The effect of organizational memory on organizational agility: Testing the role of counter-knowledge and knowledge application

Journal of Intellectual Capital The effect of organizational memory on organizational agility: Testing the role of counter-knowledge and knowledge application Journal: Journal of Intellectual Capital Manuscript ID JIC-03-2019-0048.R2 Manuscript Type: Research Paper Keywords: Organizational memory, Knowledge application, Counter-knowledge, Organizational agility, PLS-SEM, Intellectual capital Abstract: Journal of Intellectual Capital Journal of Intellectual Capital MANUSCRIPT DETAILS : The effect of organizational memory on organizational agility: Testing the role of counter-knowledge and knowledge application :capital includes what employees know, and the agility to search and retrieve knowledge (organizational agility). Organizational agility could be seen as the result of using validated routines and protocols (knowledge application), but also as the result of using unproven theories, rumours, colloquial expressions or sayings (counter-knowledge), which means that organizational memory may enable both the application of good knowledge and the mitigation of counter-knowledge. This study examines the links between a firm’s organizational memory, counter-knowledge, knowledge application, and organizational agility.SmartPLS 3.2.8 in a sample of 112 companies the following questions were addressed: Does the improvement of organizational memory result in the growth of organizational agility? Does the growth of counter-knowledge and knowledge application at the same time hinder the enhancement of organizational agility?results support that organizational memory not only enhances the application of gained knowledge, but also allows the spreading of rumours, gossip, and inappropriate or false beliefs (counter-knowledge). Furthermore, results support that the knowledge that emerges from the development in parallel or simultaneous of counter-knowledge and knowledge application provides bad references, which will lead to a degradation of organizational agility._RESEARCH_LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS__(LIMIT_100_WORDS) :No data available.supporting organizational agility, managers should be conscious of the urgency of counteracting the misuse of counter-knowledge.findings make an important contribution to what is potentially a barrier to innovation and creativity, helping managers overcome the problems associated with misunderstandings or wrong assumptions derived from counter-knowledge. Page 1 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital The effect of organizational memory on organizational agility: Testing the role of counter-knowledge and knowledge application Abstract Purpose: Intellectual capital includes what employees know, and the agility to search and retrieve knowledge (organizational agility). Organizational agility could be seen as the result of using validated routines and protocols (knowledge application), but also as the result of using unproven theories, rumours, colloquial expressions or sayings (counterknowledge), which means that organizational memory may enable both the application of good knowledge and the mitigation of counter-knowledge. This study examines the links between a firm’s organizational memory, counter-knowledge, knowledge application, and organizational agility. Design/ Methodology/ Approach: Using SmartPLS 3.2.8 in a sample of 112 companies the following questions were addressed: Does the improvement of organizational memory result in the growth of organizational agility? Does the growth of counter-knowledge and knowledge application at the same time hinder the enhancement of organizational agility? Findings: The results support that organizational memory not only enhances the application of gained knowledge, but also allows the spreading of rumours, gossip, and inappropriate or false beliefs (counter-knowledge). Furthermore, results support that the knowledge that emerges from the development in parallel or simultaneous of counterknowledge and knowledge application provides bad references, which will lead to a degradation of organizational agility. Practical implications: When supporting organizational agility, managers should be conscious of the urgency of counteracting the misuse of counter-knowledge. Originality/ Value: These findings make an important contribution to what is potentially a barrier to innovation and creativity, helping managers overcome the problems associated with misunderstandings or wrong assumptions derived from counterknowledge. Keywords: Organizational memory; knowledge application; counter-knowledge; organizational agility; intellectual capital; PLS-SEM Paper type: Research paper Page 2 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1. Introduction Intellectual capital is the sum of the intangible assets a company has at its disposal that can be used to create competitive advantages (Bueno et al., 2006; Lentjušenkova and Lapina, 2016). An important component of intellectual capital is ‘intellectual agility’, which is defined as the environments in which the staff are willing to modify structures and to think of innovative strategies to face challenges (Bontis et al., 2000, 2002; Ditillo, 1998). This concept is closely connected to that of ‘organizational agility’, which means the capability of firms to adjust/adapt their strategic direction or redeploy/redirect their resources to create value (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011; Doz and Kosonen, 2008; Teece et al., 2016). This study reports that organizational agility may be considered as an extension of intellectual agility and defines it as the result of transferring and retrieving knowledge from one context to another (Pereira et al., 2018; Weber and Tarba, 2014). In order to grow and prosper in the current context of crisis and uncertainty, it is necessary for companies to respond rapidly to the rapid high-tech and environmental challenges (Cai et al., 2019; Lu and Ramamurthy, 2011; Pereira et al., 2018). For these reasons, the literature has attempted to present structures for achieving agility (Chakravarty et al., 2013; Wahyono, 2018). In such contributions, it is observed that the ability to examine the market in search of opportunities or threats and to harmonize them within the company depends on the knowledge available both inside and outside the organization. This means that organizational agility is not only the result of using validated routines and protocols (i.e., knowledge application), but it may also be the result of using unproven theories, rumours, colloquial expressions or sayings (i.e., counter-knowledge). Although knowledge application and counter-knowledge may signify the exchange of knowledge, the utilization of verified and unverified information involves the use and development of different knowledge structures with different characteristics. Whereas knowledge application involves using knowledge learned to a new context and is usually a formal process (Martelo-Landroguez and Cegarra-Navarro, 2014), counter-knowledge involves the dissemination of unsubstantiated information and is an informal and flexible process, which is in the hands of the parties (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2015a). Since there are authors who suggest that counter-knowledge can lead to a degradation of knowledge (Chapman and Ferfolja, 2001; Darr et al., 1995; Fernandez and Sune, 2009; Markoczy, 1994), it is important to base the decision-making process on knowledge and not on the influence of counter-knowledge (Allameh, 2018; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2015a). As the simultaneous pursuit of verified and unverified information may hamper the development of intellectual capital and organizational agility (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2015b), it is important to make use of ‘organizational memory’ to better support the networking of employees, managers, and companies (Al-Faouri et al., 2014). Organizational memory is considered a key factor to create and sustain a firm’s competitive advantage (Anderson, 1983; Ebbers and Wijnberg, 2009; Moorman and Miner, 1998), and implies more than just good experiences and habits. It is the total integration of structures and processes within a business that allow it to apply knowledge with the purpose of better achieving objectives (Ebbers and Wijnberg, 2009). Organizational memory involves retaining information in companies in forms of standard operating procedures, structural artefacts and mental models (Walsh and Ungson, 1991). Page 3 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Bearing the above ideas in mind, we suggest that organizational memory may facilitate both the application of good knowledge and the mitigation of counter-knowledge (Harvey, 2012; Lee et al., 2011; Wexler, 2002). Our understanding of organizational agility, as a result of applying both verified knowledge and counter-knowledge is limited, if not non-existent. In addition, studies focused on counter-knowledge and intellectual capital are scarce, with only a few exceptions (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2015a; Echajari and Thomas, 2015). This research aims to examine the links between a firm’s organizational memory, counter-knowledge, the process of knowledge application, and organizational agility. This study explores those links by addressing the following two questions: Does the improvement of organizational memory result in the growth of organizational agility? Does the growth of counter-knowledge and knowledge application at the same time hinder the enhancement of organizational agility? The answer to these questions lies in the effort needed to maintain a balance between applying the right knowledge and counteracting the harmful effects of bad counter-knowledge. This study uses SmartPLS 3.2.8 in a sample of 112 companies listed on the Spanish Stock Exchange. In the following section, an examination of the concepts discussed above is presented. The third section explores the potential relationships between these constructs. The fourth section describes the methodology used in the study. Then, we present the findings. Finally, we state the discussion and conclusions. 