外文翻译--家族企业战略管理：过去的研究和未来的挑战(节选)
What is Strategy - Micheal E.Porter (中文版)
什么是战略？一、运营效益不等于战略近20年来，管理者一直在学习运用一套新的管理原则：企业必须具有灵活性，才能迅速回应市场变化和竞争环境的改变；它们必须持续地运用标杆法才能达成最佳实践；它们必须积极采用外包，以获得更高的效率；它们还必须培养若干核心竞争力，才能领先于竞争对手。
一直以来，定位(positioning)是战略的核心，然而由于当今动荡的市场和不断变化的科技，很多人认为定位太过静态而抛弃了这一概念。
根据新的教条，竞争对手可以很快复制任何一个市场定位，所以任何竞争优势至多只能是暂时性的。
然而，上述信条都是危险而错误的，它们正在导致越来越多的企业走上互相摧毁式的竞争之路。
的确，随着管制的放宽和市场的日益全球化，一些阻碍竞争的障碍正在消失；的确，很多公司适当地投入精力，使自己变得更加精干和敏捷。
然而在许多行业，有些人所说的超级竞争(hypercompetition)其实是自设陷阱，而不是竞争模式发生变化所致的必然结果。
问题的根源出在人们未能分清运营效益（operational effectiveness）和战略（strategy）的区别。
对生产率、质量和速度的追求，催生出大量的管理工具和技巧，比如全面质量管理、标杆法、时基竞争、外包、结盟、企业再造以及变革管理等。
尽管很多企业的运营效益因此得到了极大提高，但它们却因为无法将这些进步转化为持续赢利而倍感挫折。
渐渐地，几乎在不知不觉中，管理工具取代了战略。
随着管理者努力进行全方位的改善，他们离自己原本可行的市场定位越来越远了。
运营效益：必要但不充分创造卓越绩效是所有企业的首要目标，运营效益和战略对于企业实现这一目标都至为关键，但两者的作用方式不同。
企业唯有建立起一种可长期保持的差异化时，才能胜出竞争对手。
它必须向客户交付更大的价值，或者以更低的成本创造出相当的价值，或者两者兼具。
获取出色利润率的算式就是这样的：交付更大的价值就能让企业收取更高的平均单位价格，而更高的效率就能实现更低的平均单位成本。
产业集群的外文翻译及原文(族群与集群竞争力)
英文文献资料（一）Clusters and the New Economics of CompetitionMichael E. Porter（Harvard university）Why Clusters Are Critical to CompetitionModern competition depends on productivity, not on access to inputs or the scale of individual enterprises.Productivity rests on how companies compete,not on the particular fields they compete panies can be highly productive in any industry–shoes, agriculture, or semiconductors – if they employ sophisticated methods, use advanced technology,and offer unique products and services. All industries can employ advanced technology; all industries can be knowledge intensive.The sophistication with which companies compete in a particular location, however, is strongly influenced by the quality of the local business environment.1 Companies cannot employ advanced logistical techniques, for example, without a high quality transportation infrastructure. Nor can companies effectively compete on sophisticated service without well-educated employees. Businesses cannot operate efficiently under onerous regulatory red tape or under a court system that fails to resolve disputes quickly and fairly. Some aspects of the business environment, such as the legal system, for example, or corporate tax rates, affect all industries. In advanced economies, however, the more decisive aspects of the business environment are often cluster specific; these constitute some of the most important microeconomic foundations for competition.Clusters affect competition in three broad ways:first, by increasing the productivity of companies based in the area; second, by driving the direction and pace of innovation, which underpins future productivity growth; and third, by stimulating the formation of new businesses, which expands and strengthens the cluster itself. A cluster allows each member to benefit as if it had greater scale or as if it had joined with others formally – without requiring it to sacrifice its flexibility.Clusters and Productivity. Being part of a cluster allows companies to operate more productively in sourcing inputs; accessing information, technology,and needed institutions; coordinating with related companies; and measuring and motivating improvement.Better Access to Employees and Suppliers. Companies in vibrant clusters can tap into an existing pool of specialized and experienced employees, thereby lowering their search and transaction costs in recruiting. Because a cluster signals opportunity and reduces the risk of relocation for employees, it can also be easier to attract talented people from other locations, a decisive advantage in some industries.A well-developed cluster also provides an efficient means of obtaining other important inputs.Such a cluster offers a deep and specialized supplier base. Sourcing locally instead of from distant suppliers lowers transaction costs. It minimizes the need for inventory, eliminates importing costs and delays, and –because local reputation is important –lowers the risk that suppliers will overprice or renege on commitments. Proximity improves communications and makes it easier for suppliers to provide ancillary or support services such as installation and debugging. Other things being equal, then, local outsourcing is a better solution than distantoutsourcing, especially for advanced and specialized inputs involving embedded technology, information, and service content.Formal alliances with distant suppliers can mitigate some of the disadvantages of distant outsourcing. But all formal alliances involve their own complex