Disentangling Risk Management and Error Management in the Public Sector: A Theoretical Framework

Emily Rose Tangsgaard, Caroline Fischer
{"title":"Disentangling Risk Management and Error Management in the Public Sector: A Theoretical Framework","authors":"Emily Rose Tangsgaard, Caroline Fischer","doi":"10.1177/02750740241229996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public organizations have little tolerance when it comes to risks and errors. At the same time, environmental, technological, and demographic changes call for new ways of doing things to improve public sector performance. Achieving this may involve trial and error. Therefore, there is a need to effectively combine risk management and error management practices. However, the concepts tend to be intermingled and confused, which hinders public managers from deliberately exercising one or the other managerial behavior, or productively combining them. The purpose of this article is to theoretically disentangle risk management from error management. We argue that risk management is a prospective leadership behavior, while error management is a retrospective one. In our theoretical framework, we describe both concepts according to their temporal, behavioral, and normative characteristics. Testable propositions are developed regarding the theorized differences between the two concepts and their associated behaviors, and we discuss ways in which the two concepts can be applied in order to advance future research and, ultimately, improve the way public organizations respond to risks and errors.","PeriodicalId":22370,"journal":{"name":"The American Review of Public Administration","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Review of Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740241229996","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public organizations have little tolerance when it comes to risks and errors. At the same time, environmental, technological, and demographic changes call for new ways of doing things to improve public sector performance. Achieving this may involve trial and error. Therefore, there is a need to effectively combine risk management and error management practices. However, the concepts tend to be intermingled and confused, which hinders public managers from deliberately exercising one or the other managerial behavior, or productively combining them. The purpose of this article is to theoretically disentangle risk management from error management. We argue that risk management is a prospective leadership behavior, while error management is a retrospective one. In our theoretical framework, we describe both concepts according to their temporal, behavioral, and normative characteristics. Testable propositions are developed regarding the theorized differences between the two concepts and their associated behaviors, and we discuss ways in which the two concepts can be applied in order to advance future research and, ultimately, improve the way public organizations respond to risks and errors.
公共部门风险管理与错误管理的分离:理论框架
公共组织对风险和失误的容忍度很低。与此同时,环境、技术和人口结构的变化要求采用新的工作方式来提高公共部门的绩效。要做到这一点,可能需要不断试错。因此,有必要将风险管理和错误管理做法有效结合起来。然而,这两个概念往往相互混淆,妨碍了公共管理者有意识地实施其中一种管理行为,或将两者有效地结合起来。本文旨在从理论上将风险管理与差错管理区分开来。我们认为,风险管理是一种前瞻性的领导行为,而错误管理则是一种回顾性的领导行为。在我们的理论框架中,我们根据这两个概念的时间、行为和规范特征对其进行了描述。我们就这两个概念及其相关行为之间的理论差异提出了可检验的命题,并讨论了这两个概念的应用方法,以推动未来的研究,最终改善公共组织应对风险和错误的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信