IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v54y2025i1s0048733324001884.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do you see what I see? How expertise and a decision-maker role influence the recognition and selection of novel ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Beretta, Michela
  • Deichmann, Dirk
  • Frederiksen, Lars
  • Stam, Daan

Abstract

While organizations often assume that expertise helps assessors in evaluating novel ideas, the empirical evidence for this proposition is inconsistent. We suggest that this is because prior studies do not tease out the effect of expertise from that of taking a decision-maker role. Organizations rely on experts to evaluate ideas but not every expert is also a decision-maker. Therefore, understanding whether and when experts are best positioned to evaluate novel ideas is important. We conducted two studies to address this issue. In Study 1, we experimentally examined how different individuals recognize novel ideas and whether or not they select them. We find that while expertise fosters the recognition and selection of novel ideas, being in a decision-maker role hinders it. Moreover, the effects of expertise on idea selection decrease for those in a decision-maker role. To extend the generalizability of our findings, we conducted Study 2—a field study employing data collected from an international firm's ideation platform over the course of 11 months. We find support for the contrasting effects of expertise and decision-maker role on the selection of novel ideas. Our findings suggest how idea evaluation processes in, for instance, open innovation or crowdsourcing contexts can be organized more effectively.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:1:s0048733324001884
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.105139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001884
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105139?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deichmann, Dirk & Gillier, Thomas & Tonellato, Marco, 2021. "Getting on board with new ideas: An analysis of idea commitments on a crowdsourcing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    2. Matthew S. Wood & David W. Williams, 2014. "Opportunity Evaluation as Rule-Based Decision Making," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 573-602, June.
    3. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    4. Gautam Ahuja & Curba Morris Lampert, 2001. "Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 521-543, June.
    5. Matthew P. Mount & Markus Baer & Matthew J. Lupoli, 2021. "Quantum leaps or baby steps? Expertise distance, construal level, and the propensity to invest in novel technological ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(8), pages 1490-1515, August.
    6. Robert A. Burgelman, 1991. "Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation: Theory and Field Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 239-262, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    9. Dirk Deichmann & Jan van den Ende, 2014. "Rising from Failure and Learning from Success: The Role of Past Experience in Radical Initiative Taking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 670-690, June.
    10. Ethan Mollick & Ramana Nanda, 2016. "Wisdom or Madness? Comparing Crowds with Expert Evaluation in Funding the Arts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1533-1553, June.
    11. Dahlander, Linus & Wallin, Martin W., 2006. "A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1243-1259, October.
    12. Dirk Deichmann & Michael Jensen, 2018. "I can do that alone…or not? How idea generators juggle between the pros and cons of teamwork," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 458-475, February.
    13. Lipshitz, Raanan & Strauss, Orna, 1997. "Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 149-163, February.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Robert A. Burgelman, 1983. "Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a Process Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1349-1364, December.
    17. Dean A. Shepherd & Dawn R. DeTienne, 2005. "Prior Knowledge, Potential Financial Reward, and Opportunity Identification," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(1), pages 91-112, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dirk Deichmann & Michael Jensen, 2018. "I can do that alone…or not? How idea generators juggle between the pros and cons of teamwork," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 458-475, February.
    2. Jiang, Lin & Clark, Brent B. & Turban, Daniel B., 2023. "Overcoming the challenge of exploration: How decompartmentalization of internal communication enhances the effect of exploration on employee inventive performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    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 (IfW Kiel).
    4. Brea, Edgar, 2024. "The yin yang of AI: Exploring how commercial and non-commercial orientations shape machine learning innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    5. Deichmann, Dirk & Gillier, Thomas & Tonellato, Marco, 2021. "Getting on board with new ideas: An analysis of idea commitments on a crowdsourcing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    6. Keupp, Marcus Matthias & Gassmann, Oliver, 2013. "Resource constraints as triggers of radical innovation: Longitudinal evidence from the manufacturing sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1457-1468.
    7. 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).
    8. Deichmann, Dirk & Moser, Christine & Birkholz, Julie M. & Nerghes, Adina & Groenewegen, Peter & Wang, Shenghui, 2020. "Ideas with impact: How connectivity shapes idea diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    9. Deyun Yin & Zhao Wu & Kazuki Yokota & Kuniko Matsumoto & Sotaro Shibayama, 2023. "Identify novel elements of knowledge with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-16, June.
    10. Athanasia Lampraki & Christos Kolympiris & Thorsten Grohsjean & Linus Dahlander, 2024. "The new needs friends: Simmelian strangers and the selection of novelty," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 716-744, April.
    11. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    12. Louise Lindbjerg & Theodor Vladasel, 2021. "Hiring entrepreneurs for innovation," Economics Working Papers 1811, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    13. Ron Boschma & Ernest Miguelez & Rosina Moreno & Diego B. Ocampo-Corrales, 2021. "Technological breakthroughs in European regions: the role of related and unrelated combinations," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2118, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2021.
    14. Lettl, Christopher & Rost, Katja & von Wartburg, Iwan, 2009. "Why are some independent inventors 'heroes' and others 'hobbyists'? The moderating role of technological diversity and specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 243-254, March.
    15. Feng Shi & James Evans, 2023. "Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    16. Pankaj C. Patel & Marko Kohtamäki & Vinit Parida & Joakim Wincent, 2015. "Entrepreneurial orientation-as-experimentation and firm performance: The enabling role of absorptive capacity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(11), pages 1739-1749, November.
    17. Xiao, Fenglong & Shen, Yinjie, 2024. "Wolves at the door to the unknown: Innovation search and hedge fund activism," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    18. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    19. Michele Cincera & Ela Ince, 2019. "Types of Innovation and Firm performance," Working Papers TIMES² 2019-032, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    20. Amit Jain & Will Mitchell, 2022. "Specialization as a double‐edged sword: The relationship of scientist specialization with R&D productivity and impact following collaborator change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(5), pages 986-1024, May.

    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:eee:respol:v:54:y:2025:i:1:s0048733324001884. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.