高階管理團隊人力資本差異性與併購期間之關聯性-存活分析應用

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：91

、訪客IP：18.191.225.71

姓名

黃于庭(Yu-Ting ,Huang) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

人力資源管理研究所

論文名稱

高階管理團隊人力資本差異性與併購期間之關聯性-存活分析應用
(The Relationship between the Top Management Team Human Capirtal and the period of merges -Survival Analysis)

相關論文

★ 業務主管領導力對部屬招募行為之影響-以S壽險公司為例	★ 人力精簡對企業績效的影響–以產業特性為調節變項
★ 經理人超額薪酬、經理人異動與公司績效之關係	★ 人口老化對企業之影響與因應對策-以傳統產業為例
★ 運用羅吉斯迴歸探討企業績效、公司治理與經理人異動之關聯性	★ 護理人員組織承諾與專業承諾對離職傾向與離業傾向的影響
★ 運用存活分析探討高科技產業招募者人格特質與離職風險之關聯性-以A公司為例	★ 金融電子化對台灣銀行業組織績效及人力彈性影響之探討
★ 人力資源部門角色與功能轉變之個案研究	★ 高階主管薪酬級距與公司績效之關聯性分析
★ 人力招募政策及主管領導風格對新進人員晉升與離職傾向之影響-以房仲業S公司為例	★ 影響台灣勞工赴海外就業的決定性因素
★ 董事會特性對企業績效之影響-以人力資本為調節變項	★ 董事會異質性之決定因素
★ 公司治理結構與就業調整	★ 總經理雙元性、股權集中度、人力資本與組織績效

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)

這幾年來，併購案件迅速累積增加，越來越多的企業期望能藉以併購方式提升競爭力，縮短企業成長時間。併購相關研究已成為實務界與學術界最感興趣的議題之一。然而，本研究發現過往併購研究較少及探討與高階管理團隊之關聯研究，也從未用以雙方公司之高階管理團隊角度探討。因此，本研究將以上觀點納入考量，探討主併公司高階管理團隊與被併公司高階管理團隊之人力資本差異性與併購期間關聯與其不對稱差異性關係對於併購期間之影響。
本研究蒐集2002年至2011年台灣高科技產業併購案例之併購期間與高階管理團隊資料。並使用存活分析(Survival Analysis)方法深入研究其各人力資本指標對於併購期間之關聯性與影響。
研究結果顯示高階管理團隊間人力資本差異性越大會越容易拖延併購期間，尤其當雙方公司在團隊間性別差異、團隊間任期差異、團隊間學經歷差異此三項人力資本指標越具差異性時候，其併購期間越長。並且，當主併公司高階管理團隊之團隊規模、團隊性別、團隊任期、及團隊持股比例之人力資本指標，越是小於被併公司高階管理團隊時，被併公司高階管理團隊會越有其能力爭取自身利益並傾向堅持自我觀點，而對主併公司高階管理團隊抱持反對立場、不易協商合作，進而影響併購期間與結果。

摘要(英)

Merger has been an important issue at all levels of the company from boardroom to the back office. It’s increasingly apparent that Merger is vital to business profit and productive. With academic research, there are many merger topics of various aspects.
The vast majority of M&A studies focused on “cumulative abnormal returns after M&A announcement” “M&A key success factors” and “the long-term performance of M&A” but few studies focus on the timeline of merger event. Also, no studies consider the relationship between the target firm and bidder firm.
In this study we apply “survival” concept on M&A event by linking the different human capital between the target’s Top Management Team and bidder’s firm’s Top Management Team; and the period of merger events to become the indicator of M&A evaluation. In this article, we apply survival model to test the issues for the Mergers in Taiwan Hi-Tech industry during the period of 2002 to 2011. Our empirical results revealed that the more different in sex ratio、tenure、Professional background that will lead to the longer period of merge. Besides, when the bidder‘s top management team’s human capital are smaller than target ones, that will also induce the longer period of merge. Especially in the team size、sex ratio、tenure、Holdings stock ratio factors, there’s the tendency that target firm’s Top Management Team will have more power and influence to affect the merger decision and the period of merge.

