高階經理人薪酬對公司績效之影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：30

、訪客IP：13.58.82.79

姓名

趙蓮儀(LIEN-I CHAO) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

財務金融學系在職專班

論文名稱

高階經理人薪酬對公司績效之影響
(The Effects of Top Management Compensation on Firm Performance)

相關論文

★ 台灣建置碳排放權交易機制之分析	★ 保險業如何建立創造公司、顧客及員工三贏的RFP商業模式 —以全球人壽為例
★ 在IAS 21：「匯率變動之影響」規範下，我國企業如何應用商業模式選擇功能性貨幣之研究-以A公司為例	★ 台灣銀行業如何改變商業模式以因應ECFA下之變局-以個案銀行為例
★ 公司發行可轉債之宣告與長期績效	★ 申請上市櫃過程中股票價格之變化：來自興櫃市場的實證
★ 外資買賣超對個股之影響	★ 文創產業之融資模式探討
★ 私募股權基金入股後對台灣金融業的影響	★ 新舊承銷制度下首次公開發行公司盈餘管理之比較研究
★ 匯率風險與管理策略研究-以個案公司為例	★ 商業銀行併購融資之契機
★ 我國證券商辦理離境證券業務與海外子公司業務之比較：以個案銀行券商為例	★ 借殼公司之探討以台灣市場為例
★ 家族企業接班：專業經理人與家族成員之績效比較	★ 本國銀行Basel III 資本適足率與流動性覆蓋率探討

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

本研究將薪酬結構主要分成薪酬水準與薪酬差距兩大特徵，以代理理論及競賽理論的觀點為基礎探討高階經理人薪酬結構對公司績效之影響。本研究與過去國內其他研究最大的相異處為加入公司特性如系統性風險值、考慮CEO雙重性及電子產業研發支出比率等變數，探討若提高薪酬差距與高階經理人平均薪酬對公司績效之影響。
本研究主要是分析台灣上市公司高階經理人薪酬對公司績效之影響效果，資料來源主要取自台灣經濟新報資料庫及公開資訊觀測站，以台灣上市公司2010年至2017年財報資料為研究對象，包含了橫斷面與時間序列的資料整理。研究結果顯示公司高階經理人前期的薪酬水準、激勵薪占本薪比率、高階經理人與其他員工前期的薪酬差距，對於公司績效皆具有顯著的正相關，此結果不但證實了代理理論的觀點，應將高階經理人薪酬與其績效緊密結合，更說明了員工分紅在高階經理人薪酬中所扮演的重要角色。此外，也證實了競賽理論的觀點，當高階經理人領取較多的薪酬，將能誘使公司其他員工為了獲取更高的報酬，晉升至更高的階級，而投入最大的努力。
然而，實證顯示前期高階經理人總薪酬占稅後純益比率愈高，對員工生產力、資產報酬率(ROA)有顯著負相關，會顯著降低公司經營績效，且對公司未來價值成長性也產生負向影響但不顯著。隨著2008年員工分紅費用化後，發放股票分紅的公司家數明顯減少，導致高階經理人股票分紅比率大幅下滑，故實證顯示高階經理人分紅占總員工分紅比率對公司績效產生不顯著影響效果。
此外，本研究發現公司系統性風險愈高，若擴大高階經理人與其他員工之薪酬差距，對公司績效之資產報酬率(ROA)、Tobin’s Q產生正向影響效果，其中對公司市場價值指標Tobin’s Q影響最顯著，但對員工生產力產生負向不顯著之影響效果。其中針對電子產業之上市公司實證分析結果，此變數對資產報酬率(ROA)產生正向顯著影響效果。本研究顯示研發支出比率愈高之公司，若提高高階經理人平均薪酬，對公司績效之資產報酬率(ROA)、Tobin’s Q產生正向影響效果，其中對資產報酬率(ROA)具顯著正向影響，可強化公司資產使用效率，以提升公司績效，但對員工生產力產生不顯著負向影響效果。
本研究也加入董事長兼任總經理變數，探討提高高階經理人平均薪酬對公司績效之影響，實證顯示對公司績效影響不顯著，其中對員工生產力、資產報酬率(ROA)有正向影響效果，但對Tobin’s Q產生負向影響效果。其中針對電子產業之上市公司實證分析結果，此變數對員工生產力產生正向顯著影響效果。
另外，本研究也探討屬電子產業公司之研發支出比率對公司績效之影響，實證顯示對公司績效影響不顯著。但屬電子產業之公司研發支出比率愈高，若提高高階經理人平均薪酬將對資產報酬率與Tobin’s Q有正向影響效果，其中對Tobin’s Q有顯著正向影響，可提升公司未來價值成長，但對員工生產力產生不顯著負向影響。
本研究期望企業在考量公司之治理及未來競爭力時，能給予公司在思考調整薪酬結構時，可透過薪酬制度設計解決部分代理問題並激勵員工努力，進而提升公司績效，以提供一參考的方向。

