The motivational effects of success and failure on firm risk-taking have been widely documented in research rooted in a behavioral theory of the firm, with the resultant body of work yielding divergent theoretical predictions and empirical findings. Despite scholarly progress, recent studies ruminate that envisioning success and failure through the lens of realized performance and aspiration foregoes its temporal considerations and takes a narrow view of its information content. Emphasizing the temporality of performance feedback, this study proposes success and failure persistence as reliable indicators of firm performance. In particular, we propose a curvilinear relationship between success (failure) persistence and firm risk-taking, such that risk-taking by firms initially decreases (increases) and then increases (decreases) with an increase in success (failure) persistence. Using a data set of publicly listed Indian manufacturing firms from 1995 to 2018, we find robust support for the above-proposed curvilinear relationships. Our findings highlight the nonlinear, asymmetric influences of success and failure persistence on firm risk-taking and disclose the presence of strategic momentum effects. This study contributes to the research on a behavioral theory of the firm and performance feedback theory and offers managerial guideposts for handling success and failure.
AltmanEI (1983) Corporate Distress: A Complete Guide to Predicting, Avoiding, and Dealing with Bankruptcy. New York: Wiley.
2.
AmburgeyTLMinerAS (1992) Strategic momentum: The effects of repetitive, positional, and contextual momentum on merger activity. Strategic Management Journal13(5): 335–348.
3.
ArgoteLGreveHR (2007) A behavioral theory of the firm—40 years and counting: Introduction and impact. Organization Science18(3): 337–349.
4.
AudiaPGLockeEASmithKG (2000) The paradox of success: An archival and laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Academy of Management Journal43(5): 837–853.
BaltagiBHBressonGPirotteA (2003) Fixed effects, random effects, or Hausman-Taylor? A pretest estimator. Economic Letters79: 361–369.
7.
BaumJACRowleyTCShipilovAV, et al (2005) Dancing with strangers: Aspiration performance and the search for underwriting syndicate partners. Administrative Science Quarterly50: 536–575.
8.
BlagoevaRMomTJMJansenJJP, et al (2019) Problem-solving or self-enhancement? A power perspective on how CEOs affect R&D search in the face of inconsistent feedback. Academy of Management Journal63: 999.
9.
BlettnerDPHeZLHuS, et al (2015) Adaptive aspirations and performance heterogeneity: Attention allocation among multiple reference points. Strategic Management Journal36: 987–1005.
10.
BliesePDSchepkerDJEssmanSM, et al (2020) Bridging methodological divides between macro and micro research: Endogeneity and methods for panel data. Journal of Management46(1): 70–99.
11.
BradleySWShepherdDAWiklundJ (2011) The importance of slack for new organizations facing “tough” organizations. Journal of Management Studies48(5): 1071–1097.
12.
BromileyP (1991) Testing a causal model of corporate risk-taking and performance. Academy of Management Journal34: 37–59.
13.
BurkhardBSirenCvan EssenM, et al (2022) Nothing ventured, nothing gained: A meta-analysis of CEO overconfidence, strategic risk taking, and performance. Journal of Management: 1–38.
14.
CampbellRJJeongSHGraffinSD (2019) Born to take risk? The effect of CEO birth order on strategic risk taking. Academy of Management Journal62(4): 1278–1306.
15.
CarterEE (1971) The behavioral theory of the firm and top-level corporate decisions. Administrative Science Quarterly16(4): 413–429.
16.
ChariMDRDavidP (2012) Sustaining superior performance in an emerging economy: An empirical test in the Indian context. Strategic Management Journal33(2): 217–229.
17.
ChenWMillerKD (2007) Situational and institutional determinants of firms’ R&D intensity. Strategic Management Journal28: 369–381.
ChoiJRheeMKimYC (2019) Performance feedback and problemistic search: The moderating effects of managerial and board outsiderness. Journal of Business Research102: 21–33.
20.
CohenJCohenPWestSG, et al (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
CyertRMMarchJG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22.
DebPDavidPO’BrienJP, et al (2019) Attainment discrepancy and investment: Effects on firm performance. Journal of Business Research99: 186–196.
23.
