臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

過去理論與實證研究多探討傳統產業與高科技產業間董事會結構的差異，但對產品特性的作為分類依據之研究較為缺乏。有鑑於此，本研究乃參酌產品壽命之相關知識，利用產品壽命將產業進行分類。
本研究參酌Charles H. Fine對產品與技術脈動速度之研究調查結果，作為產品壽命之分類之依據；個人電腦產業、半導體產業與消費性電子產業作為產品壽命較短之研究樣本，機械工具業、電機業與家電產業作為產品壽命中等之研究樣本，將石化產業、鋼鐵產業與紙業作為產品壽命較長之研究樣本。研究對象選取民國九十二年於台灣證券交易所掛牌之上市公司，作成三組研究群體，進行基本資料分析、相關性分析與差異分析。
相關性分析結果顯示，發現成長性變數與董事會組成與特性呈現顯著相關，尤其研發費用率最為顯著。差異分析結果顯示，不同的產品壽命下之企業，其董事會組成結構與特性存在差異性；在董事會組成因素方面，包括內部董事比率、獨立董事比率、法人董事比率、家族董事比率與最大股東成員擔任董事比率上均存在顯著之差異性；在董事會特性方面，包括董監事持股質押比率、實質持股比率與董事長的年齡與教育程度均呈現顯著差異。
此外，本研究發現，將產品壽命分為長中短三組樣本進行分析，其董事會組成與特性因素隨產品壽命之變化，呈現逐漸升高或降低之趨勢，例如：當產品壽命愈短、技術變遷速度愈快時，內部董事比率與獨立董事比率有增加之趨勢；家族董事比率與最大股東成員擔任董事之比率有減少之趨勢；法人董事比率有減少之趨勢，董監事實質持股比率有增加之情形；最後，本研究發現，產品壽命愈短、變遷速度愈快的產業環境，企業的董事長傾向愈年輕並擁有愈高學歷之趨勢。

Since most previous studies on corporate governance used to observe the difference between high technology firms and traditional firms and few articles categorize the sample with product characteristics, we purpose to investigate board composition and characteristic among the firms with different product life expectancy and to discuss the connection between growth factors and corporate governance.

Consulting the research on clock-speed conducted by Charles H. fine, we choose Taiwan listed companies in personal computer industry, I.C. industry and consumer electronic industry as samples of firms whose products have short life expectancy, choosing Taiwan listed companies in mechanism industry as samples of firms whose products have moderate life expectancy, choosing Taiwan listed companies in petrochemical, paper and steel industry as samples of firm whose products have long life expectancy. The study began with a fundamental analysis of the sample data and used the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the analysis of correlation on different variables according to their properties.
We find that variables of growth and board attributes are highly correlated, especially for the variable of growth, ratio of research and development expense. Kruskal- Wallis tests for differences in the distributions of three categories indicate that there are substantial differences in the board composition and characteristics, suggests that the three groups of firms use different approaches to control agency problems. As the product life expectancy gets shorter, the companies tend to employ a greater proportion of inner directors and independent directors, smaller proportion of institution directors, family directors and largest shareholder- affiliated directors. In addition, as the product life expectancy gets shorter, the directors tend to enhance their ownership; chainman of board gets younger and tends to pursue and complete a higher academic degree.

目錄
第一章 緒論………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究背景與動機…………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的…………………………………………………2
第三節 研究流程…………………………………………………3
第二章 文獻探討…………………………………………………5
第一節 代理問題與解決機制……………………………………5
第二節 公司治理…………………………………………………9
第三節 產品壽命之相關理論……………………………………24
第三章 研究設計…………………………………………………30
第一節 研究架構…………………………………………………30
第二節 研究假說…………………………………………………31
第三節 研究變數與定義…………………………………………39
第四節 研究樣本與資料來源……………………………………43
第五節 研究方法…………………………………………………44
第四章 實證結果與分析…………………………………………45
第一節 統計性分析………………………………………………45
第二節 相關性分析………………………………………………50
第三節 差異性分析………………………………………………55
第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………68
第一節 研究結論…………………………………………………68
第二節 研究限制…………………………………………………70
第三節 研究建議…………………………………………………71
參考文獻……………………………………………………………73
附錄…………………………………………………………………81

