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

Autonomous truck company with Houston routes goes public

on a roll

Kodiak Robotics, a provider of AI-powered autonomous vehicle technology, has gone public through a SPAC merger and has rebranded as Kodiak AI. The company operates trucking routes to and from Houston, which has served as a launchpad for the business.

Privately held Kodiak, founded in 2018, merged with a special purpose acquisition company — publicly held Ares Acquisition Corp. II — to form Kodiak AI, whose stock now trades on the Nasdaq market.

In September, Mountain View, California-based Kodiak and New York City-based Ares disclosed a $145 million PIPE (private investment in public equity) investment from institutional investors to support the business combo. Since announcing the SPAC deal, more than $220 million has been raised for the new Kodiak.

“We believe these additional investments underscore our investors’ confidence in the value proposition of Kodiak’s safe and commercially deployed autonomous technology,” Don Burnette, founder and CEO of Kodiak, said in a news release.

“We look forward to leading the advancement of the commercial trucking and public sector industries,” he added, “and delivering on the exciting value creation opportunities ahead to the benefit of customers and shareholders.”

Last December, Kodiak debuted a facility near George Bush Intercontinental/Houston Airport for loading and loading driverless trucks. Transportation and logistics company Ryder operates the “truckport” for Ryder.

The facility serves freight routes to and from Houston, Dallas and Oklahoma City. Kodiak’s trucks currently operate with or without drivers. Kodiak’s inaugural route launched in 2024 between Houston and Dallas.

One of the companies using Kodiak’s technology is Austin-based Atlas Energy Solutions, which owns and operates four driverless trucks equipped with Kodiak’s driver-as-a-service technology. The trucks pick up fracking sand from Atlas’ Dune Express, a 42-mile conveyor system that carries sand from Atlas’ mine to sites near customers’ oil wells in the Permian Basin.

Altogether, Atlas has ordered 100 trucks that will run on Kodiak’s autonomous technology in an effort to automate Atlas’ supply chain.

Rice University scientists invent new algorithm to fight Alzheimer's

A Seismic Breakthrough

A new breakthrough from researchers at Rice University could unlock the genetic components that determine several human diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

Alzheimer's disease affected 57 million people worldwide in 2021, and cases in the United States are expected to double in the next couple of decades. Despite its prevalence and widespread attention of the condition, the full mechanisms are still poorly understood. One hurdle has been identifying which brain cells are linked to the disease.

For years, it was thought that the cells most linked with Alzheimer's pathology via DNA evidence were microglia, infection-fighting cells in the brain. However, this did not match with actual studies of Alzheimer's patients' brains. It's the memory-making cells in the human brain that are implicated in the pathology.

To prove this link, researchers at Rice, alongside Boston University, developed a computational algorithm called “Single-cell Expression Integration System for Mapping Genetically Implicated Cell Types," or SEISMIC. It allows researchers to zero in on specific neurons linked to Alzheimer's, the first of its kind. Qiliang Lai, a Rice doctoral student and the lead author of a paper on the discovery published in Nature Communications, believes that this is an important step in the fight against Alzheimer's.

“As we age, some brain cells naturally slow down, but in dementia — a memory-loss disease — specific brain cells actually die and can’t be replaced,” said Lai. “The fact that it is memory-making brain cells dying and not infection-fighting brain cells raises this confusing puzzle where DNA evidence and brain evidence don’t match up.”

Studying Alzheimer's has been hampered by the limitations of computational analysis. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) map small differences in the DNA of Alzheimer's patients. The genetic signal in these studies would often over-emphasize the presence of infection fighting cells, essentially making the activity of those cells too "loud" statistically to identify other factors. Combined with greater specificity in brain regional activity, SEISMIC reduces the data chatter to grant a clearer picture of the genetic component of Alzheimer's.

“We built our SEISMIC algorithm to analyze genetic information and match it precisely to specific types of brain cells,” Lai said. “This enables us to create a more detailed picture of which cell types are affected by which genetic programs.”

Though the algorithm is not in and of itself likely to lead to a cure or treatment for Alzheimer's any time soon, the researchers say that SEISMIC is already performing significantly better than existing tools at identifying important disease-relevant cellular signals more clearly.

“We think this work could help reconcile some contradicting patterns in the data pertaining to Alzheimer’s research,” said Vicky Yao, assistant professor of computer science and a member of the Ken Kennedy Institute at Rice. “Beyond that, the method will likely be broadly valuable to help us better understand which cell types are relevant in different complex diseases.”

