

hand

outs

or

man

uals

)? (3

-38a

– n

omin

al)

The

writ

ten

info

rmat

ion

was

usef

ul a

nd re

leva

nt (3

-38b

)

able

to b

e re

adily

app

lied

to m

y jo

b (3

-38c

)

dist

ribut

ed in

tim

e to

hel

p m

e to

lear

n th

e ne

w w

ay (3

-38d

)

Fo

rmal

trai

ning

D

id y

ou a

ttend

any

trai

ning

or i

nfor

mat

ion

sess

ions

abo

ut th

e ne

w w

ay?

(3-3

9a –

nom

inal

)

The

train

ing/

info

rmat

ion

sess

ions

wer

e us

eful

and

rele

vant

(3-3

9b)

gave

real

-life

exa

mpl

es to

hel

p m

e un

ders

tand

the

new

way

(3-3

9c)

gave

me

a ch

ance

to p

ract

ice

usin

g th

e ne

w w

ay (3

-39d

)

gave

info

rmat

ion

that

cou

ld b

e re

adily

app

lied

whe

n I g

ot b

ack

to w

ork

(3-3

9e)

Pe

rson

al a

ppro

ach,

ex

perie

nce

and

back

grou

nd

How

long

had

you

bee

n us

ing

the

old

way

prio

r to

the

chan

ge (9

– n

omin

al)

My

leve

l of e

xper

ienc

e w

ith th

e pr

evio

us w

ay m

ade

it di

ffic

ult f

or m

e to

mak

e th

e ch

ange

(3-2

4)

My

leve

l of e

xper

ienc

e in

my

job

mad

e it

easi

er fo

r me

to m

ake

the

chan

ge (3

-30)

My

leve

l of c

omfo

rt w

ith th

e pr

evio

us w

ay m

ade

it di

fficu

lt fo

r me

to m

ake

the

chan

ge (3

-33)

My

leve

l of e

xper

ienc

e in

the

orga

nisa

tion

mad

e it

easi

er fo

r me

to m

ake

the

chan

ge (3

-35)

Appendixes 262

Fit t

o Pr

oces

s M

odel

C

onst

ruct

– b

ased

on

findi

ngs f

rom

Pilo

t &

Phas

e 1

Item

/s

C

hang

e pr

oces

ses

Cha

nges

in th

e or

gani

satio

n in

the

past

had

been

wel

l han

dled

(2-2

1)

The

spee

d of

impl

emen

tatio

n be

twee

n pl

anni

ng a

nd th

en im

plem

entin

g th

e ch

ange

seem

ed to

be

fast

(3-3

2)

My

expe

rienc

e w

ith p

revi

ous c

hang

es in

this

com

pany

mad

e m

e m

ore

conc

erne

d ab

out t

his c

hang

e (3

-36)

The

spee

d of

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

chan

ge m

ade

it ea

sier

for m

e to

cha

nge

to th

e ne

w w

ay (4

-43)

Org

anis

atio

nal m

emor

y &

cul

ture

Se

ctio

n 3

(pre

viou

sly

deve

lope

d in

stru

men

t use

d in

Pha

se 1

)

Add

ition

al

Enab

lers

&

Inhi

bito

rs (b

ased

on

lite

ratu

re

revi

ew)

Pers

onal

ity

Sect

ion

4 (p

revi

ousl

y de

velo

ped

inst

rum

ent u

sed

in P

hase

1)

Appendixes 263

Appendix G. Detailed analysis of Phase One Pilot interviews Participant P001.

Participant 1 was a teacher in a private high school located in a regional centre. The

private school in which he worked is part of a broader collective of Grammar schools

within the schooling system. The episode which he described related to a change in

curriculum design and teaching delivery within the school. As a supervisor and

developer of curricula, he reflected upon the way in which he came to terms with a

new way of designing and developing course material and described in some detail

his reflection on previous processes as a means of learning. He discussed the process

he went through of making the learning context-specific, and even referred to times

when the new way was not appropriate. At times he also justified his decision not to

discard the old way, explaining it was not always appropriate or applicable to use the

new approach. These comments offer some support for the parenthetic model of

learning offered by Klein (1989); where previous knowledge is not discarded or

overwritten, but put to one side for times when the new way is considered

inappropriate.

In discussing the new ways of working, he drew parallels between the old way and

the new way to explain differences and put them in context, and discussed doing this

as a part of the learning process. This process was advocated by Baxter et al (1997)

when referring to conceptual mediation; indicating that learners engaging in the

relinquishing of previous methods of behaviour, need first to identify the differences

between the old way and the new way.

In terms of reactions to the change encountered, the participant identified an initial

reaction of frustration in having to do something differently. He mentioned feeling

“daunted”, and he recognised a level of resistance in his responses due to comfort

with existing processes. These emotional reactions to change provide support for the

literature on individual change and transition (French & Delahaye, 1996; Goodstone

& Diamante, 1998; Paoli & Prencipe, 2003) and highlight the need for organisational

change and individual learning literature to consider this aspect further.