摘要(英)

The purpose of the study is to discuss the effects of top management compensation on firm performance based on the agency theory and the tournament theory. The biggest difference from other researches in the past is to consider variables such as risk, CEO duality and the R&D expense ratio of the electronics industry, and analyze the impact of increasing the pay gaps and the average compensation of top managers on firm performance. The variable data of top management compensation and firm performance are collected from Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) and Market Observation Post System during 2010 to 2017, which is based on the secondary data of listed companies in Taiwan.

Results indicate that the top management compensation level, motivation compensation ratio, and the wage differential between top managers and other employees have a significantly positive effect on firm performance. However, the empirical evidence shows that the higher ratio of top manager’s compensation to profit after tax results the significantly negative effect on firm performance(return on assets (ROA) and employee productivity), which will significantly reduce the firm′s operating performance and impact the firm′s future growth value. The implementation of expensing employee bonus policy in 2008 ,can really reduce the level of top manager’s bonus because of decreasing stock bonus significantly in many firms .The evidence shows that it cause the ratio of top manager’s bonus to the total sharing profits with employees has no significant effect on firm performance.

Furthermore, the results indicate that the companies with higher systemic risk (Beta) and the increasing pay gaps between top managers and other employees can have a positive correlation with firm performance on return on assets (ROA) and Tobin′s Q, especially have significant effect on Tobin′s Q. The empirical analysis of this variable for listed companies in the electronics industry has a significantly positive effect on the return on assets (ROA).

The evidence shows that the companies with higher R&D expense ratio which enhance the average compensation level of top managers can have a positive effect on firm performance(return on assets (ROA)and Tobin′s Q),especially have significant effect on ROA. But, the results show that the above two variables have no significant effect on employee productivity.

In addition, the research add the variable of CEO duality to discuss that the effects of increasing top manager’s average compensation on firm performance. The evidence shows that the effect on firm performance is not significant ,which has a positive correlation with employee productivity and return on assets (ROA) ,but minor negative impact on Tobin′s Q. The empirical analysis of this variable for listed companies in the electronics industry has a significantly positive effect on the employee productivity.
The research also discuss that the impact of R&D expenditure ratios of electronic industry on firm performance. Empirical evidence shows that the impact on firm performance is not significant. However, if the companies enhance the top manager’s average compensation, it will have a positive effect on firm performance(return on assets (ROA)and Tobin′s Q ), especially have significant effect on Tobin’s Q , which can enhance the company′s growth value. But, the result shows that the variable has no significant effect on employee productivity.

According to the agency theory and the tournament theory, they provided criterions for how to decide wage structures which can increase firm performance. An appropriate wage structure not only can retain the top management team but also can motivate firm’s key talents to promote their performance hard in the sequential tournaments. This study expects that it can provide a reference for improving the firm performance through adjusting the management compensation structure when companies consider the corporate governance and future competitiveness.

