A problem returns to the agenda. The team has discussed it before, perhaps more than once. Everyone agrees that something should change. Yet a few months later, another missed deadline or preventable mistake brings the same frustration back into the room. People remember the conversation. The organization continues much as it did before.

We often speak of organizations as if they could notice, remember, and decide in the same way a person does. In practice, these activities are spread across people, relationships, and working arrangements. Someone recognizes a difficulty; others hold pieces of its explanation. Whether that knowledge becomes useful depends partly on how the organization brings those pieces together and carries them forward.

Recognizing a problem creates an opportunity to learn. Examining its causes, coordinating a response, and retaining what becomes useful give that recognition somewhere to lead (Reason, 2000; van Dyck et al., 2005; Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).

What Is Organizational Learning

Learning begins with experience, but experience does not explain itself. An organization may repeat a task for years while preserving assumptions that make the work harder. It may also develop useful knowledge through a successful project, feedback from clients, or observing how another team handles a familiar challenge. Argote and Miron-Spektor describe organizational learning through the creation, retention, and transfer of knowledge (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).

Individual learning contributes to this process. An employee discovers a better way to prepare a report or notices why a recurring delay occurs. For the organization to benefit more broadly, that understanding needs a route into other people’s work. It might become a shared practice, an improved tool, or an explanation that helps colleagues recognize the same difficulty elsewhere.

The distinction also requires care. Learning can change what an organization understands before any visible change in behavior occurs. Resources, authority, or competing demands may delay action. Improved performance is therefore one possible sign of learning, rather than its only definition. At the same time, attending training or recording a concern does not by itself show that organizational knowledge has changed (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).

Learning can also begin before anything goes wrong. A successful project, an unfamiliar client request, or another team’s experience may reveal something worth understanding. Error management is one pathway within this broader process of developing knowledge from experience (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).

Examining success means asking what contributed to it and under what conditions. An outcome can direct our attention to useful work without settling the quality of the process that produced it. That distinction matters when deciding what to repeat (Baron & Hershey, 1988).

When Recognition Does Not Change Practice

Consider a hypothetical handoff between two departments. One group prepares a customer order; the other arranges delivery. Both assume the other performs the final check. When an incomplete order reaches the customer, each department can point to a reasonable understanding of its own responsibilities. The gap exists between those understandings.

A meeting may produce sincere agreement that employees should be more careful. That agreement leaves the ambiguity in place. Turning that agreement into practice would require investigating how the handoff actually works, clarifying who checks what, and making the revised arrangement available to the people who use it. The example illustrates how recognizing an outcome differs from understanding the process that produced it.

Psychological Safety and Employee Voice

The people closest to a problem may understand aspects of it that remain invisible to senior decision-makers. Yet describing those difficulties can carry a cost. An employee may anticipate embarrassment, damage to a relationship, or being seen as disloyal. Others may believe that speaking will change nothing. Research on voice and silence examines both the risks of speaking and whether doing so seems likely to matter (Morrison, 2023).

Morrison and Milliken use the term organizational silence to describe the collective withholding of information about potential problems. Their theoretical model examines how managerial beliefs and organizational conditions can create a shared sense that raising concerns is unwise. Silence, in this account, can become a feature of the setting rather than a simple absence of individual courage (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

Psychological safety helps explain the interpersonal side of learning. Edmondson defines it as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. In a study of 51 teams within one manufacturing company, psychological safety was associated with learning behavior, including activities that expose uncertainty and invite discussion (Edmondson, 1999).

Later research brings together findings from many workplaces. Frazier and colleagues found that people who felt safer speaking up also tended to share more information and take part in learning activities. Most studies compared people or teams at one point in time, so they could not show that psychological safety itself produced the improvement (Frazier et al., 2017).

In everyday work, this might involve asking for clarification, admitting a mistake, or questioning a familiar procedure. Such actions can help information reach the people able to respond. Psychological safety concerns the conditions for these exchanges; it does not remove the need for competence, careful work, or appropriate accountability.

How Leaders Respond

Employees watch how managers respond to ideas. In a study conducted in two phases within one restaurant chain, Detert and Burris found that employees were more likely to offer suggestions when their managers seemed open to them. Feeling safe to speak helped account for that relationship. The study connects leadership with employee experience, while leaving room for other explanations of why people speak up (Detert & Burris, 2007).

