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

These 50+ Houston scientists rank among world’s most cited

science stars

Fifty-one scientists and professors from Houston-area universities and institutions were named among the most cited in the world for their research in medicine, materials sciences and an array of other fields.

The Clarivate Highly Cited Researchers considers researchers who have authored multiple "Highly Cited Papers" that rank in the top 1percent by citations for their fields in the Web of Science Core Collection. The final list is then determined by other quantitative and qualitative measures by Clarivate's judges to recognize "researchers whose exceptional and community-wide contributions shape the future of science, technology and academia globally."

This year, 6,868 individual researchers from 60 different countries were named to the list. About 38 percent of the researchers are based in the U.S., with China following in second place at about 20 percent.

However, the Chinese Academy of Sciences brought in the most entries, with 258 researchers recognized. Harvard University with 170 researchers and Stanford University with 141 rounded out the top 3.

Looking more locally, the University of Texas at Austin landed among the top 50 institutions for the first time this year, tying for 46th place with the Mayo Clinic and University of Minnesota Twin Cities, each with 27 researchers recognized.

Houston once again had a strong showing on the list, with MD Anderson leading the pack. Below is a list of the Houston-area highly cited researchers and their fields.

UT MD Anderson Cancer Center

  • Ajani Jaffer (Cross-Field)
  • James P. Allison (Cross-Field)
  • Maria E. Cabanillas (Cross-Field)
  • Boyi Gan (Molecular Biology and Genetics)
  • Maura L. Gillison (Cross-Field)
  • David Hong (Cross-Field)
  • Scott E. Kopetz (Clinical Medicine)
  • Pranavi Koppula (Cross-Field)
  • Guang Lei (Cross-Field)
  • Sattva S. Neelapu (Cross-Field)
  • Padmanee Sharma (Molecular Biology and Genetics)
  • Vivek Subbiah (Clinical Medicine)
  • Jennifer A. Wargo (Molecular Biology and Genetics)
  • William G. Wierda (Clinical Medicine)
  • Ignacio I. Wistuba (Clinical Medicine)
  • Yilei Zhang (Cross-Field)
  • Li Zhuang (Cross-Field)

Rice University

  • Pulickel M. Ajayan (Materials Science)
  • Pedro J. J. Alvarez (Environment and Ecology)
  • Neva C. Durand (Cross-Field)
  • Menachem Elimelech (Chemistry and Environment and Ecology)
  • Zhiwei Fang (Cross-Field)
  • Naomi J. Halas (Cross-Field)
  • Jun Lou (Materials Science)
  • Aditya D. Mohite (Cross-Field)
  • Peter Nordlander (Cross-Field)
  • Andreas S. Tolias (Cross-Field)
  • James M. Tour (Cross-Field)
  • Robert Vajtai (Cross-Field)
  • Haotian Wang (Chemistry and Materials Science)
  • Zhen-Yu Wu (Cross-Field)

Baylor College of Medicine

  • Nadim J. Ajami (Cross-Field)
  • Biykem Bozkurt (Clinical Medicine)
  • Hashem B. El-Serag (Clinical Medicine)
  • Matthew J. Ellis (Cross-Field)
  • Richard A. Gibbs (Cross-Field)
  • Peter H. Jones (Pharmacology and Toxicology)
  • Sanjay J. Mathew (Cross-Field)
  • Joseph F. Petrosino (Cross-Field)
  • Fritz J. Sedlazeck (Biology and Biochemistry)
  • James Versalovic (Cross-Field)

University of Houston

  • Zhifeng Ren (Cross-Field)
  • Yan Yao (Cross-Field)
  • Yufeng Zhao (Cross-Field)
  • UT Health Science Center Houston
  • Hongfang Liu (Cross-Field)
  • Louise D. McCullough (Cross-Field)
  • Claudio Soto (Cross-Field)

UTMB Galveston

  • Erez Lieberman Aiden (Cross-Field)
  • Pei-Yong Shi (Cross-Field)

Houston Methodist

  • Eamonn M. M. Quigley (Cross-Field)

New report shows surge in startup activity in Houston and across Texas

by the numbers

Houston and the rest of Texas are experiencing a boom in the creation of startups.

One barometer of growth in startup activity: The Houston metro area saw a 92 percent rise from 2024 to 2025 in the number of account applications submitted to Bluevine, a banking platform for small businesses.