Appendixes 264

In reflecting upon the factors that helped and hindered him to unlearn and adopt

these new methods, he identified the provision of training and development

opportunities as a catalyst for change and learning. He identified the importance of

applying new concepts in a practical way to enable learning to occur and reinforcing

the importance of transfer of learning (Delahaye & Smith, 1998). He also mentioned

a personal approach of testing, reflecting, and adapting which can be paralleled with

action learning processes suggested by Kolb (1984). As an integral part of this, he

also discussed the importance of feedback loops as reinforcement of the new way,

and as a way to reduce slipping back to old ways. This is further example of the

adult learning concept of reinforcement identified by Delahaye & Smith (1998).

Other factors mentioned by this participant that helped unlearning included the fact

that the new way was mandatory, in essence meaning there was a lack of choice on

behalf of those having to learn the new method. In addition, he highlighted that

management within the school demonstrated commitment to the new way and

provided organisational support and training to assist with the transition. He also

reported that being able to see evidence of positive outcomes from the new process

provided a form of intrinsic reward for those involved in the learning.

When asked to reflect upon factors that hindered the unlearning process, the

participant discussed not only factors he believed impacted upon his own change in

behaviour, but also upon those he observed in others encountering the same change.

He discussed a lack of resources (in this case, human resources) to support

implementation as one factor that slowed the process; indication of an organisational

factor that impacted upon individual learning and unlearning. The response and

feedback from the external environment (in this case, the parents of students within

the school) indicating lack of understanding of the new method also hindered the

adoption. Finally, a lack of wider communication and dissemination along with

limited follow up and reinforcement within certain sections of the school was also

seen as a factor with the potential to slow the unlearning and adoption processes.

A key issue raised by this participant a number of times during discussion, was the

extent of “newness” of the concept to the individual and its perceived impact upon

ability and/or willingness to unlearn. In his case it was not as new to him as it was to

Appendixes 265

others who had never been exposed to these methods. In conjunction with this, he

reflected upon the level of perceived threat to the old way of operating as a factor

with the potential to hinder unlearning processes. He identified that being required

to change past behaviours may be seen by some as a threat to expertise, and

suggested that those who had spent a longer period of time in their current positions

may feel offended by the inference that past practices/behaviours were not optimal.

He also noted that the less time spent in the industry may lead to less resistance to the

change, but also suggested if too new, the individual may possibly feel overwhelmed

by a requirement to change.

Participant P002.

The second participant worked in an administrative role within a regional university.

The change discussed with this participant was the movement from a paper-based

system of producing course documents to an electronic system. The episode as it

was described required a change not only to what was done but also how it was done,

and the requirement to change the mindset to accommodate an entirely new way of

operating. In discussing this change, she reflected upon not only her own approach

to the changes but also to the impact upon and reactions of those around her with

whom she needed to work closely to achieve the required outcome. These were both

other administrative staff, and those within professional academic roles within the

organisation.

In particular, this participant mentioned a number of times, her outlook on change,

indicating that she had a preference for hands-on learning, again similar to the action

research approach described by the first participant. In discussing this approach with

her, it also highlighted the possibility of a link between outlook on change and

unlearning and the personality of the individual involved. She referred a number of

times to the way she looked at things in comparison to others.

When asked about factors that she believed assisted in the transition between the old

way and the new way, she noted that the new system was mandatory, leaving all staff

with no choice other than to learn the system, something also highlighted by the first

participant. She also explained a process of implementation followed by reflection

and discussion to make improvements based upon learnings; again describing a

Appendixes 266

typical action learning approach (Kolb, 1984). The use of such a trial can also be

linked back to the suggestion by Starbuck (1996), that when individuals believe they

are not totally relinquishing past practice, but trialling a new way, they may be more

willing to consider possibilities. She believed this system of trialling the new way

enabled staff to see the benefits both personally and for the organisation as a whole,

making it easier to embrace. She also mentioned the benefit she gained personally

from being involved actively in the teaching of others as a way of reinforcing the

learning.

Factors she believed hindered the unlearning process included problems with

resource infrastructure. The new electronic system did not cope with the load and

therefore access was a problem for the staff attempting to use it. In this case, the

resources provided by the organisation initially were not sufficient for the learning to

occur. This issue was also identified by the first participant, highlighting an area of

convergence between interviews. Lack of skills and/or training to assist with moving

from the old way was also seen as a hindrance to unlearning.

When asked to reflect on those individuals exhibiting the most resistance to the

implementation of the new system, the participant considered length of time using

the previous system (and hence length of tenure in the organisation) as appearing to

make it more difficult to unlearn. This serves to reinforce the claims that more

experience and expertise at the individual level (Knowles & Saxberg, 1988; Zell,

2003) and age and size of the organisation (equated with organisational memory by

Berthon et al (2001)) can cause a slowing of the unlearning process. The participant

also mentioned the impact of the organisational culture which is seen as quite

bureaucratic, emphasising hierarchy and position. She believed this played a part in

hindering the willingness of staff to embrace new ways of doing things.

Appendixes 267

As Part B of the Pilot Study was conducted in one organisation, the first part of the

analysis relates to the content findings from the four interviews. This is followed by

findings identified in relation to the process of convergent interviewing and

participant selection in an organisation.

Participant P003.

Participant 3 was the first of four interviews conducted in the Pilot organisation. She

discussed a change in her job role and that as a supervisor, she was learning to work

differently; in particular, more closely with the other supervisory staff. She referred

to the history of the organisation and staff feeling shocked by a change of

management style given this lengthy history, giving an indication of the impact of

organisational memory on her experience of the changes.