People in different roles may not feel equally able to speak. In a study of 23 neonatal intensive care units, Nembhard and Edmondson examined leaders who invited and valued contributions from others. Their survey findings linked this kind of leadership with feeling safer to speak and taking part in improvement work. Professional status also mattered. The healthcare setting helps explain why the same invitation may be experienced differently across roles (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).

Speaking, being heard, and having an idea implemented remain different events. Morrison’s review describes how responses from supervisors and support from colleagues can influence what happens to voiced ideas. In the handoff example, taking a concern seriously would involve examining it, deciding who can respond, and explaining the decision. A useful response need not accept every suggestion; it should give the information a fair hearing (Morrison, 2023).

Learning From Errors and Their Causes

James Reason distinguishes explanations that focus mainly on the person who made an error from explanations that examine the system in which the person worked. His systems approach asks how organizational decisions, working conditions, and failed safeguards contributed. An inquiry that ends at identifying the person responsible can leave those recurring conditions unexplored (Reason, 2000).

This widens the investigation. Was the instruction clear? Did the employee have the time and information needed? Were two departments rewarded for goals that conflicted? Did an informal workaround become necessary because the official process could not be followed under ordinary conditions? These questions can reveal conditions that a reminder to pay attention would leave untouched.

Individual conduct still matters. Examining organizational conditions can sit alongside a fair assessment of what someone did and what they could reasonably have known. The purpose is to develop an explanation broad enough to guide prevention, rather than stopping at the most visible action (Reason, 2000).

In the handoff example, suppose the final check was removed months earlier to speed up processing, but neither department received a clear explanation of the replacement arrangement. Asking one employee to be more careful cannot resolve that history. The organization needs to reconsider the arrangement that left an opportunity for a check to be missed.

Sometimes the organization also needs to question the rules guiding the work. Are speed targets compatible with a reliable handoff? Does the person assigned responsibility have enough authority to act? Hackbarth and Grover discuss two forms of learning: correcting an error within existing arrangements, called single-loop learning, and reconsidering the rules or assumptions themselves, called double-loop learning (Hackbarth & Grover, 1999).

In their studies of Dutch and German organizations, van Dyck and colleagues examined error management culture: shared practices involving communication about errors and their detection, analysis, and correction. They found positive relationships with measures of organizational performance. The findings support taking error management seriously, while leaving open questions about causality and how the relationships vary across settings (van Dyck et al., 2005).

Why Failure Can Be Hard to Examine

Failure can make the available information difficult to take in. In experiments using questions with two possible answers, Eskreis-Winkler and Fishbach found that participants learned less from feedback about their own failures than from feedback about their successes, even though both revealed the correct answer. The pattern differed when people learned from someone else’s feedback (Eskreis-Winkler & Fishbach, 2019).

These were studies of individual feedback tasks, not organizational investigations. They nevertheless offer a psychological reason to question the assumption that a mistake automatically teaches its lesson. For a team discussing a failure, recognizing the potential discomfort can sit alongside a careful examination of what happened.

Turning Shared Reflection Into Coordinated Action

Reflection becomes more useful when people can connect what happened with a decision about what to do next. Debriefs, also called after-action reviews, provide one way to organize that discussion. They focus attention on an experience, compare expectations with events, and identify lessons relevant to future work.

Tannenbaum and Cerasoli’s meta-analysis found that individuals and teams taking part in debriefs performed better, on average, than comparison groups. Their analysis also draws attention to the alignment of the participants, the focus of the review, and the outcomes being assessed. The evidence supports purposeful debriefing; it does not establish that every meeting about a mistake will be effective (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013).

A practical review can begin with a few questions, adapted to the work being examined.

• What did we expect to happen, and what actually happened?
• What information and working conditions help explain the difference?
• What will we change, and who has the authority and resources to act?
• When will we examine the effects and share what we learn?

For the two departments, the next step might be a trial in which one role owns the final check and the receiving department confirms that the handoff is complete. Naming the responsible role, setting a review date, and explaining the change make the response concrete. Without time or authority to carry out the decision, agreement can remain detached from everyday work.

Checking Whether the Change Helped

A revised process gives an organization something to examine. In the handoff example, the departments could track incomplete orders and the time required to complete the check. They could also ask staff whether the new arrangement creates duplication or shifts an unmanageable burden elsewhere. The relevant measures depend on the problem and the conditions under which the work is done.