DesaiVM (2008) Constrained growth: How experience, legitimacy, and age influence risk-taking in organizations. Organization Science19: 594–608.
24.
DesaiVM (2015) Learning through the distribution of failures within an organization: Evidence from heart bypass surgery performance. Academy of Management Journal58(4): 1032–1050.
25.
DesaiVM (2016) The Behavioral theory of the governed firm: Corporate board influences on organizations’ responses to performance shortfalls. Academy of Management Journal59: 860–879.
26.
DuttonJEDuncanRB (1987) The influence of the strategic planning process on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal8(2): 103–116.
27.
EggersJPKaulA (2018) Motivation and ability? A behavioral perspective on the pursuit of radical invention in multi-technology incumbents. Academy of Management Journal61: 1123.
28.
FordJD (1985) The effects of causal attributions on decision makers’ responses to performance downturns. Academic of Management Review10(4): 770–786.
29.
GavettiGGreveHRLevinthalDA, et al (2012) The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. The Academy of Management Annals6: 1–40.
30.
GentryRJShenW (2013) The impacts of performance relative to analyst forecasts and analyst coverage on firm R&D intensity. Strategic Management Journal34(1): 121–130.
31.
GoyalLGoyalV (2022) Performance shortfall, feedback interpretation, and R&D search: The differential effects of peers’ performance below historical and social aspirations. British Journal of Management33: 1584–1608.
GreveHR (2003) A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal46: 685–702.
34.
HaleblianJRajagopalanN (2005) Top managerial cognitions, past performance, and strategic change: A theoretical framework. Advances in Strategic Management22: 63–91.
35.
HannanMTFreemanJ (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review49(2): 149–164.
36.
HausmanJA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica46(6): 1251–1271.
37.
HausmanJATaylorWE (1981) Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica49: 1377–1398.
38.
HoskissonREChiricoFZyungJD, et al (2017) Managerial risk taking: A multi-theoretical review and future research agenda. Journal of Management43(1): 137–169.
39.
HuSBlettnerDBettisRA (2011) Adaptive aspirations: Performance consequences of risk preferences at extremes and alternative reference groups. Strategic Management Journal32(13): 1426–1436.
40.
HubbardTDChristensenDMGraffinSD (2017) Higher highs and lower lows: The role of corporate social responsibility in CEO dismissal. Strategic Management Journal38: 2255–2265.
41.
IyerDNMillerKD (2008) Performance feedback, slack, and the timing of acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal51: 808–822.
42.
IyerDNBauMChiricoF, et al (2018) The triggers of local and distant search: Relative magnitude and persistence in explaining acquisition relatedness. Long Range Planning52: 101825.
43.
JordanAHAudiaPG (2012) Self-enhancement and learning from performance feedback. Academy of Management Review37(2): 211–231.
44.
KellyDAmburgeyTL (1991) Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal34(3): 591–612.
45.
KimJFinkelsteinSHaleblianJJ (2015) All aspirations are not created equal: The differential effects of historical and social aspirations on acquisition behavior. Academy of Management Journal58(5): 1361–1388.
46.
KisfalviV (2000) The threat of failure, the perils of success and CEO character sources of strategic persistence. Organization Studies21: 611–639.
47.
KolevKDMcNamaraG (2020) The role of top management teams in firm responses to performance shortfalls. Strategic Organization20: 541–564.
48.
KotilogluSChenYLechlerT (2019) Organizational responses to performance feedback. Strategic Organization19: 285–311.
49.
KuuselaPKeilTMaulaM (2017) Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource-consuming vs. resource-freeing organizational change. Strategic Management Journal38: 1101–1120.
50.
LantTKMontgomeryDB (1987) Learning from strategic success and failure. Journal of Business Research15: 503–517.
51.
LantTKMillikenFJBatraB (1992) The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical examination. Strategic Management Journal13: 585–608.
52.
LeeJLeeJMKimJY (2023) The role of attribution in learning from performance feedback: Behavioral perspective on the choice between alliances and acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal66(2): 1293.
53.
LevittBMarchJG (1988) Organizational learning. Annual Reviews of Sociology14: 319–340.
54.
