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

Houston hardtech accelerator names 8 founders to 2026 cohort

hardtech fellows

Hardtech-focused organization Activate has named 50 new members to its 2026 cohort of scientists, which includes eight startups joining Activate Houston.

Activate aims to support scientists at "the outset of their entrepreneurial journey." It partners with U.S.-based funders and research institutions to support its fellows in developing high-impact technology. Its fellows receive a living stipend, research and development funding, connections from Activate's robust network of mentors and access to a curriculum specific to the program for two years.

This year's fellows represent 41 companies from 22 U.S. cities and 11 states.

“This cohort clearly demonstrates that the next industry-defining companies won't choose between modern technology and deep science; they'll be built by combining both,” Cyrus Wadia, CEO of Activate, said in the announcement. “These are the scientists and engineers turning our most urgent global challenges into the companies that will deliver a more sustainable future.”

The Houston fellows are working across the energy, space, AI infrastructure and agriculture sectors. They include:

  • Sophie Clare Broun, founder of Anning Corporation, which is producing clean hydrogen by stimulating naturally occurring geologic deposits
  • Kathy Andersen, founder of Brint Tech, which builds optical sensing systems that quantify hydrogen for infrastructure operators
  • Dorsa Talebi, founder of Kinetiq Drive, which builds rare-earth-free, contact-free electric motors with wireless rotors for small appliances and heavy industry alike
  • Neethu Pottackal, founder of Nivera, which is developing natural, edible coatings made from agricultural byproducts to reduce food waste and extend the shelf life of fresh food
  • Jonathan Huffman, founder of Orbital Arc, which is shrinking spacecraft propulsion to a microchip powerful enough for deep space
  • Tim Lee, founder of Renesin, which develops advanced materials for faster, more efficient AI hardware
  • Joshua Livingston, founder of Selerra Separations, which is developing high-performance membranes that cut the cost and energy consumption of water treatment
  • Wenli Jiang, founder of SwieNitro Recovery, which is developing technology that converts nitrogen-rich waste streams into valuable fertilizer

"Home to the largest concentration of engineers in the United States and a dense ecosystem of Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies, Houston is uniquely positioned for scientists tackling large-scale industrial challenges. Activate Houston fellows are connected to the city's deep networks in energy, chemicals, and materials," Activate said in the announcement.

Activate named its inaugural Houston cohort in 2024. It has other hubs in Boston, New York, and Berkley, California—where Activate is headquartered. The organization also offers a virtual and remote cohort, known as Activate Anywhere. Nationally, it has supported 346 fellows and 276 companies since 2015.

Activate Houston is led by managing director Jeremy Pitts, who co-founded Greentown Labs in Boston. It is based out of the Ion. The latest cohort is Activate Houston's third. Read more about the last year's cohort here.

Rice, Houston Methodist award $90K for cancer research projects

seed grants

Rice University’s Synthesis X Center, in partnership with the Houston Methodist Neal Cancer Center, announced earlier this month the organizations would award $90,000 in seed grant funding to two projects that could help fight cancer. One would ease the pain of chemotherapy, while the other could change the way the progression of leukemia is tracked.

“We’re excited to be collaborating with the Neal Cancer Center to support collaborative, novel and interdisciplinary proposals to improve cancer care and outcomes,” Han Xiao, Rice professor of chemistry and the director of the SynthX Center, said in a news release. “Together, we can achieve translational excellence.”

The projects

Chemotherapy is one of the most effective cancer treatments, but it can be hard on the body. The human body doesn’t like being injected with radioactive material, especially the skin around the injection point, which can become extremely irritated. For patients in long-term treatment, the skin irritation can be more than just a bother; it can lead to infections that are dangerous to a compromised immune system.

Angel A Marti, a professor of chemistry at Rice University, and Biana Godin, an associate professor of nanoscience at Houston Methodist Research Institute, are experimenting with metal nanoclusters as a way to block radiation at the injection site. The nanocluster could be applied in a cream or a gel on the skin, serving as a type of shield against the harsh radioactive material.

