DON´T SHOOT THE MESSENGER Mistake-tolerance in middle management
Master´s thesis, Innovation Management Milla Kahelin (291450)
May 2020
Abstract
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Department Business School Author
Milla Kahelin
Supervisor Hanna Lehtimäki Title
Don´t shoot the messenger – Mistake-tolerance in middle management Main subject
Innovation management
Level
Master´s thesis
Date 3.5.2020
Number of pages 65
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the phenomenon of mistake-tolerance and learning from mistakes. In addition, this research focused on middle manager´s point of view as they have an important role in the heart of the organization. They also have a crucial role in shaping an organizational culture. The aim of this research is to produce knowledge on how middle managers can foster mistake-tolerance in their organization and how they handle mistakes in real-life situations.
This study used narrative methodology, more specifically empathy-based stories in collecting empirical data.
Narratives were collected from middle managers from Finnish sales organization. The data was collected anonymously with an electronic survey during September 2019. In the frame story middle managers were asked to describe in their own words how they handle a situation where an employee tells them about a mistake she/he has done. In overall ten middle managers participated to the research and wrote their own experiences and thoughts about mistakes. The data was organized by creating a categorization matrix based on previous literature and theories on the subject. After this, the data was coded according to the created categories.
The findings indicated that middle managers saw mistakes as an inevitable part of everyday life in their organization. At the same time mistakes were seen as an important tool to learn. Middle managers also pointed out the means on how they can foster mistake-tolerance in their organisation. Mistakes were seen valuable for both the whole organization and for an individual and that´s why it is important that all mistakes are reported.
The findings also indicated that learning from mistakes successfully requires a certain kind of tone of voice when handling those situations with employees. Middle managers also recognized their important role in fostering mistake-tolerance in their organization, especially in creating daily procedures, communicating and leading.
The findings of this study bring new perspectives to the rather little researched theme of mistakes by highlighting the important role of middle managers in fostering mistake-tolerance. This study also contributes to the previous literature by pointing out the importance of creating daily procedures concerning mistakes as a part of organizational culture. Also, the importance of open discussion and trust is highlighted as a crucial part of a mistake-tolerant organization.
Key words
mistakes, middle management, learning from mistakes, mistake-tolerance
Tiivistelmä
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Tiedekunta
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
Yksikkö
Kauppatieteiden laitos Tekijä
Milla Kahelin
Ohjaaja
Hanna Lehtimäki
Työn nimi
Älä ammu viestintuojaa –keskijohdon virheensietokyky
Don´t shoot the messenger – Mistake-tolerance in middle management Pääaine
Innovaatiojohtaminen
Työn laji
Pro Gradu -tutkielma
Aika 3.5.2020
Sivuja 65 Tiivistelmä
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on tutkia virheidensietokykyä ilmiönä ja virheistä oppimista. Lisäksi tämä tutkimus keskittyy keskijohdon näkökulmaan, koska heillä on tärkeä asema organisaation keskellä ja heillä on myös välttämätön rooli organisaatiokulttuurin muodostamisessa. Tämän tutkimuksen tavoitteena on tuottaa tietoa siitä, miten keskijohto voi edistää virheensietokykyä omassa organisaatiossaan ja miten keskijohtajat käsittelevät virheitä tosielämän tilanteissa.
Tässä tutkimuksessa käytettiin narratiivista tutkimusmenetelmää, tarkemmin ottaen eläytymismenetelmää.
Narratiivit kerättiin suomalaisen myyntiorganisaation keskijohtajilta. Aineisto kerättiin anonyymisti sähköisen kyselyn avulla syyskuun 2019 aikana. Kehystarinassa keskijohtajia pyydettiin kuvailemaan omin sanoin, miten he käsittelevät tilanteen, jossa työntekijä tulee kertomaan tekemästään virheestä. Kaiken kaikkiaan 10 keskijohtajaa osallistui tutkimukseen ja kirjoitti omia kokemuksiaan ja ajatuksiaan virheistä. Aineisto analysoitiin sisällön analyysilla ja data järjesteltiin luomalla aiempaan tutkimukseen ja teorioihin perustuva kategoriataulukko. Tämän jälkeen aineisto koodattiin kategorioiden mukaan, jonka myötä aineistosta tunnistettiin yleisiä teemoja.
Tutkimustulokset osoittavat, että keskijohto näkee virheet väistämättömänä osana jokapäiväistä elämää omassa organisaatiossaan, mutta samaan aikaan virheet nähtiin myös tärkeänä oppimisen välineenä. Keskijohtajat osoittivat myös keinoja, joilla he voivat edistää virheensietokykyä organisaatiossaan. Virheet koettiin arvokkaina sekä koko organisaatiolle että yksilöille ja siksi onkin tärkeää, että kaikki virheet raportoidaan. Tulokset osoittavat myös sen, että virheistä voidaan oppia onnistuneesti, jos työntekijän kanssa virheitä käsitellessä käytetään tietynlaista äänensävyä. Keskijohtajat myös tunnistivat heidän tärkeän roolinsa virheensietokyvyn edistämisessä, etenkin päivittäisten toimintamallien luomisessa, viestinnässä ja johtamisessa.
Tämän tutkimuksen tulokset tuovat uusia näkökulmia kovin vähän tutkittuun virheiden aihepiiriin korostamalla keskijohdon tärkeää roolia virheensietokyvyn edistämisessä. Tämä tutkimus tukee myös aiempaa tutkimusta korostamalla virheitä koskevien toimintamallien tärkeyttä osana organisaatiokulttuuria. Tämän lisäksi avoimen keskustelun ja luottamuksen tärkeys korostui osana virheensietokykyisiä organisaatioita.
Avainsanat
virhe, keskijohto, virheistä oppiminen, virheensietokyky
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The theme of this master´s thesis was born over ten years ago although by those times I did not know that I was going to handle mistakes this comprehensively. Back then, I made a mistake and my boss of that time shouted at me, blamed me and made sure that everybody in our organization knew what I had done. Although I was young in business, I knew that the whole situation should
have been handled very differently.
Even though years have gone by and I am not working in that same place, the memories of that situation are still very alive in me. I think that it was the first weeks of my Innovation management studies as I decided that I will make my master´s thesis about mistakes and how mistakes are handled in organizations. Since then, I have processed the past situation and this
study.
Now that my master´s thesis is ready, I think that this particular event in my past has made me stronger and definitely wiser. Also the process of writing this master´s thesis has helped me to learn a lot about myself and my attitudes toward mistakes and to the fact that none of us can be flawless. I want to thank all my fellow students whom I have talked with about mistakes and who
have reflected their experiences with me.
