Performance feedback theory has been recognized as a generative theory in organization and management studies that explains why, when, and how organizations initiate or discontinue specific strategic actions. Over the past decades, an extensive body of empirical research has tested the theory, refined its key tenets, and broadened its applications. Yet, empirical results on the effects of performance feedback often vary and even produce conflicting insights that are difficult to interpret. Following recent developments, we suggest that empirical controversies can be largely reconciled once we consider different performance feedback conditions, organizational actions, and boundary conditions. We conducted a meta-analytic review of 113 empirical studies to statistically evaluate how and why the effects of performance feedback may vary according to various factors. By identifying factors shaping organizational responses to performance feedback, this study helps integrate existing empirical evidence and offers new directions for future theoretical development and empirical research.
AguinisH (2019) Performance Management. Chicago, IL: Chicago Business Press.
2.
AguinisHDaltonDRBoscoFA, et al. (2010a) Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of Management37(1): 5–38.
3.
AguinisHGottfredsonRKWrightTA (2011) Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior32(8): 1033–1043.
4.
AguinisHPierceCABoscoFA, et al. (2010b) Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods14(2): 306–331.
5.
AguinisHRamaniRSAlabduljaderN (2018) What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals12(1): 83–110.
6.
AlessandriTMPattitJM (2014) Drivers of R&D investment: The interaction of behavioral theory and managerial incentives. Journal of Business Research67(2): 151–158.
7.
AskinNBothnerMS (2016) Status-aspirational pricing: The “Chivas Regal” strategy in U.S. higher education, 2006–2012. Administrative Science Quarterly61(2): 217–253.
8.
AudiaPGBrionS (2007) Reluctant to change: Self-enhancing responses to diverging performance measures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes102(2): 255–269.
9.
AudiaPGGreveHR (2006) Less likely to fail: Low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Management Science52(1): 83–94.
10.
AutorDHDornDHansonGH (2013) The China syndrome: Local labor market effects of import competition in the United States. American Economic Review103(6): 2121–2168.
11.
BaumJADahlinKB (2007) Aspiration performance and railroads’ patterns of learning from train wrecks and crashes. Organization Science18(3): 368–385.
12.
BaumJARowleyTJShipilovAV, et al. (2005) Dancing with strangers: Aspiration performance and the search for underwriting syndicate partners. Administrative Science Quarterly50(4): 536–575.
13.
BaumeisterRFBratslavskyEFinkenauerC, et al. (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology5(4): 323–370.
14.
Ben-OzCGreveHR (2015) Short- and long-term performance feedback and absorptive capacity. Journal of Management41(7): 1827–1853.
15.
BerghDDAguinisHHeaveyC, et al. (2016) Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal37(3): 477–497.
16.
BettisRGambardellaAHelfatC, et al. (2014) Quantitative empirical analysis in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal35(7): 949–953.
17.
BlettnerDPHeZ-LHuS, et al. (2015) Adaptive aspirations and performance heterogeneity: Attention allocation among multiple reference points. Strategic Management Journal36(7): 987–1005.
18.
BourgeoisLJ (1981) On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review6(1): 29–39.
19.
BromileyP (1991) Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal34(1): 37–59.
20.
BromileyPHarrisJD (2014) A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations. Strategic Management Journal35(3): 338–357.
21.
BromileyPWashburnM (2011) Cost reduction vs innovative search in R&D. Journal of Strategy and Management4(3): 196–214.
22.
BromileyPRauDMcshaneMK (2016) Can strategic risk management contribute to enterprise risk management? A strategic management perspective. In: AndersenTJ (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Strategic Risk Management. New York: Routledge, pp. 140–156.
23.
BromileyPRauDZhangY (2017) Is R&D risky?Strategic Management Journal38(4): 876–891.
24.
CeciFMasciarelliFPrencipeA (2016) Changes in organizational architecture: Aspiration levels, performance gaps and organizational change. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management13(1): 1–21.
25.
ChenMJHambrickDC (1995) Speed, stealth and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive behavior. Academy of Management Journal38(2): 453–482.
26.
ChenW-R (2008) Determinants of firms’ backward- and forward-looking R&D search behavior. Organization Science19(4): 609–622.
27.
ChenW-RMillerKD (2007) Situational and institutional determinants of firms’ R&D search intensity. Strategic Management Journal28(4): 369–381.
