Errors and Learning for Safety: Creating Uncertainty As an Underlying Mechanism

  • Gudela Grote


If learning is to be encouraged, error and the resulting increase in uncertainty need to be permitted, and even actively sought, even though they may collide with an organization’s concerns about proving that they are safe. As the author shows, when decisions are made on how uncertainty should best be managed for particular work processes, stability and flexibility requirements need to be analyzed in view of the specific necessities for control and adaptation. The author makes it clear that uncertainty may be beneficial for safety in situations where there is a danger of the over-routinization of behavior due to highly standardized and repetitive task requirements.


  1. Air Accident Investigation Branch. 1990. UK AAIB report 4/90 on the 8 January 1989 accident of a British Midland B737–400 at Kegworth, Leicestershire, England. Aldershot: Air Accident Investigation Branch.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. 1999. Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science 10: 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, N., K. Potocnik, and J. Zhou. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management 40: 1297–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bainbridge, L. 1983. Ironies of automation. Automatica 19: 775–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bienefeld, N., and G. Grote. 2012. Silence that may kill: When aircrew members don’t speak up and why. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors 2: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2014. Speaking up in ad Hoc multiteam systems: Individual level effects of psychological safety, status, and leadership within and across teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23(6): 930–945.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, J.S. 1998. Organizational learning activities in high-hazard industries: The logics underlying self-analysis. Journal of Management Studies 35: 699–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel. 1984. Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In Research in organizational behavior, ed. L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw, vol. 6, 191–233. Homewood: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dekker, S. 2007. Just culture – Balancing safety and accountability. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  10. Detert, J.R., and A. Edmondson. 2011. Implicit voice theories: Taken-for-granted rules of self-censorship at work. Academy of Management Journal 54: 461–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edmondson, A.C. 2003. Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies 40: 1419–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farber, D.A. 2011. Uncertainty. The Georgetown Law Journal 99: 901–959.Google Scholar
  14. Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as duality. Academy of Management Review 35: 202–225.Google Scholar
  15. Feldman, S.P. 2004. The culture of objectivity: Quantification, uncertainty, and the evaluation of risk at NASA. Human Relations 57: 691–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frese, M., and N. Keith. 2015. Action errors, error management and learning in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology 66: 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galbraith, J. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. Gebert, D., S. Boerner, and E. Kearney. 2010. Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science 21: 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gersick, C., and J.R. Hackman. 1990. Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47: 65–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodman, P.S., R. Ramanujam, J.S. Carroll, A.C. Edmondson, D.A. Hofmann, and K.M. Sutcliffe. 2011. Organizational errors: Directions for future research. Research in Organizational Behavior 31: 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grote, G. 2009. Management of uncertainty. Theory and application in the design of systems and organizations. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2011. Risk management from an organizational psychology perspective: A decision process for managing uncertainties. Die Unternehmung 65: 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ———. 2012. Safety management in different high-risk domains – All the same? Safety Science 50: 1983–1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2015. Promoting safety by increasing uncertainty – Implications for risk management. Safety Science 71: 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grote, G., J.C. Weichbrodt, H. Günter, E. Zala-Mezö, and B. Künzle. 2009. Coordination in high-risk organisations: The need for flexible routines. Cognition, Technology & Work 11: 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grote, G., M. Kolbe, and M.J. Waller. 2012. On the confluence of leadership and coordination in balancing stability and flexibility in teams. Paper presented at the Academy of Management conference, Boston, August.Google Scholar
  27. Hale, A.R., and D. Borys. 2013a. Working to rule or working safety? Part 1: A state of the art review. Safety Science 55: 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2013b. Working to rule or working safety? Part 2: The management of safety rules and procedures. Safety Science 55: 222–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hale, A.R., and P. Swuste. 1998. Safety rules: Procedural freedom or action constraint? Safety Science 29: 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hollnagel, E., D.D. Woods, and N. Leveson. 2006. Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., and G. Klein. 2009. Conditions for intuitive expertise – A failure to disagree. American Psychologist 64: 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kerr, N.L., and R.S. Tindale. 2004. Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 55: 23–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kolbe, M., M.J. Burtscher, J. Wacker, B. Grande, R. Nohynkova, T. Manser, D.R. Spahn, and G. Grote. 2012. Speaking up is related to better team performance in simulated anesthesia inductions. An observational study. Anesthesia and Analgesia 115: 1099–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolbe, M., M. Weiss, G. Grote, A. Knauth, M. Dambach, D.R. Spahn, and B. Grande. 2013. TeamGAINS: A tool for structured debriefings for simulation-based team trainings. BMJ Quality & Safety 22: 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leana, C.R., and B. Barry. 2000. Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Academy of Management Review 25: 753–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lei, Z., E. Naveh, and Z. Novikov. 2016. Errors in organizations: An integrative review via levels of analysis, temporal dynamism, and priority lenses. Journal of Management 42: 1315–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loh, V., S. Andrews, B. Hesketh, and B. Griffin. 2013. The moderating effect of individual differences in error-management training: Who learns from mistakes? Human Factors 55: 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manz, C.C., and G.L. Stewart. 1997. Attaining flexible stability by integrating total quality management and socio-technical systems theory. Organization Science 8: 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. March, J., M. Schulz, and X. Zhou. 2000. The dynamics of rules: Change in written organizational codes. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mellers, B.A., A. Schwartz, and A.D.J. Cooke. 1998. Judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 49: 447–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morrison, E.W. 2011. Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals 5: 373–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. NAIIC. 2012. The official report of the Fukushima nuclear accident independent investigation commission. Tokyo: National Diet of Japan.Google Scholar
  44. Nembhard, I.M., and A.C. Edmondson. 2006. Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27: 941–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nicolini, D., J. Waring, and J. Mengis. 2011. Policy and practice in the use of root cause analysis to investigate clinical adverse events: Mind the gap. Social Science & Medicine 73: 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paté-Cornell, E. 2012. On “Black Swans” and “Perfect storms”: Risk analysis and management when statistics are not enough. Risk Analysis 32: 1823–1833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perrow, C. 1984. Normal accidents – Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  48. Pian-Smith, M.C.M., R. Simon, R.D. Minehart, M. Podraza, J. Rudolph, T. Walzer, and D. Raemer. 2009. Teaching residents the two-challenge rule: A simulation-based approach to improve education and patient safety. Simulation in Healthcare 4: 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rasmussen, J. 1997. Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Science 27: 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schein, E.H. 1996. Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review 38: 9–20.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2013. Humble inquiry: The gentle art of asking instead of telling. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Schöbel, M., and D. Manzey. 2011. Subjective theories of organizing and learning from events. Safety Science 49: 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shafir, E., and R.A. LeBoeuf. 2002. Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  55. Van der Schaaf, T.W., D.A. Lucas, and A.R. Hale, eds. 1991. Near miss reporting as a safety tool. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  56. Weick, K.E., K.M. Sutcliffe, and D. Obstfeld. 1999. Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. Research in Organizational Behavior 21: 81–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gudela Grote
    • 1
  1. 1.ZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations