Nurturing what is known as “promotion focus” can help managers spot fresh ideas.
Photo by Diego PH on Unsplash

Houston researchers: Here's what it takes to spot a great new idea

houston voices

Having a “promotion focus” really does create a mental lens through which new ideas are more visible.

Key findings:

  • New ideas can be crucially important to businesses, driving innovation and preventing stagnation.
  • Recognizing those ideas, though, isn’t always easy.
  • Nurturing what is known as “promotion focus” can help managers spot fresh ideas.

Whenever the late surgeon Michael DeBakey opened a human chest, he drew on a lifetime of resources: the conviction that heart surgery could and should be vastly improved, the skill to venture beyond medicine’s known horizons and the vision to recognize new ideas in everyone around him, no matter how little formal training they had.

Appreciating new ideas is the heartbeat of business as well as medicine. But innovation is surprisingly hard to recognize. In a pioneering 2017 article, Rice Business Professor Jing Zhou and her colleagues published their findings on the first-ever study of the traits and environments that allow leaders to recognize new ideas.

Recent decades have produced a surge of research looking at how and when employees generate fresh ideas. But almost nothing has been written on another crucial part of workplace creativity: a leader’s ability to appreciate new thinking when she sees it.

Novelty, after all, is what drives company differentiation and competitiveness. Work that springs from new concepts sparks more investigation than work based on worn, already established thought. Companies invest millions to recruit and pay star creatives.

Yet not every leader can spot a fresh idea, and not every workplace brings out that kind of discernment. In four separate studies, Zhou and her coauthors examined exactly what it takes to see a glittering new idea wherever it appears. Their work sets the stage for an entirely new field of future research.

First, though, the team had to define their key terms. “Novelty recognition” is the ability to spot a new idea when someone else presents it. “Promotion focus,” previous research has shown, is a comfort level with new experiences that evokes feelings of adventure and excitement. “Prevention focus” is the opposite trait: the tendency to associate new ideas with danger, and respond to them with caution.

But does having “promotion focus” as opposed to “prevention focus” color the ability to see novelty? To find out, Zhou’s team came up with an ingenious test, artificially inducing these two perspectives through a series of exercises. First, they told 92 undergraduate participants that they would be asked to perform a set of unrelated tasks. Then the subjects guided a fictional mouse through two pencil and paper maze exercises.

While one exercise showed a piece of cheese awaiting the mouse at the end of the maze (the promise of a reward), the other maze depicted a menacing owl nearby (motivation to flee).

Once the participants had traced their way through the mazes with pencils, they were asked to rate the novelty of 33 pictures — nine drawings of space aliens and 24 unrelated images. The students who were prepped to feel an adventurous promotion focus by seeking a reward were much better at spotting the new or different details among these images than the students who’d been cued to have a prevention focus by fleeing a threat.

The conclusion: a promotion focus really does create a mental lens through which new ideas are more visible.

Zhou’s team followed this study with three additional studies, including one that surveyed 44 human resource managers from a variety of companies. For this study, independent coders rated the mission statements of each firm, assessing their cultures as “innovative” or “not innovative.” The HR managers then evaluated a set of written practices — three that had been in use for years, and three new ones that relied on recent technology. The managers from the innovative companies were much better at rating the new HR practices for novelty and creativity. To recognize novelty, in other words, both interior and external environments make a difference.

The implications of the research are groundbreaking. The first ever done on this subject, it opens up a completely new research field with profound questions. Can promotion focus be created? How much of this trait is genetic, and how much based on natural temperament, culture, environment and life experience? Should promotion focus be cultivated in education? If so, what would be the impact? After all, there are important uses for prevention focus, such as corporate security and compliance. Meanwhile, how can workplaces be organized to bring out the best in both kinds of focus?

Leaders eager to put Zhou’s findings to use right away, meanwhile, might look to the real-world model of Michael DeBakey. Practice viewing new ideas as adventures, seek workplaces that actively push innovation and, above all, cultivate the view that every coworker, high or low, is a potential source of glittering new ideas.

---

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom.