Interpretation still matters. Fewer reported mistakes might reflect improvement, or employees might have become less willing to report them. More reports could reflect a clearer view of difficulties that already existed. Reason’s emphasis on reporting and Edmondson’s work on interpersonal risk suggest why counts need to be considered alongside how information reaches the organization (Reason, 2000; Edmondson, 1999).

Likewise, a favorable outcome does not prove that a new procedure caused it. Changes in workload, staffing, or the kinds of tasks being performed may contribute. Argote and Miron-Spektor emphasize the importance of context and of examining learning over time. Evaluation therefore requires a willingness to revise the original explanation as new evidence becomes available (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).

How Organizations Learn the Wrong Lesson

An organization can preserve an explanation that fits the result while overlooking how the work was actually done. A favorable outcome may make a questionable process look sound; an unfavorable one may make a reasonable decision look careless. Outcome bias describes the influence of results on judgments of decision quality (Baron & Hershey, 1988).

In Baron and Hershey’s experiments, people evaluated decisions made under uncertainty. They judged the decision and the person making it more favorably when the outcome was favorable, despite having the relevant information available at the time of the choice. These were studies of judgments about described decisions, rather than direct tests of organizational learning, but the distinction is useful when reviewing work (Baron & Hershey, 1988).

Return to the hypothetical handoff. Imagine that an experienced employee quietly notices the missing check and corrects the order before it reaches the customer. The successful delivery could be taken as evidence that the process works. Looking more closely would reveal that the outcome depended on an extra intervention that the formal arrangement did not provide for.

A review could therefore ask what information was available at the time, what people did to make the task succeed, and whether the same arrangement would remain workable with different staff or demands. For the handoff, the relevant lesson would include the extra check and the conditions that made it necessary.

Results still matter. Repeated outcomes can help an organization revise its understanding of what works, especially across comparable situations. The task is to examine what an outcome reveals and what remains uncertain, so that a fortunate result or a disappointing one does not become the whole explanation (Baron & Hershey, 1988; Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).

How Organizations Share and Retain Learning

Organizational memory concerns how the past remains available in present work. It includes documents and information systems, but also people’s experience, familiar routines, and shared accounts of how things came to be. Preserving knowledge therefore involves more than keeping a record (Foroughi et al., 2020; Hackbarth & Grover, 1999).

Sharing Knowledge Across Teams

A useful change in one department gives another department something to consider. Argote and Miron-Spektor distinguish copying a practice without understanding why it works from adapting knowledge to a different setting. Sharing the reason for a change helps colleagues judge where it might be useful (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).

For the revised handoff, another team would need to understand the responsibility gap and the purpose of the final check. Its staffing or tools might call for a different arrangement. Bringing the teams together to examine those differences would help keep the reasoning available as the practice moves.

Coordination also requires attention to people who were absent from the discussion. An arrangement understood by the meeting participants may still be confusing to the next shift or a new employee. Learning needs a route beyond the room in which it first becomes clear.

Making Knowledge Available When It Is Needed

Hackbarth and Grover distinguish processes of acquiring, retaining, maintaining, and retrieving organizational information. Their discussion makes an enduring practical point: information must be accessible and relevant to a task if it is to help someone make a decision. A record that nobody can locate contributes little at the moment of need (Hackbarth & Grover, 1999).

For the revised handoff, a useful record would explain who performs the check, what counts as completion, and why the arrangement changed. It should also identify whom to ask when an unusual situation occurs. Including the reason matters because people can otherwise preserve the instruction while losing the understanding that made it useful.

Some knowledge remains difficult to express fully in a document. An experienced colleague may recognize an exception that a checklist does not describe. Opportunities to work together and knowing where expertise resides can complement written guidance. Argote and Miron-Spektor discuss how knowledge can be embedded in people, routines, and systems for knowing who knows what (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).

Whose Experience Becomes the Official Account

Memory also involves interpretation. Foroughi and colleagues review perspectives that examine how organizational remembering and forgetting are shaped through social interaction, identity, and power. People can remember the same organizational event differently, and some accounts receive more recognition than others (Foroughi et al., 2020).

The handoff failure might later be remembered as an employee’s oversight, even if the investigation identified an unclear division of responsibility. An official account that omits this condition leaves future employees with a misleading lesson. Asking whose experiences are represented helps keep a useful explanation from narrowing into a convenient story.

