公司董事会属性、团队效能和财务绩效[文献翻译].doc
约13页DOC格式手机打开展开
公司董事会属性、团队效能和财务绩效[文献翻译],¹«Ë¾¶Ê»áÊôÐÔ¡¢ÍŶÓЧÄܺͲÆÎñ¼¨Ð§[ÎÄÏ×·Òë]a team-based model of corporate board effectivenessthe existing literature examining teams and knowledge-based work ...
内容介绍
此文档由会员 道破天机 发布
¹«Ë¾¶Ê»áÊôÐÔ¡¢ÍŶÓЧÄܺͲÆÎñ¼¨Ð§[ÎÄÏ×·Òë]
A Team-Based Model of Corporate Board Effectiveness
The existing literature examining teams and knowledge-based work groups demonstrates a causal link between team practices or attributes, effectiveness, and outcomes (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Marks et al., 2001). Extending on the literature regarding team effectiveness, some governance scholars have started to focus on managerial competence and empowerment arguments to help explain organizational performance differences (Davis et al., 1997; Hendry, 2002; Shen, 2003). In their seminal theoretical work, Forbes and Milliken (1999) integrated literature on corporate boards and team effectiveness arguing that board effectiveness is identified by the same criteria as many previous models of team effectiveness. Further, they suggest that the various board demographics typically used in board research, such as insider/outsider ratio, board size, and tenure, are expected to influence overall team effectiveness independently. Similarly, Sonnenfeld (2002) describes effective boards as being distinguished by ¡®robust, effective social systems¡¯ and contends that board demographics between Forbes Magazine¡¯s (2001) most-admired and least-admired companies are actually similar. This suggests that structural characteristics in and of themselves do not differentiate between high-performing and low-performing boards. Sonnenfeld (2002, p. 106) goes on to state, ¡®We need to consider not only how we structure the work of a board but also how we manage the social system a board actually is.¡¯ This is consistent with the conclusion of Papadakis et al. (1998) that decision-specific and relationship attributes, rather than board demographics, represent the greatest influence on the strategic decision-making process.
¹«Ë¾¶Ê»áÊôÐÔ¡¢ÍŶÓЧÄܺͲÆÎñ¼¨Ð§
»ùÓÚÍŶӵĶÊ»áЧÂÊÄ£ÐÍ