LimEMcCannBT (2014) Performance feedback and firm risk-taking: The moderating effects of CEO and outside director stock options. Organization Science25: 262–282.
55.
LindJTMehlumH (2010) With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics72(1): 109–118.
56.
McMillanCJOverallJS (2017) Crossing the chasm and over the abyss: Perspectives on organizational failure. Academy of Management Perspectives31(4): 271–287.
57.
MadsenPMDesaiV (2010) Failing to learn? The effects of failure and success on organizational learning in the global orbital launch vehicle industry. Academy of Management Journal53(3): 451–476.
58.
MarchJGShapiraZ (1992) Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review99: 172–183.
59.
MillerKDBromileyP (1990) Strategic risk and corporate performance: An analysis of alternate risk measures. Academy of Management Journal33: 756–779.
60.
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.
61.
O’BrienJPDavidPYoshikawaT, et al (2014) How capital structure influences diversification performance: A transaction cost perspective. Strategic Management Journal35: 1013–1031.
62.
OehlerPJStumpf-WollersheimJWelpeIM (2018) Never change a winning routine? How performance feedback affects routine change. Industrial and Corporate Change5: 1101–1124.
63.
PieningEPThiesFWesselM, et al (2021) Searching for success—Entrepreneurs’ responses to crowdfunding failure. Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice45(3): 626–657.
64.
PosenHKeilTKimS, et al (2018) Renewing research on problemistic search—A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals12: 208–251.
65.
PurkayasthaSManolovaTSEdelmanLF (2018) Business group effects on the R&D intensity-internationalization relationship: Empirical evidence from India. Journal of World Business53(2): 104–117.
66.
RefOShapiraZ (2017) Entering new markets: The effect of performance feedback near aspiration and well below and above it. Strategic Management Journal38: 1416–1434.
67.
RefOFeldmanNEIyerDN, et al (2021) Entry into new foreign markets: Performance feedback and opportunity costs. Journal of World Business56(6): 101258.
68.
RheeMKimT (2015) Great vessels take a long time to mature: Early success traps and competences in exploitation and exploration. Organization Science26(1): 180–197.
69.
RudyBCJohnsonAF (2016) Performance, aspirations, and market versus nonmarket investment. Journal of Management42(4): 936–959.
70.
SchumacherCKeckSTangW (2020) Biased interpretation of performance feedback: The role of CEO overconfidence. Strategic Management Journal41: 1139–1165.
71.
SinghJV (1986) Performance, slack, and risk-taking in organizational decision-making. Academy of Management Journal29: 562–585.
72.
StawBMSandelandsLEDuttonJE (1981) Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behaviour: A multi-level analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly26: 501–524.
73.
SuzukiO (2018) Enabling or constraining? Unraveling the influence of organizational slack on innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change27(3): 555–575.
74.
TitusVJrO’BrienJPDixitJ (2021) Does performance breed slack? Ownership as a contingency to the performance feedback and slack relationship. Journal of Management48: 1270–1298.
75.
TylerBBCanerT (2016) New product introductions below aspirations, slack and R&D alliances: A behavioral perspective. Strategic Management Journal37(5): 896–910.
76.
VidalEMitchellW (2018) Virtuous or vicious cycles? The role of divestitures as a complementary Penrose effect within resource-based theory. Strategic Management Journal39(1): 131–154.
77.
VissaBGreveHRChenWR (2010) Business group affiliation and firm search behavior in India: Responsiveness and focus of attention. Organization Science21(3): 696–712.
78.
XuDZhouKZDuF (2019) Deviant versus aspirational risk taking: The effects of performance feedback on bribery expenditure and R&D intensity. Academy of Management Journal62(4): 1226–1251.
79.
Yasai-ArdekaniM (1986) Structural adaptations to environments. Academy of Management Review11(1): 9–21.
80.
YuWMinnitiMNasonR (2018) Underperformance duration and innovative search: Evidence from the high-tech manufacturing industry. Strategic Management Journal40: 1–26.
81.
ZhangYGongY (2018) Stock return or sales growth? Multiple performance feedback and strategic investments under securities analysts’ earnings pressure. Journal of Management Studies55(8): 1356–1385.
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.
