The Idea Endorser's Dilemma: How Status Dynamics Disincentivize Creative Idea Endorsement
The Idea Supporter's Dilemma: How Status Mechanisms Can Reduce the Willingness to Support Creative Ideas
Authors: Wayne Johnson and Brian J. Lucas
Published: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2025
Introduction
Innovation is often associated with major technological breakthroughs, entrepreneurs and top executives making bold decisions. In practice, however, many of the most valuable ideas arise elsewhere in the organization. Employees who work closely with customers, users, work processes and daily challenges often develop insights that management does not necessarily have access to. These employees observe problems, see inefficient ways of working and discover opportunities that can create significant value if taken further in the organization.
The researchers illustrate this through two examples. At LEGOLAND, an employee discovered how children and parents experienced stress and boredom while waiting in line. The suggestion to establish LEGO play tables in the waiting areas helped to significantly improve the experience. At Amazon, the idea that later developed into Amazon Prime came from an engineer in the organization. What later became one of the company's most important competitive advantages did not start in the corporate management, but with an employee who saw an opportunity for improvement.
Although employees are often the source of new ideas, this does not mean that the ideas are automatically implemented. Between idea and implementation, there is often a crucial intermediary: the leader. In both hierarchical and less hierarchical organizations, leaders act as gatekeepers who decide which ideas are to be promoted further in the system. Thus, the leader's decision to support or reject an idea becomes a critical point in the innovation process.
The researchers believe that this aspect has received too little attention in innovation research. Much research has focused on how ideas arise or how they are implemented, while the decision to support the idea itself has received less attention. Johnson and Lucas therefore want to investigate what influences managers' willingness to support employees' creative suggestions. Their main claim is that social status mechanisms may be an important but often overlooked explanation.
1.1 Idea Endorsement
1.1 Support for ideas and innovation
The researchers begin by clarifying the difference between creativity and innovation. Creativity is about developing ideas that are both new and useful. Innovation is about translating these ideas into practical solutions that create value. Between these two points, there are a number of steps that must be completed before an idea can become an actual innovation.
One of the most important steps is what the researchers refer to as idea endorsement – support for or approval of an idea. This means that a person with influence or decision-making authority chooses to support the idea and work to ensure that it is carried forward in the organization. In this study, the researchers focus specifically on leaders who have to take a position on ideas from their employees.
Previous research shows that leaders are often more reluctant to support creative ideas than organizations like to believe. One reason is that leaders often think economically and try to minimize risk. Creative ideas often involve uncertainty, and uncertainty is perceived as a risk. As a result, leaders may prefer solutions that seem safe and predictable over solutions that are original and potentially groundbreaking.
The researchers point out that many creative ideas are perceived as less likely to succeed precisely because they are new. This can lead leaders to choose the known over the unknown. The result can be that organizations miss out on valuable innovations even if the ideas initially have great potential.
1.2 Idea Endorsement and Social Status
1.2 Support for ideas and social status
The core of the article lies in the link between innovation and social status.
The researchers define social status as the degree of respect, recognition, and voluntary influence a person receives from other people. Status is therefore not just about formal position or job title, but about how others perceive the person's value and importance in the organization.
Previous research has shown that employees who come up with good ideas often achieve higher status. Creative contributions are seen as valuable, and the employee is perceived as competent, innovative, and important to the organization. This is relatively well documented in the research literature.
Far less research has examined what happens to the leader who chooses to support the idea. Many studies have shown that leaders can feel threatened by creative employees. Some leaders fear that the employee's success may reduce the distance between themselves and the employee. Others may find that the employee's creativity challenges their own position or authority.
Johnson and Lucas, however, go a step further. They ask not how the leader himself experiences the situation, but how other people evaluate the leader when an idea succeeds or fails. This perspective is central because it is about how status is actually distributed in organizations, not just how leaders think it is distributed.
1.3 Negativity Bias and Attribution Search Asymmetry
1.3 Negativity bias and asymmetric search for causes
A central theoretical foundation in the article is research on what is known in psychology as negativity bias. This term describes people's tendency to react more strongly to negative events than to positive events of similar magnitude. Losses are experienced more strongly than gains. Criticism is remembered better than praise. Mistakes receive more attention than successes.