2. Conceptual framework 2.1. Organizational agility Organizational agility has been defined in various ways, including an intellectual viewpoint. Roos et al. (1997) revive the concept of ‘intellectual agility’, which describes how individuals can integrate knowledge and skills into a practical context through learning. When intellectual agility owned by employees is captured and coordinated by the organization then it is transformed into organizational agility, which Sull (2010) defines as the capacity to recognise and grab opportunities more hastily than competitors. There are other definitions, such as that of Dyer and Ericksen (2010), who bring to light the fact that organizational agility is the result of using the conceptual lenses provided by the organizational context such as interactions and self-organizing. From a management viewpoint, the achievement of organizational agility is related to two interdependent approaches: a) to find out why one company should respond hastily to external challenges (Appelbaum et al., 2017), and b) which parts of the operational system need to incorporate changes to operate in a more efficient way (Leybourn, 2013). Concerning the second issue, Leybourn (2013) suggests that fundamental changes usually take place along with communication and lean management structures. If we draw on papers that refer to organizational agility as the continuous adaptation between communication and lean management structures (Al-Faouri et al., 2014; Boden, 2004; Cai et al., 2019; Power et al., 2001; van Oosterhout et al., 2006), the conclusions could be that ‘organizational agility’ allows an effective response of organizations to the changing situations. According to Teece et al. (2016), the term organizational agility is almost a synonym of flexibility. In fact, Weber and Tarba (2014) define it as the organizational capability to remain flexible in the face of new developments. Page 4 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital On the basis of the results of the existing studies, we define organizational agility as the capability of firms to adjust/adapt their strategic direction or redeploy/redirect their resources to create value, both reacting rapidly to changes and anticipating and seizing opportunities (Charbonnier-Voirin, 2011; Teece et al., 2016). Hence, the agility to react quickly and innovate is key to compete effectively in markets in which demand and innovations advance more quickly (Alegre et al., 2013; Gassmann, 2006). As Shahrabi (2012) notes, in order to compete effectively and better utilize the available opportunities, companies must be able to seamlessly integrate knowledge processes in a manner that facilitates organizational agility. In addition, the effective use of knowledge resources in firms promotes their innovation and their response to fast-changing customer expectations (Jiménez-Jiménez et al., 2014; Peeters and Martin, 2017; Sandhawalia and Dalcher, 2011). 2.2. Knowledge management processes Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009) suggest that the accomplishment of organizational agility is related to a set of drivers. Among the top facilitating enablers, they highlight cross-functional and external integration. In this vein, Eshlaghy et al. (2010) identified factors such as leadership, engagement or satisfaction. Based on this research, it can be asserted that organizational agility requires the integration of knowledge processes in an appropriate way (Allameh, 2018; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2015b; Chakravarty et al., 2013). Although different supporting processes of knowledge management exist (Gold et al., 2001; Martelo-Landroguez et al., 2011; Ranjbarfard et al., 2014), the acquisition/creation, transfer, retention, and application of knowledge are considered to be the key knowledge management processes (Martelo-Landroguez and Cegarra- Navarro, 2014). Knowledge acquisition involves the generation and accumulation of know-how in organizations (Gold et al., 2011; Jantunen, 2005; Lin and Lee, 2005). Knowledge transfer involves the distribution of understandings and know-how within firms (Baskerville and Dulipovici, 2006; Manfredi Latilla et al., 2018). Knowledge retention, also known as organizational memory, aims to collect knowledge and make it accessible to anyone in the firm in order to benefit decision-making (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). And knowledge application refers to the utilization of knowledge on a daily basis (Jantunen, 2005). Of these four processes, our study focuses on two of them: knowledge retention and knowledge application. According to Walsh and Ungson (1991, p. 61), organizational memory refers to the “stored information from an organization’s history that can be brought to bear on present decisions”. Organizational memory is particularly important as a store of either the objectified knowledge (e.g., procedures and protocols) or the collective knowledge in the form of culture or shared values (Ebbers and Wijnberg 2009; Tippins and Sohi, 2003). These terms have also been defined as hard and soft memories (Córdoba-Pachón and Cegarra-Navarro, 2010; Hardy-Vallee, 2012; Kellerman, 2004). The presence of both types of knowledge (i.e., objectified and collective) not only guides the actions of individuals but also their thoughts (Cegarra-Navarro, 2007; Moorman and Miner, 1998). For example, while rules and procedures provide the framework of reference for applying knowledge, the common philosophy and culture provide the basic understandings for Page 5 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital interpreting the perceptions and affections behind what is being said (García-Pérez et al., 2019). Applying available knowledge in the form of procedures and protocols will save time and facilitate extrapolation of decisions from one context to another (Chang Lee et al., 2005). In addition, applying objectified knowledge in different contexts will give the company the necessary experience to avoid making previous mistakes (Senge, 1990). Hence, knowledge application allows firms to take advantage of what they have learned in the past (e.g., Cui et al., 2005; Gold et al., 2001; Lin, 2007), and it also avoids repetition of past mistakes (Dunham and Burt, 2011; Villar et al., 2014). The interpretation of knowledge is not only based on complete or accurate information, but it can also be based on narrative descriptions or interpretations of history (Chapman and Ferfolja, 2001), what this may mean is that collective knowledge can help people to cope with malicious fake elements or gossips (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2004; Yerkovich, 1977). For example, one way to avoid the presence of unverified information is by increasing process efficiency and ways of finding common positions within the firm (Inkinen, 2016). Organizations can find common positions by fostering interaction across different departments and levels of responsibility through informal exchanges, dialogue or joint projects (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2012). The above ideas could mean that companies, in order to adapt to new challenges, have either to avoid the misuse of bad knowledge or to promote the application of good knowledge. Otherwise, inappropriate or false beliefs generated via malicious fake elements or gossips can not only create misunderstandings (Thompson, 2008), but also may hinder the achievement of agility (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2012). The following section provides more details in this regard. 