Having diversity of thought among the leadership team is usually regarded as a positive, Houston researchers found that conflict can cause more harm than good. Photo via Getty Images

For the past 40 years, management researchers have assumed that diversity of opinion about company strategy, even when it causes conflict among senior managers, leads to higher-quality strategic decisions and improved firm performance.

It turns out there isn’t evidence to support that belief.

Rice Business Professor Daan Van Knippenberg has spent his career studying topics related to team performance, decision making, diversity and conflict. When a research team led by Codou Samba, an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, approached him with an offer to test longstanding assumptions about conflict related to company strategy in senior management teams, he jumped at the opportunity.

In his experience, the business case for diversity is strong, but it comes with caveats. “Diversity of perspectives can lead to better solutions to complex problems, but only when team members are open-minded enough to listen carefully to each other and really integrate another point of view into their decision-making process,” he says. This does not seem to apply to differences in opinion about what company strategy should be.

When managers dig in their heels and refuse to consider and integrate other perspectives, that two-way door of communication slams shut and conflict ensues. “The popular idea that conflict is actually good for firms went against all my knowledge,” says Van Knippenberg. “It’s annoying that this idea has floated around in my field for so long when the evidence really points the other way.”

The team led by Samba, which also included C. Chet Miller, a professor at the University of Houston, conducted a quantitative summary and integration of 78 papers that provide data about strategic dissent — a term used to describe diverging opinions about strategic goals and objectives on senior management teams — and its influence on strategic decision making and firm performance.

Every paper that made a prediction about strategic dissent (only a few did not) posited that strategic dissent leads to better outcomes for firms.

In their paper, “The impact of strategic dissent on organizational outcomes: A meta-analytic integration,” the research team used a deep well of empirical data to demonstrate that the opposite is true. Turning common wisdom on its head, they found that strategic dissent among senior managers actually leads to lower-quality decisions and impaired firm performance.

The authors identify two major reasons for the negative impact of strategic dissent on firm outcomes.

First, strategic dissent causes relational breakdown among senior managers. “If managers walk away from a team meeting thinking they just had a conflict instead of a productive discussion, the outcome is rarely positive,” says Van Knippenberg. The two sides retreat into their respective corners, believing the other side to be wrong and closing their minds to further information.

Second, strategic dissent leads to less relevant information being exchanged among managers. Inevitably, this blockage impairs the decision-making process. If a marketing director and an operations director are at odds, for example, they are less likely to share the marketing- or operations-specific information that is needed to make an optimal team decision.

Teams can benefit from diversity of thought, but it is not always clear what conditions need to be in place for that to happen on senior management teams that disagree about the firm’s strategic direction. CEOs — the leaders of senior management teams — would do well to realize that it takes an effortful investment to foster open-minded discussions of diverging views on the organization’s strategy, to create an environment that encourages members to express dissenting perspectives while absorbing the perspectives of others, and to prevent vested interest and power dynamics from determining the outcomes of such discussions.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Daan Van Knippenberg, the Houston Endowed Professor of Management at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University, C. Chet Miller, the C.T. Bauer Professor of Organizational Studies at C. T. Bauer College of Business at the University of Houston, and Codou Samba, an assistant professor at Haslam College of Business at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston hospitals recognized as best in state, nation in annual report

better than all the rest

Houston’s University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center has retained its U.S. News & World Report crown as the best cancer hospital in the U.S.

In the same ranking, Houston Methodist Hospital once again came out on top as the best hospital in Texas. Last year, the hospital shared the top spot. Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center ranked No. 4, followed by No. 5 Memorial Hermann Hospital.

The accolades appear in U.S. News2024-25 ranking of the country’s best hospitals. Each hospital also ranked among various specialties, such as orthopedics; cardiology, heart, and vascular surgery; cancer; and neurology and neurosurgery.

Since U.S. News introduced its annual hospital survey in 1990, MD Anderson has been ranked one of the two best U.S. hospitals for cancer care. It has maintained its No. 1 ranking for 10 consecutive years.

“At MD Anderson, our mission is clear: to end cancer,” Dr. Peter WT Pisters, president of MD Anderson, says in a news release. “This ranking reflects our relentless commitment to excellence in patient care, research, prevention, and education.”

MD Anderson also ranked highly in three specialties:

  • No. 2 for ear, nose, and throat.
  • No. 9 for urology.
  • No. 14 for gastroenterology and GI surgery.

“The consistent top national recognitions [that] MD Anderson receives for delivering compassionate, evidence-based care is a testament to our dedication to those we serve,” Pisters says.