The researchers point to an extensive research literature that documents that people spend more energy explaining negative outcomes than positive outcomes. When something goes wrong, there is a natural need to understand why. Who made the mistake? Who made the decision? Who could have prevented what happened? This triggers a broad search for causes and responsibility.
When the outcome is positive, however, the opposite often happens. People search less for explanations. A success is more easily accepted without further analysis. Thus, the search for causes becomes narrower and more focused.
The researchers believe that the same mechanism applies to innovation and idea support. When an idea fails, observers will start looking for those responsible. Both the employee who developed the idea and the manager who supported it become relevant candidates for blame allocation. When the idea succeeds, however, attention is more focused on the person who created the idea in the first place.
This asymmetry becomes an important starting point for the entire study. If people are more concerned with finding blame for failure than distributing credit for success, this can have significant consequences for leaders' willingness to support new ideas.
1.4 Creativity Perceptions of Employees (as Generators) and Managers (as Intermediaries)
1.4 How employees and managers are perceived in the innovation process
In this part of the article, the researchers examine how people intuitively perceive the roles of employees and managers.
They argue that employees and managers fulfill fundamentally different functions in organizations. Employees are often associated with production, problem solving, and the development of new ideas. Managers, on the other hand, are associated with coordination, prioritization, and resource allocation.
Therefore, when an employee presents a creative idea, observers perceive the employee as the true originator of the idea. Ideas are often seen as an extension of the person who created them. Creative suggestions are associated with the employee's knowledge, personality, expertise, and effort.
The researchers point to previous research that documents that people intuitively attribute ownership to ideas. The person who creates the idea is perceived as its natural owner. This also explains why it is felt to be particularly unfair when others take credit for an idea that they did not develop themselves.
The leader, however, takes on a different role. Although the leader's support can be crucial for the idea to be realized, the leader is often perceived as an intermediary rather than a creator. The leader's contribution consists of approving, supporting or passing on the idea to higher levels in the organization. This makes the leader's role less visible in the minds of observers.
The researchers draw parallels with previous research showing that coordinating and supporting roles are often underestimated compared to roles that create concrete results. The person who bridges the gap between the idea and its implementation often receives less attention than the person who created the idea.
This insight is crucial for the researchers' further argument. If the employee is perceived as the natural source of creativity, while the manager is perceived as an intermediary, this can affect how credit and blame are distributed when the idea succeeds or fails.
Hypothesis 1: The Asymmetric Status Change Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: The hypothesis of asymmetric status change
The first hypothesis builds directly on the theory of negativity bias and attribution search.
The researchers argue that leaders will be judged more harshly when an idea fails than they are rewarded when an idea succeeds. When a project goes wrong, observers will actively look for people to hold accountable. Because the leader made the decision to support the idea, he or she will be a natural candidate in this process.
When the idea succeeds, the situation is different. Attention is directed more towards the employee who came up with the idea. This makes the manager's positive contribution less visible. The result is that the gain from success is less than the cost of failure.
The researchers therefore formulate their first hypothesis:
A leader who supports an idea will lose more status if the idea fails than he or she will gain if the idea succeeds.
This hypothesis challenges a common assumption that managers are rewarded for supporting innovation. The researchers argue that in practice, status accounting may be far less beneficial than many believe.
Hypothesis 2: The Status Distance Hypothesis
Hypothesis 2: The reduced status distance hypothesis
The second hypothesis focuses on the relationship between manager and employee.
The researchers argue that even when an idea is successful, the leader will not necessarily come out on top. Since the employee is perceived as the real originator of the idea, the employee will receive most of the credit. The leader may receive some positive attention, but far less than the employee.
This means that the difference in status between manager and employee is reduced. The employee approaches the manager in status and recognition.
Researchers refer to this as a status distance loss. Although the leader does not necessarily lose status in absolute terms, he or she loses some of the advantage that previously existed.
The second hypothesis therefore reads:
The leader's status gain from a successful idea will be less than the employee's status gain, which reduces the distance between them.
