公司董事會(huì)屬性、團(tuán)隊(duì)效能和財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效[文獻(xiàn)翻譯].doc
約13頁(yè)DOC格式手機(jī)打開展開
公司董事會(huì)屬性、團(tuán)隊(duì)效能和財(cái)務(wù)績(jī)效[文獻(xiàn)翻譯],1????-ê??áê?D??¢í??óD§?üoí2????¨D§[???×·-ò?]a team-based model of corporate board effectivenessthe existing literature examining teams and knowledge-based work ...
內(nèi)容介紹
此文檔由會(huì)員 道破天機(jī) 發(fā)布
1????-ê??áê?D??¢í??óD§?üoí2????¨D§[???×·-ò?]
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?ˉ and contends that board demographics between Forbes Magazine?ˉs (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.?ˉ 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????-ê??áê?D??¢í??óD§?üoí2????¨D§
?ùóúí??óμ??-ê??áD§?ê?£Dí
??óD?D??í??óoí?ùóú?aê?μ?1¤×÷D?×éμ????×±í?÷£?í??ó????μ?DD?a?òê?D?£?D§?üó??á1?????′??úòò1?1??죨Cohen oí Bailey, 1997; Kirkman oí Rosen, 1999; Marks μè, 2001£??£?úí??óD§?ü?D??μ?í??1·???£?ò?D?1üàí?§??ò??-?aê?1?×¢1üàí?üá|oí?3?ü£?ò??aêí×é?ˉ?¨D§μ?2?ò죨Davis et al., 1997; Hendry, 2002; Shen, 2003£??£Forbes and Milliken£¨1999£???o?á??óòμ?-ê??áoíí??óD§?ü·???μ??D??£?è??a?-ê??áμ?óDD§D?è·?¨±ê×?ó?ò??°Dí?àμ?í??óD§?ü±ê×??àí??£′?ía£??????¨òé?-ê??áè??úí¨3£?ú?-ê??á?D???Dê1ó?£?àyè??ú???òê??-ê??áè??úμ?±èày£??-ê??á1??££?ò??°è??ú£??¤??????ó°?ì??ì?í??óD§?üμ??àá¢?£í??ù£?Sonnenfeld£¨2002£??ééü??3?£??@@?óDD§μ??-ê??á?ü×÷?a???è??£?óDD§μ?é??á???è?ˉ£?2¢è??a?£2??1?ó??£¨2001£?×?Dàéíoí×?2?×e?′μ?1????-ê??áè??úêμ?êé?ê??à??μ??£?a?í±í?÷£???±?éíμ??á11ì?μ?2¢??óD??·????¨D§oíμí?¨D§μ??-ê??á?£Sonnenfeld£¨2002, P106£???3?£o?°?ò??Dèòa????μ?2???ê??ò??è?o?×é?ˉá?ò????-ê??áμ?1¤×÷£?êμ?êé?ò2òa?aμàè?o?1üàí?ò??μ?ò????-ê??á???è?£?±?aê?ó?Papadakisμèè?μ??á??ê?ò???μ??£P(guān)apadakisμ裨1998£?ìá3?á??a?????¨μ???ì?ê?D?oí1??μ£???2?ê??-ê??áè??ú£?±í?÷?a?ú??????2?1y3ìμ?ó°?ì×?′ó?£
3?′|£oG. Tyge Payne,George S. Benson,David L. Finegold.1????-ê??áê?D?£?í??óD§?üoí2????¨D§.1üàí?D???ú?ˉ,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?ˉ and contends that board demographics between Forbes Magazine?ˉs (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.?ˉ 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????-ê??áê?D??¢í??óD§?üoí2????¨D§
?ùóúí??óμ??-ê??áD§?ê?£Dí
??óD?D??í??óoí?ùóú?aê?μ?1¤×÷D?×éμ????×±í?÷£?í??ó????μ?DD?a?òê?D?£?D§?üó??á1?????′??úòò1?1??죨Cohen oí Bailey, 1997; Kirkman oí Rosen, 1999; Marks μè, 2001£??£?úí??óD§?ü?D??μ?í??1·???£?ò?D?1üàí?§??ò??-?aê?1?×¢1üàí?üá|oí?3?ü£?ò??aêí×é?ˉ?¨D§μ?2?ò죨Davis et al., 1997; Hendry, 2002; Shen, 2003£??£Forbes and Milliken£¨1999£???o?á??óòμ?-ê??áoíí??óD§?ü·???μ??D??£?è??a?-ê??áμ?óDD§D?è·?¨±ê×?ó?ò??°Dí?àμ?í??óD§?ü±ê×??àí??£′?ía£??????¨òé?-ê??áè??úí¨3£?ú?-ê??á?D???Dê1ó?£?àyè??ú???òê??-ê??áè??úμ?±èày£??-ê??á1??££?ò??°è??ú£??¤??????ó°?ì??ì?í??óD§?üμ??àá¢?£í??ù£?Sonnenfeld£¨2002£??ééü??3?£??@@?óDD§μ??-ê??á?ü×÷?a???è??£?óDD§μ?é??á???è?ˉ£?2¢è??a?£2??1?ó??£¨2001£?×?Dàéíoí×?2?×e?′μ?1????-ê??áè??úêμ?êé?ê??à??μ??£?a?í±í?÷£???±?éíμ??á11ì?μ?2¢??óD??·????¨D§oíμí?¨D§μ??-ê??á?£Sonnenfeld£¨2002, P106£???3?£o?°?ò??Dèòa????μ?2???ê??ò??è?o?×é?ˉá?ò????-ê??áμ?1¤×÷£?êμ?êé?ò2òa?aμàè?o?1üàí?ò??μ?ò????-ê??á???è?£?±?aê?ó?Papadakisμèè?μ??á??ê?ò???μ??£P(guān)apadakisμ裨1998£?ìá3?á??a?????¨μ???ì?ê?D?oí1??μ£???2?ê??-ê??áè??ú£?±í?÷?a?ú??????2?1y3ìμ?ó°?ì×?′ó?£
3?′|£oG. Tyge Payne,George S. Benson,David L. Finegold.1????-ê??áê?D?£?í??óD§?üoí2????¨D§.1üàí?D???ú?ˉ,2009(12):P11
TA們正在看...
- 鴨鵝屠宰建設(shè)項(xiàng)目可行性投資研究報(bào)告.doc
- 10mw生物質(zhì)(稻殼)發(fā)電站項(xiàng)目可研報(bào)告可行性研究...doc
- 20集電視連續(xù)劇影視制作項(xiàng)目可研報(bào)告可行性研究報(bào)告.doc
- 肉驢養(yǎng)殖基地建設(shè)項(xiàng)目可研報(bào)告可行性研究報(bào)告.doc
- otc連鎖門店店長(zhǎng)培訓(xùn)手冊(cè).doc
- 奧運(yùn)村公寓項(xiàng)目組環(huán)境、職業(yè)健康安全管理責(zé)任書.doc
- 奧運(yùn)村公寓項(xiàng)目部安全管理制度.doc
- 蚯蚓(地龍)項(xiàng)目可行性投資研究報(bào)告.doc
- 慢遞有限責(zé)任公司項(xiàng)目可行性投資研究報(bào)告.doc
- dbj440100t52-2010瓶裝液化石油氣充裝管理服務(wù)規(guī)范.doc