Innovation is something that not only drives society forward but is something that all organizations strive for in a bid to maintain or enhance their market position. It’s equally well known that those proposing innovations often face intense opposition from those within the status quo.
Research from the University of Utah ponders why some innovations are better able to navigate this minefield while others take years to achieve meaningful adoption. The researchers looked at films from the Sundance Film Festival and product pitches on the TV show Shark Tank. The analysis found that we’re far more likely to disagree on just how valuable an innovation is when it’s less familiar.
Drawn to the familiar
“The problem is people see mixed reviews, interpret that as a bad sign, and then reduce their support or interest,” the researchers explain. “People don’t realize that mixed reviews are to be expected when an idea is new.”
These conflicting evaluations result in missed opportunities. This is because the wide range of opinions is seen as a negative signal, rather than evidence that it’s “creative,” which Johnson defines as something both new and useful.
“The creativity research has been overwhelmingly focused on how you generate an idea. But from my perspective, lack of ideas often isn’t the right problem to solve,” Johnson said. “There are endless ideas out there. The difficulty is getting people to support and approve those ideas. In businesses, the bottleneck is very often the middle manager who rejects new ideas employees have. The idea is there, but it doesn’t get past a desk or a committee. That’s where creativity goes to die.”
The study suggests that evaluations of new ideas differ because evaluators have fewer shared reference points to assess them. This makes judgments more dependent on individual knowledge and personal preferences, as revealed by the findings.
Truly creative
In one of the five studies mentioned in the paper, the researchers analyzed 523 audience reviews of films that debuted at Sundance from 2015 to 2022. They looked at the diversity in evaluations of these films.
These reviews represent the perspectives of people in the film industry, enthusiasts, and seasoned critics. Common belief would suggest that their assessments would be quite similar. However, for more innovative movies, the evaluations were more varied compared to those for more conventional films.
“The conclusion here is that the newer the idea is, the more even the experts are going to disagree about its value,” the researchers explain. “And so we actually can’t count on experts to agree about whether something’s creative because newness makes them disagree about value.”
Entrepreneurial verve
In another study, the researchers examined 1,088 pitches presented over 12 seasons of Shark Tank, a TV show where aspiring entrepreneurs seek approval from real investors acting as judges. A group of participants rated a random selection of pitches on a seven-point scale measuring novelty.
Subsequently, a different set of participants assessed the value of the 250 most novel pitches and the 250 least novel pitches. Once again, the highly novel ideas received a wider range of evaluations.
The researchers suggest that decision-makers should pinpoint the reference points different evaluators are using. They propose focusing on evaluations with the most relevant and valid reference points. This approach can bring order to the chaos of conflicting assessments, making innovation opportunities more apparent.
“People interpret disagreement as risk. The fact that disagreement increases with greater idea newness makes creative ideas seem less valuable,” the authors say. “That throws sand in the gears of innovation.”
Rather than giving up or drawing negative conclusions in the face of disagreements, the advice is to acknowledge that such differences may signify creativity. The recommendation is to prioritize reviews that rely on the most pertinent reference points.