New data from Bluevine also shows healthy year-over-year growth in account applications submitted by entrepreneurs in Texas’ three other major metros:

  • 242 percent growth in the San Antonio area
  • 153 percent growth in the Austin area
  • 28 percent growth in Dallas-Fort Worth

Further evidence of Texas’ uptick in business creation comes from a new state-by-state analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by digital mailbox provider iPostal1.

From 2019 to 2024, the number of new business applications jumped 60 percent in Texas, according to the iPostal1 analysis. Wyoming tops the list, with a five-year growth rate of 216 percent.

“The U.S. has no shortage of ambition, but opportunity isn’t spread evenly,” says Jeff Milgram, founder and CEO of iPostal1. “In states like New York, Florida, and Texas, entrepreneurship is booming — people are starting businesses, taking risks, and finding opportunity.”

“Other states are still catching up,” Milgram adds. “Sometimes it’s access to funding, sometimes local policy, or just the confidence that new ventures will be supported.”

Women own many of the new businesses sprouting in Texas, according to a new analysis of 2024-25 data from the U.S. Small Business Administration. The analysis, done by SimpleTiger, a marketing agency for software-as-a-service (SaaS), shows Texas ranks eighth for the highest concentration of women entrepreneurs (109 per 1,000 female residents) among all states. That rate is three percent higher than the national average.

“Women entrepreneurs are no longer a side story in small business growth; they’re a leading indicator of where local economies are expanding next,” SimplyTiger says. “When women-owned business density is high, it usually signals stronger access to customers, networks, and startup pathways that make it easier to launch and keep going.”

In a December news release, Gov. Greg Abbott highlights Texas’ nation-leading job gains over the past 12 months, driven by employers small and large.

“From innovative startups to Fortune 500 corporations, job-creating businesses invest with confidence in Texas,” Abbott says. “With our strong and growing workforce, we will continue to expand career and technical training programs for better jobs and bigger paycheck opportunities for more Texans.”

Houston poised to add 30,900 new jobs in 2026, forecast says

jobs forecast

Buoyed by the growing health care sector, the Houston metro area will add 30,900 jobs in 2026, according to a new forecast from the Greater Houston Partnership.

The report predicts the Houston area’s health care sector will tack on 14,000 jobs next year, which would make it the No. 1 industry for local job growth. The 14,000 health care jobs would represent 45 percent of the projected 30,900 new jobs. In the job-creation column, the health care industry is followed by:

  • Construction: addition of 6,100 jobs in 2026
  • Public education: Addition of 5,800 jobs
  • Public administration: Addition of 5,000 jobs

At the opposite end of the regional workforce, the administrative support services sector is expected to lose 7,500 jobs in 2026, preceded by:

  • Manufacturing: Loss of 3,400 jobs
  • Oil-and-gas extraction: Loss of 3,200 jobs
  • Retail: Loss of 1,800 jobs

“While current employment growth has moderated, the outlook remains robust and Houston’s broader economic foundation remains strong,” GHP president and CEO Steve Kean said in the report.

“Global companies are choosing to invest in Houston — Eli Lilly, Foxconn, Inventec, and others — because they believe in our workforce and our long-term trajectory,” Kean added. “These commitments reinforce that Houston is a place where companies can scale and where our economy continues to demonstrate its resilience as a major engine for growth and opportunity. These commitments and current prospects we are working on give us confidence in the future growth of our economy.”

The Greater Houston Partnership says that while the 30,900-job forecast falls short of the region’s recent average of roughly 50,000 new jobs per year, it’s “broadly in line with the muted national outlook” for employment gains anticipated in 2026.

“Even so, Houston’s young, skilled workforce and strong pipeline of major new projects should help offset energy sector pressures and keep regional growth on pace with the nation,” the report adds.

The report says that even though the health care sector faces rising insurance costs, which might cause some people to delay or skip medical appointments, and federal changes in Medicare and Medicaid, strong demographic trends in the region will ensure health care remains “a key pillar of Houston’s economy.”

As for the local oil-and-gas extraction industry, the report says fluctuations and uncertainty in the global oil-and-gas market will weigh on the Houston sector in 2026. Furthermore, oil-and-gas layoffs partly “reflect a longer-term trend as companies in the sector move toward greater efficiency using fewer workers to produce similar volumes,” according to the report.