Given that causal attributions of errors contain different motivational and behavioral implications for learning from errors, it is highly relevant for organizations to thoroughly understand the factors that promote functional attributions. This study set out to investigate whether perceived psychological safety is an antecedent of functional and dysfunctional causal attributions of errors and whether this association is mediated by error orientation. A total of 148 German and Swedish working students served as a convenience sample for the current cross-sectional survey study. Participants answered an online survey measuring their perception of psychological safety, error orientation, and causal attributions of errors. Partial correlation analysis, hierarchical multiple regression, and hierarchical binary logistic regression were performed to analyze the data. It was found that perceived psychological safety negatively predicted the orientation toward covering errors as well as the avoidant error orientation, whereas it did not predict the learning from errors orientation. No evidence of error orientation being related to causal attributions of errors, nor a direct or indirect link between perceived psychological safety and causal attributions was found. The results imply that organizations benefit from creating a psychologically safe work environment in that it reduces the counterproductive error orientations.

The fact that every organization is confronted with errors necessitates a thorough understanding of the factors that encourage employees to engage in behaviors that promote learning from errors. Putting reflective activity and two types of feedback seeking into the center of attention, this study addresses the question of whether perceived psychological safety indirectly relates to these behaviors through error orientation. A cross-sectional survey study was conducted on a convenience sample of 154 German and Swedish working students. Participants completed an online survey of their perception of psychological safety, attitudes and reactions toward errors, engagement in reflective activity, and the reasons for seeking feedback, all referring to the work context. The data was analyzed by means of a partial correlation analysis as well as a path analysis to examine the mediating effect of error orientation. However, the parameter estimates of the latter could not be interpreted due to a poor model fit. The results suggest that perceived psychological safety mitigates both the orientation toward covering errors and the avoidant error orientation, while it does not promote the learning from errors orientation. Some support is provided for the three error orientations to differentially relate to reflective activity and the two types of feedback seeking. The results imply that organizations are well advised to cultivate a psychologically safe climate in order to reduce negative attitudes toward errors. The question of whether perceived psychological safety is indirectly relevant for error-related learning behaviors through error orientation remains unresolved though and awaits further research.

在全球化的背景下，企業間的競爭變得愈加劇烈，需要員工提供寶貴的意見想法，方能幫助組織成長與發展，因此瞭解員工說與不說的背後原因，便顯得更加重要。本研究以社會情緒選擇理論（socioemotional selectivity theory, SST）理論為基礎，並以兩種未來時間觀：開放式未來時間觀（open-ended future time perspective）與限制式未來時間觀（limited future time perspective）分類方式進行探討，期望進一步瞭解其對兩種員工意見表達行為：建言行為（voice behavior）與沉默行為（silence behavior）的影響效果，以及兩種調節焦點：促進性焦點（promotion focus）、預防性焦點（prevention focus）在其中所扮演的中介角色。同時，本研究探討知覺心理安全氛圍（perceived psychological safety climate）對未來時間觀與意見表達行為間關係的調節效果。本研究採問卷調查法施測，共蒐集249對員工-同事對偶樣本。研究結果顯示：（一）開放式未來時間觀與促進性建言呈顯著正相關；開放式未來時間觀與抑制性建言未具有顯著相關；限制式未來時間觀與沉默行為呈顯著正相關；（二）調節焦點並未中介未來時間觀與意見表達行為間之關係；（三）知覺心理安全氛圍並未調節未來時間觀與意見表達行為間關係。最後，針對研究結果，進一步討論理論與實務意涵、研究限制與未來研究方向。 / This study is based on the socioemotional selectivity theory (SST), and has three objectives: First, to assess the effect of future time perspective (open-ended / limited) on opinion expression behavior (voice / silence). Second, to test the mediating role of regulatory focus (promotion / prevention) in the relationship between the future time perspective and the opinion expression behavior. Third, to examine the moderating role of perceived psychological safety climate on the relationship of future time perspective and opinion expression behavior. The results collected of 249 valid dyad (employee-colleague) pair showed that (1) open-ended future time perspective was positively related to promotive voice behavior, but not to prohibitive voice behavior; limited future time perspective was positively related to silence behavior. (2) regulatory focus did not mediate the relationship between future time perspective and opinion expression behavior. (3) no support was found for the expected moderating role of perceived psychological safety climate in the future time perspective—opinion expression behavior relationship. Finally, the study’s implications for theory and practice are discussed, its limitations are identified, and directions for future research are suggested.