16 key cognitive biases that impact creativity and the innovation process
The following presentation on cognitive biases has been provided by the Board of Innovation.
Below is a list of 16 cognitive biases that have a strong impact on creativity and the innovation process. They can originate from personal biases, group dynamics, politics, and many more. For a strong and successful team of innovative thinkers, may it be in the field of applied researches or within startup teams, one should seek to minimise the effects of these biases. This ensures that innovative outputs are not influenced from immediate emotional effects and subjective interference that may result thereby.
A printable PDF poster has been provided by the Board of Innovation. You can download it here.
Confirmation bias.
- We believe what we want to believe by favouring information that confirms preexisting beliefs or preconceptions. This results in looking for creative solutions that confirm our beliefs rather than challenge them. Tread carefully when you “disagree with” or discard evidence brought forward by the team!
Projection bias.
- From behavioural economics, over-predicting future tastes or preferences will match current tastes or preferences. This bias has particular influence as new innovations are conceived in the now and are projected into the future when they enter markets resulting in over value-appreciation of consumer preferences.
Authority bias.
- Favouring authority figure opinions ideas
within innovation teams. This means that
innovative ideas coming from senior team
members trump or better all others, even if
other concepts, ideas and inputs could be
more creative and relevant to problem solving.
Take this into account, especially when you
yourself speak up. Whatever you as a sponsor,
say will carry a lot more weight than any other
opinion.
Loss aversion bias.
- Once a decision has been made, sticking to it
rather than taking risks due to the fear of losing
what you gained in starting something and
wishing to see it finished. We also attach more
value to something once we have made an
emotional investment in it. As a consequence
of effort, time and energy put into creative
thinking, team members can become
emotionally attached to their outcomes. To
remedy this, the 11th commandment: “thou
shalt not fall in love with thy solutions”.
False causality.
- Citing sequential events as evidence the first
caused the second. This can occur within the
Design Thinking empathise phase where you
are intentionally seeking confirmation of
causality between what people say vs. what
they do, leading to taking the wrong problems
or needs forward to solve. Question yourself:
can you really prove causality? Or only the
correlation. Or only sequence?
Action bias.
- When faced with ambiguity favouring doing
something or anything without any prior
analysis even if it is counterproductive. Team
members can feel that they need to take action
regardless of whether it is a good idea or not.
This can be an issue when under time pressure
in strict design sprint workshops for example.
When a team walks into this, question whether
their actions have clear reasoning (why?)
behind them and are based on evidence of
their chosen direction. On the other opposite
end of the spectrum avoid “analysis paralysis”
by encouraging pragmatic decision making
based on partial evidence.
Self serving bias.
- Favouring decisions that enhance self-esteem.
This results in attributing positive events to
oneself and conversely negative events to
others. Within innovation workshops this can
mean that decisions made can be loaded with
personal agenda’s rather than customer and
business logic for the company. Encourage
team members (or yourself) to look at the idea
from different points of view (other
departments, stakeholders, clients, etc.) to truly
gauge its merit objectively.
Framing bias.
- Being influenced by the way in which
information is presented rather than the
information itself. We see this one all the time
particularly when developing prototypes for
pitching as well as in presenting polished
slides. People will avoid risk if presented well
and seek risk if presented poorly meaning that
decision making logic can easily be skewed.
When judging a team’s pitch: are you judging
the content? Or the delivery?
Conformity bias.
- Choices of mass populations influence how we
think, even if against independent personal
judgements. This can result in poor decision
making and lead to groupthink which is
particularly detrimental to creativity as outside
opinions can become suppressed leading to
self- censorship and loss of independent
thought. When you spot group think within a
team, try to gain everyone’s personal
perspective separately first (either through a
silent, written brainstorm or through one on
one conversations) before discussing the topic
in a team setting.
Strategic misrepresentation.
- Knowingly understating the costs and
overstating the benefits. When developing
innovation concepts, ballpark figures and
business model prototypes, teams are prone to
understating the true costs and overstating the
likely benefits in order to get a project
approved (which happens all the time in large
governmental contracting). Over-optimism is
then spotted and challenged by managers
assessing how truly innovative team outcomes
are. Challenge your teams: are they showing
the full image of costs? What about FTE’s and
other time investments?
Bandwagon bias.
- Favouring ideas already adopted by others.
This is especially influential when linked to
authority bias. Bandwagon effect is a common
occurrence we see in workshops. The rate and
speed at which ideas are adopted by others
(through discussion, ...) can significantly
influence the likelihood of those ideas and
concepts being selected by the group and
taken forward. Do you like a teams idea just
because you’ve seen it done before? Are you
favouring ideas just because other banks do
them too?
Ambiguity bias.
- Favouring options where the outcome is more
knowable over those which it is not. This bias
has dire impacts innovation outcomes because
the process is fundamentally risky and
unknown process. If team members
subconsciously favour known known’s, you will
most likely follow know knowns and previously
trodden paths. When disliking an idea or way
of working: think for a second. Is it based on
merit or just because it’s new and unknown?
Pro-innovation bias.
- New innovations should be adopted by all
members society (regardless of the wider
needs) and are pushed-out and accepted
regardless. Novelty and ‘newness’ are seen as
inherently good, regardless of potential
negative impacts (inequality, elitism,
environmental damage etc.) resulting in new
ideas and concepts generated being judged
through somewhat rose tinted spectacles.
Question the idea: are we judging it too much
on its level of novelty or “sexyness”? Without
falling into status quo bias, are we taking all
possible (also negative) impacts into account?
Anchoring bias.
- Being influenced by information that is already
known or that is first shown. This causes preloaded
and determined tunnel vision and
influences final decision making. We
deliberately manipulate team members’ minds
by ‘pre-loading’ them one of our warm-up
exercises to demonstrate this bias at play. The
impact is highly-significant on creative thinking
and outcomes.
Status-quo bias.
- Favouring the current situation or status quo
and maintaining it due to loss aversion (or fear
of losing it) and do nothing as a result. This is a
subtle bias on an emotional level that makes us
reduce risk and prefer what is familiar or “the
way we do things round here” as it is known. It
has severe consequences when seeking out
new ways to creatively solve needs and
problems. When you dislike an idea, ask
yourself: “Is this just me sticking to what I
know?”
Feature positive effect.
- (close links with optimism bias): due to limited
time or resources, people tend to focus on the
‘good’ benefits whilst ignoring negative effects
even when the negative effects are significant.
This is influential when deep-diving into
specific new feature sets for new concepts
(especially when coupled with loss aversion
bias), because it means that teams will
overlook missing information especially when
it is outside expertise resulting in taking ideas
forward with critical flaws.
