臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

紡織業為我國少數轉型至自有品牌成功之產業，透過轉型使台灣紡織業者更能掌握全球潮流趨勢，相對於其他開發中國家的紡織業者有更敏銳之觸覺，也因此能領先一步取得市場的商機，方能於現今全球紡織市場中佔有重要之策略性地位。過去企業轉型相關研究較少深入探索不同資源與企業轉型績效之關聯性。本論文基於資源基礎理論與高層理論，採模糊集合質化比較分析法探索何種資源與高階管理團隊構形為影響企業轉型績效充分條件。

本研究以台灣紡織產業成熟型企業為研究對象，亦即台灣紡織產業上市、上櫃及興櫃之企業。本研究採兩階段進行，第一階段採用Eisenhardt (1989)質化個案研究法，針對紡織產業廠商進行理論抽樣，探索可能影響紡織業轉型績效之因素，第二階段根據第一階段發掘之重要因素，採用Ragin (2009) 模糊集合質化比較分析法檢驗第一階段研究分析之發現，探討影響紡織業轉型績效之關鍵因素組合。

研究結果顯示，資源缺乏但員工向心力強之小規模企業，搭配「高階管理團隊MBA比例低」、「高階管理團隊具研發經驗比例高」、「高階管理團隊教育背景異質性低」，於轉型階段較可能快速成長。同心型小規模企業雖資源相對缺乏，但員工向心力強，若搭配「同質」、「MBA比例低」、「研發經驗比例高」之高階管理團隊，仍舊能展現較佳之轉型績效表現。研究結果並指出三種充分條件構形，分別為:資源暨員工公司經驗豐富型大企業具多元管理團隊、資源豐富及技術導向型大企業具多元管理團隊、員工公司經驗豐富型小規模企業具研發決策效率型管理團隊。本研究除了補足現有理論的文獻缺口之外，亦提出研究建議供實務及後續研究參考，期望能對欲轉型廠商帶來實質貢獻。

The textile industry is one of the few industries in Taiwan having numerous self-owned brands created through corporate transformation. Through transformation, Taiwan’s textile industry has been quicker to identify and react to global trends. With higher market sensitivity compared to the textile industry in other developing countries, Taiwan’s textile industry has seized opportunities in the market and is therefore playing an important strategic role in the global textile market. Previous research of corporate transformation seldom probed into the relationship between resources and corporate transformation performance. Based on resource-based theory and upper echelon theory, this study conducted fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to explore what resources and management configurations are significant for effect on corporate transformation performance.

The subjects were mature companies in Taiwan’s textile industry, including companies listed in TSE, OTC and emerging stock markets. This study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, Eisenhardt’s (1989) qualitative case study method was adopted. A theoretical sampling of textile firms was conducted to explore factors that may potentially affect their transformation performance. In the second stage, based on the important factors obtained in the first stage, Ragin’s (2009) fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis was applied to investigate the combinations of key factors affecting corporate transformation performance.

Results showed that for small companies with a lack of resources but employees having extensive firm-specific experience, “top management team with a low MBA ratio”, “top management team with a high R&D experience ratio”, “top management team with low heterogeneity of education backgrounds” were factors that may contribute to a faster firm growth after transformation. For small companies possessing relatively few resources but owning great firm-specific-experienced employees, a homogeneous top management team with “a low MBA ratio”, and “a high R&D experience ratio” can still lead them to achieve higher transformation performance. The results also suggested three sufficient configurations leading to higher transformation performance, including “large companies with abundant resources , great firm-specific-experienced employees and a diversified management team”, “large technology-oriented companies with abundant resources and a diversified management team”, and “small companies with great firm-specific-experienced employees and a management team having R&D decision-making efficiency”. In addition to filling a gap in literature, this study also provided suggestions for practitioners and future researchers, in hope of making substantive contributions to companies planning to undergo a transformation.

目錄

摘要………………………………………………………………………………………………………i
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………iii
目錄………………………………………………………………………………………………………I

表目錄………………………………………………………………………………………………III

圖目錄…………………………………………………………………………………………………IV

第一章 緒論………………………………………………………………………………………1

第一節 研究背景與動機………………………………………………………………1

第二節 研究目的與研究問題………………………………………………………5

第三節 研究流程………………………………………………………………………………7

第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………………………………………11

第一節 企業資源與企業轉型績效之關聯性………………………22

第二節 高階管理團隊組成與企業轉型績效之關聯性… 28

第三節 文獻小節……………………………………………………………………………32

第三章 研究方法……………………………………………………………………………33

第一節 研究設計與研究對象……………………………………………………33

第二節 資料來源與資料蒐集……………………………………………………55

第三節 變數定義與衡量………………………………………………………………57

第四節 資料分析方法……………………………………………………………………65
第四章 研究結果 ……………………………………………………………………………67
第一節 個案研究發現…………………………………………………………67
第二節 fsQCA分析結果………………………………………………………78
第五章 研究結論與討論………………………………………………………………85
第一節 研究結論……………………………………………………………………85
第二節 研究貢獻……………………………………………………………………88
第三節 研究限制與建議………………………………………………………91
參考文獻…………………………………………………………………………………………………93
附錄…………………………………………………………………………………………………………103

參考文獻

中文參考文獻

方至民、曾志弘、鍾憲瑞 (1999)， 「高階經營團隊特質與財務能力對企業研發支出的影響之研究－以台灣上市電子產業公司為例」，科技管理研討會論文集，國立中山大學。

古熾財 (1998)，「中小企業轉型升級經營模式之研究－以民生工業為例」，國立中興大學企業管理學系研究所未出版碩士論文。

司徒達賢 (2001)，策略管理新論，台北：智勝文化。

司徒達賢 (2005)，策略管理新論-觀念架構與分析方法，台北：智勝文化。

伍忠賢 (2000)，「企業轉型的策略方案選擇」，管理雜誌第314期。

竹本次郎 (1989)，「從勞動密集到技術密集的轉型」，日本文摘雜誌社。
吳思華 (1996)，策略九說，策略思考的本質，台北：麥田。

吳思華 (2000)，策略九說，三版，台北：臉譜。

李仁芳 (1998)，「邁向智價經濟體(Knowledge—Based Economy) ─創新求勝」，產學研合作創新與國家競爭力專輯，行政院國家科學委員會。

李信宏 (2000)， 「有限高柱體頂部下沖氣流對Karman型態渦流溢放影響實驗之研究」，國立成功大學航空太空工程學系碩博士班。

李信宏 (2013)， 「2013年第三季台灣紡織產業回顧與展望」，經濟部紡織綜合所。

李思嫻 (2003)， 「組織內外部因素、建立自有品牌決策與廠商績效之關聯性研究」，國立成功大學企業管理學系碩士論文。

周佳欣 (1997)， 「台灣中小企業策略性轉型之研究」，東吳大學。

林寄雯 (1992)， 「中小企業轉型策略（上）」，經濟國貿局。

孫玲萍 (2004)， 「台灣傳統製造業轉型成長之策略性人力資源管理」，國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所。

陳明璋 (1994)， 臺灣中小企業發展論文集，臺北縣：聯經。

徐聯恩（1996）， 企業變革系列研究，台北：華泰。

袁素萍 (2003)， 「企業轉型成功關鍵因素之研究」，國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。

陳明璋 (1980)，「中小企業轉型策略」，戰略生產力雜誌，pp. 132- 135。

陳明璋 (1990)，企業贏策略：掌握成功四項關鍵：經理人、接捧、轉型、創新，台北：遠流出版社。

陳振祥 (1997)，「ODM 策略之理論架構與實證」，國立臺灣大學商學研究所博士論文。

施振榮 (2005)，全球品牌大戰略-品牌先生施振榮，台北:天下文化


外貿協會 (1996)，「我國自創品牌廠商實例研究」，外貿協會。

資策會MIC, ITIS計畫，1998年12月。

星展銀行，2015年年報，105年10月。

紡拓會，2016 年紡織產業年鑑，106年2月。

曾漢壽 (2008)，「讓臺灣品牌站上國際舞台-代工與品牌篇」，pp. 9-11、36-41。經濟部國際貿易局

黎堅 (1989)，「自創品牌的檢討」，台灣經濟研究月刊第二期，pp.19-25。

瞿宛文 (2006)，「台灣後起者能藉自創品牌升級嗎？」，台灣社會研究季刊第63期，pp.1-52。

劉韻僖 (2006)，「台灣高科技產業高階經營團隊及董事會權力與組織績效關係之研究」，交大管理評論，pp. 173-200。
英文參考文獻
Aaker, D. A. 1996. Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.

Adams, J. D. 1984 . Transforming work. Alexandria, VA :Miles Review Press .

Adrian, J. S. 1996. Value migration: How to think several moves ahead of the competition. Boston: The President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Allison, P. D. 1978. Measures of inequality.American Sociological Review, 43:865-880.

Kilmann, R.H., & Covin,T.J. 1988. Corporate transformation: Revitalizing organizations for a competitive World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barney, J.B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management , 17:99-120.

Bartlett, C.A., & Ghoshal, S. 1991. Global strategic management: Impact on the new frointers of strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 603-625.

Bantel, K. A., & Jackson S. E., 1989. Top Management and Innovations in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a Difference?, Strategic Management Journal , 10: 107-124.

Becker, C.L. 1975. The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15: 1-24.

Berg-Schlosser, D., De Meur, G., Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C.C. 2008. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as an approach. In B.R. ragin configurational comparative methods. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bibeault, D. B. 1988. How managers turn losers into winners. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Blumenthal, B., & Haspeslagh, P. 1994. Toward a definition of corporate transformation. Sloan Management Review, 35:101-106.
Castle, N. G., & Jane B. H.. 1997. Top management team characteristics and innovation in nursing homes. The Gerontologist, 37:572-580.

Carpenter, M. A., Sanders W. G., & Gregersen H. B. 2001. Building human capital with organizational context: The impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performance and CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 493-511.

Carpenter, M. A., 2002. Groups, the Media, Agency Waiting Costs, and FDA Drug Approval, 46: 490-505.