Jing Zhou is the Mary Gibbs Jones Professor of Management and Psychology in Organizational Behavior at the Jones Graduate School of Business of Rice University. Zhou, J., Wang, X., Song, J., & Wu, J. (2017). "Is it new? Personal and contextual influences on perceptions of novelty and creativity." Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(2): 180-202.

ChatGPT enhances creativity and problem-solving in ways that traditional search tools can’t match. Photo courtesy of Rice Business Wisdom

Houston researchers find AI provides fresh perspectives to everyday problems

houston voices

We all know ChatGPT has forever changed how we do business. It’s modified how we access information, compose content and analyze data. It’s revolutionized the future of work and education. And it has transformed the way we interact with technology.

Now, thanks to a recent paper by Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung (Rice Business), we also know it’s making us better problem solvers.

Key findings:

  • A recent study finds ChatGPT-generated ideas are deemed an average of 15% more creative than traditional methods.
  • ChatGPT enhances “incremental,” but not “radical,” innovation.
  • ChatGPT boosts creativity in tasks normally associated with human traits, like empathy-based challenges.

According to the study published in Nature Human Behavior by Chung and Byung Cheol Lee (University of Houston), ChatGPT enhances our problem-solving abilities, especially with everyday challenges. Whether coming up with gifts for your teenage niece or pondering what to do with an old tennis racquet, ChatGPT has a unique ability to generate creative ideas.

“Creative problem-solving often requires connecting different concepts in a cohesive way,” Chung says. “ChatGPT excels at this because it pulls from a vast range of data, enabling it to generate new combinations of ideas.”

Can ChatGPT Really Make Us More Creative?

Chung and Lee sought to answer a central question: Can ChatGPT help people think more creatively than traditional search engines? To answer this, they conducted five experiments.

Each experiment asked participants to generate ideas for solving challenges, such as how to repurpose household items. Depending on the experiment, participants were divided into one of two or three groups: one that used ChatGPT; one that used conventional web search tools (e.g., Google); and one that used no external tool at all. The resulting ideas were evaluated by both laypeople and business experts based on two critical aspects of creativity: originality and appropriateness (i.e., practicality).

In one standout experiment, participants were asked to come up with an idea for a dining table that doesn’t exist on the market. The ChatGPT group came up with suggestions like a “rotating table,” a “floating table” and even “a table that adjusts its height based on the dining experience.” According to both judges and experts, the ChatGPT group consistently delivered the most creative solutions.

On average, across all experiments, ideas generated with ChatGPT were rated 15% more creative than those produced by traditional methods. This was true even when tasks were specifically designed to require empathy or involved multiple constraints — tasks we typically assume humans might be better at performing.

However, Chung and Lee also found a caveat: While ChatGPT excels at generating ideas that are “incrementally” new — i.e., building on existing concepts — it struggles to produce “radically” new ideas that break from established patterns. “ChatGPT is an incredible tool for tweaking and improving existing ideas, but when it comes to disruptive innovation, humans still hold the upper hand,” Chung notes.

Charting the Next Steps in AI and Creativity

Chung and Lee’s paper opens the door to many exciting avenues for future study. For example, researchers could explore whether ChatGPT’s creative abilities extend to more complex, high-stakes problem-solving environments. Could AI be harnessed to develop groundbreaking solutions in fields like medicine, engineering or social policy? Understanding the nuances of the collaboration between humans and AI could shape the future of education, work and even (as many people fear) art.

For professionals in creative fields like product design or marketing, the study holds especially significant implications. The ability to rapidly generate fresh ideas can be a game-changer in industries where staying ahead of trends is vital. For now, take a second before you throw out that old tennis racquet. Ask ChatGPT for inspiration — you’ll be surprised at how many ideas it comes up with, and how quickly.

-----

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom. Based on research by Jaeyeon (Jae) Chung and Byung Cheol Lee (University of Houston). Lee and Chung, “An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity.” Nature Human Behavior (2024): https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01953-1.


Grocery purchase data can accurately predict credit risk for individuals without traditional credit scores, potentially broadening the pool of qualified loan applicants. Photo via Unsplash

Houston researchers find alternate data for loan qualification

houston voices

Millions of consumers who apply for a loan to buy a house or car or start a business can’t qualify — even if they’re likely to pay it back. That’s because many lack a key piece of financial information: a credit score.

