Private firms’ portfolio expansion responses to (in)consistent performance feedback
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Performance feedback can be constructed using firms’ own (historical) performance, or the performance of peers (social). Those two types of performance feedback can be consistent (both positive, both negative) or inconsistent (one positive, the other negative). The research on the impact of consistent versus inconsistent feedback has been inconclusive, suggesting that inconsistent feedback might lead to more intense or less intense responses, or no response. In this paper, we theorize and test how firms respond to (in)consistent performance feedback. Design/methodology/approach We test our hypotheses on a longitudinal sample of 2,819 private, high-growth firms in the US with 6,688 observations between the years 2007 and 2016. Our dataset comprises 25 different industries. We use topic modeling on textual data from firms’ web pages to capture portfolio expansion. Findings We find that consistent negative performance feedback strengthens portfolio expansion, but consistent positive feedback does not influence portfolio expansion. We also find that inconsistent performance feedback weakens portfolio expansion, but only with negative historical feedback and positive social feedback. Originality/value We contribute to the Behavioral Theory of the Firm by improving our understanding of mechanisms of feedback configurations. Specifically, we elaborate on the role of (in)consistent social feedback when firms respond to historical performance feedback. We also contribute to the theory by better understanding private firms’ responses to performance feedback.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it