臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來，同時經營多家分子公司的集團企業愈趨普遍，在這類龐大的企業體系內，其組織結構儼然自成一個連結網絡。在集團網絡內，各分子公司相互連結的一個重要基礎即是董事會連結。過去文獻顯示，由董事會連結將集團內各分子公司連結起來的集團網絡會是集團企業發展的一個重要基礎，尤其是當集團企業投入創立新的分子公司時，集團董事會連結網絡對新創子公司而言更是重要。
新創子公司在集團網絡中的位置或是與核心母公司的連結關係，與新創子公司的經營績效之間具有影響關係，且受到集團網絡整體特性或新創子公司事業核心性的干擾而有所不同。本研究在集團董事會連結網絡下，結合三種不同的網絡中心性、網絡密度、連結強度以及新創子公司事業核心性為架構進行研究。
本研究以1997至2010年間之集團內新創子公司為研究對象，共蒐集了63家集團企業中的76家新創子公司。以Panel data分析進行實證的結果顯示，當新創子公司提高其董事會連結之程度中心性、中介中心性與連結強度時，會提升公司之營收成長；新創子公司董事會連結之程度中心性、中介中心性與公司營收成長的正向關係，在集團整體董事會網絡密度低時較高時更明顯；新創子公司對核心母公司之董事會連結強度與公司營收成長的正向關係，在其經營與核心母公司相關之事業時較經營非核心相關事業時更明顯。

Business Groups, holding more than one subsidiary, is becoming widespread in the recent years. In this kind of the business system, organization structure is similar to a linking network. Interlocking directorates is an important basis of the subsidiaries’ linking relationship in the business groups’ network. Literature shows that interlocking network in business groups is an important foundation of corporate growth. The interlocking network in business group is particularly important of the new subsidiary, when a business group is trying to establish a new venture.
The status of the new venture in the interlocking network and the linking relationship between new subsidiary and parents have effect on firm performance. Base on the interlocking network in business group, this study integrates several kinds of network characteristic, including centrality and tie strength. This study also considers core/non-core business relatedness and wholistic network density as moderators as the research structure.
The research sample includes the new venture found between 1997 and 2010. Base on this criterion, 76 new ventures in the 63 business groups were collected. Panel data regression analysis is used. The results show that the new ventures’ degree centrality, betweenness centrality and tie strength have positive relationships with firm growth, and the relationships are more significant when wholistic network density is low. The relationship between tie strength and firm growth is also positive, and it was more significant when the new venture engaged in non-core related business. Theoretical contributions and practical implications are provided.

誌謝 i
摘要 iii
Abstract iv
目錄 v
圖目錄 vii
表目錄 viii
第一章 導論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究問題與目的 5
第三節 研究範圍與限制 15
第四節 研究流程 16
第二章 文獻回顧與假說推導 19
第一節 集團企業的公司治理與董事會連結 19
第二節 新創事業與企業內部創業 25
第三節 社會網絡理論 28
第四節 資源依賴理論 33
第五節網絡中心性、密度與公司營收成長 34
第六節 連結強度、事業核心性與公司營收成長 38
第三章 研究方法 41
第一節 研究架構 41
第二節 資料來源與樣本 42
第三節 變數定義與衡量 43
第四節 資料分析方法 50
第四章 實證結果與討論 51
第一節 樣本描述 51
第二節 Panel Data 迴歸分析與結果 55
第三節 實證結果討論 65
第五章 結論與建議 69
第一節 結論 69
第二節 理論貢獻與管理意涵 73
第三節 後續研究建議 76
參考文獻 77