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT ... 2
TIIVISTELMÄ ... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 4
TABLE OF CONTENT ... 5
1 INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.1 The topic of the research ... 7
1.2 The purpose of the study ... 8
1.3 Key concepts of the study and structure of the Thesis ... 10
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 13
2.1 Learning from mistakes ... 13
2.2 Mistake-tolerant organization ... 17
2.3 Middle management ... 22
2.4 Synthesis of the theory ... 27
3 METHODOLOGY ... 30
3.1 Methodological approach ... 30
3.2 Data collection ... 31
3.3 Analysis of the data ... 32
3.4. Ethical considerations about study ... 36
4 MISTAKE-TOLERANCE IN MIDDLE-MANAGEMENT ... 38
4.1 Mistakes from the middle management point of view ... 38
4.2 Mistake-tolerance from middle management´s point of view ... 40
4.3 Mistakes as an opportunity to learn ... 42
4.4 Leadership and mistake-tolerance ... 45
4.5 Summary of the research results ... 47
5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 49
5.1 Summary of the study ... 49
5.2 Key results and contributions of the study ... 50
5.3 Managerial implications and future study ... 53
5.4. Evaluation of the study and research limitations ... 55
REFERENCES ... 57
APPENDIX ... 64
Kehyskertomus 1. (Frame Story – original finnish version) ... 64
Appendix 2. Frame Story (Translated from Finnish) ... 65
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The topic of the research
As long as humans aren´t replaced by robots, mistakes will happen. We make mistakes in our personal and at work. Nowadays organizations are widely encouraged to learn from their mistakes, because it offers a possibility to correct a mistake and to prevent making the same mistake again (Ellis & Davidi 2005). Mistakes are also a current and trending theme in leadership literature. For example, a Finnish businessman and professional board member Mika Sutinen has written a book named Mahtava moka i.e. Awesome blooper with Mikko Kuitunen (Sutinen &
Kuitunen, 2018). An acclaimed speaker and consultant Matthew Syed (2015) underlines in his book that success can happen only when we are ready to confront our mistakes.
Further, it is also scientifically proven that learning from mistakes affects positively for an organization´s performance (e.g. Tjosvold, Yu & Hui 2004; Dyck, Frese, Baer & Sonnentag 2005). Learning from mistakes is also said to be a characteristic especially for innovative organizations (Cannon & Edmondson, 2005), because when members of an organization have permission to make mistakes without fear of bad consequences, they are more eager to aim at innovative opportunities (Weinzimmer & Esken, 2017).
When an employee makes a mistake, it creates an urgent need for new information and improving performance whereas success does not wake these kinds of actions in the same scale (Ellis & Davidi 2005, 860). Many organizations still overtake the chance to learn from mistakes and focus only on procedures that have been proven to be successful. Or if an organization pays attention to mistakes, it is only when something big and catastrophic happens. Cannon and Edmondson (2005, 301) argue that when the small mistakes aren´t recognized, talked about and analyzed, it is very difficult to prevent bigger mistakes.
Although the importance of learning from mistakes is starting to be recognized, dealing with mistakes isn’t that obvious. Cannon & Edmondson (2005, 303-304) suggest that many organizations lack the tolerance for failures and therefore they punish the mistake-doer when a mistake has happened. Punishing leads to the situation where the employee analyses mistakes alone and eventually he/she ignores or hides the mistake because of the fear of the consequences.
Ignoring can lead to a situation where the same mistakes are made again, or small mistakes can escalate and become bigger.
We learn in our early childhood that mistakes should be avoided. School and work life rewards those who succeed, so it is in our nature that we try to avoid mistakes or cover them up.
Individuals may also be unwilling to report mistakes because they are afraid of the potential harm that it will do to their image or even to their professionalism and competence (Zhao & Olivera 2006). There can also be concerns about how the mistake affects the individual´s interpersonal relationships; for example if she/he is rejected by coworkers or loses the support of other employees (Edmondson 1999).
Eventually creating a culture where mistakes can be identified and revealed without a fear is a task of the management (Cannon & Edmondson 2005, 305) and at least by now it should be time to abandon the outdated thinking where employees are punished when they make a mistake.
Weinzimmer and Esken (2017) define mistake-tolerance as an organizational culture where mistakes are admissible and a part of a learning process. Managers that want to create a mistake- tolerant atmosphere need to try to highlight the value of learning from mistake and also reward employees when they take steps toward mistake-learning. (Weinzimmer & Esken 2017.) The top management may define that the organization wants to learn from mistakes, but the true actions are made in lower levels in everyday situations and procedures. This is why this research focuses in middle managements perception about mistake-tolerance.
1.2 The purpose of the study
The importance of learning from mistakes and the managers role in the process is studied and emphasized in previous studies (e.g. Cannon & Edmondson 2001, Carmeli & Sheaffer 2008) but the actual ways for managers to foster a mistake-tolerant atmosphere are not that evident. The purpose of this research is to explore the concept of mistake-tolerance and gain a deeper understanding in how middle managers perceive mistake-tolerance and what is their role in creating an atmosphere where mistake learning happens without making a blaming culture or so what -culture which in turn can encourage even to negligence.
The aim of this study is to highlight the important role of learning from mistakes, but also to understand the ways to create mistake-tolerant atmosphere from a managerial point of view. The topic is important, because managers and especially middle managers have a crucial role in shaping an organizational culture and creating a learning process. Creating a culture where mistakes are openly discussed and learned isn´t just a decision to implement it. As Cannon &
Edmondson (2005, 301) suggest, organizations tend not to learn from mistakes because they don´t pay attention to small and everyday mistakes. Mistakes are truly recognized only if something large or catastrophical happens, although small mistakes could serve as an early sign to avoid bigger harms. Based on the purpose and aim of this study my research question is as follows:
How middle managers can foster mistake-tolerance in their organization?
In order to answer this question, I have three aims to this master´s thesis. The first is to examine the existing literature of learning from mistakes and mistake-tolerant organizations. Secondly, my aim is to discover what is the role of middle management in mistake-tolerance and learning from mistakes. Finally, I will examine empirically how middle managers deal with mistakes in a real- life situation.
By answering this question, I will provide new insight for organizations to understand the meaning of mistakes and especially on how important it is to learn from mistakes. The theoretical framework of the study builds understanding on mistake-tolerance in organizations and the empirical part of the research is focused on identifying the middle manager´s role in fostering mistake-tolerance. This study contributes on existing literature by giving organizations more understanding on how mistake-tolerance can be strengthened in day-to-day practises. The study also provides practical implications for middle managers on how to deal with employee´s mistakes and make sure that the organization can learn from them without finger-pointing to the mistake-maker.