Like the previous participants, Participant 3 noted many times during the interview,

her emotional reactions to the change and even went so far as to suggest she went

through “stages” of responses. When discussing her feelings during particularly the

early stages of the change, she used words like “shock” and thought it was “a joke”.

Factors this participant believed helped in coming to terms with a new way of

operating included effective and timely communication of changes, management

support during the changes and the supportive culture being engendered by the new

management team. These managers were seen as encouraging staff to try new ways.

She referred to a supportive work environment making a positive contribution whilst

changing from the old system, and that the use of informal relationships and

networks helped individuals come to terms with the changes. She also believed that

individuals being able to see personal benefits in the new way, assisted many during

the transition. It was also apparent from the discussion that the more open sharing of

information; in this case production information, meant she was more aware of the

reasons for the change and the importance of them. This process of having

information shared has changed her way of looking at the world and in particular

how the operation is run, and she is now more aware of business outcomes. The

change in organisational structure at the same time as other changes may have also

assisted in letting go of old ways of operating. The participant also suggested that

for those less willing to change, being able to see evidence of positive outcomes, and

Appendixes 268

providing recognition and reward to reinforce the new way of working, also helped

the unlearning process; relating back to Thorndike’s (1928) Law of Effect.

The existence of an amassed expertise and knowledge within the organisation (which

could be referred to as organisational memory), also appeared to assist in some

respects by providing an understanding of the operational processes and how they

had evolved. This memory may also have hindered, as this participant a number of

times referred to being hesitant because the new General Manager did not seem to

have expertise in the operation. As Knowles & Saxberg (1988) suggested, those who

have invested heavily in their current knowledge may not be willing to unlearn. This

participant had progressed up through the ranks based upon previous behaviour and

ways of operating, and therefore was reluctant to relinquish these ways of operating.

The main factor that the participant believed hindered the process was the differing

personalities of the individuals involved. This was mentioned a number of times

during the interview as she believed different people handled the same change

differently depending on the “type” of person they are. She also believed that the

size of the organisational unit in which they worked made a difference to the level of

adoption; suggesting that those operating in larger groups do not tend to let go of old

ways of working as quickly as smaller groups.

Participant P004.

Participant 4 was an operator within the laundry and had recently moved from the

larger operation to the smaller part of the process involved in a more specialised

product. This participant from the Pilot Study organisation had difficulty recalling

specifics in relation to the changes encountered and although cooperative, found it

difficult to reflect and answer the questions. She described the change in working

patterns/roster in broad terms and her own personal approach of “giving it a go”.

Although there were few new themes emerging from this interview, she did identify

factors that helped her to change to a new way of working including the existence of

a supportive work environment, supportive work colleagues, a small working group,

and a change in management implementing a more supportive approach. All of these

can be considered cultural factors in terms of the model of unlearning, indicating that

a specifically supportive culture enables unlearning. She also provided an indication

Appendixes 269

that even though working at an operational level, through a new management style of

sharing of information, she has become more aware of business outputs hence

enabling her to understand the need for change and unlearning.

Participant P005.

Participant 5 was in a supervisory position in the organisation and was quite wary of

the change to begin with. He spoke however about a sense of urgency created by the

sharing of organisational information, and therefore the increased commitment to

learning to work differently; he saw it as a necessity that all employees change their

ways or the organisation would cease to operate. Having been put in a supervisory

role for the first time, it was clear he was still coming to terms with the requirements

of a first-level managerial role as opposed to a purely operational role. This change

in the way he previously operated was explored further in an attempt to identify

things that helped and hindered him coming to terms with the changes. During this

discussion, he also noted others’ responses and reflected upon how others came to

terms with the changes.

Factors that were considered to have helped the process included the sense of

urgency created by the sharing of information and the change in culture. It was

considered that the new management team had engendered a more supportive

culture, and that the increased involvement of staff had lead to increased

commitment to change past habits. He also identified an improved morale after

seeing results from the change; believing that this in turn provided further incentive

to learn and continue using new ways.

This participant focussed predominantly on individual factors that he believed

hindered the learning and unlearning processes. He believed that the ineffective

interpersonal skills of some supervisors created resistance and that some individuals’

approaches and personal reactions to the change made it more difficult for them to let

go of past habits and ways of working.

Participant P006.

The final participant worked in a slightly different role to the other three participants

from the same pilot organisation, and was involved in a support role for the business

Appendixes 270

service employees. This required her to liaise with a wide range of employees, and

hence gave her a wider insight into the change processes and individuals’

experiences of the learning and unlearning required. As this was a relatively new

role for her, she had personally undergone a great deal of learning and unlearning in

terms of fulfilling the requirements of her job.

In explaining the process encountered during letting go of the previous way of

working and adopting the more systematic approach introduced by the new

management team, she described a trial and error process; that is learning from

action and reflection and then improvement, again reflecting the importance of an

action learning process (Kolb, 1984).

She also described a change in organisational culture that supported the changes,

allowing communication between those in similar roles and the ability to discuss

strategies between individuals in order to learn new ways of handling issues.

Agreeing to and documenting changes in procedures following reflection on old

ways was emphasised as providing reinforcement of the learning. Similar to

participants 1, 3 and 5, she described having a sense of direction and understanding

the reasons for the change as assisting to create commitment to learning and

unlearning. As this participant was relatively new to the organisation and is

studying, she believed that outside experiences and development brought to the

workplace also assisted her personally to adapt to new ways of working.