Anderson, B. S., Butts, C., Carley, K. (1999). The interaction of size and density with graph-level indices. Social Networks, 21 (3), 239–267.
Bazerman, M. H. and Schoorman, F. D. (1983). A limited rationality model of interlocking directorates. The Academy of Management Review, 8 (2), 206-217.
Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N. and Young, S. (2005). Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance. International Business Review, 14 (2), 227-248.
Burgelman, R. A., Välikangas, L. (2005). Managing Internal Corporate Venturing Cycles. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46 (4), 26-34.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: the Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Chahine, S. and Goergen, M. (2013). The Effects of Management-Board Ties on IPO Performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 21, 153-179.
Claessens, S., Djankov, S. and Lang, L. H. P. (2000). The Separation of Ownership and Control in East Asia Corporations. Journal of financial Economics, 58 (1-2), 81-112.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science,7 (2), 119-135.
Dimov, D., Shepherd, D. A., and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Requisite expertise, firm reputation, and status in venture capital investment allocation decisions. Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (4), 481-502.
Doukas, J. A., and Lang, L. (2003). Foreign direct investment, diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (2), 153-172.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1 (3) , 215-239 
Gammelgaard, J., McDonald, F., Stephan, A., Tüselmann, H., and Dörrenbächer, C. (2012). The impact of increases in subsidiary autonomy and network relationships on performance. International Business Review, 21 (6), 1158-1172.
Garud, R., Van De Ven, A. H. (1992). An Empirical Evaluation of the Internal Corporate Venturing Process. Strategic Management Journal, 13 (Special Issue: Strategy Process: Managing Corporate Self-Renewal), 93-109.
Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., and Szulanski, G. (1994). Interunit communication in multinational corporations. Management Science, 40 (1), 96-110.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360-1380.
Grassi, R., Stefani, S. and Torriero, A. (2010). Centrality in organizational networks. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25 (3), 253-265.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1), 82-111.
Harris, D. A., and Helfat, C. E. (2007). The board of directors as a social network: A new perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16 (3), 228-237.
Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library & Information Science Research, 18 (4), 323-342.
Hillman, A. J. and Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of Directors and Firm Performance: Integrating Agency and Resource Dependence Perspectives. The Academy of Management Review, 28 (3), 383-396.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. The Academy of Management Journal, 36 (3), 471-501.
Jensen, M. C., and Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3 (4), 305-360.
Katz, J., and Gartner, W. B. (1988). Properties of Emerging Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 429-441.
Kazanjian, R. K. (1988). Relation of Dominant Problems to Stages of Growth in Technology-Based New Ventures. The Academy of Management Journal, 31 (2), 257-279.
Khanna, T., and Rivkin, J. W. (2001). Estimating the performance effects of business groups in emerging markets. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (1), 45-74.
Khanna, T., and Yafeh, Y. (2007). Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? Journal of Economic Literature, 45 (2), 331-372.
Kim, D.-W. (2003). Interlocking ownership in the Korean chaebol. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11 (2), 132-142.
Kim,Y. (2005). Board Network Characteristics and Firm Performance in Korea. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13 (6), 800-808
Koenig, T. and Gogel, R. (1981). Interlocking Corporate Directorships as a Social Network. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 40 (1), 37-50.
Koenig, T. and Gogel, R. and Sonquist, J. (1979). Models of the Significance of Interlocking Corporate Directorates. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 38 (2), 173-186.
Kosnik, R. D. (1987). Greenmail: A Study of Board Performance in Corporate Governance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32 (2), 163-185
Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. N. Nohria, R. Eccles, eds. Networks and Organizations: Structures, Form and Action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 216-239.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer A. (1999). Corporate Ownership Around the World. Journal of Finance, 54 (2), 471-517.
Laumann, E., Galaskiewicz, J., and Marsden, P. V. (1978). Community structure as interorganizational linkages. Annual Review of Sociology, 4 (3), 455-484.
Leff, N. H. (1978). Industrial Organization and Entrepreneurship in the Developing Countries: The Economic Groups. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 26 (4), 661-615.
Liedka, R. V. (1991). Who Do You Know in the Group?: Location of Organizations in Interpersonal Networks. Social Forces, 70 (2), 455-474. 
Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network Data and Measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435-463.
Marsden, P. V., Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring Tie Strength. Social Forces, 63 (2), 482-501.
Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., and Robertson, B. (2006). The Social Network Ties of Group Leaders: Implications for Group Performance and Leader Reputation. Organization Science, 17 (1), 64-79.
Miller, D. J. (2006). Technological Diversity, Related Diversification, and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (7), 601-619.
Mizruchi, M. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271-298.
Park, S., Bae, Z. T. (2004). New venture strategies in a developing country: Identifying a typology and examining growth patterns through case studies. Journal of Business Venturing, 19 (1), 81-105.
Pearce II, J. A. and Zahra, S. A. (1992). Board Composition From a Strategic Contingency Perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 29 (4), 411-438.
Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Phan, P. H., Lee, S. H. and Lau, S. C. (2003). The performance impact of interlocking directorates: the case of Singapore. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15 (3), 338-352.
Pitts, R. A., and Hopkins, H. (1982). Firm Diversity: Conceptualization and Measurement. The Academy of Management Review, 7 (4), 620-629.
Prahalad, C. K., and Hamel, G. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), 79-91.
Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., and Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a central Network Position Is’t Enough: The Role of Motivation and Ability for Knowledge Sharing In Employee Networks. The Academy of Management Journal, 54 (6), 1277-1297
Rumelt, R. P. (1982). Diversification Strategy and Profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 3 (4), 359-369.
Schoorman, F. D., Bazerman, M. H. and Atkin R. S. (1981). Interlocking Directorates: A Strategy for Reducing Environmental Uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review, 6 (2), 243-251.
Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. (1997). A Survey of Corporate Governance. The Journal of Finance, 52 (2), 737-783.
Smångs, M. (2006). The nature of the business group: A social network perspective. Organization, 13 (6), 889-909.
Stevenson, H. H., Jarillo, J. C. (1990). A paradigm of entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial management. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 17–27.
Stevenson, L. A. (1986). Against All Odds: The Entrepreneurship of women. Journal of Small Business Management, 24 (3), 30-36.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social Structures and organizations. In James March (ed) Handbook of organizations., Chicago.
Tichy, N. M., Tushman, M. L., and Fombrun C. (1979). Social Network Analysis for Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 4 (4), 507-519.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network Position andAbsorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 996-1004.
Ulrich, D., and Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in Organizations: Resource Dependence, Efficiency, and Population. The Academy of Management Review, 9 (3), 471-481.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1), 35-67.
Uzzi, B., and Lancaster, R. (2003). Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49(4), 383-399.
Wellman, B. (1983). Network Analysis: Some Basic Principles. Sociological Theory, 1, 155-200.
Wennekers, S., and Thurik, R. (1999). Linking enterpreneurship and economic growth. Small Business Economics, 13 (1), 27-55. 
Zaheer, A., and Bell, G. G. (2005). Benefiting from Network Position: Firm Capabilities, Structural Holes, and Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (9), 809-825.
Zahra, S. A., and Bogner, W. C. (2000). Technology strategy and software new ventures' performance: Exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 15 (2), 135-173.