1.3 Key concepts of the study and structure of the Thesis
The key concepts of my study are middle management, learning from mistakes and mistake- tolerance. However, first it is crucial to define the concept of mistake. In the previous literature mistake is often used interchangeably with error. The term failure is also commonly used in mistake learning literature, but it has a different kind of denotation. Weinzimmer and Esken (2017, 325) have found that major part of organizational learning research uses the terms mistake and failure indiscriminately, but failure is mostly seen as a reason of mistakes.
A mistake is one form of a human error caused by executing the wrong action. A failure is a consequence of that mistake, or a series of mistakes and it refers to long term of events, not just to one situation. (Weinzimmer & Esken 2017.) Mistake can mean different kind of things depending on science. In the medical field for example, major mistake can lead to loss of a human life, so this study excludes all references that are made from a medical point of view and focuses on literature and findings that are relevant in business science. Even though failures can be intellectualized differently from mistakes, this study also explores previous studies concerning failures if the findings are relevant regarding to mistake-tolerance and learning from mistakes.
In this study I use the term mistake and define it based on Zhao and Olivera (2006, 1013) as
“…individuals´ decision and behaviors that result in an undesirable gap between an expected and real state and may lead to actual or potential negative consequences for organizational functioning that could have been avoided.”
It is obvious that mistakes are not usually desirable, and it is more common to raise up those who succed and learn from that success. But as Weinzimmer and Esken (2017, 326) point out, mistake tolerant organization does not encourage to make mistakes but is able to create an organizational culture that “encourages to intelligent risk taking that leads to learning and improved knowledge”. Based on findings of Weinzimmer and Esken (2017) mistake-tolerance can be summarized as
“… tolerating mistakes when they happen and also allowing individuals to search innovative solutions without fear and creating a culture where mistakes can be openly discussed.”
Although creating a mistake-tolerant atmosphere and learning from mistakes is a matter of the whole organization, this study focuses on the role of middle management. As Floyd and Lane (2000) define, middle managers are in a unique position in organizations - between the top management and the operational level. Middle managers are at the midpoint through which most of the strategic information moves and they also have an apprehension of daily activities (Woolridge, Schmid & Floyd 2008, 1192). Because of their important role in the organization, it is important that they have enough knowledge to tolerate mistakes and handle them correctly.
This Master´s thesis is structured as followed:
Chapter 1 introduces the background and purpose of this study along with the research approach and key concepts.
Chapter 2 shows the theoretical background of the study and academic literature of learning from mistakes and mistake-tolerance. This chapter will also introduce the position of middle management and their roles. Thirdly, this study presents the theories about learning from mistakes and different stages of learning. Then, the chapter opens different approaches to mistake-tolerance and elements of a mistake-tolerant organization. Finally, the theoretical framework of this study is formed based on these concepts and introduced in the end of chapter 2.
Chapter 3 introduces the methodological approach used in this study. This chapter presents the features of qualitative research and especially narrative methodology and empathy-based stories.
In addition, the chapter presents the data collection method and the analysis process of the data.
Finally, this chapter also contains ethical considerations about the study.
Chapter 4 demonstrates the empirical findings of the research. The main findings of the research are discussed based on the literature of learning from mistakes and mistake-tolerance. Findings are enriched with quotations from the narratives of the middle managers.
Chapter 5 presents the conclusions of this study and the key results of the study are combined with previous theories. This chapter also includes insights for future study and managerial implications, as well as discusses the limitations of this study.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter gathers the literature of learning from mistakes, mistake-tolerance, mistake-tolerant organization culture and middle management. The importance and meaning of learning from mistakes is addressed first. After that this chapter focuses on how organizations can learn from mistakes and how a mistake-tolerant organization culture can be created. Finally, this chapter will focus on the role of management in fostering mistake-tolerance in their organization, especially from the middle management´s point of view.
2.1 Learning from mistakes
The importance of learning from mistakes is already acknowledged in numerous studies (e.g.
Cannon & Edmondson 2001, 2005; Putz, Schilling, Kluge, & Stangenberg, 2012; Weinzimmer &
Esken, 2017), but there seems to be quite few studies that concretize the learning processes from mistakes. Cannon and Edmondson (2005, 299) summarizes, that it is easier to support the idea of learning from mistakes but accomplishing it is easier said than done. It is obvious that mere support to the idea of learning from mistakes is not enough for actual learning. It is crucial to preoccupate with mistakes and create a sensitive system to cope with them, but this phase is often ignored (Carmeli & Sheaffer, 2008, 469).
Based on a comprehensive review of the previous literature, Putz and colleagues (2012, 515) argue that learning from mistakes can be divided in four crucial stages that are influenced by managers and other employees’ behavior, structural and operational working conditions and organizational principles and values. First stage in learning from mistakes is the identification and recognition of mistakes. As Putz et al. points out, this stage is especially important because people often tend to ignore their mistakes. The second stage includes accepting responsibility and handling the emotions. As emotions related to mistakes are most often negative, it is important to deal with them in a functional way. In the third stage, the employee examines the circumstances in which mistake happens systematically with a manager. This needs to be done in order to avoid the same mistakes in the future. The fourth and final stage is interpersonal exchange between the members of the organization. This means that the experiences about mistakes are discussed and contained to organizational practices and procedures. (Putz et al. 2012.)
Zhao (2011) in turn describes learning from mistakes as a process of four steps that are: 1) reflecting on mistake, 2) locating root causes of mistake, 3) developing knowledge about action and 4) using this knowledge to modify or improve decision making or behavior. As Zhao (2011, 436) defines, “learning from errors (mistakes) is an effortful activity” and it requires reflection about mistakes and taking all the information into daily practices. Based on these two descriptions and previous literature about mistake learning I summarize mistake learning process as represented in the figure 1, where learning starts from identification, leads to reflection of feelings and reasons and finally ends to information sharing.
Figure 1: Stages of learning from mistakes.
Figure 1 shows that the first stage in learning from the mistakes is identification of mistakes.
