The researchers aimed to explore the presence of biases in evaluating employees’ ideas by managers. They embarked on a field experiment within a prominent multinational technology corporation to assess two distinct methods of idea evaluation: a “blinded” approach, where managers were unaware of the idea proposer’s identity, and a “non-blinded” approach, where they had access to the proposer’s name, department, and location. Contrary to expectations, the study uncovered no discernible bias against women or employees from different locations or departments compared to the evaluator.

Linus Dahlander commented on the findings, noting that evaluators often rely on their knowledge about the idea proposer to indicate its quality, especially when they lack the necessary information, expertise, or resources for a detailed assessment. While previous studies have shown the influence of nepotism and hierarchical structures on idea reception, the current research surprisingly reveals that the gender of the proposer or their shared unit or location with the evaluator does not affect the idea’s acceptance. Dahlander highlights that while biases against these groups may exist in various contexts, they are not universally present in idea evaluation processes.

Given these insights, Dahlander suggests that merely concealing the identity of idea proposers, a process referred to as “blinding,” is insufficient to enhance the fairness of idea evaluations. The study utilised a blind evaluation tool akin to those applied in blind recruitment, auditions, and academic reviews to mitigate potential unconscious biases among evaluators. This approach raised a critical question: does the visibility of an idea proposer’s identity influence the evaluation compared to when the idea is presented anonymously?

The study involved 38 innovation managers from a leading company in the information and communication technology sector, all experienced in assessing early-stage business ideas. They evaluated ideas under blind and non-blind conditions without being informed that their evaluation task was part of a broader experiment. The findings revealed no difference in the evaluation scores for ideas submitted by men and women, indicating that the proposer’s gender did not impact the idea’s perceived merit. Furthermore, the shared department and location of the evaluator and the proposer did not influence the approval likelihood of the idea.

These unexpected findings challenge the widely held belief that blinding is an effective strategy to eliminate biases in idea evaluation. Despite being technically feasible and cost-effective, blinding may come with opportunity costs, such as the potential loss of connections among employees with shared interests or insights into others’ work. The researchers argue that while blinding may be useful in specific contexts to identify and understand biases, it should not be seen as a universal solution for improving idea evaluation processes.

The study concludes by advocating for a cautious and experimental approach to blinding within organisations. This approach is crucial to ascertain the prevalence and nature of biases. The researchers emphasise that biases are not as pervasive as often assumed and that blinding alone cannot significantly enhance the idea evaluation process. This nuanced understanding underscores the importance of identifying and addressing biases through targeted strategies rather than relying on a singular approach like blinding.

More information: Linus Dahlander et al, Blinded by the person? Experimental evidence from idea evaluation, Strategic Management Journal. DOI: 10.1002/smj.3501

Journal information: Strategic Management Journal Provided by ESMT Berlin