Elsewhere at the Texas Medical Center, Houston Methodist Hospital was named the No. 1 hospital in Texas for the 13th year in a row. Also, it was lauded as one of the country’s 20 best hospitals for the eighth time.

Along with the general ranking, Houston Methodist Hospital scored high marks in 10 specialties. These include diabetes and endocrinology (No. 6), gastroenterology and GI surgery (No. 7), and pulmonology and lung surgery (No. 8).

Meanwhile, four Houston Methodist community hospitals ranked well in Texas:

  • Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital (No. 8).
  • Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital (No. 9).
  • Houston Methodist Baytown Hospital (tied at No. 18).
  • Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital (tied at No. 23).

New app with tips for solo women travelers takes flight from Texas

explore mode activated

We all have that one friend whose office seems to be the nearest airport gate. We go to them for travel advice and hit save on their latest post for that hole-in-the-wall restaurant that had the best local food. That type of advice — especially between women — is indispensable for solo travelers, and now a new travel app based in Austin is helping organize it on a new platform without the social media noise.

Solo travel has gained a lot of momentum in the past few years, and it’s no longer just something one does during a gap year before or after college. It’s become the preferred way to travel for many, and women are at the forefront.

According to Condor Ferries, 72 percent of American women like to take solo trips, and the term “female solo travel” has increased 62 percent over the past three years across all search engines. What if there was a place where women solo travelers could get recommendations and travel itineraries created by other solo women travelers?

This concept is the backbone of Airheart, which aims to revolutionize the travel industry by offering a safe space for solo female travelers to find itineraries and travel guides that were crafted with them in mind.

"Traveling solo as a woman is an empowering act of independence," said Airheart founder Lindsey Renken in a press release. "At Airheart, we celebrate and support this journey, helping women discover new places, connections, and strengths."

The platform includes integrated planning tools, interactive maps, itineraries, and video tips all conveniently located in one place and customizable to the traveler’s preference. Once a user creates an account and accesses the site, the navigation is pretty straightforward.

There’s an explore option at the top of the home screen showcasing all the travel guides available for purchase within the platform, with destinations all over the world. At the moment, most are within the US, Mexico, Western Europe, and Asia. Once the user chooses a guide, a sidebar populates with a list of recommendations or a day-by-day itinerary. The right side of the screen is a map with all the pinned recommendations for easy navigating.

For those wanting to travel more within Texas this summer, Airheart offers a few destinations with a wide range of activities:

  • Big Bend/West Texas: For nature lovers, explore the beautiful mountain desert region of West Texas with a comprehensive guide that includes tips on how to get there and how to choose the best accommodation for your trip — something that becomes more complex in such a remote place.
  • Glen Rose: Escape to this charming small town just an hour-and-a-half Southwest of Dallas-Fort Worth, that is perfect for a weekend getaway full of outdoor adventures. These recommendations come from a local.
  • Fredericksburg: Indulge in the best wineries and restaurants that Central Texas has to offer with an itinerary crafted by a Texas native. This one is ideal for a quick day trip or a fun girls’ weekend.

Airheart, named after the pioneering aviator Amelia Earhart, is also focused on empowering female travel creators by allowing them to act as a type of modern travel agent. They can monetize both new and existing travel content by creating these guides and itineraries, while reaching a new audience on the platform.

“As an avid traveler, I’m always looking for something like this created by expert travelers. I can’t wait to be a seller and consumer,” said Tanna Wasilchak who contributed guides for Waco, Glen Rose, and Georgetown. “Solo traveling as a female can be intimidating at first, but it’s one of the most rewarding experiences I’ve ever had. Airheart is going to be such a game changer for this community.”

Perhaps the only downside for now is that Airheart is limited in what it can offer to its users with only 22 guides published on the site. However, the features and community-based aspect give the platform the potential to stand out in an otherwise saturated market. Guides ($29 each before taxes and fees) are available for users to browse and purchase at airheart.com.

------

This article originally ran on CultureMap.

Houston startup adviser on navigating SAFE, convertible notes in funding rounds

guest column

As both a founder and occasional early-stage investor in the Houston ecosystem, I've seen firsthand the opportunities and challenges surrounding seed funding for local startups. This critical first fundraising round sets the trajectory, but navigating the landscape can be tricky, especially for first time founders who may not be familiar with the lingo.

One key dynamic is choosing the right deal structure — SAFEs (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) vs. convertible notes are the most common vehicles early stage startups use to raise capital and are far more founder-friendly than a priced round.

