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)
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
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;
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
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
Chapter 1. Introduction 4
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.
Chapter 1. Introduction 5
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.
Chapter 1. Introduction 6
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
Chapter 1. Introduction 7
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
Chapter 1. Introduction 8
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 10
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 11
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.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 12
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 13
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 14
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 15
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.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 16
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).
Chapter 2. Literature Review 17
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)
Chapter 2. Literature Review 18
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)
Chapter 2. Literature Review 19
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.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 20
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.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 21
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 22
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 23
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 24
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 25
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 26
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 27
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 28
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.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 29
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.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 30
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 31
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.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 32
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 33
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.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 34
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 35
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 36
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 37
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 38
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 39
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 40
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 41
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 42
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
Chapter 2. Literature Review 43
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.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 44
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 2. Literature Review 45
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
Figure 3.1. Chapter 3 structure
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 47
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 48
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 49
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;
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 50
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 51
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 52
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 53
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 54
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 55
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).
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 56
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 57
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 58
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 59
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 60
“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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 61
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 62
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 63
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 64
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 65
Figure 3.5. Unlearning Model Level 2
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 66
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 67
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 68
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.
Figure 3.6. Unlearning Model Level 3
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 69
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 70
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 71
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 72
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.
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 73
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 74
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
Chapter 3. Development of Conceptual Framework 75
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 77
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
individual unlearning?
2. What is the relationship between individual tacit knowledge and individual
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
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?
The final question did not emerge specifically from the literature review, but allows
for identification of other possible influencing factors during the research.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 78
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 79
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 80
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.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 81
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 82
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.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 83
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.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 84
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 85
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.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 86
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 87
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).
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 88
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 89
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 90
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.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 91
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 92
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.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 93
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
(mechanistic processes, external focus), adhocracy (organic processes, external
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 94
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 95
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 96
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.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 97
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 98
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 99
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 100
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?
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 101
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,
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 102
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.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 103
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 104
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 105
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 106
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.
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 107
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 108
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 109
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
Chapter 4. Research Design & Methodology 110
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
Findings & Expanding the Process Model
Individual Factors
Organisational Factors
Organisation B Analysis
Individual Factors
Organisational Factors
Findings & Expanding the Process Model
Chapter Summary & Process Model
Revision
Pilot Study Conclusions
Organisation C Analysis
Cross Case Analysis
Figure 5.1 Chapter 5 structure
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 112
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 113
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 114
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 115
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 116
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 117
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 118
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 119
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 120
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 121
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 122
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 123
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 124
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 125
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).
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 126
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 127
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 128
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 129
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 130
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 131
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:
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 132
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 133
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 134
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 135
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 136
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 137
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 138
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 139
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 140
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 141
Research Participants
Table 5.3 provides a background and profile of the research participants in
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 142
Explicit and Tacit Knowledge
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 143
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 144
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 145
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 146
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 147
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 148
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)
Summary – Individual Factors
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.
Organisational Inert Knowledge
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:
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 149
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:
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 150
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 151
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.
Organisational Memory and Culture
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:
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 152
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 153
(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:
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 154
(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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 155
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.
Summary – Organisational Factors
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 156
existence of a “splintered” culture appeared to have significant impact on unlearning
even at the individual level.
Expanding the Process Model
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 157
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 158
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.
Research Participants
Table 5.4 provides a background and profile of the research participants in
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 159
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 160
Explicit and Tacit Knowledge
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 161
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 162
Summary – Individual Factors
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.
Organisational Inert Knowledge
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 163
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.
Organisational Memory and Culture
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 164
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 165
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:
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 166
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)
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 167
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.
Summary – Organisational Factors
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.
Expanding the Process Model
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 168
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 169
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 170
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 171
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”.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 172
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 173
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
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 174
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 175
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 5. Phase One Results 176
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.
Chapter 5. Phase One Results 177
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.
Figure 6.1. Chapter 6 structure
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 179
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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 180
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 181
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).
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 182
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 183
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 184
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 185
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).
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 186
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 187
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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 188
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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 189
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 190
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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 191
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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 192
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 193
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
Sig. (2-tailed) .000Pearson Correlation .754(**)Factor3
Assessment of new way Sig. (2-tailed) .000Pearson Correlation .473(**)Factor4
Positive experience & informal support
Sig. (2-tailed) .008Pearson Correlation .741(**)Factor5
History of organisational change
Sig. (2-tailed) .000Pearson Correlation .696(**)Factor6
Positive prior outlook Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 194
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 195
Factor 2. Organisational support and training
The following statements were included in this factor:
• 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
The following statements were included in this factor:
• 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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 196
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
The following statements were included in this factor:
• 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
The following statements were included in this factor:
• 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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 197
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
The following statements were included in this factor:
• 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
The following statements were included in this factor:
• 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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 198
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
The following statements were included in this factor:
• 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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 199
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 200
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 201
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.
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 202
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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 203
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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 204
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
Chapter 6. Phase Two Results 205
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
Figure 7.1. Chapter 7 structure
Chapter 7. Conclusion 207
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
Chapter 7. Conclusion 208
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?
2. What is the relationship between individual tacit knowledge and individual
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 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?
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)
Chapter 7. Conclusion 209
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
Chapter 7. Conclusion 210
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.
Chapter 7. Conclusion 211
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
Chapter 7. Conclusion 212
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
Chapter 7. Conclusion 213
(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
Chapter 7. Conclusion 214
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.
Chapter 7. Conclusion 215
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).
Chapter 7. Conclusion 216
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
Chapter 7. Conclusion 217
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.
Chapter 7. Conclusion 218
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
Chapter 7. Conclusion 219
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.
Chapter 7. Conclusion 220
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
Chapter 7. Conclusion 221
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
Development, 24(1), 30-36.
Durrance, B. (1998). Some explicit thoughts on tacit learning. Training and
Development, 52(12), 24-29.
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
Management Review, 35(1), 37-50.
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
Management Review, 16(1), 57-91.
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
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
Top Related