The problem isn’t just isolated to emerging economies. Exclusion from the financial system is a major issue in the United States, too, where some 45 million adults may be denied access to loans because they don’t have a credit history and are “credit invisible.”

To improve access to loans and peoples’ economic mobility, lenders have started looking into alternative data sources to assess a loan applicant’s risk of defaulting. These include bank account transactions and on-time rental, utility and mobile phone payments.

A new article by Rice Business assistant professor of marketing Jung Youn Lee and colleagues from Notre Dame and Northwestern identifies an even more widespread data source that could broaden the pool of qualified applicants: grocery store receipts.

As metrics for predicting credit risk, the researchers found that the types of food, drinks and other products consumers buy, and how they buy them, are just as good as a traditional credit score.

“There could be privacy concerns when you think about it in practice,” Lee says, “so the consumer should really have the option and be empowered to do it.” One approach could be to let consumers opt in to a lender looking at their grocery data as a second chance at approval rather than automatically enrolling them and offering an opt-out.

To arrive at their findings, the researchers analyzed grocery transaction data from a multinational conglomerate headquartered in a Middle Eastern country that owns a credit card issuer and a large-scale supermarket chain. Many people in the country are unbanked. They merged the supermarket’s loyalty card data and issuer’s credit card spending and payment history numbers, resulting in data on 30,089 consumers from January 2017 to June 2019. About half had a credit score, 81% always paid their credit card bills on time, 12% missed payments periodically, and 7% defaulted.

The researchers first created a model to establish a connection between grocery purchasing behavior and credit risk. They found that people who bought healthy foods like fresh milk, yogurt and fruits and vegetables were more likely to pay their bills on time, while shoppers who purchased cigarettes, energy drinks and canned meat tended to miss payments. This held true for “observationally equivalent” individuals — those with similar income, occupation, employment status and number of dependents. In other words, when two people look demographically identical, the study still finds that they have different credit risks.

People’s grocery-buying behaviors play a factor in their likelihood to pay their bills on time, too. For example, cardholders who consistently paid their credit card bill on time were more likely to shop on the same day of the week, spend similar amounts across months and buy the same brands and product categories.

The researchers then built two credit-scoring predictive algorithms to simulate a lender’s decision of whether or not to approve a credit card applicant. One excludes grocery data inputs, and the other includes them (in addition to standard data). Incorporating grocery data into their decision-making process improved risk assessment of an applicant by a factor of 3.11% to 7.66%.

Furthermore, the lender in the simulation experienced a 1.46% profit increase when the researchers implemented a two-stage decision-making process — first, screening applicants using only standard data, then adding grocery data as an additional layer.

One caveat to these findings, Lee and her colleagues warn, is that the benefit of grocery data falls sharply as traditional credit scores or relationship-specific credit histories become available. This suggests the data could be most helpful for consumers new to credit.

Overall, however, this could be a win-win scenario for both consumers and lenders. “People excluded from the traditional credit system gain access to loans,” Lee says, “and lenders become more profitable by approving more creditworthy people.”

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom based on research by Rice University's Jung Youn Lee, Joonhyuk Yang (Notre Dame) and Eric Anderson (Northwestern). “Using Grocery Data for Credit Decisions.” Forthcoming in Management Science. 2024: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.02364.


Using biased statistics in hiring makes it more difficult to predict job performance. Photo via Getty Images

Houston research finds race, gender ineffective predictors of employee productivity

houston voices

The Latin phrase scientia potentia est translates to “knowledge is power.”

In the world of business, there’s a school of thought that takes “knowledge is power” to an extreme. It’s called statistical discrimination theory. This framework suggests that companies should use all available information to make decisions and maximize profits, including the group characteristics of potential hires — such as race and gender — that correlate with (but do not cause) productivity.

Statistical discrimination theory suggests that if there's a choice between equally qualified candidates — let's say, a man and a woman — the hiring manager should use gender-based statistics to the company's benefit. If there's data showing that male employees typically have larger networks and more access to professional development opportunities, the hiring manager should select the male candidate, believing such information points to a more productive employee.

