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

7+ can't-miss Houston business and innovation events in June 2026

where to be

Editor's note: The FIFA World Cup comes to Houston this month, joined by major energy conferences and a lineup of fan-favorite, recurring events. Here’s what not to miss and how to register. Please note: this article may be updated to add more events.


June 1-4 — CLEANPOWER 2026 Conference and Exhibition

CLEANPOWER unites policymakers, experts, and corporate leaders to solve the challenges that none can solve alone. This must-attend, four-day conference is packed with cutting-edge discussions about wind, solar, storage, and transmission; dealmaking; networking; and fun.

This event begins June 1 at the George R. Brown Convention Center. Register here.

June 2 — Humans of Healthcare

Houston Methodist Center for Innovation will present its quarterly speaker series, Humans of Healthcare. The series will feature a panel of experts who will share about their career paths and discuss the nuances of the health care industry. This month's session will focus on today’s nursing landscape, the industry’s expectations of nurses and what career paths are possible in the field.

The event is Tuesday, June 2, from 5-6:30 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

June 9 — Greentown Go Make Kickoff

Head to the Ion to celebrate the Greentown Go Make 2026 cohort. The open-innovation program with Shell Catalysts & Technologies and Technip Energies focuses on catalytic solutions for industrial decarbonization and the energy transition. Hear pitches from the founders and network with a select group of startups while enjoying food and drink.

This event is Tuesday, June 9, from 5:30-8 p.m. Register here.

June 9-10 — Texas Brain Economy Summit

The Center for Houston’s Future and UTMB are bringing the Texas Brain Economy Summit back to Houston this summer to continue to position the region as a global leader in brain health. Expect to hear from leaders of global institutions, including the World Economic Forum, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, McKinsey Health Institute, Global Brain Economy Initiative, Davos Alzheimer’s Collaborative, Business Collaborative for Brain Health (UsAgainstAlzheimer’s), Rice University, Memorial Hermann, MD Anderson and many others. Read InnovationMap's full preview of the event here.

This event begins Tuesday, June 9. Purchase tickets here.

June 10 — MIT Future of Healthcare Technology Forum

The MIT Club of South Texas will host an in-person forum to explore how innovation, government and policy are changing the healthcare industry. The event will feature MIT alumni and Houston healthcare leaders, including Dr. Tim Boone, dean of the Texas A&M School of Engineering Medicine; Cynthia Reinhart-King, chair of bioengineering at Rice University; Dr. Tony Lin, CEO and chairman emeritus of Kelsey-Seybold Clinic; and others.

This event is Wednesday, June 10, from 5:15-8:30 p.m. at the TAMU EnMed Building. Register here.

June 11 — Goals & Gigawatts: Houston Energy & Climate Week The Power of & Kickoff Party

Come watch the Mexico City FIFA opening match while celebrating energy and innovation at the Goals & Gigawatts Kickoff Party. The event will feature food, drinks, and a showcase on Houston Energy & Climate Week. Learn what to expect and how to get involved in HECW before closing the night with a DJ and karaoke.

This event is Thursday, June 11, from 1:30-6:30 p.m. Find more information here.

June 16-17 — Energy Projects Conference & Expo

The Energy Projects Conference & Expo (EPC Show) is the largest event in North America for professionals working at the heart of major energy projects. The essential event for engineering, construction, commissioning, operations and maintenance across multiple energy sectors brings together five leading conferences under one roof. Conference subjects span LNG exporting, hydrogen and ammonia, midstream, petrochem and refining, and sustainable aviation fuels.

This event begins June 16 at George R. Brown Convention Center. Register here.

June 25 – NASA Tech Talk

Every fourth Thursday of the month, NASA experts, including longtime engineer Montgomery Goforth, present on technology development challenges NASA’s Johnson Space Center and the larger aerospace community are facing, and how they can be leveraged by Houston’s innovation community. Stick around after for drinks and networking at Second Draught.

This event is Thursday, June 25, from 6-7 p.m. at the Ion. Register here.

Houston researchers report promising first in-human trial for implantable cancer therapy

cancer breakthrough

When it comes to cancer remedies, the treatment can be as challenging for the body as its cause. But what if immunotherapy could be localized? That’s precisely what a Houston team may soon make a reality.

Rice University researchers, in partnership with MD Anderson Cancer Center, recently published their findings from the first in-human trial of an implantable cancer-fighting treatment in the journal Clinical Cancer Research. The paper details testing of AVB-001, encapsulated cells engineered to release interleukin-2 (IL-2)—a naturally occurring signaling protein that boosts immunity—in the peritoneal cavities of 14 patients. The goal is to avoid the toxicity usually experienced with less targeted treatments, as well as find a solution to IL-2s’ abbreviated half-lives.

“Traditional IL-2 therapy has shown potent antitumor activity, but its clinical use has been limited by severe side effects and delivery challenges,” Omid Veiseh, director of the Rice Biotech Launch Pad, professor of bioengineering at Rice and a senior author on the study, said in a press release. “This platform allows us to localize and sustain cytokine exposure directly where tumors reside while minimizing systemic toxicity.”

Serous ovarian carcinoma is especially well-suited to the use of AVB-001 because it tends to spread throughout the abdomen. After a minimally invasive laparoscopic procedure, patients implanted with the cells were noted to tolerate the treatment well. Half of the enrolled patients’ cancer was stabilized, with several among them reporting extended signs of benefit. No maximum tolerated dose was reached and there were no life-threatening events tied to the study.

If that sounds like less-than-earth-shaking results, this is only the beginning. The capsules were implanted for about one week because IL-2 activity drops off after that. The researchers now know that further testing should include either higher levels, repeated doses, or a combination thereof, in order to create stronger advances.

The team has already made early headway on this next step. Preclinical studies in nonhuman primates were not only tolerated well, but without added toxicity, the apes had consistent pharmacological effects.

“This is a foundational step,” Veiseh explained. “We now have evidence that the platform is safe, biologically active and potentially scalable. The next phase is optimizing dosing and exploring combination therapies to unlock its full clinical potential.”

The combination would also include a checkpoint inhibitor, which might improve AVB-001’s tumor-fighting power. “What is exciting is that we are not just delivering a drug, we are programming a microenvironment,” added Dr. Amir Jazaeri, professor of gynecologic oncology at MD Anderson, member of the Rice Biotech Launch Pad’s clinical advisory board and a senior author on the study. “This opens the door to combination strategies that could amplify immune responses in ways that have not been feasible before.”