關鍵字(中)

★ 高階經理人薪酬結構
★ 公司績效
★ 股票分紅
★ 薪酬差距

關鍵字(英)

★ top management team
★ top management compensation
★ firm performance
★ wage structure
★ wage differential

論文目次

目錄
中文摘要 …………………………………………………………………… I
英文摘要 …………………………………………………………………… III
目錄 ………………………………………………………………………… VI
圖目錄 ……………………………………………………………………… VIII
表目錄 ……………………………………………………………………… VIII
第壹章緒論………………………………………………………………… 1
第一節研究背景與動機……………………………………………… 1
第二節研究目的……………………………………………………… 4
第三節研究架構……………………………………………………… 4
第貳章文獻探討…………………………………………………………… 6
第一節代理理論與競賽理論………………………………………… 6
第二節高階經理人之薪酬型態……………………………………… 10
第三節高階經理人薪酬與公司績效之關聯性……………………… 12
第四節董事長兼任總經理與公司績效之關聯性…………………… 18
第五節研發支出與公司績效之關聯性……………………………… 19
第參章研究假說與方法…………………………………………………… 21
第一節研究假說……………………………………………………… 21
第二節研究架構……………………………………………………… 26
第三節樣本資料……………………………………………………… 27
第四節研究方法與變數定義………………………………………… 30
第肆章實證結果…………………………………………………………… 41
第一節敘述性統計分析……………………………………………… 41
第二節實證結果分析………………………………………………… 43
第伍章結論與建議………………………………………………………… 86
第一節研究發現與討論……………………………………………… 86
第二節管理意涵……………………………………………………… 94
第三節研究限制與未來研究方向…………………………………… 95
參考文獻 …………………………………………………………………… 98

參考文獻

一、中文部分

1.辜秋屏(1997)，「高階主管酬勞公司經營績效之實證研究」，國立台灣大學會計研究所碩士論文。
2.歐進士（1998），「我國企業研究發展與經營績效關聯之實證研究」中山管理評論，第六卷第二期，第357-386頁。
3.曾玉潔(2000)，「我國高階主管薪酬決定因素之實證研究」，國立中正大學會計研究所碩士論文。
4.張峯銘(2002)，｢薪資制度、組織承諾與工作績效關係之研究-以鍋爐製造業為例｣，中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
5.杜玉振、黃荃與林容竹(2002)，「董事會特性對經營績效、財務決策之影響研究-以台灣上市公司為例」管理與系統，第九卷第三期，第345-368頁。
6.吳美連、林俊毅(2004)，人力資源管理：理論與實務，智勝文化。
7.李佳玲(2005)，「不確定性、高階經理人報償差距與公司績效之關連性:競賽理論之驗證」會計評論，第四十二期，第23-53頁。
8.鄭桂蕙(2005)，「員工持股制度與公司績效」東吳經濟商學學報，第五十一期，第101-130頁。
9.陳靜香(2005)，「企業經營績效、所有權結構與總經理酬勞間之內生性關係」，國立中山大學財務管理研究所在職專班碩士論文。
10.陳安琪(2006)，「競賽理論與廠商績效：台灣上市櫃電子產業之實證研究」，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文。
11.廖秀梅、李建然與吳祥華(2006)，「董事會結構特性與公司績效關係之研究-兼論台灣家族企業因素的影響」東吳商學學報，第五十四期，第117-160頁。
12.溫芳郁、洪嘉謙(2007)，「員工分紅制度對公司的影響及因應方法」證券暨期貨月刊，第二十五卷第七期。
13.朱博湧、林裕淩與李俊雄(2010)，「無形資產價值創造之比較研究:以台灣電子零組件和電腦及週邊產業為例」科技管理學刊，第十五卷第三期，第1-24頁。
14.陳英得、莊政弘與丁仕偉(2011)，「員工分紅費用化實施後公司經營績效及分紅型態之探討」評論學報，第四期，第92-111頁。
15.郭銘偉(2011)，「高階經理人薪酬結構與公司績效之關聯」國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
16.楊哲夫(2012)，「淺談限制員工權利新股制度」證券暨期貨月刊，第三十卷第六期。
17.林穎芬、黃麗津、陳思源(2012)，「經理人薪酬、公司治理與現金股利政策」中山管理評論，第二十卷第四期，第1213-1251頁，ISSN:1023-2842。
18.楊馥如與蔡珮蓉(2012)，「員工分紅費用化對台灣上市櫃電子公司營運績效的影響」東海管理評論，第十四卷第一期，第1-27頁。
19.王綺楓、翁鶯娟(2013)，「總經理雙元性、家族控制與研發投資」商略學報，第五卷第三期，第153-168頁。
20.王曉雯、陳欣妤、吳佩珊(2013)，「研發支出與總經理薪酬－公司控制與成長機會對抑止管理性投機之影響」管理評論，第三十二卷第一期，第39-62頁。
21.張淑清、呂欣樺(2015)，「研發支出與管理團隊特性對公司績效之影響」會計學報，第六卷第一期。
22.張博欽、唐豪駿(2016)，「紅色供應鏈對台灣產業之影響評估」台灣證券交易所105年度委託研究計畫。
23.陳晏儀、盧正治、盧正壽(2017)，「CEO權力、員工分紅與公司績效」全球商業經營管理學報，第九期，第83-98頁，ISSN:2076-9474。
24.汪進揚、張家恩(2018)，「高階管理者酬勞之探討:台灣與中國大陸電子產業之實證」中華管理評論國際學報，第二十一卷第一期。

