KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Istanbul Management Journal / 2014 / Cilt: 25 Sayı: 77

YÖNETİM KURULU YAPISI İLE FİNANSAL PERFORMANS ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE ULUSLARARASI ÇEŞİTLENMENİN ARACILIK ETKİSİ

-

Tarhan Okan
Selcen Sarı
Tülay İlhan Nas
Sayfa
39–78
Yayın Tarihi
2015-02-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören 83 firmanın 2011 yılı verileri kullanılarak yürütülen analiz bulguları, yönetim kurulu büyüklüğünün, finansal performans üzerinde anlamlı ve pozitif yönlü bir etkisinin olduğunu ve uluslararası çeşitlenme düzeyinin bu ilişkide önleyici (supression) bir aracılık etkisinin var olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu araştırmanın amacı, yurt dışına yatırım yapan işletmelerin, yönetim kurulu yapılarının finansal performans üzerindeki direkt etkisinin yanı sıra, uluslararası çeşitlenme stratejileri üzerinden ortaya çıkabilecek endirekt etkisini ortaya koymaktır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Böyle bir ilişkinin test edilmesi için aracılık (mediation) analiz modeli kullanılmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören 83 firmanın 2011 yılı verileri kullanılarak yürütülen analiz bulguları, yönetim kurulu büyüklüğünün, finansal performans üzerinde anlamlı ve pozitif yönlü bir etkisinin olduğunu ve uluslararası çeşitlenme düzeyinin bu ilişkide önleyici (supression) bir aracılık etkisinin var olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:2011 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Yönetim Kurulu Yapısı · Finansal Performans · Uluslararası Çeşitlenme

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, yurt dışına yatırım yapan işletmelerin, yönetim kurulu yapılarının finansal performans üzerindeki direkt etkisinin yanı sıra, uluslararası çeşitlenme stratejileri üzerinden ortaya çıkabilecek endirekt etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Böyle bir ilişkinin test edilmesi için aracılık (mediation) analiz modeli kullanılmıştır. Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören 83 firmanın 2011 yılı verileri kullanılarak yürütülen analiz bulguları, yönetim kurulu büyüklüğünün, finansal performans üzerinde anlamlı ve pozitif yönlü bir etkisinin olduğunu ve uluslararası çeşitlenme düzeyinin bu ilişkide önleyici (supression) bir aracılık etkisinin var olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine the direct effect of board of directors’ structures of firms that make outward investment on their performance, the indirect or mediation effect of international diversification on this relation. Mediation analysis model is used to test these relationships. The findings of the analysis conducted with 2011 data of firms that are listed in Borsa İstanbul suggest that the size of board has a positive and statistically significant effect on financial performance and international diversification has a supression mediation effect on this relation

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Okan, T., Sarı, S., Nas, T. İ. (2015). YÖNETİM KURULU YAPISI İLE FİNANSAL PERFORMANS ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİDE ULUSLARARASI ÇEŞİTLENMENİN ARACILIK ETKİSİ. Istanbul Management Journal, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 77, 39–78. https://ajindex.com/articles/1256790

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (126)

  1. ALBAYRAK, A. S., 2005, “Çoklu Doğrusal Bağlantı Halinde Enküçük Kareler Tekniğinin
  2. Alternatifi Yanlı Tahmin Teknikleri ve Bir Uygulama”, Zonguldak Karaelmas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1(1), s:105-126. ALBAYRAK, A.S., 2006, Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri, Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  3. ARARAT, M. ve YURTOĞLU, B.B., 2012, “Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu’nun “Kurumsal
  4. Yönetim” Konulu Tebliğleri ile İlgili Genel Değerlendirme ve Yorum”, Sabancı University Corporate Governance Forum Of Turkey Working Paper Series, 2012.01, http://research.sabanciuniv. edu/18885/1/TebligSon.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 20.07.2013).
