請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/38744
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 杜榮瑞 | |
dc.contributor.author | Man-Jung Hsu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 許嫚戎 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T16:44:23Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2005-07-05 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2005-07-05 | |
dc.date.issued | 2005 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2005-06-30 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文文獻
1.蔡彥卿、蔡揚宗及李文智,線性重合問題之探討,會計研究月刊,第八十期,頁48-53,1992年4月。 2.黃鈺光,我國上市公司董事會特性與經營績效之研究」,國立台灣大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文,1993年6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,國立台灣大學會計學研究所未出版碩士論文,1994年6月。 4.李書行,結果與過程並重;個人與群體兼顧,會計研究月刊,第113 期,頁15-23,1995年2月。 5.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,國立台灣大學商學研究所未出版碩士論文,1995年4月。 6.孫秀蘭,董事會制度與企業經營績效之研究,國立台灣大學未出版碩士論文,1996年6月。 7.張英慧,事業策略、績效評估及其成效之探討-以平衡計分卡觀點分析,淡江大學會計學系碩士班論文,1999年6月。 8.吳建頤,董事會規模對公司價值的影響,國立中正大學財務金融研究所未出版碩士論文,1999年6月。 9.杜榮瑞、蔣明晃、林珮琪,研究發展策略與績效衡量:平衡計分卡之實證研究,管理學報,第十七卷第四期,頁563-589,2000年2月。 10.柯承恩,我國公司監理體系之問題與改進建議(上)、(下),會計研究月刊,第173期:75-81、第174期:79-83,2000年。 11.朱文洋,中小型醫院經營策略與營運績效之探討-以平衡計分卡觀點分析,國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所未出版碩士論文,2001年6月。 12.伍忠賢,公司治理的第一本書,商周出版,2002年。 13.郭約瑟,醫療機構導入平衡計分卡之研究-以某區域醫院為例,國立台灣大學會計研究所未出版碩士論文,2003年6月。 14.沈明鑑,利害關係人對策略、治理機制的影響與績效關係之關聯性研究,輔仁管理評論,第十一卷第一期,頁1-32,2004年3月。 15.周齊武、杜榮瑞,平衡計分卡與企業績效關係研究,進行中研究,2005年。 二、英文部份 1.Swanson, A. 2002. What are the board’s three essential functions? Nonprofit World 20(5): 15-16. 2.Baliga, B. R., N. C. Moyer, and R. S. Rao. 1996. CEO duality and firm performance: What’s the fuss? Strategic Management Journal 17: 41-53. 3.Baysinger, B. D., and H. N. Butler. 1985. Corporate governance and the board of directors: Performance effects of changes in board composition. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 1: 101-124. 4.Berle, A. A., and G. C. Means. 1932. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York: MacMillan. 5.Bonne, I., T. Yoshikawa, and P. H. Phan. 2004. Effects of board structure on firm performance: A comparison between Japan and Australia. Asian Business & Management 3: 105-125. 6.Buchholtz, A. K., and B. A. Ribbens. 1994. Role of chief executive officer in takeover resistance: Effects of CEO incentives and individual characteristics. Academy of Management Journal 37: 554-579. 7.Clarkson, M. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20: 92-117. 8.Dalton, D. R., C. M. Daily, A.E. Ellstrand, and J.L. Jonson. 1998. Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal 19: 269-290. 9.Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Johnson, J.L., and Ellstrand, A. E. 1999. Number of directors and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal 42: 674-686. 10.Davis, G. F. 1991. Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 583-613. 11.Defond, M. L., R. N. Hann, and X. Hu. 2005. Does the market value financial expertise on audit committees of boards of directors?. Journal of Accounting Research 43(2): 153-193. 12.Davis, S., and T. Albright. 2004. An investigation of the effect of balanced scorecard implementation on financial performance. Management Accounting Research 15: 135-153. 13.Donaldson, L., and J. H. Davis. 1991. Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management 16: 49-64. 14.Donaldson, L., and J. H. Davis. 1994. Boards and company performance: Research challenges the conventional wisdom. Corporate Governance: An International Review 2(3): 151-160. 15.Eccles, Robert G., and P. J. Pyburn. 1992. Creating a comprehensive system to measure performance. Management Accounting 71(4): 41-44. 16.Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 15(3): 369-381. 17.Fama, E. F., and M. C. Jensen. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics 26: 301-325. 18.Golden, B. R. and E. J. Zajac. 2001. When will boards influence strategy? Inclination×Power=Strategic change. Strategic Management Journal 22: 1087-1111. 19.Goodstein J., K. Gautam, and W. Boeker. 