The Idea Endorser's Dilemma: How Status Dynamics Disincentivize Creative Idea Endorsement
Forfattere: Wayne Johnson og Brian J. Lucas
Publisert: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2025
Introduction
Innovation is often associated with major technological breakthroughs, entrepreneurs, and senior executives making bold decisions. In practice, however, many of the most valuable ideas emerge somewhere entirely different within the organization. Employees who work close to customers, users, work processes, and everyday challenges often develop insights that management may not necessarily have access to. These employees observe problems, identify inefficient ways of working, and discover opportunities that can create significant value if they are taken forward within the organization.
The researchers illustrate this through two examples. At LEGOLAND, an employee noticed how children and parents experienced stress and boredom while waiting in line. The suggestion to introduce LEGO play tables in waiting areas helped significantly improve the experience. At Amazon, the idea that later developed into Amazon Prime came from an engineer within the organization. What eventually became one of the company’s most important competitive advantages therefore did not originate in senior 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 those ideas are automatically implemented. Between idea and implementation, there is often a crucial intermediary: the manager. In both hierarchical and less hierarchical organizations, managers act as gatekeepers who determine which ideas are advanced within the organization. A manager’s decision to support or reject an idea therefore becomes a critical point in the innovation process.
The researchers argue that this aspect has received too little attention in innovation research. Much of the research has focused on how ideas emerge or how they are implemented, while the actual decision to support an idea has received less attention. Johnson and Lucas therefore seek to examine what influences managers’ willingness to support employees’ creative proposals. Their central argument is that social status dynamics may provide an important, but often overlooked, explanation.
1.1 Idea Endorsement
The researchers begin by clarifying the distinction between creativity and innovation. Creativity involves developing ideas that are both novel and useful. Innovation involves turning those ideas into practical solutions that create value. Between these two points are a series 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 — the support or approval of an idea. This means that a person with influence or decision-making authority chooses to support the idea and work to move it forward within the organization. In this study, the researchers focus specifically on managers who must evaluate ideas proposed by their employees.
Previous research shows that managers are often more reluctant to support creative ideas than organizations would like to believe. One reason is that managers often think in economic terms and seek to minimize risk. Creative ideas frequently involve uncertainty, and uncertainty is perceived as a risk. As a result, managers may prefer solutions that appear safe and predictable over those 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 managers to choose the familiar over the unfamiliar. As a result, organizations may miss out on valuable innovations even when the ideas themselves have significant potential.
1.2 Idea Endorsement and Social Status
The core of the article lies in the connection between innovation and social status.
The researchers define social status as the degree of respect, recognition, and voluntary influence a person receives from others. Status is therefore not simply about formal position or job title, but about how others perceive a person’s value and importance within the organization.
Previous research has shown that employees who contribute good ideas often gain 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 manager who chooses to support the idea. Many studies have shown that managers can feel threatened by creative employees. Some managers fear that an employee’s success may reduce the distance between themselves and the employee. Others may feel that the employee’s creativity challenges their own position or authority.
Johnson and Lucas, however, take this a step further. They ask not how managers themselves perceive the situation, but how other people evaluate the manager when an idea succeeds or fails. This perspective is central because it concerns how status is actually distributed within organizations, not simply how managers believe it is distributed.
1.3 Negativity Bias and Attribution Search Asymmetry
A central theoretical foundation of the article is research into what psychology refers to as negativity bias. This concept describes people’s tendency to react more strongly to negative events than to positive events of comparable magnitude. Losses are felt more strongly than gains. Criticism is remembered better than praise. Mistakes receive more attention than successes.
The researchers refer to an extensive body of research documenting that people devote more effort to explaining negative outcomes than positive ones. When something goes wrong, there is a natural desire 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 occurs. People are less likely to search for explanations. Success is more readily accepted without further analysis. As a result, the search for causes becomes narrower and more focused.
The researchers argue that the same mechanism applies to innovation and idea
endorsement. When an idea fails, observers begin looking for those responsible. Both the employee who developed the idea and the manager who supported it become potential targets for blame. When the idea succeeds, however, attention is more likely to focus on the person who originally created the idea.
This asymmetry becomes an important starting point for the entire study. If people are more concerned with assigning blame for failure than distributing credit for success, this may have significant consequences for managers’ willingness to support new ideas.
1.4 Creativity Perceptions of Employees (as Generators) and Managers (as Intermediaries)
In this section of the article, the researchers examine how people intuitively perceive the roles of employees and managers.
They argue that employees and managers perform fundamentally different functions within organizations. Employees are often associated with production, problem-solving, and the development of new ideas. Managers, by contrast, are associated with coordination, prioritization, and resource allocation.
