An Employee Who Keeps Making the Same Mistake: What to Do

Abstract

This article is about an employee who keeps making the same mistake, and what research on learning from errors can and cannot tell a manager. Three pieces of research bear on it. A meta-analysis of 24 studies with 2,183 participants (Keith and Frese, 2008) found that training which treats errors as a source of learning had a moderate overall effect. The effect was larger when people applied it to new tasks. A two-study report on 112 organisations (Van Dyck and colleagues, 2005) linked an open attitude to errors with organisational performance. A review (Hattie and Timperley, 2007) argues that the type of feedback, and the way it is given, decides whether it helps. None of these studied finance staff. The three steps at the end are practical readings, not tested methods, and this article is not legal or medical advice.

The third time since March

The accrual is missing again. It was missing in March, you mentioned it. It was missing in June, you mentioned it more firmly, and now it is September.

The employee is capable and polite, and says it will not happen again. The annual review is coming, and you wonder how to deal with an employee who keeps making the same mistake without turning the review into a verdict you will regret.

An employee who keeps making the same mistake: what is the evidence?

The research cited here does not tell you why one person repeats one error. It covers a meta-analysis of training that treats errors as information, a study of how openly organisations handle errors, and a review of what makes feedback work. These studies were done in training rooms, organisations and classrooms, and none was limited to finance. The next three sections cover what each one found. None of them tested the three steps at the end.

What a meta-analysis of error management training found

Keith and Frese (2008) combined 24 studies, with 2,183 participants in total. Error management training encourages learners to make errors during training and to treat them as chances to learn. It was compared with training that did not use errors in this way.

The overall effect was d = 0.44. It was d = 0.56 for transfer to the job after training, and d = 0.80 for adaptive transfer, which means applying the learning to tasks that differ from the ones trained. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the repeated accrual through this. Treating an error as information to work with went with better learning, and most of all when the new task was different. This is an inference. These were training studies, not studies of an employee who repeats an error on the job.

What a study of error management culture found

Van Dyck, Frese, Baer and Sonnentag (2005) studied error management culture, which means shared norms and practices such as talking openly about errors and quickly detecting, analysing and correcting them. Study 1 used data from 65 Dutch organisations.

In Study 1, error management culture correlated with goal achievement and with an objective indicator of economic performance. Study 2 used change in profitability in 47 German organisations and confirmed the finding. The authors suggest that organisations may introduce error management to improve performance. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read your team's reaction to the missing accrual through this. How safe it is to talk about an error may matter as much as who made it. This is an inference. The studies compare organisations, so they cannot show what to do about one person's repeated error.

What a review of feedback found

Hattie and Timperley (2007) review the evidence on feedback and learning. They state that feedback is among the most powerful influences on learning and achievement, but that its impact can be positive or negative.

The type of feedback, and the way it is given, can make it more or less effective. The authors propose a model of the properties and circumstances that make feedback effective, and they discuss timing and the effects of positive and negative feedback. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the way you raised it in March and June through this. Feedback that is repeated is not the same as feedback that works, and how it is given matters. This is an inference. The review concerns learning, mostly in classrooms, and the abstract does not describe the model's parts.

An employee who keeps making the same mistake: three steps

None of these is a tested method, and none was studied in finance teams. They combine what the research points to with ordinary practice. Where a step goes beyond the research, it says so.

1. Find out how it happens before you ask why. A repeated error can come from the process, the instructions, the workload or a gap in skill. Ask them to walk you through the last time. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "Walk me through what you did on the accrual last month, step by step."

2. Agree a change in the process, with a date to review it. Error management treats the error as information, and the feedback review says the type of feedback matters. A change you can check is more concrete than a warning. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "A checklist line for the accrual, and a second pair of eyes for two weeks. We look at it on 6 November."

3. Describe the pattern with facts, then ask what they need. In the review, say what happened and when, and what you agreed. Then ask what would make it easier to get right. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "The accrual was missing in March, June and September. What would make it easier to get right?"

If the problem is wider than one error, How to Manage an Underperforming Employee: Where to Start goes into that. For a reaction that turns defensive, there is How to Give Feedback to an Employee Who Gets Defensive. When the same pattern shows up in your own work, see How to Tell Your Boss You Made a Mistake in the Numbers. If safety in the team is the issue, How to Build Trust in a Team: What the Research Supports looks at that. And How to Prepare for Your Annual Performance Review is the employee's side of the same meeting.

Questions People Ask

Is a repeated mistake always a performance problem?

Not necessarily. The studies cited here do not diagnose causes. A repeated error can come from the process, the instructions, the workload or skill, and finding out which is a judgement you make by asking.

Should the mistake go into the formal review?

The studies cited here did not test that. If the error affects the work and you have already discussed it, stating it with dates and the agreed plan is a judgement. Check your organisation's process with HR first.

Does it help to make errors safe to talk about?

In the organisation study, error management culture correlated with goal achievement and profitability. That is a correlation across organisations, so it does not show that a culture causes better results, or what to do about one person.

Can coaching help me with this conversation?

Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It can help you plan the conversation and notice your own reaction to the repeat. It is not treatment. No study cited here tested coaching.

When it is more than a repeated error

A repeated error is one thing. It is more when it involves compliance, safety, fraud or legal exposure, in which case involve HR or your compliance function at once. It is also more when the person seems unwell, exhausted, or unusually withdrawn, or when you feel numb, persistently low or anxious yourself. In those cases talk to HR, your occupational health service, your doctor or a qualified mental health professional. If you are considering formal action, take employment advice. This article is not legal or medical advice. Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It is not treatment and not a substitute for it.

Sources

• Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error management training: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 59–69. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.59 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (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 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487 (Summarised from the published abstract.)