Double Bias of Mistakes: Essence, Consequences, and Measurement Method

Q3 Business, Management and Accounting
W. Kucharska, A. Kopytko
{"title":"Double Bias of Mistakes: Essence, Consequences, and Measurement Method","authors":"W. Kucharska, A. Kopytko","doi":"10.34190/ejbrm.22.1.3320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is no learning without mistakes. However, there is a clash between ‘positive attitudes and beliefs’ regarding learning processes and the ‘negative attitudes and beliefs’ toward these being accompanied by mistakes. This clash exposes a cognitive bias toward mistakes that might block personal and organizational learning. This study presents an advanced measurement method to assess the bias of mistakes. The essence of it is the detection of the existing contradictions between attitude and behavior toward mistakes at the personal and organizational levels, as well as combined. This study is based on empirical evidence from a sample of 768 knowledge workers, divided into biased and non-biased subsamples following the procedure proposed in this paper. Those subsamples were next applied to the structural model, examining knowledge, learning, and collaboration cultures (the KLC approach) 's influence on organizational intelligence to validate the proposed method. Results showed that the applied method efficiently detects the DBM and exposes that in doubly mistakes-biased knowledge-driven organizations, the influence of knowledge culture on the mistakes acceptance component of learning culture is negative. So, organizations with a dominated double bias of mistakes do not accept the affirmation of learning from mistakes. Summing up, this study constitutes the Double Bias of Mistakes Theory, which states that the clash between positive attitudes and beliefs regarding learning processes and negative attitudes and beliefs toward mistakes exposed by focusing on control managers (bosses) might block organizational learning from mistakes and, as a consequence, negatively affect organizational intelligence. Without the empirical support for this theory, there was a risk that the idea of accepting mistakes as a potential source of learning would be simplified by biased minds to mistakes tolerance and rejected as ridiculous. Accepting that mistakes can be a source of precious learning does not equal mistake tolerance. On the contrary, it is the first step to managing mistakes and creating efficient error avoidance systems thanks to lessons learned from failures. This study introduces the method of measurement and detection of the Double Bias of Mistakes phenomenon, contributing to the science of organizational learning and collective intelligence-building.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.22.1.3320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

There is no learning without mistakes. However, there is a clash between ‘positive attitudes and beliefs’ regarding learning processes and the ‘negative attitudes and beliefs’ toward these being accompanied by mistakes. This clash exposes a cognitive bias toward mistakes that might block personal and organizational learning. This study presents an advanced measurement method to assess the bias of mistakes. The essence of it is the detection of the existing contradictions between attitude and behavior toward mistakes at the personal and organizational levels, as well as combined. This study is based on empirical evidence from a sample of 768 knowledge workers, divided into biased and non-biased subsamples following the procedure proposed in this paper. Those subsamples were next applied to the structural model, examining knowledge, learning, and collaboration cultures (the KLC approach) 's influence on organizational intelligence to validate the proposed method. Results showed that the applied method efficiently detects the DBM and exposes that in doubly mistakes-biased knowledge-driven organizations, the influence of knowledge culture on the mistakes acceptance component of learning culture is negative. So, organizations with a dominated double bias of mistakes do not accept the affirmation of learning from mistakes. Summing up, this study constitutes the Double Bias of Mistakes Theory, which states that the clash between positive attitudes and beliefs regarding learning processes and negative attitudes and beliefs toward mistakes exposed by focusing on control managers (bosses) might block organizational learning from mistakes and, as a consequence, negatively affect organizational intelligence. Without the empirical support for this theory, there was a risk that the idea of accepting mistakes as a potential source of learning would be simplified by biased minds to mistakes tolerance and rejected as ridiculous. Accepting that mistakes can be a source of precious learning does not equal mistake tolerance. On the contrary, it is the first step to managing mistakes and creating efficient error avoidance systems thanks to lessons learned from failures. This study introduces the method of measurement and detection of the Double Bias of Mistakes phenomenon, contributing to the science of organizational learning and collective intelligence-building.
错误的双重偏差:本质、后果和测量方法
没有错误就没有学习。然而,对学习过程的 "积极态度和信念 "与对学习过程伴随着错误的 "消极态度和信念 "之间存在冲突。这种冲突暴露了人们对错误的认知偏差,可能会阻碍个人和组织的学习。本研究提出了一种先进的测量方法来评估错误偏见。其本质是在个人和组织层面上发现对错误的态度和行为之间存在的矛盾,并将其结合起来。本研究基于 768 名知识工作者样本的经验证据,按照本文提出的程序将其分为有偏差和无偏差子样本。然后,将这些子样本应用于结构模型,考察知识、学习和协作文化(KLC 方法)对组织智能的影响,以验证本文提出的方法。结果表明,所应用的方法能有效地检测出 DBM,并揭示出在双重错误偏好的知识驱动型组织中,知识文化对学习文化中的错误接受成分的影响是负的。因此,双重错误偏差占主导地位的组织不接受从错误中学习的肯定。综上所述,本研究提出了 "错误双重偏见理论"(Double Bias of Mistakes Theory),该理论认为,控制型管理者(老板)对学习过程的积极态度和信念与对错误的消极态度和信念之间的冲突可能会阻碍组织从错误中学习,从而对组织智能产生负面影响。如果没有这一理论的实证支持,接受错误是学习的潜在来源这一观点就有可能被容错的偏见思维简化,并被视为荒谬而遭到反对。承认错误可以成为宝贵的学习源泉并不等于宽容错误。恰恰相反,这是从失败中吸取经验教训,从而管理错误和创建高效防错系统的第一步。本研究介绍了衡量和检测 "错误双重偏差 "现象的方法,为组织学习科学和集体智慧建设做出了贡献。
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
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (EJBRM) provides perspectives on topics relevant to research methods applied in the field of business and management. Through its publication the journal contributes to the development of theory and practice. The journal accepts academically robust papers that contribute to the area of research methods applied in business and management research. Papers submitted to the journal are double-blind reviewed by members of the reviewer committee or other suitably qualified readers. The Editor reserves the right to reject papers that, in the view of the editorial board, are either of insufficient quality, or are not relevant enough to the subject area. The editor is happy to discuss contributions before submission. The journal publishes work in the categories described below. Research Papers: These may be qualitative or quantitative, empirical or theoretical in nature and can discuss completed research findings or work in progress. Case Studies: Case studies are welcomed illustrating business and management research methods in practise. View Points: View points are less academically rigorous articles usually in areas of controversy which will fuel some interesting debate. Conference Reports and Book Reviews: Anyone who attends a conference or reads a book that they feel contributes to the area of Business Research Methods is encouraged to submit a review for publication.
×
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