Teaching old dogs new tricks why unlearning matters.

The Eurozone crisis, stalled growth and heightened economic uncertainty simply fuels an
increasingly volatile and changeable environment for many small firms. If this was not
enough, the changes firms need to make are often not just adaptive or incremental, but
radical and discontinuous. Unfortunately the taken for granted assumptions and beliefs
about the environment, markets and competitors that underpin the behaviour of small firms
may no longer hold true and in these conditions the business can unwittingly become
trapped by its own past, shared beliefs and practices which reinforce the status quo, pushing
it towards the known and familiar rather than challenging it.
How then might firms escape prior knowledge, beliefs and practices that are no longer
helpful, particularly given the enduring and self-reinforcing nature of these?
Whilst there is growing interest in the field of entrepreneurial learning, there is relatively little
consideration of unlearning; that is the process of reducing or releasing pre-existing beliefs,
knowledge or routines that would otherwise present a considerable barrier to new learning
(Starbuck, 1996). In a cognitive sense, there is no such thing as a clean slate (Newstrom,
1983) a significant hurdle to learning is not the absence of knowledge, but rather the
existence of prior knowledge.
There is then a difference between learning and unlearning and although unlearning usually
precedes learning they frequently occur simultaneously. Unlearning is not simply attempting
to wipe away past thinking, which is unrealistic, but a deliberate process in which individuals
acknowledge and then willingly release or set aside prior knowledge in order to embrace
new understanding or perspectives. This may sound relatively easy, but given the time and
effort invested into developing knowledge and practices and how this is woven into our
identity, self-belief and esteem - abandoning even part of these ingrained mental maps is
potentially a disturbing and emotionally painful experience, triggering fears of loss of
credibility, and perceived expertise.
Our natural response is to become defensive of the status quo and in the context of a
management team of a small firm the problem is further compounded by the prevailing
dominant logic that supports and re enforces existing ways of doing things and thinking
about the business. Janis (1982) coined the phrase groupthink to describe how individual
thought and behaviour usually conforms to the group norms, rendering new insights almost
impossible.
What the concept of unlearning offers is a purposeful shift of an individuals underlying frame
of reference, and rather than simply learning to replace one course of action with another,
unlearning enables the emergence of new ways of thinking and behaving.
However this requires a learning/ unlearning climate that is open to question existing
assumptions and is transparent, in which there are high levels of trust, opportunities for
dialogue and a willingness to experiment. Unfortunately this presents a significant challenge
to many small firms in which the opportunity to find the necessary reflective space and time
often eludes the firm. Also, questioning the assumptions of the business usually means
challenging embedded ways of thinking and the power bases that reinforce this.
Consequently any radicle ideas that stray significantly from how things get done around
here either go unspoken, for fear of loss of credibility or side-lined as unrealistic or
unacceptable. This filtering process effectively perpetuates what counts and what does not in
terms of legitimate knowledge and beliefs.

Although engaging in the process of unlearning is possible through generating an internal

disruptive discourse within the firm to gradually shift thinking and existing behaviours and
practices - this is often a long, tortuous and sustained process, usually requiring the
determined advocacy of a particular individual on a mission! In reality unlearning is often
beyond the capability of the team itself; instead it requires the intervention of external actors
to create the necessary reflective space and legitimacy to reframe knowledge and beliefs.
Interventions may come in many different shapes and sizes, but one particularly effective
form is in the role of mentors and coaches. Their independence and perceived credibility,
free from the historical baggage of the firm itself can act as a powerful legitimising influence
for breaking with the past, helping the firm join the dots together as it reframes and enacts
new ways of doing things. This is of course dependent on establishing a high level of trust
with these actors, both in terms of their credibility, breadth of experience and knowledge and
their ability to join the entrepreneur and senior managers in understanding the real lived
experiences of the firm.
Successful mentoring/ coaching interventions are usually characterised by individuals who
are empathetic listeners, sensitive to the particular context of the firm, but equally undaunted
by the prospect of challenging existing ideas and practices. Building the trust relationship is
essential and opens the door to legitimately raising concerns or doubts which in turn initiates
the prospect of a wider dialogue and nurtures the emergence of the necessary reflective
space and opportunities for experimentation.
In environments increasingly characterised by discontinuous change, a deliberate and
proactive stance to unlearning is necessary in small firms. This is important to both
practitioners and those seeking to develop effective interventions. For the small firm it
requires an openness to the realisation or discovery of potentially redundant or unhelpful
knowledge and practices. This is most likely enabled by the intervention of external actors.
The opportunity to nurture a disruptive dialogue to affect change requires the firm to make
the time and share the space for reflective dialogue, in which assumptions and beliefs can,
at least temporarily, be suspended, establishing a safe arena to explore and re-evaluate
these. If successful, prior ideas and assumptions loosen their grip and opportunities for
experimentation emerge.

Dr Ian McKeown University of Wolverhampton