According to new research, building strong bonds between a firm and its employees can be both helpful and harmful for business. Photo via Pexels

In the relations between a company and its workers, is there such a thing as too much love?

Sadly for those enamored by affection, according to professors Balaji R. Koka and Robert E. Hoskisson from Rice Business and professor Eni Gambeta of the University of Cincinnati, the answer is yes.

In a study of innovation efforts across 271 U.S. manufacturing firms, the researchers found that how strong or weak the relationship was between a firm and its employees had a direct impact on not just the amount of innovation, but also the type. When relations were strong, innovation did increase — but only as long as that innovation happened within the business with, say, line extensions. More radical changes, ones that might upend the company culture, were less likely.

The notion of innovation prospering alongside good bonds between a firm and its people seems, of course, to make perfect sense. Happy workers aren't a bad thing. Past research shows that trust, workplace security and a system of rewards for imaginative solutions all affect in-house innovation the way food, vitamins and exercise function on human muscle. That is, they make it stronger.

But what about "distant search" innovation — ideas that aren't created in-house, but brought in from outside?

Though local innovation thrives amid rich company-worker bonds, these same relationships might erode efforts at finding innovation from external sources, the researchers hypothesized. In a culture with low turnover, as is likely the case in a happy firm, a homogenous information pool and a partiality for institutional knowledge could lead to the quest for innovation turning too far inward.

Why does this matter? Well, as the history of business has shown, being too comfortable can be a signal of decline. Radical, culture-changing innovation may be disturbing, but it can also lead to greater strength in the long run.

In the 271 firms the researchers studied, they found that, as they expected, strong company-worker bonds correlated to less exploratory innovation. And as external searches for innovation dwindled, local innovation efforts grew. Simply put, in the happy firms innovation that was unfamiliar and disruptive was less likely. Meanwhile, the firms with the weakest company-worker bonds had four times as many instances of distant-search innovation as those with the strongest bonds.

So what do these findings mean for company leaders?

A supplemental analysis, the researchers write, showed that while stronger employee-company bonds enrich a firm's overall productivity in innovation, they appear to harm a company's long-term valuation. Meanwhile, stronger employee-company relationships have a spillover effect onto other stakeholders (such as stronger customer-firm relationships), which leads to an even stronger focus on local innovation and less emphasis on exploring more disruptive innovation elsewhere.

Valuable distant-search innovation, in other words, appears to be at risk when company culture is healthiest. So how should leaders respond?

Not by returning to feudal work practices, the researchers stress. Intentionally treating employees badly, they note, eventually poisons all avenues of innovation. Instead, thoughtful leaders should keep treating workers with decency, knowing that a healthy culture is the bedrock of a firm's longevity.

But at the same time, the research suggests, managers of harmonious work cultures should anticipate soft spots in the search for outside ideas, and compensate for that. Being comfortable is good; being too comfortable is not. Being open to truly new ideas, even if disruptive, is worth encouraging.

It's not unlike trying to keep up muscle tone after leaving grueling manual work for professional life. No one really wants to go back to breaking rocks or grubbing for tubers. Better to make up for any lost strength by adding something new, like yoga or tai chi, to train new muscles and sharpen concentration at the same time.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom. It's based on research by Balaji R. Koka is an associate professor of strategic management at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University, and Robert E. Hoskisson is George R. Brown Emeritus Professor of Management at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University


Without trust, workplace productivity, reciprocity and cooperation break down, according to this Rice University research. Pexels

Rice University research shows the importance of coworker and leadership trust within businesses

Houston Voices

While U.S. soldiers battled in Vietnam, inside the White House, President Lyndon Johnson grew increasingly suspicious of those closest to him. The legendary political dealmaker now believed that any opposition to the war was part of a conspiracy against him; aides who questioned his policy might be part of it. According to research using newly available interviews and telephone transcripts, Johnson's distrust may have been triggered by the very experience of being in power.

But how, exactly? In a recent paper, Rice Business professor Marlon Mooijman and a team of colleagues delve deeply into the interaction of power and trust, seeking answers about when and why wielding power degrades leaders' belief in those around them.

