A Configurational Perspective on the Quality of Managers’ Counterfactual Reflections

Abstract

Counterfactual reflection (CFR)—thinking about “what might have been if”—can enhance learning from experience, but only if the CFR is high-quality. Yet, what shapes differences in CFR quality remains largely unknown. Because managers typically reflect on experiences by concomitantly considering relevant factors and their collective interdependencies, we suggest that CFR quality is causally complex. To investigate this possibility, we interviewed 129 managers. In these interviews, they reflected on recently concluded business-to-business negotiations. Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, we find three equifinal configurations of negotiation factors associated with high-quality CFR and eight associated with low-quality CFR. Drawing on the interviews, we identify managers’ ability to disentangle causal linkages in their past negotiation and their motivation for high-quality CFR in the present as plausible mechanisms underlying differences in CFR quality. We find high-quality CFR only following experiences where managers possess high levels of both situation-specific ability and motivation. In contrast, experiences that leave managers feeling unable or unmotivated due to high satisfaction, indifference, or defensiveness, are linked to low-quality CFR. Overall, our study advances understanding of why there are differences in CFR quality by linking past experiences with managers’ abilities and motivation. From a managerial perspective, we suggest that organizations avoid “one size fits all” approaches to CFR. Instead, we recommend actionable measures for both reflecting managers and their supervisors to address the specific reasons that prevent managers from engaging in high-quality CFR after their negotiation experiences.