2.3. Counter-knowledge Counter-knowledge refers to “misinformation packaged to look like fact” (Thompson, 2008, p. 1). Many people are prone to accept as facts information derived from unverified sources, false, misleading, exaggerated, or slanderous rumours that are being printed in much of the mass media throughout the world (Baumeister et al., 2004; Kurland and Pelled, 2000; Szvetelszky, 2003). It should be noted that the misuse of counter-knowledge in a learning process may hinder the creation of new knowledge (Macinnes, 2005). Drawing upon a reading of Yerkovich (1977) and Baumeister et al. (2004), Cegarra- Navarro et al. (2014) propose that much counter-knowledge may promote social integration and entertainment. Although counter-knowledge is not necessarily a bad thing, this study refers to ‘bad counter-knowledge’ as the content of manipulated messages that lead to a vicious circle of mutual distrust and potential problems for organizations in their effort to achieve agility and regain objectivity for public interest (Sánchez-Casado et al., 2015). Counter-knowledge is not only the result of unproven theories or spurious claims (Thompson, 2008), but it may also be the result of wrong thinking, bad experiences and abnormal sensations. If we extrapolate the concept that Bratianu and Orzea (2013) applied to ‘emotional knowledge’ and its effects, we could assert that uncontrolled emotions such as sadness or pain based on groundless fear of negative evaluation could cause people to break off relationships with their companies and supervisors (Bratianu, 2015; Paradiso, Page 6 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1998). In addition, this groundless fear can be easily adapted by others who wish to protect themselves from receiving contradictory advice or negative evaluation (Taylor and Bright, 2011). This implies that counter-knowledge is part of a complex system and cannot only consist of a simple list of inappropriate behaviours (e.g., sharing unproven theories or spurious claims), but in terms of the cognitive sciences it also involves responding inappropriately to other people's emotions (i.e., emotional counterknowledge) or sharing wrong ideas about ourselves and the others (i.e., spiritual counterknowledge). 3. Hypotheses Organizational memory provides support both for the achievement of organizational agility and the development of individuals (Al-Faouri et al., 2014). As regards the achievement of agility, the literature recognizes that organizational memory constitutes a key issue for the accomplishment of performance, and to react to the changes and challenges in the environment (i.e., organizational agility) (Martelo-Landroguez and Cegarra-Navarro, 2014; Nilakanta et al., 2006). In the same vein, the establishment of hard memories such as information structures or computers for achieving agility have been largely supported (Overby et al., 2006; Wahyono, 2018; Weill et al., 2002). Regarding the development of individuals, not only does organizational memory foster and encourage collaboration and the sharing of ideas, experiences and relevant information among its users (Ebbers and Wijnberg, 2009; Wexler, 2002), but it also is an essential framework of reference to avoid mistakes being repeated (Khedhaouria and Jamal, 2015). Moorman and Miner (1998) suggest that procedural memory is a part of the long-term organizational memory that is responsible for knowing how to do things. This idea can be used to justify the use of organizational memory as a way to increase individuals’ ability to adapt to new realities through synergy and greater knowledge of the scheme. In this direction, previous studies have shown that organizational memory channelled through knowledge structures may have a positive effect on organizational agility as a result of a better interpretation of incoming information and the performance of new routines (Moorman and Miner, 1997, 1998). The above considerations imply that it is not enough to guide actions of individuals for achieving agility (Overby et al., 2006; Wahyono, 2018; Weill et al., 2002), the role of the guiding thoughts is also of paramount importance (Ipe, 2003). In order to apply the information stored in the memory for unforeseen changes, employees must have the attitude and behaviour to identify the right knowledge in the appropriate way in order to make right decisions (Gold et al., 2001; Valentim et al., 2016). The fact that a firm updates its organizational characteristics over time suggests that it has ways to detect, correct errors and apply solutions (Stein, 1995). Under this framework, the knowledge application process represents not only the vehicle through which embedded information collected through the organizational memory can itself be used (Ahmed Dine Rabeh et al., 2013; Bhatt, 2001), but it represents also the result of filtering and updating this information (Ebbers and Wijnberg, 2009; Martelo-Landroguez and Cegarra-Navarro, 2014). The authors therefore propose the following hypothesis: Page 7 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Hypothesis 1: Knowledge application mediates positively the relationship between organizational memory and organizational agility. Thoughts and memories that do not come from an individual’s lived experience are called ‘prosthetic memories’ (Landsberg, 1995). Our brains tend to pick up on the gist of smells, colours, tastes (a survival instinct), which in turn means that human sense-making is not only a gradual process where lived experiences allow people to create more effective learning processes but rather a discrete process where the addition of a small piece of information can suddenly alter the notion of individual of what the right thing to do is and counts as experience (Wilson, 1995). These considerations lead us to argue that the ability to extract meaning from counter-knowledge is a semantic construct dependent on prosthetic memory aids such as films, photos, appointment books or checklists (Landsberg, 1995; Tulving, 2002). In the same way that cartoon videos can assist children in retraining individual memories through drawings, acting, storytelling or making models (Landsberg, 1995), organizational memory is able to assist cognitive processes (Baskerville and Dulipovici, 2006), and how external information is processed (Schwenk, 1984). For example, when Evelyn Harrison, an expert on sculpture, was shown a statue that the J. Paul Getty Museum had purchased for $10 million, she blurted out that it was fake. How did she tell difference between the fake and the real article so quickly? A possible explanation would be the fact that her subconscious mind sorted through knowledge that she had gained in the past when was reviewing books, art magazines and catalogues. What the knowledge gained means for decision-making is that right memories triggers the identification of unjustified statements or authors’ opinions on the presented facts, which in turn facilitates the speedy rectification of problems through the reduction of misunderstandings and the cost of poor communication or miscommunication (Jacobs, 2010). Thanks to these structures, a correct interpretation of the reality exists and it allows us to change bad things to good (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). Therefore, by using fine-tuned routines and right memories, both individuals and organizations may be empowered in their efforts to counteract gossip, lies, exaggeration or partial truths that would lead to a lower level of organizational agility (Chapman and Ferfolja, 2001; Markoczy, 1994). Organizational memory may facilitate the reorientation of unverified information (Moorman and Miner, 1997, 1998), and the recognition of fake news (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2012). The above considerations also lead us to frame the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: Counter-knowledge mediates positively the relationship between organizational memory and organizational agility. The Figure 1 represents the proposed relationships. While the upper path represents the positive influence of organizational memory on organizational agility through the application of knowledge, the lower path assumes that the negative influence of counterknowledge on organizational agility is counteracted by the existence of organizational memory. Insert Figure 1 about here Page 8 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital application of knowledge. In doing so, this research highlights the importance to encourage managers to follow established procedures for obtaining, contrasting, filtering and delivering information in time. This, of course, needs to be done in an environment that foster competition and speed up effective restructuring. For example, speeding up and resolving complaints from customers via established procedures provided by the company, may avoid the possibility of employees gaining access to unsubstantiated information given by different providers and through informal channels. 