Houston companies looking for a new CEO must decide where exactly to look

Houston voices

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

Property Showcase

Texas A&M, UH rise in global rankings of universities attracting the most attention

visibility report

Houston and Texas universities had a strong showing on the 2026-27 Global University Visibility (GUV) Rankings compiled by D.C.-based higher ed market research firm American Caldwell.

Texas A&M ranked No. 6 on the list—the top rank of any Texas university. Meanwhile, the University of Houston ranked No. 52, a 15-spot jump from its previous ranking.

The GUV rankings rate colleges that garner the most global attention via news coverage, social media influence, website traffic, YouTube views, and general public interest. GUV evaluated over 1,200 universities across 193 United Nations-recognized countries.

Texas A&M, with its No. 6 global ranking, also claimed the No. 5 spot among U.S. institutions. The university climbed 21 spots from its previous rank.

“News mentions were a driver of Texas A&M’s movement in this year’s rankings, and earned media remains one of the strongest signals of relevance,” Tim Doty, associate vice president for earned media at Texas A&M, said in a news release. “Much of that visibility begins with our faculty and research experts, whose work helps explain, solve and give context to issues people care about. When Texas A&M experts appear in news stories about research, discovery, national security, agriculture, health, engineering, service and the future of Texas, audiences see the university not only as large or well known, but as useful, relevant and necessary to the conversations shaping our state and country.”

In the “Public Interest” category, UH also claimed a top 10 global ranking at No.6. UH touts its overall GUV rankings success to Guggenheim Fellowships, MacArthur “Genius” grants, National Academy membership, studies like researchers breaking the superconductivity temperature record, and success on the football field and basketball courts.

“Across the board, there is no question that the University of Houston is a brand on the rise,” Shawn Lindsey, interim vice president for marketing and communications, said in a news release. “People are seeing our story, hearing about the amazing things happening at UH and actively seeking us out to learn more. We are seeing it in record-high student applications, we are seeing increases in trademark licensing revenue, our faculty are earning global accolades. It’s an exciting time to be a Houston Cougar.”

Other Texas institutions to make the top 250 on the list include:

  • No. 22 The University of Texas at Austin
  • No. 104 University of Texas at Dallas
  • No. 159 Texas Tech University
  • No. 178 Rice University
  • No. 191 University of North Texas
  • No. 248 Texas State University

For the fourth year in a row, Harvard University secured the top spot on the list, followed by MIT, Stanford University and Purdue University. The University of Oxford was the top non-U.S. institution at No. 5.

See the full list here.

Astrodome group seeks new ideas for future of historic Houston landmark

8th Wonder News

The Astrodome may have once been touted as the Eighth Wonder of the World, but its current condition remains one of Houston's most famous follies. In an effort to find a better use for the iconic building, The Astrodome Conservancy has released a Request for Information (RFI), inviting proposals from interested parties on how the historic landmark might be used in the future. Respondents have until September 8 to submit their responses at the official conservancy site.

“This RFI is an opportunity for the market to help shape a shared vision for the Astrodome,” said Beth Wiedower Jackson, executive director of the Astrodome Conservancy, in a release. “We are looking to gather creative, feasible, and financially viable ideas that reflect both the significance of the Astrodome and its potential as a catalyst for future development.”

When the Astrodome opened in 1965, it was a marvel of engineering and the world's first air-conditioned, multi-purpose domed sports stadium. It remained an iconic part of Houston until changing trends in sports sent the Astros and the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo to newer stadiums with modern amenities. After the 2003 rodeo, the dome was closed, except for a brief use as an evacuation shelter for Hurricane Katrina.

A decades-long fight over what to do with the Astrodome followed that closure. The City of Houston condemned the building for various code violations in 2009. Fully renovating it would cost over $700 million — a tall order for taxpayers. Demolishing it would be far cheaper (around $55 million), but its status on the National Register of Historic Places makes that virtually impossible. Meanwhile, Harris County pays hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to maintain the building.

Proposals for the space have run the gamut. In 2024, the Astrodome Conservancy proposed Vision: Astrodome, which would transform the building into an indoor mall and event space. That still appears to be the foundation of the plan according to the RFI.

The RFI is seeking private investment to partner with the Harris County property. Proposals are merely for planning purposes and will not automatically lead to contracts for development. Section 2.3 states that participants in the new mixed-use space will "require back-of-house infrastructure improvements to support reliable operations at scale," likely meaning that the plan is to fund some of the much-needed renovations via tenants. However, the RFI points out that participants in the revitalized Astrodome will also be eligible for historic space preservation tax credits.

While Vision: Astrodome seems committed to using the stadium as a public space for the entertainment of Houstonians, the RFI is clear other options are on the table.

The Astrodome possibly being used to house a data center is specifically mentioned, though the RFI mandates such a proposal would need to be very upfront about the infrastructure demands and continuing operating costs of such a project. Public backlash against data centers led to Governor Greg Abbott ordering a pause on grid connections to them pending further review.

"The Astrodome presents a unique opportunity for adaptive reuse and redevelopment that honors its legacy while positioning it for long-term community and economic impact," said the conservancy in the release announcing the RFI.

Houston lands $14M in latest CPRIT grants to advance cancer, lab-on-chip research

cancer funding

Thanks to a $4 million grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, the University of Houston has recruited a top-tier researcher developing AI-powered lab-on-a-chip technology for early cancer detection.

Tianhong Cui, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities and an adjunct professor of physiology and biomedical engineering at the Mayo Clinic, specializes in microelectromechanical systems and advanced manufacturing at microscale and nanoscale levels. In addition to lab-on-a-chip systems, Cui focuses on biosensors and water sensors.

Lab-on-a-chip devices deliver big results in a tiny package

The CPRIT grant supports Cui’s development of a microscale lab-on-a-chip system for early cancer detection and post-therapy monitoring.

“Lab-on-a-chip technology crams an entire lab’s worth of functions into a tiny device roughly the size of a USB stick,” according to Built In.

Common uses for the technology include medical diagnostics, point-of-care testing, and environmental monitoring.

Lab-on-a-chip work being carried out at UH and elsewhere in Houston promises to revolutionize cancer detection and treatment. For instance, Houston biotech company iBiochips, a spinout from the Houston Methodist Research Institute, makes lab-on-a-chip devices that bolster cancer detection and therapy.

Four local organizations gain $10 million in CPRIT grants

Four other Houston-area organizations received an additional $10 million in grants in CPRIT’s latest round of funding:

  • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center received two $2 million grants to recruit researchers Zheqi Li of Harvard University’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Nikolaos Koundouros of Weill Cornell Medicine.
  • Rice University received one $2 million grant to recruit researcher Maria Akoppyan, formerly of the University of Southern California.
  • UT Medical Branch at Galveston received one $2 million grant to recruit researcher Cristina Santarossa of Johns Hopkins University.
  • Houston-based biopharma company Pulmotect received one $2 million grant to support better outcomes for cancer patients by activating immunity in the lungs as a first line of defense against germs.

The funding was part of $35 million in new CPRIT grants for institutions and companies across Texas approved at the organization's most recent meeting. To date, CPRIT has awarded more than $4.2 billion in grants.

“These awards support research across the cancer continuum from prevention to new classes of therapeutics,” said Dr. Scott Hiebert, chief scientific officer of CPRIT, said in a news release. “The work of these investigators will impact the lives of Texans across the state.”

View All Listings