Search results

While much empirical research has examined how routines are unlearned, little is known about the intentional forgetting of rules in organizations. This paper aims to combine the literature on organizational rules and that on intentional forgetting with the aim of studying the relationship between power types of rule imposition and the process of intentional forgetting.

This study is a single-case analysis carried out in a multinational automotive company that introduced an agile project into the development department. The case was chosen because the introduction of agility was grounded on a dominantly created set of rules. Access to unique data was provided to study processes of intentional forgetting when actors have to apply new rules. In all, 33 interviews and further observations were conducted in a two-year study. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was used for data analysis.

This case study demonstrates the importance of two forms of power, domination and self-organization, when it comes to forgetting rules intentionally. A rule will be intentionally forgotten if it is created by domination, does not originate from conventional working practices and does not determine an organizational unit (development team). Furthermore, the findings point to the importance of self-organization when it comes to intentional forgetting.

This research relies on a single-case study and presents first results on intentionally forgetting rules.

Organizations implementing new forms of working such as agile working in their existing structures should be aware that processes of intentional forgetting can occur. Managers should consider why organizational members stop following dominantly created rules. Ignoring such a phenomenon could be a threat to the organization’s success.

While many studies examined the process of unlearning routines, little is known about the intentional forgetting of rules in organizations. Rules are different from routines because they are imposed and encompass a normative component. The imposition of a rule is based on power. Two forms of power are presented in this article: domination and self-organization. In addition, the QCA was carried out at a micro-level.

This paper reviews research developments in semiosis (sign activity) as theorized by Peirce, Eco and Sebeok, focusing specifically on the current study of “semiotic threshold zones,” which range from the origins of life through various nonhuman life forms to artificial life forms, including those symbolic thresholds most familiar to library and information science (LIS) researchers. The intent is to illustrate potential opportunities for LIS research beyond its present boundaries.

The paper provides a framework that describes six semiotic threshold zones (presemiotic, protosemiotic, phytosemiotic, zoosemiotic, symbolic and polysemiotic) and notable work being done by researchers in each.

While semiotic researchers are still defining the continuum of semiotic thresholds, this focus on thresholds can provide a unifying framework for significance as human and nonhuman interpretations of a wide variety of signs accompanied by a better understanding of their relationships becomes more urgent in a rapidly changing global environment.

Though a variety of semiotic-related topics have appeared in the LIS literature, semiotic thresholds and their potential relationships to LIS research have not been previously discussed there. LIS has traditionally tasked itself with the recording, dissemination and preservation of knowledge, and in a world that faces unprecedented environmental and global challenges for all species, the importance of these thresholds may well be considered as part of our professional obligations in potentially documenting and archiving the critical differences in semiosis that extend beyond purely human knowledge.