28.
ChrismanJJPatelPC (2012) Variations in R&D investments of family and nonfamily firms: Behavioral agency and myopic loss aversion perspectives. Academy of Management Journal55(4): 976–997.
29.
CombsJGCrookTRRauchA (2018) Meta-analytic research in management: Contemporary approaches, unresolved controversies, and rising standards. Journal of Management Studies56(1): 1–18.
30.
CombsJGKetchenDJCrookTR, et al. (2011) Assessing cumulative evidence within “macro” research: Why meta-analysis should be preferred over vote counting. Journal of Management Studies48(1): 178–197.
31.
CrookTRKetchenDJCombsJG, et al. (2008) Strategic resources and performance: A meta-analysis. Strategic Management Journal29(11): 1141–1154.
32.
CyertRMMarchJG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33.
CyertRMMarchJG (1992) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
34.
DavisDMorrisMAllenJ (1991) Perceived environmental turbulence and its effect on selected entrepreneurship, marketing, and organizational characteristics in industrial firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science19(1): 43–51.
35.
DelmarFWennbergK (2007) Risk taking, aspiration levels and the evolution of new ventures. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research27(13): 4.
36.
DeNisiASKlugerAN (2000) Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved?Academy of Management Perspectives14(1): 129–139.
37.
DeNisiASMurphyKR (2017) Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress?Journal of Applied Psychology102(3): 421–433.
38.
DesaiVM (2008) Constrained growth: How experience, legitimacy, and age influence risk taking in organizations. Organization Science19(4): 594–608.
39.
DesaiVM (2013) Learning to behave badly: Performance feedback and illegal organizational action. Industrial and Corporate Change23(5): 1327–1355.
40.
DesaiVM (2015) Learning through the distribution of failures within an organization: Evidence from heart bypass surgery performance. Academy of Management Journal58(4): 1032–1050.
41.
DesaiVM (2016) The behavioral theory of the (governed) firm: Corporate board influences on organizations’ responses to performance shortfalls. Academy of Management Journal59: 860–879.
42.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160.
43.
DuvalSJTweedieRL (2000) Trim and fill: A simple funnel plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics56(2): 455–463.
44.
DyeKCEggersJPShapiraZ (2014) Trade-offs in a tempest: Stakeholder influence on hurricane evacuation decisions. Organization Science25(4): 1009–1025.
45.
EdenD (2002) Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ’s publication policy. Academy of Management Journal45(5): 841–846.
46.
FisherRA (1921) On the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron1: 3–32.
47.
GavettiG (2012) Perspective—Toward a behavioral theory of strategy. Organization Science23(1): 267–285.
48.
GavettiGGreveHRLevinthalDA, et al. (2012) The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals6(1): 1–40.
49.
GavettiGLevinthalDOcasioW (2007) Perspective—Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie school’s past, present, and reconstructing for the future. Organization Science18(3): 523–536.
50.
Gomez-MejiaLRPatelPCZellwegerTM (2018) In the horns of the dilemma: Socioemotional wealth, financial wealth, and acquisitions in family firms. Journal of Management44: 1369–1397.
51.
Gonzalez-MuléEAguinisH (2018) Advancing theory by assessing boundary conditions with metaregression: A critical review and best-practice recommendations. Journal of Management44(6): 2246–2273.
GreveHR (2003a) A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal46(6): 685–702.
54.
GreveHR (2003b) Investment and the behavioral theory of the firm: Evidence from shipbuilding. Industrial and Corporate Change12(5): 1051–1076.
55.
GreveHR (2003c) Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Innovation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
GreveHR (2007) Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change16(5): 945–975.
57.
GreveHR (2008) A behavioral theory of firm growth: Sequential attention to size and performance goals. Academy of Management Journal51(3): 476–494.
58.
GreveHR (2010) Positional rigidity: Low performance and resource acquisition in large and small firms. Strategic Management Journal32(1): 103–114.
59.
GreveHRGabaV (2017) Performance feedback in organizations and groups: Common themes. In: ArgoteLLevineJM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Group and Organizational Learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
60.
GuérardSLangleyASeidlD (2013) Rethinking the concept of performance in strategy research: Towards a performativity perspective. M@n@gement16(5): 566–578.
61.
