When companies plan to restructure, it makes a difference if the new CEO is hired from inside or outside. Pexels

Star Co. is a hot mess. The business is bloated and sprawling. Its stock is tanking. Profits are down. It's clearly time for a new CEO.

But where to look — inside the company or outside? It's a decision every restructuring company faces.

Cenovus Energy tapped an outsider in 2017. General Electric, the same year, went with a longtime insider. Though it's too soon to know yet for sure, which one likely made the right choice?

Rice Business emeritus professor Robert E. Hoskisson, with coauthors Shih-chi Chiu, then at Nanyang Technological University (now at the University of Houston), Richard A. Johnson of University of Missouri, Columbia and Seemantini Pathak of University of Missouri-St. Louis, set out for an answer: Where is the best place for a restructuring company to get its next CEO?

According to conventional wisdom and some past research, change is more likely under an outside CEO. He or she can start fresh, armed with a greater mandate to shake things up.

Recent evidence, though, suggests that outsiders may actually have more trouble succeeding. That's because they lack the institutional knowledge to make the most informed choices, and the existing relationships needed to ease change with minimal pain. Insiders, this research shows, have the advantage of key "firm-specific" knowledge on everything from customers to suppliers to workforce composition.

To pin down an answer on whether it's better to stay inside or go outside, Hoskisson's team decided to look at corporate divestiture — asset sales, spinoffs, equity carve-outs — as a proxy for overall strategic change. (It's already well documented that a new CEO makes organizational changes such as personnel changes and culture shifts.)

Next, they distinguished between scale and scope. The scale of a divestiture reflects magnitude: How many units were sold? The scope reflects diversification portfolio adjustment: Does the company have fewer business lines?

Focusing on 234 divestitures at U.S. firms that voluntarily restructured between 1986 and 2009, the authors defined a new inside CEO as having been in that role two or fewer years, and with the company previously for more than two years. They defined a new outside CEO as someone who had been at the company for a maximum of two years in any role.

Heading into the analysis, the researchers expected they would reach different conclusions for scale vs. scope. And the results were just that.

New inside CEOs, they found, did carry out more divesture activities than new outside CEOs. Not having as much inside knowledge, the outside CEO was more likely to prefer a simpler divesture plan, one that didn't require evaluating each unit or asset. Instead, the professors hypothesized, an outsider was more likely to follow investors' general preferences about firm strategy.

"When a higher magnitude of corporate divestures is required, internal successors are more astute than external successors in accomplishing this objective," the researchers write. On the other hand, when a company wants to shrink the diversified scope of a business portfolio, "external successors are more likely to bring their firms to a more focused position."

The researchers also suggested future lines of study about new CEOs and strategic change. What happens when firms want to buy and sell at the same time? Does the CEO selection process itself affect restructuring scale and scope? And does an inside chief executive who won a power struggle against a predecessor perform differently than an inside CEO named in orderly succession planning?

In the meantime, the findings are clear. If your corporate board is hunting for a new CEO, it may pay to go for the fresh face. But depending on your goals, your best option may also be a top executive sitting at a desk a few steps away.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom.

Robert E. Hoskisson is the George R. Brown Emeritus Professor of Management at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Does your brain have the right components to be an entrepreneur? Getty Images

Rice University research finds certain cognitive factors appear in the minds of entrepreneurs

Houston Voices

The entrepreneur strides into a room of potential backers. Swathed in understated grey, she walks with assurance and chats in the cool, easy-going cadences of the leaders she plans to woo. But will an approach like this really affect the fate of her startup? And if not, what will?

A literature review by Rice Business professor Robert E. Hoskisson and colleagues Jeffry Covin of Indiana University, Henk W. Volberda of Erasmus University and Richard A. Johnson of Arnold & Porter offers clues to a vast range of questions about the entrepreneurs' trade. It also outlines where research still falls short. What, for example, most influences a startup founder's success? Is entrepreneurial triumph driven by innate ability or acquired skill? What's the role of factors such as regulatory structures or an entrepreneur's own work environment?

Traditional research, Hoskisson and his associates note, makes it clear that certain cognitive factors really do differentiate people who start new ventures from their more staid counterparts. And recent scholarship has traced how individual entrepreneurs decide to launch their startups and how they spot entrepreneurial opportunities. Still unclear, though, is whether entrepreneurs think differently overall, possess innate qualities that lend themselves to entrepreneurship or somehow become catalyzed by the entrepreneurial role itself.

More research could help answer those questions. Research is also needed to pinpoint exactly how the best entrepreneurs express their plans in order to sound legitimate enough to earn funding and support, Hoskisson's group says. What the scholarship does show is that that the grey-clad entrepreneur with the easygoing patter knows what she's doing: symbolic language, gestures and visual symbols all help create professional identity, emphasize control and regulate the emotions of a viewer. Setting, props, style of dress and expressiveness all count, and the more experienced the entrepreneur the more props she uses.

At the same time, no unified model fully explains how successful entrepreneurs gain their funding. Models range from the hyper-rational analysis offered by game theory to a stimulus-response model in which people react as if they're marionettes. Other mysteries include how the entrepreneurship impulse arises, how it shapes innovation and competitive advantage and how it is translated in individual actions and interactions. More research in these areas, says Hoskisson, would help not only entrepreneurs in the eternal quest for funding, but also the understanding of how to nurture human potential.

Examining institutional differences among countries and how that affects entrepreneurship is also ripe for study. So far, entrepreneurship research has focused on individual attributes. But there's a need, Hoskisson and his colleagues say, for scholars to connect the dots between startup success and political environments, rule of law, regulation and entrepreneurship.

The same goes for work on diverse contexts in emerging economies. In transition economies, China being one example, networks create political and social capital that allows special access and legitimacy. On the other hand, in those same countries ponderous bureaucracies and basic resource limitations can hamper entrepreneurial projects. Detailed understanding of such cultures will only get more urgent as ventures in emerging economies increase and companies that are "born global" proliferate.

Also on the research to-do list about entrepreneurs: the chances of securing funding in given emerging economies and the power — or frailty — of their intellectual property laws. Regulation, especially, plays a pivotal role in these countries, Hoskisson writes. The lighter the regulation, the more entrepreneurship flourishes, according to one study of 54 countries. On the other hand, countries blessed with a strong rule of law offer entrepreneurs more opportunities for strategic entry.

Understanding the entrepreneurial mind, and its interaction with the material world, isn't simple. Consider the late Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot's plan to send gifts to all POWs in Vietnam during the height of the Vietnam War. Unsurprisingly, the Vietnamese government announced that a gift delivery was impossible while Americans were bombing the country. Undeterred, Perot offered to rebuild anything the Americans had bombed. Rebuffed again, Perot chartered a plane to Moscow, instructing aides to deposit the Christmas presents, one by one, at Moscow post offices, addressed to Hanoi.

Amusing as it can be to hear about such entrepreneurial gumption, it may be even more useful to study entrepreneurship systematically. Not everyone can have an entrepreneur's brain, Hoskisson's review of research suggests, but good scholarship might be able to teach people how to walk the walk.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom.

Robert E. Hoskisson is the George R. Brown Emeritus Professor of Management at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Family firms aren't investing in research and development — but why? Getty Images

Rice University research sheds light on what family office investors are looking for

Houston Voices

Family firms are publicly traded companies in which family members own at least 20 percent of the voting stock, and at least two board members belong to the family. For obvious reasons, the central principals in these firms tend to have a longer view than principals in non-family firms. Yet family firms invest less in research and development (R&D) in technology firms than their non-family counterparts. Since investments in R&D are stakes in the future, why this disparity?

Robert E. Hoskisson, a management professor at Rice Business, joined several colleagues to answer this question. Refining a sociological theory called the behavioral agency model (BAM), the researchers defined family-firm decisions as "mixed gambles" — that is, decisions that could result in either gains or losses.

Because success in high technology relies so much on innovation, it's especially puzzling when such a family owned business underinvests in R&D. So Hoskisson and his colleagues focused on the paradox of family firms in high tech.

According to previous research, family owners weigh both economic and non-economic factors when making business decisions. Hoskisson and his team labeled these non-economic factors socioemotional wealth (SEW). SEW can include family prestige through identifying with and controlling a business, emotional attachment to the firm or the legacy of a multigenerational link to the firm.

That intangible wealth (SEW) explained some of the families' R&D choices. While investment in R&D may lower future financial risk, it can threaten other resources the family holds dear. Expanded R&D spending, for instance, is linked with competitiveness. At the same time, it is associated with less family control. That's because to invest more in R&D, businesses typically need more external capital and expertise. So when a family firm underinvests in R&D, it may in fact be protecting its socioemotional wealth.