  5. AROSA, B., ITURRALDE, T., ve MASEDA, A., 2010, “Outsiders on The Board of
  6. Directors and Firm Performance: Evidence From Spanish Non-Listed Family Firms”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(4), s:236-245. ATAAY, A., 2012, "Türk Aile İşletme Gruplarının Uluslararasılaşma Deneyimleri",
  7. İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi 5.Aile İşletmeleri Kongresi Kongre Kitabı, s:71-92
  8. AYGÜN, M., İÇ, S., ve SAYIN, C., 2011, “Yönetim Kurulu Büyüklüğünü Belirleyen
  9. Faktörler ve Yönetim Kurulu Büyüklüğü İle Firma Performansı Arasındaki İlişki: Türk Sermaye Piyasası Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), s:77-92. BARKEMA, H.G., BELL, J.H.J. ve PENNINGS, J.M., 1996, “Foreign Entry, Cultural
  10. Barriers and Learning”, Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), s:151-166. BARON, R.M. ve KENNY, D. A., 1986, “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in
  11. Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Conciderations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), s:1173 – 1182.
  12. BARROSO,C., VILLEGAS, M.M. ve PEREZ-CALERO, L., 2011, “Board Influence on a
  13. Firm’s Internationalization”, Corporate Governance: an International Review, 19(4), s:351-367. BAYSINGER, B. ve HOSKISSON, R.E., 1990, “The Composition of Boards of Directors and Strategic Control: Effects on Corporate Strategy”, Academy of Management Review, 15(1), s:72-87.
  14. BONACCORSI, A., 1992, “On the Relationship Between Firm Size and Export Intensity”,
  15. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(4): s:605-635. BOZCUK, A.E., 2011, “Performance Effects of Outside Directors on Corporate Boards”,
  16. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(20), s:80-84. BRICKLEY, J. A., LINCK, J. S. ve COLES, J.L., 1999, “What Happens to CEOs After
  17. They Retire? New Evidence on Career Concerns, Horizon Problems, and CEO Incentives”, Journal of Financial Economics, 52(3), s:341 – 377. BRYMAN, A. ve CRAMER, D., 1997, Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for
  18. Windows: A Guide for Social Scientists, London and New York: Routledge. BUĞRA, A., 2007, Devlet ve İşadamları, 5. Baskı, İstanbul: İletişimYayınları.
  19. BUĞRA, A., 2010, Devlet ve İşadamları, 7. Baskı, İstanbul: İletişimYayınları.
  20. CHAO, M. C.-H. ve KUMAR, V., 2010, “The Impact of Institutional Distance on the International Diversity-Performance Relationship”, Journal of World Business, 45(1), s:93-103.
  21. CHEN, H.-L., 2011, “Does Board Independence Influence the Top Management Team?
  22. Evidence From Strategic Decisions Toward Internaionalization”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(4), s:334-350. CHEN, G., FIRTH, M. ve XU, L., 2009, “Does the Type of Ownership Control Matter?
  23. Evidence from China’s Listed Companies”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 33(1), s:171 – 1 COLE, M.S., WALTER, F. ve BRUCH, H., 2008, “Affective Mechanisms Linking
  24. Dysfunctional Behavior to Performance in Work Teams: A Moderated Mediation Study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93(5) s:945 – 958. COLES, J.L., DANIEL, N.D. ve NAVEEN, L., 2008, “Boards: Does One Size Fit All?”,
  25. Journal of Financial Economics, 87 (2), s:329-356. CONTRACTOR, F.J., KUNDU, S.K. ve HSU, C-C., 2003, “A Three-Stage Theory of
  26. International Expansion: the Link Between Multinationality and Performance in the Service Sector ”, Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), s:5 – 18. CONTRACTOR, F. J., KUMAR, V. ve KUNDU, S.K., 2007, “Nature of the Relationship between International Expansion and Performance: The Case of Emerging Market Firms”,
  27. Journal of World Business, 42(4), s:401 – 417. ÇAPAR, N. ve KOTABE, M., 2003, “The Relationship Between International
  28. Diversification and Performance in Service Firms”, Journal Of International Business Studies, 34(4), s:345–355. ÇİTÇİ, U. S., 2011, “Örgüt Teorilerinde Yöneticinin Yeniden Konumlandırılması İçin Bir
  29. Araç Olarak Sosyal Ağlar”, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. DAILY, C.M. ve DALTON, D.R., 1993, “Board of Directors Leadership and Structure:
  30. Control and Performance Implications”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17(3), s:65- DALTON, D.R. ve RECHNER, P.L., 1989, “On the Antecedent of Corporate Severance
  31. Agreements: An Empirical Assessment”, Journal of Business Ethics, 8(6), s:455 – 462. DARAGHMA, Z.M.A. ve ALSINAWI, A.-A., 2010, “Board of Directors, Management
  32. Ownership, and Capital Structure and Its Effect on Performance: The Case of Paletsine Securities Exchange”, International Journal of Business and Management, 5(11), s:118- DAVID, P., O’BRIEN, J.P., YOSHIKAWA, T. ve DELIOS, A., 2010, “Do Shareholders or Stakeholders Appropirate the Rents From Corporate Diversification? The Influence of
  33. Ownership Structure”, Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), s:636 – 654. DAVIS, J.H., SCHOORMAN, D.F. ve DONALDSON, L., 1997, “Toward A Stewardship
  34. Theory of Management”, Academy of Management Review, 22(1), s:20-47. DELIOS, A. ve BEAMISH, P. W., 1999, “Geographic Scope, Product Diversification, and the Corporate Performance of Japanese Firms”, Strategic Management Journal, 20(8), s:711 – 727.
