Having diversity of thought among the leadership team is usually regarded as a positive, Houston researchers found that conflict can cause more harm than good. Photo via Getty Images

For the past 40 years, management researchers have assumed that diversity of opinion about company strategy, even when it causes conflict among senior managers, leads to higher-quality strategic decisions and improved firm performance.

It turns out there isn’t evidence to support that belief.

Rice Business Professor Daan Van Knippenberg has spent his career studying topics related to team performance, decision making, diversity and conflict. When a research team led by Codou Samba, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, approached him with an offer to test longstanding assumptions about conflict related to company strategy in senior management teams, he jumped at the opportunity.

In his experience, the business case for diversity is strong, but it comes with caveats. “Diversity of perspectives can lead to better solutions to complex problems, but only when team members are open-minded enough to listen carefully to each other and really integrate another point of view into their decision-making process,” he says. This does not seem to apply to differences in opinion about what company strategy should be.

When managers dig in their heels and refuse to consider and integrate other perspectives, that two-way door of communication slams shut and conflict ensues. “The popular idea that conflict is actually good for firms went against all my knowledge,” says Van Knippenberg. “It’s annoying that this idea has floated around in my field for so long when the evidence really points the other way.”

The team led by Samba, which also included C. Chet Miller, a professor at the University of Houston, conducted a quantitative summary and integration of 78 papers that provide data about strategic dissent — a term used to describe diverging opinions about strategic goals and objectives on senior management teams — and its influence on strategic decision making and firm performance.

Every paper that made a prediction about strategic dissent (only a few did not) posited that strategic dissent leads to better outcomes for firms.

In their paper, “The impact of strategic dissent on organizational outcomes: A meta-analytic integration,” the research team used a deep well of empirical data to demonstrate that the opposite is true. Turning common wisdom on its head, they found that strategic dissent among senior managers actually leads to lower-quality decisions and impaired firm performance.

The authors identify two major reasons for the negative impact of strategic dissent on firm outcomes.

First, strategic dissent causes relational breakdown among senior managers. “If managers walk away from a team meeting thinking they just had a conflict instead of a productive discussion, the outcome is rarely positive,” says Van Knippenberg. The two sides retreat into their respective corners, believing the other side to be wrong and closing their minds to further information.

Second, strategic dissent leads to less relevant information being exchanged among managers. Inevitably, this blockage impairs the decision-making process. If a marketing director and an operations director are at odds, for example, they are less likely to share the marketing- or operations-specific information that is needed to make an optimal team decision.

Teams can benefit from diversity of thought, but it is not always clear what conditions need to be in place for that to happen on senior management teams that disagree about the firm’s strategic direction. CEOs — the leaders of senior management teams — would do well to realize that it takes an effortful investment to foster open-minded discussions of diverging views on the organization’s strategy, to create an environment that encourages members to express dissenting perspectives while absorbing the perspectives of others, and to prevent vested interest and power dynamics from determining the outcomes of such discussions.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Daan Van Knippenberg, the Houston Endowed Professor of Management at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University, C. Chet Miller, the C.T. Bauer Professor of Organizational Studies at C. T. Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston, and Codou Samba, an assistant professor at Haslam College of Business at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

NASA signs on latest tenant for new Exploration Park campus, now underway

space hub

Exploration Park, the 240-acre research and commercial institute at NASA's Johnson Space Center, is ready for launch.

Facilities at the property have broken ground, according to a recent episode of NASA's Houston We Have a Podcast, with a completion date targeted for Q4 2026.

The research park has also added Houston-based KBR to its list of tenants. According to a news release from the Greater Houston Partnership, the human spaceflight and aerospace services company will operate a 45,000-square-foot food innovation lab at Exploration Park. KBR will use the facility to focus on customized food systems, packaging and nutrition for the low Earth orbit economy.

“Exploration Park is designed for companies in the space ecosystem, such as KBR, to develop, produce, and deploy innovative new technologies that support space exploration and commerce,” Simon Shewmaker, head of development at ACMI Properties, the developer behind Exploration Park, said in the GHP release. “This project is moving expeditiously, and we’re thrilled to sign such an innovative partner in KBR, reflecting our shared commitment to building the essential infrastructure of tomorrow for the next generation of space innovators and explorers.”

NASA introduced the concept of a collaborative hub for academic, commercial and international partners focused on spaceflight in 2023. It signed leases with the American Center for Manufacturing and Innovation and the Texas A&M University System for the previously unused space at JSC last year.

“For more than 60 years, NASA Johnson has been the hub of human space exploration,” Vanessa Wyche, NASA Johnson Space Center Director, said in a statement at the time. “This Space Systems Campus will be a significant component within our objectives for a robust and durable space economy that will benefit not only the nation’s efforts to explore the Moon, Mars and the asteroids, but all of humanity as the benefits of space exploration research roll home to Earth.”

Texas A&M is developing the $200 million Texas A&M Space Institute, funded by the Texas Space Commission, at the center of the park. The facility broke ground last year and will focus on academic, government and commercial collaboration, as well as workforce training programs. ACMI is developing the facilities at Exploration Park.

Once completed, Exploration Park is expected to feature at least 20 build-to-suit facilities over at least 1.5 million square feet. It will offer research and development space, laboratories, clean rooms, office space and light manufacturing capabilities for the aerospace, robotics, life support systems, advanced manufacturing and artificial intelligence industries.

According to the GHP, Griffin Partners has also been selected to serve as the co-developer of Exploration Park. Gensler is leading the design and Walter P Moore is overseeing civil engineering.