Meanwhile, Yuan Ma, an assistant professor of chemistry at Rice, and Shu-Hsia Chen, a professor of immunology at Houston Methodist Research Institute, are working with m6A. Discovered in the 1970s, m6A is the most prevalent chemical modifier found in mRNA in mammals. It is prevalent in many cancers, including leukemia.

Ma and Chen are working on measuring the amount of m6A in leukemia to see if it can determine the most effective cancer treatments. The team is also experimenting with ways to shut off m6A to see if it makes current leukemia treatments more effective.

Progress from SynthX

SynthX was first launched in April 2024 to turn research from Rice and Houston Methodist into real-world cancer treatments. Within a year, the center had secured $1.5 million in grant money to work on crossing the blood-brain barrier in brain cancer treatments. These latest awards show that SynthX Center continues to bridge the worlds of research and clinical practice.

“This collaboration reflects a shared commitment to team science in cancer research,” Daniela Matei, the director of the Houston Methodist Neal Cancer Center, added in the release. “These are the types of translational and pioneering projects that lead to transformation in patient care.”'

The SynthX Center awarded $90,000 in seed grants to three teams in 2025 and $80,000 to three teams in 2024.

Tesla self-driving mode wasn't to blame in Houston-area crash, report suggests

Tesla news

Federal safety investigators looking into a runaway Tesla that killed a grandmother in her home say the driver had pressed the accelerator to full speed, suggesting the vehicle's self-driving software was not to blame.

The driver had told police that he had the self-driving software turned on, but a report from the National Transportation Safety Board concluded that he had actually overridden that feature when he pushed hard on the pedal. Moments later the Tesla Model 3 raced down a residential street in Katy, Texas, at highway speeds, slammed into a brick home and killed a 76-year-old woman standing in the front room.

The crash last month drew national attention because Tesla CEO Elon Musk is seeking to reassure the public its self-driving feature is safe as he prepares to turn hundreds of thousands of Teslas already on the road into fully automatic vehicles and begin selling two-seated Cybercabs missing steering wheels and pedals.

The crash came two months after officials at a separate federal agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, announced it was elevating a 2024 investigation of the self-driving feature to new “engineering analysis” level, raising the possibility of a recall of 3.2 million Tesla vehicles.

That NHTSA probe was triggered by crashes where the self-driving feature failed to alert drivers to take control in fog and other poor visibility conditions.

The agency opened an investigation last year into 58 incidents in which Teslas reportedly violated traffic safety laws while using self-driving technology, leading to more than a dozen crashes and fires and nearly two dozen injuries.

Separate from the National Transportation Safety Board, NHTSA is also looking into the Tesla house crash in Texas, one of 46 “special crash” investigations of Tesla's self-driving or driver-assistance technology in the past decade, according to the agency’s records. In more than a dozen of those crashes, at least one person — a driver, passenger or pedestrian — was killed.

Tesla had originally called its driver assistance software Full Self-Driving, or FSD, but auto experts and regulators complained it was misleading because drivers must always keep their eyes on the road and be ready to take over at any time.

The company has since changed the name to Full Self-Driving (Supervised).

Video of the Katy, Texas, accident shows the Tesla traveling at more than 70 mph (112.65 kilometers per hour), jumping a curb then tearing across a lawn before crushing through a brick wall of a home. A woman standing feet away, Martha Avila, was found amid piles of crumbling plaster, split beams and bits of furniture and rushed to a hospital but died.

Sales of Tesla cars still haven't recovered fully from boycotts last year over Musk's political stands, but the stock is rising anyway as he has successfully shifted attention away from the sales figures. He says they matter less now that the company is on the cusp of major technological advances, such as turning Teslas into hands-free vehicles and having its Optimus robots take over for humans for tasks at home and work.

Tesla stock has risen 22% in the past year and is currently trading at 170 times expected annual earnings compared to 20 for the S&P 500.

For its second-quarter financial results, financial analysts surveyed by FactSet expect earnings per share will barely budge — 32 cents versus 33 cents a year earlier — continuing a sixth quarter streak of flat or falling profits.