长白学刊

干部容错纠错机制是全面深化改革背景下激励干部担当作为的关键制度设计，实践中却普遍面临效能弱化、机制空转等困境。本研究基于社会学制度主义分析框架，通过对A市正处级干部容错纠错案例分析，揭示其根源在于“合法性”建构的系统性缺失：规制性要素因概念模糊、程序缺位且与问责体系存在张力而根基薄弱；规范性要素担当保障不足、动机判准复杂，价值难以内化；文化—认知性要素受“错误即污点”观念与避责逻辑深层约束。三要素在组织场域中相互嵌套、彼此触发，形成负向循环锁定，机制“合法性”被削弱后导致执行滑向低效空转。基于此，干部容错纠错机制的优化应在规制层面弥合与问责体系的制度裂痕，在规范层面构建从动机评估到职业保障的引导链条，在认知层面以新的符号体系与激励结构推动图式转换，促进三要素从耗散走向协同。本研究将容错纠错机制的运行困境从操作性问题提升至制度“合法性”建构的理论层面，为全面深化改革中制度建设如何跨越文本与实效之间的张力提供借鉴。

The fault-tolerance and error-correction mechanism for cadres serves as a pivotal institutional framework to motivate cadresto take proactive actionsin the context of comprehensively deepening reforms.However, in practice, it commonly encounters dilemmas such as diminished effectiveness and idle mechanisms.Using sociological institutionalism as its analytical framework, this paper conducts a case analysis of the faulttolerance and error-correction mechanism for cadres atthe division-head levelin City A, and reveals that the root cause lies in the systemic deficiency in the construction of “legitimacy”. Specifically: at the regulatory level, it suffers from weak foundations due to ambiguous concepts, procedural gaps, and tensions with accountability mechanisms; at the normative level, its role in providing safeguards is inadequate, its criteria for assessing motivations are complex, and its values are difficult to internalize; at the cognitive level, it is profoundly constrained by the notion that “error is a stain” and the logic of responsibility avoidance. The three elements are mutually embedded and reinforce each other within the organizational field, forming a negative cycle lockin, where the weakening of “legitimacy” drives the mechanism toward formalistic idling. Accordingly, the optimization of the fault-tolerance and error-correction mechanism should bridge the institutional gap with the accountability system at the regulative level, build a guiding chain from motivation assessment to career protection at the normative level, and promote schema transformation through new symbolic systems and incentive structures at the cognitive level, so as to steer the three elements from dissipation toward synergy. This study elevates the operational dilemma of the fault-tolerance and error-correction mechanism from a practical issue to the theoretical level of institutional “legitimacy” construction, providing a reference for how institutional construction can bridge the tension between textual rules and practical effectiveness in the context of comprehensive deepening reform.