表目錄
表 2-1 各產業脈動速度表………………………………………28
表 3-1 研究假說彙總……………………………………………38
表 4-1 成長性變數之統計性分析………………………………45
表 4-2 董事會組成之統計性分析………………………………47
表 4-3 董事會特性之統計性分析………………………………49
表 4-4 董事長與總經理之關係表………………………………50
表 4-5 成長性與董事會組成之相關係數表……………………52
表 4-6 成長性與董事會特性之相關係數表……………………54
表 4-7 成長性因素之差異性檢定量表…………………………56
表 4-8 董事會組成因素之差異性檢定量表……………………61
表 4-9 董事會組成因素之變化趨勢……………………………62
表 4-10 董事會特性因素之差異性檢定量表……………………66
表 4-11 董事會特性因素之變化趨勢……………………………67
表 4-12 董事長與總經理關係表…………………………………67

圖目錄
圖 1-1 研究流程…………………………………………………4
圖 2-1 董事會與公司績效整合模型……………………………11
圖 3-1 研究架構…………………………………………………30

一、中文部分
1.「台灣地區集團研究」2003年版，中華徵信所。
2.「經理人名冊」2002、2003年版，中華徵信所。
3.「公司治理」哈佛商業評論精選，天下文化出版社。
4.王嘉穎，“我國上市公司財務危機與監理因素之關聯性研究-實質所有權之探討”，台灣大學會計研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十九年六月。
5.林育司，“董事會特性對企業創新績效影響之研究：競爭策略與產業環境之調和效果”，成功大學企業管理博士班之博士論文，民國九十四年六月
6.林育雅，“我國上市公司董事會特性與盈餘操縱現象之研究”，台灣大學會計研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十三年六月
7.李俊德，“我國企業董事會功能之研究”，政治大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文，民國七十二年六月。
8.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”，台灣大學會計研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十三年六月
9.吳昆皇，“上市公司董事會組成與特性對企業經營績效之關連性研究”，台灣大學商學研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十四年四月。
10.倪偉倫，“借殼上市公司的代理問題與經營績效之關係”，政治大學財務管理系未出版碩士文，民國九十一年六月。
11.許雅涵，“上櫃公司治理機制對公司價值與控制股東行為影響之研究”，輔仁大學金融研究所未出版碩士論文，民國九十二年六月。
12.陳金鈴，“臺灣上市公司股權結構之研究分析”，成功大學會計研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十五年六月。
13.張明峰，“股權結構對公司績效影響之研究”，政治大學企業管理研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十年六月。
14.孫秀蘭，“董事會制度與經營績效之研究”，台灣大學財務金融研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十五年六月。
15.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，民國八十二年。
16.翁淑育，“台灣上市公司股權結構、核心代理問題與公司價值之研究”，輔仁大學金融研究所未出版論文，民國八十九年六月。
17.楊俊中，“股權結構與經營績效相關性之研究”，台灣大學會計研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十七年六月。
18.戴淵明，“公司控制型態與其經營績效關係之研究－臺灣地區上市公司之實證”，國立中興大學未出版碩士論文，民國八十五年六月。
19.張訓華，“股數結構、董事會組成與企業當年財務績效—以77年度會計報酬率為準”，東吳大學管理科學研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國七十九年六月。
20.楊俊中，“股權結構與經營績效相關性之研究”，台灣大學會計研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十七年六月。
21.廖秀梅，“董事會結構特性與公司績效關係之研究—探討台灣家族控制企業因素之影響，台北大學會計研究所博士論文，民國九十三年六月。
22.謝淑娟，“觀點探討股權結構與公司經營績效之關係－以台灣上市公司為實證”，交通大學管理科學研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國八十三年六月。
23.熊英秀，“我國高科技產業與傳統產業董事會結構之探討”，台灣大學會計研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國九十年六月。
24.遲銘俊，“董事會組成與股權結構對高階主管更迭、公司價值與績效之關聯性-以台灣上市(櫃)金融業及電子業為例”成功大學企業管理研究所未出版之碩士論文，民國九十三年六月
二、英文部分
1.Agrawal, A. and C.R. Knoeber, “Firm Performance and Mechanisms to Control Agency Problems,” Working paper. Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA, 1995.
2.Bantel, K.A., “Strategic Planning Openness：The Role of Top Team Demography”, Group & Organization Management, 1994,Vol.19(4), pp.406-424.
3.Bantel, K. and S. Jackson., “Top Management and Innovations in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference?” Strategic Management Journal, 1989, 10, pp. 107-124.
4.Bhagat, S. and B.S. Black, “Do Independent Directors Matter?” Working paper, Center for Law and Economic Studies, Columbia University, New York, NY, 1996.
5.Bhagat, S. and B. Black, “The Uncertain Relationship between Board Composition and Firm Performance, ”Business Lawyer, 1999, Vol.54, pp. 921-963.
6.Bhagat, S., J.A. Brickley, and J.L Coles, “The Costs of Inefficient Bargaining and Financial Distress: Evidence from Corporate Lawsuits.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 1994, Vol. 35, pp.221-247.
7.Brickley, J.A. and C.M. James, “The takeover market corporate board composition and ownership structure: The case of banking” Journal of Law and Economics, 1987, Vol.30, pp. 161-180.
8.Byrd, J.J. and K.A. Hickman, “Do outside directors monitor managers? ”, Journal of Financial Economics, 1992,Vol.32, pp.195-221.
9.Buchholtz, A.K. and B.A. Ribbens, “The role of chief executive officer in takeover resistance: Effects of CEO incentives and individual differences.” Acad. Management, 1994, 37, pp. 554- 579.
