Error reframing: studying the promotion of an error management culture

Abstract

In the organizational behaviour and organizational psychology literature, individual errors are considered either as sources of blame (error-prevention culture) or as sources of learning and something to be encouraged in order to promote innovation (error-management culture). While we can assume that a third perspective exists somewhere in between, error management is usually considered as the best solution. Yet scholars have tended to neglect the planned and directed transition from a pure error-prevention to an error-management culture. We thus examine to what extent and under what conditions an organization can culturally transform the representation of individual errors through its business leaders. To answer this question, we conducted a qualitative study on the case of a French insurance company. We portray a realistic image of the promotion of an error management culture, pointing out certain limitations and constraints, while nonetheless identifying some conditions for successful error reframing.

Strategic perspective of error management, the role of leadership, and an error management culture: a mediation model

“…As such, an organizational culture that is aware of errors supports error handling. For this purpose, an environment of safety and reliability in the interaction between the parties, (actions of individual workers) based on the social structure, beliefs, rituals and myths of the entire organization, is required (Cusin and Goujon-Belghit, 2019). Edmondson (2004) and Rochlin (1999) argue that there is a cultural dimension to how organizations deal with mistakes.…”

Beyond Psychological Safety – the Role of Direct Supervisor Behavior in Fostering Learning from Errors at the Workplace

“…However, researchers have begun to suggest that the perception of a psychologically safe work environment is a necessary, but insufficient condition to ensure learning from errors (Baumgartner & Seifried, 2014;Cannon & Edmondson, 2005;Cusin & Goujon-Belghit, 2019;Ye et al, 2018). In a review by Edmondson and Lei (2014), the authors argue that psychological safety is not a panacea for learning (from errors) to occur.…”

“…According to Cannon and Edmondson (2005), psychological safety is not implemented through top-down command, but is created through attitudes and behaviors of local managers, supervisors, and unit leaders. Research has identified specific leadership behaviors that strongly influence professionals' perceptions of psychological safety, including admitting own errors, being accessible, and exhibiting openness (Cusin & Goujon-Belghit, 2019;Edmondson, 2011;Edmondson & Lei, 2014;Zhao et al, 2019). Leaders hold this unique position due to their social power: they control subordinates' job assignments and promotions, influencing their subordinates' attitudes and perceptions (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005;Rodriguez & Griffin, 2009;Detert and Burris 2007).…”

Vers une approche contextualisée de la mise en œuvre du droit à l’erreur

“…Les deux cas ont été étudiés de façon séquentielle et ont fait l'objet de publications distinctes (Cusin et Goujon-Belghit, 2019a, 2019b. Entre septembre 2016 et mai 2017, nous avons d'abord interrogé 28 collaborateurs de la Maif (14 personnes au sein du siège -DRH, directeur des activités de gestion des sinistres, responsable de l'observatoire du climat social et de la diversité, etc., et 14 personnes au sein du réseau -responsables de centres de gestion de sinistres, responsables d'équipes, conseillers, etc.).…”