Cannon and Edmondson (2005) argue that the process to learn from mistakes always starts with the identification of mistakes though it has been shown that mistakes often remain unnoticed in everyday work life. The first stage is an essential step toward the learning process because individuals tend to deny the mistake or cover it up and organizations are also more likely to
ignore the awareness of mistakes (Cannon & Edmondson 2005). One way to help the identification of mistakes is consistent reporting of mistakes. As Zhao and Olivera (2006) point out, organizations benefit only when individuals report all types of mistake. This can help managers to learn whether some specific organizational procedures or rewards courage employees to make more mistakes than others. Mistake reporting helps organizations to change structures and procedures to minimize mistakes or the negative effects of mistakes. (Zhao &
Olivera, 2006.) It is also important to make sure that mistakes are identified as early as possible because it allows learning in an efficient and cost-effective way (Cannon & Edmondson 2005, 163).
As the identification of mistakes is an important stage on organizational level, Figure 1 shows that the second stage effects especially on a personal level. Making a mistake and admitting it can be a stressful situation and the fear of exposure and negative consequences often prevents employees from dealing with mistakes in a functional way (Putz et al. 2014, 515). Many studies (e.g. Cannon & Edmondson 2001) point out that making a mistake evokes lots of feelings that are normally quite negative, and it is important that an individual can handle those feelings and still openly tell that a mistake has happened.
Cannon and Edmondson (2001, 165) remind that we have been educated to avoid mistakes from early childhood and committing a mistake can have a significant effect on our self-esteem. Also, commitment to learning from mistakes does not guarantee that those who were part of the mistake will not be seen negatively by colleagues. If there is a fear that others see you incompetent and revealing a mistake may have negative consequences to your future, employees are very unlikely to expose failures. (Cannon & Edmondson, 2001.)
Focusing and confronting a mistake can make a painful blow to self-esteem (Cannon &
Edmondson 2001, 165), but as Zhao (2011) found out in his study, influence of negative feelings is not necessarily a bad thing because negative emotionality was substantially and with a positive way related to motivation to learn. More specifically, Zhao defines that emotions of guilt and sadness weren´t negatively related to learning but fear causes obstructive for learning. If employees are afraid, they might figure out alternative ways to take their mind off from the mistake and cope in the situation even with denial. According to Zhao, it is possible that fear
does not decrease the motivation to learn but it hinders learning from mistakes by growing motivation to adjust negative emotions. In turn, sadness and guilt are positively related to learning from mistakes. One reason for this is that these feelings act like a warning to employees and remind them to solve the problem before things get out of hand. (Zhao 2011.)
As can been seen from figure 1, the fourth stage in learning from mistakes is sharing information about mistakes. Tjosvold, Yu & Hui (2004, 1225) have researched how teams learn from mistakes and they suggest that developing cooperative relationships between members of the team leads them to take a problem-solving approach. This also helps the team to learn from mistakes. Problem solving means open discussion between members of the group about mistakes they have made. This kind of open discussion ensures that all members firstly understand the conditions and reasons that lead to a mistake and then they can learn together and find a way to improve their future performance. Tjosvold and colleagues also point out that in order to create a problem solving approach and learn from the mistakes, an organization needs to develop effective relationships among employees. This can be fostered with a team climate, leadership, cooperative goals and values. (Tjosvold et al, 2004.)
Cannon and Edmondson (2001) also emphasize the role of a group level analysis when dealing with mistakes. They argue that individuals react to mistakes very differently due to self-esteem and/or cultural factors and therefore it is important that the members of groups or teams share the same beliefs of mistakes. Teams or groups also need the same expectations on how mistakes are handled and what happens after discussions. Several studies (e.g. Edmondson 1999, Cannon &
Edmondson 2001, Carmeli & Gittell 2008) also highlight that shared commitment to learn from mistakes is not enough.
Caniels and Baaten (2019, 564) found out that organizational cultures that have a learning- oriented climate toward mistakes will also expose high level of resilience. This means that employees are not afraid to make mistakes but on the contrary, they are likely to feel free to take initiative, risks and have creative ideas. This kind of attitude towards experimentation and mistakes will build resilience because the employees are used to having a certain amount of adversities. These setbacks may turn out to be improvements which may not happen without mistakes. (Caniels & Baaten 2019.)
2.2 Mistake-tolerant organization
Managers have a very crucial role when it comes to learning from mistakes (e.g. Zhao 2011, Weinzimmer & Esken 2017) but still many managers choose to ignore mistakes. Learning may demand extra work and it can also wake fear about losing control or worsening of organizational performance. As it is already pointed out, this kind of fear is not relevant because learning from mistakes has positive effects on the organizations performance (e.g. Tjosvold et al. 2004; Dyck, Frese, Baer & Sonnentag 2005). Maurer, Hartnell, & Lippstreu (2017, 5) present two different ways on how to frame mistakes (errors) in an organization: negatively and positively. In error aversion culture mistakes are covered up or penalized which results in psychological strain. This kind of culture can agitate employees to avoid penalties by covering up mistakes or avoidance to take any kind of risks that might lead to mistakes. Instead, error management culture is a proactive approach to mistakes that “encourages positively to detect, communicate, share, analyze and correct mistakes”. This kind of culture emphasizes how employees learn, communicate and develop themselves as a result of making mistakes.
Maurer et al. (2017) summarizes that when mistakes are handled in a constructive manner, employees are expected to take more risks, experiment, learn and improve processes and most importantly decrease future mistakes. Dimitrova, van Hooft, van Dyck and Groenewegen (2017) found out that these two error handling strategies have very different outcomes. Error prevention affects to employee’s cognition and their actual behaviour whereas error management influences by weakening negative emotions. (Dimitrova et al 2017.)
Weinzimmer and Esken (2017) offers several guidelines for managers based on their studies on mistake-tolerance (also known as error tolerance in literature). At first it is important for managers to show that they value mistake-tolerance and make sure that the employees also know this. When managers focus on creating a mistake-tolerant atmosphere, they communicate with the employees that they have a freedom to take initiative without fear of failure. Most importantly managers must make mistake-tolerant policies and procedures part of the daily work life in order to benefit from learning from mistakes. (Weinzimmer and Esken 2017.)
Carmeli (2007) studied failure-based learning behavior in organizations and found out that a strong social capital is common for organizations that were able to learn from mistakes. The term
refers to “a web of quality relationships and interactions among members”. In organizations that have a strong social capital, members feel safe to talk openly about mistakes and failures without the fear of punishment or embarrassment. This also leads to a high rate of failure-based learning behaviors. Reflective thinking is typical for this kind of behavior as it enables organizations to
“better understand and cope with evolving problems and challenges”. Because reflective thinking requires interaction among all the members of the organization, strong social capital is a very valuable resource. (Carmeli, 2007.)