二、英文部分

1.Aggarwal, R. and A. Samwick, 1999.“The Other Side of the Trade-Off:The Impact of Riskon Executive Compensation”, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, pp.65-105.
2.Armen A. Alchian and Harold Demsetz,1972.” Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization” ,The American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 5 (Dec., 1972), pp. 777-795.
3.Agrawal, A., and G. N. Mandelker ,1987. “Managerial Incentive and Corporate Investment and Financial Decision,” Journal of Finance, Vol.2(4), 823-837.
4.Anderson, R. C., and J. M. Bizjak ,2003. “An Empirical Examination of the Role of the CEO and the Compensation Committee in Structuring Executive Pay,” Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol.27, 1323-1348.
5.Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. ,1932. “The modern corporation and private property”. New York, N.Y: Mac-Millan.
6.Bergmann, T. J.,& Scarpello,V. G. , 2001. Compensation decision making (4th ed.), Harcourt, Inc.
7.Becker, B., 2006.“Wealth and Executive Compensation”, Journal of Finance, Vol.61,pp.379-397.
8.Bebchuk, L., J. Fried and D.Walk ,2002. “Managerial Power and Rent Extraction in the Design of Executive Compensation.” University of Chicago Law Review, 69, No.3,pp.751-846.
9.Bloom, M., and Milkovich, G. T., 1998. Relationships among risk, incentive pay,and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (3): p.283-297.
10.Boyd, B. K.,1994. Board control and CEO compensation. Strategic Management Journal 15:335-344.
11.Branch, B.,1974. Research and development activity and profitability: A distributed lag analysis. Journal and Political Economy 82(5):999-1011.
12.Core, J., R. Holthausen, and D. Larcker., 1999.“Corporate Governance, Chief Executive Officer Compensation, and Firm Performance”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.51,pp.371-406.
13.Chung, K. H. and S. W. Pruitt, 1996.“Executive Ownership, Corporate Value, and Executive Compensation: A Unifying Framework”, Journal of Banking and Finance,pp.1135-1159.
14.Charles W. L. Hill and Gary S. Hansen,1989.Institutional Holdings and Corporate R&D Intensity in Research Intensive Industries.
15.Carpenter, M. A. and W. G. Sanders, 2002.“Top Management Team Compensation: The Missing Link Between CEO Pay and Firm Performance?”, Strategic Management Journal,Vol.23, pp.367-375.
16.Connolly, R. A.,and M. Hirschey.,2005. Firm size and the effect of R&D on Tobin’Q. R&D Management 35:217-223.
17.Crystal, G. S.,1991. In search of excess: The overcompensation of American executives.NY:W. W. Norton.
18.Daily, C. M., and D. R. Dalton.,1993. Board of director leadership and structure: control and performance implication. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 3:65-81.
19.Davis, J. H., F. D. Schoorman, and L. Donaldson.,1997. Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management. Academy of Management Review Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 20-47.
20.Defusco, R., T. Zorn, and R. Johnson ,1991. “The Association between Executive Stock Option Plan Changes and Managerial Decision Making.” Financial Management, 20, No.1,pp.36-43.
21.Demsetz, H., and Lehn, K. ,1985.. The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93: p.1155-1177.
22.Donaldson, L., and J. H. Davis.,1991. Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns. Australia Journal of Management 16(June): 49-64.
