中山管理評論

  期刊全文閱覽

中山管理評論  2017/12

第25卷第4期  p.967-


題目
CEO雙重性、公司治理與公司績效─外部環境的角色
CEO Duality, Corporate Governance, and Firm Performance – The Role of External Environment
(137_M5a4343d5b6bd7_Full.pdf 854KB)

作者
湯惠雯/淡江大學保險學系
Hui-Wen Tang/

Department of Insurance, Tamkang University


摘要(中文)

本研究採用兩階段最小平方法(two-stage least squares,2SLS)檢測外部競爭與公司治理對企業領導結構選擇的影響,並進一步檢視外部競爭對領導結構與公司績效關係的調節效果。研究結果顯示,領導結構的選擇係由內生決定。在快速成長或高度競爭環境下,企業會傾向採用CEO雙重性領導結構,因應快速變動的環境、加强競爭力。當企業具有較大規模董事會,較高董事持股、管理者持股及機構投資人持股,會傾向採用非雙重性領導結構,避免CEO權利過度集中。在控制領導結構選擇的內生性之下,CEO雙重性領導結構與資產報酬率(return on assets,ROA)呈現負向顯著的關係,與Tobin’s q呈現不顯著的關係。值得一提的是,在快速成長與變動的環境、或高度競爭市場中,CEO雙重性領導結構有助於增進公司未來績效。

(137_M5a4343d5b6bd7_Abs.pdf(檔案不存在))

關鍵字(中文)

CEO雙重性、競爭環境、公司治理、公司績效、市場競爭


摘要(英文)

This study employs a two-stage least squares (2SLS) regression to investigate the influence of external competition and corporate governance on leadership structure chosen, and further examine the moderating effect of external competition on the relationship between leadership structure and firm performance. This study shows that the choice of leadership structure is endogenously determined. In a rapid growth environment or a great market competition, a firm inclines adopting a dual-leadership structure to adjust to changing environments and enhancing competitiveness. A firm with a large board, high director ownership, high managerial ownership, or high institutional shareholdings favors a non-dual leadership structure to avoid CEO power concentration. Controlling the endogeneity of leadership structure, CEO duality is significantly and negatively related to return on assets and insignificantly related to Tobin’s q. Notably, dual-leadership structure enhances future firm value in a rapid growth/dynamic environment or a great competitive market.

(137_M5a4343d5b6bd7_Abs.pdf(檔案不存在))

關鍵字(英文)

CEO Duality, Competitive Environment, Corporate Governance, Firm Performance, Market Competition


領域
Financial Accounting

政策與管理意涵

Whether a dual leadership structure promotes better firm performance has been one of the most discussed issue in finance and management research. From the perspectives of organizational and management theory, CEO duality creates a centralized leadership structure that grants a considerable amount of decision-making power to the leader. When product market competition and environmental dynamism are high, dual-leadership structure provides flexibility for leaders to make decisions efficiently. According to agency theory, a board of directors is established to protect the rights and interests of stakeholders; only when a board of directors is independent can it effectively oversee the decisions made by a CEO and ensure that his or her decisions accord with the best interests of stakeholders. Controlling for the endogeneity problem, this study indicates that the choice of leadership structure is a nonrandom process which is made accordance with its characteristics, governance structure and external environment. In a rapid growth environment, a firm inclines adopting a dual-leadership structure to adjust to changing environments and enhancing competitiveness. A firm with a large board, high director ownership, high managerial ownership, or high institutional shareholdings favors a non-dual leadership structure. Though CEO duality is significantly and negatively related to return on assets and insignificantly related to Tobin’s q, dual-leadership structure enhances future firm value in a rapid growth / dynamic environment or a great market competition. The relationship between dual-leadership structure and firm performance could be contingent on external competitive environments. CEO duality may generate high agency costs. Financial supervisory agencies worldwide typically encourage firms to separate the role of board chair from that of the CEO. This study indicates that leadership structure chosen is the result of factors such as external environment, ownership structure, and firm characteristics. Particularly, external environment and competitive market are likely to serve as external supervision in mitigating the relationship between dual-leadership structure and firm performance. Therefore, this study serves as a reference for firms to select an appropriate leadership structure and for financial governance agencies in developing related policies.


