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

2 Houston space tech cos. celebrate major tech milestones

big wins

Two Houston aerospace companies — Intuitive Machines and Venus Aerospace — have reached testing milestones for equipment they’re developing.

Intuitive Machines recently completed the first round of “human in the loop” testing for its Moon RACER (Reusable Autonomous Crewed Exploration Rover) lunar terrain vehicle. The company conducted the test at NASA’s Johnson Space Center.

RACER is one of three lunar terrain vehicles being considered by NASA for the space agency’s Artemis initiative, which will send astronauts to the moon.

NASA says human-in-the-loop testing can reveal design flaws and technical problems, and can lead to cost-efficient improvements. In addition, it can elevate the design process from 2D to 3D modeling.

Intuitive Machines says the testing “proved invaluable.” NASA astronauts served as test subjects who provided feedback about the Moon RACER’s functionality.

The Moon RACER, featuring a rechargeable electric battery and a robotic arm, will be able to accommodate two astronauts and more than 880 pounds of cargo. It’s being designed to pull a trailer loaded with more than 1,760 pounds of cargo.

Another Houston company, Venus Aerospace, recently achieved ignition of its VDR2 rocket engine. The engine, being developed in tandem with Ohio-based Velontra — which aims to produce hypersonic planes — combines the functions of a rotating detonation rocket engine with those of a ramjet.

A rotating detonation rocket engine, which isn’t equipped with moving parts, rapidly burns fuel via a supersonic detonation wave, according to the Air Force Research Laboratory. In turn, the engine delivers high performance in a small volume, the lab says. This savings in volume can offer range, speed, and affordability benefits compared with ramjets, rockets, and gas turbines.

A ramjet is a type of “air breathing” jet engine that does not include a rotary engine, according to the SKYbrary electronic database. Instead, it uses the forward motion of the engine to compress incoming air.

A ramjet can’t function at zero airspeed, so it can’t power an aircraft during all phases of flight, according to SKYbrary. Therefore, it must be paired with another kind of propulsion, such as a rotating detonation rocket engine, to enable acceleration at a speed where the ramjet can produce thrust.

“With this successful test and ignition, Venus Aerospace has demonstrated the exceptional ability to start a [ramjet] at takeoff speed, which is revolutionary,” the company says.

Venus Aerospace plans further testing of its engine in 2025.

Venus Aerospace, recently achieved ignition of its VDR2 rocket engine. Photo courtesy of Venus Aerospace

METRO rolls out electric shuttles for downtown Houston commuters

on a roll

The innovative METRO microtransit program will be expanding to the downtown area, the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County announced on Monday.

“Microtransit is a proven solution to get more people where they need to go safely and efficiently,” Houston Mayor John Whitmire said in a statement. “Connected communities are safer communities, and bringing microtransit to Houston builds on my promise for smart, fiscally-sound infrastructure growth.”

The program started in June 2023 when the city’s nonprofit Evolve Houston partnered with the for-profit Ryde company to offer free shuttle service to residents of Second and Third Ward. The shuttles are all-electric and take riders to bus stops, medical buildings, and grocery stores. Essentially, it works as a traditional ride-share service but focuses on multiple passengers in areas where bus access may involve hazards or other obstacles. Riders access the system through the Ride Circuit app.

So far, the microtransit system has made a positive impact in the wards according to METRO. This has led to the current expansion into the downtown area. The system is not designed to replace the standard bus service, but to help riders navigate to it through areas where bus service is more difficult.

“Integrating microtransit into METRO’s public transit system demonstrates a commitment to finding innovative solutions that meet our customers where they are,” said METRO Board Chair Elizabeth Gonzalez Brock. “This on-demand service provides a flexible, easier way to reach METRO buses and rail lines and will grow ridership by solving the first- and last-mile challenges that have hindered people’s ability to choose METRO.”

The City of Houston approved a renewal of the microtransit program in July, authorizing Evolve Houston to spend $1.3 million on it. Some, like council member Letitia Plummer, have questioned whether microtransit is really the future for METRO as the service cuts lines such as the University Corridor.

However, the microtransit system serves clear and longstanding needs in Houston. Getting to and from bus stops in the city with its long blocks, spread-out communities, and fickle pedestrian ways can be difficult, especially for poor or disabled riders. While the bus and rail work fine for longer distances, shorter ones can be underserved.

Even in places like downtown where stops are plentiful, movement between them can still involve walks of a mile or more, and may not serve for short trips.

“Our microtransit service is a game-changer for connecting people, and we are thrilled to launch it in downtown Houston,” said Evolve executive director Casey Brown. “The all-electric, on-demand service complements METRO’s existing fixed-route systems while offering a new solution for short trips. This launch marks an important milestone for our service, and we look forward to introducing additional zones in the new year — improving access to public transit and local destinations.”

———

This article originally ran on CultureMap.