The researchers believe that this may help explain why some managers perceive creative employees as threatening, even when the employee's ideas create value for the organization.
1.5 Moderation by Downward Counterfactual Thinking
1.5 The importance of downward counterfactual thinking
In this section, the researchers introduce a possible explanation for how the effects can be mitigated.
They draw on research on counterfactual thinking – the tendency for people to imagine alternative outcomes. When something happens, we often think about how the situation could have been different.
The researchers are particularly concerned with what is called downward counterfactual thinking. This involves reflecting on how the situation could have been even worse than it actually was.
In the context of innovation, this means that observers are asked to think about how the leader could have acted in a way that would have made the outcome significantly worse. By actively drawing attention to the leader's positive contributions, the leader's role becomes more visible.
The researchers therefore assume that such a thought process can reduce the negative effects described in hypotheses 1 and 2.
Hypotheses 3a and 3b
Hypothesis 3a and 3b
The third hypothesis concerns precisely this mechanism. The researchers expect that if observers are encouraged to think about how the leader's actions actually contributed positively, the status penalty will be smaller and the status distribution will become more balanced.
They therefore formulate two sub-hypotheses:
-
Hypothesis 3a: Downward counterfactual thinking will reduce the effect described in hypothesis 1.
-
Hypothesis 3b: Downward counterfactual thinking will reduce the effect described in hypothesis 2.
2. Overview of Studies
2. Overview of the studies
-
To test their hypotheses, Johnson and Lucas conducted five separate studies. Each study aimed to shed light on different aspects of what they refer to as the “idea sponsor’s dilemma.” The researchers wanted to not only investigate whether the phenomenon existed, but also to understand under what conditions it occurs, what psychological mechanisms lie behind it, and whether leaders themselves are aware of these mechanisms.
-
In all studies, researchers measured how people rated the status of both the leader and the employee before and after an idea either succeeded or failed. This made it possible to measure changes in status rather than just measuring status at a single point in time.
-
Study 1 served as the first test of the main hypotheses. Study 2A examined whether the observer's position in the organizational hierarchy influenced the ratings. Study 2B tested the importance of how creative the idea actually was. Study 3 examined the mechanisms behind the findings, while Study 4 examined whether managers themselves understand these status dynamics.
-
This structure gives the research considerable strength. Instead of relying on a single study, the researchers attempt to test the theory from multiple angles and under different conditions.
3. Study 1
3. Study 1
-
The first study aimed to directly test the two main hypotheses.
-
The researchers recruited nearly 400 full-time American employees through the research platform Prolific Academic. Participants were presented with a story about a manager and an employee. First, participants were asked to assess the status of both individuals. Then, they read about a creative idea that the employee had suggested. The idea was about a new method for recycling and reusing used diapers—an idea that previous research had shown people perceive as creative.
-
After this, the participants were randomly divided into two groups. One group was told that the idea was a great success and contributed to significant profits for the company. The other group was told that the idea was a failure and contributed to large financial losses. The participants then reassessed the status of both the manager and the employee.
-
The results supported both main hypotheses.
-
First, the study showed that the leader lost more status when the idea failed than the leader gained when the idea succeeded. The status penalty for failure was therefore greater than the status reward for success. This supported the researchers' hypothesis of asymmetric status change.
-
Secondly, the study showed that the employee received a greater status gain than the manager when the idea was successful. This led to a reduced status distance between them. The second hypothesis was also thus supported.
-
The researchers concluded that the first study provided clear support for the theory that managers find themselves in a dilemma when considering whether to support employees' creative suggestions.
4. Study 2A
4. Study 2A
-
A natural question after the first study was whether the results would be the same for all observers.
-
Perhaps leaders would assess the situation differently than employees? Perhaps top managers would view innovation differently than people further down the organization?
-
To investigate this, the researchers conducted a new study with over 1,100 participants. This time, the participants were asked to imagine themselves in different roles within the organization. Some were asked to see the situation as junior employees. Others were asked to see it as management colleagues. A third group was asked to see it as senior managers.
-
The researchers then conducted the same experiment as in Study 1.