The same idea was brought up by Carmeli and Gittell (2008), but they added that one way to create a mistake-tolerant organization is to foster the concept of psychological safety. In psychological safety individuals can express his- or herself without fear of negative results when asking questions, seeking feedback or reporting a mistake for example. In further research it was found that when employees working together have competing goals and they don´t understand or respect each other´s role, they are more likely to blame each other for mistakes. In contrast when employees have shared goals and they are connected by mutual respect, they are less likely to blame each other for mistakes and are more likely to see mistakes as an occasion for learning. An important part of psychological safety is high-quality relationships that include shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect. High quality relationships enable employees to leverage and utilize their capacity to learn from mistakes. (Carmeli & Gittell, 2008.)
Carmeli and Gittell (2008) state that the managers first step toward creating a mistake learning culture is to develop relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect among employees. This same idea about high quality relationships is fostered by Cannon and Edmondson (2001, 167) as they argue that when employees have shared beliefs of mistakes and they have the same knowledge about how mistakes are handled, they are more likely to share and learn from mistakes. Cannon and Edmondson (2001) also argue that in order to achieve shared goals and beliefs, “managers need to act as effective coaches of the people with whom they work” because they are present in the workplace and can have a bigger influence than just mere corporate values and vision statements. (Cannon & Edmondson 2001.) Coaching is an important skill for every leader, and it can have a big influence on how managers facilitate their employees´
learning. In a coaching style, leader identifies employee´s needs for learning and helps them to
have inspiration and find different kinds of behaviours that produce better outcomes. (Ellinger, Ellinger & Keller, 2003.)
This same idea about shared goals is supported also by Gronewold, Gold and Salterio (2013) as they point out the importance and willingness of mistake reporting in organizations. They use a term error climate, which indicates to an organization culture where individuals are supported to report mistakes so that learning from the mistakes occurs both for the individual and for the whole team. Rodriguez and Griffin (2009) also highlight the role of error climate, but they remind that the goal of learning from mistakes needs to be condensed into a broader objective aimed at developing employees. They also suggest that “managers cannot expect to engage their employees in learning from their own mistakes if other aspects of employee development are ignored”.
Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin (2003) state that before employees decide to talk about unpleasant issues to their coworkers or managers, they need to develop a cognitive map of the organization’s communication norms. This map tells what can or cannot be said and what happens as a result of this communication. In their model of the choice to remain silent Milliken et al. (2003) found out that most commonly employees fear for damaging their own image or being stigmatized in a negative way. Remaining silent about unpleasant issues, such as mistakes, can also have a social dimension. When an employee joins an organization, he/she learsn what is safe to discuss and what should be unspoken. This learning comes both from personal experiences and observing colleagues. (Milliken et al. 2003.)
But as Dyck, Frese, Baer and Sonnentag (2005, 1238) point out, managers may wonder how they can reward achievements and punish nonachievements and at the same time tolerate mistakes.
There may not be one answer to this question but “managers have to walk a fine line between taking mistakes seriously and emphasizing mistake-tolerance and between using information on errors as examples of performance and using errors as opportunities for learning”. (Dyck et al.
2005.) As Milliken et al. (2003) emphasizes, if an organization has a culture where unpleasant issues are hided and not discussed, important information about potential problems doesn´t reach the management level. This also leads to situations where managers make their decisions without this information, errors cannot be detected, and employees may keep making the same mistakes
over and over again. Madsen and Desai (2005) found out in their study, that an organization that treats failure in a nonpunitive way, will report more mistakes but also at the same time employees will make less serious mistakes. On the contrary, in an organization that seeks to blame for failures, less mistakes are reported, and more big mistakes are done.
Wilson and Dobni (2020) found out five strategies that help to create a failure tolerant learning orientation. The first strategy is to create appropriate culture in order to learn from mistakes.
Culture needs to be continuously supported by every employee, but it is the managers´ work to begin the shaping of the culture. The second strategy is reframing the failure which means that in a failure tolerant learning orientation focus shifts from who to why and how. Third strategy is to discover mistakes faster because this also allows success faster. This also requires available and adequate resources. The fourth strategy is to incentivize and acknowledge mistake. In practise, this means “importance of linking successful risk-taking to monetary incentives and unsuccessful risk-taking to organizational acknowledgment”. The fifth strategy is to remove consequences from mistakes. In order to advance a failure learning orientation, bad consequences need to be deleted or at least substantially decreased because they make people play safe. (Wilson & Dobni 2020.)
Table 1 gathers different kind of approaches on how organizations can see mistakes and mistake- tolerance based on previous studies. Used concepts are mistakes, errors and failures but the idea behind them is congruent.
Table 1. Approaches to mistake-tolerance.
Approaches to mistake-tolerance Author(s) Error aversion: mistakes are punished / covered up
vs. Error management culture: “mistakes are detected, shared, analyzed and corrected”
Maurer et al., 2017
Strong social capital: “psychological safety and failure- based learning behavior is enabled”
Carmeli, 2007
Psychological safety: “mistakes are reported without fear, high-quality relationships, shared knowledge”
Carmeli & Gittell, 2008
Error climate: “employees are supported to report mistakes to make learning from mistakes possible”
Gronewold et al., 2013
Error climate: “goal of learning from mistakes needs to be crystallized into an employee’s development”
Rodriguez & Griffin, 2009
Failure learning orientation: “failure needs to be positively reframed; the process needs to be supported with resources, everyone must be solution-oriented, incentives and acknowledgment for risk-taking are critical, and failure consequences must be reconsidered or removed.”
Wilson & Dobni, 2020
Table 1 shows that organizations can take many kinds of aspects toward mistakes and mistake- tolerance as seen in table 1. The fundamental question is whether the attitude is negative or positive, as Maurer et al. (2017) highlighted. By choosing the way of error aversion mistakes can be seen very negatively which leads to covering and sanctions. In error management culture mistakes are positively detected, analyzed and corrected. (Maurer et al. 2017.) As table 1
summarizes, the importance of the whole organization and the members of it are common for all positive approaches is. When in negative approach the mistakes are seen very personally, and handled or covered by individuals, in positive approaches mistakes are seen as part of a bigger entity. In other words, mistakes aren´t left for only the mistake-maker to worry about, but the mistakes can be shared for the whole team or group without fear. After this the whole organization can handle the mistake and learn from it (Wilson & Dobni, 2020). Lastly, table 1 shows that the relationships between members of the organization are common for positive approaches toward mistakes. Carmeli and Gittell (2008) described that high-quality relationships and psychological safety between individuals are typical for mistake-tolerant organization.