To further understand these dynamics, the researchers looked at three factors that they expected would raise families' R&D spending to levels more like non-family counterparts.

The first factor was corporate governance. As predicted, the researchers found that family firms with a higher percentage of institutional investors invested in R&D at levels more like those of non-family firms. The institutional investors naturally prioritized economic benefits far more than the founding family's legacy wealth (SEW).

The researchers also analyzed corporate strategy. Family firms, they found, invested more in R&D when it might be applied to related products or markets. Even families bent on preserving non-economic wealth could be lured by a big economic payoff, and related business are easier to control because they are closer to the family legacy business expertise.

Finally, Hoskisson and his colleagues looked at performance. When a family firm's performance lagged behind that of competitors, they reasoned, the owners would spend more on R&D. A higher percentage of institutional investors, the team theorized, would magnify this effect. Interestingly, the primary data (from 2004 to 2009) failed to support this hypothesis, while an alternative data set (from 1994 to 2002) confirmed it.

Further research, the investigators wrote, could shed useful light on this puzzle. They also encouraged study of how family firms conduct mergers and acquisitions. After all, while families can seem inscrutable from the outside, most run on some kind of economic system. The currency just includes more than money.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom.

Robert E. Hoskisson is the George R. Brown Emeritus Professor of Management at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

4 Houston-area institutions get $8M for cancer research facilities

fighting cancer

Cancer research capabilities in the Houston area just got an $8 million boost.

On Wednesday, May 20, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) awarded $8 million in grants to institutions in Houston and Bryan for the creation or expansion of so-called “core” cancer research facilities.

“Core facilities provide shared access to advanced technology, equipment, and scientific expertise that may not be available at every institution,” CPRIT says. “These core facilities are vital to not only cancer research but also to the study of diseases beyond cancer.”

Houston-area recipients of these $2 million grants are:

  • A facility at the University of Texas Health Science Center for preclinical support of cancer researchers in Texas to evaluate new safe, effective drugs and drug combinations.
  • The Accelerator for Cancer Therapeutics, operated by Houston’s Texas Medical Center Foundation. The accelerator helps researchers and startups move innovative cancer treatments from the lab to clinical trials.
  • Rice University’s Genetic Design & Engineering Center in Houston. The center enables researchers to collaborate on studies of custom DNA for cancer treatment.
  • A facility at the Texas A&M University System’s Health Science Center in Bryan that aims to speed up the development of cancer therapies.

In addition to those grants, the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, and Rice University shared $21 million to recruit cancer researchers from other institutions.

The largest of those grants—totalling $4 million—went to M.D. Anderson for the recruitment of renowned cancer researcher Andre Nussenzweig from the National Institutes of Health. His research focuses on how DNA damage and faulty DNA repairs lead to cancer.

Here are the totals for the other CPRIT grants awarded in the Houston area:

  • $12.8 million to Houston-based Indapta Therapeutics for the development of an off-the-shelf therapy that naturally kills cancer cells, combined with an immunity-targeting agent for a type of leukemia.
  • $11.1 million to MD Anderson, including $5 million for a statewide platform to improve long-term health outcomes in adolescents and young adults who survived cancer.
  • $8.4 million to Baylor College of Medicine, including $4.8 million for two training programs for cancer researchers.
  • $6.25 million to UT Health Houston, including $4 million for a biomedical informatics and genomics training program for cancer researchers.
  • $4.4 million to the Texas A&M Health Science Center’s Houston campus, including $2.4 million for a cancer therapeutics training program.
  • $2.75 million to Rice, including $250,000 for a study of ovarian cancer.
  • $2 million to Houston-based March Biosciences for the development of a targeted therapy for treating T-cell lymphoma.
  • $1.15 million to the University of Houston, including $900,000 for a platform for detection of lung cancer.
  • $900,000 to Texas A&M in Bryan to conduct clinical drug trials in rural and underserved communities around the state.
  • $800,000 to Houston- and Israel-based Xerient Pharma for the development of an oral form of a cell-protecting drug called amifostine to protect the upper GI tract from radiation damage during pancreatic cancer treatment.
  • $659,000 to Missouri City-based OmniNano Pharmaceuticals for the development of a two-drug combination to treat the most common form of pancreatic cancer.
  • $250,000 to the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston for a novel therapeutic to prevent colitis-related colorectal cancer.