23.Ducy, M., Z. Iqbal, and A. Akhigbe ,1997. “Employee Stock Ownership Plans and Cash Flow Performance of Publicly Traded Firms.” American Business Review, 15, No.2, pp.31-6.
24.Elsayed, K.,2007. Does CEO duality really affect corporate performance? Corporate Governance 15(6):1203-1214.
25.Ehrenberg, R., and M. Bognanno., 1990. The incentive effects of tournaments revisited: evidence from the European PGA tour. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43: 74-88.
26.Eriksson, T. ,1999. Executive compensation and tournament theory: empirical tests on Danish data. Journal of Labor Economics 17: 262-280.
27.Eisenhardt, K. M. ,1989. Agency- and institutional-theory explanations: the case of retail sales compensation. Academy of Management Review 14: 57-74.
28.Fama, E. F., and M.C. Jensen ,1983. “Separation of Ownership and Control,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol.26, 301-325.
29.Fenn, G. W. and Liang, N., 2001. “Corporate payout policy and managerial stock incentives,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 60, No. 1, 45-72.
30.Finkelstein, S.,& Boyd,B.K.,1998. How much Does the CEO Matter? The Role of Managerial Discretion in the Setting of CEO Compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 41(2):p.179-199.
31.Gomez-Mejia, J.R., Tosi,H.,& Hinkin,T., 1987. Managerial control, performance, and executive compensation. Academy of management Journal, 30:p.51-70.
32.Henry L. Tosi, Jr. and Luis R. Gomez-Mejia.,1989. The Decoupling of CEO Pay and Performance: An Agency Theory Perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 34, No. 2 (Jun., 1989), pp. 169-189.
33.Hanlon, M., S. Rajgopal, and T. Shevlin, 2003.“Are Executive Stock Options Associated with Future Earnings?”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol.36, pp.3-45.
34.Hall, B. and J. Liebman, 1998.“Are CEOs Really Paid Like Bureaucrats?”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.113, pp.653-691.
35.Hall, B. ,1993. The stock market valuation of R&D investment during the 1980s. American Economic Review 83(2): 259-264.
36.Harford, J., Mansi, S. A., and Maxwell, W. F., 2008, “Corporate governance and firm cash holdings in the US,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 87, No. 3, 535-555.
37.Henderson, A. D., and J. W. Fredrickson. ,2001. Top management coordination needs and the CEO pay gap: a competitive test of economic and behavioral views. Academy of Management Journal 44(1): 96-117.
38.Hall, B. J. and K.Murphy ,2002. “Stock Options for Undiversified Executives.” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33, No.1, pp.3-42.
39.Hill, C.W.,& Phan, P.,1991. CEO Tenure As a Determinant of CEO pay. Academy of Management Journal,34(3):p.712-717.
40.Hill, N. T. and K. T. Stevens.,2001. “Structuring Compensation to Achieve Better Financial Results.” Strategic Finance, 82, No.9, pp.48-60.
41.Holmström, B., 1979. Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics, 10: p.74-91.
42.Jensen, M., & Murphy, K.,1990. Performance pay and top management incentives. Journal of Political Economy,98: p.225-264.
43.John, K. and Y. Qian, 2003.“Incentive Features in CEO Compensation in the Banking Industry”, FRBNY Economic Policy Review, pp.109-121.
44.Jin, L., 2002.“CEO Compensation, Diversification, and Incentives”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.66, pp.29-63.