When an employee presents a creative idea, observers therefore tend to perceive the employee as the idea’s true originator. Ideas are often seen as an extension of the person who created them. Creative proposals are associated with the employee’s knowledge, personality, expertise, and effort.
The researchers refer to previous research showing that people intuitively assign ownership to ideas. The person who creates an idea is perceived as its natural owner. This also helps explain why it feels particularly unfair when someone else takes credit for an idea they did not develop themselves.
The manager, however, plays a different role. Although the manager’s support may be crucial to turning the idea into reality, the manager is often perceived as an intermediary rather than a creator. The manager’s contribution consists of approving, supporting, or advancing the idea to higher levels of the organization. This makes the manager’s role less visible in the minds of observers.
The researchers draw parallels with previous research showing that coordinating and supporting roles are often undervalued compared with roles that produce tangible results. The person who builds the bridge between the idea and its implementation often receives less attention than the person who created the idea.
This insight is crucial to the researchers’ subsequent argument. If the employee is perceived as the natural source of creativity while the manager is seen as an intermediary, this may influence how credit and blame are distributed when the idea succeeds or fails.
Hypothesis 1: The Asymmetric Status Change Hypothesis
The first hypothesis builds directly on the theory of negativity bias and attributional search.
The researchers argue that managers will be judged more harshly when an idea fails than they will be rewarded when an idea succeeds. When a project goes wrong, observers actively search for people who can be held responsible. Because the manager made the decision to support the idea, that person becomes a natural candidate in this process.
When the idea succeeds, the situation is different. Attention is directed more toward the employee who came up with the idea. As a result, the manager’s positive contribution becomes less visible. The result is that the reward from success is smaller than the cost of failure.
The researchers therefore formulate their first hypothesis:
A manager who supports an idea will lose more status if the idea fails than they 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, the status equation may be far less favorable than many believe.
Hypothesis 2: The Status Distance Hypothesis
The second hypothesis focuses on the relationship between the manager and the employee.
The researchers argue that even when an idea succeeds, the manager will not necessarily benefit the most. Because the employee is perceived as the true originator of the idea, the employee will receive most of the recognition. The manager may receive some positive attention, but considerably less than the employee.
This means that the status difference between the manager and the employee is reduced. The employee moves closer to the manager in terms of status and recognition.
The researchers refer to this as a status distance loss — a reduction in the status gap. Even if the manager does not necessarily lose status in absolute terms, they lose some of the advantage they previously held.
The second hypothesis is therefore:
The manager’s status gain from a successful idea will be smaller than the employee’s status gain, thereby reducing the status distance between them.
The researchers argue that this may help explain why some managers perceive creative employees as threatening, even when those employees’ ideas create value for the organization.
1.5 Moderation by Downward Counterfactual Thinking
In this section, the researchers introduce a possible explanation for how these effects can be mitigated.
They draw on research into counterfactual thinking — that is, people’s tendency to imagine alternative outcomes. When something happens, we often think about how the situation could have turned out differently.
The researchers are particularly interested in what is known as downward counterfactual thinking. This involves reflecting on how the situation could have turned out even worse than it actually did.
In the context of innovation, this means asking observers to consider how the manager could have acted in a way that would have made the outcome significantly worse. By actively directing attention toward the manager’s positive contribution, the manager’s role becomes more visible.
The researchers therefore propose that this type of thought process may reduce the negative effects described in Hypotheses 1 and 2.
Hypothesis 3a and 3b
The third hypothesis focuses precisely on this mechanism. The researchers expect that if observers are encouraged to consider how the manager’s actions actually contributed positively, the status penalty will be reduced and the distribution of status 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
-
To examine their hypotheses, Johnson and Lucas conducted five separate studies. Each study was designed to shed light on different aspects of what they refer to as the “idea endorser’s dilemma.” The researchers wanted not only to determine whether the phenomenon existed, but also to understand the conditions under which it occurs, the psychological mechanisms behind it, and whether managers themselves are aware of these mechanisms.
-
Across all the studies, the researchers measured how people evaluated the status of both the manager and the employee before and after an idea either succeeded or failed. This made it possible to measure changes in status rather than simply measuring status at a single point in time.
-
Study 1 served as the initial test of the main hypotheses. Study 2A examined whether the observer’s position in the organizational hierarchy influenced the evaluations. Study 2B tested the importance of how creative the idea actually was. Study 3 examined the mechanisms behind the findings, while Study 4 investigated whether managers themselves understand these status dynamics.
This research design gives the study considerable strength. Rather than relying on a single investigation, the researchers sought to test the theory from multiple perspectives and under different conditions.
3. Study 1
-
The first study was designed to directly test the two main hypotheses.