The question has deep implications not only in politics, but also in business. "Managers must trust employees' willingness to comply with instructions and keep the company's best interest in mind," Mooijman notes. Without that trust, past research shows, workplace productivity, reciprocity and cooperation break down. Leaders who successfully craft trusting bonds with their coworkers and employees, on the other hand, are more effective than those who don't.

To learn why leaders might abandon that trust, Mooijman's team set up four studies. First, though, they had to establish a working definition of trust. Trust, they proposed, is the willingness to be vulnerable to another party's actions, based on the expectation that the other party will perform a specific action important to the truster — even without the truster's ability to monitor or control the activity. Essential to a trusting relationship: the expectation of the other party's goodwill, and the willingness to expose themselves to possible exploitation if that goodwill fails.

Whether you work in an indie coffee shop or a giant software company, most workers can name a leader who lacks that kind of trust. Many also have had the good luck of a leader who isn't lacking in that department. The difference between such managers, Mooijman's team found, may be the stability of their power.

There are plenty of reasons for wanting to keep power, obviously. In relationships, power holders are able to disregard others' wishes and pursue their own. Within the individual, power boosts self-esteem and encourages behaviors such as expressing amusement and happiness. Less obvious, however, is the effect of fearing a loss of power. Leaders whose power feels unstable experience this physically, with changes in heart rate and blood pressure. They have a heightened awareness of colleagues they perceive as threats, and are more prone to divide coworkers and disrupt their alliances.

When power holders or leaders perceive their power to be unstable, it's that prospect of power loss that erodes their trust in those around them, even helpful and often unsuspecting colleagues. So strong is this effect that it occurs even when the loss of power comes with an economic benefit, Mooijman notes. "Unstable power decreases trust," the team found, "regardless of whether we provided participants with a justification of their unstable position."

To reach their conclusions, Mooijman's team first surveyed 206 participants assembled through Amazon's Mechanical Turk software. Each participant was randomly assigned a power ranking (high or low) and asked to imagine being a VP of sales at a mid-sized firm. Some were told that as part of a productivity initiative they would be reassigned to other divisions. The participants were then asked to rank their perception of their power at their firm and their perception of their job stability there. Regardless of whether their job reassignment was explained or not, the researchers found, the participants who perceived their jobs — that is, their power — to be unstable showed more mistrust of their coworkers.

A final study, a field experiment with real life managers and subordinates, reinforced these findings. Managers in positions of relatively high power who perceived their jobs were unstable were more prone to voice distrust about their subordinates.

While instability is built into political careers, Mooijman's findings have practical implications in other industries. For example, the common practice of moving workers between departments, meant to build insight and productivity, may backfire. Instead of strengthening team spirit, the strategy will likely foment distrust. Similarly, at high levels of power, emphasizing job instability with tactics such as high-stakes, winner-take-all performance metrics might be counterproductive.

Power doesn't always erode trust, the researchers found. Leaders who felt their power was secure didn't show the same level of suspicion as those who felt their roles were insecure. But when power seems fragile, the research revealed, even the most seasoned leaders are prone to abandon trust in their colleagues and see work as a battlefield.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom.

Marlon Mooijman is an assistant professor in the management department (organizational behavior division) at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

There's no "I" in team, but getting your coworkers on the same "we" perspective can be tough. Here's why it's important, according to Rice University's research. Pexels

Rice University research shows what your company can learn from gamers about teamwork

Houston Voices

You just got a promotion — along with a brand-new work team whose members barely speak to one another. But first-rate cooperation is essential if you're going to deliver for your client. So you decide to spend a month getting to know each of your workers.

One is competent but bitter, frustrated by years of small mistakes by a colleague, mistakes that add to her own workload. Another, the one making the mistakes, seems so distracted he may as well be working at another company. Others have their own quirks. And to make matters worse, another department is set to merge its employees with your creaky, cranky team in a few months. How are you going to understand all these individuals, much less get them into shape as a unit?

For many managers, training and reading can help provide guidance. Others may hire an outside consultant and resort to team-building activities. But where does that outside expertise — not to mention training and reading — come from? It's based on academic research.

