Understanding Errors in Organizations: Tensions and Paradoxes1
Understanding Errors in Organizations: Tensions and Paradoxes
Errors are a recurring fact of organizational life and thus “merit study in their own
right as an organizational-level phenomenon of growing theoretical and managerial
significance” (Goodman et al., 2011: 151). Despite recent advancement in our knowledge
regarding errors in organizations (see Frese & Keith, 2015; Hofmann & Frese, 2011), insights
from distinctive disciplines in a variety of organizational settings, raising tensions and
paradoxes (i.e., inconsistences, conflicts, and contradictory pulls or demands suggested by
different lines of research orexperienced by organizational actors; Bartunek & Rynes, 2014)
that deserve much attention but have been understudied (Goodman et al., 2011; Hofmann &
Frese, 2011).For instance, whereas error prevention approaches often view errors as negative
and seek to avoidthemat all costs, error management approaches consider errors as
opportunities for learning and innovation and thus opt to manage and learn from them (see
Frese & Keith, 2015, for a review). A further example is that of errors in medical care:on the
one hand, nurses in hospitals need to apply short-term remedies for errors in order to proceed
with their duties; on the other, these quick fixes present intractable threats to the so-called
second-order problem solving that helps remove the root causes of these errors (Tucker &
Edmondson, 2003). As a result, errors continue to occur and effective learning is
extraordinarily rare.
Consequently, the fundamental question of how to simultaneously prevent errors from
occurring while investing in activities that “welcome” errors as valuable feedback remains
unanswered and under-studied. To this end, organizational scholars call for a more integrative
approach to errors that helps transcend the limits of specific approaches and explores new
common grounds of competing views (Goodman et al., 2011; Hofmann & Frese, 2011).In
response to this lacuna, we aim to develop a more integrative framework that helps transcend
the limits of specific approaches and explores new common grounds of competing views. As
Understanding Errors in Organizations: Tensions and Paradoxes2
such, we focus on idenfying and exploring tensions and paradoxes in error research and
practice that may have important consequences on the way organizations cope with errors
and have not received much attention.
Consistent with organizational scholars (Goodman et al., 2011; Hofmann & Frese,
2011), we define errors as essentially unintended and potentially avoidable deviations from
organizationally specified goals and standards that can potentially yield either adverse or
positive organizational consequences. To develop our theoretical propositions, we focus on
three lenses embedded in error research that result in in conflicting conclusions and practices:
namely (1) level of analysis – the degree to which errors are attributed to the individual (e.g.,
individual employee) or collective actors (e.g., teams, departments, units, organizations);
(2) temporal dynamism – the degree to which organizational emphasis is put before, during,
and after an error occurs; and (3) priority – the degree to which conflicting priorities (e.g.,
error management vs.innovation) are assigned to error coping strategies(see Table 1.).
The level of analysis perspective centers on tensions and paradoxesrooted in the
opposite influence of individual and collective antecedents on individual and collective
errors. For example, while team climate of "no blame and no punishment" encourages open
communication and associated with lower collective errors occurrence (Edmondson & Lei,
2014; van Dyck, Frese, Baer, & Sonnentag,2005), in some cases, it may also increase
individual errors occurrence by reducing personal accountably for mistakes (Mero, Guidice,
& Werner, 2014). Vice versa, individual rule adherence that is associated with lower
individual error occurrence, when too rigid and dogmatic, might resulted in less
communication and interactions with other organizational actors and increase collective
errors (Bell & Kozlowski, 2011).
Regarding the temporal aspects of errors, an event time frame and timing of error
responseshave informed our assessment of the error literature. For example, the partition time
Understanding Errors in Organizations: Tensions and Paradoxes3
frame categorizes the error process as before, during, and after the occurrence of error-linked
adverse outcomes (Frese & Keith, 2015; Goodman et al., 2011). Along this partition
dimension, organizations often use error prevention strategies to guard against errors from
occurring during the “before” phase and enact error management strategies to block negative
error consequences once (i.e., “during” and “after”) an error has occurred (Hofmann & Frese,
2011). Different error strategies thus present a tradeoff issue: whereas error prevention
emphasizes routine, standardization, and control (Wildavsky, 1991), error management
encourages exactly the opposite - adaptation, flexibility, and experimentation (Frese & Keith,
2015).
We also explore the tensions and paradoxes caused by competing priorities, operating
simultaneously in organizations. For instance, the tension between error free performance and
innovation. Under pressure of precision, reliability and comprehensive fact-based problem
solving errors are not acceptable, organizations thus find it conflicting to simultaneously
pursue innovation which constantly incur trials-and-errors and thus temporarily increase
economic costs (Grote, 2009), decrease customer satisfaction, or even cause injury and loss
of human lives (Naveh & Erez, 2004).
At its core, this paper pays attention to the tensions that are integral to complex
organizational systems and that span the level of analysis, temporal dynamism, and priority
perspectives. In doing so, our work offers opportunities to take a more holistic and integrative