Preserving a lesson also requires maintaining it. A procedure that once addressed a real difficulty may become unsuitable as tools, staffing, or responsibilities change. Memory supports learning when people can retrieve its context and reconsider its relevance. Repetition alone can preserve an outdated practice as readily as a helpful one (Foroughi et al., 2020; Hackbarth & Grover, 1999).

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

It can be discouraging to see a familiar problem return after a sincere effort to address it. The repetition may reveal a gap between what people understand and what their working arrangements allow them to do. Looking closely at that gap offers a more useful starting point than assuming that nobody cared enough to learn.

Organizations depend on people who are willing to notice and question. Those people also need a response: someone who listens, a process that examines the concern, and a practical way to carry useful knowledge into future work. An employee’s insight can matter far beyond the moment in which it is first spoken.

Experience provides material for learning, without guaranteeing wisdom or improvement. Returning to what happened with curiosity, preserving the conditions that help explain it, and checking what follows can make that experience more available to the people who come next.

Associated Concepts

• Psychological Safety: A shared belief that questions, concerns, and mistakes can be discussed without avoidable humiliation or rejection (Edmondson, 1999).
• Employee Silence: Withholding relevant ideas, concerns, or information about work that could be communicated to others (Morrison, 2023).
• Systems Thinking: Examining how working conditions, organizational decisions, and individual actions relate to one another (Reason, 2000).
• Knowledge Transfer: Developing knowledge through another person’s, team’s, or organizational unit’s experience (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011).
• Organizational Memory: The ways past experience is retained, interpreted, and brought into present work (Foroughi et al., 2020; Hackbarth & Grover, 1999).
• Outcome Bias: The influence of a result on judgments about the quality of the decision that preceded it (Baron & Hershey, 1988).
• Theory-Practice Gap: The distance between knowing or agreeing on a principle and being able to use it in everyday work.

References

Argote, Linda; Miron-Spektor, Ella (2011). Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0621.
(Return to Main Text)

Baron, Jonathan; Hershey, John C. (1988). Outcome Bias in Decision Evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.569.
(Return to Main Text)

Detert, James R.; Burris, Ethan R. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2007.26279183.
(Return to Main Text)

Edmondson, Amy (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. DOI: 10.2307/2666999.
(Return to Main Text)

Eskreis-Winkler, Lauren; Fishbach, Ayelet (2019). Not Learning from Failure—the Greatest Failure of All. Psychological Science, 30(12), 1733–1744. DOI: 10.1177/0956797619881133.
(Return to Main Text)

Foroughi, Hamid; Coraiola, Diego M.; Rintamäki, Jukka; Mena, Sébastien; Foster, William M. (2020). Organizational Memory Studies. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1725–1748. DOI: 10.1177/0170840620974338.
(Return to Main Text)

Frazier, M. Lance; Fainshmidt, Stav; Klinger, Ryan L.; Pezeshkan, Amir; Vracheva, Veselina (2017). Psychological Safety: A Meta-analytic Review and Extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. DOI: 10.1111/peps.12183.
(Return to Main Text)

Hackbarth, Gary; Grover, Varun (1999). The Knowledge Repository: Organizational Memory Information Systems. Information Systems Management, 16(3), 21–30. DOI: 10.1201/1078/43197.16.3.19990601/31312.4.
(Return to Main Text)

Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe (2023). Employee Voice and Silence: Taking Stock a Decade Later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 79–107. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-054654.
(Return to Main Text)

Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe; Milliken, Frances J. (2000). Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2000.3707697.
(Return to Main Text)

Nembhard, Ingrid M.; Edmondson, Amy C. (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(7), 941–966. DOI: 10.1002/job.413.
(Return to Main Text)

Reason, James (2000). Human Error: Models and Management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768–770. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768.
(Return to Main Text)

Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Cerasoli, Christopher P. (2013). Do Team and Individual Debriefs Enhance Performance? A Meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231–245. DOI: 10.1177/0018720812448394.
(Return to Main Text)

van Dyck, Cathy; Frese, Michael; Baer, Markus; Sonnentag, Sabine (2005). Organizational Error Management Culture and Its Impact on Performance: A Two-study Replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228–1240. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1228.
(Return to Main Text)