-
The results were remarkably stable.
-
Regardless of which role the participants were assigned, the same patterns emerged. The leader lost more status in the event of failure than in the event of success, and the employee gained more status than the leader when the idea was successful.
-
This was an important finding because it showed that the effects were not due to particular perspectives of certain groups. The phenomenon appeared to be robust across different levels of the organization.
-
The researchers interpreted this as a sign that the status mechanisms they investigated may be deeply rooted in how people generally assess responsibility, honor, and guilt.
5. Study 2B
5. Study 2B
-
Another question the researchers wanted to investigate was whether the degree of creativity affected the results.
-
In the first studies, they had used an idea that was perceived as highly creative. But what happens if the idea is more moderately creative?
-
To test this, the researchers developed two different ideas in cybersecurity. One idea was very creative and involved a technology where the body could almost act as a password through an implant. The other idea was more traditional and involved access cards and PIN codes. Both ideas were realistic, but the first was considered significantly more creative than the second.
-
The researchers then carried out the same experimental setup as before.
-
The results showed that the main pattern was still present.
-
Leaders lost more status when the idea failed than they gained when it succeeded. Employees gained more status than leaders when the idea succeeded. This was true for both highly creative and moderately creative ideas.
-
There was one interesting difference, however.
-
When the idea was less creative, the status penalty for failure was somewhat weaker. In other words, it was less risky for the leader to support a moderately creative idea than a highly creative idea.
-
This is logical. The more innovative and uncertain an idea appears, the greater the risk if it fails.
-
However, the researchers found no corresponding difference in success. The gain from supporting a successful idea was about the same regardless of how creative the idea was.
-
This means that the risk of highly creative ideas is relatively greater than the gain.
-
Study 2B thus strengthened the researchers' argument that status mechanisms can help make leaders more cautious when faced with highly innovative proposals.
6. Study 3
6. Study 3
-
After the first studies had shown that the phenomenon actually existed, the researchers wanted to investigate why it occurs.
-
Their central theory was that the status changes are due to how people search for causes when evaluating results. When an idea fails, people look for faults and those responsible. When an idea succeeds, attention is directed more towards the person who created the idea. This gives the employee much of the credit, while the leader's contribution becomes less visible.
-
The researchers therefore wanted to test whether these patterns could be influenced if observers were actively asked to reflect on the leader's contribution.
-
To do this, they conducted a new experiment with over 1,600 participants. The design was similar to the previous studies, but with one important difference. Before participants rated their status as managers and employees, some were asked to answer the following questions:
-
How could the leader have acted differently so that the outcome could have been significantly worse?
-
-
This type of reflection is called downward counterfactual thinking. It forces the observer to think through what positive contributions the leader has actually made.
-
The results were very interesting.
-
When participants were encouraged to think about the leader's positive contributions, the status penalty for failure was reduced. At the same time, the difference between the leader's and the employee's status gain for success was reduced. In other words, both main hypotheses were weakened.
-
The researchers interpret this as strong support for their explanatory model.
-
The problem is not necessarily the actual contribution of the leader. The problem is how people allocate attention when assessing results. When the role of the leader is made more visible, status assessments also change.
-
This is an important finding because it shows that status mechanisms are not inevitable. They are influenced by how people think about causes, responsibility, and contributions.
6.2 Discussion
6.2 Discussion of study 3
-
The researchers conclude that Study 3 provides strong support for the attribution explanation that underlies the entire article.
-
When observers spontaneously evaluate an innovation, they focus largely on the employee who came up with the idea. The manager's role as facilitator and decision-maker receives less attention.
-
However, when observers are encouraged to reflect on the leader's contributions, assessments become more balanced, suggesting that status dynamics are largely a result of how people intuitively think about creativity and innovation.
-
The researchers therefore believe that attribution search is an important psychological mechanism behind the idea supporter's dilemma.
7. Study 4
7. Study 4
-
After demonstrating that the phenomenon exists and identifying a possible mechanism, the researchers asked a new question:
-
Do leaders themselves understand these status dynamics?
-
Or is this something that only exists in the judgments of observers?