Rice Business professor Utpal Dholakia and colleagues René Algesheimer of the University of Zurich and Richard P. Bagozzi of the University of Michigan are among the scholars updating what we know about the dynamics of group decisions. Starting with classic group behavior theory, the scholars developed a series of sociologically-based models for analyzing small teams.

To better understand the existing shared intentions and attachment between teammates, Dholakia and his colleagues used a novel set of questions to survey 277 teams of computer gamers, each comprised of three people. They ran the survey responses through variations of a classic model called the Key Informant, which depends on the observations of group members about the social relationships inside a group.

Next, the researchers applied a sociological theory called Plural Subject Theory, focused on what's known as "we-attitude." That's exactly what it sounds like: verbally and actively treating an endeavor as a group project.

The core of this theory, the notion that successful teams frequently use collective pronouns when they discuss themselves and cognitively conceive of themselves as "we," has been heavily studied. Groups whose members think in terms of "we" act more cohesively and are measurably more committed to collectively reaching their goal.

To enhance the way these attitudes are measured, Dholakia created multiple variations of a new model. These differ from previous models because they include information not just from a "key informant," but from every member of a group. The researcher asks group members questions about themselves, their impressions of others in the group, their impressions about how others in the group think of each member and impressions about the group as a whole. This longer, more elaborate approach offers fresh insights about a group's shared consciousness — which provides a valuable new research outcome.

The professors found that this revision of classic key informant model generally worked the best of the various group-analysis models they tested — even improving on the original key informant approach. Future researchers, Dholakia notes, should consider the context of the team situation to decide which configuration of members is best to analyze.

So the next time you find yourself nonplussed by a chaotic group dynamic at work, remember you are in time-honored company — and that help is out there. By updating the key informant model, Dholakia and his colleagues have added to the analytical toolbox something that can help whip that team into shape. Whether it's an army of accountants or a network of hospital workers, Dholakia writes, the first step to creating a real team is analyzing which intentions they truly share.

------

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom.

Utpal Dholakia is the George R. Brown Professor of Marketing at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston universities climb the ranks on annual list of most patents issued

top 100

The University of Houston and Rice University have claimed spots on the National Academy of Inventor's Top 100 U.S. Universities Granted Utility Patents.

The list is based on data obtained from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and ranks U.S. academic institutions that are advancing innovation by the number of utility patents issued in the prior year.

Utility patents are among the world’s most valuable assets because they give inventors exclusive commercial rights to produce and use their technology. The universities ranked on the list collectively hold nearly 6,500 patents.

“In the ever-evolving innovation landscape, it is imperative that the U.S. is remaining competitive and at the forefront of today’s emerging research and technologies,” Paul R. Sanberg, president of the NAI, said in a news release. “Ensuring the security of intellectual property through patenting is a crucial component to this and allows those innovations to be effectively moved to market, where they can create valuable societal and economic impact. The Top 100 U.S. list celebrates U.S. universities and their inventive staff and faculty for their dedication in ensuring their innovations and IP are protected.”

The University of Houston System came in at No. 62 with 34 patents, and Rice University claimed the No. 68 spot with 30 patents.

Both universities climbed up the rankings this year. Last year, UH was ranked No. 63 with 27 patents. Rice climbed an impressive 26 spots this year, after ranking No. 94 with 14 patents issued in 2023.

“Granted U.S. utility patents can tremendously help in commercializing the technologies covered by such patents by attracting industry investment and commercial partners on a global level,” Neha Malik, assistant director for intellectual property management in Rice's Office of Technology Transfer, said in a release. “Advancing in this list memorializes Rice’s commitment to support research programs of Rice faculty by generating a path for the university to bring its research to the marketplace.”

Other Texas universities on the list include:

  • No. 3 University of Texas System (234 patents)
  • No. 35 The Texas A&M System (61 patents)
  • No. 73 Texas Tech University System (25 patents)
  • No. 80 Baylor University (20 patents)

The University of California (540 patents) claimed the No. 1 spot again this year, followed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (295 patents), which also placed second for 2024.