bargaining and governance problems and can inhibit a company’s flexibility. The close, informal relationships possible among companies in a cluster are often a superior Arrangement.In many cases, clusters are also a better alternative to vertical pared with in-house units, outside specialists are often more cost effective and responsive, not only in component production but also in services such as training. Although extensive vertical integration may have once been the norm, a fast-changing environment can render vertical integration inefficient, ineffective, and inflexible.Even when some inputs are best sourced from a distance, clusters offer advantages. Suppliers trying to penetrate a large, concentrated market will price more aggressively, knowing that as they do so they can realize efficiencies in marketing and in service.Working against a cluster’s advantages in assembling resources is the possibility that competition will render them more expensive and scarce. But companies do have the alternative of outsourcing many inputs from other locations, which tends to limit potential cost penalties. More important, clusters increase not only the demand for specialized inputs but also their supply.Access to Specialized Information. Extensive market, technical, and competitive information accumulates within a cluster, and members have preferred access to it. In addition, personal relationships and community ties foster trust and facilitate the flow of information. These conditions make information more transferable.Complementarities. A host of linkages among cluster members results in a whole greater than the sum of its parts. In a typical tourism cluster, for example, the quality of a visitor’s experience depends not only on the appeal of the primary attraction but also on the quality and efficiency of complementary businesses such as hotels, restaurants, shopping outlets, and transportation facilities. Because members of the cluster are mutually dependent, good performance by one can boost the success of the others.Complementarities come in many forms. The most obvious is when products complement one another in meeting customers’ needs, as the tourism example illustrates. Another form is the coordination of activities across companies to optimize their collective productivity. In wood products, for instance, the efficiency of sawmills depends on a reliable supply of high-quality timber and the ability to put all the timber to use – in furniture (highest quality), pallets and boxes (lower quality), or wood chips (lowest quality). In the early 1990s, Portuguese sawmills suffered from poor timber quality because local landowners did not invest in timber management. Hence most timber was processed for use in pallets and boxes, a lower-value use that limited the price paid to landowners. Substantial improvement in productivity was possible, but only if several parts of the cluster changed simultaneously.Logging operations, for example, had to modify cutting and sorting procedures, while sawmills had to develop the capacity to process wood in more sophisticated ways. Coordination to develop standard wood classifications and measures was an important enabling step. Geographically dispersed companies are less likely to recognize and capture such linkages.Other complementarities arise in marketing. A cluster frequently enhances the reputation of a location in a particular field, making it more likely that buyers will turn to a vendor based there.Italy’s strong reputation for fashion and design, for example, benefits companies involved in leather goods, footwear, apparel, and accessories. Beyond reputation, cluster members often profit from a variety of joint marketing mechanisms, such as company referrals, trade fairs, trade magazines, and marketing delegations.Finally, complementarities can make buying from a cluster more attractive for customers. Visiting buyers can see many vendors in a single trip. They also may perceive their buying risk to be lower because one location provides alternative suppliers. That allows them to multisource or to switch vendors if the need arises. Hong Kong thrives as a source of fashion apparel in part for this reason.Access to Institutions and Public Goods. Investments made by government or other public institutions– such as public spending for specialized infrastructure or educational programs – can enhance a company’s productivity. The ability to recruit employees trained at local