What Determines Civil Servants’ Error Response? Evidence From a Conjoint Experiment

• Published date: 01 November 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740241267941
• Author: Caroline Fischer,Kristina S. Weißmüller
• Date: 01 November 2024

What Determines Civil Servants’Error

Response? Evidence From a Conjoint

Experiment

Caroline Fischer

1

and Kristina S. Weißmüller

2

Abstract

To err is human and learning from mistakes is essential for f‌inding viable solutions to grand societal challenges through devel-

opment and innovation. Yet, public organizations often exhibit a punitive zero-error culture, and public employees are stereo-

typed as error and risk-averse. Little is known about the underlying behavioral mechanisms that determine civil servants’

likelihood of handling errors positively, namely reporting and correcting them instead of ignoring and hiding them to avoid

blame. Based on the transactional theory of stress coping, we argue that individuals’error-handling strategies relate to

both rational and emotional evaluations of error-specif‌ic and consequential contextual factors. Using a conjoint sur vey exper-

iment conducted with N=276 civil servants in Germany (Obs.=1,104), this study disentangles the effects of error-related,

individual, and organization-cultural factors as decisive drivers of individuals’error response. We f‌ind that error characteristics

(type and harmfulness) determine error-handling behavior, which is revealed to be independent from organizational error cul-

ture and individual error orientation, providing important and novel insights for theory and practice.

Keywords

error management, choice-based conjoint survey experiment, transactional theory of stress coping, employee behavior, risk

governance

Introduction

Solving societal and organizational challenges requires an

experimental and often pragmatic approach to problem-

solving in policy-making and public management. The

central prerequisite for f‌inding viable solutions to complex

problems is the capacity to learn from the inevitable mistakes

along the way. Consequently, an organization’s and its

members’capacity to handle errors constructively and proac-

tively is an essential strategic resource for organizational

learning and innovation (Argyris, 1991). Public organiza-

tions are often characterized as risk averse, only grinding

into action if media attention and external pressure are high

(Erlich et al., 2021), as well as incapable of handling errors

proactively, instead seeking to avoid blame and conceal

errors (Eldor & Harpaz, 2019; Hendy & Tucker, 2021;

Osborne et al., 2020; Sørensen & Torf‌ing, 2011). Of

course, this perspective on public organizations’capability

of error management is stereotypical and negative. Often

rooted in political rhetoric and medial bureaucracy bashing,

public organizations face an uphill battle against negativity

bias in the external assessment of their performance

(Marvel, 2016; Piatak et al., 2024). Public organizations are

typically held to higher standards than private organizations

because they are responsible for providing services essential

for the functioning of society, for serving the public interest,

and for upholding public values. As public service provider,

public administration is particularly likely to serve as politi-

cal agents’and voters’scapegoats in case of performance

failure, irrespective of causal responsibility (Nielsen &

Moynihan, 2016). This antagonistic climate suggests that

public organizations may indeed be incentivized to prevent

and conceal errors as much as possible as a blame-avoidance

tactic (Bach & Wegrich, 2019). However, and somewhat sur-

prisingly, there is little empirical evidence about how public

organizations and civil servants in particular handle errors,

calling for empirical research (Tangsgaard & Fischer, 2024;

van de Walle, 2016). To date, it is still unclear what factors

affect their behavioral response when making mistakes, and

what individual, contextual, and organizational factors deter-

mine whether civil servants handle errors constructively?

Typical examples of errors in the administrative work-

place are, for instance, miscalculated tax reimbursements

1

Public Administration, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

2

Political Science and Public Administration, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Caroline Fischer, Public Administration, Universiteit Twente, Drienerlolaan

5, 7522 NB Enschede, the Netherlands.

Email: c.f‌ischer@utwente.nl

Article

The American Review of Public Administration

2024, Vol. 54(8) 747–770

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/02750740241267941

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

(Torjesen, 2022) or social benef‌its (Woodbury & Vroman,

2001), child abuse unrecognized by a social worker (van

Ufford et al., 2022), mistakes in the formal execution of an

election (Montjoy, 2008), errors in archival case manage-

ment, and lack of due diligence in public procurement

procedures (Simovart & Piirisaar, 2022). To understand

the motivational mechanisms that determine individuals’

response to making such mistakes, it is essential to recognize

that errors are associated with negative emotions (van Dyck

et al., 2005; Zhao, 2011), which may complicate responding

in a proactive, constructive, growth and solution-oriented

way vis-à-vis avoidant, blame-def‌lecting, and destructive

coping mechanisms. Scholarship on private sector error man-

agement often assumes that individuals will detect, share, and

analyze errors rationally and with their employer’s organiza-

tional best interest in mind. This perspective ignores the fun-

damental challenge posed by the affective component and

emotional burden associated with making mistakes for the

individual, as well as the particularly consequential nature

of public sector errors for society at large. To date, research

considering individual motives and emotions as potential bar-

riers to positive error-handling behavior in the context of

public administration is still scarce (but see cf. Dahl &

Werr, 2018; Lei et al., 2016; Zhao, 2011). Prior research

on error handling focuses largely on the private sector and

little is known about civil servants’response to making

mistakes. This is surprising given the exceptionally high

relevance and potentially high stakes associated with

(ineff‌icient) error management in public administration

(Tangsgaard & Fischer, 2024).

While behaviors similar to error handling such as whistle-

blowing (Kang, 2023) have been analyzed in a public sector

context before, the fundamental difference between transpar-

ently handling one’s own mistakes and blowing the whistle

on organizational wrongdoings and other people’s failures

impedes drawing upon the latter stream of literature for

error behavior research. Therefore, we focus on investigating

how civil servants decide to handle their own workplace

errors, with a particular focus on the impact of error charac-

teristics, asking: How do error characteristics determine civil

servants’error-handling behavior?

Following the transactional theory of stress coping

(Lazarus, 1966) and prior research on error reporting behav-

ior by Zhao and Olivera (2006), we argue that civil servants

challenged with deciding on how to handle their mistakes

will either react emotionally or conduct a cost-benef‌it evalu-

ation to determine whether to hide or communicate their

error, and whether to do nothing about it or correct it

(Horvath et al., 2021; Patrician & Brosch, 2009). We argue

that specif‌ic error characteristics determine individuals’

error handling and reporting behavior, and assess these

assumptions with a unique vignette-based conjoint experi-

ment conducted with 276 civil servants in Germany.

This study contributes to the literature in three ways, at

least. First, we advance the emerging literature on error

management in the public sector and contribute to the dis-

courses on sector-specif‌ic risk behavior, organizational learn-

ing, service failure, and resilience (Eldor & Harpaz, 2019;

Mikkelsen & Grønhaug, 1999; Osborne et al., 2020;

Tangsgaard & Fischer, 2024; van de Walle, 2016;

Weißmüller, 2021). We expand prior research on individual

error handling in professional contexts with empirical evi-

dence from the administrative core of the public sector (i.e.,

ministries, agencies, or citizen service provision centers).

Second, prior research on error management primarily

focused on meso or macro-level error response (van de

Walle, 2016), while our study integrates both meso and

micro-level determinants and outcomes from the lens of

behavioral public administration scholarship. This is a con-

siderable theoretical advancement. Third, we systematically

analyze and contrast the effect of different types of errors

and their consequences in context, revealing factors inf‌luenc-

ing the likelihood of positive error responses, which is of

high practical relevance for public management.

The remainder of this study is structured as follows. In the

next section, we review the literature on the behavioral foun-

dations affecting individuals’perception and response to

errors. This review converges into ten hypotheses on the rela-

tionships between error type and consequences with individ-

uals’likelihood of reporting (vs. hiding) and correcting (vs.

ignoring) mistakes. Then, we present the design and research

procedure of our preregistered discrete choice experiment.

After reporting the results, we conclude with a discussion

of the implications of our f‌indings for theory and practice

and derive avenues for future research.

Theory and Hypotheses

Literature Review

Errors are unexpected but potentially avoidable deviations

from targeted outcomes and, as such, errors differ from

mere ineff‌iciencies (Keith & Frese, 2005; Vanderheiden &

Mayer, 2020). At the workplace, human errors originate

from physiological, psychological, and cognitive limitations

often in the context of fatigue, high workload, and ineffective

information processing resulting in f‌lawed decision-making

(Helmreich, 2000). Work-related errors lead to poorer organi-

zational performance and service failures (Stewart & Chase,

1999), but also to personnel anxiety, work strain, stress, and

lowered psychological safety (Dimitrova et al., 2017). In

general, individuals have different approaches to coping

with making mistakes. These individual approaches are

based on attitudes that are summarized as an individual’s

error orientation (Farnese et al., 2022). Individuals with a

positive error orientation perceive errors as opportunities

for learning and growth, allowing them to choose approach-

oriented error-handling strategies (Harteis et al., 2008;

Rybowiak et al., 1999). These individuals will ref‌lect upon

their errors, correct them, and learn from them to prevent

748 The American Review of Public Administration 54(8)