IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Evaluating the New: The Contingent Value of a Pro-Innovation Bias

  • Oliver Baumann
  • Dirk Martignoni
Registered author(s):

    It is a central tenet in the literature on organizational change that firms need to explore novel courses of action in order to adapt and survive. Should firms thus exhibit a “pro-innovation bias” when evaluating novel decision alternatives? Or should firms rather assess new opportunities as objectively as possible? Our analysis of a simulation model suggests that a pro-innovation bias can have exploration-enhancing effects that increase long-run performance in complex and stable environments, but can also decrease performance substantially if the bias becomes too pronounced. However, under most other conditions, an unbiased, objective evaluation of novel opportunities is most effective. We also identify a set of contingency factors that strongly affect the value of a pro-innovation bias, which may explain why it is that we see so few firms with such a bias.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by LMU Munich School of Management in its journal Schmalenbach Business Review.

    Volume (Year): 63 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 4 (October)
    Pages: 393-415

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:sbr:abstra:v:63:y:2011:i:4:p:393-415
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 Muenchen
    Phone: 0049 89 2180 2166
    Fax: 0049 89 2180 6327
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sbr:abstra:v:63:y:2011:i:4:p:393-415. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (sbr)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.