From biomedical engineering labs to AI strategy consulting, Amith Harsha has built a career at the intersection of research, technology and business. Now, as a member of the Rice Executive MBA Class of 2026, he’s focused on turning technical expertise into transformative leadership. Continue reading Amith’s profile to learn more about his journey and his goals.

Image

Tell us a little about your career and background.

I’m the founder of 99th Centile, an AI strategy consulting firm I recently launched to provide strategic AI leadership that elevates organizations to the top 1% of performance and innovation. We help organizations navigate AI transformation thoughtfully, focusing on governance, implementation strategy and building capabilities that deliver sustainable competitive advantage.

My career spans a diverse journey from biomedical engineering research to AI implementation at startups and Fortune 500 companies. Recent experiences highlighted my need for better alignment between expertise and organizational skills, and I realized it was time to explore new opportunities in Houston –- where my wife and I reside with our six-year-old son and two labradors (having finally settled after years of cross-country moves).

Education: I have a Master of Science in biomedical engineering from Wright State University and a Bachelor of Engineering in electronics and electrical engineering from India. I’ve also earned multiple patents and have publications in medical imaging and AI applications from stints at the University of Kansas, Johns Hopkins University, National Institutes of Health and Intel. My work was recognized with an EB1 green card, securing U.S. residency as an Outstanding Researcher.

Most Recent Employer and Job Title: Before launching 99th Centile, I worked in various senior technical and client-facing roles across AI and data analytics companies, most recently focusing on enterprise AI solutions and customer success across healthcare, energy and financial services. My experience at Intel, where I earned patents and led technical initiatives, provided valuable insights into systematic organizational excellence that now inform my consulting approach.

What is a fun fact about you?

I’ve lived in six different states, visited 42 states total and have moved across the country four times. I completed the MS150 cycling challenge last year, and I love cooking up a storm in the kitchen — whipping up cuisines from different countries and cultures.

Why did you choose Rice Business?

After years of moving across the country, Houston has become our home, especially with my wife practicing as an oncologic endocrinologist at MD Anderson. Attending Rice was a no-brainer. Being ranked No. 1 in entrepreneurship perfectly aligns with my consulting practice launch. The location across from the Texas Medical Center opens doors to healthcare innovation, and Rice’s involvement with The Ion and the Innovation District connects me directly to Houston’s startup ecosystem.

I reached a crossroad in my career where I felt the need to reinvent my professional role, using my diverse experiences to offer innovative yet efficient solutions to help businesses with their needs. An MBA from Rice Business will empower me with the principles of running a business, allowing me to offer strategic solutions to clients seeking technical expertise in the booming world of AI. I want to embed myself in Houston’s market, and Rice represents the gateway to everything this city’s innovation ecosystem offers.

Why did you choose our Executive MBA program?

The Executive MBA format allows me to develop the strategic business acumen I need for senior leadership roles while remaining flexible about my career path. My technical background is strong, but I want systematic frameworks for leadership and business strategy. The EMBA’s experienced cohort means learning from peers who’ve faced similar challenges, and the diverse professional backgrounds create rich perspectives that enhance every classroom discussion. The program structure supports working professionals exploring new opportunities — from senior roles to consulting to other ventures.

How are you feeling about starting your MBA? What are you most looking forward to?

I’m energized about this new horizon. Starting school for the first time since 2006 brings a mix of excitement and anticipation, but I’m most looking forward to the collaborative learning environment with such a diverse, experienced cohort. What excites me most is the opportunity to tackle real-world business challenges alongside classmates who bring different industry perspectives, and to develop systematic leadership frameworks while building lasting professional relationships in Houston’s innovation community.

Image

How was your experience during launch week? What were your first impressions of the program and your classmates?

Launch Week exceeded my expectations. Rice Business did an outstanding job socializing our cohort beforehand, so I had already connected with a few future classmates. The admissions team was incredibly approachable and made me feel like I truly belonged at Rice. By the end of the week, 42 strangers had transformed into a tight-knit group looking forward to the next two years together, bright-eyed and eager to learn from one another. I had spent an entire week learning and meeting new people while having so much fun — whether through team building activities like building bikes or creating anti-crushing outfits for eggs — just by connecting with the class of 2026. 

Amith Harsha is an Executive MBA student in the Class of 2027.

Image

First year of Georgia’s ‘foreign agent’ law shows how autocracies are replicating Russian model − and speeding up the time frame

March 28, 2025

Autocracies are increasingly learning from one another — and Georgia offers a case study in how quickly those lessons can take hold. Rice Business professor Anastasiya Zavyalova and her co-author examine Georgia’s 2024 “foreign agent” law, modeled on Russia’s approach to restricting NGOs and silencing dissent.

