More from these Authors

• Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2020

  When Do Experts Listen to Other Experts? The Role of Negative Information in Expert Evaluations for Novel Projects

  Jacqueline N. Lane, Misha Teplitskiy, Gary Gray, Hardeep Ranu, Michael Menietti, Eva C. Guinan and Karim R. Lakhani

  The evaluation of novel projects lies at the heart of scientific and technological innovation, and yet literature suggests that this process is subject to inconsistency and potential biases. This paper investigates the role of information sharing among experts as the driver of evaluation decisions. We designed and executed two field experiments in two separate grant funding opportunities at a leading research university to explore evaluators’ receptivity to assessments from other evaluators. Collectively, our experiments mobilized 369 evaluators from seven universities to evaluate 97 projects resulting in 760 proposal-evaluation pairs and over $300,000 in awards. We exogenously varied two key aspects of information sharing: 1) the intellectual distance between each focal evaluator and the other evaluators and 2) the relative valence (positive and negative) of others’ scores, to determine how these treatments affect the focal evaluator’s propensity to change the initial score. Although the intellectual similarity treatment did not yield a measurable effect, we found causal evidence of negativity bias, where evaluators are more likely to lower their scores after seeing critical scores than raise them after seeing better scores. Qualitative coding and topic modeling of the evaluators’ justifications for score changes reveal that exposures to low scores prompted greater attention to uncovering weaknesses, whereas exposures to neutral or high scores were associated with strengths, along with greater emphasis on non-evaluation criteria, such as confidence in one’s judgment. Overall, information sharing among expert evaluators can lead to more conservative allocation decisions that favors protecting against failure than maximizing success.

  Citation:

  Lane, Jacqueline N., Misha Teplitskiy, Gary Gray, Hardeep Ranu, Michael Menietti, Eva C. Guinan, and Karim R. Lakhani. "When Do Experts Listen to Other Experts? The Role of Negative Information in Expert Evaluations for Novel Projects." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 21-007, July 2020.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsSSRN Read Now

  Related

• Article | Health Care Management Review | July–September 2020

  Innovation Contest: Effect of Perceived Support for Learning on Participation

  Olivia Jung, Andrea Blasco and Karim R. Lakhani

  Background: Frontline staff are well positioned to conceive improvement opportunities based on first-hand knowledge of what works and does not work. The innovation contest may be a relevant and useful vehicle to elicit staff ideas. However, the success of the contest likely depends on perceived organizational support for learning; when staff believe that support for learning-oriented culture, practices, and leadership is low, they may be less willing or able to share ideas. Purpose: We examined how staff perception of organizational support for learning affected contest participation, which comprised ideation and evaluation of submitted ideas. Methodology/Approach: The contest held in a hospital cardiac center invited all clinicians and support staff (n = 1,400) to participate. We used the 27-item Learning Organization Survey to measure staff perception of learning-oriented environment, practices and processes, and leadership. Results: Seventy-two frontline staff submitted 138 ideas addressing wide-ranging issues including patient experience, cost of care, workflow, utilization, and access. Two hundred forty-five participated in evaluation. Supportive learning environment predicted participation in ideation and idea evaluation. Perceptions of insufficient experimentation with new ways of working also predicted participation. Conclusion: The contest enabled frontline staff to share input and assess input shared by other staff. Our findings indicate that the contest may serve as a fruitful outlet through which frontline staff can share and learn new ideas, especially for those who feel safe to speak up and believe that new ideas are not tested frequently enough. Practice Implications: The contest’s potential to decentralize innovation may be greater under stronger learning orientation. A highly visible intervention, like the innovation contest, has both benefits and risks. Our findings suggest benefits such as increased engagement with work and community as well as risks such as discontent that could arise if staff suggestions are not acted upon or if there is no desired change after the contest.

  Keywords: contest; innovation; employee engagement; organizational learning; health care; health care delivery; Innovation and Invention; Organizations; Learning; Employees; Perception; Health Care and Treatment;

  Citation:

  Jung, Olivia, Andrea Blasco, and Karim R. Lakhani. "Innovation Contest: Effect of Perceived Support for Learning on Participation." Health Care Management Review 45, no. 3 (July–September 2020): 255–266.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | July 2018 (Revised June 2020)

  The Boston Cranberry Company

  Alan MacCormack

  This case describes the operations of a fictitious company that processes Cranberries. The case contains data that allows students to calculate the bottleneck stage in production, and to evaluate alternative investment options for increasing cranberry processing capacity.

  Keywords: process analysis; operations; production; Plant Management; Operations; Production; Management; Analysis; Performance Capacity; Investment;

  Citation:

  MacCormack, Alan. "The Boston Cranberry Company." Harvard Business School Case 619-009, July 2018. (Revised June 2020.)  View Details

  CiteView DetailsEducatorsPurchase

  Related