Recent research suggests otherwise.

A peer-reviewed study out of Rice Business and Michigan Ross undercuts the premise of statistical discrimination theory. According to researchers Diana Jue-Rajasingh (Rice Business), Felipe A. Csaszar (Michigan) and Michael Jensen (Michigan), hiring outcomes actually improve when decision-makers ignore statistics that correlate employee productivity with characteristics like race and gender.

Here's Why “Less is More”

Statistical discrimination theory assumes a correlation between individual productivity and group characteristics (e.g., race and gender). But Jue-Rajasingh and her colleagues highlight three factors that undercut that assumption:

  • Environmental uncertainty
  • Biased interpretations of productivity
  • Decision-maker inconsistency

This third factor plays the biggest role in the researchers' model. “For statistical discrimination theory to work,” Jue-Rajasingh says, “it must assume that managers are infallible and decision-making conditions are optimal.”

Indeed, when accounting for uncertainty, inconsistency and interpretive bias, the researchers found that using information about group characteristics actually reduces the accuracy of job performance predictions.

That’s because the more information you include in the decision-making process, the more complex that process becomes. Complex processes make it more difficult to navigate uncertain environments and create more space for managers to make mistakes. It seems counterintuitive, but when firms use less information and keep their processes simple, they are more accurate in predicting the productivity of their hires.

The less-is-more strategy is known as a “heuristic.” Heuristics are simple, efficient rules or mental shortcuts that help decision-makers navigate complex environments and make judgments more quickly and with less information. In the context of this study, published by Organization Science, the heuristic approach suggests that by focusing on fewer, more relevant cues, managers can make better hiring decisions.

Two Types of Information "Cues"

The “less is more” heuristic works better than statistical discrimination theory largely because decision makers are inconsistent in how they weight the available information. To factor for inconsistency, Jue-Rajasingh and her colleagues created a model that reflects the “noise” of external factors, such as a decision maker’s mood or the ambiguity of certain information.

The model breaks the decision-making process into two main components: the environment and the decision maker.

In the environment component, there are two types of information, or “cues,” about job candidates. First, there’s the unobservable, causal cue (e.g., programming ability), which directly relates to job performance. Second, there's the observable, discriminatory cue (e.g., race or gender), which doesn't affect how well someone can do the job but, because of how society has historically worked, might statistically seem connected to job skills.

Even if the decision maker knows they shouldn't rely too much on information like race or gender, they might still use it to predict productivity. But job descriptions change, contexts are unstable, and people don’t consistently consider all variables. Between the inconsistency of decision-makers and the environmental noise created by discriminatory cues, it’s ultimately counterproductive to consider this information.

The Bottom Line

Jue-Rajasingh and her colleagues find that avoiding gender- and race-based statistics improves the accuracy of job performance predictions. The fewer discriminatory cues decision-makers rely on, the less likely their process will lead to errors.

That said: With the advent of AI, it could become easier to justify statistical discrimination theory. The element of human inconsistency would be removed from the equation. But because AI is often rooted in biased data, its use in hiring must be carefully examined to prevent worsening inequity.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom based on research by Rice University's Diana Jue-Rajasingh, Felipe A. Csaszar (Michigan) and Michael Jensen (Michigan). For more, see Csaszar, et al. “When Less is More: How Statistical Discrimination Can Decrease Predictive Accuracy.”

As corporate debt markets continue to grow in importance, it will become crucial for investors and regulators to understand the nuanced factors influencing their liquidity. Photo via Getty Images

Rice research on bond and stock market differences, earnings variations

houston voices

At the end of every quarter, publicly traded companies announce their profits and losses in an earnings report. These updates provide insight into a company’s performance and, in theory, give investors and shareholders clarity on whether to buy, sell or hold. If earnings are good, the stock price may soar. If they’re down, the price might plunge.

However, the implications for the stock price may not be immediately clear to all investors. In the face of this uncertainty, sellers will ask for high prices, and buyers will offer low ones, creating a significant “bid-ask spread.” When this happens, it becomes more costly to trade, and the stock becomes less liquid.