Unlike Russia, where it took nearly a decade for the law to become a broad tool of repression, Georgia has accelerated the process within a year.

“Georgia’s experience illustrates how authoritarians are learning from each other, utilizing the rule of law itself against democracy,” Zavyalova explained.

The findings show how authoritarian regimes are adapting faster, raising urgent concerns for international policymakers and civil society.

Why a Landmark Settlement on Realtor Fees Hasn’t Cut Costs

Aug. 23, 2025

A $418 million settlement was supposed to lower U.S. real-estate commissions, but a year later, fees remain largely unchanged. Studies — including one by Rice Business professors Jefferson Duarte and David Zhang — confirm that buyer-agent commissions have held steady, with only limited shifts in behavior.

Their paper found a small but measurable rise in buyers opting out of using agents in some states, suggesting that change may emerge slowly.

“Nothing’s changed,” said one industry consultant, echoing the durability of entrenched practices. For now, a sluggish housing market, buyer reluctance to negotiate, and the persistence of seller-paid fees keep commissions among the world’s highest — though Rice’s findings hint at early cracks in the system.

Image

The Restaurant List 2025: Here are the 50 best places in America right now.

June 19, 2025

Rice MBA alum Opeyemi “Ope” Amosu’s (’14) restaurant ChòpnBlok has officially earned its place among America’s 50 Best Restaurants in 2025, as named by The New York Times.

From its beginnings as a Houston food-hall stall, Amosu has scaled up without losing intimacy. The Montrose brick-and-mortar location adds cocktails and small bites, but each bowl remains a precisely calibrated story: renditions of jollof, stewed greens, spices you can taste before you name them. The space is saturated with Yoruba textiles and art, spaces to linger and feel rooted.

In a year where the Times’ list spans everything from rustic outposts to luxe tasting menus, ChòpnBlok stands out not by virtue of competition, but by clarity — clear voice, clear vision, clear delight.

No credit history? No problem − new research suggests shopping data works as a proxy for creditworthiness

Sept. 3, 2025

When banks can’t see a borrower’s past repayment history, they tend to assume the worst — leaving millions of people worldwide unable to access credit. A new study co-authored by Rice Business professor Jung Youn Lee suggests there may be another way forward: everyday shopping habits.

By linking loyalty-card records with Peru’s national credit registry, Lee and her research colleagues found that approval rates for applicants with no credit history jumped from 16% to as high as 48% when retail habits were factored in, with only modest increases in defaults.

“Without this retail data, newcomers look almost identical,” Lee said. “But with it, safe borrowers emerge from the crowd.”

The findings suggest a practical way to expand access to credit while raising important questions about fairness and consumer protections.

Image

How top customer experience tools reverse the trend and actually improve customer satisfaction

Sept. 17, 2025

Despite billions invested in AI, analytics and CX tools, U.S. customer satisfaction has barely improved in decades. A new study co-authored by Rice Business professor Vikas Mittal suggests the problem lies in guesswork.

Surveying more than 3,000 consumers across 18 industries, the researchers found executives consistently misjudge what customers value most — ranking quality, price or access differently than customers themselves.

“Though most enterprises claim to be ‘customer-focused’ or ‘customer-centric,’ few actually are,” Mittal said.

The findings highlight the need for scientifically valid, data-driven insights into customer value drivers — a shift that could finally move satisfaction scores upward.

New assistant professor Mijeong Kwon discusses her research, which finds that loving your work can be valuable — but treating it as the only “right” reason to pursue a career can cause harm.

The takeaway? Leaders should be mindful to not impose love of work as a standard, and employees should remember that all motives — from money to meaning — are legitimate.

Can you tell us about the main focus of your research?

MK: My research focuses on a question we often get in our interviews and work conversations: “Why are you interested in this job?” or “Why do you do this work?” It’s a question of motivation. And we often have a hunch that there is a right answer for that question, but there’s surprisingly little research on this — how people perceive others’ work motivation.

Coming from an international background, especially, I thought that there’s really something interesting about “intrinsic motivation” in this country, about the social pressure to enjoy and love your work. We tend to admire people who love what they do, and we treat that love as a sign of character, not just preference.

So, my research is about what I call the moralization of intrinsic motivation. I study the cultural weight we place on passion and its consequences for careers, organizations and society.

That line of inquiry seems especially relevant to students and early-career professionals.