HarrisJBromileyP (2007) Incentives to cheat: The influence of executive compensation and firm performance on financial misrepresentation. Organization Science18(3): 350–367.
62.
HaunschildPRMinerAS (1997) Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly42(3): 472–500.
63.
HavemanHA (1993) Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly38(4): 593–627.
64.
HofstedeG (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
65.
HolmqvistM (2004) Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science15(1): 70–81.
66.
HunterJESchmidtFL (1990) Methods of Meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
67.
IyerDNMillerKD (2008) Performance feedback, slack, and the timing of acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal51(4): 808–822.
68.
JosefyMKubanSIrelandRD, et al. (2015) All things great and small: Organizational size, boundaries of the firm, and a changing environment. The Academy of Management Annals9(1): 715–802.
69.
JosephJGabaV (2015) The fog of feedback: Ambiguity and firm responses to multiple aspiration levels. Strategic Management Journal36(13): 1960–1978.
70.
JungJCBansalP (2009) How firm performance affects internationalization. Management International Review49(6): 709–732.
71.
JunniPSaralaRMTarasV, et al. (2013) Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives27(4): 299–312.
72.
KacperczykABeckmanCMMoliternoTP (2014) Disentangling risk and change: Internal and external social comparison in the mutual fund industry. Administrative Science Quarterly60(2): 228–262.
73.
KavadisNCastañerX (2015) Who drives corporate restructuring? Co-existing owners in French firms. Corporate Governance: An International Review23(5): 417–433.
74.
KimJ-YFinkelsteinSHaleblianJ (2015) All aspirations are not ceated equal: The differential effects of historical and social aspirations on acquisition behavior. Academy of Management Journal58(5): 1361–1388.
75.
KlingebielR (2018) Risk-type preference shifts in response to performance feedback. Strategic Organization16(2): 141–166.
76.
KlugerANDeNisiA (1996) The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin119(2): 254–284.
77.
KotlarJDe MassisAFangH, et al. (2014) Strategic reference points in family firms. Small Business Economics43(3): 597–619.
78.
KotlarJDe MassisAFrattiniF, et al. (2013) Technology acquisition in family and nonfamily firms: A longitudinal analysis of Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management30(6): 1073–1088.
79.
KuuselaPKeilTMaulaM (2017) Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource-consuming vs. resource-freeing organizational change. Strategic Management Journal38(5): 1101–1120.
80.
LabiancaGFairbankJFAndrevskiG, et al. (2009) Striving toward the future: Aspiration-performance discrepancies and planned organizational change. Strategic Organization7(4): 433–466.
81.
LehmanDWHahnJ (2013) Momentum and organizational risk taking: Evidence from the National Football League. Management Science59(4): 852–868.
82.
LewellynKBBaoSR (2015) R&D investment in the global paper products industry: A behavioral theory of the firm and national culture perspective. Journal of International Management21(1): 1–17.
83.
LiJQianCYaoFK (2015) Confidence in learning: Inter- and intraorganizational learning in foreign market entry decisions. Strategic Management Journal36(6): 918–929.
84.
LinW-T (2014) How do managers decide on internationalization processes? The role of organizational slack and performance feedback. Journal of World Business49(3): 396–408.
85.
LinW-TLiuYChengK-Y (2011) The internationalization and performance of a firm: Moderating effect of a firm’s behavior. Journal of International Management17(1): 83–95.
86.
LounsburyMBeckmanCM (2015) Celebrating organization theory. Journal of Management Studies52(2): 288–308.
87.
LoveEGKraatzMS (2017) Failed stakeholder exchanges and corporate reputation: The case of earnings misses. Academy of Management Journal60(3): 880–903.
88.
LucasGJKnobenJMeeusMT (2018) Contradictory yet coherent? Inconsistency in performance feedback and R&D investment change. Journal of Management44: 658–681.
89.
MadsenPM (2011) Perils and profits: A reexamination of the link between profitability and safety in U.S. aviation. Journal of Management39(3): 763–791.
90.
MarchJG (1988) Variable risk preferences and adaptive aspirations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization9(1): 5–24.
91.
MarchJG (1994) A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: The Free Press.
92.
MarchJGShapiraZ (1992) Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review99(1): 172–183.
93.
MarchJGSuttonRI (1997) Organizational performance as a dependent variable. Organization Science8(6): 698–706.
94.
