IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v44y2023i10p2443-2459.html

Blinded by the person? Experimental evidence from idea evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Linus Dahlander
  • Arne Thomas
  • Martin W. Wallin
  • Rebecka C. Ångström

Abstract

Research Summary Seeking causal evidence on biases in idea evaluation, we conducted a field experiment in a large multinational company with two conditions: (a) blind evaluation, in which managers received no proposer information, and (b) non‐blind evaluation, in which they received the proposer's name, unit, and location. To our surprise—and in contrast to the preregistered hypotheses—we found no biases against women and proposers from different units and locations, which blinding could ameliorate. Addressing challenges that remained intractable in the field experiment, we conducted an online experiment, which replicated the null findings. A final vignette study showed that people overestimated the magnitude of the biases. The studies suggest that idea evaluation can be less prone to biases than previously assumed and that evaluators separate ideas from proposers. Managerial Summary We wanted to find out if there were biases in the way managers evaluate ideas from their employees. We did a field experiment in a large multinational technology company where we tested two different ways of evaluating ideas: one where managers did not know anything about the person who came up with the idea and one where they did know the person's name, which unit they worked for, and where they were located. The results were surprising. We did not find any bias against women and employees that did not work in the same location and unit as the evaluator. Managers are advised that hiding the identity of idea proposers (from idea evaluators) may not be a silver bullet to improving idea evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Linus Dahlander & Arne Thomas & Martin W. Wallin & Rebecka C. Ångström, 2023. "Blinded by the person? Experimental evidence from idea evaluation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(10), pages 2443-2459, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:44:y:2023:i:10:p:2443-2459
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.3501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3501
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.3501?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Lee & Laura Huang, 2018. "Gender Bias, Social Impact Framing, and Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Pascale Petit, 2007. "The effects of age and family constraints on gender hiring discrimination: A field experiment in the French financial sector," Post-Print hal-04265044, HAL.
    3. Luc Behaghel & Bruno Crépon & Thomas Le Barbanchon, 2015. "Unintended Effects of Anonymous Résumés," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, July.
    4. Lucía Del Carpio & Maria Guadalupe, 2022. "More Women in Tech? Evidence from a Field Experiment Addressing Social Identity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3196-3218, May.
    5. Patricia G. Greene & Candida G. Brush & Myra M. Hart & Patrick Saparito, 2001. "Patterns of venture capital funding: Is gender a factor?," Venture Capital, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 63-83, January.
    6. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    7. Petit, Pascale, 2007. "The effects of age and family constraints on gender hiring discrimination: A field experiment in the French financial sector," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 371-391, June.
    8. Dongil D. Keum & Kelly E. See, 2017. "The Influence of Hierarchy on Idea Generation and Selection in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 653-669, August.
    9. Chris Forman & Anindya Ghose & Batia Wiesenfeld, 2008. "Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 291-313, September.
    10. Graham, John R. & Harvey, Campbell R., 2001. "The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2-3), pages 187-243, May.
    11. Ivo Blohm & Christoph Riedl & Johann Füller & Jan Marco Leimeister, 2016. "Rate or Trade? Identifying Winning Ideas in Open Idea Sourcing," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 27-48, March.
    12. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aurélien Quignon, 2026. "Crowd and the gender gap in evaluating entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 879-900, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henning Piezunka & Oliver Schilke, 2023. "The Dual Function of Organizational Structure: Aggregating and Shaping Individuals’ Votes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 1914-1937, September.
    2. Helge Klapper & Henning Piezunka & Linus Dahlander, 2024. "Peer Evaluations: Evaluating and Being Evaluated," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 1363-1387, July.
    3. Schweisfurth, Tim & Zaggl, Michael A. & Schöttl, Claus P. & Raasch, Christina, 2017. "Hierarchical similarity biases in idea evaluation: A study in enterprise crowdfunding," Kiel Working Papers 2095, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    4. Will Gornall & Ilya A. Strebulaev, 2025. "Gender, Race, and Entrepreneurship: A Randomized Field Experiment on Venture Capitalists and Angels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(6), pages 5308-5327, June.
    5. Beretta, Michela & Deichmann, Dirk & Frederiksen, Lars & Stam, Daan, 2025. "Do you see what I see? How expertise and a decision-maker role influence the recognition and selection of novel ideas," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
    6. Jörg Prokop & Dandan Wang, 2022. "Is there a gender gap in equity-based crowdfunding?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 1219-1244, October.
    7. Bi, Sheng & Liu, Zhiying & Usman, Khalid, 2017. "The influence of online information on investing decisions of reward-based crowdfunding," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 10-18.
    8. repec:osf:socarx:kwdyp_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Alexia Delfino & Miguel Espinosa, 2025. "Value Dissonance at Work," CESifo Working Paper Series 11690, CESifo.
    10. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo, 2016. "Field Experiments on Discrimination," NBER Working Papers 22014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Lawson, Cornelia & Salter, Ammon, 2023. "Exploring the effect of overlapping institutional applications on panel decision-making," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    12. Thomas Görzen & Dennis Kundisch, 2019. "When in Doubt Follow the Crowd: How Idea Quality Moderates the Effect of an Anchor on Idea Evaluation," Working Papers Dissertations 57, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    13. Muradova,Sevilya & Seitz,William Hutchins, 2021. "Gender Discrimination in Hiring : Evidence from an Audit Experiment in Uzbekistan," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9784, The World Bank.
    14. Hongyu Lin, 2026. "Demand Index and Supply Index Based on Principal Component Analysis: Evidence From US Labor Market," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 85(1), pages 163-179, January.
    15. Dao, Hung M. & Lehmann, Selina L. & Acar, Oguz A. & Deichmann, Dirk, 2026. "Not all success is created equal: The innovation costs of extreme success," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1).
    16. Matthew Lee & Laura Huang, 2018. "Gender Bias, Social Impact Framing, and Evaluation of Entrepreneurial Ventures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16, February.
    17. Pollok, Patrick & Amft, André & Diener, Kathleen & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2021. "Knowledge diversity and team creativity: How hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    18. Emiliano Tealde, 2025. "Where You Live Matters: Drug Trade-Related Violence and Discrimination in the Labor Market," Documentos CEDE 2025-40, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    19. Andersson, Ola & Backman, Malin & Bengtsson, Niklas & Engström, Per, 2025. "Are economics students biased against female teachers? Evidence from a randomized, double-blind natural field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    20. Christoph Riedl & Tom Grad & Christopher Lettl, 2024. "Competition and Collaboration in Crowdsourcing Communities: What happens when peers evaluate each other?," Papers 2404.14141, arXiv.org.
    21. Magnus Bygren & Anni Erlandsson & Michael Gähler, 2025. "The When and Whereabouts of Gender Hiring Discrimination," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(2), pages 21582440251, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:44:y:2023:i:10:p:2443-2459. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.