Why Your Most Creative Ideas Might Not Actually Be Any Riskier

A key first step toward greater innovation might be getting on the same page about evaluation criteria for new business ideas in the first place.

In a 2024 paper published in Nature Human Behavior based on five studies, Wayne Johnson, a researcher at the Utah Eccles School of Business, and Devon Proudfoot, an associate professor of human resource studies at Cornell’s ILR School, explored the question of why people disagree about an idea’s relevance and usefulness.

The researchers found that as ideas become more novel—that is, as they depart more from existing norms and standards—disagreement grows about their potential value.

Furthermore, people interpret greater variability in others’ judgements about an idea’s value as a signal of risk, Johnson and Proudfoot say. Which in turn reduces their willingness to invest in the idea.

Overall, these tendencies highlight one reason creative ideas might fail to gain traction in the social world, according to the researchers. And one important barrier to innovation for leaders to consider in realms from the arts and science to business.

Luckily, there are ways to build consensus around new ideas, however, as outlined by Johnson and Proudfoot in an article for Harvard Business Review.

One is to stop thinking that conflicting feedback about an idea is a sign that it’s a bad one and should be rejected. Imagine, for example, the contention that must have come into the 3M conference room when company chemist Spencer Silver proposed creating a product with an extremely weak adhesive (Silver would go on to invent Post-It notes).

Instead, Johnson and Proudfoot say, looking at disagreement as a signal that an idea features ambiguity rather than negativity could help leaders see hidden opportunity in addition to risk.

Johnson and Proudfoot further propose that leaders look at conflicting feedback as a sign that they need to explore the criteria upon which evaluators are making decisions about an idea’s worth.

The newer an idea is, after all, the harder it is to compare to what already exists. And the less likely it is there will be a common reference point or criteria on which to evaluate it.

Johnson and Proudfoot further encourage leaders to ask a new idea’s evaluators questions such as:

• “What ideas are you comparing this new idea to?”
• “On what grounds did you find those reference points successful or unsuccessful?”
• “What would success look like with this idea?”
• “What would failure look like?”

By finding out what criteria evaluators are using, leaders can better judge how well it maps onto the new proposal, the researchers say. And also assess whether some judgements are biased, such as by evaluators’ moods or other factors that are irrelevant to an idea’s value.

Additionally, by identifying strengths and weaknesses in different perspectives, leaders can use discussion to build consensus around the most pertinent factors to use in evaluating new ideas.

An alternative approach might be to create and disseminate criteria ahead of time, according to Johnson and Proudfoot. Asking evaluators to judge ideas based on specific factors such as logistical strengths and weaknesses, or advantages compared to existing offerings, for example.

Shared reference points such as case studies that relate to the strengths and weaknesses of the new idea could also help bring focus to discussions.

Finally, leaders can also hold separate meetings meant to anchor conversations on specific criteria for evaluating a new idea rather than opening them up to wide-ranging examination.

Focusing one meeting on logistical feasibility or the potential costs of a new idea, for example, and another on efficiencies and client relations impacts could help make feedback more refined and useful.

And might help make your next effort to achieve business innovation even less of a roll of the dice.