45.Jensen, M., & Meckling,W., 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: p.305-360.
46.Jiraporn, P. and Ning, Y., 2006, “Dividend policy, shareholder rights, and corporate governance,” Journal of Applied Finance, Vol. 16, No. 2, 24-36.
47.Kerr, J., & Kren, L., 1992. Effect of relative decision monitoring on chief executive compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2):p.370-397.
48.Kato, T. and K. kubo, 2006.“CEO Compensation and Firm Performance in Japan:Evidence from New Panel Data on Individual CEO Pay”, Journal of the Japanese and International Economics, Vol.20, pp.1-19.
49.Kren, L., and J. L. Kerr., 1993. The effect of behavior monitoring and uncertainty on the use of performance-contingent compensation. Accounting and Business Research 23: 159-168.
50.Lambert, R. A., & Larcker, D.F.,1987. An analysis of the use of accounting and market measures of performance in executive compensation contracts. Journal of Accounting Research,25: p. 85-129.
51.La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silances, F., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R., 2000, “Agency problems and dividend policies around the world,” Journal of Finance, Vol. 55, No. 1, 1-33.
52.Lazear, E., and S. Rosen.,1981. Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy 89: 841-864.
53.Lilling, M. S., 2006.“The Link Between CEO Compensation and Firm Performance: Simultaneity Matter?” Atlantic Economic Journal, Vol. 34, pp.101-104.
54.Livingston, D. T. and J. B. Henry ,1980. “The Effect of Employee Stock Ownership Plans on Corporate Profits.” The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 47, No.3, pp.491-505.
55.Lin, Y. F., 2005. Corporate governance, leadership structure and CEO compensation evidence from Taiwan. Corporate governance 13:824-835.
56.Lambert, R., D. Larcker, and K. Weigelt.,1993. The structure of organizational incentives. Administrative Science Quarterly 38: 438-461.
57.Larcker, D. F.,1983. “The Association Between Performance Plan Adoption and Corporate Capital Investment.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 5 : 3-30.
58.Leone, A. J., J. S. Wu, and J. L. Zimmerman, 2006.“Asymmetric Sensitivity of CEO Cash Compensation to Stock Returns“, Journal of Accounting & Economics, Vol.42,pp.167-192.
59.Lazear, E., and S. Rosen. ,1981. Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts.Journal of Political Economy 89: 841-864.
60.Lewellen, W. G., Loderer, C., and Martin, K., 1987, “Executive compensation and executive incentive problems: an empirical analysis,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 9, No. 3, 287-310.
61.Lev, B. and Zarowin, P.,1999. “The Boundaries of Financial Reporting and How to Extend Them. ” Journal of Accounting Research, 37, 353-385.
62.Main, B., C. III O’Reilly, and J. Wade. ,1993. Top executive pay: tournament or teamwork? Journal of Labor Economics 11: 606-628.
63.McConnell, J. J., and Servaes,H.,1990. Additional Evidence on Equity Ownership and Corporate Value. Journal of Financial Economics, 27: p.595-612.
64.Miller, J. S., R. M. Wiseman, and L. R. Gomez-Mejia.,2002.The fit between CEO compensation design and firm risk. Academy of Management Journal 45(4):745-756.
65.Mitton, T., 2004, “Corporate governance and dividend policy in emerging markets,” Emerging Markets Review, Vol. 5, No. 4, 409-426.
66.Murphy, K. J., and J. Zabojnik ,2004. “CEO Pay and Appointments: A Marketed-based Explanation for Recent Trend,” The American Economic Review, Vol.94(2), 192-196.