This participant maintained that at times, lack of skills, knowledge and/or experience

to support the change hindered efforts to implement new ways of working. In

relation to her own experience, she discussed the role of emotions; in particular, self

doubt and self-criticism, particularly relating to unfamiliar territory. Although she

showed a recognition of the need for change, she still reflected on the emotions of

anger and frustration; not only herself but also seen in others, and a level of

resistance to new ways of doing things.

Appendixes 271

Appendix H. Synthesis and Emerging Themes of Phase 1 Pilot

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

Indi

vidu

al’s

per

sona

l ap

proa

ch/ p

erso

nalit

y Y

es

“(la

ught

er) w

ell,

um, a

s w

ith a

nyth

ing,

cha

nge

…..

can

be g

ood

and

it ca

n be

bad

… w

hy

both

er w

hing

eing

abo

ut

it, w

hen

it’s n

ot g

oing

to

mak

e a

diffe

renc

e”

“it w

as ju

st a

mat

ter

of…

wan

ting

to si

t dow

n an

d le

arn

it, a

nd …

do it

in

divi

dual

ly.

Whe

reas

, w

hen

[oth

er st

aff]

foun

d ou

t thi

s is w

hat’s

goi

ng

to h

appe

n, th

ey…

. ki

cked

up

a bi

t of a

fuss

…

they

wer

en’t

will

ing

to ju

st g

ive

it a

go”

“.. a

lot o

f our

pro

blem

s ar

e ca

used

bec

ause

of a

la

ck o

f com

mun

icat

ion

… a

nd so

met

imes

I th

ink

ther

e’s a

bit

of…

.. hu

man

thro

wn

in th

ere.

.”

“it’s

abo

ut b

eing

abl

e to

se

e th

ose

posit

ives

th

ough

I gu

ess”

[initi

al re

actio

n to

the

chan

ge] “

Oh

OK

. Ju

st

try a

nd…

yea

h w

ork

thro

ugh

it”

I prid

e m

ysel

f on

bein

g a

hand

s on

man

ager

–

peop

le w

ill g

et in

and

ha

ve a

go

if th

ey a

re

supp

orte

d

Appendixes 272

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

Indi

vidu

al’s

pre

viou

s ex

perie

nce

and/

or

know

ledg

e

“…w

ere

I jus

t get

ting

into

the

indu

stry

, I c

an

imag

ine

that

it w

ould

be

very

ove

rwhe

lmin

g…

And

if I

was

late

r on…

I co

uld.

. see

that

I m

ight

.. be

offe

nded

at s

omeo

ne

sayi

ng I’

m d

oing

it

wro

ng…

” “

how

diff

eren

t it i

s to

the

old

way

is…

im

porta

nt.

Bec

ause

…

this

is a

ver

y si

mila

r pr

oces

s to

wha

t a lo

t of

our t

each

ing

is a

nyw

ay..

if I h

ad to

cha

nge

ever

ythi

ng a

roun

d m

y te

achi

ng o

r if I

had

to

chan

ge it

in su

ch a

way

th

at I

coul

dn’t…

teac

h w

hat I

was

teac

hing

…:..

it

wou

ld b

e in

cred

ibly

ta

xing

and

tim

e co

nsum

ing…

it w

ould

re

ally

.. h

eigh

ten

the

aggr

avat

ion”

“it’s

just

that

peo

ple

who

are

n’t c

ompu

ter

liter

ate

kind

of..

you

kn

ow…

they

.. th

ey’r

e go

ing

to b

e ne

gativ

e to

it.

” “I

f it’s

som

ethi

ng n

ew,

peop

le a

re g

oing

to b

e ne

gativ

e be

caus

e w

hy

chan

ge it

if th

ey d

on’t

see

if th

ere’

s a m

ajor

pr

oble

m w

ith it

…”

“I’v

e go

t tha

t litt

le

build

ing

up th

ere.

. I c

an

hide

… b

ut it

doe

sn’t

help

the

othe

r tw

o…

Bec

ause

I’ve

bee

n he

re

long

er th

an th

e ot

her

two…

and

they

pic

k m

y br

ain

for t

he

info

rmat

ion”

Y

es

Yes

Cha

ngin

g fra

mes

of

refe

renc

e

“But

peo

ple

don’

t rea

lise

that

now

days

you

hav

e to

kee

p up

with

new

te

chno

logy

and

…I

belie

ved

it w

as ju

st

posi

tive.

”

Yes

Yes

“y

eah

we’

ve c

ome

to u

m

deal

with

a lo

t of

chan

ges o

urse

lves

… n

ot

mai

nly

rost

ers b

ut th

e w

ay w

e do

thin

gs”

Appendixes 273

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

Iner

t kno

wle

dge,

and

cu

rren

t sys

tem

s, st

ruct

ures

, pro

cedu

res

and

proc

esse

s

Y

es

[rec

ogni

tion

of c

hang

e in

stru

ctur

e an

d ro

le] “

I m

ean

I kno

w I’

m m

iddl

e m

anag

emen

t”

“we’

ve n

ever

had

it

[rec

ogni

tion]

bef

ore…

an

d I t

hink

som

etim

es

too

that

the

peop

le u

p in

th

e [s

mal

l lau

ndry

] hav

e ad

apte

d a

lot b

ette

r tha

n th

e m

ain

one…

and

I th

ink

that

’s b

ecau

se o

f th

e sm

all g

roup

”

Y

es

“…

we’

re m

ore

invo

lved

now

in

pape

rwor

k…. d

ealin

g w

ith ..