2.3 Middle management
The important role of middle managers is highlighted in many studies (e.g. Floyd & Lane 2000, Balogun 2003, Beck & Plowman 2009) and the main reason is their unique position in the organization. As Wooldridge and colleagues (2008) summarize, middle managers´ position is intermediate, as they work as an important interface between the top and operating level. Besides, middle managers can connect different units and levels in geographically dispersed organisations which could not be done by single actors. Thirdly, middle managers play an important role in activities associated with capability development, even greater than top managers due to their location in the middle. (Woolridge et al. 2008.)
Formerly middle managers have been seen as a conduit for top managers orders but later it has been acknowledged that middle managers have a big strategic potential (Floyd & Lane 2000, Balogun 2003). As the top management may hold the main work of strategy formulation, middle management has an important role in implementing the strategy and taking it in to practice.
Middle managers have a good access to information in the lower levels of the organization, so they also play a significant role in the organizational performance. (Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk & Roe 2011.) Dutton and Ashford (1993, 398) highlight that the middle managers have been recognised to have a central role “in the successful generation and mobilization of resources around new ideas” in the studies of innovation and entrepreneurship. Balogun (2003, 79) describes that especially in the state of change and strategy implementing process, the middle manager´s key task is interpretation. In other words, this can be seen as sense making that includes four different
roles: “starting personal change, helping others through change, keeping the business running and implementing changes”. (Balogun 2003.)
Beck and Plowman´s (2009) study about rare and unusual events does not directly deal with mistakes or errors, but it offers good understanding about the middle manager´s role in organizational learning. They point out that in order to learn from this kind of events, the organization needs to experience rare and unusual events richly, not only from top management level and with their interpretations. According to Beck and Plowman, interpretations are a key component of organizational learning. Middle managers have a crucial role in interpreting information and creating meaning as they are at the intersection of the horizontal and vertical information flow. Because of this, middle managers have an ability to experience the rare and unusual events more deeply because they are more likely to know and see different dimensions than top level managers. (Beck & Plowman, 2009.)
All in all, middle managers are the ones who are in the heart of the organization´s actions and employees as seen in figure 2. Middle managers are also closer to the customers and other stakeholders than top level managers. Middle managers hear what happens in everyday life of the organization and they also have an important role seeing and detecting new ideas and communicating information to upper levels. This same idea works for learning from mistakes and tolerating mistakes as middle managers should be part of the everyday organizational procedures (Cannon & Edmondson 2005).
Figure 2. Middle manager´s role and tasks seen in this study.
Figure 2 presents how the role of middle managers is seen in this study based on previous studies.
Middle managers work in the heart of organizations and have an important role as they communicate both to top level and to the operating level. Besides their central role, middle managers have several pivotal tasks that are summarized in figure 2. Middle managers share information between different levels in an organization (Raes et al. 2011) and are key factors in implementing change (Balogun 2003). Also, middle managers implement strategy and take it into practise (Floyd & Lane 2000). This group is also the one who interprets and makes sense for different kind of situations in an organization (Beck & Plowman 2009).
As Weinzimmer and Esken (2017) summarize, mistake-tolerant organization has conditions that allows members to take risks, seek innovative answers and develop knowledge without fear of punishment. In a mistake-tolerant organization members are not encouraged to make mistakes, but there rather is rather “a culture of intelligent risk taking that leads to learning and improved knowledge”. The role of the leadership is crucial also in the way how leaders behave and act, because it shows what is expected and how things are to be done (Carmeli & Sheaffer 2008, 469).
As Edmondson (2004, 86) highlights, the way mistakes are handled and discussed in the previous times creates a climate of fear or openness. If something is not discussable, this topic is also
CENTRAL TASKS - Sharing information - Implementing change - Implementing strategy –
taking it into practice - Interpretation / sense
making
- New ideas -generation and mobilization
avoided in the future. Top management sets “the tone for an organization”, but daily policies and statements about visions can be advanced by middle managers whose behaviour shows to employees if talking about mistakes is supported or not. Middle managers have a possibility to reframe the mistake as something that is essential for learning (Cannon & Edmondson 2001, 167) and for improvement of organizational performance (Weinzimmer & Esken 2017).
Milliken et al. (2003) state that leaders have a crucial role to make sure that organizational hierarchies don´t impede the transfer of information from employees to higher levels. One way to ensure this is to get rid of the thoughts in employees’ minds that they will face negative consequences if they tell about mistakes. Those who speak up shouldn´t be labelled as troublemakers but rather as courageous. Most importantly if managers want to promote open discussion in their organization, first they need to gain comprehension of what employees are silent about and why they don´t like to speak up. (Milliken et al. 2003.)
Morrison and Milliken (2000) use the term organizational silence that can be a useful point of view also in terms of leadership and learning from mistakes. Organizational silence occurs when employees don´t speak up about their own opinions and concerns about organizational problems.
This can be a significant obstacle to organizational changes and development, because it stops the organization´s capacity to detect and correct mistakes. In order to dispose this kind of silent behaviour, managers first need to trace and understand the causes of organizational silence. After this it is possible to build comprehensive understanding of the obstacles to pluralism in the organization. Morrison and Milliken also highlight that it is the managers´ duty to create trust inside the organization and break down the silence or prevent it before it forms. (Morrison &
Milliken 2000.)
Maurer et al. (2017) found out that organizational culture that handles mistakes constructively also ensues in higher motivation to lead because of social-normative expectations and commitment. Further, this leads to the manager´s higher motivation to gain leadership capacity, develop leadership and higher career success. After all, as Cannon and Edmondson (2001) highlight, middle managers have a huge impact on how an organization can learn from mistakes.
As they point out, statements about vision and top-level manager´s actions are not enough.
Managers need to encourage their work groups to uncover mistakes as well as analyse mistakes in a way that creates a positive experience for employees. (Cannon & Edmondson, 2001.)
Figure 3. Elements of a mistake-tolerant organization.
Figure 3 gathers the four elements of a mistake-tolerant organization. Based on the literature, the way how an organization sees and comprehends mistakes has a big influence on overall organizational culture and how employees experiment and handle mistakes. In order to tolerate mistakes, the organization needs to have an open culture where everything is discussable (Edmondson 2004). As a mistake-tolerant organization takes a positive stand toward mistakes, the literature also highlights the importance of intelligent risk-taking (e.g. Weinzimmer & Esken 2017). This means that mistake-tolerance doesn´t mean indifference which is an important notion because manager´s fear of neglecting and so what -attitude does not advance mistake-tolerance.