This is a well-documented effect on equity stock markets. However, according to research by Stefan Huber (Rice Business), Chongho Kim (Seoul National University) and Edward M. Watts (Yale SOM), the corporate bond market responds differently to earnings news. This is because bond markets differ from stock markets in a significant way.

Stocks v. Bonds: What Happens When Earnings Are Announced?

Equities are usually traded on centralized exchanges (e.g., New York Stock Exchange). The exchange automatically queues up buyers and sellers according to the quote they’ve entered. Trades are executed electronically, and the parties involved are typically anonymous. A prospective buyer might purchase Microsoft shares from someone drawing down their 401(k) — or they could be buying from Bill Gates himself.

Corporate bond markets work differently. They are “over-the-counter” (OTC) markets, meaning a buyer or seller needs to find a counterparty to trade with. This involves getting quotes from and negotiating with potential counterparties. This is an inherent friction in bond trading that results in much higher costs of trading in the form of wider bid-ask spreads.

Here’s what Huber and his colleagues learned from the research: Earnings announcements prompt many investors to trade. And on OTC markets, potential buyers and sellers become easier to find and negotiate with.

A Stronger Bargaining Position for Bonds

According to Huber, “When earnings information comes out, a lot of people want to trade. In bond markets, that makes it much easier to find someone to trade with. The more options you have to trade, the stronger your bargaining position becomes, and the lower your trading costs go.”

He compares the process to shopping in a market with a flexible approach to pricing.

“Let's say you're at a farmers market and you want to buy an apple,” Huber says. “If there is only one seller, you buy the apple from that person. They can ask for whatever price they want. But if there are multiple sellers, you can ask around, and there is potential to get a better price. The price you get depends on the number of options you have in trading partners.”

What’s at Stake?

Although bonds receive less attention than equities, the stakes are high. There is about $10 trillion in outstanding corporate debt in the U.S., and more than $34 billion in average daily trading volume.

A detailed record of bond trades is available from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which requires that trades be reported via their Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE).

The study from Huber and co-authors uses an enhanced version of TRACE to examine trades executed between 2002 and 2020. The team analyzed the thirty-day periods before and after earnings announcements to gather data about volume, bid-ask spreads and other measures of liquidity.

They find that, like on the stock market, there are more investors and broker-dealers trading bonds around earnings announcements. However, unlike on the stock market, transaction costs for bonds decrease by 6 to 7 percent in the form of bid-ask spreads.

What Sets This Research Apart?

“Taking a purely information asymmetry-based view would predict that what happens to stock liquidity would also happen to bonds,” Huber says. “A piece of information drops, and some people are better able to work with it, so others price protect, and bid-ask spreads and the cost of trading go up.”

“But if you consider the search and bargaining frictions in bond markets, you get a more nuanced picture. While information asymmetry increases, like it does on stock markets, the information prompts more investors into bond trading, which makes it easier to find counterparties and get better transaction prices. Consequently, bid-ask spreads go down. This search and bargaining friction does not really exist on equities exchanges. But we cannot ignore it in OTC markets.”

As corporate debt markets continue to grow in importance, it will become crucial for investors and regulators to understand the nuanced factors influencing their liquidity. This study provides a solid foundation for future research.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom. For more, see “Earnings News and Over-the-Counter Markets.” Journal of Accounting Research 62.2 (2024): 701-35.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

12+ can't-miss Houston business and innovation events for September

where to be

Editor's note: Houston's business and innovation events are back in session. From the return of Houston Energy and Climate Startup Week to a send-off for an impactful innovation leader and several health conferences, here's what not to miss and how to register. Please note: this article may be updated to include additional event listings.

Sept. 5-7 — Houston Hackathon

Impact Hub Houston is bringing back the Houston Hacakthon this month, where developers of all skill sets can work together to propose solutions to some of the Bayou City’s most pressing issues. The event is focused on ideating, designing, and developing both policy-based and tech solutions to improve Houston.

This event starts Saturday, Sept. 5, at noon at the Ion. Register here.