67.Milkovich, G., and J. Newman ,2005. Compensation, McGraw Hill.
68.Milkovich, G. T., 1988. A Strategic Perspective on Compensation Management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,6: p.263-288.
69.Milkovich, G. T., and J. M. Newman, 2002.Compensation, McGraw-Hill.
70.Murphy, K. J., 1985.“Corporate Performance and Managerial Remuneration: An Empirical Analysis”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol.7, pp.101-114.
71.Meulbroek, L. ,2001.“The Efficiency of Equity-Linked Compensation: Understanding the Full Cost of Awarding Executive Stock Options.” Financial Management, 30, No.2, pp.5-30.
72.Officer, M. S., 2006, “Dividend policy, dividend initiations, and governance.” Working paper, University of Southern California.
73.Patton, A., and J. C. Baker. ,1987. Why won’t director rock the boat. Howard Business Review 10: 10-18.
74.Perri, T.J., 1994. Influence Activity and Executive Compensation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 24:p.169-181.
75.Pearce, J. A., II. & Shaker, A. Z.,1991. The Relative Power of CEO’s and Boards of Directors: Association with Corporate Performance.Strategic Management Journal, 12: p.135-153.
76.Peng, M.W., S. Zhang, and X. Li.,2007. CEO Duality and Firm Performance during China′s Institutional Transitions.Management and Organization Review 3(2):205-225.
77.RandØy, T., and J. Nielsen ,2002.“Company Performance, Corporate Governance, and CEO Compensation in Norway and Sweden,” Journal of Management & Governance, Vol.6(1), 57-81.
78.Ronald H. Coase,1937.”The Nature of the Firm”, Economica, New Series, Volume 4, Issue 16, pp. 368-405.
79.Rosen, S.,1986. Prizes, and incentives in elimination tournaments. American Economic Review 76: 701-715.
80.Sloan, R.,1993. Accounting earnings and top executive compensation. Journal of Accounting and Economics,16: p.55-100.
81.Tosi, H. L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R.,1989. The Decoupling of CEO Pay and Performance: An Agency Theory Perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34:p.169-190.
82.Towers and Perrin, 1997. Worldwide Total Remuneration.
83.Westphal, J.D., & Zajac, E.J., 1995. Accounting for the Explanations of CEO Compensation: Substance and Symbolism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: p.283-308.
84.Williams, M. A. and R. P. Rao, 2006.“CEO Stock Options and Equity Risk Incentives”,Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol.33, pp.26-44.
85.White, L. F., 1996, “Executive compensation and dividend policy,” Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol. 2, No. 4, 335-358.
86.Yermack, D. ,1995. “Do Corporations Award CEO Stock Options Effectively? ” Journal of Financial Economics, 39, No.3, pp.237-69.
87.Yeo, G., S. S. Chen, K. W. Ho, and C. F. Lee ,1999. “Effects of Executive Share Option Plans on Shareholder Wealth and Firm Performance: The Singapore Evidence.” The Financial Reviews, 34,No.2, pp.1-20.
88.Zhang, H., 2008, “Corporate governance and dividend policy: A comparison of Chinese firms listed in Hong Kong and in the Mainland,” China Economic Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, 437-459.
89.Zhou, X. ,1999. “Executive Compensation and Managerial Incentives: A Comparison between Canada and the United States,” Journal of Corporate Finance, Vol.5, 277-301.

指導教授

徐政義(Cheng‑Yi Shiu)

審核日期

2019-6-5

推文