No abstract

No abstract

Although organizations say new ideas are desirable, investing in original products rather than the "tried and true" can be unsettling for decision-makers. This discomfort may be due, in part, to uncertainty surrounding whether a new idea will prove successful. As such, the originality of a creative idea can be paradoxically viewed both as an asset, driving up appeal, as well as a detrimental risk. To help unpack these relationships, we propose that how an original idea is proposed (i.e., pitched) plays a central role in the support it receives. Guided by signaling theory we examined how pitch quality relates to funding for ideas with varying degrees of originality. In a field sample of 245 Kickstarter crowdfunding campaigns, pitch quality for ideas high in originality predicted investment in such ideas. In a follow-up experimental study, we created high-and low-quality pitches for two products, also varying product originality and product quality. Results highlight the importance of high-quality pitches for highly original ideas that are associated with reductions in uncertainty. Supplemental analyses suggest that high-quality pitches improve enthusiasm for a product as well, highlighting a potential second path of support influence.

Background Stakeholders are often involved in evaluation, such as in the selection of specific research questions and the interpretation of results. Except for the topic of whether stakeholder involvement increases use, a paucity of research exists to guide practice regarding stakeholders. Objectives We address two questions: (1) If a third-party observer knows stakeholders were involved in an evaluation, does that affect the perceived credibility, fairness, and relevance of the evaluation? (2) Among individuals with a possible stake in an evaluation, which stakeholder group(s) do they want to see participate; in particular, do they prefer that multiple stakeholder groups, rather than a single group, participate? Research Design Six studies are reported. All studies address the former question, while Studies 3 to 5 also focus on the latter question. To study effects of stakeholder involvement on third-party views, participants read summaries of ostensible evaluations, with stakeholder involvement noted or not. To examine a priori preferences among potential stakeholders, participants completed a survey about alternative stakeholder group involvement in an evaluation in which they would likely have an interest. Results and Conclusions Across studies, effects of reported stakeholder participation on third-parties’ views were not robust; however, small effects on perceived fairness sometimes, but not always, occurred after stakeholder involvement and its rationales had been made salient. All surveys showed a large preference for the involvement of multiple, rather than single stakeholder groups. We discuss implications for research and practice regarding stakeholder involvement, and for research on evaluation more generally.

No abstract