Revisiting performance feedback: aspiration levels, underlying potential, and risk-taking behavior

This study extends the behavioral theory of the firm by reconceptualizing performance feedback as a multidimensional construct that captures performance relative to aspiration levels and performance relative to underlying potential. We define four feedback categories: legitimated success (performance above both aspiration levels and underlying potential), fragile success (performance above aspiration levels but below underlying potential), potential-confirming failure (performance below aspiration levels but above underlying potential), and structural failure (performance below both aspiration levels and underlying potential). Using panel data on 213 team-seasons from the Korea Baseball Organization (2001–2025), we examine how each feedback type influences risk-taking decisions in the form of top leadership changes and workforce reconfiguration. Our analyses show that structural failure is associated with a higher likelihood of replacing the top leader, whereas legitimated success corresponds to greater leadership stability. In addition, potential-confirming failure triggers significant workforce reconfiguration, whereas both types of success entail minimal workforce changes. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating underlying potential into performance feedback evaluation. By jointly considering performance relative to aspiration levels and underlying potential, this study advances a more precise account of how firms interpret performance outcomes and, consequently, when they pursue strategic change versus reinforce the status quo.