10.Childs, A. and R.J. Klimoski, “Successfully Predicting Career Success An Application of the Biographical Inventory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, Vol.71, pp.3-7.
11.Datta, D.K., and J.P. Guthrie, “Executive succession: Organizational antecedents of CEO characteristics.” Strategic Management Journal, 1994, 15(7), 569-577.
12.Daily C.M. and D.R. Dalton, “Board of Directors Leadership and Structure: Control and Performance Implications” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 1993, pp65-81.
13.Dayton, K., “Corporate Governance: The Other Side of the Coin,” Harvard Business Review, 1984, Vol.62: 34-37.
14.DeAngelo, H., “Management Buyouts of Publicly Traded Corporations”, in Copeland, ed., Modern Finance and Industrial Economics, Chapter 6, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987.
15.Demsetz, H., “The Structure of Ownership and the Theory of the Firm.” Journal of Law and Economics, 1983, Vol. 26, pp.375-390.
16.Donaldson L. and J.H. Davis, “Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governmance and Shareholder Returns”, Australian Journal of Management , 1991, pp49- 64.
17.Drieghe, R., “Board of Directors and Corporate Governance. The Case of Greenmail Legacy Theory, Corporate Control,” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1986.
18.Dunn, D.J., Directors aren’t doing their jobs. Fortune (March), 1987, pp. 117-119.
19.Fama, E.F. and M.C. Jensen, “Separation of Ownership and Control”, Journal of Law and economics, June, 1983, pp.301-325.
20.Fine, C.H, “Clockspeed : Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage”, Perseus Books, 1998.
21.Firstenberg, P.B. and B.G. Malkiel, Why corporate boards need independent directors. Management Review, 1980 April, pp. 26-38.
22.Fosberg, R., “Outside Directors and Managerial Monitoring,” AkronBusiness and Economic Review, 1989, Vol. 20, pp.24-32.
23.Gaver, J.F., and K.M. Gaver , “Additional evidence on the association between the investment opportunity set and corporate financing, dividend, and compensation policies,” Journal of Accounting and Economic, 1993, 16, pp.125-160.
24.Gomez, L. R., Balkin, D. D., & Cardy, R. L. 1995. Managing Human Resources. Prentice Hall International, Inc.
25.Gudmundson, D.,C.B. Tower and E. A. Hartman, “Innovation in Small Business: Culture and Ownership Structure Do Matter,” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 2003,8(1), pp.1-17
26.Hambrick, D.C. and G.D.S. Fukutomi, “The Seasons of a CEO’s Tenure. ”Academy of Management Review, 1991, 16,pp.719-742.
27.Harris, S., “Aboriginal Learning Styles and Formal Schooling.” The Aboriginal Child at School, 1984, 12 :pp. 3-23.
28.Hermalin, B. E. & M. S. Weisbach, “Boards of Directors as an Endogenously Determined institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature,” NBER working Paper, 2001.
29.Hill, C.W. L and S.A. Snell , “External Control, Corporate Strategy, and Firm Performance in Research- Intensive Industries,” Strategic Management Journal, 1988, 9, pp.577-590.
30.Jensen, M., “The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems," Journal of Finance, 1993, 48 (3), pp. 831-80.
31.Jensen, M.C. and W.H. Meckling, , “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure”, Journal of Financial Economics, 1976, Vol.3, pp305-360.
32.Kesner, I., “Directors'' stock ownership and organizational performance: An investigation of fortune 500 companies”, Journal of Management, 1987,Vol. 13, Iss.3, pp.499-507.
33.Kimberly, J.R. and M.J. Evanisko, “Organizational Innovation: The Influence of Individual, Organization, and Contextual Factors on Hospital Adoption of Technological and Administrative Innovations” Academy of Management Journal, 1981, Vol.24, Iss.4, pp.689-714.
34.Klein, A., “Firm performance and board committee structure.” Journal of Law and Economics, 1998, 41, pp. 275-303.
35.Lyles, M.A., “Learning among joint venture sophisticated firms”, Management International Review, 1988, Special Issue: 85-97.