ÏÖÓÐÑо¿ÍŶӺͻùÓÚ֪ʶµÄ¹¤×÷С×éµÄÎÄÏ×±íÃ÷£¬ÍŶÓÖ®¼äµÄÐÐΪ»òÊôÐÔ£¬Ð§ÄÜÓë½á¹ûÖ®¼ä´æÔÚÒò¹û¹Øϵ£¨Cohen ºÍ Bailey, 1997; Kirkman ºÍ Rosen, 1999; Marks µÈ, 2001£©¡£ÔÚÍŶÓЧÄÜÑо¿µÄÍØÕ¹·½Ã棬һЩ¹ÜÀíѧÕßÒѾ¿ªÊ¼¹Ø×¢¹ÜÀíÄÜÁ¦ºÍ¸³ÄÜ£¬ÒÔ½âÊÍ×éÖ¯¼¨Ð§µÄ²îÒ죨Davis et al., 1997; Hendry, 2002; Shen, 2003£©¡£Forbes and Milliken£¨1999£©ÕûºÏÁËÆóÒµ¶Ê»áºÍÍŶÓЧÄÜ·½ÃæµÄÑо¿£¬ÈÏΪ¶Ê»áµÄÓÐЧÐÔÈ·¶¨±ê×¼ÓëÒÔÇ°Ðí¶àµÄÍŶÓЧÄܱê×¼Ïàͬ¡£´ËÍ⣬ËûÃǽ¨Òé¶Ê»áÈË¿Úͨ³£ÔڶʻáÑо¿ÖÐʹÓã¬ÀýÈçÄÚÄ»»òÊǶÊ»áÈ˿ڵıÈÀý£¬¶Ê»á¹æÄ££¬ÒÔ¼°ÈÎÆÚ£¬Ô¤¼Æ¶¼½«Ó°ÏìÕûÌåÍŶÓЧÄܵĶÀÁ¢¡£Í¬Ñù£¬Sonnenfeld£¨2002£©½éÉÜÖ¸³ö£¬½@@öÓÐЧµÄ¶Ê»áÄÜ×÷Ϊ¡®ÎȽ¡£¬ÓÐЧµÄÉç»áÖƶȡ¯£¬²¢ÈÏΪ¸£²¼Ë¹ÔÓÖ¾£¨2001£©×îÐÀÉͺÍ×î²»×𾴵Ĺ«Ë¾¶Ê»áÈË¿Úʵ¼ÊÉÏÊÇÏàËƵġ£Õâ¾Í±íÃ÷£¬Æä±¾ÉíµÄ½á¹¹Ìص㲢ûÓÐÇø·Ö¸ß¼¨Ð§ºÍµÍ¼¨Ð§µÄ¶Ê»ᡣSonnenfeld£¨2002, P106£©Ö¸³ö£º¡°ÎÒÃÇÐèÒª¿¼ÂǵIJ»½öÊÇÎÒÃÇÈçºÎ×éÖ¯ÁËÒ»¸ö¶Ê»áµÄ¹¤×÷£¬Êµ¼ÊÉÏÒ²ÒªÖªµÀÈçºÎ¹ÜÀíÎÒÃǵÄÒ»¸ö¶Ê»áÖƶȡ£¡±ÕâÊÇÓëPapadakisµÈÈ˵ĽáÂÛÊÇÒ»Öµġ£PapadakisµÈ£¨1998£©Ìá³öÁËÕâ¸ö¾ö¶¨µÄ¾ßÌåÊôÐԺ͹Øϵ£¬¶ø²»ÊǶÊ»áÈË¿Ú£¬±íÃ÷ÕâÔÚÕ½ÂÔ¾ö²ß¹ý³ÌµÄÓ°Ïì×î´ó¡£
³ö´¦£ºG. Tyge Payne,George S. Benson,David L. Finegold.¹«Ë¾¶Ê»áÊôÐÔ£¬ÍŶÓЧÄܺͲÆÎñ¼¨Ð§.¹ÜÀíÑо¿ÆÚ¿¯,2009(12):P11
A Team-Based Model of Corporate Board Effectiveness
The existing literature examining teams and knowledge-based work groups demonstrates a causal link between team practices or attributes, effectiveness, and outcomes (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Marks et al., 2001). Extending on the literature regarding team effectiveness, some governance scholars have started to focus on managerial competence and empowerment arguments to help explain organizational performance differences (Davis et al., 1997; Hendry, 2002; Shen, 2003). In their seminal theoretical work, Forbes and Milliken (1999) integrated literature on corporate boards and team effectiveness arguing that board effectiveness is identified by the same criteria as many previous models of team effectiveness. Further, they suggest that the various board demographics typically used in board research, such as insider/outsider ratio, board size, and tenure, are expected to influence overall team effectiveness independently. Similarly, Sonnenfeld (2002) describes effective boards as being distinguished by ¡®robust, effective social systems¡¯ and contends that board demographics between Forbes Magazine¡¯s (2001) most-admired and least-admired companies are actually similar. This suggests that structural characteristics in and of themselves do not differentiate between high-performing and low-performing boards. Sonnenfeld (2002, p. 106) goes on to state, ¡®We need to consider not only how we structure the work of a board but also how we manage the social system a board actually is.¡¯ This is consistent with the conclusion of Papadakis et al. (1998) that decision-specific and relationship attributes, rather than board demographics, represent the greatest influence on the strategic decision-making process.