Sept. 8 — Community Celebration: A Send-Off for Paul Cherukuri

Come out to the Ion to celebrate Paul Cherukuri, Rice’s first chief innovation officer, whose visionary leadership has left a lasting impact on Houston’s innovation ecosystem. Cherukuri is leaving the university to accept a position at the University of Virginia. Hear remarks from Cherukuri and enjoy a networking reception following the talk.

This event is Monday, Sept. 8, from 2:30-5:00 p.m. at the Ion. Register here

Sept. 11 — Houston Methodist Leadership Speaker Series – Dr. Evan Collins

The Houston Methodist Tech Hub at the Ion will host its recurring leadership speaker series, this time featuring Dr. Evan Collins, chief of the Houston Methodist Hand & Upper Extremity Center at Houston Methodist and the Houston Methodist Center for Innovation's first innovator-in-residency. Collins will present on the creative process of innovation.

This event is Thursday, Sept. 11, from 4:45-6 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

Sept. 12 — Future of Space

The Greater Houston Partnership’s 2025 Future of Space event will feature a keynote address by Vanessa E. Wyche, acting associate administrator of NASA. In her new role, Wyche serves as NASA’s chief operating officer, leading more than 18,000 employees and overseeing an annual budget exceeding $25 billion. Discussions will highlight how Houston’s space ecosystem is driving economic growth, technological innovation and new opportunities across the region and the nation.

The event is Friday, Sept. 12, from noon-1:30 p.m. at the Royal Sonesta. Find more information here.

Sept. 15-19 — Houston Energy and Climate Startup Week

Houston Energy and Climate Startup Week returns for its second year, with panels, happy hours and pitch days focused on the energy transition. The week features major events, including the Energytech Nexus Pilotathon, the Rice Alliance Energy Tech Venture Forum, Halliburton Labs Finalists Pitch Day and many others. See a preview of the week on our sister site EnergyCapitalHTX.com and learn more in the event listings below.

This event starts Monday, Sept. 15. The Ion District will host many of the week's events. Find more information here.

Sept. 16 — Energytech Nexus Pilotathon

Grab breakfast and take in keynotes and panels by leaders from New Climate Ventures, V1 Climate, Halliburton, Energy Tech Nexus and many others during Houston Energy & Climate Week. Then hear pitches during the Pilotathon, which targets startups ready to implement pilot projects within six to 12 months.

This event is Tuesday, Sept. 16, from 8 a.m.-5 p.m. at GreenStreet. Get tickets here.

Sept. 16 — Meet the Activate Houston Cohort 2025 Fellows

Meet Activate's latest cohort, which was named this summer, and also learn more about its 2024 group during Houston Energy & Climate Week.

This event is Tuesday, Sept. 16, at 5 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

Sept. 17 — Green ICU Conference: Sustainability in Health Care for a Healthier Future

Houston Methodist will host its inaugural Green ICU Conference during Houston Energy & Climate Week. The conference is designed to bring together healthcare professionals, industry leaders, policymakers and innovators to explore solutions for building a more sustainable healthcare system.

This event is Wednesday, Sept. 17. from 8 a.m.-3 p.m. at TMC Helix Park. Register here.

Sept. 18 — Rice Alliance Energy Tech Venture Forum

Hear from clean energy startups from nine countries and 19 states at the 22nd annual Energy Tech Venture Forum during Houston Energy & Climate Week. The 12 companies that were named to Class 5 of the Rice Alliance Clean Energy Accelerator will present during Demo Day to wrap up their 10-week program. Apart from pitches, this event will also host keynotes from Arjun Murti, partner of energy macro and policy at Veriten, and Susan Schofer, partner at HAX and chief science officer at SOSV. Panels will focus on corporate innovation and institutional venture capital.

This event is Thursday, Sept. 18, from 7:30 a.m.-5 p.m. at Rice University’s Jones Graduate School of Business. Register here.

Sept. 18 — ACCEL Year 3 Showcase

Celebrate Advancing Climatetech and Clean Energy Leaders Program, or ACCEL, an accelerator program for startups led by BIPOC and other underrepresented founders from Greentown Labs and Browning the Green Space. Two Houston companies and one from Austin are among the eight startups to be named to the 2025 group. Hear startup pitches from the cohort, and from Greentown's Head of Houston, Lawson Gow, CEO Georgina Campbell Flatter and others. This event is part of Houston Energy & Climate Week.

