(34.236.244.39) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/09 19:01
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:曾智揚
研究生(外文):Tseng, Chih-Yang
論文名稱:董事會特性、經營策略與經營績效關係之研究-以台灣上市電子公司為例
論文名稱(外文):The research on relationships among board attribures, business strategies and business performance-Taking Taiwan listed electronic companies for example
指導教授:蔡揚宗蔡揚宗引用關係
指導教授(外文):Tsay, Yang-Tzong
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:會計學研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:會計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:中文
論文頁數:84
中文關鍵詞:公司治理董事會策略策略管理經營績效
外文關鍵詞:corporate governanceboardstrategystrategic managementbusiness performance
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:33
  • 點閱點閱:522
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:146
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:7
推動獨立董監事制度是目前公司治理制度的重心,展望未來公司治理的趨勢將在發揮董事會積極的策略角色。因此本研究將民國89年之台灣上市電子公司計146家,依競爭領域劃分為集中與非集中策略族群,依競爭方式劃分低成本與差異化策略族群;在董事會特性上則採用董事長雙元性、董事會人數、內部董事比例、法人董事比例、董事會持股比例等五項。探討的第一個重點即為董事會特性對策略規劃的影響,包括對企業選擇競爭策略及策略涉入程度的影響。
另外過去研究董事會組成與經營績效關係之文獻,在理論上有不一致之意見,實證上亦未獲致相同的結論。因此本研究的第二個重點在探討採用某種競爭策略的族群,其五項董事會特性與經營績效(ROA與ROE)間是否有特定的關係存在;而依不同競爭策略分群後,董事會特性與經營績效的關係是否比不分群時顯著。
實證結果發現,五項董事會特性對競爭策略的選擇,依典型相關分析的結果並無顯著影響力;對策略涉入程度的影響,則採相關分析及複迴歸分析,結果亦沒有顯著的影響力。可能是董事會與CEO在策略規劃的分工上,主要由CEO負責較積極的策略形成工作,而董事會僅監督CEO之策略規劃工作考慮是否週詳。
不同策略分群下,董事會特性對經營績效的影響,依複迴歸分析的結果,在方向上對假說中所設定的20個正負方向,有45%的支持率;但從影響程度看,則某些策略族群的影響程度並不大,可能是影響經營績效的因素太多所致。而劃分不同策略族群後,董事會特性與經營績效的關係,從變異數分析中的F值來比較,在企業採用非集中策略及低成本策略時較顯著,高於不劃分策略族群的結果,但其他族群則較不顯著,可能是對競爭策略的分群不當所致。
The focus of current corporate governance issues in Taiwan has been the mechanism of independent board of directors. Board’s strategic role, according to the historical evolution of Europe and America, could be next trend in corporate governance. 146 Taiwan listed companies in electronic industry are classified by competitive range into focus and unfocused strategic groups and by competitive advantage into cost leader and differentiation strategic groups.
This research firstly discusses how five board attributes, the CEO duality, the size of the board, the ratio of inside directors, the ratio of corporation directors and the holdings of the board, affect strategic planning results, the choice of competitive strategy to use and the involving extent of the chosen strategy.
Further more, this research verifies the assumption that companies, when adopt certain competitive strategy, have presumptive and more significant relationships between board attributes and business performance which have been theoretically and empirically found uncertain in literatures.
Five board attributes, according to canonical correlation analysis, have no significant correlation with the choice of competitive strategy to use and also have the same conclusion in the involving extent of the chosen strategy by correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis. Presumably, The reason can be that, in the division of strategic planning work, CEOs take more active role in the forming of strategy while the boards are responsible for supervising CEOs’ process in strategic analysis.
45 percent of 20 assumptions about directors’ positive or negative influences on performance, after my dividing electronic companies into four strategic groups, directionally conform to the expectation while the influences differ in their significance. The influences on organizational performance are too complex to find significant relationships in narrow studies of board attributes.
Based on the F value in analysis of variance, the relationships between board attributes and business performance in unfocused and cost leader strategic groups are more significant than in undivided group. However, the other two strategic groups show lower significance because, presumably, strategic groups in this research are improperly divided.
第一章 緒論-----------------------------------------1
第一節 前言---------------------------------------- 1
第二節 研究動機------------------------------------ 2
第三節 研究目的與預期貢獻-------------------------- 4
第四節 論文架構------------------------------------ 7
第二章 相關文獻之回顧與探討---------------------- 7
第一節 策略相關文獻探討-----------------------------7
第二節 董事會與經營策略----------------------------14
第三節 董事會特性與經營績效------------------------24
第三章 研究方法-----------------------------------30
第一節 研究課題與假說之建立----------------------32
第二節 研究對象與研究期間------------------------37
第三節 研究變數之定義與衡量----------------------37
第四節 資料分析方法------------------------------43
第五節 研究限制----------------------------------46
第四章 實證結果與分析---------------------------- 48
第一節 基本資料分析------------------------------49
第二節 企業所使用之競爭策略分析------------------54
第三節 董事會特性對策略規劃影響之分析------------56
第四節 董事會特性對經營績效影響之分析------------64
第五章 研究結論與建議---------------------------- 71
第一節 研究結論----------------------------------71
第二節 研究建議----------------------------------73
第三節 結語--------------------------------------75
參考文獻-------------------------------------------- 76
1.伍忠賢,實用策略管理,遠流出版社,民國87年。
2.吳昆皇,上市公司董事會組成與特性對企業經營績效之關聯性研究,台灣大學商學研究所未出版之碩士論文,民國84年4月。
3.侍台誠,董事會特性中家族因素與經營績效之實證研究-兼論法人董事的影響,台灣大學會計學研究所未出版之碩士論文,民國83年6月。
4.徐作聖,策略致勝,遠流出版社,民國88年8月。
5.孫秀蘭,董事會制度與經營績效之研究,台灣大學財務金融學研究所未出版之碩士論文,85年6月。
6.陳順宇,多變量分析,華泰書局,民國87年7月。
7.彭昭英,SAS與統計分析,儒林圖書公司,民國89年。
8.黃鈺光,我國上市公司董事會特性與經營績效之研究,台灣大學會計學研究所未出版之碩士論文,82年6月。
1.Andrews, K., “The Roundtable Statement on Boards of Directors,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 56, No. 5, pp.24-38, 1978.
2.Baliga, B. R., Moyer, N.C. and Rao, R. S.”CEO duality and firm performance: What’s the fuss?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp.41-53, 1996.
3.Bhagat, S. and Black, B., “The uncertain relationship between board composition and firm performance”, Business Lawyer, Vol.54, pp.921-963, 1999
4.Brickley, J. A., Coles, J. L., and Jarrell, G.,’Leadership structure: Separating the CEO and chairman of the board, Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 3, pp.189-220, 1997.
5.CACG, CACG Guidelines, 1998.
6.Cadbury, A., Report of the Committee on The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance , Gee Publishing, London, 1992.
7.Castro, J.O., and J.J. Chrisman, “Market entry order, competitive strategy, and performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol.33, pp. 165-177, 1995.
8.Chandler, A.D., Strategy and structure: Chapters in the History of American Enterprise, Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press. 1992.
9.Dalton, D.R., C.M. Daily, A.E. Ellstrand, and J.L. Jonson., “Meta-anlytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.19, pp.269-290, 1998.
10.Douglas, S.P. and Rhee, D.K., ”Examining generic competitive strategy types in U.S. and European markets”, Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, pp.437-463, 1989.
11.Flynn, E. J. and P. S. Chan., “Configurations of board of director composition and strategic attributes, and business performance”, Journal of Applied Business Research, Vol. 3, pp.24-37, 1992.
12.Forbes, D.P. and Milliken, F.J., ”Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.24, No. 3, pp. 489-505, 1999.
13.Garratt, B., “The Fish Rots from the Head-The Crisis in our Boardrooms: Developing the Crucial Skills of the Competent Director”, Harper Collins Publishers, London.,1996.
14.Harrison, J. R., ”The strategic use of corporate board committees”, California Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.109-125, 1987.
15.Helmer, H.W., “A director’s role in strategy”, Directors & Boards, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.22-25, 1996.
16.Henke, J., Jr.,” Involving the Board of Directors in Strategic Planning”, The Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 6, pp.87-95, 1985.
17.Heracleous L., ”What is the Impact of Corporate Governance on Organizational Performance? ”, Corporate Governace,Vol.9 No.3,2001.
18.Hermes, Hermes International Corporate Governance Principle.
19.Hofer C. W. and Dan Schendel, Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts, West Publishing Co. St Paul, Minnesota, 1978.
20.Jensen, M. and W. Meckling, “Theory of the Firm: managerial Behavior, Agency costs, and Capital Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 33, pp.305-360, 1976.
21.John A. Pearce, and Richard B. Robinson, Strategic Management, Chicago: Irwin, p.8, 1982.
22.Kesner, I.F., “Directors’ stock ownership and organizational performance: An investigation of Fortune 500 companies”, Journal of Management, Vol.3, pp.499-507, 1987.
23.Livingstone, J. L., The Portable MBA in Finance and Accounting, New York: Wiley, pp.439-441, 1992
24.Malaysia, The Malaysian Code on Corporate Governance.
25.Mangel, R. and H. Singh, “Ownership Structure, Board Relationship and CEO Compensation in Large US Corporation”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 23, pp. 339-350, 1993.
26.Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill, New York., 1978.
27.Morck, R., A. Shleifer and R. W. Vishny, “Management Ownership and Market Valuation: An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 20, pp.293-315, 1988.
28.OECD,OECD’s Principle of Corporate Governance,1999
29.O’Neal, D. and Thomas, H., “Developing the Strategic Board”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.314-327, 1996.
30.Paddy, R., ”The Role of the Board of Directors in Ensuring the Involvement of Key Influence Figures in Strategic Management”, Unpublished Paper, University of Auckland , New Zealand, 1981.
31.Paddy, R., “The Involvement of the Directors in Strategic Management in New Zealand’s Ten Largest Companies”, Unpublished Paper, University of Auckland, New Zealand, 1983.
32.Pearce Ⅱ, J.A. and Zahra, S.A., “Board Composition from a Strategic Contingency Perspective”, Journal of Management Studies, July, pp.411-438, 1992.
33.Pfeffer, J., “Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: the organization and its environment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.7, pp.218-229, 1972.
34.Pfeffer, J., “Size, composition, and function of hospital boards of directors: a study of organization-environment linkage”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp.349-364, 1973.
35.Porter, M.E., Competitive Strategy, Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York, 1980.
36.Pound, J., “Proxy Contests and The Efficiency of Shareholder Oversight”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 20, pp.237-265, 1988.
37.Rechner, P. L., and D.R. Dalton, ”The impact of CEO as board chairperson on corporate performance: evidence vs. rhetoric”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol.2, pp.141-143, 1989.
38.Rhoades, D.L., Rechner, P.L., and Sundaremurthy, C., “Board composition and financial performance: A meta-analysis of the influence of outside directors”, Journal of Management Issues, Vol.1, No. XII , pp. 76-79, 2000.
39.Toronto SEC, Toronto Stock Exchange Committee Report (Dey Report)
40.Treichler, C.M., “Diversity of board members and organizational performance: An integrative perspective”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 3, pp.189-200, 1995.
41.Wagner, J.A., Stimpert, J.L. and Fubara, E.I., “Board composition and organizational performance: Two studies insider/ effects”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.35, No.5, pp.656-677, 1998.
42.Walker, L.W., “Governing board, know thyself”, Trustee, Vol.52, No.8, pp. 14-15, 1999.
43.Wright, P., Pringle C.D., and Kroll M.J., Strategic Management, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994.
44.Yamin S., A. Gunasekaran, Felix T. Mavondo, “Relationship between generic strategies, competitive advantage and organizational performance: An empirical analysis”, Technovation, Vol. 19, pp.507-518, 1999.
45.Zahra, S., and J. PearceⅡ(1989),”Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial Performance: A Review and Integrated Model,” Journal of Management, Vol. 15, pp.291-334, 1989.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