  35. DEMİRBAĞ, M., TATOĞLU, E. ve GLAISTER, K. W., 2009, “Equity-Based Entry Modes of Emerging Country Multinationals: Lessons from Turkey”, Journal of World Business, 44(4), s:445 – 462.
  36. DENIS, D.K., 2001, “Twenty-Five Years Of Corporate Governance Research and Counting”, Review of Financial Economics, 10(3), s:191–212.
  37. DONALDSON, L. ve DAVIS, J.H., 1991, “Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO
  38. Governance And Shareholder Returns”, Australian Journal Of Management, 16(1), s:49- DUCHIN, R., MATSUSAKA, J.G. ve ÖZBAŞ, O., 2010, “When are Outside Directors
  39. Effective?” Journal of Financial Economics, 96(2), s:195-214. EISENBERG, T., SUNDGREN, S. ve WELLS, M. T., 1998, “Larger Board Size and Decreasing Firm Value in Small Firms”, Journal of Financial Economics, 48(1), s:35 –
  40. ELSAYED, K., 2011, “Board Size and Corporate Performance: the Missing Role of Board
  41. Leadership Structure”, Journal of Management and Governace, 15(3), s:415 – 446. GAUR, A.S. ve KUMAR, V., 2009, “International Diversification, Business Group
  42. Affiliation and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence From India”, British Journal of Management, 20(2), s:172-186. GERINGER, M.J., BEAMISH, P.W. ve DaCOSTA, R.C., 1989, “Diversification Strategy and Internationalization: Implications for Mne Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 10 (2), s:109-119.
  43. GLAUM, M. ve OESTERLE, M.-J., 2007, “40 Years of Research on Internationalization and Firm Performance: More Questions than Answers?”, Management International Review, 47(3), s:307-317.
  44. GOLL, I., SAMBHARYA, R.B. ve TUCCI, L.A., 2001, “Top Management Team
  45. Composition, Corporate Ideology, and Firm Performance”, Management International Review, 41(2), s:109 – 129. GOLL, I. ve RASHEED, A.A., 2004, “The Moderating Effect of Environmental
  46. Munificence and Dynamism on the Relationship Between Discretionary Social Responsibility and Firm Performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, 49(1), s:41 – 54. GOMES, L. ve RAMASWAMY, K., 1999, “An Empirical Examination of the Form of the Relationship Between Multinationality and Performance”, Journal of International
  47. Business Studies, 30(1), s:173-187. GOMEZ-MEJIA, L.R., MARKI, M. ve KINTANA, M.L., 2010, “Diversification Decisions in Family-Controlled Firms”, Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), s:223-252.
  48. GOODSTEIN, J., GAUTAM, K. ve BOEKER, W., 1994, “Research Notes and Communications the Effects of Board Size and Diversity on Strategic Change”, Strategic
  49. Management Journal, 15(3), s:241-250. GUEST, P.M., 2009, “The Impact of Board Size on Firm Performance: Evidence From the UK”, The European Journal of Finance, 15(4), s:385-404.