關鍵字(中)

★ 高階管理團隊
★ 人力資本
★ 併購
★ 存活分析

關鍵字(英)

★ Surviv
★ Human Capital
★ Top Management Team
★ Merge

論文目次

第一章緒論.........1
第一節研究背景.....1
第二節研究動機.... 3
第三節研究目的....5
第四節章節架構..... 6
第二章文獻回顧與假說發展.....6
第一節高階管理團隊人力資本差異性之意涵.....7
第二節併購之意涵.....9
第三節高階管理團隊人力資本差異性與併購之關聯性.....12
第三章研究方法.............15
第一節變數定義.............15
第二節研究樣本.............17
第三節研究架構.............18
第四節資料分析方法.........20
第四章實證結果與分析.......26
第一節基本統計敘述分析.....26
第二節存活分析.............30
第五章結論與研究限制.......36
第六章參考文獻.............39

參考文獻

一、中文部分:
1.李建然、陳信吉、梁宏康(2007)、,金融公司購併溢價與被併公司高階管理團隊特質之關聯性;人力資源管理學報冬季號第七卷第四期頁25-44。
2.李紀珠(1993)，金融機構失敗預測模型-加速失敗時間模型之應用,經濟論文叢刊，第二十一卷第四期、355-379。
3.林建甫(2008)，存活分析，雙葉書廊有限公司出版社。
4.陳逸潔(2005)、更換高階經理人後之績效變化與重整行為-以併購績效不佳者為研究樣本,國立台灣大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。
5.陳海鳴(2000)，人力資源資本化與其在財務報表表達方式之研究，行政院國家科學委員會專案研究計劃。
二、英文部分:
1.Ancona, D. G., and Caldewell, D. F.（1992）, Demography and Design: predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3:321-341.
2.Agresti, A.,and Agresti, B.F. (1978). Statistical analysis of qualitative variation, Sociological Methodology, 9- 20
3.Biemann, T.and Kearney, E. (2009). Size Does Matter: How varying group sizes in a sample affect the most common measures of group diversity, Organizational Research Methods, 13:3, 582-599.
4.Brunsman, B., Sanderson, S. and Voorde, M. V. D. (1998),How to achieve
value behind the deal during merger integration, Oil &Gas Journal,vol.96,iss.37
5.Brooking, A. (1996) Intellectual Capital, London: International Thomson
Business Press.
6.Blau, P.M.(1977).Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure,United State: Free Press.
7.Bradley, M., Desai, A., and Kim, E.H. 1988. Synergistic gains from corporate acquisitions and their division between the stockholders of target and acquiring firms. Journal of Financial economics, 21: 3-40.
8.Carpenter (2000), Upper Echelons Research Revisited: Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Top Management Team Composition, Journal of Management December 2004 vol. 30 no. 6 749-778
9.Campion, M. A. and Medsker, G. J. and Higgs, A. C. (1993), Realationsbetween work group characteristics and effectiveness：implications for designing effective work groups, Personnel Psychology, 46, 822-850
10.Cox,D.R.(1972),Regression models and life-Tables, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,34(2), 187-220
11.Chatterjee, S., Lubatkin, M., Schwiger, D., and Weber, Y. (1992). Cultural differences and shareholder value in related mergers: Linking equity and human capital. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5): 319-334.
12.David Norburn1, Sue Birley,(1998) ,The top management team and corporate performance ,Strategic Management Journal 9, 3, 225–237,
13.Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S.(1999) Intellectual Capital-How to Measure the value of Invisible Assets in the Information Age, translated by D.R. Lin, Taipei: Wheatland Publication.
14.Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast decisions in high-velocity environments, Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543–576.
15.Eisenhardt, K. M. and L. J. Bourgeois (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Towards a midrange theory, Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737–770.
16.Filip boen1*, Norbert vanbeselaere2,Lieven brbels2y, Wouter Huynens2y and Kobe Millet3(2007) Post-merger identification as a function of pre-merger
identification, relative representation, and pre-merger status European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37, 380–389
17.Finkelstein, S., and Hambrick, D.C. 1990. Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 484-503
18.Finkelstein, S. 1992. Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 505-538.
19.Finkelstein, S., and D’Aveni, R. 1994. CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Academy of Management Journal, 37:1079-1108.
20.Fredrickson, J. W. (1984). The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: extensions, observations, future directions, Academy of Management Journal, 27, 445–466.
21.Fredrickson, J. W. and A. L. Iaquinto (1989). Inertia and creeping rationality in strategic decision processes, Academy of Management Journal, 12(3),516–542.
