Consistent with regulatory fit theory, we propose that the positive benefits of the forgivingness climate, or a climate in which forgiving errors is encouraged, will be enhanced among individuals characterized by a locomotion mode (i.e., the self-regulatory mode associated with psychological movement) and inhibited among individuals characterized by an assessment mode (i.e., the self-regulatory mode associated with evaluative and comparative tendencies). We propose three studies with a combined sample size of 1,276 participants. Specifically, we propose to test the effect of forgivingness climate on positive outcomes in a work environment (Study 1), the moderating role of locomotion and assessment modes in this relationship in a work environment (Study 2), and a replication of Study 2 in a learning environment and with a longitudinal design (Study 3). Novelties include the use of work and learning environments and the previously unstudied moderating effects of self-regulatory modes.
The aim of this research is to more profoundly understand the impact of a perceived forgiveness climate in the workplace and in learning environments in terms of positive and negative outcomes: satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and psychological safety. The novelty of this research can be found in extending the forgivingness climate literature to the construct of psychological safety and to learning environments and, above all, in the investigation of the moderating role of regulatory modes in the relationship between forgiveness climate and positive outcomes. Indeed, while the relationship between regulatory mode and forgiveness of others has been previously shown (Pica et al., 2020), we still do not know if individuals¿ self-regulatory orientations can interact with a climate of forgiveness in positive feelings in the workplace and in learning environments.
The theoretical implications of this research, therefore, concern the extension of previous lines of research in advancing our knowledge on the relationships between regulatory modes, forgiveness climate, and well-being. The practical implication is linked to a simple but known concept: errors may occur. As evidenced by Edmondson (1999) and subsequently by Guchait et al. (2016), in psychologically safe work and learning environments, individuals feel comfortable, for example, admitting errors, talking about them, asking for help after making an error, etc. because they are confident that they will not be punished, blamed, ridiculed etc. (Edmondson, 1999). Conversely, in organizations that tend to punish the occurrence of errors, individuals may be hesitant to talk about their errors for fear of being blamed or punished¿not forgiven (Gauchan et al., 2016; Van Dyck et al., 2005). Developing a forgiveness climate in work and learning environments, therefore, is a way to make individuals believe they are psychologically safe and, consequently, increase their positive attitudes (Guchait et al., 2016). Above all, a person-environment fit should be considered to promote well-being. These positive outcomes should be elevated, as they possess a forgiveness-oriented self-regulatory orientation to make the movement move fast towards goals (i.e., a locomotion orientation); they should instead be attenuated if their self-regulatory orientation is contrary or orthogonal to forgivingness (i.e., an assessment orientation). This appears to be relevant for better understanding the positive and negative attitudes of individuals in contexts in which interpersonal relationships are continuous and a climate of forgiveness can be promoted or not, such as work and learning environments, particularly in the post-covid period.