approach to errors that helps to unify existing error literature and guide future research to
resolve and transcend the existinginconsistencies and contradictions (see Table1.).We hope
that our work suggests ways to understand the current state of error research andset helpful
directions for future research that will fully explore the opportunities that assist organizations
to operate as error free zones.
Understanding Errors in Organizations: Tensions and Paradoxes4
References
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike the
paradoxes of academic–practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40: 11811201.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2011). Collective failure: the emergence, consequences,
and management of errors in teams. In D. A. Hofmann & M. Frese (Eds.), Errors in
organizations: 1-44. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Edmondson, A., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future
of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 1: 23-43.
Frese, M., & Keith, N. (2015). Action errors, error management and learning in
organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 66: 21.1-21.7.
Goodman, P. S., Ramanujam, R., Carroll, J. S., Edmondson, A. C., Hofmann, D. A., &
Sutcliffe, K. M. (2011). Organizational errors: Directions for future research.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 31: 151-176.
Grote, G. (2009). Management of uncertainty: theory and application in the design of systems
and organizations. London: Springer-Verlag.
Hofmann, D. A., & Frese, M. (2011). Errors, error taxonomies, error prevention, and error
management: Laying the groundwork for discussing errors in organizations. In D.A.
Hofmann & M. Frese (Eds.), Errors in organizations:1-44. New York: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Mero, N. P., Guidice, R. M., & Werner, S. (2014). A field study of the antecedents and
performance consequences of perceived accountability. Journal of Management, 40:
1627-1653.
Naveh, E., & Erez, M. (2004). Innovation and attention to detail in the quality improvement
paradigm. Management Science, 50: 1576-1586.
Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Why hospitals don’t learn from failures:
Organizational and psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California
Management Review,45: 55-72.
van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S.( 2005). Organizational error management
culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90: 1228-1240.
Wildavsky, A. (1991). Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
5
Errors in Organizations: An Integrative Review
Table1. Summary of Research Findings, Tensions and Paradoxes, and Related Future Research Recommendations
Review
Lens
Level of
analysis
Findings
Team Errors
Team errors occur as a result of the joint effects of antecedences across
individual and team levels.
Organizational and System Errors
Organizational culture (e.g., error management, safety) is pivotal in
reducing negative error consequences and promoting positive error
consequences (e.g., learning and innovation).
Temporal
Dynamism
Priority
An Event Time Frame
The development of effective error strategies is partitioned into three
phases as before, during, and after the occurrence of an error. In the
“before” phase, prevention strategies are used to defend against errors.
In the “during” phase, error management strategies are enacted, while in
the “after” phase, error management shifts attention to learning,
sustainable performance, and innovation.
Timing of Error Responses
The timing of error responses has dramatic effects on organizational
performance and outcomes. Errors should be identified and reported
sooner rather than later. Once errors are clearly declared, organizational
actors are under extreme time pressure and must formulate
interpretations and make correction choices quickly. Studies
demonstrate how different rates of taking action generate qualitatively
different error dynamics and outcomes.
Error Management and Innovation
Innovation is inherently susceptible to errors and even increases the
occurrence of errors. However, a complementary perspective suggests
that innovation may also eliminate errors.
Tensions and Paradoxes
Future Research

Individual antecedents may interact with team
antecedents in a same or an opposite direction to
affect team errors.

The influences of defense activities required to
eliminate errors at one level may have an opposite
effects on error occurrence on another level.
Explore the tension occurring
across levels of analysis. Leverage
the unique opportunities and
tensions of different error forces
across levels and develop new
theoretical models and new
insights that reflect the reality of
error situations, especially
regarding the complex
components.

Whereas error prevention emphasizes precaution
and ex ante actions and works through routines,
standardization, and control, error management
focuses on ex-post, real-time actions, and
encourages adaptation, learning, and flexibility.
Take a complementary view and
investigate the extent to which
different error strategies along the
timeline might help or hinder
learning from errors; and under
what conditions.

Either too slow or too fast error responses can
generate more errors.

Whereas short-term, heroic quick fixes may remove
the problems at hand, they cannot remove root
causes that may be triggered to cause more errors
over time.

Priority assigned to error elimination and to other
organizational goals (e.g., innovation) may lead to
conflicting activities.
Explore the role of the timing of
error responses and examine the
factors that influence the tradeoff
and timing alignment between
different organizational agents and
their error strategies in changing
error situations.
Adopt the paradox paradigm to
explore how to benefit from the
influence of multiple contradicting
priorities and synergize them.