-
The researchers recruited nearly 400 full-time employees in the United States through the research platform Prolific Academic. Participants were presented with a story about a manager and an employee. First, they were asked to assess the status of both individuals. They then read about a creative idea proposed by the employee. The idea involved a new method for recycling and reusing disposable diapers — an idea that previous research had shown people perceived as creative.
-
The participants were then randomly assigned to two groups. One group was told that the idea became a major success and generated significant profits for the company. The other group was told that the idea failed and resulted in substantial financial losses. Participants then reassessed the status of both the manager and the employee.
-
The results supported both main hypotheses.
-
First, the study showed that the manager lost more status when the idea failed than the manager gained when the idea succeeded. In other words, the status penalty for failure was greater than the status reward for success. This supported the researchers’ hypothesis of asymmetric status change.
-
Second, the study showed that the employee gained more status than the manager when the idea succeeded. This reduced the status distance between them, providing support for the second hypothesis as well.
-
The researchers concluded that the first study provided clear support for the theory that managers face a dilemma when deciding whether to endorse their employees’ creative proposals.
4. Study 2A
-
A natural question after the first study was whether the results would be the same for all observers.
-
Perhaps managers would evaluate the situation differently from employees? Perhaps senior executives would view innovation differently from people lower down in the organization?
-
To investigate this, the researchers conducted a new study with more than 1,100 participants. This time, participants were asked to imagine themselves in different roles within the organization. Some were asked to view the situation as junior employees. Others were asked to view it as fellow managers. A third group was asked to view it as senior managers.
-
The researchers then conducted the same experiment as in Study 1.
-
The results were remarkably consistent.
-
Regardless of the role participants were assigned, the same patterns emerged. The manager lost more status when the idea failed than they gained when it succeeded, and the employee gained more status than the manager when the idea succeeded.
-
This was an important finding because it showed that the effects were not caused by the particular perspectives of specific groups. The phenomenon appeared to be robust across different levels of the organization.
-
The researchers interpreted this as a sign that the status dynamics they examined may be deeply rooted in how people generally evaluate responsibility, credit, and blame.
5. Study 2B
-
Another question the researchers wanted to investigate was whether the degree of creativity influenced the results.
-
In the first studies, they had used an idea that was perceived as highly creative. But what happens if the idea is only moderately creative?
-
To test this, the researchers developed two different ideas related to cybersecurity. One idea was highly creative and involved technology in which the human body could effectively function 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 rated as significantly more creative than the second.
-
The researchers then conducted the same experimental procedure as before.
-
The results showed that the main pattern remained.
-
Managers lost more status when an idea failed than they gained when it succeeded. Employees gained more status than managers when the idea succeeded. This applied to both highly creative and moderately creative ideas.
-
There was, however, one interesting difference.
-
When the idea was less creative, the status penalty for failure was somewhat weaker. In other words, it was less risky for the manager to support a moderately creative idea than a highly creative one.
-
This makes sense. The more innovative and uncertain an idea appears, the greater the risk if it fails.
-
However, the researchers found no corresponding difference on the success side. The gain from supporting a successful idea was approximately the same regardless of how creative the idea was.
-
This means that the relative risk associated with highly creative ideas is greater than the potential reward.
-
Study 2B therefore strengthened the researchers’ argument that status dynamics may contribute to making managers more cautious when faced with highly innovative proposals.
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 changes in status are driven by how people search for causes when evaluating outcomes. When an idea fails, people look for mistakes and those responsible. When an idea succeeds, attention is directed more toward the person who created the idea. As a result, the employee receives much of the credit, while the manager’s contribution becomes less visible.
-
The researchers therefore wanted to test whether these patterns could be influenced by actively asking observers to reflect on the manager’s contribution.
-
To do this, they conducted a new experiment with more than 1,600 participants. The setup was similar to the previous studies, but with one important difference. Before participants evaluated the status of the manager and the employee, some were asked to answer the following question:
-
How could the manager have acted differently in a way that would have made the outcome significantly worse?
-
-
This type of reflection is known as downward counterfactual thinking. It forces the observer to consider the positive contributions the manager actually made.
-
The results were very interesting.
-
When participants were encouraged to consider the manager’s positive contributions, the status penalty for failure was reduced. At the same time, the difference between the manager’s and the employee’s status gains following success became smaller. In other words, both main effects were weakened.
-
The researchers interpret this as strong support for their explanatory model.
-
The problem does not necessarily lie in the manager’s actual contribution. The problem lies in how people allocate attention when evaluating outcomes. When the manager’s role is made more visible, status evaluations also change.
-
This is an important finding because it shows that these status dynamics are not inevitable. They are influenced by how people think about causes, responsibility, and contributions.
