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

Generation Park lands new facility to scale xeno-organ production

Organ innovation

Maryland-based United Therapeutics Corp. has opened a new 77,448-square-foot facility to manufacture xeno-organs in Northeast Houston’s growing biotech hub, Generation Park.

The new Houston location is United Therapeutics’ third Designated Pathogen-Free (DPF) site, named for transplant pioneers Dr. Bartley P. Griffith and Dr. Robert A. Montgomery. The company says the new facility will enable it to scale commercial production of its xeno-organs once they receive regulatory approval.

An existing DPF facility in Virginia is supporting clinical trials for the xeno-organs, and a third site in Minnesota will also focus on commercialization with the Houston site, according to the company.

Xeno-organs are organs taken from a non-human animal source and transplanted, implanted or infused into a human recipient.

Currently, United Therapeutics is advancing clinical trials to support a Biologics License Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its investigational-stage xenotransplantation, UKidney, UThymoKidney and UHeart products. The products all involve working with the genes from humans and pigs.

In 2025, Chron.com reported the company was working to construct an estimated $96 million facility to breed genetically engineered animals. Head of investor relations at United Therapeutics Dewey Steadman told the Houston Business Journal in 2025 that the pigs’ DNA will be edited. In November 2024, a 53-year-old woman in Alabama received a transplanted kidney from UKidney that had 10 gene edits. She had the transplant removed in April 2025, after her body rejected it.

The Dr. Bartley P. Griffith and Dr. Robert A. Montgomery Xenograft Production Facility requires a “strictly controlled, biosecure barrier environment, including air filtration, filtered water, filtered feed supplies, and state-of-the-art decontamination entryways,” according to the company. Being pathogen-free means it includes calibrated air and water conduits to support the transplantability of xenograft products and to prevent contamination. For energy considerations, the building also features solar arrays.

“With our third xenograft production facility now open and clinical trials underway, United Therapeutics is moving closer to its goal of providing transplantable organs to the people who need them,” Martine Rothblatt, chairperson and CEO of United Therapeutics, said in a news release. “It is fitting that this facility is named for Dr. Griffith and Dr. Montgomery, whose first-in-human surgeries turned xenotransplantation from a theoretical possibility into a clinical reality.”

The facility, which wrapped construction in August, is located at 11848 Common Dock Dr. in Generation Park, which will house manufacturing sites for pharmaceutical heavyweights Bristol Myers Squibb and Eli Lilly. Last fall, Eli Lilly tapped Generation Park for its $6.5 billion manufacturing plant, and Bristol Myers Squibb made a $2.3 billion investment in August to bring its state-of-the-art site to the master-planned commercial district.

Elon Musk's SpaceX reports profit as AI and satellite businesses booms

Booming Business

SpaceX reported a bigger quarterly profit than expected on Tuesday, October 20, as its satellite communications and artificial intelligence businesses boomed.

The company, run by Elon Musk, posted a profit for the three months through September 2026 of $4.4 billion, or 35 cents per share, reversing a year-ago loss and easily topping Wall Street's expectations. Revenue soared to $14.6 billion, up 161%.

On a conference call with analysts, Musk suggested a merger with his electric car company Tesla might be in the works, something that has been rumored for months. He said both companies formed “special committees” of independent directors to discuss the issue, though he played down the chances of an imminent deal.

“Some people out there assume that a SpaceX and Tesla merger is a certainty,” he said. “I think that would be overstating it.”

The AI business became SpaceX's largest by revenue in the third quarter, although the Starlink satellite service remains the biggest profit generator.

“They beat across all metrics and the Starlink business looks to be accelerating,” said Dan Ives, an analyst at Yorkville Ives. “This is just what (Wall) Street wanted.”

The stock rose 7.5% in after-hours trading.

Musk also told analysts that for next month's launch of its Starship rocket, SpaceX will attempt to grab both the booster and ship with mechanical arms upon return to base, a key step toward demonstrating it can reuse the massive spacecraft.

“The only way that we can extend consciousness beyond Earth on a sustained basis is with a fully reusable orbital launch vehicle,” Musk said, calling the attempt, if successful, “a massive technology milestone.”

SpaceX hopes to get Starship on a regular launch pattern in preparation for NASA's upcoming lunar missions.

The company already has huge contracts with the federal government, and House Democrats have called for investigations into those contracts and Musk’s work with the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk has spent $276 million since July in support of Republican candidates.

In a filing for its initial public offering in June, SpaceX warned that a change in control of Congress could have a “material and adverse impact on our growth and competitive position.”

Musk recently drew criticism from politicians in Washington after speeds for a military version of SpaceX's satellite communications service were slowed for Ukraine following President Donald Trump's deal to get more diesel oil from Russia amid a push to end the war. The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that it was Musk who ordered the slowdown, impeding Ukraine’s use of drones along the front. SpaceX did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment on the Journal story.

Both Trump and Musk have denied responsibility for the slowdown.