1994. The effects of board size and diversity on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal 15(3): 241-250. 20.Hartmann, F. G. H., and F. Moers. 1999. Testing contingency hypotheses in budgetary research: An evaluation of the use of moderated regression analysis. Accounting Organizations and Society 24(4): 291-316. 21.Hoque, Z., and W. James. 2000. Linking balanced scorecard measures to size and market factors: Impact on organizational performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research 12: 1-17. 22.Hillman, A. J., G. D. Keim, and R.A. Luce. 2001. Board composition and stakeholder performance: Do stakeholder directors make a difference? Business and Society 40(3): 295-313. 23.Jensen, M. C., and W.H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics 33:305-360. 24.Judge, W. Q., and C. P. Ziethaml. 1992. Institutional and strategic choice perspectives on board involvement in the strategic decision process. Academy of Management Journal 35(4): 766-794. 25.Kesner, I. F. 1987. Directors’ stock ownership and organizational performance: An investigation of Fortune 500 companies. Journal of Management.3: 499-507. 26.Kosnik, R. 1987. Greenmail: A study of board performance in corporate governance. Administrative Science Quarterly 32: 163-185. 27.Mace, M. L. 1971. Directors: Myth and Reality. Harvard Business School Press. Boston, MA. 28.Maiga, A.S., and F. A. Jacobs. 2003. Balanced scorecard, activity-based costing and company performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Managerial Issues 15(3): 283-301. 29.Mattis, M. C. 1993. Women directors: Progress and opportunities for the future. Business in the Contemporary World 5(3): 140-156. 30.Morrision, A. M. 1992. The New Leaders: Guidelines on Leadership Diversity in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 31.Kaplan R. S., and D. P. Norton. 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Harvard Business School Press. 32.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1998. Principles of corporate governance. 33.Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 1999. Principles of corporate governance. 34.Patton, A., and J. C. Baker. 1987. Why do not directors rock the boat? Harvard Business Review 65: 10-12. 35.Pearce Ⅱ, J. A., and S. A. Zahra. 1992. Board composition from a strategic contingency perspective. Journal of Management Studies 29: 411-438. 36.Rechner, P. L., and D. R. Dalton. 1989. The impact of CEO as board chairman on corporate performance: Evidence vs. rhetoric. The Academy of Management Executive 1(2): 141-143. 37.Rhoades, D. L., P. L. Rechner, and C. Sundaramurthy. 2000. Board composition and financial performance: A meta-analysis of the influence of outside directors. Journal of Managerial Issues 7: 76-91. 38.Schwartz, F. 1980. Invisible resource: Women for boards. Harvard Business Review 58(2): 6-18. 39.Shilton, J., J. McGregor, and M. Tremaine. 1996. Feminizing the boardroom: A study of the effects of corporatization on the number and status of women directors in New Zealand companies. Women in Management Review 11(3): 20-26. 40.Vroom, V. H., and B. Pahl. 1971. Relationship between age and risk-taking among managers. Journal of Applied Psychology 55: 399-405. 41.Wolfson, N. 1984. The Modern Corporation: Free Market versus Regulation. New York. NY:McGraw-Hill. 42.World Bank. 1999. Corporate Governance: A Framework for Implementation- Overview. 43.Zahra, S. A., and P. A. Pearce II. 1989. Boards of directors and corporate financial Performance: A review and integrative model. Journal of Management 15(2): 291-334. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/38744 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 學說上有關董事會屬性與企業營運績效關係之文獻,迄今說法不一,尚無定論。本研究認為學說研究上不一致的情形可能係因,沒有考慮公司管理控制機制與董事會屬性交互作用的影響。董事會主要係對企業營運目標、企業遠景與願景負責,而一個有效的管理控制機制則能確實企業營運策略之執行,平衡計分卡正為一能將企業策略轉換為具體行動的管理控制工具。因此,本研究目的在探討平衡計分卡實施程度與董事會屬性之交互作用對企業營運績效之影響,希冀以平衡計分卡之實施程度為調節董事會與企業營運績效關係之機制,促使董事會與企業營運績效的關係趨於一致。