  50. HAMEL, G., 1991, “Competition for Competence and Inter-Partner Learning Within
  51. International Strategic Alliances”, Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), s:83-103. HARRISON, R.J., 1987, “The Strategic Use of Corporate Board Committees”, California
  52. Management Review, 30(1), s:109-125. HAYES, A.F., 2009, “Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New
  53. Millennium”, Communication Monograps, 76(4), s:408 – 420. HERMALIN, B.E. ve WEISBACH, M.S., 2003, “Boards of Directors as an Endogenously
  54. Determined Institution: A Survey of the Economic Literature”, Economic Policy Review, 9(1), s:7-26. HITT, M.A., HOSKISSON, R.E. ve KIM, H., 1997, “International Diversification: Effects on Innovation and FirmPerformance in Product-Diversified Firms”, Academy of
  55. Management Journal, 40(4), s:767 – 798. JENSEN, M.J., 1993, “The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal
  56. Control Systems”, The Journal Of Finance, 48(3), s:831-880. JONES, G.R. ve HILL, C.W.L., 1988, “Transaction Cost Analysis Of Strategy-Structure
  57. Choice”, Strategic Management Journal, 9(2), s:159-172. JUDD, C.M. and KENNY, D.A. (1981), Estimating the Effects of Social Interventions,
  58. Cambridge University Press, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney. KAYMAK, T. ve BEKTAŞ, E., 2008, “East Meets West? Board Characteristics in an
  59. Emerging Market: Evidence From Turkish Banks”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(6), s:550–561. KAYNAK, E., DEMİRBAĞ, M. ve TATOĞLU, E., 2007, “Determinants of Ownership
  60. Based Entry Mode Choice of MNEs: Evidence from Mongolia”, Management International Review, 47(4), s:505 – 530. KIM, H. ve LIM, C., 2010, “Diversity, Outside Directors and Firm Valuation: Korean
  61. Evidence”, Journal of Business Research, 63(3), s:284-291. KOBRIN, S.J., 1991, “An Empirical Analysis of the Determinants of Global Integration”,
  62. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S1), s:17-31. KOÇ, V., 1983, Hayat Hikâyem, Otokoç, İstanbul.
  63. KOGUT, B., 1985, “Designing Global Strategies: Comparative and Competitive Value- Added Chains,
  64. Sloan Management Review, 26(4), s:15-28
  65. (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/ designing-global-strategies-comparative-and- competitive-valueadded-chains/Erişim Tarihi: 20.07.2013)
  66. KULA,V. ve TATOĞLU, E., 2006, “Board Process Attributes and Company Performance of Family-Owned Businesses in Turkey”, Corporate Governance, 6(5), s:624-634.
  67. KUMAR, N. ve SINGH, J.P., 2012, “Outside Directors, Corporate Governance and Firm
  68. Performance: Empirical Evidence From India”, Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(2), s:39-55. KUMAR, N. ve SINGH, J.P., 2013, “Effect of Board Size and Promoter Ownership on Firm
  69. Value: Some Empirical Findings From India”, Corporate Governance, 13(1), s:88-98. Kurumsal Yönetim İlkelerinin Belirlenmesine ve Uygulanmasına İlişkin Tebliğ, Seri: IV, No:56, (2011), T. C. Resmi Gazete, Sayı:28158, 30 Aralık 2011.
  70. Kurumsal Yönetim İlkelerinin Belirlenmesine ve Uygulanmasına İlişkin Tebliğ (Seri: IV, No:56)’de Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Tebliğ, Seri: IV, No:57, (2012), T. C. Resmi Gazete, Sayı:28201, 11 Şubat 2012.
  71. LARMOU, S. ve VAFEAS, N., 2010, “The Relation Between Board Size and Firm
  72. Performance in Firms With a History of Poor Operating Performance”, Journal of Management and Governance, 14(1), s:61-85. LIANG, Q., Xu, P. ve JIRAPORN, P., 2013, “Board Characteristics and Chinese Bank
  73. Performance”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 37(8), s:2953-2968.
  74. LU, J.W. ve BEAMISH, P.W., 2004, “International Diversification and FirmPerformance:
  75. The S-Curve Hypothesis”, Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), s:598 – 609. MacKINNON, D.P., KRULL, F.L. ve LOCKWOOD, C.M., 2000, “Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect”, Prevention Science, 1(4), s:173 – 181.
