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

4 Houston innovators join prestigious group of inventors as senior members

top honor

Houston is home to four new senior members of the National Academy of Inventors.

To be eligible to be an NAI Senior Member, candidates must be active faculty, scientists and administrators from NAI member institutions that have demonstrated innovation and produced technologies that have “brought, or aspire to bring, real impact on the welfare of society,” according to the NAI. The members have also succeeded in patents, licensing and commercialization, and educating and mentoring.

The University of Houston announced that three professors were selected to join the prestigious NAI list of senior members. UH now has 39 faculty members on the NAI list.

“We congratulate these three esteemed colleagues on being named NAI Senior Members,” Ramanan Krishnamoorti, vice president for energy and innovation at UH, said in a news release. “This recognition is a testament to their dedication, research excellence and pursuit of real-world impact by knowledge and technologies. Their achievements continue to elevate the University as a leader in innovation and entrepreneurship.”

UH’s new senior members include:

  • Birol Dindoruk, the American Association of Drilling Engineers Endowed Professor of Petroleum Engineering and Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the Cullen College of Engineering. He is known for his research in carbon capture and storage, fluid-rock interactions and hydrogen storage. He holds three patents.
  • Megan Robertson, the Neal R. Amundson professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at UH’s Cullen College of Engineering. She is developing new polymers and groundbreaking strategies for recycling and reusing plastics. Robertson currently has three patents and two more patent applications pending.
  • Francisco Robles Hernandez, a professor of mechanical engineering technology at the UH College of Technology. He holds four patents, and several others are under review. His work focuses on carbon materials, including pioneering work with graphene and designs with steel and aluminum used in automotives and railroads.

“As an inventor, this is one of the highest honors you can be awarded, so I am very proud to receive it,” Robles Hernandez said in a news release. “UH has been instrumental in supporting my research and innovation efforts, but it’s the creativity of the students here that makes it successful.”

Allison Post, associate director of electrophysiology research and innovations and manager of innovation partnerships at the Texas Heart Institute at Baylor College of Medicine, also made the list.

Post was recognized for her work in biomedical engineering and commitment to advancing cardiovascular care through innovations. Post is the youngest member to be inducted this year.

Other notable Texas honorees include Emma Fan from the University of Texas, Arum Han from Texas A&M and Panos Shiakolas at UT Arlington.

In 2024, Edward Ratner, a computer information systems lecturer in the Department of Information Science Technology at the University of Houston’s Cullen College of Engineering, and Omid Veiseh, a bioengineer at Rice University and director of the Biotech Launch Pad, were named NAI fellows.

The Senior Member Induction Ceremony will honor the 2025 class at NAI’s Annual Conference June 23-26 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Plans revealed for $2 billion expansion of Houston convention district

coming soon

Mayor John Whitmire and Houston First Corporation shared a new master plan for the George R. Brown Convention Center and its surrounding area last week. The plan features expanded exhibition space, a living roof, a pedestrian plaza with access to Toyota Center and more.

The project will be funded by the state’s portion of incremental Hotel Occupancy Tax revenue growth within a three-mile radius of the GRB for 30 years, which is estimated to total about $2 billion, according to a release from Houston First.

The first phase of the project, which is slated to be completed by 2028, will focus on developing a 700,000-square-foot convention facility known as GRB South.

GRB South will feature:

  • Two exhibition halls, totaling 150,000 square feet
  • A 50,000-square-foot multipurpose hall that opens to the new Central Plaza
  • The 100,000-square-foot Central Plaza, an extension of the Avenida Plaza that will connect to Discovery Green and Toyota Center
  • Atrium flex hall totaling 25,000 square feet
  • 225,000 square feet of contiguous exhibit space
  • A 60,000-80,000-square-foot ballroom
  • Ground-level spaces for retail and restaurants
  • A central atrium, providing each level with natural light

The design of the space is inspired by the Houston area's native prairies and will use low-carbon materials, high-efficiency building systems with rainwater collection and water-reduction strategies. A living roof on top of the GRB South will also have the potential for solar integration.

"It is imperative for us to stay competitive and meet the needs of our meetings and convention customers,” Michael Heckman, president and CEO of Houston First, said in the release. “This project will not only accomplish that but will establish a gathering space that will be the epicenter for entertainment, sports, and city-wide events, accentuating our ability to capitalize on Houston's unique offerings.”

The full campus renovation is expected to wrap in 2038, and construction will be managed in phases. Houston First reports that construction should not impact events currently scheduled as GRB.

“This project is truly transformative for downtown Houston, a lasting legacy that will solidify our position as a top-tier convention and entertainment destination,” Mayor John Whitmire said in the release. “Most importantly, we are creating a space that will build community, foster connection, and shape the future of Houston.”

Explore renderings of the plans below.

  

Rendering courtesy Houston First.

Tech company floats plan for futuristic shipyard on Texas Gulf Coast

Anchors Away

Armed with $600 million in fresh funding, Austin-based Saronic Technologies has set its sights on building a shipyard for producing remotely operated military vessels — and the futuristic shipyard could be located along the Texas Gulf Coast.

The shipyard, dubbed Port Alpha, would manufacture unstaffed midsize and large Navy ships known as “maritime drones.” Defense Newsreported that Texas — with the Gulf Coast being a prime target — is among the places under consideration for the shipyard. A timeline for construction of the shipyard hasn’t been set, and a cost estimate for the project hasn’t been revealed.

“A core principle of Saronic is that we design our vessels for autonomy from the keel up,” Saronic co-founder and CEO Dino Mavrookas, a former Navy SEAL, says in a news release. “We will take the same approach with Port Alpha, designing a shipyard from the ground up to produce at a speed and scale not seen since World War II.”

Saronic says Port Alpha would boost the U.S. shipbuilding industry, which is practically nonexistent. Consulting giant McKinsey & Co. reported in 2024 that the U.S. has gone from building about 5 percent of the world’s ocean-going ships in the 1970s to about 0.2 percent today. China, Japan, and South Korea now dominate global shipbuilding.

“The last years have seen a degradation in the capacity for the United States to build ships and to manufacture core needs of the country. I am excited to back Saronic and its focus on revitalizing shipbuilding in America, while also building products to defend those interests,” says investor and tech entrepreneur Elad Gil, who led the $600 million funding round.

The $600 million round, announced February 18, pushes the value of Saronic to $4 billion. Investors in Saronic, founded in 2022, include Gil, General Catalyst, a16z, Caffeinated Capital, and 8VC.

Last year, Saronic raised $175 million from investors, lifting the company’s value to $1 billion. In 2023, the startup collected $55 million from investors.

In the past three years, Saronic has focused on manufacturing three small remotely controlled vessels, or “maritime drones,” for the Navy: the six-foot-long Spyglass, 14-foot-long Cutlass, and 24-foot-long Corsair. Port Alpha would specialize in much bigger remotely controlled ships for the Navy. The Navy has expressed interest in assembling a modern fleet that combines staffed and unstaffed vessels.

Saronic’s nearly 420,000-square-foot factory in Austin manufactures the Spyglass, Cutlass and Corsair boats.

“The velocity and economics of warfare have fundamentally evolved, and several of our own team have witnessed firsthand how unmanned systems became true force multipliers in Afghanistan and in other theaters of conflict,” says Paul Kwan, managing director of General Catalyst.

---

This story originally was published on our sister site CultureMap Austin.

View All Listings