The DOI matches its Crossref record; 133 of the 133 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Opportunity, Motivation, and Ability to Learn from Failures and Errors: Review, Synthesis, and Ways to Move Forward
Open accessAbstract
Although organizations and individuals tend to focus on learning from success, research has shown that failure can yield crucial insights in various contexts that range from small mistakes and errors, product recalls, accidents, and medical errors to large-scale disasters. This review of the literature identifies three mechanisms—opportunity, motivation, and ability—through which individuals, groups, and organizations learn from failure, and it bridges the gaps between different levels of analysis. Opportunity to learn from failure mostly takes the shape of more information about errors and failures that are generated by one’s own and others’ prior failures or near-failures. Motivation to learn from failure is hindered by punitive leaders and organizations. Finally, the ability to learn from failure partly relies on inherent attitudes and characteristics, but can be further developed through thoughtful analysis and transfers of successful routines. Our review leads us to distinguish between erroneous versus correct processes and adverse versus successful outcomes to better understand the full gamut of events that are faced by organizations. We identify the existence of noisy learning environment, where spurious successes (when erroneous processes still lead to successful outcomes) and spurious failures (when correct processes are combined with adverse outcomes) lower the opportunity to learn. Considering noisy learning situations is helpful when understanding the differences between slow- and fast-learning environments. We conclude our review by identifying a number of unexplored areas we hope scholars will address to better our understanding of failure learning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System
(2000) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/9728 · Cited by 14,044
Research in Organizational Behavior
Hammer, E. R., Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (1984) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258300 · Cited by 10,806
To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System
Hendee, W. R. (2001) · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.1016/s1051-0443(01)70072-3 · Cited by 10,103
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
A Behavioral Theory of the Firm
Day, R. H., Cyert, R. M., March, J. G., Clarkson, Cohen, Feigenbaum, D., Greenberg, Moore, Soelberg, Starbuck, et al. (1964) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913056 · Cited by 7,791
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267 · Cited by 5,955
Reason, J. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139062367 · Cited by 5,108
Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies
Grimes, A. J., & Perrow, C. (1985) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257982 · Cited by 4,960
Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents
Reason, J. (2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315543543 · Cited by 4,430
Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Cherniak, C., Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1983) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2184495 · Cited by 4,196
Cited by
Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions
Argote, L., Lee, S., & Park, J. (2021) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020.3693 · Cited by 401
Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., & Wood, G. (2021) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2020.09.002 · Cited by 372
Metadata
- Authors
- Dahlin, K. B., Chuang, Y.-T., & Roulet, T. J.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Annals
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 252-277
- ISSN
- 1941-6067 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-6520
- OpenAlex
- W2765244378
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 133
- FWCI
- 29.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Opportunity, Motivation, and Ability to Learn from Failures and Errors: Review, Synthesis, and Ways to Move Forward. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5465/annals.2016.0049
- The paper
- Dahlin, K. B., Chuang, Y.-T., & Roulet, T. J. (2018). Opportunity, Motivation, and Ability to Learn from Failures and Errors: Review, Synthesis, and Ways to Move Forward. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0049
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.