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

5 incubators and accelerators fueling the growth of Houston startups

meet the finalists

Houston is home to numerous accelerators and incubators that support founders in pushing their innovative startups and technologies forward.

As part of our 2025 Houston Innovation Awards, the new Incubator/Accelerator of the Year category honors a local incubator or accelerator that is championing and fueling the growth of Houston startups.

Five incubators and accelerators have been named finalists for the 2025 award. They support startups ranging from hard-tech companies to digital health startups.

Read more about these organizations below. Then join us at the Houston Innovation Awards on Nov. 13 at Greentown Labs, when the winner will be unveiled.

Get your tickets now on sale for this exclusive event celebrating Houston Innovation.

Activate

Hard tech incubator Activate supports scientists in "the outset of their entrepreneurial journey." The Houston hub was introduced last year, and joins others in Boston, New York, and Berkley, California—where Activate is headquartered. It named its second Houston cohort this summer.

This year, the incubator grew to include its largest number of concurrent supported fellows, with 88 companies currently being supported nationally. In total, Activate has supported 296 fellows who have created 236 companies. Those companies have raised over $4 billion in follow-on funding, according to Activate. In Houston, it has supported several Innovation Awards finalists, including Solidec, Bairitone Health and Deep Anchor Solutions. It is led locally by Houston Managing Director Jeremy Pitts.

EnergyTech Nexus

Cleantech startup hub EnergyTech Nexus' mission is to accelerate the energy transition by connecting founders, investors and industrial stakeholders and helping to develop transformative companies, known as "thunderlizards."

The hub was founded in 2023 by CEO Jason Ethier, Juliana Garaizar and Nada Ahmed. It has supported startups including Capwell Services, Resollant, Syzygy Plasmonics, Hertha Metals, EarthEn Energy and Solidec—many of which are current or past Innovation Awards finalists. This year Energy Tech Nexus launched its COPILOT Accelerator, powered by Wells Fargo Innovation Incubator (IN²) at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). COPILOT partners with Browning the Green Space, a nonprofit that promotes diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in the clean energy and climatech sectors. Energy Tech Nexus also launched its Liftoff fundraising program, its Investor Program, and a "strategic ecosystem partnership" with Greentown Labs.

Greentown Labs

Climatetech incubator Greentown Labs offers its community resources and a network to climate and energy innovation startups looking to grow. The collaborative community offers members state-of-the-art prototyping labs, business resources and access to investors and corporate partners. The co-located incubator was first launched in Boston in 2011 before opening in Houston in 2021.

Greentown has seen major changes and activity this year. In February, Greentown announced Georgina Campbell Flatter as its new CEO, along with a new Board of Directors. In July, it announced Lawson Gow as its Head of Houston, a "dedicated role to champion the success of Greentown Houston’s startups and lead Greentown’s next chapter of impact in the region," according to Greentown. It has since announced numerous new partnerships, including those with Energy Tech Nexus, Los Angeles-based software development firm Nominal, to launch the new Industrial Center of Excellence; and Houston-based Shoreless, to launch an AI lab onsite. Greentown Houston has supported 175 startups since its launch in 2021, with 45 joining in the last two years. Those startups include the likes of Hertha Metals, RepAir Carbon, Solidec, Eclipse Energy (formerly GoldH2) and many others.

Healthtech Accelerator (TMCi)

The Healthtech Accelerator, formerly TMCx, focuses on clinical partnerships to improve healthcare delivery and outcomes. Emerging digital health and medical device startups that join the accelerator are connected with a network of TMC hospitals and seasoned advisors that will prepare them for clinical validation, funding and deployment.

The Healthtech Accelerator is part of Texas Medical Center Innovation, which also offers the TMCi Accelerator for Cancer Therapeutics. The Healthtech Accelerator named its 19th, and latest, cohort of 11 companies last month.

Impact Hub Houston

Impact Hub Houston supports early-stage ventures at various stages of development through innovative programs that address pressing societal issues. The nonprofit organization supports social impact startups through mentorship, connections and training opportunities.

There are more than 110 Impact Hubs globally with 24,000-plus members spanning 69 countries, making it one of the world’s largest communities for accelerating entrepreneurial solutions toward the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

---

The Houston Innovation Awards program is sponsored by Houston City College Northwest, Houston Powder Coaters, FLIGHT by Yuengling, and more to be announced soon. For sponsorship opportunities, please contact sales@innovationmap.com.