36.Mehran, H., “Executive Compensation Structure, Ownership and Firm Performance, ”Journal of Financial Economics, 1995, Vol. 38(2), pp.163- 184.
37.Mendelson, H. and R.R. Pillai, “Industry Clockspeed: Measurement and Operational Implications”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 1999,Vol.1, No.1.
38.Miller, D., “Stales in the Saddle: CEO Tenure and the Match between Organization and Environment”, Management Science, 1990, Vol.37, pp.34-52.
39.Morck, R., A. Shleifer and R.W. Vishny, “Management Ownership and Marketing Valuation.” Journal of Financial Economics, 1988, Vol. 20, pp.293-315.
40.Myers, S., “Determinants of corporate borrowing”, Journal of Financial Economics”, 1977, Vol. 5, 147-176
41.Oviatt, B.M., “Agency and Transaction Cost Perspectives on the Manager-Shareholder Relationship: Incentive for Congruent Interests”, Academy of Management Review, 1988, 13(2), pp214-225.
42.Patton, A. and J.C. Baker, “Why won’t Directors Rock the Boat”, Harvard Business Review, 1987, Nov.-Dec, pp10-18.
43.Pearce, J. and S. Zahra, “Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective.”, Journal of Management Studies, 1992, Vol.29, pp.411-438.
44.Pfefferr, J., “Size composition and functions of hospital boards of directors: A study of organization-environment linkage”, Administrative Science , 1973, Quarterly 18, pp.349-364.
45.Pound, J. “Proxy Contests and the Efficiency of Shareholder Oversight.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 1988, Vol. 20 (1-2), pp.237-265.
46.Rechner, P. L., “Corporate Governance：Fact or fiction?” Business Horizons, 1989, 32(4), 11-15.
47.Rediker, K.J. and A. Seth, “Board of directors and substitution effects of alternative governance mechanisms”, Strategic Management Journal, 1995, Vol.16, pp.85-99
48.Rink, D.R. and J.E. Swan, “Product life cycle research：a literature review” Journal of Business Research, 1979, September,pp.219-242.
49.Rink, D.R. and J.E. Swan, “Fitting marketing strategy to varying product life cycle.”, Business Horizon, 1982, pp.72-76.
50.Souza, G.C., B.L. Bayus and H.M. Wagner, ”New-Product Strategy and Industry Clockspeed” Management Science, 2004, Vol. 50, Iss. 4,pp 537-549
51.Sturdivant, F.D., J.L. Ginter and A.G. Sawyer, “Managers’ Conservatism and Corporate Performance, ”Strategic Management Journal, 1985, Vol. 6(1), pp.17-38.
52.Swan, J.E. and D.R. Rink, “Effective Use of Industrial Product Life-Cycle Trends”, in Marketing the ‘80s, eds. Richard P. Bagozzi et. Al. American Marketing Association, Chicago.
53.Thomas, A.S., R.J. Litschert and K. Ramaswamy, “The Performance Impact of Strategy-Manager Co-alignment：An Empirical Examination.” Strategic Management Journal, 1991,Vol.12, pp.509-522
54.Vance, S.C., “Corporate Leadership: Boards, Directors, and Strategy,” McGraw-Hill,New York, 1983.
55.Whidbee, D.A, “Board Composition and Control of Shareholder Voting Rights in the Banking Industry”, Financial Management, 1997, Vol.26, No.4, pp.27-41
56.Wiersema, M.F. and K.A. Bantel, “Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategy Change.”, Academy of Management Journal, 1992, Vol.35, pp.99-121.
57.Weisbach, M., ”Outside directors and CEO turnover.”, Journal of Financial Economics, 1988, Vol.20, pp.431-460.
58.Wiersema,M. F. and K.A. Bantel, “Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategy Change”, Academy of Management Journal, 1992,Vol.35, pp.99－121。
59.Yeh, Y.H and T. Woidtke “Commitment or Entrenchment?: Controlling Shareholders and Board Composition”
60.Yermack, D. “Higher Market Valuation Of Companies With A Small Board Of Directors,” Journal of Financial Economics, 1996, v40 (2,Feb), pp.185-211.
61.Zahra S.A. “Technology Strategy and Financial Performance: Examining the Moderating Role of the Firm’s Competitive Environment,” Journal of Business Venturing, 1996, 11(3), pp.189-219.
62.Zahra, S.A. and J.A II. Pearce, “Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial Performance: A Review and Integrated Model”, Journal of Management, 1989, pp291-334