MK: Absolutely. I saw it firsthand early in my teaching at Michigan. Students would come to me worried about their internship interviews. Some would say, “I’m interested in fields outside of consulting or finance, but I feel pressure to choose those paths because of money or prestige.”

They worried that saying “I want financial stability” wasn’t acceptable in an interview context, even if it was honest. I also noticed colleagues reading student applications and dismissing them as “not passionate enough.” That raised a question for me: What counts as passion? Who gets to define it?

Coming from another culture where passion wasn’t emphasized in the same way, I realized this wasn’t a universal problem. In the U.S., loving your work has become a moral expectation. But that can make it difficult for people from different cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds to express their real motives in ways that are accepted.

How do you approach this research in terms of methodology?

MK: I do a lot of experimental research. In one of the studies I ran, for example, I asked people to imagine two coworkers, one emphasizing love for work and the other not. When I subsequently asked whether they wanted to help either or both of these coworkers, I found that people were more likely to help out the person who emphasized intrinsic motivation because such a coworker was considered “moral” — closer to an ideal worker prototype. Surprisingly, I found those who love their work themselves were more likely to exhibit this tendency to consider love for work as a moral virtue.

And what do you see as the practical implications of your research? What can employees and managers do differently?

MK: For business leaders, I want them to recognize that while intrinsic motivation (i.e., “love for work”) has real benefits — better performance, persistence, creativity — it shouldn’t be imposed as a moral standard. If leaders overemphasize it, they risk alienating employees who don’t express it in the same way, or who are motivated by family obligations or financial security. These employees may feel excluded or even overlooked for opportunities, even if they’re highly capable and committed.

For students and young professionals, I think it’s equally important to know that this is a social expectation, not an absolute truth. If they feel stressed because they don’t “love” their work, I want them to understand they don’t need to be tortured by that. At 20 years old, you don’t have to have found your lifelong passion. You can experiment, build skills and change direction later.

What projects are you working on now?

MK: One current project looks at whether there are positive aspects of extrinsic motivations like money or recognition. These often carry stigma, but they can also reflect admirable goals — supporting your family, building stability, etc.

I’m also developing a broader concept I call “motivational ambidexterity.” Most of us don’t work for a single reason. We juggle passion, meaning, money, identity, security, pride, family. Rather than seeing these as competing motivations, I want to study how people can integrate them in healthier ways.

One final question, given the topic we’re covering here: How do you personally feel about your own work?

MK: It’s a little ironic, but studying this downside of intrinsic motivation has been a labor of love for me. I find the topic fascinating because it reshaped my career path. I started my Ph.D. focused on macro-level sociology, but this became my dissertation and shifted me into organizational behavior. So yes — I do love the work. But I also recognize it is just one piece of the story.

Kwon and Sonday, “The Moralization of Intrinsic Motivation: Opportunities and Perils.” Forthcoming in Academy of Management Review (2025).

Many CEOs claim their strategy is “customer-focused” or “customer-centric,” but few truly are, says Vikas Mittal, the J. Hugh Liedtke Professor of Marketing at Rice Business. Instead, they struggle to pinpoint — then prioritize — what their customer values most.

Image

Without rigorous research on what matters most to their customers, executives tend to rely on guesswork or a gut feeling to drive strategy. It’s a costly mistake that can ultimately dent sales and profits, says Mittal, co-author of a first-of-its-kind customer value research study, along with Michael Tsiros from the Miami Herbert Business School. The first research report out of Rice’s new Center for Customer-Based Execution and Strategy (C-CUBES), “What Really Matters to Americans: The 2025 Customer Value Report” measures the relative importance U.S. residents place on key value drivers like cost, ease of use, safety, sustainability, convenience, and diversity, equity and inclusion, across 18 business sectors.

Mittal, C-CUBES’ faculty director, and Tsiros, a faculty affiliate, speak to Rice Business magazine about the findings and how companies and CEOs can use them to create a science-driven strategy that makes for satisfied, loyal customers.

What was the idea behind the report — how and why did it come about?

VM: Customer satisfaction drives customer retention and sales and is a leading indicator of a company’s cash flow, revenue and stock price. But often, CEOs rely on legacy strategy planning to try to fulfill all customer wishes and demands. They are simply appeasing customers, without the science to truly get to the core of what their customers really value. They need to prioritize their strategy based on the top two or three drivers of customer value. Our goal was to create research that enables CEOs to do just that, especially for small to medium-sized businesses and nonprofits — a core focus of the center.

You uncover top benefits consumers value in sectors from healthcare to financial services to education. What are some of your key findings?

