Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T08:15:10.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of Underperformance Duration on Firms’ Responses to Performance Feedback: Evidence from the Chinese Manufacturing Industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2024

Xuefeng Liu
Affiliation:
School of Management, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
Lanlan Song
Affiliation:
School of Management, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
Guowei Lai*
Affiliation:
School of Management, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China
Yuying Xie
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Finance, Shepherd University, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, USA.
*
Corresponding author: Guowei Lai (gwlai@xmu.edu.cn)

Abstract

The management literature has extensively explored how firms respond to underperformance through innovation, with prior studies based on the behavioral theory of the firm and the threat-rigidity thesis producing inconsistent results. The shifting focus of attention model provides crucial insights to reconcile this contradiction. We extend this model by highlighting the temporal dimension of performance shortfall. Specifically, we argue that underperformance duration flattens the inverted U-shaped relationship by attenuating both the problemistic search and threat rigidity mechanisms. The empirical results from a sample of Chinese listed manufacturing firms between 2010 and 2019 support our predicted inverted U-relationship between underperformance intensity and research and development (R&D) investment, and the moderating effect of underperformance duration. Interestingly, the inverted U-shape flips to a U-shape if underperformance extends into the long term. We contribute to the literature on performance feedback by considering both underperformance intensity and duration, which conceptualizes their interaction and reconciles extant contradictory findings from a new perspective. We also add new insights into innovation research by theorizing and examining the overlooked boundary condition for the curvilinear relationship between performance shortfalls and R&D investments, which calls for future research to explore the dynamics of the relationship and account for temporal effects.

摘要

摘要

管理文献广泛地探讨了企业如何通过创新应对绩效落差,但是现有研究基于企业行为理论或威胁刚性理论得出了不一致的结论。注意力转换模型为调和现有矛盾提供了重要见解。本文通过强调绩效落差的时间维度扩展了该模型。具体而言,我们认为绩效落差持续度通过削弱问题搜索和威胁刚性机制减弱了绩效落差与研发投入之间的倒u型关系。基于 2010–2019 年中国制造业上市公司的实证分析,研究结论验证了绩效落差强度与研发投入的倒u型关系,以及绩效落差持续度的调节作用。有趣的是,如果落差长时间持续存在,落差强度与研发投入之间的倒U型关系会翻转为U型。本文通过结合绩效落差的强度和持续度,概念化了二者的交互作用,并从新视角调和了现有矛盾。此外,本文检验了绩效落差与研发投入研究中被忽视的边界条件,结合时间效应考察了二者关系的动态变化,为创新研究提供了新见解。

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Audia, P. G., & Greve, H. R. 2006. Less likely to fail: Low performance, firm size, and factory expansion in the shipbuilding industry. Management Science, 52(1): 8394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgeois, L. J. 1981. On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1): 2939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgeois, L. J., & Singh, J. V. 1983. Organizational slack and political behavior among top management teams. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1: 4347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromiley, P., & Harris, J. D. 2014. A comparison of alternative measures of organizational aspirations. Strategic Management Journal, 35(3): 338357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromiley, P., & Washburn, M. 2011. Cost reduction vs. innovative search in R&D. Journal of Strategy and Management, 4(3): 196214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, W. R. 2008. Determinants of firms’ backward- and forward-looking R&D search behavior. Organization Science, 19(4): 609622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, W. R., & Miller, K. D. 2007. Situational and institutional determinants of firms’ R&D search intensity. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4): 369381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Desai, V. M. 2008. Constrained growth: How experience, legitimacy, and age influence risk taking in organizations. Organization Science, 19(4): 594608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavetti, G., Greve, H. R., Levinthal, D. A., & Ocasio, W. 2012. The behavioral theory of the firm: Assessment and prospects. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, D., & Olsen, L. 2009. Environmental uncertainty and managers’ use of discretionary accruals. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(2): 188205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, H. R. 2003. A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6): 685702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, H. R. 2010. Designing performance feedback systems to guide learning and manage risk. Organizational Dynamics, 39(2): 104114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haans, R. F. J., Pieters, C., & He, Z. 2016. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 11771195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haleblian, J., & Rajagopalan, N. 2005. Top managerial cognitions, past performance, and strategic change: A theoretical framework. Advances in Strategic Management, 22: 6391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, L., Huang, L., & Yang, G. 2021. Invest in innovation or not? How managerial cognition and attention allocation shape corporate responses to performance shortfalls. Management and Organization Review, 17(4): 815850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, S., Blettner, D., & Bettis, R. 2011. Adaptive aspirations: Performance consequences of risk preferences at extremes and alternative reference groups. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 14261436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyer, D. N., & Miller, K. D. 2008. Performance feedback, slack, and the timing of acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4): 808822.Google Scholar
Iyer, D. N., Baù, M., Chirico, F., Patel, P. C., & Brush, T. H. 2019. The triggers of local and distant search: Relative magnitude and persistence in explaining acquisition relatedness. Long Range Planning, 52(5): 101825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jirásek, M. 2019. Curvilinearity in the performance feedback and R&D relationship. Journal of Strategy and Management, 13(1): 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotiloglu, S., Chen, Y., & Lechler, T. 2021. Organizational responses to performance feedback: A meta-analytic review. Strategic Organization, 19(2): 285311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuusela, P., Keil, T., & Maula, M. 2017. Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource-consuming vs. resource-freeing organizational change. Strategic Management Journal, 38(5): 11011120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J., & Batra, B. 1992. The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal, 13(8): 585608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehman, D. W., & Hahn, J. 2013. Momentum and organizational risk taking: evidence from the national football league. Management Science, 59(4): 852868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J., Chen, L., & Kittilaksanawong, W. 2013. External knowledge search strategies in China's technology ventures: The role of managerial interpretations and ties. Management and Organization Review, 9(3): 437463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. 1992. Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99(1): 172183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. D., & Chen, W. R. 2004. Variable organizational risk preferences: Tests of the March-Shapira model. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1): 105115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neef, N. A., Shades, D., & Miller, M. S. 1994. Assessing influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbances. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 27(4): 575583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posen, H. E., Keil, T., Kim, S., & Meissner, F. D. 2018. Renewing research on problemistic search—A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1): 208251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ref, O., & Shapira, Z. 2017. Entering new markets: The effect of performance feedback near aspiration and well below and above it. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7): 14161434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, H. H., Yu, P., & Wu, L. S. 2012. State ownership, environment uncertainty, and investment efficiency. Economic Research Journal, 47(7): 113126. (Chinese).Google Scholar
Shimizu, K. 2007. Prospect theory, behavioral theory, and the threat-rigidity thesis: Combinative effects on organizational decisions to divest formerly acquired units. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 14951514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sitkin, S. B., & Pablo, A. L. 1992. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Academy of Management Review, 17(1): 938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staw, B. M., Scandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat rigidity effects on organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4): 501524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ye, Y., Yu, W., & Nason, R. 2021. Performance feedback persistence: Comparative effects of historical versus peer performance feedback on innovative search. Journal of Management, 47(4): 10531081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, W., Minniti, M., & Nason, R. 2019. Underperformance duration and innovative search: Evidence from the high-tech manufacturing industry. Strategic Management Journal, 40(5): 836861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhong, X., Ren, L., & Song, T. 2023. To cheat when continuously missing aspirations: Does CEO experience matter? Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 40(2): 815845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar