公司董事会属性、团队效能和财务绩效[文献翻译]

原文：CorporateBoardAttributes,TeamEffectivenessandFinancialPerformanceATeam-BasedModelofCorporateBoardEffectivenessTheexistingliteratureexaminingteamsandknowledge-basedworkgroupsdemonstratesacausallinkbetweenteampracticesorattributes,effectiveness,andoutcomes(CohenandBailey,1997;KirkmanandRosen,1999;Marksetal.,2001).Extendingontheliteratureregardingteameffectiveness,somegovernancescholarshavestartedtofocusonmanagerialcompetenceandempowermentargumentstohelpexplainorganizationalperformancedifferences(Davisetal.,1997;Hendry,2002;Shen,2003).Intheirseminaltheoreticalwork,ForbesandMilliken(1999)integratedliteratureoncorporateboardsandteameffectivenessarguingthatboardeffectivenessisidentifiedbythesamecriteriaasmanypreviousmodelsofteameffectiveness.Further,theysuggestthatthevariousboarddemographicstypicallyusedinboardresearch,suchasinsider/outsiderratio,boardsize,andtenure,areexpectedtoinfluenceoverallteameffectivenessindependently.Similarly,Sonnenfeld(2002)describeseffectiveboardsasbeingdistinguishedby‘robust,effectivesocialsystems’andcontendsthatboarddemographicsbetweenForbesMagazine’s(2001)most-admiredandleast-admiredcompaniesareactuallysimilar.Thissuggeststhatstructuralcharacteristicsinandofthemselvesdonotdifferentiatebetweenhigh-performingandlow-performingboards.Sonnenfeld(2002,p.106)goesontostate,‘Weneedtoconsidernotonlyhowwestructuretheworkofaboardbutalsohowwemanagethesocialsystemaboardactuallyis.’ThisisconsistentwiththeconclusionofPapadakisetal.(1998)thatdecision-specificandrelationshipattributes,ratherthanboarddemographics,representthegreatestinfluenceonthestrategicdecision-makingprocess.Drawingfromboththecorporateboardandgroups/teamsresearch,wearguethatthesameconditionsenablingworkgroupstoachievetheirgoalsshouldberelatedtocorporateboardeffectiveness.Othershaveacknowledgedthisrelationship,butinalessexplicitway(e.g.Dailyetal.,2003;FinkelsteinandHambrick,1996;FinkelsteinandMooney,2003;Huse,2005;Sonnenfeld,2004a).Soratherthandevelopanoriginalmodelofboardsasteams,weapplypreviousresearchontheattributesofhighperformingteamstoboardsofdirectors(Mohrmanetal.,1995).Hence,werecognizethattherelationshipsbetweengroupinputs,processesandoutcomesdependonfactorsthatarespecifictothetypeofgroupunderstudyandthespecificcriteriaofeffectivenessthatarebeingconsidered(ForbesandMilliken,1999;Mathieuetal.,2008).Weapplyamodelofgroupeffectivenessthatfitswithinalargerframeworkthathasdominatedgroupsandteamsresearchfordecades(CohenandBailey,1997;Mathieuetal.,2008).Althoughithasbeenmodifiedandextendedovertheyears,thebasicinput–process–outputmodel(IPO)holdsthatcontextualfactorsandotherindividualandteamlevelantecedents‘enableandconstrain’(p.412)teammemberinteractionsanddefineteamprocesseswhichinturndrivetaskeffectiveness(Mathieuetal.,2008).Inthisstudy,wefocusonteaminputsusinganestablishedmodelderivedfromyearsofresearchonemployeeparticipationandinvolvement(Cotton,1993;Galbraith,1973;Lawler,1986;Vandenbergetal.,1999).Specifically,wedrawuponMohrmanetal.’s(1995)modelofteameffectiveness,whichisbasedonfivekeyattributesofhighperforminggroups,andhasbeenpreviouslyappliedtocorporateboards(Congeretal.,2001).Thekeyattributeshighlightedinthismodelinclude:(1)knowledgethatiscloselyalignedwiththeorganization’sneedsandrequirements;(2)currentandcomprehensiveinformationdrawnfrommultiplesourcesandperspectives;(3)sufficientpowertoreachindependentdecisions,aswellastoevaluateandchallengetheCEO;(4)sufficientincentives,typicallyachievedthroughrewardssystemstoaligndirectors’andowners’interests;and(5)sufficientopportunityandtimefortheboardandcommitteestoprepareforandcompletetasks.Byapplyingthisestablishedmodelofgroupeffectivenesswehopetocontributetoourunderstandingofcorporateboardsinseveralways.Firstistoempiricallydemonstratethatboardeffectivenessisrelatedtothesameteaminputsthathavebeenshowntoimpactgroupperformanceinothercontexts.Secondistoprovideanintegrativeframeworkfortheexistingresearchonboardcharacteristicsandtesttheirrelationshiptoactualboardtaskperformance.Whilemanyoftheseattributeshavebeenexaminedindependentlyfortheirrelationshipstofirmfinancialperformance,wetestthemtogetherfortheirrelationshipstoboardperformanceasratedbydirectorsthemselves.Inthefollowingparagraphs,wedrawonmultipletheoreticalperspectivestodiscusseachofthesefiveteamattributesandpresenthypothesesabouttheirrelationshiptooverallboardeffectiveness.Knowledgeandboardeffectiveness.Boardresearchhaslongrecognizedtheimportanceofdirectors’abilities,judgment,experience,andknowledgetoeffectivegovernance(e.g.CopelandandTowl,1947).Comingfromaresourcedependenceviewofcorporateboards,knowledgehasmostoftenbeenconceptualizedasthestockofinformationorbackgroundexpertisethatdirectorspossessinaggregate.Theseareasofexpertisecontributetooverallcognitiveresourcesandenhancethescopeandqualityoftheboard’sdecisionsanditseffectiveness(HillmanandDalziel,2003;O’NealandThomas,1996).Giventhatdirectmeasurementofboardknowledgeisextremelydifficulttoobtain,variousstudieshaveusedanumberofdifferentproxiesasmeasuresofboardstrategicandope