8. Conclusions The ability of an organization to make agile some tasks maintaining a balance between the application of learned knowledge and the dissemination of unsubstantiated information (i.e., counter-knowledge) is a subject which has generally been overlooked in the extant literature. Therefore, this research has addressed an issue of significant importance for business and raised awareness of the importance to carry out further research to avoid exposure of workers to counter-knowledge. As we have stated before, results show that organizational agility relies on both knowledge application and overcoming counter-knowledge. Nowadays, fundamental processes in organizations are those based on knowledge. In fact, value for organizations and customers is created through those knowledge processes (Dawson, 2000). Therefore, firms succeed depending on how effectively and efficiently they can perform those processes. As we have stated before, the identification of organizational memory as a source of both the process of knowledge application and counter-knowledge is an important theoretical implication at a time when research is trying to uncover new roles for knowledge management processes. Overall, results show that the effect of organizational memory on organizational agility is enhanced in the presence of the knowledge application process. Nevertheless, our data also revealed that the effect of counter-knowledge on organizational agility is mitigated by the presence of organizational memory. As noted above, the indirect effect of organizational memory on organizational agility via counter-knowledge is statistically significant. It means that organizational memory helps to mitigate bad counter-knowledge as it contributes to dispel misunderstandings and wrong assumptions created as a result of unverified information. Our paper also answers the call for more practical studies in the knowledge management field in order to avoid the development of theoretical models that complicate their applicability in firms (Ragab and Arisha, 2013). One of the main limitations of this study is the fact that the sample used was from Spain. Future research could offer a more international perspective by combining firms from different countries. In addition, data collection used the key informant method, which means that the study reflects the opinion of one person. Future studies should consider collecting data from multiple respondents within each organization. Page 15 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital References Ahmed Dine Rabeh, H., Jiménez-Jiménez, D. and Martínez-Costa, M. (2013), “Managing knowledge for a successful competence exploration”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 195-207. Alegre, J., Sengupta, K. and Lapiedra, R. (2013), “Knowledge management and innovation performance in a high-tech SMEs industry”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 454-470. Al-Faouri, A. H., Al-Nsour, M. M. and Al-Kasasbeh, M. M. (2014), “The impact of workforce agility on organizational memory”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 432-442. Allameh, S. M. (2018), “Antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital: the role of social capital, knowledge sharing and innovation”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 858-874. Anderson, J. R. (1983), “A spreading activation theory of memory”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 261-295. Appelbaum, S. H., Calla, R., Desautels, D. and Hasan, L. (2017), “The challenges of organizational agility (part 1)”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 6-14. Baskerville, R. and Dulipovici, A. (2006), “The theoretical foundations of knowledge management”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 83-105. Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L. and Vohs, K. D. (2004), “Gossip as cultural learning”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 111-121. Bhatt, G. D. (2001), “Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 68-75. Boden, T. (2004), “The grid enterprise - structuring the agile business of the future”, BT Technology Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 107-117. Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M. and Hulland, J. (2002), “Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 437-469. Bontis, N., Keow, W. C. C. and Richardson, S. (2000), “Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 85- 100. Bratianu, C. (2015), Organizational Knowledge Dynamics: Managing Knowledge Creation, Acquisition, Sharing, and Transformation. Managing Knowledge Creation, Acquisition, Sharing, and Transformation, IGI Global. Bratianu, C. and Orzea, I. (2013), “Emotional knowledge: the hidden part of the knowledge iceberg”, in Janiunaite, B., Pundziene, A. and Petraite, M. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania, 5-6 September 2013 (pp. 82-90), Academic Conferences and Publishing International, Reading. Braunscheidel, M. J. and Suresh, N. C. (2009), “The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 119-140. Bueno, E., Salmador, M. P., Rodríguez, Ó. and Martín De Castro, G. (2006), “Internal logic of intellectual capital: a biological approach”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 394-405. Cai, Z., Liu, H., Huang, Q. and Liang, L. (2019), “Developing organizational agility in product innovation: the roles of IT capability, KM capability, and innovative climate”, R&D Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 421-438. Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. (2007), “Relationship memory”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 333-353. Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., Cepeda-Carrion, G. and Wensley, A. (2015a), “Negative aspects of counter-knowledge on absorptive capacity and human capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 763-778. Page 16 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., Eldridge, S. and Sánchez, A. L. G. (2012), “How an unlearning context can help managers overcome the negative effects of counter-knowledge”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 231-246. Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., Eldridge, S. and Wensley, A. (2014), “Counter-knowledge and realized absorptive capacity”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 165-176. Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., Soto-Acosta, P. and Wensley, A. (2015b), “Structured knowledge processes and firm performance: the role of organizational agility”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1544-1549. Cepeda-Carrion, G., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. and Cillo, V. (2019), “Tips to use partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 67-89. Cepeda-Carrion, G., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. and Jimenez-Jimenez, D. (2012), “The effect of absorptive capacity on innovativeness: context and information systems capability as catalysts”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 110-129. Cepeda-Carrion, G., Nitzl, C. and Roldan, J. L. (2018), “Mediation analyses in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: guidelines and empirical examples”, in Latan, H. and Noonan, R. (Eds.), Partial Least Squares Path Modeling (Basic Concepts, Methodological Issues and Applications), Springer International Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 173-195. Cepeda-Carrion, I., Leal-Millán, A. G., Martelo-Landroguez, S. and Leal-Rodriguez, A. L. (2016), “Absorptive capacity and value in the banking industry: a multiple mediation model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1644-1650. Chakravarty, A., Grewal, R. and Sambamurthy, V. (2013), “Information technology competencies, organizational agility, and firm performance: enabling and facilitating roles”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, 976-997. Chang Lee, K., Lee, S. and Kang, I. W. (2005), “KMPI: measuring knowledge management performance”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 469-482. Chapman, J. A. and Ferfolja, T. (2001), “The acquisition of imperfect mental models and their use in hazardous situations”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 24, pp. 398-409. Charbonnier-Voirin, A. (2011), “The development and partial testing of the psychometric properties of a measurement scale of organizational agility”, M@n@gement, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 119-156. Chou, T. C., Chang, P. L., Cheng, Y. P. and Tsai, C. T. (2007), “A path model linking organizational knowledge attributes, information processing capabilities, and perceived usability”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 408-417. Cohen, J. (1994), “The earth is round (p<.05)”, American Psychologist, Vol. 49 No. 12, pp. 997- 1003. Córdoba-Pachón, J. R. and Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. (2010), “Beyond e-procurement: a framework to develop e-government services for small and medium enterprises (SMES)”, in Systems Thinking and E-Participation: ICT in the Governance of Society, IGI Global. pp. 154-173. Cui, A. S., Griffith, D. A. and Cavusgil, S. T. (2005), “The influence of competitive intensity and market dynamism on knowledge management capabilities of multinational corporation subsidiaries”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 32-53. Darr, E., Argote, L. and Epple, D. (1995), “The acquisition, transfer and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: productivity in franchises”, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 1750-1762. Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Dawson, R. (2000), “Knowledge capabilities as the focus of organisational development and strategy”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 320-327. Ditillo, A. (1998), “Intellectual capital ‐ navigating in the new business landscape”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 85-88. Doz, Y. and Kosonen, M. (2008), Fast strategy: How strategic agility will help you stay ahead of the game, Pearson/Longman, Harlow, England. Page 17 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Dunham, A. H. and Burt, C. D. B. (2011), “Organizational memory and empowerment”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 851-868. Dyer, L. and Ericksen, J. (2010), “Complexity-based agile enterprises: putting self-organizing emergence to work”, in The SAGE Handbook of Human Resource Management, pp. 436-457. Ebbers, J. J. and Wijnberg, N. M. (2009), “Organizational memory: from expectations memory to procedural memory”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 478-490. Echajari, L. and Thomas, C. (2015), “Learning from complex and heterogeneous experiences: the role of knowledge codification”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 968- 986. Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. (1997), Intellectual Capital, Harper Business, New York, NY. Eshlaghy, A. T., Mashayekhi, A. N., Rajabzadeh, A. and Razavian, M. M. (2010), “Applying path analysis method in defining effective factors in organisation agility”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1765-1786. Felipe, C. M., Roldan, J. L. and Leal-Rodriguez, A. L. (2016), “An explanatory and predictive model for organizational agility”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 4624- 4631. Fernandez, V. and Sune, A. (2009), “Organizational forgetting and its causes: an empirical research”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 620-634. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. García-Pérez, A., Cegarra‐Navarro, J. G., Bedford, D. A. D., Thomas, M. and Wakabayashi, S. (2019), Critical Capabilities and Competencies for Knowledge Organizations, Emerald Group Publishing. Gassmann, O. (2006), “Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda”, R&D Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 223-228. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A. H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. and Thiele, K. O. (2017), “Mirror, mirror on the wall: a comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 616-632. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, 139-151. Haldin-Herrgard, T. (2000), “Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 357-365. Hardy-Vallee, B. (2012), “The cost of bad project management”, Gallup Business Journal, (February 7), pp. 5-7. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/152429/costbad-project-management.aspx. Harvey, J. F. (2012), “Managing organizational memory with intergenerational knowledge transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 400-417. Hayes, A. F. and Scharkow, M. (2013), “The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: does method really matter?”, Psychological Science, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1918-1927. Henseler, J. (2017), “Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 178-192. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., ... and Calantone, R. J. (2014), “Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares: comments on Rönkkö & Evermann (2013)”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 182-209. Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20. Page 18 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135. Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P. M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55. Inkinen, H. (2016), “Review of empirical research on knowledge management practices and firm performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 230-257. Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing on organizations: a conceptual framework”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 337-359. Jacobs, G. (2010), “Conflicting demands and the power of defensive routines in participatory action research”, Action Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 367-386. Jantunen, A. (2005), “Knowledge‐processing capabilities and innovative performance: an empirical study”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp.336-349. Jiménez-Jiménez, D., Martínez-Costa, M. and Sanz-Valle, R. (2014), “Knowledge management practices for innovation: a multinational corporation’s perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 905-918. Kellerman, B. (2004), “Bad leadership: what it is, how it happens, why it matters”, Harvard Business School Press, Vol. 42, pp. 1-5. Khedhaouria, A. and Jamal, A. (2015), “Sourcing knowledge for innovation: knowledge reuse and creation in project teams”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 932- 948. Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”, International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10. Kock, N. and Lynn, G. S. (2012), “Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: an illustration and recommendations”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 546-580. Kurland, N. B. and Pelled, L. H. (2000), “Passing the word: toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 428-438. Landsberg, A. (1995), “Prosthetic memory: total recall and blade runner”, Body & Society, Vol. 1 No. 3-4, pp. 175-189. Lee, I. C., Hsu, Y. L., Lin, M. J. J. and Chen, D. C. (2011), “Relationships among unlearning, knowledge application, and new product development performance: exploring the moderating effect of the information processing mechanism”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 13, pp. 5297-5310. Lentjušenkova, O. and Lapina, I. (2016), “The transformation of the organization’s intellectual capital: from resource to capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 610-631. Leybourn, E. (2013). Directing The Agile Organisation: A Lean Approach to Business Management, IT Governance Ltd. Lin, H.-F. (2007), “A stage model of knowledge management: an empirical investigation of process and effectiveness”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 643-659. Lin, H.-F. and Lee, G.-G. (2005), “Impact of organizational learning and knowledge management factors on e-business adoption”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 171-188. Lu, Y. and Ramamurthy, K. (2011), “Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: an empirical examination”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 931-954. Macinnes, J. (2005), “Diez mitos sobre la conciliación de la vida laboral y familiar”, Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 35-71. Manfredi Latilla, V., Frattini, F., Messeni Petruzzelli, A. and Berner, M. (2018), “Knowledge management, knowledge transfer and organizational performance in the arts and crafts industry: a literature review”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1310- 1331. Markoczy, L. (1994), “Modes of organizational learning”, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 5-30. Page 19 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Martelo-Landroguez, S. and Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. (2014), “Linking knowledge corridors to customer value through knowledge processes”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 342-365. Martelo-Landroguez, S. and Cepeda-Carrion, G. (2016), “How knowledge management processes can create and capture value for firms?”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 423-433. Martelo-Landroguez, S., Barroso, C. and Cepeda, G. (2011), “Creating dynamic capabilities to increase customer value”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 1141-1159. Martelo-Landroguez, S., Cegarra Navarro, J. G. and Cepeda-Carrion, G. (2019), “Uncontrolled counter-knowledge: its effects on knowledge management corridors”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 203-212. Moorman, C. and Miner, A. S. (1997), “The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 91-106. Moorman, C. and Miner, A. S. (1998), “Organizational improvisation and organizational memory, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 698-723. Nilakanta, S., Miller, L. L. and Zhu, D. (2006), “Organizational memory management: technological and research issues”, Journal of Database Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 85- 94. Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L. and Cepeda, G. (2016), “Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9, pp.1849-1864. Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A. and Sambamurthy, V. (2006), “Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 120-131. Paradiso, S. (1998), “The emotional brain: the mysterious underpinnings of emotional life”, American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 155 No. 4, pp. 570-570. Peeters, T. and Martin, X. (2017), “Strategies for knowledge use in R&D and their implications for innovative performance”, R&D Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 47-60. Pereira, V., Mellahi, K., Temouri, Y., Patnaik, S. and Roohanifar, M. (2018), “Investigating dynamic capabilities, agility and knowledge management within EMNEslongitudinal evidence from Europe”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 1708-1728. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 539-569. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903. Power, D. J., Sohal, A. S. and Rahman, S. U. (2001), “Critical success factors in agile supply chain management - an empirical study”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 247-265. Ragab, M. A. F. and Arisha, A. (2013), “Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 873-901. Ranjbarfard, M., Aghdasi, M., López-Sáez, P. and Navas López, J. E. (2014), “The barriers of knowledge generation, storage, distribution and application that impede learning in gas and petroleum companies”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 494-522. Richter, N. F., Cepeda, G., Roldan, J. L. and Ringle, C. M. (2016), “European management research using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)”, European Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 589-597. Rigdon, E. (2016), “Choosing PLS path modeling as analytical method in European Management Research: a realist perspective”, European Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 598-605. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S. and Becker, J. M. (2015), SmartPLS 3, Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com. Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N.C. and Edvinsson, L. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape, Basingtoke, Macmillan. Page 20 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Sánchez-Casado, N., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. and Tomaseti-Solano, E. (2015), “Linking social networks to utilitarian benefits through counter-knowledge”, Online Information Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 179-196. Sandhawalia, B. S. and Dalcher, D. (2011), “Developing knowledge management capabilities: a structured approach”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 313-328. Schwenk, C. R. (1984), “Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision‐making”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 111-128. Senge, P. (1990), La quinta disciplina. El arte y la práctica de la organización abierta al aprendizaje, Ediciones Granica, España. Shahrabi, B. (2012), “The role of organizational learning and agility in change management in state enterprises: a customer-oriented approach”, International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 2540-2547. Stein, E. W. (1995), “Organization memory: review of concepts and recommendations for management”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-32. Sull, D. (2010), “Competing through organizational agility”, McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 48- 56. Szvetelszky, Z. (2003), “Ways and transformations of gossip”, Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 109-122. Taylor, S. N. and Bright, D. S. (2011), “Open-mindedness and defensiveness in multisource feedback processes: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 432-460. Teece, D. J., Peteraf, M. and Leih, S. (2016), “Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility”, California Management Review, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 13-35. Thompson, D. (2008), Counter-knowledge, Atlantic Books, London. Tippins, M. J. and Sohi, R. (2003), “IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a missing link?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 745-761. Tulving, E. (2002), “Episodic memory: from mind to brain”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 1-25. Valentim, L., Lisboa, J. V. and Franco, M. (2016), “Knowledge management practices and absorptive capacity in small and medium-sized enterprises: is there really a linkage?”, R&D Management, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 711-725. van Oosterhout, M., Waarts, E. and van Hillegersberg, J. (2006), “Change factors requiring agility and implications for IT”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 132- 145. Villar, C., Alegre, J. and Pla-Barber, J. (2014), “Exploring the role of knowledge management practices on exports: a dynamic capabilities view”, International Business Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 38-44. Wahyono. (2018), “A conceptual framework of strategy, action and performance dimensions of organizational agility development”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 326-341. Walsh, J. P. and Ungson, G. R. (1991), “Organizational memory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-91. Weber, Y. and Tarba, S. Y. (2014), “Strategic agility: a state of art”, California Management Review, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 5-12. Weill, P., Subramani, M. and Broadbent, M. (2002), “Building IT infrastructure for strategic agility”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 57-65. Wexler, M. N. (2002), “Organizational memory and intellectual capital”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 393-414. Wilson, R. R. (1995), “Cyber(body)parts: prosthetic consciousness, Body & Society, Vol. 1 No. 3-4, pp. 239-259. Yerkovich, S. (1977), “Gossiping as a way of speaking”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 192-196. Page 21 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Appendix: Questionnaire items Counter-knowledge CK1: In my organization, there is gossip that thrives on lies, exaggerations and partial truths CK2: In my organization, there are malicious rumours which support mistrust CK3: In my organization, there are malicious stories about staff that often lead to misunderstandings CK4: In my organization, unverified information is shared by technological means Source: Adapted from Chapman and Ferfolja (2001) Knowledge application KA1: My organization has processes for applying knowledge learned from mistakes KA2: My organization has processes for applying knowledge learned from experiences KA3: My organization has processes for using knowledge in the development of new services KA4: My organization has processes for using knowledge to solve problems KA5: My organization matches sources of knowledge to problems and challenges KA6: My organization uses knowledge to improve efficiency KA7: My organization uses knowledge to adjust its strategic direction KA8: My organization is able to locate and apply knowledge to changing competitive conditions KA9: My organization makes knowledge accessible to those who need it KA10: My organization takes advantage of new knowledge KA11: My organization quickly applies knowledge to critical competitive needs KA12: My organization quickly links sources of knowledge for resolving problems Source: Adapted from Gold et al. (2001) Organizational Agility OA1: We have the ability to rapidly respond to customers’ needs OA2: We have the ability to rapidly adapt production to demand fluctuations OA3: We have the ability to rapidly cope with problems from suppliers OA4: We rapidly implement decisions to face market changes OA5: We continuously search for forms to reinvent or redesign our organization OA6: We see market changes as opportunities for rapid capitalization. Source: Adapted from Lu and Ramamurthy (2011) Organizational Memory OM1: We are committed to keep "fresh" everything that has been learned in the development of services OM2: The causes of failure in service development processes are always analysed and everything learned in them is shared OM3: We have specific mechanisms to share what is learned in the service development process OM4: We have formal processes to identify misconceptions in the service development process Source: Adapted from Chou et al. (2007) Page 22 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Figure 1. Proposed theoretical model Figure 2. Research model Page 23 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Table 1. Reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity values of the outer (measurement) model HTMT Construct Mean S.D. Rho_A (ρ) CR AVE 1 2 3 4 1. Counter-knowledge 3.07 1.48 0.95 0.93 0.79 2. Knowledge application 5.05 1.07 0.97 0.97 0.77 0.22 3. Organizational agility 5.14 1.00 0.91 0.92 0.66 0.38 0.77 4. Organizational memory 4.83 1.14 0.91 0.93 0.79 0.28 0.88 0.74 Notes: Mean = the average score for all the items included in each measure; S.D. = Standard Deviation; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted. Table 2. Effects on endogenous variables Effects on endogenous variables Direct effect t value (bootstrap) Percentile 90% confidence intervals Explained variance: R2 Effect size: f2 Knowledge application (R2= 0.69) Organizational memory (a1) 0.83*** 29.57 [0.78; 0.88] Sig. 68.80% 2.19 Counter-knowledge (R2= 0.07) Organizational memory (a2) -0.26** 2.70 [-0.42; -0.10] Sig. 6.81% 0.07 Organizational agility (R2= 0.59) Organizational memory (c’) 0.16ns 1.29 [-0.07; 0.42] N. Sig. 10.85% 0.01 Knowledge application (b1) 0.57*** 4.81 [0.37; 0.75] Sig. 42.01% 0.24 Counter-knowledge (b2) -0.20*** 3.23 [-0.30; -0,10] Sig. 7.10% 0.09 Notes: *** p< 0.001, ** p< 0.01, * p < 0.05, ns: not significant (based on Student t (4999), one-tailed test). t(0.05, 4999) = 1.645158499, t(0.01, 4999) = 2.327094067, t(0.001, 4999) = 3.091863446 Sig.= significant, N. Sig.