Error orientation at work: Dimensionality and relationships with errors and organizational cultural factors

Abstract

Making errors represents a stressful event, and the way errors are dealt with are significantly influenced by individuals' error orientation. Drawing on the stress literature, scholars have identified several dimensions underpinning error orientation construct. Nevertheless, empirical studies have overlooked the construct complexity and do not provide clear theoretical anchors for its operationalization. This study aims to contribute to the error orientation literature by proposing and empirically testing a theoretical framework that integrates stress and attitude theories, on a sample of 443 employees. Specifically, we examined the error orientation facets' relationships with both two Hofstede's cultural factors (i.e., power distance and uncertainty avoidance) and work errors (i.e., slips/lapses and mistakes types). Findings from the test of alternative models and from a structural equation model showed the uniqueness of each facet, also in relation to additional study variables, supporting the relevance of adopting this twofold theoretical framework in order to better understand the nature of each facet.

Love your mistakes!—they help you adapt to change. How do knowledge, collaboration and learning cultures foster organizational intelligence?

“…Not forgetting that it is common for humans to make mistakes, another important question should be posed: how does companies’ culture influence the learning process via mistakes? Recent studies by Farnese et al (2019) and Farnese et al (2020) demonstrated the importance of cultural orientation for the ability to learn from errors and established the need for more in-depth studies of this problem. Developing their idea, the assumption has been made that knowledge and collaboration cultures may be vital for supporting constant learning culture with the embedded “mistakes acceptance” dimension.…”

Flaws and all: How mindfulness reduces error hiding by enhancing authentic functioning.

“…Error hiding is similar to error reporting as both reflect how negatively the error maker perceives errors and their implications (Rybowiak et al, 1999; Schell, 2012). Yet, analogous to the well-established distinction between employee voice and silence (e.g., Detert & Edmondson, 2011; Morrison, 2011, 2014) and between knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing (Connelly et al, 2012), the concepts of error hiding and reporting are not two sides of the same coin (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008), rather they are conceptually distinct behavioral responses (Zhao & Olivera, 2006) with a moderate negative association (Farnese et al, 2022). The error-related behaviors of reporting versus hiding reflect different motivations as well as situational/environmental factors (Weissman et al, 2005): They are driven by different intentions, such as the implicit and deep-seated beliefs that errors will lead to individual or organizational reprisal (Barach & Small, 2000; Sexton et al, 2000).…”

Do mistakes acceptance foster innovation? Polish and US cross-country study of tacit knowledge sharing in IT

“…We cannot learn from mistakes without accepting them. The studies by Farnese et al (2019Farnese et al ( , 2020 stressed the importance of cultural orientation to learn from errors. Moreover, Vanderheiden and Mayer (2020) highlighted the cultural factor of mistake perception.…”

“…Therefore, this study examines the cultural factors of learning climate and mistake acceptance (Kucharska and Bedford, 2020) as a potential stimulus of tacit knowledge capturing. The recent studies by Farnese et al (2019Farnese et al ( , 2020 demonstrated the importance of cultural orientation to learn from errors. If organizational culture is important for mistakes, the national cultural context must also be influential.…”