. file

not

es, c

ase

note

s… se

tting

up

for

the

gove

rnm

ent a

udits

…

whi

ch h

as b

een

pret

ty

com

plex

‘cau

se in

the

past

we

wer

en’t

expl

aine

d an

y of

this

…

we

wer

e ju

st th

row

n in

to

it …

had

to fi

nd o

ur fe

et

alon

g th

e w

ay”

Org

anis

atio

nal m

emor

y “.

. if I

kne

w it

was

a

flavo

ur o

f the

mon

th

thin

g w

here

this

is th

e fif

th ti

me

we’

ve

impl

emen

ted

som

ethi

ng

like

this

, the

n I w

ould

be

a lo

t mor

e he

sita

nt”

“I ju

st k

now

that

cer

tain

pe

ople

who

wer

e co

mpl

aini

ng a

bout

it, I

kn

ow th

at y

es, t

hey

have

be

en h

ere

for q

uite

a

whi

le..”

“the

thin

g th

at li

ke in

th

is o

rgan

isat

ion,

be

caus

e w

e ha

ve a

lot o

f hi

stor

y an

d …

. for

me

and

the

peop

le..

othe

r pe

ople

at m

y le

vel,

it w

as q

uite

a sh

ock

whe

n ac

tual

ly [n

ame]

bec

ame

our g

ener

al m

anag

er”

Y

es

Appendixes 274

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

Org

anis

atio

nal c

ultu

re

(incl

udin

g le

ader

ship

st

yle)

“it’s

com

e fro

m a

bove

th

at th

is is

the

way

we’

re

gonn

a do

thin

gs a

nd th

at

they

will

be

perio

dica

lly

chec

king

in w

ith u

s es

peci

ally

for t

he fi

rst

coup

le o

f yea

rs th

at w

e ar

e do

ing

thin

gs th

eir

way

.”

“And

whe

n w

e di

d th

at

[pro

vide

d tra

inin

g], n

ot

man

y pe

ople

show

ed u

p,

and…

. the

reac

tion

of

prob

ably

thre

e, m

aybe

fo

ur p

eopl

e w

ho d

id

show

up

was

ext

rem

ely

appa

lling

…..

they

wer

e (la

ugh)

… n

ot h

appy

that

a

gene

ral a

dmin

staf

f w

as te

lling

them

how

to

do so

met

hing

”

“… a

ll ou

r pre

viou

s ge

nera

l man

ager

s ...

wer

e ye

lling

… “

do w

hat

I say

– o

r the

re’s

the

door

“ty

pe m

anag

ers”

“C

omm

unic

atio

n pl

ayed

a

key

part.

. but

also

eve

n th

ough

we

had

new

m

anag

emen

t, w

e so

rt of

re

alis

ed..

that

no

mat

ter

wha

t we

did,

they

ac

tual

ly st

ill su

ppor

ted

us”

“all

of th

e lit

tle th

ings

th

at o

ur m

anag

er’s

said

th

at h

e’s g

oing

to d

o, h

e ha

s suc

ceed

ed a

nd

done

…”

[wha

t hel

ped?

] “ha

d on

e la

dy in

par

ticul

ar, s

he

show

ed m

e…ho

w to

do

it an

d I h

ad [s

uper

viso

r]

on th

e ot

her e

nd sa

ying

, ye

s you

can

do

this

and

sh

e he

lped

me

out a

bi

t..”

“.. t

hey’

re

[man

agem

ent]

easy

to

talk

to a

nd …

ap

proa

chab

le…

but

the

othe

r one

s I fo

und

that

I co

uldn

’t go

up

and

say

hey

look

you

kno

w..

can

you

help

me

with

this

?”

Man

agem

ent c

hang

ed

ofte

n –

you

knew

it w

as

goin

g un

der “

you

coul

d ju

st fe

el it

” I p

ride

mys

elf o

n be

ing

a ha

nds o

n m

anag

er –

pe

ople

will

get

in a

nd

have

a g

o if

they

are

su

ppor

ted

I alw

ays t

houg

ht th

is

plac

e co

uld

do w

ell b

ut

we

just

nee

ded

som

eone

to

stay

long

eno

ugh

to

settl

e it

dow

n –

now

w

e’re

on

top

of th

ings

–

befo

re w

hen

we

had

a br

eakd

own,

we

wer

e st

uffe

d –

not e

noug

h st

ock

– ta

ke w

eeks

to

catc

h up

– c

ame

in e

very

m

orni

ng a

nd th

ink

we

will

nev

er g

et th

ere

– no

w it

’s n

o bi

g de

al a

nd

we

catc

h up

eas

ily –

it

does

a lo

t for

peo

ple

feel

ing

good

and

not

un

der p

ress

ure

(Pro

duct

ion

Man

ager

) al

so v

ery

good

– h

e w

ill

wal

k ar

ound

and

talk

to

peop

le –

he’

ll ch

at a

nd

not s

ay y

ou n

eed

to g

o ba

ck to

wor

k –

peop

le

see

he c

ares

and

that

m

ake

a di

ffere

nce

“we

sort

of k

now

whe

re

we’

re g

oing

now

, we

can

see

a di

rect

ion…

w

here

as b

efor

e w

e w

ere

just

in a

bit

mes

s goi

ng

now

here

” “…

so b

asic

ally

just

ha

ving

the

freed

om o

f di

scus

sion

and

…

know

ing

that

we

coul

d m

ake

choi

ces …

and

…

we

wer

en’t

gonn

a be

to

ld it

was

no

good

, we

just

had

that

free

dom

to

keep

tryi

ng …

”