programs, for example, lowers the cost of internal training. Other quasi-public goods, such as the cluster’s information and technology pools and its reputation, arise as natural by-products of competition.It is not just governments that create public goods that enhance productivity in the private sector. Investments by companies –in training programs, infrastructure, quality centers, testing laboratories, and so on – also contribute to increased productivity. Such private investments are often made collectively because cluster participants recognize the potential for collective benefits.Better Motivation and Measurement. Local rivalry is highly motivating. Peer pressure amplifies competitive pressure within a cluster,even among noncompeting or indirectly competing companies. Pride and the desire to look good in the local community spur executives to attempt to outdo one another.Clusters also often make it easier to measure and compare performances because local rivals share general circumstances – for example, labor costs and local market access – and they perform similar activities. Companies within clusters typically have intimate knowledge of their suppliers’ costs. Managers are able to compare costs and employees’performance with other local companies. Additionally, financial institutions can accumulate knowledge about the cluster that can be used to monitor performance.Clusters and Innovation. In addition to enhancing productivity, clusters play a vital role in a company’s ongoing ability to innovate. Some of the same characteristics that enhance current productivity have an even more dramatic effect on innovation and productivity growth.Because sophisticated buyers are often part of a cluster, companies inside clusters usually have a better window on the market than isolated competitors do. Computer companies based in Silicon Valley and Austin, Texas, for example, plug into customer needs and trends with a speed difficult to match by companies located elsewhere. The ongoing relationships with other entities within the cluster also help companies to learn early about evolving technology, component and machinery availability, service and marketing concepts, and so on. Such learning is facilitated by the ease of making site visits and frequent face-to-face contact.Clusters do more than make opportunities for innovation more visible. They also provide the capacity and the flexibility to act rapidly. A company within a cluster often can source what it needs to implement innovations more quickly. Local suppliers and partners can and do get closely involved in the innovation process, thus ensuring a better match with customers’ requirements.Companies within a cluster can experiment at lower cost and can delay large commitments until they are more assured that a given innovation will pan out. In contrast, a company relying ondistant suppliers faces greater challenges in every activity it coordinates with other organizations –in contracting, for example, or securing delivery or obtaining associated technical and service support. Innovation can be even harder in vertically integrated companies, especially in those that face difficult trade-offs if the innovation erodes the value of in-house assets or if current products or processes must be maintained while new ones are developed.Reinforcing the other advantages for innovation is the sheer pressure – competitive pressure, peer pressure, constant comparison – that occurs in a cluster. Executives vie with one another to set their companies apart. For all these reasons, clusters can remain centers of innovation for decades.Clusters and New Business Formation.It is not surprising, then, that many new companies grow up within an existing cluster rather than at isolated locations. New suppliers, for example, proliferate within a cluster because a concentrated customer base lowers their risks and makes it easier for them to spot market opportunities. Moreover, because developed clusters comprise related industries that normally draw on common or very similar inputs, suppliers enjoy expanded opportunities.Clusters are conducive to new business formation for a variety of reasons. Individuals working within a cluster can more easily perceive gaps in products or services around which they can build businesses. Beyond that, barriers to entry are lower than elsewhere. Needed assets, skills, inputs, and staff are often readily available at the cluster location, waiting