Measuring Organizational Climate for Learning from Errors at Work

Abstract

The present paper illustrates the development of a 65-item instrument to assess the organizational climate for learning from errors at work (OLE). Current theoretical notions and results of empirical studies were integrated into a comprehensive model of error-related learning processes in work teams. The model proposes that effective organizational learning from errors entails that employees notice the occurrence of errors, accept their responsibility for errors and manage to cope with the emotional distress, thoroughly analyze and remove error causes and consequences and share their learning experiences with others. Within organizational units, the effectiveness of each of these learning stages is assumed to be influenced by the supervisor’s and employees’ behaviors, operational procedures, and task structures, as well as organizational principles and values concerning error handling. Results from an empirical evaluation study with 383 employees from 47 work groups underline the reliability and validity of the inventory. There is considerable empirical support for the proposed framework through the replication of the intended facet structure of error-related learning climate by means of CFA. Substantial correlations between the climate for learning from errors and individual well-being and error-related attitudes, as well as group cohesion and customer satisfaction, highlight the relevance of constructive error handling in organizations.

Ever since Argyris and Schoen first published their seminal work on organizational learning in 1978, errors at work have been accepted as one of the main sources of learning in and of organizations. Nevertheless, some 30 years later, we are still lacking a thorough understanding of the anatomy of error-related learning processes at work and the organizational factors influencing them. A look at the literature shows that there are indeed a number of studies discussing and investigating organizational influences on the effectiveness of error handling. However, the studies differ in their conceptual levels (i.e. individual vs. team vs. organizational level), with respect to their conceptualization of the learning process (i.e. the number and content of learning stages) as well as with regard to the features of the work environment that are claimed to influence such processes (e.g., structural aspects such as task design and time pressure vs. interactional aspects such as support from team leaders and co-workers). Despite considerable conceptual overlap, the literature on error-related learning in organizations appears rather heterogeneous and does not form a coherent picture. Therefore, the first aim of the present paper is to integrate current theoretical notions and results of empirical studies into a comprehensive model of error-related learning processes in work teams, which may be used to organize existing results and to stimulate future research.

As a consequence of the lack of integrative theoretical models, there is no well-established and validated inventory that allows for a systematic analysis of the conditions that influence individual and organizational learning from employees’ errors. Nevertheless, such an instrument would be of considerable interest for both researchers and practitioners in the field of organizational learning. On the one hand, a theory-based questionnaire could be used to empirically test the adequacy of the underlying models and assumptions about error-related learning processes. On the other hand, the results of employee surveys could be used to promote an organization’s ability to learn and adapt to ever-changing environments by effectively handling errors at work. This chapter illustrates the attempt to develop such an instrument, namely a questionnaire to assess the organizational climate for learning from errors at work (OLE). Results from an empirical evaluation study with 383 employees from 47 work groups are presented, which underline the reliability and validity of the inventory.

Appendix: Short Version of the OLE Questionnaire

1.	Our supervisor informs his/her employees about consequences that may result from errors in subsequent work processes.
2.	Employees can talk to our supervisor about things that went wrong frankly, without suspecting any negative consequences.
3.	When someone in our work group has made a mistake, our supervisor helps him/her to correct it.
4.	Our supervisor praises his/her employees when they share their experiences in dealing with errors.
5.	In our work group, employees call each other’s attention to consequences errors can have on their work and the work results of co-workers.
6.	Co-workers in our work group act in a competitive manner which makes it difficult to straightforwardly discuss mistakes. (-)
7.	When someone in our work group makes a mistake, other co-workers will help him/her to fix it.
8.	In our work group, co-workers readily accept hints about how to avoid or correct errors.
9.	Employees in our work group are in a position to realize for themselves when they have done something wrong.
10.	In our work group, employees are trained about how to deal with stress and fear arising from errors at work.
11.	Employees in our work group know how to get the information they need to correct errors.
12.	In our work group, there are regular meetings during which employees can also share their experiences in handling mistakes.
13.	People in our organization value open discussions about things that have gone wrong in day-to-day work.
14.	People in our organization believe that errors at work can be a helpful part of the learning process.
15.	When something goes wrong in our organization, emphasis is put on determining the cause.
16.	Everybody in our organization is expected to consider what and how other co-workers can also learn from his/her mistakes.

Note: (-): item scores are reversed before analysis