Appendixes 275

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

Ref

lect

ion

and

actio

n le

arni

ng a

s a p

art o

f un

lear

ning

“....

in a

lot o

f cas

es n

o m

atte

r wha

t you

do,

..

it’s a

.. m

atte

r of..

w

orki

ng y

our w

ay

thro

ugh

it an

d th

ose

mis

take

s will

just

mak

e it

easi

er to

.. to

han

dle

in

.. in

the

futu

re”

“…it’

s usu

ally

one

of

thos

e re

flect

ive

thin

gs

whe

re I’

ll lo

ok b

ack

and

say

I wis

h I h

ad h

ave

done

.. or

I ne

ed to

ch

ange

… “

“You

kno

w, l

ike

my

opin

ion

was

, let

’s ju

st

give

it a

go…

And

see

how

it g

oes.

We

can

alw

ays s

it do

wn

and

revi

ew it

at t

he e

nd, a

nd

wor

k ou

t if i

t has

bee

n su

cces

sful

or n

ot..”

Yes

“w

ell w

e ha

ve …

staf

f m

eetin

gs …

with

our

[m

anag

er]…

she

sits

the

thre

e of

us d

own

in h

ere

and

we

disc

uss …

di

ffer

ent s

trate

gies

…

diffe

rent

way

s of

impl

emen

ting

thin

gs …

w

e br

ains

torm

, pro

blem

so

lve

a lo

t of t

he is

sues

…

and

.. w

hen

we’

re a

ll in

agr

eean

ce [s

ic] t

hen

we

put i

t dow

n on

pap

er

and

we

try a

nd st

ick

to

that

” “…

if w

e ha

ve a

ny

prob

lem

s, w

e’ll

sort

of

get t

oget

her a

nd d

iscu

ss

them

” “

we

kept

, you

kno

w,

trial

ling

diffe

rent

thin

gs

until

we

sort

of g

ot it

rig

ht”

Mak

ing

the

lear

ning

co

ntex

t-spe

cific

(a

pply

ing

the

lear

ning

to

assi

st u

nlea

rnin

g)

“…w

e us

e [th

e ne

w

proc

ess]

to te

ach

som

e of

the

basi

cs b

ut w

e ca

n’t a

ctua

lly u

se it

to

teac

h th

e w

hole

…”

Appendixes 276

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

The

role

of l

earn

ing

and

train

ing

as a

com

pone

nt

of u

nlea

rnin

g

“a lo

t of p

rofe

ssio

nal

deve

lopm

ent.

A lo

t of

days

aw

ay w

here

we

wou

ld…

com

e to

geth

er

and…

look

at t

he

theo

ries b

ehin

d it.

We

got …

rese

arch

mat

eria

l, w

e go

t the

boo

k, w

e go

t …

exa

mpl

es,…

a lo

t of

pape

rwor

k…”

“[an

othe

r div

isio

n] c

ome

over

and

they

gav

e us

a

run

thro

ugh

and

show

ed

us w

hat t

o do

. W

hich

is

fine

… b

ut o

nce

I’ve

be

en sh

own,

I ne

ed to

ha

ve so

met

hing

like

a

set o

f pro

cedu

res n

ext t

o m

e …

and

I jus

t nee

d to

si

t the

re a

nd w

ork

my

way

thro

ugh

it”

“a

few

of u

s hav

en’t

used

com

pute

rs …

So

now

we’

ve so

rt of

bee

n th

row

n in

to th

at a

spec

t of

it a

s wel

l”

“I’m

stud

ying

at t

he

mom

ent –

I’m

doi

ng a

tra

inee

ship

thro

ugh

wor

k …

that

’s a

ctua

lly

help

ed m

e be

caus

e I’

m

doin

g so

muc

h w

ritin

g in

it a

nd I’

m le

arni

ng a

s I’

m g

oing

so a

lot o

f it’s

ju

st g

ettin

g in

pla

ce”

Man

datin

g ch

ange

or

crea

ting

a se

nse

of

urge

ncy

“Ext

erna

l fac

tors

are

it’s

m

anda

tory

(lau

gh)..

.”

“Eve

ryon

e w

ante

d to

ha

ve a

whi

nge

and

put

thei

r tw

o ce

nts’

wor

th

in, w

hich

is fi

ne, b

ut it

’s

not g

oing

to c

hang

e th

e fa

ct th

at w

e H

AV

E to

do

it.”