to be assembled into a new enterprise.Local financial institutions and investors, already familiar with the cluster, may require a lower risk premium on capital. In addition, the cluster often presents a significant local market, and an entrepreneur may benefit from established relationships. All of these factors reduce the perceived risks of entry – and of exit, should the enterprise fail.The formation of new businesses within a cluster is part of a positive feedback loop. An expanded cluster amplifies all the benefits I have described – it increases the collective pool of competitive resources, which benefits a ll the cluster’s members. The net result is that companies in the cluster advance relative to rivals at other locations.英文文献中文翻译（二）来源：哈佛商业评论Vol.76第6期 1998年作者：迈克·E. 波特出版时间：1998簇群与新竞争经济学(美）迈克·E. 波特为什么簇群对竞争至关重要?现代竞争取决于生产力, 而非取决于投入或单个企业的规模。
企业战略管理(MBA全景教程之一)试题和教程全有
学习课程:企业战略管理(MBA全景教程之一）单选题44 B 国际战略C 多元化战略45 D 多国本土化战略第1讲战略管理(一) —-企业战略的概述【本讲重点】企业为什么需要战略战略性思考的要点战略管理的任务愿景和使命企业的目标企业为什么需要战略企业如果没有战略，就好像没有舵的轮船，只会在原地打转。
有人做过统计,有战略的企业和没有战略的企业在经营效益上是大不相同的。
一些企业现在没有战略或者没有明确的战略，经济效益也很不错。
然而，经济效益来自于企业管理者很好的思考，并不等于企业管理者真的没有战略，就像很多著名的企业一样，企业的良好效益离不开高层管理人员对企业的形势所作的充分的分析，所以说企业管理者是有战略的，只是没有明确地提出,或者说战略没有写在纸上。
对于战略，最根本的问题是要考虑到环境和市场的变化，如果是上市公司,这种变化会直接表现为企业市场价值的变化，这里有一个图可以看出来：图1—1 IBM、西屋和数字设备市场价值的变化比较图从图1-1可以看出美国三家大的公司，从1983年到1993年10年期间，在市场价值上的变化。
西屋公司和数字设备公司，在市场价值上都损失了很多,什么原因使它们造成这样的损失，使得市场价值发生这么大变化？这里引起一个思考,就是很多现象可以来表述我们企业的变化,△第二是要考虑如何适应变化。
战略管理最重要的一个方面就是适应,根据环境的变化提出自己的思考。
△第三是考虑到在变化中如何求生存。
△第四是要在变化中获取胜利，而不仅仅是生存的问题.并由此成为行业的领先者，成为世界级的企业。
当然在变化中，最可怕的是自己的思维定势。
高层管理人员在变化的环境中，不能以不变应万变，而需要有自己新的思路，以提出应变的措施，不能固守在自己过去的成绩或者过去旧的理念上。
战略性思考的要点我们现在何处走向何方我们如何做到这一步企业面临的形势现处何处，实际上就是企业面临什么样的形势，即企业处于什么样的一种市场环境、竞争的激烈程度、目前的业务是什么？例如可口可乐公司，它的业务有软饮料业务、硬饮料业务,也有快餐业务,它在快餐、娱乐和饮料方面面临怎样的一种竞争环境?而可口可乐的竞争对手百事可乐，同样也进入到快餐业。
外文翻译--战略成本管理的供应链采购管理的前景(节选)
中文2969字外文翻译原文：Strategic Cost Management in the Supply Chain:A Purchasing andSupply Management PerspectiveIn the course of this study, it became clear that effective strategic cost management has both strategic and tactical aspects that must be well executed in order to deliver results. The strategic framework and tactical elements of cost management as they affect PSM are shown , which also shows the soft and hard results of effective cost management as related to PSM. The actual processes in which cross-functional teams engage to support strategic cost management include many tactical elements. In most organizations studied, the strategic cost management process occurs as an integral part of the new product development process or the strategic sourcing process. It is not a ―stand-alone activity,‖ but rather central part of supplier selection and supply base management. Some of the processes and tools that are part of the strategic cost management process are listed in Table 2, and presented in more depth in the body of the report. A cross-disciplinary team of two or more individuals, including PSM, was the norm for carrying out strategic cost management in the five core organizations studied. Often, the cost management activities were part of another, larger process, such as a strategic sourcing event, a new product development process, or part of an on- going continuous improvement effort. In exploring Figure 1 in detail, it is clear that the cross-functional team that works on strategic cost management has numerous high-level issues that it must consider. First, the price and feature needs of the ultimate customer must be heavily weighted, or the result will be a product that customers cannot afford, that does not meet their needs, or both.Organizational Support at all Levels: While PSM is held to a high level of accountability for strategic cost management and delivering bottom-line savings, PSMcannot be successful without extensive support from others throughout the organization. First and foremost, top management support is critical. It sets the tone for the attitude that everyone in the organization has toward strategic cost management. Through the business unit and functional metrics, top management determines the nature and extent of cost management focus as an organizational priority. Based on this, PSM needs the support of other functional areas cooperating teams that have a primary or second goal of managing supplier costs. The participants on cross-functional teams need to be held accountable for the identification of opportunities and delivery of results. PSM also needs specific support from