Curated by Business Science Daily — peer-reviewed sources, human-verified. Learn more

About Our Curation Process

Business Science Daily curates academic research in business and economics. Each featured study is selected from reputable, peer-reviewed journals, institutional repositories, or working papers (e.g., Elsevier, Sage, NBER, SSRN).

Articles are carefully summarized to ensure clarity and accuracy, with direct citations or links to original sources. Our process emphasizes transparency, academic integrity, and accessibility for a broader audience.

Learn more in our Editorial Standards & AI Policy.

New research, integrating Performance Feedback Theory (PFT) with Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), reveals that organizations react distinctly to different types of performance shortfalls. This meta-analysis of 74 studies, analyzing approximately 28.8 million observations, clarifies long-standing inconsistencies in how firms response to performance setbacks.

The article “Change or stability? A meta-analysis of organizational responses to social and historical performance feedback was written by Stefan Breet, Pursey Heugens, and Anna Nadolska. Stefan Breet (Corresponding author) – Affiliated with Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Pursey Heugens – Affiliated with Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Anna Nadolska – Affiliated with Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The core discovery of the paper reveals that the feedback mechanisms drive motivational focus. Accordingly, scientists discovered that organizational responses to performance shortfalls are not uniform but are shaped by the type of feedback received and the underlying motivational system it activates. These findings uncovered the role of two principal performance types in such process.

Historical Performance Shortfalls (compared to past performance) activate a promotion focus in decision-makers, who perceive them as an absence of a positive outcome (e.g., failing to improve). Organizations respond with eager strategies focused on advancement. This includes a statistically significant increase in strategic change (e.g., new market entries, acquisitions) and, unexpectedly, a simultaneous increase in R&D intensity (problemistic search). This indicates a proactive, named as double-barreled approach to restoring performance.

On the other hand, Social Performance Shortfalls (compared to peer performance) triger a prevention focus, as decision-makers perceive them as the presence of a negative outcome (e.g., falling behind competitors). To respond, organizations enact vigilant strategies aimed at stability. This leads to a significant decrease in strategic change, while still fostering an increase in R&D intensity. The emphasis here is on cautious exploration to avoid further losses and maintain competitive standing, rather than radical shifts.

The research also fundamentally refines performance feedback theory by demonstrating that problemistic search (operationalized as R&D intensity) and strategic change are distinct behavioral outcomes of the feedback process. These factors do not necessarily unfold in a fixed sequence, as traditionally assumed, but rather vary independently based on the specific type and valence of performance feedback.

Researchers made practical implications for business leaders as such. They suggested that managers can more effectively tailor strategic responses by recognizing whether under performance is relative to the firm’s own history or its competitors.

Additionally, the study highlights that situational performance feedback can shift managerial regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention), influencing risk-taking and strategic choices. This allows for better anticipation and adaptation of decision-making team compositions.

Finally, it is suggested that while, R&D investments and strategic changes are not interchangeable reactions, understanding their differentiated drivers allows for more targeted resource allocation and objective setting.

Citation Info:

• Authors: Stefan Breet, Pursey Heugens, Anna Nadolska
• Title: Change or stability? A meta-analysis of organizational responses to social and historical performance feedback
• Journal: European Management Journal
• Year Published: 2025 (Available online 18 September 2025)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2025.09.005

APA 7th Edition

Breet, S., Heugens, P., & Nadolska, A. (2025). Change or stability? A meta-analysis of organizational responses to social and historical performance feedback. *European Management Journal*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2025.09.005

MLA 9th Edition

Breet, Stefan, Pursey Heugens, and Anna Nadolska. “Change or stability? A meta-analysis of organizational responses to social and historical performance feedback.” *European Management Journal*, 2025, doi:10.1016/j.emj.2025.09.005.

Chicago (17th Edition)

Breet, Stefan, Pursey Heugens, and Anna Nadolska. 2025. “Change or Stability? A Meta-Analysis of Organizational Responses to Social and Historical Performance Feedback.” *European Management Journal*. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2025.09.005.

Harvard 

Breet, S., Heugens, P. and Nadolska, A. (2025) ‘Change or stability? A meta-analysis of organizational responses to social and historical performance feedback’, *European Management Journal*. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2025.09.005.