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

5+ must-know application deadlines for Houston innovators

apply now

Editor's note: As 2026 ramps up, the Houston innovation scene is looking for the latest groups of innovative startups that'll make an impact. A number of accelerators and competitions have opened applications. Read below to see which might be a good fit for you or your venture. And take careful note of the deadlines. Please note: this article may be updated to include additional information and programs.

Did we miss an accelerator or competition accepting applications? Email innoeditor@innovationmap.com for editorial consideration.

2026 HCC Business Plan Competition

Deadline: Jan. 26

Details: HCC’s annual Business Plan Competition (BPC) is an opportunity for proposed, startup and existing entrepreneurs to develop focused plans to start or grow their businesses. Accepted teams will be announced and training will begin in late February and run through early June, with six free, three-hour training sessions. Advising will be provided to each accepted team. Applicants can apply as a team of up to five persons. Finalists will present to to gudges on May 27, 2026. Last year, $26,000 was awarded in seed money to the top five teams. In-kind prizes were also awarded to all graduating teams including free products, services and memberships, with an estimated in-kind value totaling $147,000. Find more information here.

University of Houston Technology Bridge Innov8 Hub (Spring 2026)

Deadline: Jan . 30

Details: UHTB Innov8 Hub’s immersive, 12-week startup acceleration program designed to help early-stage founders launch and scale their technology startups. Selected participants will gain access to expert mentors and advisors, collaborate with a cohort of peers, and compete for cash prizes during our final pitch event. The cohort begins Feb. 16, 2026. The program culminates in Pitch Day, where participants present their ventures to an audience of investors and partners from across the UH innovation ecosystem. Find more information here.

Rice Business Plan Competition 2026

Deadline: Jan. 31

Details: The Rice Business Plan Competition, hosted by the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship, gives collegiate entrepreneurs real-world experience to pitch their startups, enhance their business strategy and learn what it takes to launch a successful company. Forty-two teams will compete for more than $1 million in cash, investments and prizes on April 9-11, 2026. Find more information here.

Rice Veterans Business Battle 2026

Deadline: Jan. 31

Details: The Rice Veterans Business Battle is one of the nation’s largest pitch competitions for veteran-led startups, providing founders with mentorship, exposure to investors and the opportunity to compete for non-dilutive cash prizes. The event has led to more than $10 million of investments since it began in 2015. Teams will compete April 8-9, 2026. Find more information here.

TEX-E Fellows Application 2026-2027

Deadline: Feb. 10

Details: The TEX‑E Fellowship is a hands-on program designed for students interested in energy, climate, and entrepreneurship across Texas. It connects participants with industry mentors, startup founders, investors and academic leaders while providing practical, "real-world" experience in customer discovery, business modeling, and energy-transition innovation. Fellows gain access to workshops, real-world projects, and a statewide network shaping the future of energy and climate solutions. Participants must be a student at PVAMU, UH, UT Austin, Rice University, MIT or Texas A&M. Find more information here.

Greentown Go Make 2026

Deadline: March 10

Details: Greentown Go Make 2026 is an open-innovation program with Shell and Technip Energies. The six-month program is advancing industrial decarbonization by accelerating catalytic innovations. Selected startups will gain access to a structured platform to engage leadership from Shell and Technip Energies and explore potential partnership outcomes, including pilots and demonstrations. They’ll also receive networking opportunities, partnership-focused programming, and marketing visibility throughout the program. The cohort will be selected in May. Find more information here.

Houston startups closed $1.75 billion in 2025 VC funding, says report

by the numbers

Going against national trends, Houston-area startups raised 7 percent less venture capital last year than they did in 2024, according to the new PitchBook-NVCA Venture Monitor report.

The report shows local startups collected $1.75 billion in venture capital in 2025, down from $1.89 billion the previous year.

Houston-based geothermal energy company Fervo Energy received a big chunk of the region’s VC funding last year. Altogether, the startup snagged $562 million in investments, as well as a $60 million extension of an existing loan and $45.6 million in debt financing. The bulk of the 2025 haul was a $462 million Series E round.

In the fourth quarter of last year, Houston-area VC funding totaled $627.68 million. That was a 22 percent drop from $765.03 million during the same period in 2024. Still, the Q4 total was the biggest quarterly total in 2025.

Across the country, startups picked up $339.4 trillion in VC funding last year, a 59 percent increase from $213.2 trillion in 2024, according to the report. Over the last 10 years, only the VC total in 2021 ($358.2 trillion) surpassed the total from 2025.

Nationwide, startups in the artificial intelligence and machine learning sector accounted for the biggest share of VC funding (65.4 percent) in 2025, followed by software-as-a-service (SaaS), big data, manufacturing, life sciences and healthtech, according to the report.

“Despite an overall lack of new fundraising and a liquidity market that did not shape up as hoped in 2025, deal activity has begun a phase of regrowth, with deal count estimates showing increases at each stage, and deal value, though concentrated in a small number of deals, falling just [8 percent] short of the 2021 figure,” the report reads.

Sandbox VR brings new gaming center to Houston's tech-savvy population

Get In The Game

Sandbox VR, a futuristic, full-body virtual reality gaming experience, has announced it will enter the Houston market this month, opening its first local gaming center on January 23.

"Houston's reputation as a hub for innovation and technology makes it a perfect fit for Sandbox VR," said Steve Zhao, CEO and founder of Sandbox VR, in a statement. "The city's diverse, tech-savvy population and strong entertainment culture create an ideal environment for our immersive VR experiences. LOL Entertainment continues to exceed our expectations as a partner, and we're excited to bring our cutting-edge virtual reality gaming to Texas's largest city."

The new gaming center opens Friday, January 23 at 797 Sorella Court in CityCentre.

One of the games that stands out is the Stranger Things: Catalyst game, based on the blockbuster Netflix television series. Groups of one to six players will be dropped into the sinister Hawkins Lab and the mysterious Upside Down to fight Demogorgons and other monsters. The game features Matthew Modine reprising his role as Dr. Martin "Papa" Brenner, who imbues players with psychic powers.

Other games include the supernatural pirate title The Curse of Davy Jones and other Netflix tie-ins based on Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon and Squid Game. Sandbox VR offers fully-immersive group play activities that range from combat to puzzle solving for a variety of age groups.

The opening of Sandbox VR is another part of the expansion of LOL Entertainment, who touts itself as one of the pre-eminent hosts of immersive and gaming experiences in the U.S. Sandbox VR will be their first entry into the Houston market, with another immersive group adventure game, Time Mission, set to open at the the Marq'E Entertainment District later this year.

“Bringing Sandbox VR to CityCentre Houston is a big milestone for LOL Entertainment, for Sandbox VR, and for this market,” said Rob Cooper, CEO of LOL Entertainment. “Houston is a fast-growing, experience-driven city, and we’re excited to give locals and visitors a truly immersive, social gaming destination that you can’t replicate anywhere.”

Presale tickets for the grand opening of Sandbox VR are available here. Standard pricing is $55-$65 per event, but Sandbox VR is running a special for 30 percent off with code OPEN30 for those who purchase before Thursday, January 22. Presale buyers are also entered into a drawing for free Sandbox VR for one year.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.