cost management specialists, who are assigned to support PSM and cross- functional teams in supplier cost analysis. These individuals may be part of PSM or part of finance. The critical requirement is that they have the charter and the qualifications to effectively support supplier cost analysis and management. Supplier cost management must be viewed as one of, if not the most important aspect of their jobs. This focus is critical because supplier cost analysis is often specialized and time consuming. PSM and cross-functional teams need to know that there are internal experts upon whom they can call to support their supplier cost management efforts. Without such support, the analysis may be too complex and time consuming to be done as part of PSM’s or the cross-functional team’s regular activities.Supplier Cost Management is a Good Investment: The suggested approach for dedicating resources to supplier cost management may seem cost prohibitive. However, the organizations studied unanimously agree that they receive extremely high returns on their investments in supplier cost management efforts. The money spent on supplier should-cost analysis, supplier development, and other tools and approaches pays for itself many times over in terms of reducing costs and bottom-line prices paid to suppliers. For large Fortune 500 companies, successful strategic cost management may mean the addition of dedicated personnel to focus on supplier cost management. For smaller organizations which might not have as great an on-going need, or as great an asset base, successful strategic cost management may mean diverting resources from PSM and/or finance, and retraining one or more people tobecome internal experts on some of the cost management and analysis tools mentioned in this study.Support for Strategic Cost Management Theory: As mentioned in the brief review of the literature below, strategic cost management theory embodies understanding and managing the organization’s supply chain, the cost drivers and the customer value proposition. It is a matter of simultaneously understanding and managing these elements in relation to each other. The organizations investigated do an excellent job of understanding and managing their internal cost drivers and supplier-facing cost drivers. Two of the organizations that have a strong management focus on customer relationships also do an excellent job of managing the customer-facing cost drivers. It is not clear from the study how well these organizations understand the customers’ value proposition and translate that across internal functions and to their suppliers. Except in the case of LCP, and to some extent Deere, the translation mechanism is indirect, through one or more functions that may have direct customer contact. This represents an opportunity for potential improvement. Related to this, as mentioned in the section on supply chain perspective, most of the organizations studied do not generally have a seamless view of the supply chain from customer to supplier; the customer view and supplier view are still managed separately in different organizations, with some interface in the middle. Such coordination would be a complex undertaking, and might require a change in team structure. The organization that comes closest to embodying a true supply chain perspective is LCP, with its product supply structure. While the argument could be made that it is more important for LCP to be close to its customers because it is a consumer products firm, all types of customers are becoming more demanding (Fawcett and Magnan, 2001). LCP’s product supply structure has a Product Supply Vice President who reports into the Business Unit President. Also reporting to the VP of Product Supply are PSM, engineering, manufacturing, customer service/logistics, and finance. Deere has a similar structure, although there is a mix of direct and indirect reporting relationships.The customer information comes to the team through a secondary source, oftenfiltered through the eyes of marketing, sales, or a customer relationship manager. The corporate objectives regarding strategic cost management and cost savings goals must also be considered in terms of meeting the objectives of the team and the business unit or units that the team supports. Next, each organization utilized cost management specialists, for whom all or a major part of their jobs was to support cost analysis, help develop models, and ensure integrity