MT: We surveyed a representative sample of 3,000 U.S. residents from ages 18 to 75-plus. The sample was pretty balanced across gender, income and political party. For many categories, safety turned out to be a very strong value-driver — that may not have been the case pre-Covid. For example, safety was the top driver of customer value for the K–12 education, financial services, automotive and airline industries. Meanwhile, for all four of these sectors, diversity, equity and inclusion policies are the least consequential driver. Also notable is that sustainability and carbon impact rank among the least important drivers of customer value for the automotive and energy sectors.

What do you make of these findings?

VM: Consumers are very practical and wise. They want a reasonably good offering that’s affordable, and they value convenience. The wrong way to read the report is that customers don’t care at all about DEI and sustainability. They do. But they care about affordability, quality and convenience a lot more. These findings are a huge wake-up call for CEOs that likely have not considered — in a rigorous, science-backed way — how to prioritize these benefits in their organizational strategy.

How can companies and executives use the report to better serve their customers and help to boost the bottom line?

MT: The report can be a conduit for CEOs to change their mindset and choose to follow science, and not gut-feel or intuition. Then, they can figure out which of the industries in the report they fall into and check that their company is at least broadly aligned with the drivers. If not, they’ve got some work to do. First, you have to excel on the top one or two value drivers. Then you can fulfill those additional things customers may care about, but that aren’t the main value drivers. After making science-backed changes to strategy, companies need to measure impact by linking customer value to financial outcomes. We hope these findings inoculate senior decision-makers so they’re not trend-chasing, but instead they’re strengthening their focus on customer value.

What’s next for the Center for Customer-Based Execution and Strategy?

VM: Our goal is to run this study every other year. We’re also planning a new study that looks at the drivers of employee value. The center hosts regular events for leaders of nonprofits and for-profits. On Nov. 18, the center will host a customer-based strategy symposium at the Ion in Houston. We have a great lineup of speakers who will detail how they’ve used this customer-centric, science-backed business approach to strengthen their organizations.

The rise of generative AI in the workplace has led to a puzzling disconnect. Even as organizations increasingly embrace tools like ChatGPT, there’s been little evidence that they enhance employee creativity. For example, a recent nationally representative Gallup survey found that only 26% of employees who use AI say they’ve seen a creative boost.

This mismatch raises a key question: Can generative AI tools that create text, images and other content truly enhance employee creativity?

A new study from Rice Business suggests they can — but only when paired with the right cognitive approach.

Published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and co-authored by Jing Zhou, the Mary Gibbs Jones Professor of Management, the paper finds that generative AI doesn’t enhance creativity equally for everyone. Instead, its impact depends on how well people manage their own thinking while using it.

To unlock generative AI’s creative potential, employees must pair it with “metacognitive strategies” — mental habits like planning tasks, tracking progress and adjusting tactics.

To test how metacognition affects the creative benefits of generative AI, the authors ran a field experiment with employees at an actual organization — one of the first studies to do so. Using one of the most rigorous methods in organizational research, the study offers rare causal evidence of AI’s impact on workplace creativity.

A Real-World Test

The field experiment took place at a Chinese technology consulting firm — an industry that puts a premium on innovation. Because employees in this field are expected to develop custom solutions for diverse clients, it made for an ideal research environment.

The team worked with 250 nonmanagerial employees at the firm who were randomly assigned to either a treatment group or a control group.

Treatment group participants received access to ChatGPT accounts, along with usage examples, while those in the control group continued working without help from AI.

“What we found is that AI tools aren’t a creativity machine on their own,” Zhou says. “They can be a powerful partner. But for workers to truly benefit, they need to reflect on their thinking and adjust their approach in real time.”

Both groups completed creative problem-solving tasks during the work week. At the end, participants in the treatment group took a survey measuring their use of metacognitive strategies — including how well they planned, monitored and adapted their methods. For example, they would rate themselves on statements like: “While working toward my goal, I kept track of how effective my approach was.”

Employee supervisors, who were unaware of the study’s design or purpose, later rated the creativity of participant outputs. To supplement these evaluations, external reviewers independently assessed employee responses to a specific written prompt about protecting privacy in the digital workplace. Responses were scored on novelty and usefulness.

What the Study Found

So, what were the results?

The experiment showed that employees who worked with generative AI produced more creative ideas than those who did not — but only when they applied metacognitive strategies.

In other words, the value of AI depends less on what it can do and more on how people use it. “Tools like ChatGPT have real potential to expand what we call ‘cognitive job resources,’” Zhou explains. “That is, things like access to relevant information, the ability to switch between tasks and moments of mental rest. But this potential is only unlocked when people use it strategically.”