This event is Thursday, Sept. 18, from 5-8 p.m. at Greentown Labs. Get tickets here.

Sept. 19 — Halliburton Labs Finalists Pitch Day

Hear from Halliburton Labs' latest cohort of entrepreneurs during Houston Energy & Climate Week. The incubator aims to advance the companies’ commercialization with support from Halliburton's network, facilities and financing opportunities. Its latest cohort includes one company from Texas.

This event is Friday, Sept. 19, from 8 a.m.-noon at The Ion. Register here.

Sept. 21-25 — AI in Health Conference

The Ken Kennedy Institute at Rice University will present the fourth annual AI in Health Conference, which aims to bridge the gap between artificial intelligence and real-world health outcomes. The event will explore the current landscape of artificial intelligence in health and present a research-driven outlook for the future of computational health innovation.

This conference is from Tuesday, Sept. 23, to Wednesday, Sept. 24. Additional workshops will be offered on Monday, Sept. 22, and Thursday, Sept. 25. The events will be held at the BioScience Research Collaborative at Rice University. Find more information here.

Sept. 25 — Industrial AI Nexus Connect

InnovateEnergy and Industrial AI Nexus will host a talk by Matthew Alberts, manager of innovation and emerging technologies at Southern Company and author of "The Gen AI Manufacturing Revolution: Smarter Factories, Enhanced Products, and Reduced Costs." Alberts will present “The Gen AI Revolution," followed by happy hour and a complimentary book signing.

This event is Thursday, Sept. 25, from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

Texas is the 4th hardest working state in America, report finds

Ranking It

It's no secret that Texans are hardworking people. To align with the Labor Day holiday, a new WalletHub study asserts that the Lone Star State is one of the five most hardworking states in America for 2025.

The report ranked Texas the fourth most hardworking state this year, indicating that its residents are working harder than ever after the state fell into seventh place in 2024. Texas previously ranked No. 4 in 2019 and 2020, slipped into No. 5 in 2021 and 2022, then continued falling into sixth place in 2023. But now the state is making its way back to the top of the list.

WalletHub's analysts compared all 50 states based on "direct" and "indirect" work factors. The six "direct" work factors included each state's average workweek hours, employment rates, the share of households where no adults work, the share of workers leaving vacation time unused, and other data. The four "indirect" work factors consisted of workers' average commute times, the share of workers with multiple jobs, the annual volunteer hours per resident, and the average leisure time spent per day.

North Dakota landed on top as the most hardworking state in America for 2025 for another year in a row, earning a score of 66.17 points out of a possible 100. For comparison, Texas ranked No. 4 with 57.06 points. Alaska (No. 2), South Dakota (No. 3), and Hawaii (No. 5) round out the top five hardest working states.

Across the study's two main categories, Texas ranked No. 5 in the "direct" work factors ranking, and earned a respectable No. 18 rank for its "indirect" work factors.

Broken down further, Texans have the second-longest average workweek hours in America, and they have the 12th best average commute times. Texans have the 6th lowest amount of average leisure time spent per day, the report also found.

According to the study's findings, many Americans nationwide won't take the chance to not work as hard when presented with the opportunity. A 2024 Sorbet PTO report found 33 percent of Americans' paid time off was left unused in 2023.

"While leaving vacation time on the table may seem strange to some people, there are plenty of reasons why workers choose to do so," the report's author wrote. "Some fear that if they take time off they will look less dedicated to the job than other employees, risking a layoff. Others worry about falling behind on their work or are concerned that the normal workflow will not be able to function without them."

The top 10 hardest working states are:

  • No. 1 – North Dakota
  • No. 2 – Alaska
  • No. 3 – South Dakota
  • No. 4 – Texas
  • No. 5 – Hawaii
  • No. 6 – Virginia
  • No. 7 – New Hampshire
  • No. 8 – Wyoming
  • No. 9 – Maryland
  • No. 10 – Nebraska
---

This story originally appeared on CultureMap.com.