Fortune List Research Articles

CEO international experience and firm performance revisited: What’s culture got to do with it?

PurposeThis paper examines the relationship between chief executive officer (CEO) international experience (IE) and firm performance. The authors also examine the symmetry of this relationship, whereby home and host countries would be interchangeable without any significant change in the impact of each cultural dimension on firm performance.Design/methodology/approachFor a sample of CEOs from Fortune's list of Global 500 companies, firm performance was measured as average net margin for the first four years of CEO tenure. IE was the difference between home country culture and that where CEO experience was gained, based on the GLOBE cultural dimensions. Regression then tested the IE/firm performance relationship. For symmetry, distance direction was coded as either positive or negative, depending on whether home country score on a given dimension was higher or lower than that of the host. Moderator regression then tested for whether distance direction impacted the relationship between IE and firm performance.FindingsResults show that overall distance between home and host cultures in aggregate does not have a significant effect on firm performance. However, for specific dimensions, greater distances between the CEO's countries of experience and that of the parent company on in-group collectiveness and performance orientation are associated with higher firm performance, and greater distances on power distance and assertiveness are associated with lower performance. The authors further find asymmetric patterns in the IE–performance relationship, attributable primarily to the fact that, when scores on performance orientation are greater for the home than host country, organizational performance is significantly enhanced.Originality/valueThis study's hypotheses are grounded in theory, combining the human capital perspective with cultural paradox theory. In addition, the authors offer a unique approach for measuring the dimensional distance of culture.

Organizational Status as a Promoter and an Inhibitor of Transition to Digital Platform Business

While prior research considerably expanded our understandings of the platform business and its success factors, scant attention has been paid to the cases of incumbents’ strategic change from the product-based business model to the platform-based business model. Such a strategic shift may innovate value both beneficial for the firm and its stakeholders, yet it also poses a significant number of uncertainties for their constituents. Facing uncertainties, constituents are expected to find signals such as status and reputation. Thus, we examined the effect of a firm’s status on the important strategic change of adding a digital platform, and the potential contingency of the effect. Exploiting a sample from the Fortune list of Top 500 companies in China, we found that high-status incumbents are more likely to add a digital platform than their low-status counterparts, thus indicating status can be seen as a promoter. After the digital platform addition, however, low-status firms are more likely to increase in performance than their high-status counterparts, thus suggesting that status can meanwhile be seen as an inhibitor. This research has contributed to our understandings of the social contingency of strategic change, digital platform business model and illuminated the need for revisiting the boundary condition of organizational status as an advantage and a constraint. Keywords: Digital Transformation, Organizational Status, Platform Business Model

Corporate social responsibility behaviors and corporate reputation

PurposeThis paper aims to study how corporate social responsibility (CSR) behaviors can lead to corporate membership onFortuneMagazine’s Most Admired Companies list.Design/methodology/approachRegression analysis using environmental, social and governance (ESG) statistics published by MSCI-KLD as independent variables to predict the behaviors that lead to most admired status.FindingsNot surprisingly, corporate financial performance (CFP) is the largest contributor to membership on the list. However, after controlling for CFP, the analysis finds that specific social responsibility behaviors contribute to membership on the Fortune list.Practical implicationsThis paper finds that CSR behaviors are important to a firm’s reputation as measured byFortune’s Most Admired Companies list. Therefore, companies should continue with social responsibility activities to improve their reputation with investors.Originality/valueMany articles test the effect of ESG on financial performance and the role of financial performance on stock price. This paper is unique in that it measures the impact of CSR on corporate reputation using an important financial market benchmark – theFortuneMost Admired Companies list.

Exploring the differential impact of environmental sustainability, operational efficiency, and corporate reputation on market valuation in high-tech-oriented firms

In this paper, we explore the strategic significance of three factors – operational efficiency, measured by data envelope analysis; environmental sustainability, represented by Newsweek's Green Rankings; and corporate reputation, based on Fortune's list of most admired companies in the world –and their relationship to the market valuation of high-tech-oriented companies. In particular, we estimate the impact of these factors on Tobin's Q, which represents the overall technological and market strength of a firm as a forward-looking market performance reflecting stakeholders' expectations of the value of a firm. Using complementary regression and a neural network approach, we find that operational efficiency has the largest impact on Tobin's Q, followed by corporate reputation and environmental sustainability. In addition to its findings on the relative importance of these strategic factors, the paper's findings also suggest that operational efficiency, which reflects efficiency-driven best practice and managerial proficiency, is a crucial determinant of the market-facing measure of Tobin's Q in high-tech industries. Using models to estimate the interaction between these variables, we find that environmental sustainability and its interaction with reputation has the largest synergistic effect on Tobin's Q, followed by the interaction of reputation and operational efficiency. Our results show that the interaction of unique performance metrics can provide insights that differ from those derived from models for which the interaction is not included. Furthermore, the discovery of varying impact patterns under distinguishable capabilities is another significant finding of the paper.

Is Corporate Political Activity an Investment or Agency? An Application of System GMM Approach

Corporate political activity (CPA) has been recognized as bearing a significant impact on financial performance (FP). Nevertheless, there has been a lack of considerable research to date. The results of the research regarding the relationship between CPA and FP have been contradictory and this has necessitated further investigation of this relationship. Nonetheless, rather than examining the relationship between CPA and FP, research scholars have revealed that a contingency perspective must be employed for revealing the conditions and the context which enhance the relationship between these two constructs. This study offers a quite distinctive viewpoint with respect to the link between CPA and FP as regards the corporate reputation perspective. For this reason, the study obtained data from the Fortune list of top 100 World Most Admired Companies (WMAC) for the period of 2007 and 2016. This data was utilized to examine the relationship between CPA and FP using the dynamic panel data system GMM (Generalized Method of Moments) estimator. This study finds virtually no support for the hypothesis that lobbying and PACs (political action committees) represent an investment in political capital. Instead, CPA is symptomatic of agency problems within firms. This study also argues that corporate reputation moderates the effect of CPA on the FP and the analysis supports the argument. Our results are particularly useful in light of the reputable corporation, which is greatly to likely increase the use of corporate funds for political contributions.

Employee‐friendly practices, product market competition and firm value

AbstractIn this paper, we examine whether employee‐friendly practices are associated with product market competition, and whether firm value is related to employee‐friendly practices and product market competition. Using a large sample of US firms, we find positive and significant associations between employee friendliness and product market competition, and between firm value and employee friendliness when product market competition is high, consistent with the value creation theory. Both positive relations hold when we account for corporate governance. In addition, using the list of Fortune's ‘100 Best Companies to Work For’ as an alternative measure of employee‐friendly policies, we find firms in more competitive industries are more likely to treat their workers favourably. Furthermore, we find that the market reaction is more positive when firms in more competitive industries are selected for the Fortune list.

Is Dell's Business Model Broken?

A candidate for a consulting position prepares an analysis of Dell Corporation. For years, Dell's efficient supply chain innovations and successful leveraging of technology in offering made-to-order computers at competitive prices made it a world leader in market share. But conditions—and profits—seem to have leveled off. To what extent is this a matter of a business model in need of revision, and to what extent is something more fundamental at work?This review of a company's trajectory and strategic hurdles has been used in executive education classes but would serve equally well in first-year MBA courses in strategy or operations management. Excerpt UVA-OM-1416 June 21, 2010 Is dell's Business Model Broken? Danielle McCarren had only a few hours to prepare. She had been given advance notice that her interview at a well-known consulting firm would include questions analyzing Dell Corporation (Dell): What factors had led to Dell's incredible success? What was the business model that had made it happen? More important, was Dell now vulnerable to investors downgrading their evaluation of Dell? Was Dell in trouble, and if so, how should it remedy the situation? McCarren recalled from her MBA program's operations class that Dell's revenue growth had slowed over the previous three years and that net income had dropped in FY2007 and FY2009, although it had grown every other year (Exhibit 1). She knew that, as recently as 2006, Dell had been on Fortune's list of most admired companies, recognized as one of a handful that had consistently outperformed the market over the previous 15 years, but she also was aware that its return on assets had dropped over the previous 3 years and its stock price had stagnated (Exhibit 2). Having researched the firm's history, she sat back and pondered its remarkable trajectory. Dell's Roots . . .

Improving People's Lives: What You Do is Important

President's column Each SPE president chooses a tagline for his or her monthly column, often referencing an underlying theme. Improving people’s lives is what we do as petroleum engineers, so it is an important theme for us. Oil and natural gas production raises the standard of living of people throughout the world. In the coming months, I will use this column to talk about some of the challenges and opportunities we face and some of the great things happening with SPE members around the world. Why did you choose to become a petroleum engineer? For decades, I have posed this question to students and young professionals and have received many interesting responses. All too often, the responses include, “I read that petroleum engineers have high starting salaries.” There is nothing wrong with making money; highly skilled professionals who have invested a great deal of time and effort in their education and work hard should be well paid. That being said, choosing petroleum engineering or going to work in the upstream oil and gas industry with an engineering, Earth science, or other technical degree should not be based solely on how much money one can make. Imagine that a high school senior who respects and trusts you comes to you seeking advice. Her first question is, “What are the most important things I should look for in deciding on a career?” Quickly, name three things. Possible answers include enjoyable work, career/life balance, stress and hours required “on the job,” financial security, the opportunity to make a lot of money, location, opportunities for travel, advancement or continuing education, types of personal interactions, reputation of the company/industry you work for, or satisfaction that you are doing something important. As our prospective college student learns these things, she will have a better idea about satisfying career choices. A friend of mine chose a high-stress Wall Street job that afforded him almost no personal life but a chance to make more money than most of his peers. His college roommate took a 40-hour-a-week job in his hometown and has no expectations of getting rich. The oil and gas industry is a great place to work for technical professionals. It is exciting, challenging, and rewarding. While a few achieve great wealth, hardworking engineers and Earth scientists do not have to “strike oil” to do well in their careers. There are many types of jobs in our industry with varying levels of opportunities and risks. But what about the reputation of our industry? Are we doing something important? The reputation of the oil and gas extractive industry is undeservedly low, typically among the lowest in any survey. Only ExxonMobil appears on the 2015 Fortune list of the top 50 most admired companies. Our industry’s reputation is unfairly tarnished in part by rare, high visibility oil spills and by a lack of understanding of the importance of energy in our society. We really do something very important for the world. Our role in the world is often unappreciated.

Determinants of corporate social responsibility disclosures: the case of the US companies

The aim of this study is to increase understanding of the potential effects of corporate characteristics on the extent of corporate social responsibility CSR disclosure. The sample consists of companies from the Fortune list for the year 2011 as they are more likely to disclose CSR information. The environmental, social, and governance disclosure scores are introduced in order to determine the extent of CSR disclosure. Results based on the multiple regression models indicate a positive relationship of CSR disclosure to the return on sales, the return on equity and assets while the financial leverage is negatively related with CSR disclosure.

What Does Fortune 500 Turnover Mean?

In The Princess Bride, the lead kidnapper, Vizzini, dismisses missteps in his ill-fated scheme with a frustrated exclamation, “Inconceivable!” At length, his soft-spoken mercenary, Inigo Montoya, ventures: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” An equivalent asymmetry in the world of economic analysis is the use of turnover on the Fortune 500 list. For years, many people have cited turnover — and ostensibly rising turnover — as a proxy for positive economic churn and rapid changes in the U.S. economy that are supposed to reflect underlying strengths in innovation and productivity. We find that, while annual turnover on the list has, on average, increased since the early 1980s, it doesn’t quite mean what many people think it means. On average, annual turnover (the number of spots on the list that change as companies enter and exit the top 500) was moderate in the late 1950s, then lower and steadier through the 1960s and 1970s. Beginning in the early 1980s, annual turnover rose to historically high levels; by the second half of the 1990s, it touched new highs. After 2000, however, turnover returned to the moderate levels of the late 1950s. It’s easy to paint a narrative around these numbers that coincides with the Great Moderation and the productivity revolution of the 1990s and early 2000s. But reality isn’t so simple. For one thing, turnover among big companies is not a new phenomenon. The late 1950s, as mentioned, experienced moderately high levels of turnover (at least compared to subsequent periods). Prior research has revealed considerable churn among big companies in the early decades of the twentieth century as well. Higher turnover in the 1980s did appear to reflect value creation as corporate conglomerates, ravaged by inflation and competition, were taken apart and remade into separate, more efficient companies. But, in the 1990s, higher turnover reflected (a) methodological changes in how the Fortune list was compiled, and (b) a mergers and acquisition boom, concentrated in a handful of sectors, that destroyed perhaps as much value as it created. Turnover is less a broad economic trend than a discrete temporal and sectoral phenomenon. Still, we point out that the Fortune 500 list — and its changes over time — does provide a meaningful window into American capitalism, even if it doesn’t mean what many think it means. It reflects a kaleidoscopic process of sectoral change and greater efficiencies at the level of individual firms, as well as some less sanguine economic developments. The latter includes the downside of higher volatility — the high M&A volume in the late 1990s included the largest number of the worst deals of the past thirty years — and the deleterious implications for consumers and households. Finally, it appears as if performance among the Fortune 500, as measured by return on equity, did not necessarily improve and, if anything, became more volatile over time.

Employee Satisfaction And Shareholder Returns

<p class="MsoBlockText" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-pagination: widow-orphan;"><span style="font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">We hypothesize that satisfied employees lead to higher returns for shareholders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>In particular, we investigate whether inclusion on Fortune magazine’s list of “100 Best Companies to Work For” leads to increases in wealth for shareholders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>We find no announcement effect associated with the list release date.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Although we do find that a subset of firms named to the list in one year generate higher returns (than a matched sample) the following year, we conclude that, ex ante, investors would be unable to consistently profit from any information provided by inclusion on the list.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Tests of returns of companies that are dropped from the Fortune list indicate no abnormal performance.</span></span></span></p>

Corporate Reputation: Do Board Characteristics Matter?

Our study draws on institutional and signalling theories to postulate relationships between board characteristics and corporate reputation. Based on a sample of 324 firms featured in Fortune's list of most admired corporations in the USA, our findings indicate that board characteristics significantly influence the assessment of firm reputation by the business community. Specifically, we found that firms with a greater proportion of outside directors and those with larger boards exhibited better reputation than those with smaller boards and a higher proportion of insiders. In addition, we observed an inverted‐U relationship between the average tenure of outside directors and corporate reputation. However, contrary to expectations, our findings indicate a negative association between independent leadership structure (i.e. absence of duality) and corporate reputation.

Conditions of the Working Classes in China

This article is based primarily on a series of meetings with workers, peasants, organizers, and leftist activists that I participated in during the summer of 2004, together with Alex Day and another student of Chinese affairs. It is part of a longer paper that is being published as a special report by the Oakland Institute. The meetings took place mainly in and around Beijing, as well as in Jilin province in the northeast, and in the cities of Zhengzhou and Kaifeng in the central province of Henan. What we heard reveals in stark fashion the effects of the massive transformations that have occurred in the three decades following the death of Mao Zedong, with the dismantling of the revolutionary socialist policies carried out under his leadership, and a return to the road, leaving the working classes in an increasingly precarious position. A rapidly widening polarization-in a society that was among the most egalitarian-is occurring between extremes of wealth at the top and growing ranks of workers and peasants at the bottom whose conditions of life are daily worsening. Exemplifying this, the 2006 Fortune list of global billionaires includes seven in mainland China and one in Hong Kong. Though their holdings are small compared to those in the United States and elsewhere, they represent the emergence of a full-blown Chinese capitalism. Rampant corruption unites party and state authorities and enterprise managers with the new private entrepreneurs in a web of alliances that are enriching a burgeoning capitalist class, while the working classes are exploited in ways that have not been seen for over half a century This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website , where most recent articles are published in full. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Form, content, and function: An evaluative methodology for corporate employment web sites

AbstractThe current article reports the findings from two qualitative analyses of organizational Web sites drawn from two years of Fortune's list of “Best Companies to Work For.” The results of these analyses provide a snapshot of online employment recruitment practices at two periods in time and supplied data for a classification procedure used to develop an evaluative methodology for assessing the impact of Web sites on job‐seeker perceptions. The subsequent analysis provides insight about how the form, content, and function of employment Web sites affect job‐seeker employment‐pursuit decisions. Trends identified in this research also provide guidance for future research and practice in the area of employment Web‐site strategy and design. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Firm Value and Employee Attitudes on Workplace Quality

This paper investigates the relation between the value of a firm and employee attitudes on the firm's workplace quality—workplace attitudes. Workplace attitude refers to recognition of those organizational characteristics that enhance employee work experiences and assist employees in balancing their jobs and personal lives. Using inclusion on Fortune's annual list of “The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America” as a proxy for successful efforts in creating high workplace attitudes, we compare the market values of listed firms to the market values of nonlisted firms in the same industry matched on earnings. After controlling for book value, past operational performance, and research and development expense, we find that market values of listed firms exceed those of matched firms. We also provide evidence that firms ranked high on the Fortune list receive higher market values than those ranked lower on the list. Finally, the two-year forward market returns for listed firms exceed the returns for the matched sample while the two-year prior returns are not significantly different between the two groups. This result suggests that market performance does not determine inclusion on the Fortune list.