Figure 3 also summarizes that one characteristic for mistake-tolerant organizations is the climate of trust (Morrison & Milliken 2000), where even risks can be taken without the fear of punishment (Weinzimmer & Esken 2017). Trust can also be seen between members of mistake- tolerant organization as they are able to openly speak up about their mistakes. Finally, mistake-
tolerant organizations do not have the kind of organizational hierarchy that delays the information flow from employees to managers. In other words, employees feel that they can talk about mistakes or other problems openly to managers without facing negative consequences (Milliken et al. 2003).
2.4 Synthesis of the theory
In the literature review I made an overview on learning from mistakes and mistake-tolerance. I also highlighted the role of middle managers in terms of mistake-tolerance. The literature review has shown that learning from mistakes is a current and important issue. Learning from mistakes has been proven to positively affect in an organization´s performance (e.g. Tjosvold et al. 2004;
Dyck et al. 2005) but there isn´t so many organizations that uniformly learn from mistakes (Cannon & Edmondson 2005). Figure 4 explains how mistakes are dealt with mistake-tolerant organizations and what things are related to learning from mistakes. Figure 4 is also the synthesis of the theory.
Figure 4. Synthesis of the theory.
In Figure 4, there are three interconnected elements that formulate mistake-tolerance in an organization. First, the crucial part of mistake-tolerance is the identification of mistakes. Second, leaders must ensure that the organization has shared beliefs and procedures about mistakes.
Thirdly, mistake-tolerance is being able to learn from mistakes after they have been identified and that the members of the organization are able to analyze them.
In summary, organizations cannot learn from mistakes if they are not openly discussed and analyzed (Cannon & Edmondson 2005, 306) and more badly if mistakes, even the smallest ones, remain unnoticed (Zhao and Olivera 2006). As Gronewold and colleagues (2013) pointed out, willingness to report mistakes in organizations is important. They used the term error climate which indicates to organization culture where individuals are supported to report mistakes so that learning from the mistakes occurs both for the individual and for the whole team. In order to learn from mistakes, an organization needs to create a mistake-tolerant atmosphere, where mistake-tolerant policies and procedures are integrated in the everyday work life.
Creating a mistake-tolerant atmosphere is a responsibility of the management, but also a matter of the whole organization. When managers focus on creating a mistake-tolerant atmosphere, they communicate with the employees that they have a freedom to take initiative without the fear of failure. Most importantly managers must make mistake-tolerant policies and procedures a part of the daily work life in order to benefit from learning from the mistakes. (Weinzimmer and Esken 2017.) Individuals should be able to speak out without the fear of bad consequences or sanctions when asking questions, seeking feedback or reporting a mistake (Carmeli & Gittell 2008).
Organizations can take many kinds of aspects toward mistakes and mistake-tolerance. The fundamental question is whether the approach is negative or positive, as Maurer et al. (2017) highlighted.
The previous literature shows that a mistake-tolerant organization can identify the mistakes and it can be done with four stages presented in Figure 1. A mistake-tolerant organization is also able to learn from mistakes as there is an ability to analyse the mistakes both on individual and organizational level. All this cannot happen if the leaders of the organizations do not create shared beliefs and procedures concerning the situations where mistakes have happened.
This study aims to increase the knowledge about the role of the middle managers in the mistake- tolerance and learning from mistakes. Also, this study aims to find out how middle managers deal with mistakes in real-life situations and to produce more information about creating a mistake- tolerant organization culture based on the received data.
3 METHODOLOGY
In this chapter I discuss how the empirical research was conducted and what research method was used for the collection of data and data analysis. In this qualitative research I used narrative methodology and the data was collected with the method of empathy-based stories. Finally, the data was analysed and coded by using the thematic content analysis.
3.1 Methodological approach
The aim of my research was to find out how organizations can learn from mistakes and utilize mistake-tolerance as a part of their daily procedures. Specifically, this research focused in the middle management level and how middle managers perceive and foster mistake-tolerance and learning from mistake in their organizations. This research also gathered the middle managers´
perceptions about mistakes and means to deal with them. The methodological approach of this research was a qualitative research, because it was most suitable to the purpose of this study. As Eriksson and Kovalainen (2015) describe, in qualitative research the collection of data and analysis is “sensitive to the social and cultural context aiming at a holistic understanding of the issues studied”, so it is also suitable for studying business-related topics.
According to Flick (2007), qualitative research is interested in the participants´ perspectives and in the daily practices referring to the topic of the research. In qualitative research the amount of the data is not the most important issue. Rather, the researcher aims to analyze the existing data as detailed as possible and place the research subject in social contexts and describes it precisely (Eskola & Suoranta 1998, 18). Alasuutari (2012) describes that in a qualitative research the data is reviewed as an entity. Even if the data consists of individual interviews, argumentation cannot be built upon differences between individuals regarding different variables. In qualitative analysis, the data is always examined from a certain theoretical-methodological point of view.
The data is observed as examples or samples from the same phenomenon. The analysis of qualitative research aims to form rules or structures of rules. (Alasuutari, 2012.)
3.2 Data collection
This study used narrative methodology, more specifically the method of empathy-based stories in collecting empirical data. Narrative research is based on the belief that “people are storytellers because telling and sharing stories help us to understand ourselves and connect to each other”
(Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008). In the method of empathy-based stories researcher collects small- scale stories which are written based on the researcher´s instructions. Respondents are given a short frame story which helps them to create mental images and then they write a short story based on these images.
In these stories, respondents use their imagination to take the frame story ahead or they describe what has happened before the situation of the frame story. (Eskola & Suoranta, 1998.) This study focused on the middle managers point of view but also highlighted the feelings that creating a mistake arouses in employees. From this point of view the method of empathy-based stories is appropriate because the use of frame stories gives the respondent a possibility to imagine other people’s situation also to reflect it to their own feelings and to describe it based on their own experiences (Eskola & Suoranta 1998, 118.)
This research was made in a Finnish sales organization that operates in the media industry. As this study´s focus is in the managers role, this research included 10 middle managers. The study did not include area directors or regional directors because I wanted to keep the focus in the middle managers as they are present in the workplace and everyday work life and can have a bigger influence than just mere corporate values and vision statements (Carmeli and Gittell, 2008). The data was collected during November 2019. The middle managers were sent a request to participate in the research via email where they got a link to answer anonymously to the frame story (see Appendix 1).
The frame story presented a situation where an employee had made a mistake and as a result, he/she had lost an important customer. The employee comes to tell his/her immediate manager (middle manager) what has happened, and the employee is feeling regret and other negative feelings. Middle managers are asked to describe how they handle the situation and how they deal with the mistake. They were also asked to think if there is a possibility to learn from a mistake.
