Rice research: Getting too comfortable affects innovation in the workplace

houston voices

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

Property Showcase

Intuitive Machines lands $180M NASA contract for lunar delivery mission

to the moon

NASA has awarded Intuitive Machines a $180.4 million Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) award to deliver science and technology to the moon.

This is the fifth CLPS award the Houston spacetech company has received from NASA, according to a release. It will be the first mission to utilize Intuitive Machines' larger cargo lunar lander, Nova-D.

Known as IM-5, the mission is expected to deliver seven payloads to Mons Malapert, a ridge near the Lunar South Pole, which is a "compelling location for future communications, navigation, and surface infrastructure," according to the release.

“We believe our space infrastructure provides the scalability and flexibility needed to support an increased cadence of new Artemis missions and advance national objectives. This CLPS award accelerates our expansion efforts as we build, connect, and operate the systems powering that infrastructure,” Steve Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines, said in the release. “We look forward to working closely with NASA to deliver mission success on IM-5 and to provide sustained operations and persistent connectivity in the cislunar environment and across the solar system.”

The delivery will include the Australian Space Agency’s lunar rover, known as Roo-ver, and another lunar rover from Honeybee Robotics, a part of Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. Intuitive Machines will also deliver chemical analysis instruments, radiation detectors and other technologies, as well as a capsule named Sanctuary that shows examples of human achievements.

Intuitive Machines previously completed its IM-1 and IM-2 missions, which put the first commercial lunar lander on the moon and achieved the southernmost lunar landing, respectively.

Its IM-3 mission is expected to deliver international payloads to the moon's Reiner Gamma this year. It’s IM-4 mission, funded by a $116.9 million CLPS award, is expected to deliver six science and technology payloads to the Moon’s South Pole in 2027.

The company also announced a $175 million equity investment to fuel growth earlier this month.

TotalEnergies exits U.S. offshore wind sector in $1B federal deal

Energy News

TotalEnergies, a French company whose U.S. headquarters is in Houston, has agreed to redirect nearly $930 million in capital from two offshore wind leases on the East Coast to oil, natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) production.

In its agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior, TotalEnergies has also promised not to develop new offshore wind projects in the U.S. “in light of national security concerns,” according to a department press release.

Federal agency hails ‘landmark agreement’

The Department of the Interior called the deal a “landmark agreement” that will steer capital “from expensive, unreliable offshore wind leases toward affordable, reliable natural gas projects that will provide secure energy for hardworking Americans.”

Renewable energy advocates object to what they believe is the Trump administration’s mischaracterization of offshore wind projects.

Under the Department of the Interior agreement, the federal government will reimburse TotalEnergies on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the leases, up to the amount that the energy company paid.

“Offshore wind is one of the most expensive, unreliable, environmentally disruptive, and subsidy-dependent schemes ever forced on American ratepayers and taxpayers,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in the announcement. “We welcome TotalEnergies’ commitment to developing projects that produce dependable, affordable power to lower Americans' monthly bills while providing secure U.S. baseload power today — and in the future.”

TotalEnergies cites U.S. policy in move away from U.S. wind power

In the news release, Patrick Pouyanné, chairman and CEO of TotalEnergies, says the company was “pleased” to sign the agreement to support the Trump administration’s energy policy.

“Considering that the development of offshore wind projects is not in the country’s interest, we have decided to renounce offshore wind development in the United States, in exchange for the reimbursement of the lease fees,” Pouyanné says.

TotalEnergies redirects capital to LNG, oil, and natural gas

TotalEnergies will use the $928 million it spent on the offshore wind leases for development of a joint venture LNG plant in the Rio Grande Valley, as well as for production of upstream oil in the Gulf of Mexico and for production of shale gas.

“These investments will contribute to supplying Europe with much-needed LNG from the U.S. and provide gas for U.S. data center development. We believe this is a more efficient use of capital in the United States,” Pouyanné says.