Darden Restaurants CEO Joe Lee on the importance of core values: Integrity and fairness

Executive Overview Joe Lee has been CEO and chairman of the board of Darden Restaurants, Inc., since it was spun off as a separate company from General Mills in 1995. Prior to that he was on the board of directors for General Mills, where he served as vice chairman. Joe began his career in the restaurant industry in 1967 as a team member in the original Red Lobster working for his mentor, the namesake of Darden Restaurants and the founder of the Red Lobster concept, Bill Darden. Bed Lobster was acquired by General Mills in 1970, and Joe became president of Red Lobster in 1975. He served as president of the National Restaurant Association and has received numerous awards including the food industry's highest award, the Golden Plate, in 1995. Darden is the largest casual-dining restaurant company in the world, serving over 300 million meals annually in 1,200 company-owned restaurants across the United States and Canada. Since it separated from General Mills, Darden has grown under Joe's leadership approximately 7% annually. Total sales for Darden's fiscal 2001 exceeded $4 billion in the over $45 billion casual-dining sector of the restaurant industry. Both Darden and this sector are growing at a 6–8% annual rate. Darden, based in Orlando, Florida, employs more than 128,000 people. Its restaurant brands include Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, and Smokey Bones BBQ Sports Bar. It has been on Fortune's list of America's Best Companies for Minorities for three consecutive years. Because Darden purchases over 100 million pounds of seafood annually, it has a unique interest in wild-caught and sustainable aquaculture resources. Several years ago the Darden Environmental Trust was established to help countries throughout the world better manage their wild-caught and sustainable natural resources.

Alabama hospital scores high on Fortune list

Journal Article Alabama hospital scores high on Fortune list Get access Donna Young Donna Young Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, Volume 58, Issue 13, 1 July 2001, Pages 1180–1189, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/58.13.1180a Published: 01 July 2001

Wayne Huizenga: Entrepreneur and wealth creator

Wayne Huizenga is the consummate entrepreneur. His extraordinary achievements and dazzling climb from modest beginnings are the dream of many entrepreneurs. In 1962, he borrowed $5,000 to buy a used truck and 20 commercial accounts, and began his climb to success when he founded Southern Sanitation Service. Later, he merged his business with one owned by his widowed aunts, and formed Waste Management, Inc., now the world's largest waste collection and disposal system. In 1987, he bought a chain of 19 video-rental stores, and built Blockbuster, Inc., into a position of world leadership in the video industry before selling it for $8.5 billion in 1994. His latest venture, AutoNation, Inc., is the largest and fastest growing automobile retailer in the United States. In 1998, AutoNation was ranked 151st, on the Fortune 500 list. It jumped to 83rd in 1998 and 63rd in 2000. AutoNation, in 1999, was also rated by Fortune as the most admired company in the automotive category, and placed 86th on its list of 100 fastest growing firms in America. Mr. Huizenga also serves as chairman of Extended Stay America. Inc., ranked 18th on Fortune's list of 100 fastest growing companies for 2000, and is the only lodging company on the top 100 list. Mr. Huizenga is also chairman of Republic Services, Inc., the nation's third largest and fastest growing waste management system. He is chairman of Boca Resorts, Inc., which owns and operates luxury resorts in Florida and Arizona, and owns the Florida Panthers hockey club and related management operations. Mr. Huizenga also owns the National Football League team, the Miami Dolphins, and Miami's Pro Player stadium. Success Magazine named Mr. Huizenga entrepreneur of the year, an honor he has received seven times from various business and academic groups. He is a five-time recipient of Financial World magazine's CEO of the year. Georgetown University's Business School named him the 1993 business leader of the year. Among Mr. Huizenga's other awards are the Horatio Alger Award and Yale University's Gordon Grand Fellow Award, the highest nonacademic award bestowed by the school. In addition, his name graces the Huizenga Graduate School of Business and Entrepreneurship at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Huizenga attended Calvin College in Michigan for three semesters, never losing the desire to work for himself. On leaving college, he began working, once again, in the trash-hauling business, and his entrepreneurial activities grew from there.