“Lik

e, a

t the

mom

ent,

ther

e’s a

ll of

our

jobs

are

ha

ngin

g in

the

bala

nce…

”

Y

es

“I c

an u

nder

stan

ding

w

here

man

agem

ent’s

co

min

g fro

m, t

hat …

th

ey’v

e br

ough

t abo

ut

chan

ges t

o try

and

hel

p th

is w

orkp

lace

su

rviv

e… a

nd to

kee

p on

goi

ng, ‘

caus

e w

ithou

t th

eir i

deas

, and

ev

eryo

ne’s

idea

s, it’

s not

go

nna

go a

nyw

here

…”

Appendixes 277

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

Rei

nfor

cem

ent o

r de

mon

stra

tion

of

payo

ffs a

ssis

ting

unle

arni

ng

“By

the

stat

istic

s tha

t w

e’ve

bee

n gi

ven

in th

e pr

ofes

sion

al

deve

lopm

ent d

ays i

t’s

been

show

n th

at it

has

w

orke

d, a

nd so

you

can

ki

nd o

f see

that

it w

ill

actu

ally

.. be

of s

ome

effe

ct”

“P

ut it

to y

ou th

is w

ay,

we

have

a k

ilo p

er

oper

ator

hou

r … b

efor

e w

e st

arte

d th

is ro

ster

, I

thin

k ou

r kilo

per

op

erat

or h

our w

as o

nly

a lo

usy

23…

we

star

ted

this

rost

er a

nd it

pr

obab

ly d

ropp

ed to

18

… n

ow w

e’re

sitti

ng

on 3

7… so

, it i

s im

prov

ing

and

peop

le

are

com

ing

to te

rms w

ith

it....

but

it is

a lo

ng

proc

ess”

K

new

the

prod

uctio

n fig

ures

wer

e ba

d –

befo

re th

e pr

oduc

tion

was

righ

t dow

n, b

ut n

ow

you

can

see

the

grap

hs

goin

g up

U

sed

to c

ome

in a

nd se

e th

e ba

cklo

g, n

ow w

e fe

el

on to

p of

thin

gs a

nd

that

’s a

real

cha

nge

for

peop

le –

they

go

hom

e fe

elin

g go

od

Appendixes 278

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

Rei

nfor

cem

ent o

r de

mon

stra

tion

of

payo

ffs a

ssis

ting

unle

arni

ng

“By

the

stat

istic

s tha

t w

e’ve

bee

n gi

ven

in th

e pr

ofes

sion

al

deve

lopm

ent d

ays i

t’s

been

show

n th

at it

has

w

orke

d, a

nd so

you

can

ki

nd o

f see

that

it w

ill

actu

ally

.. be

of s

ome

effe

ct”

“P

ut it

to y

ou th

is w

ay,

we

have

a k

ilo p

er

oper

ator

hou

r … b

efor

e w

e st

arte

d th

is ro

ster

, I

thin

k ou

r kilo

per

op

erat

or h

our w

as o

nly

a lo

usy

23…

we

star

ted

this

rost

er a

nd it

pr

obab

ly d

ropp

ed to

18

… n

ow w

e’re

sitti

ng

on 3

7… so

, it i

s im

prov

ing

and

peop

le

are

com

ing

to te

rms w

ith

it....

but

it is

a lo

ng

proc

ess”

K

new

the

prod

uctio

n fig

ures

wer

e ba

d –

befo

re th

e pr

oduc

tion

was

righ

t dow

n, b

ut n

ow

you

can

see

the

grap

hs

goin

g up

U

sed

to c

ome

in a

nd se

e th

e ba

cklo

g, n

ow w

e fe

el

on to

p of

thin

gs a

nd

that

’s a

real

cha

nge

for

peop

le –

they

go

hom

e fe

elin

g go

od

Emot

iona

l ele

men

t to

unle

arni

ng

“ge

tting

it d

own

to th

e po

int w

here

you

’re

actu

ally

[usi

ng th

e pr

oces

s] is

.. q

uite

da

untin

g in

a lo

t of

case

s”

“I g

uess

… w

e do

hav

e co

ordi

nato

rs th

at h

elp

us

to im

plem

ent a

nd a

re

alw

ays w

illin

g to

…

assi

st u

s, bu

t it’s

a sc

ary

conc

ept g

oing

to th

em

and

havi

ng th

em sa

y no

yo

u’re

doi

ng th

is

wro

ng”

[fea

r of f

ailin

g?]

“S

o yo

u ca

n im

agin

e, it

w

as li

ke sh

ock”

“y

eah

it w

as q

uite

st

rang

e an

d I s

uppo

se,

som

e of

us a

ctua

lly

reje

cted

him

[new

G

ener

al M

anag

er] f

or a

w

hile

… w

ho th

e he

ll ar

e yo

u? G

ive

us a

bre

ak,

you

know

, you

’ve

neve

r be

en in

a la

undr

y an

d yo

u co

me

in h

ere

tryin

g to

rule

the

roos

t”

“tho

ught

it w

as a

joke

(la

ugh)

” “I

thin

k I w

as..

a bi

t re

belli

ous”

“…

I ac

tual

ly g

ot q

uite

di

stre

ssed

… I

actu

ally

to

ok d

ays o

ff th

inki

ng I

do n

ot w

ant t

o go

to

wor

k”

go

t a h

eada

che

at ti

mes

an

d m

ight

hav

e be

en

easi

er ju

st to

do

it th

e w

ay w

e ha

d, b

ut w

e kn

ew w

e co

uldn

’t ke

ep

goin

g th

at w

ay o

r we’

d al

l be

out o

f a jo

b

[rea

ctio

n to

cha

nge]

“S

hock

, hor

ror (

laug

h)

… sc

ared

…. ‘

caus

e it

was

unf

orbi

dden

[sic

] w

ater

s tha

t (w

e) …

had

ne

ver r

eally

bee

n ex

plai

ned

in g

reat

de

pth”

“a

t firs

t I th

ough

t “oh

bi

g du

m-d

um!”