  76. MAJOCCHI, A. ve STRANGE, R. (2012), International Diversification the Impact of
  77. Ownership Structure, the Market for Corporate Control and Board Independence”, Management International Review, 52(6), s:879-900. MAK, Y.T. ve ROUSH, M.L., 2000, “Factors Affecting the Characteristics of Boards of
  78. Directors: An Empirical Study of New Zealand Initial Public Offering Firms”, Journal of Business Research, 47(2), s:147-159. MATHIEU, J.E. and TAYLOR, S.R. (2006), “Clarifying Conditions and Decision Points for Mediational Type Inferences in Organizational Behavior”, Journal of Organizational
  79. Behavior, 27: 1031 – 1056, Published Online. DOI: 10.1002/job.406.
  80. McDONALD, M.L., WESTPHAL, J.D. ve GRAEBNER, M.E., 2008, “What Do They
  81. Know? The Effects of Outside Director Acquisition Experience of Firm Acquisition Performance”, Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), s:1155–1177.
  82. MITCHELL, W., SHAVER, M.J. ve YEUNG, B., 1992, “Getting There in a Global
  83. Industry: Impacts on Performance of Changing International Presence”, Strategic Management Journal, 13(6), s:419-432. MONTGOMERY, C.A., 1982, “The Measurement of Firm Diversification: Some New
  84. Empirical Evidence”, Academy of Management Journal, 25(2), s:299 – 307. MUTH, M.M. ve DONALDSON, L., 1998, “Stewardship Theory and Board Structure: A
  85. Contingency Approach”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 6(1), s:5-28. NAKANO, M. ve NGUYEN, P., 2012, “Board Size and Corporate Risk Taking: Further
  86. Evidence From Japan”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(4), s:369– 3 NICHOLSON, G.J. ve KIEL, G.C., 2007, “Can Directors Impact Performance? A Case
  87. Based Test of Three Theories of Corporate Governance”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(4), s:585-608. PALEPU, K., 1985, “Diversification Strategy, Profit Performance and the Entropy
  88. Measure”, Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), s:239 – 255. PANDYA, D. ve BATHALA, C., 2013, “Board of Directors and Exchange Requirements:
  89. Operating Performance of Traditionally Insider Controlled Boards”, Journal of Applied Financial Research, 1, s:88-102. PEARCE II, J.A. ve ZAHRA, S.A., 1992, “Board Composition From a Strategic
  90. Contingency Perspective”, Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), s:411-438. PENG, M.W., BUCK, T. ve FILATOTCHEV, I., 2003, “Do Outside Directors and New
  91. Managers Help Improve Firm Performance? An Exploratory Study in Russian Privatization”, Journal of World Business, 38(4), s:348–360. PFEFFER, J., 1972, “Size and Composition of Corporate Boards of Directors: The Organization and its Environment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), s:218-228.
  92. PFEFFER, J., 1973, “Size, Composition, and Function of Hospital Boards of Directors: A
  93. Study of Organization-Environment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(3), s:349-364. PREACHER, K.J. ve HAYES, A.F., 2004, “SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating
  94. Indirect Effects in Simple Mediation Models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(4), s:717 – 731. PREACHER, K.J., RUCKER, D.D. ve HAYES, A.F., 2007, “Addressing Moderated
  95. Mediation Hyphoteses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), s:185 – 227. RAMIREZ-ALESON, M. ve ESPITIA-ESCUER, M.A., 2001, “The Effect of International
  96. Diversification Strategy on the Performance of Spanish-Based Firms During the Period 1991-1995”, Management International Review, 41(3), s:291-315.
  97. RIVAS, J.L., HAMORI, M. ve MAYO, M., 2009, “Board Composition and Firm
  98. Internationalizaton”, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2009, s:1-6.
  99. RUIGROK, W. ve WAGNER, H., 2003, “Internationalization and Performance: An
  100. Organizational Learning Perspective”, Management International Review, 43(1), s:63–83. RUIGROK, W., PECK, S.I. ve KELLER, H., 2006, “Board Characteristics and Involvement in Strategic Decision Making: Evidence From Swiss Companies”, Journal of
  101. Management Studies, 43(5), s:1201-1226.
  102. SAHİN, K., BASFIRINCI, C. S. ve OZSALİH, A., 2011, “The Impact of Board
  103. Composition on Corporate Financial and Social Responsibility Performance: Evidence from Public-listed Companies in Turkey”, African Journal of Business Management, 5(7), s:2959 – 2978.
