PurposeReaching decisions in a deliberative manner is of utmost importance for boards, as their decision-making impacts entire organisations. The current study aims to investigate (1) the quality of group decisions made by board members, (2) their confidence in, satisfaction with, and reflection on the decision-making, and (3) the effect of two discussion procedures on objective decision quality and subjective evaluations of the decision-making.Design/methodology/approachBoard members of various Dutch non-profit organisations (N = 141) participated in a group decision-making task and a brief questionnaire. According to the hidden-profile paradigm, information was asymmetrically distributed among group members and should have been pooled to reach the objectively best decision. Half of the groups received one of two discussion procedures (i.e. advocacy decision or decisional balance sheet), while the other half received none.FindingsOnly a fifth of the groups successfully chose the best decision alternative. The initial majority preference strongly influenced the decision, which indicates that discussion was irrelevant to the outcome. Nevertheless, board members were satisfied with their decision-making. Using a discussion procedure enhanced participants' perception that they adequately weighed the pros and cons, but did not improve objective decision quality or other aspects of the subjective evaluation. These findings suggest that board members are unaware of their biased decision-making, which might hinder improvement.Originality/valueRather than using student samples, this study was the first to have board members participating in a hidden-profile task.

Purpose Emphasizing that errors are unacceptable and will be sanctioned does not prevent that errors are made – but can cause workers to cover up mistakes. Making an effort to identify things that go wrong to learn from them and prevent errors in the future offers a more fruitful approach. By sharing an applicable LEARN framework, this paper aims to inspire and give direction to financial corporations in building an error management culture within their organizations. Design/methodology/approach The behavior and culture team of the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) collaborated closely with social and organizational psychologists from Utrecht University to study error management. The results of a literature study were combined with the findings obtained from a survey (N = 436) and in-depth interviews (N = 15) among employees of 13 Dutch financial corporations that are active within the infrastructure of the capital markets. Findings Tone at the top and direct managers’ behavior were positively related to error management culture, which in turn related to more learning. Combining these findings with relevant psychological literature resulted in the LEARN framework, which can guide organizations in developing actions and interventions to build an effective error management culture: Let the board take ownership, Engage employees, Align structure and culture, Refocus from person to system and Narrate the best examples. Originality/value Stimulating financial corporations to start building a healthier corporate culture by offering the LEARN framework – and recruiting insights from social and organizational psychology to do so – extends traditional supervisory approaches.

Supervisory bodies can intervene in organizational practices that may harm society, but their effectiveness to do so depends on their ability to make decisions reflectively and decisively. Are these tendencies incompatible with each other or can they go together? Can empowering leadership (i.e. participative, coaching, informing behaviors) stimulate reflectiveness and decisiveness? A 10-item Joint Decision-Making Questionnaire was developed and tested among supervisory officers (N = 87) and supervisory board members (N = 158). Reflectiveness and decisiveness were positively correlated, indicating that these tendencies can be reconciled in joint decision-making (Study 1). An examination of 44 supervisory teams further revealed that participative leadership relates to more reflectiveness and decisiveness, via cooperative trust and goal commitment (Study 2). Moreover, teams that experienced this team climate prior to COVID-19 reported that they acted more reflectively and decisively during this crisis (Study 3). Hence, participative leaders can foster reflectiveness and decisiveness, by promoting cooperative trust and goal commitment.

No abstract

T. Coffeng, MSc. is promovenda bij de Universiteit Utrecht, toezichthouder bij de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) en redacteur van Tijdschrift voor Toezicht. Prof. dr. E.F. van Steenbergen is bijzonder hoogleraar Psychologie van Toezicht aan de Universiteit Utrecht, senior toezichthouder bij de AFM en redacteur van Tijdschrift voor Toezicht. Prof. mr. dr. F. de Vries is bijzonder hoogleraar Toezicht bij de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en managing partner bij &samhoud. Prof. dr. N. Ellemers is universiteitshoogleraar aan de Universiteit Utrecht.