Participants were also asked to describe their own behaviour in these kinds of situations.
Table 2: The process of data collection and type of data.
Type of data Informants Data collection Collected data Empathy
based stories written by middle managers
Research was made in a Finnish sales
organization.
Request to participate was send to middle managers, who have their own team to lead.
The study did not include area directors or regional directors.
Request to participate was send via e-mail and Teams.
The request included a link to a Google Forms -survey.
The data was collected during September 2019.
10 stories were returned via Google Forms.
Stories were collected anonymously.
Table 2 presents the data collection process and the type of data. The data consists from empathy based stories written by middle managers. Informants were middle managers in a Finnish sales organization. Request to participate was send via e-mail and Teams and the stories were collected anonymously via an electric survey.
3.3 Analysis of the data
This study used content analysis as a tool for understanding and interpreting the data. The aim of the content analysis is to make compact and extensive description of the phenomenon. After this, the researcher is able to describe the phenomenon with concepts or categories and eventually create a model, conceptual system, map or categories. (Elo & Kyngäs 2007.) Content analysis can be used in an inductive or deductive way, which refers to the logic of inference that the researcher uses (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2008).
Inductive analysis can also be seen as an approach where data moves from specific to general.
Instead, a deductive way is based on an earlier theory or model and data moves from general to the specific (Elo & Kyngäs 2007). This research analyses qualitative data in a deductive way and the basis for the analysis is previous the knowledge of the topic. The deductive approach is recommended to be used when the researcher aims to test earlier theory in a different situation or compare categories at different time periods (Elo & Kyngäs 2007) and eventually form a theoretical coherence from data (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2018).
As my aim is to research particularly middle managers´ perceptions about mistake-tolerance, it is justified to analyze the data with the deductive way, because the aim of the content analysis is to characterize the phenomenon with the analysis made from the middle management point of view.
I based my analysis process to the model presented by Elo & Kyngäs (2007) who state that the process of analysis has three main phases: "preparation, organizing and reporting, although there are no systematic rules for the analysis of the data”. The whole process of the analysis of the data is presented in figure 5.
Figure 5. Process of the analysis (based on model presented by Elo & Kyngäs 2007).
I started the analysis by printing the empathy-based stories and reading them several times.
Already in this stage I started to find similarities to the subjects that had raised from the theoretical background. As the previous literature about mistakes has concentrated on the importance of mistakes and learning from them, this study centers the role of middle managers in fostering mistake-tolerance in their organizations and this was also the unit of my analysis. After the reading process, I developed a categorization matrix which was based on theories, models and previous literature. The categories that stood out were mistakes, mistake-tolerance, learning from mistakes and leadership. These categories are also the core themes in the previous literature and with these categories I was able to contribute to the previous studies but also generate new information about mistake-tolerance from the middle managers´ perception.
After a thorough reading process, I conducted the analysis of narratives by using the thematic content analysis. It is important that a researcher is able to analyze and simplify the data, and form categories that clarify the research subject in a trustworthy way (Elo & Kyngäs 2007). First of all, I coded the data with the four categories I had created based on the previous literature. For this, I used different color codes. After coding I gathered the parts of the narratives under the suitable category and started to find out what are the common themes that stand out from the parts of the narratives. I concentrated on the content of the narratives and what the middle managers wanted to say, not on the way how they said it. After the coding I read the coded parts again several times and recognized the common themes that united them.
The findings from the content analysis can offer supporting or non-supporting evidence to the existing theory (Hsieh & Shannon 2005). There were parts in the narratives that did not suit under any of the categories as my aim was not to find out whether the particular organization really is mistake-tolerant or if the organization learns from mistakes. The aim of the whole process of the analysis was to generate knowledge from the unique perspectives of the middle managers and base it on the previous theories. The themes coded from the data represent the actual ways how middle managers can foster mistake-tolerance and the results provide new insights in terms of leadership and mistake-tolerance.
Table 3. Main categories and coded themes from the data
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT´S PERCEPTIONS OF MISTAKE-TOLERANCE
MAIN CATEGORIES CODED THEMES
MISTAKE Mistake reporting
Emotions
Systemic analysis/ what Systemic analysis/ why
MISTAKE-TOLERANCE Tone of voice
Mistake acceptance Value of mistakes LEARNING FROM MISTAKES Open discussion
Sharing information
Organizational level learning Personal level learning
LEADERSHIP Communication
Daily Procedures Coaching
Table 3 shows the four main categories that are based on theories, models and previous literature.
The categories that stood out were mistakes, mistake-tolerance, learning from mistakes and leadership. These categories are also the core themes in the previous literature. Table 3 also shows the coded themes from the narratives of the middle managers. The aim was to find common elements in the narratives in terms of the main categories and what were the common or different practical methods related to them. After the process of the analysis and finding the common themes, I will interpret the results in chapter 4. Results are enriched with the quotations from the narratives.
3.4. Ethical considerations about study
The ethics of the research can be viewed from different aspects. One aspect is the choice of the topic (Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2018) and why it is justifiable to research a particular phenomenon.
The topic of this research has risen from the researcher´s own interest on the theme. The topic of mistakes is also current, and this research can bring something new to the current literature of the mistake-tolerance as it is a topic that hasn´t been researched that much. As Hirsjärvi, Remes and Sajavaara (2004) define, this is also one ethical point of view for research.
Another aspect to the ethical side of the study is the research method and the way how the data is handled (Saaranen-Kauppinen & Puusniekka 2006). In this study the data was collected entirely anonymously as the topic is quite sensitive. Participants were asked to write their narratives via an electronic survey which did not include any personal information. The results are enriched with the quotations from the narratives but there are only one or few quotations from each of the narratives and participants cannot be recognized from them. The narratives from the middle managers were removed from the electronic survey and the printed versions will also be destroyed after this research has been published.
The third aspect to the ethics of the research is the process of analysis (Saaranen-Kauppinen &
Puusniekka 2006). Especially for qualitative research it is important to clarify how the analysis of the data is done and how the results of the study are formed. In chapter 3.3. I have described how I did the different phases of the analysis and how the coding and formation of themes has happened in the chapter 3.3. As Saaranen-Kauppinen and Puusniekka (2006) describe, it is
relevant that the researcher justifies the choices she/he has made and explains every step in the process so that the research will be justifiable, plausible and as trustworthy as possible. The process is guided by the research question and what the date tells about the phenomenon of the study. (Saaranen-Kauppinen & Puusniekka 2006.)
