Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
M.Sc., Department of Technological Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. Email: salartebyani@ut.ac.ir
2
Associate Professor, Department of Entrepreneurship Development, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. Corresponding Author, Email: chitsaz@ut.ac.ir
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Entrepreneurship Development, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. Email: rezakazemi@ut.ac.ir
4
PhD Student, Department of Entrepreneurship Development, Faculty of Entrepreneurship, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. Email: mohammad.etemadi@ut.ac.ir
Abstract
Entrepreneurship begins with the birth of an idea. Feedback given during this fragile stage can change how original that idea becomes, yet the impact of different tones of verbal feedback is still poorly understood. Guided by self-determination theory, this study tests how praise, critique, and unpredictable feedback alter the originality of new-venture ideas produced by potential entrepreneurs.
Purpose.
The aim of this study is to show that such low-cost, “soft” interventions can still raise or lower the novelty of the ideas that novice founders put on paper. We test whether three simple kinds of comments—praise, critique, and unpredictable messages—change the originality of early venture-ideas, and we explain what this means for training programs that cannot afford long coaching or cash rewards.
Method.
An experimental design with four feedback conditions was conducted. 145 engineering-students who had shown interest in launching a firm volunteered. Random assignment secured baseline equivalence on gender, age, and prior creativity scores. Each participant worked alone on a three-phase ideation task that asked for solutions to poverty, unemployment, and pollution. After every phase the participant watched a 30-second video that gave only one kind of feedback: Praise (“Excellent idea, keep doing this”), Critique (“Your idea is weak, explore deeper”), Unpredictable feedback (praise and critique in no clear order), and Neutral message (“Message received”).
The speaker, length, and enthusiasm were identical in all clips so that only the verbal content varied. Two trained judges, blind to condition, rated every idea on a seven-point originality scale. Inter-rater agreement was high (intraclass correlation=0.82; Cronbach’s α=0.86). Originality scores were not normally distributed; therefore, Kruskal–Wallis tests compared groups, and Friedman tests examined change across phases. Linear slopes and Cohen’s d values illustrated practical size.
Results.
Across the three phases, clear and consistent patterns emerged. Participants who heard praise showed a steady fall in originality (slope=–0.50 points per phase; d=–0.64). Although the praise had a neutral tone, many listeners read it as a sign that the evaluator wanted to steer them, so their sense of autonomy dropped and they searched a narrower idea space. In contrast, the group that received critique recorded the largest rise in originality (slope=+0.50; d=+0.66). The critical words offered no extra guidance, yet their negative valence made participants feel a gap in competence. They responded by looking further afield for new angles that could close this gap. The unpredictable group first hesitated but then achieved a modest gain in novelty (slope = +0.25; d = +0.32). Because the link between effort and evaluation was unclear, external control weakened and the students relied more on self-assessment. The neutral message led to no systematic change. A Kruskal–Wallis statistic of 26.4 (p < 0.001) confirmed that the four distributions differed, and by the third phase the critique group outscored the praise group by roughly one full originality point.
Theoretical implications.
The findings add a simple three-path model to self-determination theory. Verbal comments act through (a) perceived control, (b) perceived competence challenge, and (c) unpredictability. Even polite praise can look controlling when it hints at a fixed standard. Pure critique does not give solutions, yet it signals that competence is in doubt and invites extra effort. Unpredictable comments blur any stable outside standard, so people turn inward for clues. Treating unpredictability as a separate dimension extends current feedback taxonomies and helps explain mixed results in past creativity studies.
Practical implications.
Incubators, accelerators, hackathons, and university courses often rely on quick words to keep large cohorts moving. The present evidence advises mentors to use praise with care, because it may push idea generators to play safe. A direct but respectful challenge such as “Try a less obvious cause” can stimulate wider search without money or equipment. Adding a small dose of randomness—alternating warm support with probing questions—may also prevent early fixation on the first acceptable solution.
Conclusion.
Very short spoken comments, offered at no financial cost, can meaningfully guide or misguide the originality of early venture ideas. Praise that listeners read as controlling may dampen novelty, while a neutral-tone critique can sharpen it by revealing a competence gap. A measure of unpredictability can help as well. Training programs can leverage these low-effort interventions to cultivate more original concepts before any funding pitch is written.
Keywords
Subjects