‘cau

se I

didn

’t kn

ow w

hat a

ny o

f th

em w

ere

talk

ing

abou

t”

“wel

l I c

an n

ot sp

eak

for

othe

r peo

ple,

but

just

of

wha

t I’v

e ob

serv

ed …

bu

t as f

ar a

s … th

e ch

ange

s with

m

anag

emen

t and

the

new

rost

ers c

once

rnin

g m

ains

tream

… I

can

see

a lo

t of a

nger

”

Appendixes 279

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

Thre

at to

cur

rent

way

s or

kno

wle

dge/

exp

ertis

e “y

ou c

an se

e its

use

s but

de

finite

ly, y

ou k

ind

of

look

at i

t.. sa

ying

.. w

ell I

do

my

job

wel

l…”

“t

he b

ig th

ing

at th

e m

omen

t is..

the

laun

dry

is so

use

d to

bei

ng fu

lly

staf

fed

and

due

to th

e fa

ct th

at w

e’ve

got

to

actu

ally

wor

k ec

onom

ical

ly so

that

w

e’ll.

. if w

e’re

onl

y do

ing

105

tonn

e, w

e’re

on

ly a

llow

ed to

hav

e 2,

200

hour

s a w

eek

…

So it

mea

ns y

ou’v

e go

t to

cut

are

as…

. ..a

nd a

t th

e m

omen

t, th

at’s

the

maj

or c

ompl

aint

–

“the

re’s

nob

ody

here

””

“: I

t’s a

tota

lly n

ew ro

le

for h

er [o

ther

su

perv

isor

], an

d… it

’s

prob

ably

new

for u

s to

wor

k to

geth

er..”

Y

es

Dra

win

g pa

ralle

ls

betw

een

old

and

new

w

ays

“I p

roba

bly

felt

the

sam

e as

a lo

t of p

eopl

e w

here

.. in

a lo

t of c

ases

we

wer

e do

ing

wha

t [th

e pr

oces

s]

said

, we

prob

ably

just

w

eren

’t st

atin

g it

as

obvi

ousl

y”

Incr

emen

tal l

earn

ing

“… in

a lo

t of c

ases

, it’s

a

unit

by u

nit t

hing

w

here

at t

he st

art o

f the

un

it I w

ill lo

ok a

t.. th

e un

it its

elf,

and

um…

.. pl

an fo

r tha

t”

“I

supp

ose

that

I w

ent

thro

ugh

the…

you

r di

ffere

nt st

ages

you

kn

ow…

”

Yes

Y

es

Appendixes 280

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S N

ote:

“Y

es”

has b

een

incl

uded

whe

re th

e pa

rtic

ipan

t exh

ibite

d th

is fa

ctor

pla

ying

a r

ole,

but

no

spec

ific

quot

e ad

equa

tely

illu

stra

tes i

t

TH

EM

ES

P001

P0

02

P003

P0

04*

P005

**

P006

Exte

rnal

env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

s “I

gue

ss th

e bi

g fa

ctor

s ar

e th

e st

uden

ts

them

selv

es a

nd th

e pa

rent

s… w

hile

ther

e w

ere

atte

mpt

s mad

e to

ed

ucat

e th

em in

wha

t w

e’re

doi

ng, i

n a

lot o

f ca

ses,

whe

n I m

entio

n [th

e pr

ogra

m]…

it’s

the

first

tim

e th

e ki

ds h

ave

hear

d ab

out i

t… s

o th

e ki

ds th

emse

lves

and

I th

ink

the

pare

nts n

eed

a lo

t mor

e ed

ucat

ion

on

this

”

Org

anis

atio

nal

infra

stru

ctur

e

“the

syst

em w

ould

be

dow

n an

d to

o m

any

peop

le w

ere

acce

ssin

g it”

Yes

* Pa

rtici

pant

4 h

ad d

iffic

ulty

refle

ctin

g on

the

lear

ning

and

unl

earn

ing

proc

esse

s and

ther

efor

e no

t man

y co

mm

ents

hav

e be

en in

clud

ed.

A “

Yes

” ha

s bee

n in

clud

ed h

owev

er if

, whe

n pr

ompt

ed,

the

parti

cipa

nt in

dica

ted

this

them

e m

ay h

ave

had

influ

ence

dur

ing

the

chan

ges

** P

artic

ipan

t 5 c

omm

ents

are

not

ver

batim

due

to a

tech

nolo

gy b

reak

dow

n. I

nste

ad, n

otes

from

the

inte

rvie

wer

are

pro

vide

d an

d a

“Yes

” ha

s bee

n in

clud

ed if

, dur

ing

the

cour

se o

f the

in

terv

iew

, the

par

ticip

ant i

ndic

ated

this

them

e

Unlearning in the Workplace: A Mixed Methods...

Documents

Transcript of Unlearning in the Workplace: A Mixed Methods...