Let's start first with what the have in common:

  • Both allow you to defer setting a valuation for your company until a later (likely priced) round, which is useful in early stages or pre-revenue companies
  • Both are cheaper and faster to execute than a priced round, which cash-strapped early stage founders like
  • Both can have terms like valuation cap, discount, conversion event, and pro rata rights.
  • Both are less attractive to investors seeking immediate equity (especially important if starting the QSBS clock is part of your investors strategy or if the investor is newer to startup investing)
  • Both can create messy cap tables and the potential for a lot of dilution for the founders (and investors) if they are used for multiple raises (especially with different terms)

While as you can see they have similarities, they have some important differences. Let's dig in on these next:

SAFEs:

  • Created by Y Combinator in 2013, the intent was to create a simplified, founder friendly agreement as an alternative to the convertible note
  • Is an agreement for future equity for the investor at a conversion event (priced round or liquidation event) which converts automatically.
  • It's not a debt instrument and does not accrue interest or have a maturity date.
  • Generally have much lower upfront legal costs and faster to execute

Convertible Notes:

  • A debt agreement that converts to equity at a later date (or conversion event like a priced round)
  • Accrues interest (usually 2 to 8 percent) and has a maturity date by which the note must either be repaid or convert to equity. If you reach your maturity date before raising a qualifying round, you can often renegotiate to extend the maturity date or convert the note, though be prepared to agree to higher interest rates, additional warrants, or more favorable conversion terms.
  • More complex and take longer to finalize due to non-standard terms resulting in higher legal and administrative costs

It's worth reiterating that in both cases, raising multiple rounds can lead to headaches in the form of complex cap tables, lots of dilution, and higher legal expenses to determine conversion terms. If your rounds have different terms on discounts and valuation caps (likely) it can cause confusion around equity and cap table structure, and leave you (the founder) not sure how much equity you will have until the conversion occurs.

In my last startup, our legal counsel — one of the big dogs in this space for what it's worth — strongly advised us to only do one SAFE round to prevent this.

Why do some investors tend to prefer convertible notes?

There are a few reasons why some investors, particularly angel investors from developing startup ecosystems (like Houston), prefer convertible notes to SAFEs.

  • Because they are structured as debt, note holders have a higher priority than equity investors in recovering their investment if the company fails or is liquidated. This means they would get paid after other creditors (like loans or credit cards) but before equity investors, increasing the likelihood of getting some of their money back.
  • The interest terms protect investors if the founder takes a long time to raise a priced funding round. As time passes, interest accumulates, increasing the investor's potential return. This usually results in the investor receiving a larger equity stake when the note converts. However, if the investor chooses to call in the note instead, the accrued interest would increase the amount of money owed, similar to a traditional loan
  • More defined conversion triggers (including a maturity date) gives investors more control and transparency on when and how their investment will convert.
  • Can negotiate more favorable terms than the standard SAFE agreement, including having both a valuation cap and a discount (uncommon on a SAFE, which usually only has one or the other), interest rates, and amendment clauses to protect them from term revisions on earlier investors by future investors (called a cram-down), etc.
We'll go over what the various terms in these agreements are and what to look out for in a future article

How to choose:

  • Consider your startup's stage and valuation certainty — really uncertain or super early? Either of these instruments are preferable to a priced round as you can defer the valuation discussion
  • Assess investor preferences in your network — often the deciding factor if you don't have a lot of leverage; most local angels prefer c-notes because they see them as less risky though SAFEs are becoming more common with investors in tech hubs like Silicon Valley
  • Evaluate your timeline and budget for legal costs — as I mentioned, SAFEs are way less expensive to execute (though still be prepared to spend some cash).
  • Align the vehicle with your specific goals and growth trajectory

There's no one-size-fits-all solution, so it's crucial to weigh these factors carefully.

The meanings of these round terms like "seed" are flexible, and the average seed funding amount has increased significantly over the past decade, reaching $3.5 million as of January 2024. This trend underscores the importance of choosing the right funding vehicle and approach.

Looking ahead, I'm bullish on Houston's growing startup ecosystem flourishing further. Expect more capital formation from recycled wins, especially once recently minted unicorns like High Radius, Cart.com, Solugen, and Axiom Space exit and infuse the ecosystem with fresh and hungry angels, new platforms beyond traditional venture models, and evolving founder demographics bringing fresh perspectives.

------

Adrianne Stone is the principal product manager at Big Cartel and the founder of Bayou City Startups, a monthly happy hour organizer. This article original ran on LinkedIn.