Grasping the true value of ideas is essential for corporate innovation success. When it comes to forecasting the value of one's own innovation ideas, however, people may err systematically. In this paper, we shed light on this ideator's bias, and examine when and why certain ideas are more prone to biased evaluations. Specifically, we argue that biased idea evaluations depend on the self-efficacy that ideators may derive from their specific role and social identity in the firm when generating a specific idea. We test our theoretical predictions of such a situation-specific perspective on overconfidence by using a corporate dataset on process innovations and their valuations. Furthermore, we triangulate our predicted mechanism and rule out alternative explanations through a series of additional interviews and four scenario-based experiments. Consistent with our situation-specific, identity-based account, we find that ideas from employees at a higher (vs. lower) organizational level, and from employees generating ideas in groups (vs. individually) are more prone to an ideator's bias. In doing so, our study helps explain when the ideator's bias prevails in a real-life organizational context, raises caution about some current proxies to identify high-potential ideas, and provides fresh insights to established theories around overconfidence and self-efficacy.For most of us, the tendency toward optimism is unavoidable. And it's unlikely that companies can, or would even want to, remove the organizational pressures that promote optimism. Still, optimism can, and should, be tempered. Simply understanding the sources of overoptimism can help planners challenge assumptions, bring in alternative perspectives, and in general take a balanced view of the future. Lovallo and Kahneman (2003: 61).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.