  104. SAMBHARYA, R.B., 1995, “The Combined Effect of International Diversification and Product Diversification Strategies on the Performance of U.S.-Based Multinational
  105. Corporations”, Management International Review, 35(3), s:97 – 218. SANDERS, G.W. ve CARPENTER, M.A., 1998, “Internationalization and Firm
  106. Governance: The Roles of Ceo Compensation, Top Team Composition, and Board Structure”, Academy of Management Journal, 41(2), s:158-178. SELEKLER-GOKSEN, N. ve KARATAS, A., 2008, “Board Structure and Performance in an Emerging Economy: Turkey”, International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4(2), s:132-147.
  107. SERPAM, 2013, Türkiye Sermaye Piyasası 2012 Yılı Raporu, İstanbul Üniversitesi
  108. Sermaye Piyasaları Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi, Şubat, 2013.
  109. SHERMAN, H., KASHLAK, R. ve JOSHI, M.P., 1998, “Inside Board Members,
  110. Regulatory Change and Internationalization: The Case of The U.S. Telecommunications Industry”, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(1), s:32-49. SHUKERI, S.N., SHIN, O.W. ve SHAARI, M.S., 2012, “Does Board of Director’s
  111. Characteristics Affect Firm Performance? Evidence from Malaysian Public Listed Companies”, International Business Research, 5(9), s:120-127. SINGH, M. ve DAVIDSON III, W.N., 2003, “Agency Costs, Ownership Structure and Corporate Governance Mechanisms”, Journal of Banking and Finance, 27(5), s:793-816.
  112. SOBEL, M.E., 1982, “Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effect in Structural
  113. Equation Models”, Sociological Methodology, 13, s:290 – 312. ŞENCAN, H., 2005, Sosyal ve Davranışsal Ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik,
  114. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi. TIAN, J.J. ve LAU, C.-M., 2001, “Board Composition, Leadership Structure and Performance in Chinese Shareholding Companies”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, 18(2), s:245-263.
  115. UJUNWA, A., 2012, “Board Characteristics and the Financial Performance of Nigerian
  116. Quoted Firms”, Corporate Governance, 12(5), s:656-674. UWUIGBE, O.R. ve FAKILE, A.S., 2012, “The Effects of Board Size on Financial
  117. Performance of Banks: A Study of Listed Banks in Nigeria”, International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(2), s:260-267. ÜSDİKEN, B. ve ÖKTEM, Ö.Y., 2008, “Kurumsal Ortamda Değişim ve Büyük Aile
  118. Holdingleri Bünyesindeki Şirketlerin Yönetim Kurullarında “İcrada Görevli Olmayan ve “Bağımsız” Üyeler”, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 41(1)’den Ayrı Bası, s:43 – 71. WANG, C.-H., HSU, L.-C. ve FANG, S.-R., 2008,
  119. “The Determinants of Internationalization: Evidence From the Taiwan High Technology Industry”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(9), s:1388-1395.
  120. WEI, L-Q. ve LAU, C-M., 2008, “The Impact of Market Orientation and Strategic HRM on
  121. Firm Performance: the Case of Chinese Enterprises”, Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), s:980 – 995. WEIR, C. ve LAING, D., 2000, “The Performance-Governance Relationship: The Effects of
  122. Cadbury Compliance on UK Quoted Companies”, Journal of Management and Governance, 4(4), 265–281. WU, D., WU, X.-B. ve ZHOU, H.-J., 2012, “International Expansion and Firm
  123. Performance in Emerging Market: Evidence From China”, Chinese Management Studies, 6(3), s:509-528. ZAHRA, S.A. ve PEARCE II, J.A., 1989, “Boards of Directors and Corporate Financial
  124. Performance: A Review and Integrative Model”, Journal of Management, 15(2), s:291- 3 http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html (Online: Temmuz 2013) http://www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html (Online: Temmuz 2013) http://www.kap.gov.tr/sirketler/islem-goren-sirketler/sektorler.aspx. (Online: Temmuz, 2013) www.kap.gov.tr (Online: Temmuz, 2013)
  125. Faktörler ve Yönetim Kurulu Büyüklüğü İle Firma Performansı Arasındaki İlişki: Türk Sermaye Piyasası Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), s:77-92. BARKEMA, H.G., BELL, J.H.J. ve PENNINGS, J.M., 1996, “Foreign Entry, Cultural
  126. Regulatory Change and Internationalization: The Case of The U.S. Telecommunications Industry”, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(1), s:32-49. SHUKERI, S.N., SHIN, O.W. ve SHAARI, M.S., 2012, “Does Board of Director’s