in the data and the analysis results. In some cases, these individuals reported to PSM; in others, they reported to corporate or business unit finance. The key commonality across cost management specialists in these organizations was the expertise, credibility and charter to support supplier cost management. Even with the first three direct inputs, a fourth is needed: a reward an measurement system that supports cost management. The extent to which such a system exists is a function of the corporation’s cost consciou sness culture. Is everyone in the organization held accountable for cost management? Is it part of their performance reviews, annual goal setting, and overall expectations? The stronger the cost-consciousness culture, the greater the support for the team and the commitment to its results. In the center of Figure 1, the cross-functional team engages in activities designed to reduce the organization’s cost, such as identifying cost drivers and changing processes using a total cost of ownership approach, engaging in on-line reverse auctions, or working with suppliers on development. The way that the organizations studied use these processes is detailed in the body of the report. Based on the strategic cost management processes, they aim to achieve a better supply base, defined as one that has a lower cost (sometimes only a lower price), and performs as well or better than it did before the strategic cost management process. The process should also support customer satisfaction by resulting in the same or lower prices for the same or better quality and service. This should in turn lead to measurable, bottom line savings, which should translate into higher profit, higher economic value-added for the firm, and higher earnings per share. In general, when PSM thinks about achieving results, the focus is still on bottom line cost savings rather than how its performance is reflected in the overall corporation’s results.Characteristics of Companies with Effective Supply Chain Strategic CostManagement Approaches: The key characteristics that organizations with effective strategic cost management systems should display are shown in Table 3. Table 3 was developed as a composite ideal of the best characteristics of the core supply chain organizations studied. It is not representative of any one organization. There are specific attributes related to way the organization understands and manages the relationship with the customer, its supplier, and related to their own internal organization. The key organizational characteristics have been divided into cultural/organizational issues, measurement issues, and information/communication issues.Internal requirements/characteristics–Both the customer-facing and supplier-facing characteristics stem from inside the organization. The internal culture and organizational structure create the framework for effective supply chain cost management. Internally, an effective cost-management culture is characterized by top management support for cost management and a high level of cost and value consciousness throughout the company. In addition to dedicated resources to support supply chain cost management, cross-functional teams are used to identify and implement cost management approaches. Rather than an afterthought, cost management is an integral part of all key supplier processes. The right type of reward and measurement systems is also critical to reinforce the cost management culture. It is critical that the organizations measure what they want to achieve, and the metrics are aligned throughout the organization, reflecting cost goals as well as customer value and supplier performance goals. Supply chain performance metrics and results must be published and receive high visibility throughout the organization. This requires excellent information systems and communication. Part of this communication includes awareness throughout the organization of customer needs and the organization’s value proposition in serving the customer.Customer-facing knowledge– Supply chain management is all about meeting the needs of customers better than the competition does. In terms of the organization’s culture, the company needs to be customer centric, valuing its customers and working with them to meet their needs while improving the efficiency and effectiveness of thesupply chain. From a measurement standpoint, the organization needs to understand the needs of the end customer as well as