¹«Ë¾¶Ê»áÊôÐÔ¡¢ÍŶÓЧÄܺͲÆÎñ¼¨Ð§
»ùÓÚÍŶӵĶÊ»áЧÂÊÄ£ÐÍ
ÏÖÓÐÑо¿ÍŶӺͻùÓÚ֪ʶµÄ¹¤×÷С×éµÄÎÄÏ×±íÃ÷£¬ÍŶÓÖ®¼äµÄÐÐΪ»òÊôÐÔ£¬Ð§ÄÜÓë½á¹ûÖ®¼ä´æÔÚÒò¹û¹Øϵ£¨Cohen ºÍ Bailey, 1997; Kirkman ºÍ Rosen, 1999; Marks µÈ, 2001£©¡£ÔÚÍŶÓЧÄÜÑо¿µÄÍØÕ¹·½Ã棬һЩ¹ÜÀíѧÕßÒѾ¿ªÊ¼¹Ø×¢¹ÜÀíÄÜÁ¦ºÍ¸³ÄÜ£¬ÒÔ½âÊÍ×éÖ¯¼¨Ð§µÄ²îÒ죨Davis et al., 1997; Hendry, 2002; Shen, 2003£©¡£Forbes and Milliken£¨1999£©ÕûºÏÁËÆóÒµ¶Ê»áºÍÍŶÓЧÄÜ·½ÃæµÄÑо¿£¬ÈÏΪ¶Ê»áµÄÓÐЧÐÔÈ·¶¨±ê×¼ÓëÒÔÇ°Ðí¶àµÄÍŶÓЧÄܱê×¼Ïàͬ¡£´ËÍ⣬ËûÃǽ¨Òé¶Ê»áÈË¿Úͨ³£ÔڶʻáÑо¿ÖÐʹÓã¬ÀýÈçÄÚÄ»»òÊǶÊ»áÈ˿ڵıÈÀý£¬¶Ê»á¹æÄ££¬ÒÔ¼°ÈÎÆÚ£¬Ô¤¼Æ¶¼½«Ó°ÏìÕûÌåÍŶÓЧÄܵĶÀÁ¢¡£Í¬Ñù£¬Sonnenfeld£¨2002£©½éÉÜÖ¸³ö£¬½@@öÓÐЧµÄ¶Ê»áÄÜ×÷Ϊ¡®ÎȽ¡£¬ÓÐЧµÄÉç»áÖƶȡ¯£¬²¢ÈÏΪ¸£²¼Ë¹ÔÓÖ¾£¨2001£©×îÐÀÉͺÍ×î²»×𾴵Ĺ«Ë¾¶Ê»áÈË¿Úʵ¼ÊÉÏÊÇÏàËƵġ£Õâ¾Í±íÃ÷£¬Æä±¾ÉíµÄ½á¹¹Ìص㲢ûÓÐÇø·Ö¸ß¼¨Ð§ºÍµÍ¼¨Ð§µÄ¶Ê»ᡣSonnenfeld£¨2002, P106£©Ö¸³ö£º¡°ÎÒÃÇÐèÒª¿¼ÂǵIJ»½öÊÇÎÒÃÇÈçºÎ×éÖ¯ÁËÒ»¸ö¶Ê»áµÄ¹¤×÷£¬Êµ¼ÊÉÏÒ²ÒªÖªµÀÈçºÎ¹ÜÀíÎÒÃǵÄÒ»¸ö¶Ê»áÖƶȡ£¡±ÕâÊÇÓëPapadakisµÈÈ˵ĽáÂÛÊÇÒ»Öµġ£PapadakisµÈ£¨1998£©Ìá³öÁËÕâ¸ö¾ö¶¨µÄ¾ßÌåÊôÐԺ͹Øϵ£¬¶ø²»ÊǶÊ»áÈË¿Ú£¬±íÃ÷ÕâÔÚÕ½ÂÔ¾ö²ß¹ý³ÌµÄÓ°Ïì×î´ó¡£
³ö´¦£ºG. Tyge Payne,George S. Benson,David L. Finegold.¹«Ë¾¶Ê»áÊôÐÔ£¬ÍŶÓЧÄܺͲÆÎñ¼¨Ð§.¹ÜÀíÑо¿ÆÚ¿¯,2009(12):P11