Certo, S. T., Lester , R. H. , Dalton C. M., & Dalton D. R. 2006 . Top management teams strategy and financial performance: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Management Studies, 43:813–39.

Cimoli, M., & Dosi , G. 1990. Issues of compensation in international technology licensing. Management International Review, 28:70-79.

Collis, D. J., & Montgomery , C. A. 1997. Corporate strategy: Resources and the scope of the firm. Chicago: IRWIN.

Collis, D. J. 1991. A resources-based analysis of global competition: The case of the bearing industry. Strategic Management Journal, 12:46-68.

Collis, D.J., & Montgomery, C.A. 1995. Competing on resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harvard Business Review , 73:118-127.

Dalton,D., & Kesner, I. 1985. Organizational performance as antecedent of Inside/outside chief executive succession : An empirical assessment. Academy of Management Journal, 28:749-762.

Daniels, J. D., & Bracker, J. 1989. Profit performance: Do foreign operations make a difference? . Management International Review, 29:46-56.

Delorme, C. D., Klein, P. G., Kamerschen,D.R., & Voeks, L.F. 2002. Structure, conduct and performance: A simultaneous equations approach. Applied Economics, 35:13-20.

Demsetz, H., & Lehn, K. 1985. The structure of corporate ownership: Causes and consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93:1155-1177.

Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. 1993. Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1196-1250.

Doyle, W. 1990. Classroom knowledge as a foundation for teaching. Teachers College Record, 14:129-149.

Drucker, P. F. 1999. Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review, 41:79-94.

Eisanhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14:532-550.

Eisenhardt, K.M., & Schoonhoven, C.B. 1990. Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35:504-529.

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D.C. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35:484-503.

Fiss, Peer C. 2011. Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 393-420.

Gersick, J. C. 1994 . Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Acadamy of Management Journal, 37:945.

Grant, A. M. 2008. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:48-58.

Griliches, Z. 1981. Market value, R&D, and patents. Economics Letters, 7:183-187.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echlons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9:193-206.

Hambrick, D.C. & Aveni, R.A.D. 1992. Top team deterioration as part of the downward spiral of large corporate bankruptcies. Management Science, 38:1445-1466.

Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 659-684.

Hequet, M. 1994. How telecommuting transforms work. Training. 31:56-61.

Hitt, M.A., & Tyler, B.B. 1991. Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives. Strategic Management Journal , 12: 327-325.

Hoskisson, R. E., et al. 1999 . Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25: 417-456.

Jonathan, D. 2000. Corporate transformation without a crisis. The McKinseyQuarterly, 4: 116~128.

Joyce, W., & Richardson, T. 1995. Transformation Thinking. L.A.: Berkley Publishing Group.

Kanter, S., & Todd, J. 1992. The change masters:innovation for productivity in the American corporation. New York : Simon and Schuster.

Kalakota, R., & Marcia, R. 1999. E-business: Roadmap for success. U.S.A.: Mary T. O,Brien.

Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. 1981. Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal , 24:689-713.

Kilmann, R. H., & Covin, T. I. 1988. Corporate transformation: Revitalizing organization for a competitive world. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass.

Lavy, A., & Merry, U. 1988. Organizational transformation: Revitalizing organization for a competitive world. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass.

McConnell, J. J., & Muscarella, C. J. 1985. Corporate capital expenditure decisions and the market value of the firm. Journal of financial economics, 14:399-422.

Michel, J., & Hambrick, D. 1992. Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35:9-37.

Murray, A. 1989. Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10:125-141.

Papadakis, V. M., & Barwise, P. 2002. How much do CEOs and top managers matter in strategic decision making?. British Journal of Management, 13:83-95.

Papadakis, V., & Bourantas, D. 1998. The chief executive officer as corporate champion of technological innovation: An empirical investigation. Technology Analysis Strategic Management, 10 :89-109.

Penrose, E. T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Porter, M. E. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review , 68:79-91.

Ragin, Charles C. 2008. Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Ragin, C. C. 2009. Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA).

Rajagopalan, N., & Datta, D. K. 1996. CEO Characteristics: Does Industry Matter?, The Academy of Management Journal, 39: 197-215.

Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. 2009. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks : Sage.

Robbins, S. P., 1993. Organizational behavior. N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Sambharya, R. B. 1996. Foreign experience of top management teams and international diversification strategies of U.S. ultinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 17:739-746.

Shaheen, G. T. 1994. Approach to transformation. Chief Executive, 3: 2-5.

Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D. , Sims, H. P. , Bannon, D. P. O. , & Scully, J. A. 1994. Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 412-438.

Stalk, G., Evans, P., & Shulman, L.E. 1992. Competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate strategy . Harvard Business Review, 70: 57-69.

Sull, D.N. 2003. Revival of the fittest. Boston：Harvard Business School Press.

Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7:171-222.

Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171-180.

Weinzimmer, L. G. 1997. Top management team correlates of organizational growth in a small business context: A comparative study. Journal of Small Business Management, 35: 1-9.

Wiersema, M. F. & Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35:91–121.

Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. 1989. Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal , 32: 353-376.