Mind Over Model

The study has major implications for both employees and companies who are eager to integrate AI into their workflows. If AI-driven creativity depends on how people think, then companies must invest not just in new tools — but in the mental habits that make those tools work. And for employees: Using AI effectively isn’t just about mastering the technology — it’s about sharpening how you plan, adapt and reflect as you work. The good news is that these strategies are teachable. Firms can boost creativity by investing in metacognitive skills training.

What form that training should take is a fertile avenue for future study. Perhaps it looks like more reflective onboarding, structured support for planning or dedicated time to build and assess problem-solving strategies.

Looking Ahead

The study raises other important questions, such as the role of employee motivation. Employees who are more motivated to explore and solve problems may be more likely to engage metacognitively with AI. Team dynamics and organizational culture might also play a role in shaping how AI tools are used day to day.

The Rice Business study is promising, but its authors acknowledge limitations. For example, the long-term effects of using generative AI are unclear. Over time, employees who rely heavily on these tools may risk becoming too dependent, potentially weakening the very skills that nourish creativity, like autonomy and learning.

Still, the takeaway is clear: Generative AI isn’t a shortcut to more novel and useful ideas. To successfully use these tools, organizations need to do more than just install new software. They should provide training and support to help employees reflect on their processes and think strategically.

_{Sun, Li, Foo, Zhou and Lu. “How and for Whom Using Generative AI Affects Creativity: A Field Experiment.” Journal of Applied Psychology (2025).}

Image

All my life, I’ve joked with my family about how I lived in the shadow of my older brother. He earned a Ph.D. in biology, became renowned in his field, and — at least in my mind — won our mother’s approval in ways I never quite did. I built a very successful career in banking, but I always wondered if she saw me as the son who stopped short, the one who never went on for a master’s degree.

That quiet sense of unfinished business lingered for nearly 50 years.

When I graduated from Baylor University in 1973 with a degree in math, the economy was reeling — Watergate, inflation, oil shocks, hostages in Iran. I had been accepted into a master’s program in mathematics at Texas A&M University, planning to move toward engineering. But graduate school felt like a luxury when jobs were scarce and bills had to be paid. So I set aside my dream of an advanced degree and went to work.

Banking wasn’t what I’d planned, but it turned into a lifelong calling. I spent decades working my way up, eventually buying my own bank and running it successfully for 25 years. By the time I sold it, I had weathered every kind of economic storm. On paper, I had everything — a long career, financial security and the satisfaction of building something from the ground up. But the small ache remained: I had never gone back to school.

The decision to finally pursue an MBA didn’t come from careful planning. It came from a phone call I almost didn’t answer.

I had just sold my bank and was stuck in a three-year non-compete — what I called my “timeout box.” Restless, bored and a little lost, I happened to be home when the phone rang. A recruiter from Rice Business asked if I had ever considered an MBA. My first thought was that it was a scam. My second thought was: at my age?

So I asked him, “Do you have any idea how old I am?”

He paused, then said, “Does it matter?”

That was the moment I was hooked.

Rice’s Online MBA was demanding — accelerated courses, international projects, on-campus residencies — but it was exactly the kind of challenge I needed. I was back in a classroom, decades older than most of my peers, learning alongside professionals who weren’t even born when I started my banking career.

The hardest part wasn’t finance or strategy. It was technology. I had lived much of my career in what I call “life B.C. — Before Computers.” My classmates were miles ahead in tools and shortcuts, while I scrambled to catch up. One day, during a group presentation, I froze when it was my turn to share my screen. I tried to delegate it away, but my professor cut me off: “Mr. Kroll, you’re not going to CEO your way through my class.”

She made me sit there until I figured it out. And I did. That lesson, as humbling as it was, reminded me that growth only happens when you stop hiding behind your experience and allow yourself to be a beginner again.

The MBA opened more doors than I could have imagined. I expanded into new businesses, built friendships across the country and even found myself back in the classroom — but this time as the teacher. Today I’m in my third year teaching banking and financial analysis at Baylor. Standing in front of students, encouraging them to “think big,” I sometimes remember that moment of panic at Rice, learning to share my screen.

At graduation, one of the proudest moments of my life, my family was there — including my wife, Judy, who supported me every step of the way, and my Ph.D. brother. For years I’d carried the feeling that he was the scholar and I was just the businessman. But as I walked across that stage, hooded in my Rice MBA regalia, I realized something had shifted.

It wasn’t about proving myself to him — or even to my mother. It was about finally finishing a dream I had set aside 50 years earlier.

And in that moment, for the first time, I no longer felt like the brother who had fallen short.