A Study of Social Responsibility in Large Scale Enterprises.

The nature and timing of social actions of 232 industrial and non-industrial corporations appearing on Fortune's list are analyzed and the motivational bases for these actions are assessed in this paper. Approximately half of the firms studied appear to have well-developed programs in urban, consumer, and environmental areas, with most initiated since 1968. These companies have strong policy support from top management and usually have a high level executive with defined social-program responsibilities. Despite tremendous external pressures, however, a large number of companies have obviously not instituted well-planned and-integrated responses. Although structural mechanisms do not guarantee effective responses, they do indicate the kind of management leadership and company climate that seems prerequisite for company actions. Corporations cite enlightened self-interest as their prime motivator for various social actions; however, legal compliance is a major stimulant, particularly in the environmental area. Corporate experience with governmental regulations indicate, however, that their self-interest is best served by a sensitivity to social concern and by a willingness to take initiative before a confrontation. Finally, a company's size and industry characteristics seem to significantly influence its social actions and motivations and these are important considerations for public policy.

Concentration of Patents from Government Financed Research in Industry

HE ownership of resulting from T government financed research and development constitutes a very controversial problem. The federal government mainly the Department of Defense (DOD) has permitted industrial firms to obtain the patent rights to most of the inventions emerging from its contract research, under the so-called with the government acquiring royaltyfree licenses on the inventions. Our task here is an empirical investigation of one of the issues in the controversy over federal patent policy, namely, the concentration of resulting from the operation of the license policy. One of the strongest objections to the license policy rests on the belief that it causes undue concentration of economic power. The objection has been raised repeatedly by attorneys general, by legislators, and by economists who favor the so-called ' under which the government retains ownership of resulting from its contract research. From records of the United States Patent Office, we have compiled data for the period 1946 to 1962 on the numbers of assigned to business firms that have been the research and development (R and D) for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The data are neither estimates nor samples; they are complete counts. The three agencies account for nearly all of the issued under the license policy to contractors. Henceforth, we shall refer to these as license-policy patents. We also have data on the private patents resulting from the company financed R and D of the same contractors. The major R and D contractors are 177 business firms that were among the first 100 of DOD in any fiscal year from 1955 to 1962, or who had contract awards of $2 million or more from the AEC or from NASA.2 Of these 177 firms, 40 are among the first 100 in Fortune's list for 1962. Another 49 are among Fortune's 500 companies. A further 36 have been officially stamped as small businesses. With the exception of a few of the bigger chemical and oil companies that have done little or no research for the federal government, the names of nearly all the Schumpeterian giants of American industry are on our list. By treating each firm and its subsidiaries as a unit, we overstate patent concen* The research underlying this article was supported by a grant (NsG 425) from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to The George Washington University. 1 Department of Justice, Investigations of Government Patent Practices and Policies: Report and Recommendations of the Attorney General to the President 1 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947), 37; Report of the Attorney General Pursuant to Section 708 (e) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as Amended (Nov. 9, 1956, mimeo.); Clair Wilcox, Public Policies Toward Business (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1960), 191; Walter Adams and Horace M. Gray, Monopoly in America: The Government as Promotor (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 47, 94, and 148-152. Testimony against the license policy and in favor of the title policy was given to a Senate subcommittee in 1963 by Horace M. Gray, Robert F. Lanzillotti, Wassily W. Leontief, Richard R. Nelson, and Lee E. Preston. See Aspects of Government Patent Policies, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Small Business, United States Senate, 88th Congress, First Session, Impact of Government Patent Policies on Economic Growth, Scientific and Technological Progress, Competition, and Opportunities for Small Business, March 7, 8, 13, and 14, 1963 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963). Only Leontief (p. 236), however, addressed himself specifically to the question of concentration. 2 Department of Defense, 500 Contractors Listed According to Net Value of Military Prime Contract Awards for Experimental, Development Test and Research Work (Fiscal years 1955 through 1962, mimeo.); and Files of the Atomic Energy Commission and published reports of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 'Usually, government employees are required to assign title to the government. However, if a government employee, with his own resources, produces an invention that his agency wants, the government frequently files the patent application in exchange for a royalty-free license. Also, if an agency does not want a government financed invention made by an employee, the employee often is permitted to acquire title. Regulations governing employees were tightened in 1950. This fact and the relative growth of contract research are the causes of the decline in the number of licenses from employees after 1950.