6.2 Discussion
-
The researchers conclude that Study 3 provides strong support for the attributional explanation underlying 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 a facilitator and decision-maker receives less attention.
-
When observers are instead encouraged to reflect on the manager’s contribution, their evaluations become more balanced. This suggests that these status dynamics are largely a result of how people intuitively think about creativity and innovation.
-
The researchers therefore argue that attributional search is an important psychological mechanism behind the idea endorser’s dilemma.
7. Study 4
-
After demonstrating that the phenomenon exists and identifying a possible mechanism, the researchers asked a new question:
-
Do managers themselves understand these status dynamics?
-
Or is this something that exists only in observers’ evaluations?
-
-
Study 4 was designed to investigate whether managers intuitively understand the risks they face when evaluating employees’ ideas.
-
The researchers asked participants to imagine that they were managers who had to decide whether to support an employee’s creative proposal. They then examined how participants expected their own status to be affected by different decisions.
-
The results showed that the managers largely understood these mechanisms.
-
They expected that a failed idea could damage their status.
-
They also expected that a successful idea would not necessarily provide a corresponding reward.
-
Even more interestingly, the managers understood that by rejecting the idea, they could effectively avoid both of these risks.
-
The researchers also found that managers expected another benefit from rejecting ideas.
-
If the idea was stopped, the employee would also lose the opportunity to gain the status associated with a successful innovation. As a result, the manager could preserve or even increase the status distance between themselves and the employee.
-
This is one of the most thought-provoking findings in the entire article.
-
It suggests that some managers may perceive rejecting ideas as socially safer than supporting them — even when those ideas could potentially create value for the organization.
7.1 Discussion
-
Study 4 shows that managers are not unaware of the dilemma.
-
On the contrary, they appear to intuitively understand the status consequences of their decisions.
-
The researchers emphasize that this does not necessarily mean that managers deliberately work against innovation. Rather, the study shows that managers operate in a social environment in which status, recognition, and responsibility play an important role.
-
When supporting new ideas involves risk without a corresponding reward, strong incentives for caution may emerge.
General Discussion
-
When the researchers bring together the results from all five studies, a clear pattern emerges.
-
Managers who support employees’ ideas find themselves in an asymmetric situation.
-
If the idea fails, they risk a significant status penalty.
-
If the idea succeeds, they receive only a limited share of the credit.
-
At the same time, the employee who created the idea often gains more status than the manager.
-
This creates what the researchers refer to as:
-
The Idea Endorser’s Dilemma
-
-
or in Norwegian:
-
Idéstøtterens dilemma.
-
-
Innovation therefore involves not only 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 speak enthusiastically about innovation while many new ideas are stopped along the way.
Practical Implications
-
The researchers argue that organizations should pay attention to how credit and responsibility are distributed.
-
If managers feel that they are blamed for failure but do not receive recognition for success, the organization may unintentionally create a culture that discourages innovation.
-
One possible solution is to make the manager’s role as a facilitator and sponsor of new ideas more visible.
-
Innovation rarely happens because one person alone has a good idea. It happens because several people contribute through different roles. The employee contributes creativity. The manager contributes support, resources, and decision-making authority. Both are necessary for innovation to succeed.
Conclusion
-
Johnson and Lucas conclude that social status dynamics may be an important, but often overlooked, explanation for why managers hesitate to support employees’ creative ideas.
-
Across five studies, they show that managers face a dilemma. They risk losing status if an idea fails, while receiving limited recognition if it succeeds. This asymmetry may make it socially safer to reject ideas than to support them.
-
The article therefore makes an important contribution to our understanding of innovation in organizations. It shifts attention away from the creative employee alone and toward the interaction between employee and manager, showing how status dynamics can influence an organization’s ability to turn good ideas into actual innovation.
Source
Authors: Wayne Johnson and Brian J. Lucas
Published: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2025
Recommended Professional Literature
Sustainable Innovation
A book about how innovation can be developed over the long term through collaboration, organizational culture, and sustainable thinking. Andrew Hargadon explores how organizations build environments that foster continuous learning, creativity, and innovation over time.
Recommended Professional Literature
The Innovator's Dilemma
One of the most influential books on innovation and technological disruption. Clayton Christensen explains why established organizations often struggle to respond to disruptive change, even when they do “everything right.” The book has had a major impact on the fields of innovation, digitalization, and strategic management.
Recommended Professional Literature
The Innovator's Solution
A follow-up to The Innovator’s Dilemma in which Christensen focuses more closely on how organizations can strategically approach innovation and disruptive change. The book combines theory with practical guidance on organizational design, growth, and innovation strategy.