As midterm elections near, Musk on Monday promised to give one share of SpaceX to “every kid in America” next year, though he provided no details on how the distribution would be carried out. With communities nationwide protesting the construction of large data centers and concerns about AI safety, AI companies are trying to build goodwill. Anthropic pledged to commit 5% of its shares to a new “public benefit” fund.

SpaceX shares have been under pressure over concerns that the company was spending too much on major projects to compete with rivals such as Anthropic. The company said capital expenditures totaled $19.6 billion last quarter, nearly triple the figure from a year earlier, and it forecast spending would grow to $35 billion to $40 billion in the current quarter.

Shares of SpaceX closed Tuesday at $147.79, down from a peak near $201 after its IPO, which made Musk the world’s first trillionaire at the time. But the share prices for SpaceX and Tesla have since dropped, reducing his net worth to $925 billion, according to Forbes magazine.

Tesla reports third-quarter financial results Wednesday. Last week, Tesla unveiled a new Roadster sports car that in some versions may include thrusters allowing it to briefly fly using SpaceX technology — though experts say anything usable for drivers is a long shot.

These 5 trailblazing Houston startups are leading the energy transition

meet the finalists

Houston is home to a growing number of startups reshaping what it means to be called the "Energy Capital of the World."

As part of the 2026 Houston Innovation Awards, our Energy Transition Business category honors those innovative startups that are providing solutions within renewables, climatetech, clean energy, alternative materials, circular economy and more.

Five clean energy startups have been named finalists for the 2026 award. The finalists, selected by our esteemed panel of judges, range from a lower-emission steel producer to a diagnostics platform developer working to support batteries used in data centers.

Read more about these innovative businesses, their initiatives, and their inspirational founders below. The 2026 winners will be announced on InnovationMap.com in mid-November.

Capwell Services

Methane capture company Capwell Services works to eliminate vented oil and gas emissions economically for operators. According to the company, methane emissions are vented from most oil and gas facilities due to safety protocols, and operators are not able to capture the gas cost-effectively, leading operators to emit more than 14 million metric tons of methane per year in the U.S. and Canada. Founded in 2022, Capwell specializes in low and intermittent flow vents for methane capture.

The company began as a University of Pennsylvania senior design project led by CEO Andrew Lane. It has since participated in programs with Greentown Labs, the Rice Clean Energy Accelerator and the Creative Destruction Lab Energy Cohort at Texas A&M University. The company moved to Houston in 2023 and raised a pre-seed round. It deployed two commercial units this year, according to its application.

FlowCellutions

Energytech startup FlowCellutions is developing a chemistry-agnostic diagnostics platform for flow and metal-air batteries supporting data centers and critical infrastructure. The platform is designed to help reduce operating costs, prevent failures and costly downtime, and extend battery lifetime from approximately seven years to more than 30 years. It has deployed four paid pilots and plans to take insights from the programs to develop its next-gen sensor platform technology.

CEO Becca Segel founded the company in 2022. It is a member of Greentown Labs, and Segel was a 2025 Activate Fellow. The company has raised over $2 million in non-dilutive funding and received a $1.5 million NSF SBIR Fast-Track award earlier this year.

Hertha Metals

Hertha Metals produces lower-cost, lower-emission steel and high-purity iron. The company has developed a single-step process that uses natural gas as a direct reductant instead of metallurgical coal, which cuts production costs by more than 25 percent and emissions by up to 50 percent, according to the company. The same process produces high-purity iron needed for high-purity steels and rare earth magnets. The company says it aims to "re-industrialize America’s production of critical materials."

Hertha Metals was founded by CEO Laureen Meroueh in 2022 and emerged from stealth last year with more than $17 million in venture capital funding. The company closed a $133.65 million Series A this month and also broke ground on its $100M high-purity iron factory known as Chalyx in Conroe.

Mars Materials

Clean chemical manufacturing business Mars Materials is working to convert captured carbon into resources, such as carbon fiber and wastewater treatment chemicals. The company develops and produces its drop-in chemical products in Houston and uses an in-licensed process for the National Renewable Energy Lab to produce acrylonitrile, which is used to produce plastics, synthetic fibers, and rubbers.

Founded in 2019 by CEO Aaron Fitzgerald, CTO Kristian Gubsch, and vice president of operations Trey Sheridan, the company has secured over $7.2M in financing and is backed by Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy, Shell, Black & Veatch, and other organizations. It won in the Minority-founded Business Category in last year's Houston Innovation Awards.

Solidec

Chemical manufacturing company Solidec has developed autonomous generators that extract molecules from water and air and convert them into pure chemicals and fuels that are free of carbon emissions on-site, eliminating the need for transport, storage, and permitting. The company was founded around innovations developed by Rice University associate professor Haotian Wang.

The company was selected for the Chevron Technology Ventures’ Catalyst Program, Greentown Labs, NSF I-Corps and was part of the first cohort of the Activate Houston program. It won first place at the 2024 startup pitch competition at CERAWeek. Solidec was founded in 2023 by Wang, who serves as an advisor, CEO Ryan DuChanois, and CTO Yang Xia. It closed a $2.5 million seed round in 2025.