= not significant Table 3. Mediating effect tests Total effect of OM on OA (c) Direct effect of OM on OA Indirect effects of OM on OA Coefficient t value Coefficient t value Point estimate Percentile bootstrap 90% confidence interval VAF Lower Upper 0.70*** 12.89 c’ 0.16ns 1.29 Total= a1*b1+a2*b2 0.54 0.32 0.70 77.2% H1= a1*b1 (via KA) 0.48 0.27 0.65 68.5% H2= a2*b2 (via CK) 0.06 0.01 0.11 8.5% Notes: *** p< 0.001, ** p< 0.01, * p < 0.05, ns: not significant (based on Student t (4999), one-tailed test). t(0.05, 4999) = 1.645158499, t(0.01, 4999) = 2.327094067, t(0.001, 4999) = 3.091863446 Organizational memory → OM, Knowledge application → KA, Counter-knowledge → CK, Organizational agility → OA Table 4. Comparison of mediating effects Bootstrap 90% confidence interval Differential effect Value Lower Upper M1 – M2= (a1*b1) – (a2*b2) 0.42 0.24 0.58 Page 24 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Literature review: The section on organizational agility appears pretty underdeveloped, especially when compared to the introduction. Please, extend this section consistently. Both updated references and seminal articles are missing. In addition, I do not see any mention to study on organizational agility, IC and organizational memory. Please, provide information on existing gaps, motivation of their relevance and other similarly important issues. Similarly, for the other two subsections, I recommend you to update and extend your analysis. Mostly, concepts seems poorly tied together. You should work on this aspect, otherwise the message you want to convey can be negatively affected. Thank you for your suggestions as to how we might improve the paper. In the new version of the paper, we have added several paragraphs to include your comments. Now, the literature review has been reinforced. The paragraphs included in the literature review are the following: “Organizational agility has been defined in various ways, including an intellectual viewpoint. Roos et al. (1997) revive the concept of ‘intellectual agility’, which describes how individuals can integrate knowledge and skills into a practical context through learning. When intellectual agility owned by employees is captured and coordinated by the organization then it is transformed into organizational agility, which Sull (2010) defines as the capacity to recognise and grab opportunities more hastily than competitors. There are other definitions, such as that of Dyer and Ericksen (2010), who bring to light the fact that organizational agility is the result of using the conceptual lenses provided by the organizational context such as interactions and self-organizing.” “From a management viewpoint, the achievement of organizational agility is related to two interdependent approaches: a) to find out why one company should respond hastily to external challenges (Appelbaum et al., 2017), and b) which parts of the operational system need to incorporate changes to operate in a more efficient way (Leybourn, 2013). Concerning the second issue, Leybourn (2013) suggests that fundamental changes usually take place along with communication and lean management structures.” “Braunscheidel and Suresh (2009) suggest that the accomplishment of organizational agility is related to a set of drivers. Among the top facilitating enablers, they highlight cross-functional and external integration. In this vein, Eshlaghy et al. (2010) identified factors such as leadership, engagement or satisfaction. Based on this research, it can be asserted that organizational agility requires the integration of knowledge processes in an appropriate way (Allameh, 2018; Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2015b; Chakravarty et al., 2013). Although different supporting processes of knowledge management exist (Gold et al., 2001; Martelo-Landroguez et al., 2011; Ranjbarfard et al., 2014), the acquisition/creation, transfer, retention, and application of knowledge are Page 31 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital considered to be the key knowledge management processes (Martelo- Landroguez and Cegarra-Navarro, 2014).” “According to Walsh and Ungson (1991, p. 61), organizational memory refers to the “stored information from an organization’s history that can be brought to bear on present decisions”. Organizational memory is particularly important as a store of either the objectified knowledge (e.g., procedures and protocols) or the collective knowledge in the form of culture or shared values (Ebbers and Wijnberg 2009; Tippins and Sohi, 2003). These terms have also been defined as hard and soft memories (Córdoba-Pachón and Cegarra-Navarro, 2010; Hardy-Vallee, 2012; Kellerman, 2004). The presence of both types of knowledge (i.e., objectified and collective) not only guides the actions of individuals but also their thoughts (Cegarra-Navarro, 2007; Moorman and Miner, 1998). For example, while rules and procedures provide the framework of reference for applying knowledge, the common philosophy and culture provide the basic understandings for interpreting the perceptions and affections behind what is being said (García-Pérez et al., 2019). “ “Applying available knowledge in the form of procedures and protocols will save time and facilitate extrapolation of decisions from one context to another (Chang Lee et al., 2005). In addition, applying objectified knowledge in different contexts will give the company the necessary experience to avoid making previous mistakes (Senge, 1990). Hence, knowledge application allows firms to take advantage of what they have learned in the past (e.g., Cui et al., 2005; Gold et al., 2001; Lin, 2007), and it also avoids repetition of past mistakes (Dunham and Burt, 2011; Villar et al., 2014).” “The interpretation of knowledge is not only based on complete or accurate information, but it can also be based on narrative descriptions or interpretations of history (Chapman and Ferfolja, 2001), what this may mean is that collective knowledge can help people to cope with malicious fake elements or gossips (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2004; Yerkovich, 1977). For example, one way to avoid the presence of unverified information is by increasing process efficiency and ways of finding common positions within the firm (Inkinen, 2016). Organizations can find common positions by fostering interaction across different departments and levels of responsibility through informal exchanges, dialogue or joint projects (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2012).” “The above ideas could mean that companies, in order to adapt to new challenges, have either to avoid the misuse of bad knowledge or to promote the application of good knowledge. Otherwise, inappropriate or false beliefs generated via malicious fake elements or gossips can not only create misunderstandings (Thompson, 2008), but also may hinder the achievement of agility (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2012). The following section provides more details in this regard.” “Drawing upon a reading of Yerkovich (1977) and Baumeister et al. (2004), Cegarra-Navarro et al. (2014) propose that much counter-knowledge may promote social integration and entertainment. Although counter-knowledge is Page 32 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital not necessarily a bad thing, this study refers to ‘bad counter-knowledge’ as the content of manipulated messages that lead to a vicious circle of mutual distrust and potential problems for organizations in their effort to achieve agility and regain objectivity for public interest (Sánchez-Casado et al., 2015).” The new references included are: Al-Faouri, A. H., Al-Nsour, M. M. and Al-Kasasbeh, M. M. (2014), “The impact of workforce agility on organizational memory”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 432-442. Appelbaum, S. H., Calla, R., Desautels, D. and Hasan, L. (2017), “The challenges of organizational agility (part 1)”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 6-14. Braunscheidel, M. J. and Suresh, N. C. (2009), “The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain agility for risk mitigation and response”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 119-140. Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. (2007), “Relationship memory”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 333-353. Cepeda-Carrion, G., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. and Jimenez-Jimenez, D. (2012), “The effect of absorptive capacity on innovativeness: context and information systems capability as catalysts”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 110-129. Córdoba-Pachón, J. R. and Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. (2010), “Beyond eprocurement: a framework to develop e-government services for small and medium enterprises (SMES)”, in Systems Thinking and E-Participation: ICT in the Governance of Society, IGI Global. pp. 154-173. Dyer, L. and Ericksen, J. (2010), “Complexity-based agile enterprises: putting self-organizing emergence to work”, in The SAGE Handbook of Human Resource Management, pp. 436-457. Eshlaghy, A. T., Mashayekhi, A. N., Rajabzadeh, A. and Razavian, M. M. (2010), “Applying path analysis method in defining effective factors in organisation agility”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1765-1786. García-Pérez, A., Cegarra‐Navarro, J. G., Bedford, D. A. D., Thomas, M. and Wakabayashi, S. (2019), Critical Capabilities and Competencies for Knowledge Organizations, Emerald Group Publishing. Leybourn, E. (2013). Directing The Agile Organisation: A Lean Approach to Business Management, IT Governance Ltd. Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N.C. and Edvinsson, L. (1997), Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape, Basingtoke, Macmillan. Page 33 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Sánchez-Casado, N., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. and Tomaseti-Solano, E. (2015), “Linking social networks to utilitarian benefits through counter-knowledge”, Online Information Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 179-196. Sull, D. (2010), “Competing through organizational agility”, McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 48-56. Hypotheses: this section suffer from some major issues. First, why this paper is relevant for this Journal? I see no mention of IC, so, unless you provide a clear explanation on its relevance for IC, I suggest you to change the outlet. Second, the way you present you hypotheses make them seem poorly original. How your hypotheses are distanced from those of the antecedent authors you mention? Third, again, the hypotheses seem untied between each other. As we have commented above, we have added some paragraphs throughout the manuscript to highlight the relevance of our study for intellectual capital’s literature in general and, in particular, for JIC. Hypotheses section has been changed almost completely in order to include your suggestions. Therefore, we hope now the argumentation follow an understandable line of thinking. New references are also included: Jacobs, G. (2010), “Conflicting demands and the power of defensive routines in participatory action research”, Action Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 367-386. Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A. and Sambamurthy, V. (2006), “Enterprise agility and the enabling role of information technology”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 120-131. Schwenk, C. R. (1984), “Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision‐making”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 111-128. Weill, P., Subramani, M. and Broadbent, M. (2002), “Building IT infrastructure for strategic agility”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 57-65. Empirical section: this section seems well-written. Method an variables sound consistent, results are almost clear. Thank you very much for this comment. Page 34 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Discussion: I suggest the author to better explain the originality of the work. I do not see how it contributes to the field of study. Thank you again. We have tried to show the originality of the study by justifying and explaining its contribution to the state-of-the-field more strongly and in greater detail. In this line, we highlight the inclusion of the following ideas: “This study also investigates how organizational memory can mitigate the presence of counter-knowledge, along with exploring how these activities can, in turn, result in the achievement of organizational agility.” “In order to mitigate the misuse of counter-knowledge, this study provides evidence that organizational memory can play a part in overcoming the cost of poor communication or miscommunication.” “The importance of transferring and retrieving knowledge to stimulate the creation of intellectual capital is well-known. In this vein, and considering that organizational agility is the result of adapting knowledge from one context to another (Pereira et al., 2018; Weber and Tarba, 2014), it can be considered as one of the most visible components of the intellectual capital of any organization (Bueno et al., 2006; Lentjušenkova and Lapina, 2016).” “Intellectual capital is not just what people know, it is also the glue that holds organizational members together (Bueno et al., 2006; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Lentjušenkova and Lapina, 2016). Counter-knowledge, whether we like it or not, is one of the most important components (glues) of the informal system of any organization and a means of entertainment and social integration (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2014). Despite counter-knowledge is not necessarily a bad thing, when employees use unverified information to manipulate people’s expectations in their own interest, it is likely that inaccurate things will be accepted as authentic (Thompson, 2008).” We have also made more explicit the contribution of the paper to the field of study in the conclusion section by including the following paragraph: “The ability of an organization to make agile some tasks maintaining a balance between the application of learned knowledge and the dissemination of unsubstantiated information (i.e., counter-knowledge) is a subject which has generally been overlooked in the extant literature. Therefore, this research has addressed an issue of significant importance for business and raised awareness of the importance to carry out further research to avoid exposure of workers to counter-knowledge. As we have stated before, results show that organizational agility relies on both knowledge application and overcoming counter-knowledge.” Page 35 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital Implications and conclusions: please, explain clearly what are the limitation of the study and what are the future research roads that are opened by your analysis. In the conclusion section, we have highlighted the main limitation of the study and it also appears how to address it in future research: “One of the main limitations of this study is the fact that the sample used was from Spain. Future research could offer a more international perspective by combining firms from different countries. In addition, data collection used the key informant method, which means that the study reflects the opinion of one person. Future studies should consider collecting data from multiple respondents within each organization.” Additional Questions: 1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: The paper's originality is not clear enough. As we have commented above, we have tried to show the originality of the study by justifying and explaining its contribution to the state-of-the-field more strongly and in greater detail. 2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: The literature analysis is poor and it requires a major effort. Concepts are untied and, most of all, the paper does not mention at all IC. The new version of the paper includes several paragraphs throughout the manuscript to highlight the relevance of our study for intellectual capital’s literature in general and, in particular, for JIC. We have also included new references to justify our arguments and to reinforce the literature review. We hope now the paper follows an understandable line of thinking and the different concepts appears tied together. 3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are Page 36 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital the methods employed appropriate?: The methodology is sounding and grounded adequately. Thanks for this point. 4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Results are clear and well presented Thank you again. 5. Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Implications are explained, but, perhaps, this section needs further refinements. According to your suggestions, we have also reinforced implications. In particular, we have identify clearly how the findings of our research could be used in practice: “The implications for practice of the above-mentioned findings is that managers may need to be aware of the possibility that “the knowledge” that employees and themselves need to carry out their jobs may vary from one context to another. In our study, we further suggest that the presence of right memories allows organizations to respond appropriately to environmental threats and to adjust to the changes in a business environment.” “The provision of a practical guide to shape agile organizations is another contribution of this study. Regarding this, the results support that organizational agility is not only the result of using validated routines and protocols (i.e., knowledge application), but it may also be the result of using unproven theories, rumours, colloquial expressions or sayings (i.e., counter-knowledge), which means that organizational memory may enable both the application of good knowledge and the mitigation of counter-knowledge. These findings may be helpful in order to find useful combinations and to develop low-risk counterknowledge and high-quality process of knowledge application.” Page 37 of 37 Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Journal of Intellectual Capital 6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: The communication is good. Thank you very much. Page 38 of 37Journal of Intellectual Capital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60