參考文獻

Agrawal, A. and Mandelker, G. N., 1990, “Large Shareholders and the Monitoring of Managers: The Case of Antitakeover Charter Amendments,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 25, No. 2, 143-161.
Allen, F. and Gale, D., 2000, Corporate Governance and Competition, in X. Vives (ed.), Corporate Governance Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ammann, M., Oesch, D., and Schmid, M. M., 2013, “Product Market Competition, Corporate Governance, and Firm Value: Evidence from the EU Area,” European Financial Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, 452-469.
Baliga, B. R., Moyer, R. C., and Rao, R. S., 1996, “CEO Duality and Firm Performance: What’s the Fuss?,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1, 41-53.
Baum, R. J. and Wally, S., 2003, “Strategic Decision Speed and Firm Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, No. 11, 1107-1129.
Bourgeois III, L. J. and Eisenhardt, K. M., 1988, “Strategic Decision Processes in High Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry,” Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 7, 816-835.
Boyd, B., 1990, “Corporate Linkages and Organizational Environment: A Test of the Resource Dependence Model,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 6, 419-430.
Boyd, B. K., 1995, “CEO Duality and Firm Performance: A Contingency Model,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4, 301-312.
Boyd, B. K., Dess, G. G., and Rasheed, A. M., 1993, “Divergence between Archival and Perceptual Measures of the Environment: Causes and Consequences,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, 204-226.
Brickley, J. A., Coles, J. L., and Jarrell, G., 1997, “Leadership Structure: Separating the CEO and Chairman of the Board,” Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 3, No. 3, 189-220.
Castrogiovanni, G. J., 2002, “Organization Task Environments: Have They Changed Fundamentally Over Time,” Journal of Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, 129-150.
Chaganti, R. S., Mahajan, V., and Sharma, S., 1985, “Corporate Board Size, Composition and Corporate Failures in Retailing Industry,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 22, No. 4, 400-417.
Chen, C. W., Lin, J. B., and Yi, B., 2008, “CEO Duality and Firm Performance: An Endogenous Issue,” Corporate Ownership and Control, Vol. 6, No. 1, 58-65.
Chen, A., Kao, L., Tsao, M., and Wu, C., 2007, “Building a Corporate Governance Index from the Perspectives of Ownership and Leadership for Firms in Taiwan,” Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, 251-261.
Chou, J., Ng, L., Sibilkov, V., and Wang, Q., 2011, “Product Market Competition and Corporate Governance,” Review of Development Finance, Vol. 1, No. 2, 114-130.
Dahya, J. and Travlos, N., 2000, “Does the One Man Show Pay? Theory and Evidence on the Dual CEO Revisited,” European Financial Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, 85-98.
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., and Johnson, J. L., 1998, “Meta‐analytic Reviews of Board Composition, Leadership Structure, and Financial Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, 269-290.
Demsetz, H. and Villalonga, B., 2001, “Ownership Structure and Corporate Performance,” Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 7, No. 3, 209-233.
Dess, G. G. and Beard, D. W., 1984, “Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, 52-73.
Dey, A., Engel, E., and Liu, X., 2011, “CEO and Board Chair Roles: To Split or Not to Split?,” Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 17, No. 5, 1595-1618.
Donaldson, L. and Davis, J. H., 1991, “Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns,” Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, 49-64.
Drazin, R. and Van de Ven, A. H., 1985, “Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4, 514-539.
Duru, A., Iyengar, R. J., and Zampelli, E. M., 2016, “The Dynamic Relationship between CEO Duality and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Board Independence,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69, No. 10, 4269-4277.
Elsayed, K., 2007, “Does CEO Duality Really Affect Corporate Performance?,” Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1203-1214.
Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L., and Hmieleski, K. M., 2006, “The Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism on the Relationship between Entrepreneur Leadership Behavior and New Venture Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21, No. 2, 243-263.
Faleye, O., 2007, “Does One Hat Fit All? The Case of Corporate Leadership Structure,” Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 11, No. 3, 239-259.
Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C., 1983, “Separation of Ownership and Control,” The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 26, No. 2, 301-325.
Goll, I. and Rasheed, A. A., 2004, “The Moderating Effect of Environmental Munificence and Dynamism on the Relationship between Discretionary Social Responsibility and Firm Performance,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 49, No. 1, 41- 54.