Houston cleantech co. plans first-of-its-kind sustainable aviation fuel facility

coming soon

Houston-based Syzygy Plasmonics announced plans to develop what it calls the world's first electrified facility to convert biogas into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

The facility, known as NovaSAF 1, will be located in Durazno, Uruguay. It is expected to produce over 350,000 gallons of SAF annually, which would be considered “a breakthrough in cost-effective, scalable clean fuel,” according to the company.

"This is more than just a SAF plant; it's a new model for biogas economics," Trevor Best, CEO of Syzygy Plasmonics, said in a news release. "We're unlocking a global asset class of underutilized biogas sites and turning them into high-value clean fuel hubs without pipelines, costly gas separation, or subsidy dependence.”

The project is backed by long-term feedstock and site agreements with one of Uruguay's largest dairy and agri-energy operations, Estancias del Lago, while the permitting and equipment sourcing are ongoing alongside front-end engineering work led by Kent.

Syzygy says the project will result in a 50 percent higher SAF yield than conventional thermal biogas reforming pathways and will utilize both methane and CO2 naturally found in biogas as feedstocks, eliminating the need for expensive CO2 separation technologies and infrastructure. Additionally, the modular facility will be designed for easy replication in biogas-rich regions.

The new facility is expected to begin commercial operations in Q1 2027 and produce SAF with at least an 80 percent reduction in carbon intensity compared to Jet A fuel. The company says that once fully commercialized the facility will produce SAF at Jet-A fuel cost parity.

“We believe NovaSAF represents one of the few viable pathways to producing SAF at jet parity and successfully decarbonizing air travel,” Best added in the release.

---

This article originally ran on EnergyCapital.

Houston company ranks No. 13 worldwide on Forbes Global 2000 list

World's Biggest Companies

More than 60 Texas-based companies appear on Forbes’ 2025 list of the world’s 2,000 biggest publicly traded companies, and nearly half come from Houston.

Among Texas companies whose stock is publicly traded, Spring-based ExxonMobil is the highest ranked at No. 13 globally.

Rounding out Texas’ top five are Houston-based Chevron (No. 30), Dallas-based AT&T (No. 35), Austin-based Oracle (No. 66), and Austin-based Tesla (No. 69).

Ranking first in the world is New York City-based J.P. Morgan Chase.

Forbes compiled this year’s Global 2000 list using data from FactSet Research to analyze the biggest public companies based on four metrics: sales, profit, assets, and market value.

“The annual Forbes Global 2000 list features the companies shaping today’s global markets and moving them worldwide,” said Hank Tucker, a staff writer at Forbes. “This year’s list showcases how despite a complex geopolitical landscape, globalization has continued to fuel decades of economic growth, with the world’s largest companies more than tripling in size across multiple measures in the past 20 years.”

The U.S. topped the list with 612 companies, followed by China with 317 and Japan with 180.

Here are the rest of the Texas-based companies in the Forbes 2000, grouped by the location of their headquarters and followed by their global ranking.

Houston area

  • ConocoPhillips (No. 105)
  • Phillips 66 (No. 276)
  • SLB (No. 296)
  • EOG Resources (No. 297)
  • Occidental Petroleum (No. 302)
  • Waste Management (No. 351)
  • Kinder Morgan (No. 370)
  • Hewlett Packard Enterprise (No. 379)
  • Baker Hughes (No. 403)
  • Cheniere Energy (No. 415)
  • Corebridge Financial (No. 424)
  • Sysco (No. 448)
  • Halliburton (No. 641)
  • Targa Resources (No. 651)
  • NRG Energy (No. 667)
  • Quanta Services (No. 722)
  • CenterPoint Energy (No. 783)
  • Coterra Energy (No. 1,138)
  • Crown Castle International (No. 1,146)
  • Westlake Corp. (No. 1,199)
  • APA Corp. (No. 1,467)
  • Comfort Systems USA (No. 1,629)
  • Group 1 Automotive (No. 1,653)
  • Talen Energy (No. 1,854)
  • Prosperity Bancshares (No. 1,855)
  • NOV (No. 1,980)

Austin area

  • Dell Technologies (No. 183)
  • Flex (No. 887)
  • Digital Realty Trust (No. 1,063)
  • CrowdStrike (No. 1,490)

Dallas-Fort Worth

  • Caterpillar (No. 118)
  • Charles Schwab (No. 124)
  • McKesson (No. 195)
  • D.R. Horton (No. 365)
  • Texas Instruments (No. 374)
  • Vistra Energy (No. 437)
  • CBRE (No. 582)
  • Kimberly-Clark (No. 639)
  • Tenet Healthcare (No. 691)
  • American Airlines (No. 834)
  • Southwest Airlines (No. 844)
  • Atmos Energy (No. 1,025)
  • Builders FirstSource (No. 1,039)
  • Copart (No. 1,062)
  • Fluor (No. 1,153)
  • Jacobs Solutions (1,232)
  • Globe Life (1,285)
  • AECOM (No. 1,371)
  • Lennox International (No. 1,486)
  • HF Sinclair (No. 1,532)
  • Invitation Homes (No. 1,603)
  • Celanese (No. 1,845)
  • Tyler Technologies (No. 1,942)

San Antonio

  • Valero Energy (No. 397)
  • Cullen/Frost Bankers (No. 1,560)

Midland

  • Diamondback Energy (No. 471)
  • Permian Resources (No. 1,762)
---

A version of this article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.