本研究係按2003年底前上市上櫃公司,刪除遺漏值及不含金融股、全額交割股等,企業實施平衡計分卡程度的資料採問卷方式,其它董事會屬性變數資料則取自各公司之年報、財務報表與台灣經濟新報資料庫。總共取得78個有效樣本,採用基本分析、相關分析與迴歸分析等方法對樣本資料加以分析。 實證結果如下: 一、企業實施平衡計分卡程度高低與董事會規模兩者之交互作 用,與企業營績效有負面顯著關係。 二、獨立董事人數或比例、實施平衡計分卡及兩者之交互作 用,均與企業營績效無顯著相關。 三、獨立董事中,具有會計背景的董事人數及比例與平衡計分 卡之實施程度,各對ROA及ROE有顯著正向關係;兩者相互 配之交互作用與企業營運績ROA有顯著正相關。 四、獨立董事中,具有管理專業背景之董事、實施平衡計分卡 與兩者之交互作用,均對企業營運績效無顯著影響。 實證結果顯示,董事會規模、具有會計專業背景之獨立董事兩者分別與平衡計分卡相配合,能確實提高企業營運績效;另一方面獨立董事、具有管理專業背景之獨立董事兩者與平衡計分卡之交互作用,則與企業營運績效無顯著相關。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Extant research on the relationship between board of directors and corporate performance yields mixed findings. The inconsistent findings may be due to the lack of consideration of interactive effects among corporate control mechanisms. Board of directors is largely responsible for the formulation of corporate objectives, missions, and strategies. An effective corporate control system, however, also requires enforceable implementation of the strategies. The balanced scorecard (BSC) has been suggested as an enforceable control mechanism for strategy implementation. Thus, the purpose of this thesis is to explore the interactive effect of board of directors and balanced scorecard implementation on corporate performance.
Chief financial officers (CFOs) of listed companies in Taiwan are solicited to respond to the questionnaire on the degree of BSC implementation in their companies. The data for the other variables are collected from Taiwan Economic Journal database. The results based on 78 useful responses are as follows: 1. The interaction between board size and BSC implementation has a significant and positive effect on corporate performance. 2.There is no significant interactive effect between independent directors (in terms of absolute number of independent directors and relative proportion of independent directors) and BSC implementation on corporate performance. 3.There is a significant and positive interactive effect between accounting expertise of independent directors and BSC implementation on corporate performance. 4.There is no significant interactive effect between general management expertise of independent directors and BSC implementation on corporate performance. In summary, the findings indicate that the interactions between board size and accounting expertise of independent directors, on the one hand, and BSC implementation, on the other hand, have significant and positive effects on corporate performance. Implications and limitations are offered. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T16:44:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-94-R92722022-1.pdf: 548000 bytes, checksum: a14c8ac0b8c9524ed0a579963d793521 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機與背景………………………………………1 第二節 研究目的………………………………………………4 第三節 本文架構與研究流程…………………………………5 第二章 文獻探討……………………………………………7 第一節 代理問題及解決機制…………………………………7 第二節 董事會功能與角色……………………………………16 第三節 董事會屬性與企業營運績效…………………………19 第四節 平衡計分卡……………………………………………34 第三章 研究方法……………………………………………47 第一節 觀念性架構……………………………………………47 第二節 研究假說 …………………………………………… 48 第三節 變數定義與衡量………………………………………56 第四節 研究對象及資料蒐集…………………………………59 第五節 實證分析模型…………………………………………62 第四章 實證結果與討論……………………………………63 第一節 樣本特性分析………………………………………… 63 第二節 敘述性統計分析……………………………………… 65 第三節 相關分析……………………………………………… 67 第四節 假說檢定…………………………………… …………69 第五章 結論與建議…………………………………………81 第一節 結論……………………………………………………81 第二節 研究限制………………………………………………82 第三節 建議……………………………………………………83 參考文獻………………………………………………………85 附錄 企業平衡計分卡之研究問卷………………………90 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 董事會屬性、平衡計分卡與企業營運績效之關聯性 | zh_TW |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 93-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳國泰,薛富井 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 企業管理控制機制,公司治理,董事會,平衡計分卡,企業營運績效, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Corporate control,Corporate governance,Board of directors,Balanced scorecard,Performance, | en |
dc.relation.page | 91 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2005-06-30 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 管理學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 會計學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 會計學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-94-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 535.16 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。