First large-scale affordable housing project of 3D-printed homes rises in Houston

Building Blocks

What’s being promoted as the world’s first large-scale affordable housing development built using 3D technology is taking shape in Houston.

Houston-based 3D construction company HiveASMBLD has teamed up with Houston-based Cole Klein Builders and the City of Houston on the Zuri Gardens project. Located near Hobby Airport on Martindale Road, the first 3D-printed home at Zuri Gardens is set to be completed in October.

“Zuri Gardens was born from the frustration of watching hardworking families get priced out of safe, resilient housing. We knew there had to be a better way — and with this project, we’re proving that there is,” says Vanessa Cole, co-founder of Cole Klein Builders.

“By combining visionary design, advanced construction technology, and powerful partnerships, we’re building more than just homes — we’re creating a blueprint for the future of equitable homeownership in Houston and beyond.”

The development is being created for households earning up to 120 percent of the median income in the Houston metro area. For a four-member household in the Houston area, the 120 percent limit in 2025 is $121,300, as set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The 13-acre Zuri Gardens development will feature 80 energy-efficient homes averaging 1,360 square feet. Prices will be in the mid to high $200s. The homes will qualify for up to $125,000 in down payment assistance from the City of Houston.

HiveASMBLD will print two different home designs, each with two-bedroom and two-and-a-half bathroom configurations, along with an office/flex space and a covered patio.

Zuri Gardens home model Houston Courtesy rendering

“The community we envision for Zuri Gardens is modern, safe, and one that residents will be proud to call home. When completed using HiveASMBLD’s innovative technology, this 3D-printed multifamily community will exemplify the future of residential affordable living,” says Timothy Lankau, founder and co-CEO of HiveASMBLD.

Developments like Zuri Gardens are popping up around the country.

“3D-printed homes are revolutionizing the construction industry by making home builds faster, cheaper, and more sustainable,” according to The Zebra, an Austin-based insurance marketplace. “In less than 24 hours, 3D printers can print the foundation and walls for a small home at a fraction of the cost of typical construction.”

U.S. News & World Report explains that unlike a traditional home, a 3D-printed home is printed in place, “just like you’d print a knickknack on your home 3D printer. Layer by layer, proprietary concrete blends are used to build the wall systems of the home in any type of design that a builder can imagine.”

Texas is home to several trailblazing 3D-printed projects.

In the U.S., the first 3D-printed home was built in 2018 in Austin, and the first 3D-printed multistory home was completed in 2023 in Harris County’s Spring Branch neighborhood. Meanwhile, the world’s largest neighborhood of 3D-printed homes is located in the Austin suburb of Georgetown.

Grand View Research predicts the global market for 3D-printed construction will approach $4.2 billion by 2030.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Houston tech company secures $450M NASA contract

space deal

NASA’s Johnson Space Center awarded Houston-based aerospace technology and engineering services company Barrios Technology the Mission Technical Integration Contract (MTIC).

The two-year contract is worth $450 million and will begin Oct. 1, 2025.

Barrios will provide technical and management support to some of NASA’s human spaceflight programs, which include the Orion and Gateway programs, the International Space Station (ISS) and possibly more human spaceflight initiatives.

The contract represents a continuation of Barrios’ Human Space Flight Technical Integration Contract (HSFTIC), which has been in effect since 2020.

“We are incredibly proud to have been selected by NASA to continue working side by side with them in shaping the future of human space exploration,” Kelly Page, president of Barrios Technology, said in a news release.

The contract also includes support for program, business, configuration and data management, information technology, systems engineering and integration, mission integration, safety and mission assurance, and operations according to Barrios.

Barrios will be supported by subcontractors ARES Technical Services Corp., Booz Allen Hamilton, Intuitive Machines, Summit Technologies & Solutions, and TechTrans International (TTI).

“This award is a testament to the passion, hard work, and extraordinary value that our Barrios family brings every single day,” Page added in the release. “This is not just another contract award—it is the continuation of a generational commitment to our NASA customers and their critical missions.”