Status Bias Inhibits Innovation

Status bias is the term used to describe the unfortunate fact that communications such as ideas, proposals and papers are often judged not on their merits but on the status of the originator. 

Researchers at the University of Innsbruck in Austria carried out a study in which they sent out the same academic paper to three groups of reviewers. The first set of reviewers were told the paper was written by Vernon Smith, winner of the Nobel Memorial prize for Economic Studies. The second group were told the paper was written by Sabiou Inoua, a relatively unknown PhD student. The third group were not told who the author was. In fact, the paper had been authored by Smith and Inoua together. Reviewers were asked to either recommend the paper for publication in an eminent journal or to reject the work. The results were striking.  When they thought it was the work of the eminent Dr Smith, 23% voted to reject the paper. When they were told it was by Inoua, 65% voted against it.  When the author was unknown 48% voted to reject.  The latter can be considered as something of a baseline case. It was the same paper that was reviewed in all three cases, but Dr Smith’s name gave him a significant boost in approval whereas Sabiou Inoua was penalised for being unknown.

Research by the Gender Index in the UK found that firms led by men attracted significantly more start-up funding than those headed by women. Other research showed that male-owned companies received on average seven times more funding than those owned by women.  Many other studies confirm that men in business can have a higher perceived status than women.

Status factors can seriously affect the chance of an idea being accepted or rejected.  Think for a moment about your organization.  What are the chances that a good idea would be acted upon if it came from the CEO?  Pretty good I expect.  What if it came from a department head?  Still good.  What if the very same idea was suggested at a team meeting by a junior accounts clerk? I suspect it might well be ignored.  We see similar factors at play when there is a brainstorm meeting with the big boss in the room – everyone defers to their ideas and people are reluctant to challenge.

If we want to find the best and most effective innovations, then ideas should be judged strictly on their merits and not on their sources. There are ways to do this. Idea management schemes can make ideas anonymous. A good facilitator in a brainstorm meeting can ensure that the CEO’s ideas are mixed with everyone else’s before evaluation. Respect for authority and position can inhibit creativity and innovation. When it comes to ideas we need to lose the hierarchy and status.