IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/iubhbm/304403.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mistakes at work are judged more negatively in routine tasks than in complex tasks

Author

Listed:
  • Hampel, Tim

Abstract

Mistakes at work can lead to learning and personal development or can massively harm one's professional career. How a mistake affects a professional career often depends on how it is perceived by involved individuals (e.g. supervisors). In the present study we investigate two different types of mistakes at work: mistakes in routine and complex work tasks. In two experiments with 192 alumni of a German university we tested whether mistakes in routine tasks are judged differently than mistakes in complex work tasks. Results revealed that mistakes are judged significantly more negative when occurring in a routine work task compared to a complex work task. The results of our study give rise to a dilemma of mistakes at work where on basis of dual process theories mistakes are more likely to happen in routinized tasks while at the same time these mistakes are judged more negatively. We discuss an intervention to resolve the dilemma and suggest avenues for future research alongside the limitations of our study.

Suggested Citation

  • Hampel, Tim, 2024. "Mistakes at work are judged more negatively in routine tasks than in complex tasks," IU Discussion Papers - Business & Management 12 (Oktober 2024), IU International University of Applied Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:iubhbm:304403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/304403/1/1906018839.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    mistakes at work; errors; failures; attitudes towards mistakes; career development;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:iubhbm:304403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.iu.de/forschung/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.