Why managers kill good ideas and how the network can help

Managers systematically reject employee innovation, and although they claim they want new thinking, research shows that various social networks can overcome this creativity bias.

A comprehensive study of how managers evaluate novel ideas found that although supervisors often dislike originality due to uncertainty aversion, both the diversity of management networks and employee network centrality significantly increase the chances of fair consideration and implementation of innovative concepts.

These findings, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, help explain why groundbreaking ideas often get stuck in corporate bureaucracy and point to practical solutions that promote organizational innovation.

Innovation Paradox

“Although the boss claims they want to adopt new ideas, they don’t want to bear the uncertainty that comes with it,” explains Vijaya venkataramani.

This contradiction creates what researchers call the “innovation paradox” – organizations urgently need creativity to survive, but the novelty that makes the mind valuable also makes managers uncomfortable. The team found consistent evidence in three studies that managers exhibited systematic bias against the new concept even if these ideas showed clear utility.

There are many historical examples of this model. United Artists rejected the first Star Wars movie because studio executives found the concept too strange. Despite the invention of digital camera technology, Kodak rejected digital camera technology. Xerox executives ignored personal computer design and believed that PCs would never be widely adopted.

The network serves as an innovation catalyst

The study uses experimental operations and field studies to study how social networks affect thought assessments. In a laboratory setting, researchers have a wide variety of new ideas and measure how managers with different network characteristics respond. The on-site study then tracks real product ideas as it moves through the organizational hierarchy.

The results show that there are two key network effects against anti-North Korean bias. First, managers with different recommendation networks (connections covering different functional areas, industries and areas of expertise) are more open to new employee recommendations. The relationship of these cross-functional functions seems to expand cognitive flexibility and reduce the tendency to eliminate strange concepts.

Second, employees’ own network positioning proves equally important. The idea of ​​workers who take center positions in peer recommendation networks was more favorable to assess by managers regardless of the supervisor’s network characteristics.

Confidence signal effect

“Employer network relationships can act as a prism for managers, and they provide signals about the credibility of the idea,” Venkataramani notes. When managers observe that the idea’s employees maintain a diverse internal connection (such as regularly consulting with the R&D team or supply chain experts), they think these workers’ advice is more legitimistic.

This credibility effect is what researchers call the “social proof mechanism”. Managers unconsciously believe that if the employee’s ideas are worthy of attention from colleagues in different departments, then these concepts may have real advantages rather than representing isolated speculation.

Network positioning also has practical functions. Well-connected employees often have a broader organizational knowledge that allows them to develop recommendations that consider a variety of stakeholder perspectives and implementation challenges.

Break the rejection cycle

This study identifies specific strategies to overcome systemic thought rejection:

• Managers should actively cultivate various professional networks through industry associations and cross-functional cooperation.
• Organizations need to provide structured network opportunities, such as research days and interdepartmental lunch meetings
• Employees should develop internal consulting relationships strategically, rather than their direct working groups
• Leaders must recognize and address inherent anti-minority biases during the assessment process

“More interaction with people in different professional fields helps managers become more open,” Venkataramani observed. “So when employees come to them with an idea, managers can see how it works because they can appreciate different ways of solving the same problem.”

Organizational innovation structure

The research results show that innovation success depends on social architecture as much as individual creativity. Organizations that fail to invest in network building infrastructure basically waste their creative human capital by creating barriers to implementation of systems.

Kathryn “Kay” Bartol, co-author of Smith School Professor Emerita, highlights the ongoing nature of the challenge: “But they may also reject this because they are just used to doing things in a specific way and don’t see the value of changing it.”

This study shows that overcoming entrenched resistance to novelty requires intentional structural intervention rather than simply admonishing managers to have a more open mind. Building a diverse network takes time and organizational commitment, but this investment is crucial to maintaining a competitive advantage in a rapidly growing market.

Without innovation, companies cannot survive, making creating an unbiased assessment environment a strategic command rather than a good cultural enhancement. The research provides evidence-based guidance for leaders seeking to transform their organizations into true innovation incubators.

Related