IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkwp/2095.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Hierarchical similarity biases in idea evaluation: A study in enterprise crowdfunding

Author

Listed:
  • Schweisfurth, Tim
  • Zaggl, Michael A.
  • Schöttl, Claus P.
  • Raasch, Christina

Abstract

To be successful innovators, organizations must select the best ideas for implementation. Extant research shows that idea selection is distorted by a number of biases, but has failed to consider hierarchy, a key element of organizations. We examine how hierarchical distance between an idea's creator and its evaluator affects evaluation outcomes and thus advance three competing theoretical predictions based on homophily, competition, and status. To test our predictions, we use a unique dataset from an enterprise crowdfunding initiative at Siemens where 265 employees evaluated 77 ideas by allocating corporate funds, resulting in 20,405 evaluation dyads. We find that idea evaluations are more favorable if the idea creator is hierarchically similar to the evaluator, thus supporting the homophily perspective. Idea novelty amplifies this bias, inducing more social evaluations. Our findings are robust to various specifications and tests, and are absent in a subsample where idea creators remained anonymous. We contribute to the idea evaluation research and inform organizational idea selection process designs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkwp:2095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/172003/1/100642153X.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Åstebro & Samir Elhedhli, 2006. "The Effectiveness of Simple Decision Heuristics: Forecasting Commercial Success for Early-Stage Ventures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 395-409, March.
    2. 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.
    3. A. Colin Cameron & Jonah B. Gelbach & Douglas L. Miller, 2011. "Robust Inference With Multiway Clustering," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 238-249, April.
    4. Adam M. Kleinbaum & Toby E. Stuart & Michael L. Tushman, 2013. "Discretion Within Constraint: Homophily and Structure in a Formal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1316-1336, October.
    5. Jerry W. Kim & Brayden G King, 2014. "Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(11), pages 2619-2644, November.
    6. Ray Reagans, 2005. "Preferences, Identity, and Competition: Predicting Tie Strength from Demographic Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1374-1383, September.
    7. William Greene, 2004. "The behaviour of the maximum likelihood estimator of limited dependent variable models in the presence of fixed effects," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 98-119, June.
    8. Elina H. Hwang & Param Vir Singh & Linda Argote, 2015. "Knowledge Sharing in Online Communities: Learning to Cross Geographic and Hierarchical Boundaries," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1593-1611, December.
    9. Anthony M. Marino & Ján Zábojník, 2004. "Internal Competition for Corporate Resources and Incentives in Teams," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(4), pages 710-727, Winter.
    10. Franke, Nikolaus & Gruber, Marc & Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "What you are is what you like--similarity biases in venture capitalists' evaluations of start-up teams," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 802-826, November.
    11. 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.
    12. N. Sharon Hill & Myeong-Gu Seo & Jae Hyeung Kang & M. Susan Taylor, 2012. "Building Employee Commitment to Change Across Organizational Levels: The Influence of Hierarchical Distance and Direct Managers' Transformational Leadership," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 758-777, June.
    13. Ozer, Muammer, 2009. "The roles of product lead-users and product experts in new product evaluation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1340-1349, October.
    14. Olivier Toubia & Laurent Florès, 2007. "Adaptive Idea Screening Using Consumers," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 342-360, 05-06.
    15. 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

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Can AI ever rival human creativity? Here’s what the science says
      by ? in Co.Exist on 2020-02-06 09:00:00

    More about this item

    Keywords

    idea evaluation; idea selection; crowdfunding; hierarchy; homophily; status; competition;

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • M19 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Other
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:ifwkwp:2095. 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: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.