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

UTHealth Houston team joins NASA initiative to protect border drinking water

water watch

Climate change means far more to public health than living with hotter days. Transformations in our weather are contributing to challenges in accessing safe drinking water in some communities.

One of the most dire situations is along the US–Mexico border. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is seeking to address that issue with its Water Quality Applications program. An 11-researcher project led by a UTHealth Houston School of Public Health faculty member has been selected to participate.

“Drinking water is one of the most fundamental public health protections, but producing safe drinking water involves a delicate balance,” Yun Hang, assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, said in a news release. Her team’s proposal was one of 93 that were submitted for funding through NASA’s Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES)-2025 program.

This is the first time that NASA has worked with a team devoted to water quality applications. The group, which includes researchers from across the nation, will use satellite observations of Earth, as well as hydrologic modeling, to potentially anticipate and act on water quality conditions as they change. Challenges addressed over the course of the three-year program, which kicked off in June, might include problems with water quality due to climate variability and increased pressure on water resources.

Hang’s team will focus on a pair of borderlands: Paso del Norte and the Rio Grande Valley.

“Working closely with El Paso Water ensures that our research addresses real operational needs while helping utilities better prepare for climate-related water quality changes and continue providing safe drinking water to communities across the Texas border region,” Hang added in the release.

She and the team will use data gathered by NASA on both past and future Earth-observing missions, which will allow them to track environmental changes that may affect source water quality. Combined with past water treatment records and hydrologic models, the team will also utilize artificial intelligence to develop predictive tools that aim to stop issues before they become larger hurdles to water safety.

Another one of the project’s goals is to create visualization tools and source water summaries that can be utilized by those without scientific expertise. The tools will be produced in English and Spanish to further broaden their accessibility.

The hope is that the materials made by the team will also go far beyond the border, with protocols that can be adapted or adopted by other areas dealing with water quality issues.

U.S. News declares Houston hospital No. 1 in Texas for the 15th year

Top of the Chart

Houston Methodist Hospital and over a dozen more Houston-area hospitals have earned bragging rights in U.S. News & World Report's newly released rankings of the Best Hospitals for 2026-2027.

Every year, U.S. News annually evaluates nearly 4,500 U.S. hospitals to determine which meet the publication's rigorous standards and offer the best care for patients across 14 adult specialties and 23 procedures and conditions. New to this year's batch of rankings, U.S. News introduced regional rankings in cancer; cardiology; heart and vascular surgery; orthopedics; and rehabilitation.

Houston Methodist Hospital was the only Texas institution named on U.S. News' Best Hospitals Honor Roll, a prestigious list of the 20 best medical centers in the country. Houston Methodist also reigns as Texas' best hospital for the 15th consecutive year.

The hospital also shines among the nation’s best in 10 specialties:

  • No. 5 – Gastroenterology and GI Surgery
  • No. 7 – Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • No. 10 – Cardiology, Heart, and Vascular Surgery
  • No. 11 – Pulmonology and Lung Surgery
  • No. 13 – Neurology and Neurosurgery
  • No. 19 – Cancer
  • No. 21 – Orthopedics
  • No. 23 – Diabetes and Endocrinology
  • No. 24 – Geriatrics
  • No. 43 – Urology
Houston Methodist also earned high performing distinctions across one regional specialty (Rehabilitation) and 21 procedures and conditions.

"This recognition reflects the remarkable dedication of our physicians and employees and their tireless focus on delivering unparalleled care to our patients," said Houston Methodist president and CEO Marc L. Boom, M.D. in a press release. "While we are honored by this recognition, its true significance lies in what it represents — an unwavering commitment to putting patients first."

Elsewhere in Houston, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center ranked as the No. 1 best cancer hospital in the nation for the 12th year in a row.

"This ranking is a tremendous honor, and it reflects our unwavering commitment to continue making progress in our mission to end cancer," said UT MD Anderson president Peter WT Pisters, M.D. "We are deeply grateful to everyone who made this recognition possible: our faculty and staff, volunteers, donors, and the patients and families we are honored to serve."

MD Anderson also earned national rankings in two specialties — Urology (No. 6) and Gastroenterology and GI Surgery (No. 16) — and it received high performing distinctions in six procedures and conditions: Colon Cancer Surgery; Ear, Nose, and Throat Surgery; Gynecological Cancer Surgery; Leukemia, Lymphoma, and Myeloma Treatment; Lung Cancer Surgery; and Prostate Cancer Surgery.

The additional Houston hospitals that ranked among the best in Texas for 2026-2027 are:

  • No. 3 – Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital (tied with Baylor University Medical Center Dallas)
  • No. 5 – Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center, Houston
  • No. 6 – Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston
  • No. 7 – Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital
  • No. 10 – Memorial Hermann Greater Heights Hospital (tied with St. David's Medical Center, Austin)
  • No. 14 – Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital
  • No. 15 – Memorial Hermann Memorial City Medical Center, Houston
  • No. 21 – Houston Methodist Clear Lake Hospital, Nassau Bay; St. Luke's Health-The Woodlands Hospital; University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston (also tied with six more Texas hospitals)
  • No. 30 – Memorial Hermann Sugar Land Hospital (tied with five other Texas hospitals)
  • No. 36 – HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood (tied with Parkland Health-Dallas)
---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Houston helps power Texas’ rise as AI infrastructure hub, new report finds

eyes on ai

Houston plays a major role in Texas’ rapidly evolving AI economy, a new report indicates.

The report from Build American AI, a pro-AI advocacy group, notes Houston’s growing AI presence includes:

  • A factory being built by AI chipmaker NVIDIA and electronics manufacturer Foxconn that will produce AI supercomputers and infrastructure systems
  • Houston Methodist’s use of ambient AI to listen to health care providers’ conversations with patients, eliminating the need for manual notetaking
  • An abundance of AI products and services for the energy sector

Across the state, billions of dollars in new AI investments are fueling advancements in construction, manufacturing, energy production, logistics, and health care, according to the report.

“Texas is not merely a place where AI products will be used. Texas is becoming one of the places where the AI economy is being assembled,” the report says.

Particularly noteworthy are four major AI-related projects around the state representing an investment of more than $140 billion, including Google’s $40 billion buildout of AI data centers.

“While California had a headstart in building the software era, Texas will build the infrastructure era,” says the report. “That is not a slogan. Economic research has revealed for decades that innovation happens where the local conditions make building and collaboration possible, and Texas is positioned to be a central hub.”

According to the report, components of Texas’ infrastructure era include:

  • Energy leadership
  • Top-tier hospitals
  • Semiconductor investments
  • Construction capabilities
  • Data center growth
  • Major companies and universities

On the workforce front, Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index found Texas had 80,547 AI job postings in 2025, accounting for 8 percent of the national total.

“Texas no longer needs to ask whether AI will reshape the economy. It already has,” the report concludes. “The question is whether Texas will merely host part of that future or lead it.”