22.Fredrickson, J. W. and T. R. Mitchell (1984). Strategic decision processes: Comprehensiveness and performance in an industry with an unstable environment ,Academy of Management Journal, 27, 399–423
23.Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Tosi, H.L., & Hinkin, T. 1987. Managerial control,performance, andexecutive compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 30: 51-70.
24.Hambrick, D.C. 1989. Guest editor’s introduction: Putting top managers back in the strategy picture. Strategic Management Journal, 10: 5-15.
25.Haleblian and Fnkelstein,(1993): Top Management Team Size, CEO Dominance, and Firm Performance: The Moderating Roles of Environmental Turbulence and Discretion, The Academy of Management Journal ,Vol. 36, 10-15
26.Hill, C. W. L., G. R. Jones. 2007. Strategic Management Theory: An integrated approach. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Vol. 6, 19-25
27.Hill, C. W. L., M. A. Hitt, R. E. Hoskisson. 1992. Cooperative versus competitive structures in related and unrelated diversifiedfirms. Organ. Sci. 3(4) 501–521.
28.Huber, G. P.（1991）, Organizational Learning: An examination of the
contributing processes and the Literatures, Organization Science, 2:88-115.
29.Ivancevich, J. M., Schweiger, D. M. and Power, F. R. (1987),Strategiesfor managing human resources during mergers and acquisitions, Human Resource Planning, vol.10, (1)19-35.
30.Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J.A., and Peyronnin, K.(1991), Some differences make a difference:Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,76: 675-689.
31.Jackson, S.（1992）, Team composition in organizations. In S. Worchel,W. Wood , and J. Simpson（eds）, Group process and productivity: 1-12.
32.Jemison, D.B. and S.B. Sitkin(1986), Acquisitions: the process can be a
problem. Harvard Business Review, Vol.64.pp.107-116.
33.Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81–104
34.Kenneth Blaine Lawolor2009, Relationship of CEo and TMT pre-merge power characteristics of acquiring and target firm with post merge effectiveness ,
35.Kiessling, T.S., and Richey, R.G. 2005. International acquisitions from a network perspective and market based competencies. Journal of Business Strategies, 22:
36.Kiessling, T. and Harvey, M. (2006) The human resource management issues during an acquisition: The target firm’’s top management team and key managers, International Journal of Human Resource Management 17(7): 1307-1320.
37.Miller, T. and Triana, M ( 2009). demographic diversity in the boardroom: mediators of the board diversity-firm performance relationship, Journal of Management studies, 46:5,755-782.
38.Norburn, D., and Birley, S.(1988). The top management team and corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 9: 225-237.
39.Pelled and Smith (1999), Making Use of Difference: Diversity, Debate, and Decision Comprehensiveness in Top Management Teams, The Academy of Management Journal ,Vol. 42, 6: 662-673
40.Schneider (1987), Paradoxical effects of thought suppression., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 53(1), 5-13.
41.Schneider (1998), Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis., Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 83(3), , 462-470
42.Schein, E. H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A Dynamic View. Jossey- Bass, San Francisco, CA.
43.Shrivastava, P.(1986), Postmerger integration. Journal of Business Strategy , Vol.7, 1 ,65- 76.
44.Shelby D. Hunt and Robert M Morgan The comparative advantage theory of competition The Journal of Marketing Vol. 59,56-68
45.Turner,Hogg,Oakes,Reicher and Wetherell,(1987), Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization, British Journal of Social Psychology Volume 29, 2, 97–119
46.Weber, Y. 1996. Corporate cultural fit and performance in mergers and acquisitions. Human Relations, 49(9): 1181-1202
47.Wiersema, M., and Bantel, K. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 91-121.
48.Zollo, M., and Singh, H. 2004. Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: post- acquisition strategies and integration capability in U.S. bank mergers. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 1233-1256.
49.Zollo, M. and Reuer, J. J. 2006. Experience spillovers across corporate development activities (Working Paper). Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD 1-60.

指導教授

陳明園(Ming-Yuan,Chen)

審核日期

2012-6-18

推文