SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Psychology Research on Education and Social Sciences / 2026 / Issue: 1

A prosocial pathway to workplace resilience: Emotional self-efficacy and organizational error tolerance in Türkiye

Emmanuel Akaiso(IŞIK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0001-5391-0943
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-05-09
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall chain, Organizational Error Tolerance → Error Promotion → Innovation → Resilience, operates through a prosocially-mediated pathway in which ESE strongly predicts PSB (β = 0.565, p < .001), PSB dominantly predicts CC (β = 0.665, p < .001), and mediation accounts for 52.3% of the total ESE–CC effect (indirect β = 0.375, 95% BCa CI [0.297, 0.456]).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the relationship between organizational error tolerance and employee resilience in Turkish investment banking.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Drawing on cross-sectional data from 301 Turkish investment banking professionals, this study reveals that prosocial behaviour serves as the dominant mechanism through which emotional self-efficacy (ESE) is converted into coping capacity (CC), with organizational error tolerance (OET) amplifying this chain even in contexts where significant relationships between emotional self-efficacy and coping capacity remained observable under low OET conditions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall chain, Organizational Error Tolerance → Error Promotion → Innovation → Resilience, operates through a prosocially-mediated pathway in which ESE strongly predicts PSB (β = 0.565, p < .001), PSB dominantly predicts CC (β = 0.665, p < .001), and mediation accounts for 52.3% of the total ESE–CC effect (indirect β = 0.375, 95% BCa CI [0.297, 0.456]).
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Collectivism · Emotional self-efficacy · Organizational error tolerance

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between organizational error tolerance and employee resilience in Turkish investment banking. Drawing on cross-sectional data from 301 Turkish investment banking professionals, this study reveals that prosocial behaviour serves as the dominant mechanism through which emotional self-efficacy (ESE) is converted into coping capacity (CC), with organizational error tolerance (OET) amplifying this chain even in contexts where significant relationships between emotional self-efficacy and coping capacity remained observable under low OET conditions. The overall chain, Organizational Error Tolerance → Error Promotion → Innovation → Resilience, operates through a prosocially-mediated pathway in which ESE strongly predicts PSB (β = 0.565, p < .001), PSB dominantly predicts CC (β = 0.665, p < .001), and mediation accounts for 52.3% of the total ESE–CC effect (indirect β = 0.375, 95% BCa CI [0.297, 0.456]). The combined model explains 59.4% of variance in coping capacity. Turkish professionals maintain meaningful ESE–CC relationships even under low OET conditions (β = 0.342, p < 0.001), suggesting that social and organizational dynamics may play an important role in coping processes within the Turkish sample. Demographic analyses reveal that work experience and age significantly differentiate psychological resource levels across the Turkish sample, with distinctive patterns that illuminate how career stage shapes the activation of resilience pathways. These findings suggest that organizational error tolerance may strengthen existing social coping mechanisms within the Turkish organizational context.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akaiso, E. (2026). A prosocial pathway to workplace resilience: Emotional self-efficacy and organizational error tolerance in Türkiye. Psychology Research on Education and Social Sciences, Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20094721

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Ahmad, R., Nawaz, M. R., Ishaq, M. I., Khan, M. M., & Ashraf, H. A. (2023). Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015921
  2. Akaiso, E. (2025a). Emotional self-efficacy level of employees as an antecedent to emergence of prosocial behavior to increase coping capacity of organizations during times of turmoil: A literature review. Psychology Research on Education and Social Sciences, 6(2), 113–129.
  3. Akaiso, E. (2025b). When mistakes matter less: How organizational error tolerance strengthens the emotional and coping resources of employees. European Journal of Educational and Social Sciences, 10(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18088996
  4. Alabedullah, N. R., Alabedullah, N., & Blelo, J. (2024). The impact of organizational learning on organizational innovation: A field study on humanitarian organizations in Northern Syria. Migration Letters, 20(S6), 928–938. https://doi.org/10.59670/ml.v20iS6.4352
  5. Alami, A., Zahedi, M., & Krancher, O. (2024). The role of psychological safety in promoting software quality in agile teams. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23418.88002
  6. Almunthiri, O., Bani-Melhem, S., Mohd-Shamsudin, F., & Raziq, M. M. (2024). Fostering innovative behaviours of public sector employees. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 37(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2023-0242
  7. Aguilar-Navarro, S. G., Sánchez, B. L. P., Gutiérrez, L. A. G., Arias-Trejo, N., Quiroz, Y. T., & Alvarado, A. J. M. (2023). Cross-cultural adaptation of the everyday cognition scale. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 17. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5764-DN-2023-0011
  8. Bailey, P. E., Ebner, N. C., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2021). Introduction to the special issue on prosociality. Psychology and Aging, 36(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000598
  9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  10. Bartuseviciene, I., Rakauskiene, O. G., & Valackiene, A. (2023). Assessing the resilience of organizations. Measuring Business Excellence, 27(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2022-0066
  11. Cladis, F. P., Hudson, M., & Goh, J. (2024). Psychological safety in the perioperative environment. BMJ Leader. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2023-000935
  12. Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1228–1240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1228
  13. Frese, M., & Keith, N. (2015). Action errors and learning in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 661– 687. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015205
  14. Ginocchio, S. (2023). Organizational resilience: Case study. ARPHA Conference Abstracts, 6. https://doi.org/10.3897/aca.6.e107003
  15. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
  16. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130
  17. Hofmeier, J., & Strang, L. (2023). Image concerns and prosocial behavior. Frontiers in Behavioral Economics, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2023.1220007
  18. Holmgreen, L., Tirone, V., Gerhart, J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2017). Conservation of resources theory. In Handbook of stress and health (pp. 443–457). Wiley.
  19. Kago, K., & Venkataraman, P. (2023). Altruism and egoism. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02163-2
  20. Kanj, G., Hallit, S., & Obeid, S. (2023). Emotional abuse and personality disorder. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-023-00241-0
  21. Laulié, L., Briceño-Jiménez, G., & Henríquez-Gómez, G. (2023). Self-regulation theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1090094
  22. Lee, Y. I., Lee, Y. J., & Bolls, P. D. (2023). Media psychophysiology. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 17(3), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2023.2261238
  23. Lin, M., Xie, M., & Li, Z. (2023). Organizational error tolerance. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 16, 4133–4153. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S431373
  24. Mazumdar, N. (2023). Understanding resilience paradigms. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Publications, 5(11), 44–49.
  25. Noronha, A. P. P., Souza, M. H., Friedenreich, G. M., Dias-Viana, J. L., Prandini, S., Mioralli, C. M., & Campos, A. M. B. (2024). Character strengths and prosocial behavior. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.5935/1980-6906/eptppa15077.en
  26. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
  27. Setiawati, S., & Handrianto, C. (2023). Cultural foundations of prosocial behavior. International Journal of Instruction, 16(3), 421–440.
  28. Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Sage.
  29. Wang, X., Guchait, P., Madera, J., & Paşamehmetoğlu, A. (2018). Error management culture. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2017-0038
  30. Wang, Y. C., Xu, S., Ma, E., & Xu, F. (2024). Organizational citizenship behavior. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/19389655241256535
  31. Weinzimmer, L., & Esken, C. (2017). Learning from mistakes. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316688658
  32. Yıldız, G. (2023). Cultural identity and emotional norms. Field Studies in Cultural Psychology.