Gompers, P. A. and Metrick, A., 2001, “Institutional Investors and Equity Prices,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116, No. 1, 229-259.
Gupta, A., Misra, L., and Shi, Y., 2017, “Product-Market Competitiveness and Investor Reaction to Corporate Governance Failures,” International Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 48, 134-147.
Hambrick, D. C. and Finkelstein, S., 1987, “Managerial Discretion: A Bridge between Polar Views of Organizational Outcomes,” Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, 369-406.
Hart, O. D., 1983, “The Market Mechanism as an Incentive Scheme,” The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 14, No. 2, 366-382.
Hermalin, B. E. and Weisbach, M. S., 1998, “Endogenously Chosen Boards of Directors and Their Monitoring of the CEO,” American Economic Review, Vol. 88, No. 1, 96-118.
Hölmstrom, B., 1982, “Moral Hazard in Teams,” The Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2, 324-340.
Hsu, C. and Chen, C., 2008, “Employee Bonus, Corporate Governance, and Future Performance,” Sun Yat-Sen Management Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, 671-702.
Iyengar, R. J. and Zampelli, E. M., 2009, “Self-Selection, Endogeneity, and the Relationship between CEO Duality and Firm Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30, No. 10, 1092-1112.
Jensen, M. C., 1993, “The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal Control Systems,” The Journal of Finance, Vol. 48, No. 3, 831-880.
Kang, E. and Zardkoohi, A., 2005, “Board Leadership Structure and Firm Performance,” Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 13, No. 6, 785-799.
Kao, L. F., Lu, C. S., Huang, K. C., and Chen, A. L., 2012, “Corporate Governance, Firm Performance, and Investment Strategy,” Sun Yat-Sen Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, 851-880.
Keats, B. W. and Hitt, M. A., 1988, “A Causal Model of Linkages among Environmental Dimensions, Macro Organizational Characteristics, and Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3, 570-598.
Klein, A., 1998, “Firm Performance and Board Committee Structure,” The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 41, No. 1, 275-304.
Knyazeva, A. and Knyazeva, D., 2012, “Product Market Competition and Shareholder Rights: International Evidence,” European Financial Management, Vol. 18, No. 4, 663-694.
Lin, H. F. and Lee, J. Z., 2008, “The Impact of Management Characteristics on Firm Performance,” Sun Yat-Sen Management Review, Vol. 16, 703-742.
Nalebuff, B. J. and Stiglitz, J. E., 1983, “Information, Competition, and Markets,” The American Economics Review, Vol. 73, No. 2, 278-283.
Nickell, S. J., 1996, “Competition and Corporate Performance,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 104, No. 4, 724-746.
Pham, N., Oh, K. B., and Pech, R., 2015, “Mergers and Acquisitions: CEO Duality, Operating Performance and Stock Returns in Vietnam.” Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 35, 298-316.
Scharfstein, D., 1988, “Product-Market Competition and Managerial Slack,” The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, 147-155.
Schilke, O., 2014, “On the Contingent Value of Dynamic Capabilities for Competitive Advantage: The Nonlinear Moderating Effect of Environmental Dynamism,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, 179-203.
Schmidt, K. M., 1997, “Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition,” The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 64, No. 2, 191-213.
Simerly, R. L. and Li, M., 2000, “Environmental Dynamism, Capital Structure and Performance: A Theoretical Integration and An Empirical Test,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1, 31-49.
Starbuck, W. H., 1976, Organizations and Their Environments, In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, M. D. Dunnette (Editor), Chicago: Rand McNally, 1069-1123.
Stoeberl, P. A. and Sherony, B. C., 1985, Board Efficiency and Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tang, H. W., 2016, “Earnings Management, Investor Type, and Firm Performance of Private Placements,” Journal of Financial Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, 55-102.
Venkatraman, N. and Prescott, J. E., 1990, “Environment-Strategy Coalignment: An Empirical Test of its Performance Implications,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1-23.
Yang, T. and Zhao, S., 2014, “CEO Duality and Firm Performance: Evidence from an Exogenous Shock to the Competitive Environment,” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 49, No. 1, 534-552.
Yermack, D., 1996, “Higher Market Valuation of Companies with a Small Board of Directors,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 40, No. 2, 185-211.
Zona, F., 2014, “Board Leadership Structure and Diversity over CEO Time in Office: A Test of the Evolutionary Perspective on Italian Firms,” European Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, 672-681.