Axiom Space launches Japanese subsidiary, names leadership

Axiom Space is setting up a Japanese subsidiary to tap into billions of dollars worth of business opportunities in the vast Asia-Pacific region. The company’s new office in Japan will open July 1.

“For the Asia-Pacific region, an Axiom Space presence in Japan means a long-term, direct path to low-Earth orbit for research, for industry, for astronauts, and a partner committed to building that future together with Japan,” Jonathan Cirtain, president and CEO of Axiom Space, said in a news release.

Asia-Pacific spaceflight leaders include Japan, China, India and South Korea.

Until committing to the Asia-Pacific subsidiary, Axiom focused primarily on the U.S. market for space exploration equipment, technology and services. Axiom is building the successor to the International Space Station (ISS), and it provides human spaceflight services and develops next-generation spacesuits.

Fortune Business Insights estimates the Asia-Pacific market for space technology was valued at $155.3 billion in 2025.

“The region is rapidly expanding due to rapidly expanding government space programs, increasing private sector participation, and rising demand for satellite services across densely populated regions,” says Fortune Business Insights, a market research firm.

The region’s combination of strategic investments, market demand and emerging entrepreneurial systems positions Asia-Pacific “for the fastest growth in the global market,” Fortune Business Insights says.

The market research firm pegs the U.S. market for space technology at $251.8 billion in 2025, making it the world’s largest player in that sector.

Veteran Japanese astronaut Koichi Wakata will lead Axiom Space Japan as chief technology officer in the Asia-Pacific region. The Japanese subsidiary will work with government agencies, research institutions, and industrial partners in Japan to expand hardware development and manufacturing, microgravity research and orbital computing.

Wakata was the Japanese space agency’s first program manager for ISS and the station’s first Japanese commander. He also contributed to the construction of ISS, including the Japanese experiment module Kibo. Wakata retired from the Japanese agency, JAXA, in March 2024.

“Japan intends to remain a leading nation in human space exploration post-ISS, and Japanese industry and academia are ready to play a central role in the commercial era,” Axiom Space said in the release. “Axiom Space Japan is how the company will meet that ambition with a long-term, on-the-ground presence.”

Houston investment firm closes $105M energy venture fund

seeing green

Houston-based investment firm Veriten has announced the initial close of its second flagship energy venture fund with more than $105 million in capital commitments.

Fund II will build on Veriten’s initial fund and aim to support “scalable technology solutions for energy, power and industrial applications,” according to a company news release.

"Our differentiated network, research-driven process, and first principles approach to investing are having an impact across multiple verticals including traditional energy, electrification, and industrial technology. Fund II builds on that platform,” John Sommers, partner, investments at Veriten, added in the release. “In this environment, the differentiator isn't capital – it's all about connectivity, deep sector expertise, and an economically-driven approach. As new technologies and approaches develop at breakneck speed, the need for more reliable, affordable energy and power continues to grow dramatically. The current backdrop accentuates the need for Veriten's solution."

Veriten is supported by over 50 strategic partnerships in the energy, power, industrial and technology sectors, including major players like Halliburton and Phillips 66.

"Veriten continues to build a differentiated platform at the intersection of energy, technology and industry expertise," Jeff Miller, chairman and CEO of Halliburton, said in the release. "We were early believers in the team and their ability to identify practical solutions to real challenges across the energy value chain. As all industries increasingly adopt digital tools, automation and AI-enabled technologies to improve performance and execution, we are proud to partner with Veriten again to help accelerate high-impact solutions across the broader energy landscape."

Veriten closed its debut fund, NexTen LP, of $85 million in committed capital in October 2023. It was launched in January 2022 by Maynard Holt, co-founder and former CEO of the energy investment bank Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.

It has invested in Houston-based AI-powered electricity analytics provider Amperon and led a $12 million Seed 2 funding round for Houston-based Helix Technologies to scale manufacturing of its energy-efficient commercial HVAC add-on earlier this year. In the past year it has contributed to funding rounds for San Francisco-based Armada and Calgary-based Veerum.

Veriten also named Nick Morriss as its new managing director earlier this month. Morriss most recently served as vice president of business development at next-generation nuclear technology company Natura Resources and spent nearly 20 years at NOV Inc.

---

This article originally appeared on our sister site, EnergyCapitalHTX.com.