你看到了我看到的东西吗?专业知识和决策者角色如何影响新想法的识别和选择

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Michela Beretta , Dirk Deichmann , Lars Frederiksen , Daan Stam
{"title":"你看到了我看到的东西吗?专业知识和决策者角色如何影响新想法的识别和选择","authors":"Michela Beretta ,&nbsp;Dirk Deichmann ,&nbsp;Lars Frederiksen ,&nbsp;Daan Stam","doi":"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48466,"journal":{"name":"Research Policy","volume":"54 1","pages":"Article 105139"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do you see what I see? How expertise and a decision-maker role influence the recognition and selection of novel ideas\",\"authors\":\"Michela Beretta ,&nbsp;Dirk Deichmann ,&nbsp;Lars Frederiksen ,&nbsp;Daan Stam\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.respol.2024.105139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Policy\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"Article 105139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001884\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Policy","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733324001884","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然各组织通常认为专业知识有助于评估者评估新想法,但这一观点的经验证据并不一致。我们认为,这是因为之前的研究没有将专业知识的影响与扮演决策者角色的影响区分开来。组织依赖专家来评估创意,但并非每位专家都是决策者。因此,了解专家是否以及何时最适合评估新创意非常重要。我们针对这一问题开展了两项研究。在研究 1 中,我们通过实验考察了不同个体如何识别新颖的想法以及他们是否会选择这些想法。我们发现,虽然专业知识有助于识别和选择新颖的想法,但作为决策者的角色却会阻碍识别和选择。此外,对于那些处于决策者角色的人来说,专业知识对想法选择的影响会减弱。为了扩大研究结果的可推广性,我们进行了研究 2--一项实地研究,采用了从一家国际公司的创意平台收集到的数据,历时 11 个月。我们发现,专业知识和决策者角色对新创意的选择产生了截然不同的影响。我们的研究结果为如何更有效地组织开放式创新或众包背景下的创意评估过程提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do you see what I see? How expertise and a decision-maker role influence the recognition and selection of novel ideas
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Policy
Research Policy MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
6.90%
发文量
182
期刊介绍: Research Policy (RP) articles explore the interaction between innovation, technology, or research, and economic, social, political, and organizational processes, both empirically and theoretically. All RP papers are expected to provide insights with implications for policy or management. Research Policy (RP) is a multidisciplinary journal focused on analyzing, understanding, and effectively addressing the challenges posed by innovation, technology, R&D, and science. This includes activities related to knowledge creation, diffusion, acquisition, and exploitation in the form of new or improved products, processes, or services, across economic, policy, management, organizational, and environmental dimensions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信