Unlike some of the other biases and fallacies we’ve discussed on the show, Appeal to Novelty does not have a single point of origin. No one person created the idea, and no specific individual coined the term.

Research in organizational psychology has explored how businesses handle technological change and system replacement. Studies indicate that organizations sometimes adopt new technologies without clear evidence of improved outcomes.

The rise of tech-bro culture has further amplified this bias, creating an environment where “disruption” and “innovation” have become almost religious concepts. This has led to what many call “innovation theater,” where organizations prioritize the appearance of innovation over actual improvement.

In team environments, the Appeal to Novelty bias often fosters a culture of continuous upheaval. Teams might find themselves adopting new collaboration tools or methodologies every few months, creating what’s known as “change fatigue” among team members.

Product teams may push to add new features not because users demand them, but because the current version seems “outdated.” For instance, a team might introduce a chatbot interface not because it benefits users more than a well-designed FAQ page but because it appears more innovative.

Designers may feel pressured to adopt the latest design trends or interaction patterns, even when simpler, established solutions would better serve their users.

All of this can lead to feature bloat and unnecessary complexity, making the team feel like they are operating in a feature factory. Furthermore, it may confuse users and reduce product effectiveness.

The bias also influences hiring and team composition decisions. Organizations may favor candidates with experience in the latest technologies over those with strong expertise in fundamental skills. This can result in teams that pursue trends but struggle with essential problem-solving and system optimization.

All this isn’t to say that innovation is inherently bad, and old ideas aren’t inherently good. However, it’s important to focus on the core problem your team is facing and determine if your current solution is helping you achieve your goals. If it’s working well, it may not need to change. But if it’s broken, it might be time for something new.