MassiniSLewinAYGreveHR (2005) Innovators and imitators: Organizational reference groups and adoption of organizational routines. Research Policy34(10): 1550–1569.
95.
MillerKDChenW-R (2004) Variable organizational risk preferences: Tests of the March-Shapira model. Academy of Management Journal47(1): 105–115.
96.
MoliternoTPBeckNBeckmanCM, et al. (2014) Knowing your place: Social performance feedback in good times and bad times. Organization Science25(6): 1684–1702.
97.
NewbertSLDavidRJHanSK (2014) Rarely pure and never simple: Assessing cumulative evidence in strategic management. Strategic Organization12(2): 142–154.
98.
NohriaNGulatiR (1996) Is slack good or bad for innovation?Academy of Management Journal39(5): 1245–1264.
99.
O’BrienJPDavidP (2014) Reciprocity and R&D search: Applying the behavioral theory of the firm to a communitarian context. Strategic Management Journal35(4): 550–565.
100.
OlkinIPrattJW (1958) Unbiased estimation of certain correlation coefficients. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics29(1): 201–211.
101.
ParkKM (2007) Antecedents of convergence and divergence in strategic positioning: The effects of performance and aspiration on the direction of strategic change. Organization Science18(3): 386–402.
102.
ParkerONKrauseRCovinJG (2017) Ready, set, slow: How aspiration-relative product quality impacts the rate of new product introduction. Journal of Management43: 2333–2356.
103.
PosenHEKeilTKimS, et al. (2018) Renewing research on problemistic search—A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals12(1): 208–251.
104.
PrahaladCKBettisRA (1986) The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal7(6): 485–501.
105.
RichardPJDevinneyTMYipGS, et al. (2009) Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management35(3): 718–804.
106.
RosenthalR (1979) The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin86(3): 638–641.
SalgeTOKohliRBarrettM (2015) Investing in information systems: On the behavioral and institutional search mechanisms underpinning hospitals’ IS investment decisions. MIS Quarterly39(1): 61–89.
109.
SchimmerMBrauerM (2012) Firm performance and aspiration levels as determinants of a firm’s strategic repositioning within strategic group structures. Strategic Organization10(4): 406–435.
110.
SchmidtFLHunterJE (2014) Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
111.
SchmidtFLPearlmanKHunterJE, et al. (1985) Forty questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology38(4): 697–798.
112.
SchneiderSL (1992) Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition18(5): 1040–1057.
113.
SengulMOblojT (2017) Better safe than sorry: Subsidiary performance feedback and internal governance in multiunit firms. Journal of Management43(8): 2526–2554.
114.
ShenWLinC (2009) Firm profitability, state ownership, and top management turnover at the listed firms in China: A behavioral perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review17(4): 443–456.
115.
ShimizuK (2007) Prospect theory, behavioral theory, and the threat-rigidity thesis: Combinative effects on organizational decisions to divest formerly acquired units. Academy of Management Journal50(6): 1495–1514.
116.
ShinkleGA (2012) Organizational aspirations, reference points, and goals: Building on the past and aiming for the future. Journal of Management38(1): 415–455.
117.
ShipilovAVLiSXGreveHR (2011) The prince and the pauper: Search and brokerage in the initiation of status-heterophilous ties. Organization Science22(6): 1418–1434.
118.
SimonHA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics69(1): 99–118.
119.
SimonHA (1964) On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science Quarterly9(1): 1–22.
120.
SimonHA (1997) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: Macmillan.
StawBMSandelandsLEDuttonJE (1981) Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly26(4): 501–524.
123.
ThornhillSAmitR (2003) Learning about failure: Bankruptcy, firm age and the resource-based view. Organization Science14(5): 497–509.
124.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics106(4): 1039–1061.
125.
TylerBBCanerT (2015) New product introductions below aspirations, slack and R&D alliances: A behavioral perspective. Strategic Management Journal37: 896–910.
126.
WennbergKDelmarFMcKelvieA (2016) Variable risk preferences in new firm growth and survival. Journal of Business Venturing31(4): 408–427.
127.
WhitenerEM (1990) Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology75(3): 315–321.
128.
XuDZhouKZDuF (2019) Deviant versus aspirational risk taking: The effects of perofrmance feedback on bribery expenditure and R&D intensity. Academy of Management Journal62: 1226–1251.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
