In addition to suggesting a need for more complete specifications of the environment-performance relationship in the future, the findings presented in this paper raise other questions about that relationship that are worthy of systematic analysis. The statistical results may be a product of where and when the research was conducted. It is therefore important to identify whether linear and nonlinear effects of objective and subjective environments differ over other time periods and in other organizational settings both in the US and elsewhere. Furthermore, the data set does not permit the measurement of the impact of changes in managers’ perceptions of the environment. As a result, the potential influence of “recency” on managerial perceptions cannot be controlled (Wholey and Brittain 1989). At the same time, the inclusion of measures variables measuring the impact of sudden ‘jolts’ on organiza-tions (Kelman 2006) could also add significantly to the explanatory power of the model. It is also conceivable that the size of such jolts have a nonlinear effect on performance, with organizations potentially being prompted into positive action by low-moderate sized shocks but completely overwhelmed by extremely large ones. Evidence on the nonlinearity in the jolt-performance relationship would therefore make a valuable contribution to the literature on organizational environments.