TotalEnergies paid $133.3 million for an offshore wind lease at the Carolina Long Bay project off the coast of North Carolina and $795 million in 2022 for a lease covering a 1,545-megawatt commercial offshore wind facility off the coast of New Jersey.

“TotalEnergies’ studies on these leases have shown that offshore wind developments in the United States, unlike those in Europe, are costly and might have a negative impact on power affordability for U.S. consumers,” TotalEnergies said in a company-issued press release. “Since other technologies are available to meet the growing demand for electricity in the United States in a more affordable way, TotalEnergies considers there is no need to allocate capital to this technology in the U.S.”

Since 2022, TotalEnergies has invested nearly $12 billion to promote the development of oil, LNG, and electricity in the U.S. In 2025, TotalEnergies was the No. 1 exporter of LNG from the U.S.

Industry groups push back on offshore wind pullback

The American Clean Energy Association has pushed back on the Trump administration’s characterization of offshore wind projects.

“The offshore wind industry creates thousands of high-quality, good-paying jobs, and is revitalizing American manufacturing supply chains and U.S. shipyards,” Jason Grumet, the association’s CEO, said in December after the Trump administration paused all leases for large-scale offshore wind projects under construction in the U.S. “It is a critical component of our energy security and provides stable, domestic power that helps meet demand and keep costs low.”

Grumet added that President Trump’s “relentless attacks on offshore wind undermine his own economic agenda and needlessly harm American workers and consumers.” He called for passage of federal legislation that would prevent the White House “from picking winners and losers” in the energy sector and “placing political ideology” above Americans’ best interests.

The National Resources Defense Council offered a similar response to the offshore wind leases being paused.

“In its ongoing effort to prop up waning fossil fuels interests, the administration is taking wilder and wilder swings at the clean energy projects this economy needs,” said Pasha Feinberg, the council’s offshore wind strategist. “Investments in energy infrastructure require business certainty. This is the opposite. If the administration thinks the chilling impacts of this action are limited to the clean energy sector, it is sorely mistaken.”

---

This article originally appeared on EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

Houston researcher examines how AI helps and hurts creativity

eye on ai

As artificial intelligence continues to grow and seeps into spaces like art, design and writing, a Houston researcher is examining its effects on creativity.

University of Houston’s Bauer College Assistant Professor Jinghui Hou, in collaboration with scholars around the world, recently published the paper "The Double-Edged Roles of Generative AI in the Creative Process" in the journal Information Systems Research.

Through the research, the team identified two stages of creativity that AI can influence: ideation and implementation.

In one study, Hou and her team developed a lab experiment to examine the impact of a cutting-edge generative AI tool during the brainstorming or ideation phase on a group of designers with varying levels of expertise.

The study showed that nearly all designers who used generative AI during this stage improved in the creativity of their graphic design work, and that the improvements were substantial and consistent across the board.

“In the first stage, we find that for anyone, including ordinary people and expert designers, AI is very helpful because of its computational power,” Hou said in a news release. “It can go beyond the imagination that humans have. For example, if I wanted to imagine a tiger with wings, it would be hard to see that in my head, but AI can do it easily.”

However, a second study examining the implementation stage found that AI affects professionals differently than novice designers.

The study showed that novice designers continued to improve in all aspects of their work when using AI. But more expert designers did not see significant improvements in the implementation stage. Rather, expert designers who used AI spent 57 percent more time completing their work compared with their peers who did not use AI.

“In the implementation stage, we find that AI is still very helpful for those ordinary people, but it creates more work for expert designers,” Hou said in the release. “This is because the designer has years of training to materialize a piece of artwork. We find that AI uses different techniques to produce creative work. For designers, it can become burdensome to revise what AI made.”

Hou’s paper suggests that AI is most helpful in the brainstorming stage, but hopes to see generative AI developers program tailor the technology for expert-level, professional needs.

“It could give users more freedom to fit the technology to their usage pattern and workflow,” Hou added. “In a sense, it's not about people catering to the AI, but the AI technology catering to people."

View All Listings