-
-
Study 4 aimed to investigate whether managers intuitively understand the risks they face when considering employees' ideas.
-
The researchers asked participants to imagine themselves as managers who had to decide on a coworker's creative proposal. They then examined how participants expected their status to be affected by various decisions.
-
The results showed that the leaders largely understood the mechanisms.
-
They expected that a failed idea could damage their status.
-
They also expected that a successful idea would not necessarily yield corresponding rewards.
-
Even more interestingly, the leaders understood that if they rejected the idea, they would effectively avoid both of these risks.
-
The researchers also found that the leaders expected a different gain from rejecting ideas.
-
If the idea was stopped, the employee would also not have the opportunity to achieve the status gain that comes from a successful innovation. Thus, the manager could maintain or even increase the status distance between himself and the employee.
-
This is one of the most thought-provoking findings in the entire article.
-
This suggests that some leaders may perceive it as socially safer to reject ideas than to support them – even when the ideas could potentially create value for the organization.
7.1 Discussion
7.1 Discussion of study 4
-
Study 4 shows that leaders are not unaware of the dilemma.
-
On the contrary, they seem to intuitively understand the status consequences of their decisions.
-
The researchers emphasize that this does not necessarily mean that leaders consciously oppose innovation. Rather, the study shows that leaders operate in a social environment where status, recognition, and responsibility play an important role.
-
When support for new ideas involves risk without corresponding reward, strong incentives for caution can be created.
General Discussion
General discussion
-
When the researchers combine the results from all five studies, a clear pattern emerges.
-
Leaders who support employees' ideas find themselves in an asymmetrical situation.
-
If the idea fails, they risk significant status penalties.
-
If the idea succeeds, they only get a limited share of the credit.
-
At the same time, the employee who created the idea often receives a greater status gain than the manager.
-
This creates what researchers refer to as:
-
The Idea Endorser's Dilemma
-
or in Norwegian:
-
The idea supporter's dilemma.
-
Innovation thus does not only involve financial risk or organizational risk.
-
It also involves social risk.
-
The researchers argue that this social risk may be an important explanation for why organizations often talk warmly about innovation while many new ideas are stopped along the way.
-
Practical Implications
Practical implications
-
The researchers believe that organizations should be aware of how honor and responsibility are distributed.
-
If leaders find themselves blamed for failure but not recognized for success, the organization may inadvertently create a culture that discourages innovation.
-
A possible solution is to highlight the leader's role as facilitator and sponsor of new ideas.
-
Innovation rarely happens because one person has a good idea. It happens because multiple people contribute through different roles. The employee contributes creativity. The manager contributes support, resources, and decision-making power. Both are necessary for innovation to succeed.
Conclusion
Conclusion
-
Johnson and Lucas conclude that social status mechanisms may be an important but often overlooked explanation for why managers hesitate to support employees' creative ideas.
-
Through five studies, they show that leaders face a dilemma. They risk losing status if the idea fails, while receiving limited recognition if the idea succeeds. This asymmetry may make it socially safer to reject ideas than to support them.
-
The article therefore represents an important contribution to the understanding of innovation in organizations. It shifts the focus from the creative employee alone to the interaction between employee and manager, and shows how status dynamics can affect organizations' ability to translate good ideas into actual innovation.
Source
Authors: Wayne Johnson and Brian J. Lucas
Published: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2025
Recommended literature
Sustainable Innovation
A book about how innovation can be developed long-term through collaboration, organizational culture, and sustainable thinking. Andrew Hargadon explores how businesses build environments that stimulate continuous learning, creativity, and innovation over time.
Recommended literature
The Innovator's Dilemma
One of the most influential books on innovation and technological change, Clayton Christensen explains why established businesses often struggle to cope with disruptive change, even when they do “everything right.” The book has gained significant traction in the fields of innovation, digitalization, and strategic management.
Recommended literature
The Innovator's Solution
A follow-up to The Innovator's Dilemma , Christensen focuses more on how businesses can actually work strategically with innovation and disruptive change. The book combines theory with practical advice on organization, growth, and innovation strategy.