market trends, and respond to these proactively. From an information and communication perspective, it is critical that the c ustomers’ needs and the organization’s plans for meeting those needs be communicated throughout the organization. This allows everyone in the organization to align his or her efforts around the customer.Supplier facing knowledge/characteristics—Effective supply chain strategic cost management relies heavily on suppliers. Culturally, this means a continuous improvement focus on working with suppliers, including early supplier involvement. It also means supporting supplier’s continuous improvement with res ources and training. From a measurement and reward standpoint, the organization must properly segment its supply base to use the appropriate types of supplier relationships and cost management techniques. It also needs to measure supplier performance, and reward the suppliers who perform well. Clearly communicating expectations and needs to suppliers is essential. The organizations studied in this research excel in the third column of Table 3: supplier-facing knowledge. The segment their supply bases, have dedicated supplier cost management resources, emphasize continuous improvement, and in many cases develop the suppliers by providing resources to support continuous improvement. They reward their top suppliers by sharing cost savings or giving them more business. They are working on improving communications and early supplier involvement. One strong recommendation is that they invest more resources in supplier training. In general, their first tier suppliers do not have as well- developed approaches to supplier cost management. Since these core organizations would prefer not to work on supplier cost management beyond their first tier suppliers, the first tier suppliers would likely be much more effective if they improved their cost management systems, and worked more closely with their suppliers.Source: Lisa M.Ellram,2002. ―Strategic Cost Management In the supply chain: Apurchasing and supply management perspective‖ .pp47-69.译文：战略成本管理的供应链:采购管理的前景在研究的过程中，战略成本管理的战略和战术方面都必须执行得好才能产生明显的效果。
家族企业人力资源管理研究文献综述（5篇范文）
家族企业人力资源管理研究文献综述（5篇范文）第一篇：家族企业人力资源管理研究文献综述家族企业人力资源管理研究文献综述【摘要】本文重点对国内外华人家族企业特别是中国家族企业人力资源管理相关研究进行了回顾，分析总结了家族企业定义、企业接班人和人力资源管理研究成果，以期对中国家族企业的治理结构和制度安排有所借鉴。
【关键词】家族企业定义接班人人力资源管理一、前言家族企业作为世界上最具普遍意义的企业组织形态，在世界经济中有着举足轻重的地位。
中国家族企业作为社会主义市场经济重要组成部分，对我国经济发展做出了重要贡献。
然而，中国家族企业发展现状依然不容乐观。
家族企业短命、接班人危机等问题始终困扰着家族企业老板。
2010年爆发的国美危机再次向中国家族企业敲响了警钟。
国内外学者们对家族企业也进行了多方面研究。
目前，家族企业的企业管理研究主要集中在三个方面：生产管理、财务管理与战略管理（苏启林、欧晓明，2002）[1]。
对家族企业人力资源研究极少，而且主要集中于接班人问题与人力资源保留等方面。
本文主要从家族企业定义、接班人问题和人力资源管理问题对家族企业进行了综述和总结。
二、正文：（一）家族企业定义研究Chua,Chrisman和Sharma的研究表明，一些关于家族企业的定义仅在家族是否拥有所有权或管理控制权方面有所要求，如Barns 和Hershon把个人或家族拥有控股权的企业看作是家族企业[2]。
而在Corbetta看来，一个家族企业必须具备的条件是：有血缘关系、紧密的姻亲关系、稳定的联盟关系的一个（或一个以上）家族拥有足够大的风险资本股份，这种风险资本股份足以使家族成员可以掌握企业的战略决策权[3]。
从文献整体上看，虽然多数学者都多少要求家族企业拥有控股权，且认为由一个核心家族拥有和控制的企业是家族企业。
但他们对所有权的具体比例要求却各执己见。
Donckels 和Frohlich认为，只有一个家庭或家族的成员拥有企业财产所有权或股权超过60%以上时，这种企业才是家族企业[4]。
企业战略管理结课研究论文
企业战略管理结课研究论文企业战略管理是对企业战略的设计、选择、控制和实施，直到达到企业战略总目标的全过程。
下面是店铺带来的关于企业战略管理研究论文的内容，欢迎阅读参考!企业战略管理研究论文篇1：《试论企业战略管理》0引言在中国，“战略”一词起初源于军事，最早是分开使用的。
“战”是指战斗和战争，“略”是指筹略、策略、计划。
而在西方，“战略”则来源于希腊文“Strategos”，其含义是“将军”，也是一个与军事有关的词。
现在，“战略”一词被引申至经济、政治、文化、社会等领域，其涵义泛指统领性的、根本性的、全局性的、左右胜败的谋略、方案和对策。
几十年前，“战略”一词被逐渐引入到企业管理中来。
广义的战略管理，是指运用战略对整个企业进行管理;而狭义则是指对战略管理的决策、实施、控制和修正进行的管理。
不论是广义还是狭义的定义，企业战略管理都具有全局性、根本性和长远性的特点。
管理创新是指企业将新的管理要素(如管理方法、手段、管理模式等)引入组织管理实践，从而转化为有价值的产品、服务或作业方法的过程。
即通过创造一种新型的、有更高效率的资源整合的范式，对企业管理思想、管理方法、管理工具和管理模式进行创新，从而有效整合资源，以实现组织目标的全过程管理或细节管理，是企业面对技术和市场的变化，所作出的相应的改进和调整。
学术界关于创新管理的研究较为丰富，并总结了一些比较典型的创新管理模式，如技术推动模式、市场需求拉动模式、技术与市场的耦合互动模式、集成模式、系统集成与网络化模式、开放式创新模式、全面创新管理模式等。
然而，关于企业战略管理创新方面的研究还比较少。
因此，本文试图通过探讨企业战略管理创新现状，分析企业战略管理的必要性，并提出相应的策略，为激励企业在复杂多变的市场竞争中取胜提供理论参考。
1、企业管理现状改革开放三十多年来，中国已逐步步入全球经济一体化、网络化、信息化和市场化的时代，工商业迅速发展，社会进步明显，尤其是科技与生产都取得了举世瞩目的成就。
(完整版)哈佛分析框架外文文献及翻译
经营分析与估值克雷沙·G.帕利普保罗·M.希利摘自书籍“Business Analysis and Valuation”第五版第一章节1.简介本章的目的是勾勒出一个全面的财务报表分析框架。
因为财务报表提供给公共企业经济活动最广泛使用的数据，投资者和其他利益相关者依靠财务报告评估计划企业和管理绩效率。
各种各样的问题可以通过财务状况及经营分析解决，如下面的示例所示：一位证券分析师可能会对问：“我的公司有多好？这家公司是否符合我的期望？如果没有，为什么不呢？鉴于我对公司当前和未来业绩的评估，该公司的股票价值是多少？”一位信贷员可能需要问：“这家公司贷款给这家公司有什么贷款？公司管理其流动性如何？公司的经营风险是什么？公司的融资和股利政策所产生的附加风险是什么？“一位管理顾问可能会问：“公司经营的行业结构是什么？该策略通过在工业各个企业追求的是什么？不同企业在行业中的相对表现是什么？”公司经理可能会问：“我的公司是正确的估值的投资者吗？是我们在通信程序中有足够的投资者来促进这一过程？”财务报表分析是一项有价值的活动，当管理者在一个公司的战略和各种体制因素完成后，他们不可能完全披露这些信息。
在这一设置中，外部分析师试图通过分析财务报表数据来创建“中端信息”，从而获得有价值的关于该公司目前业绩和未来前景的展望。
了解财务报表分析所做的贡献，这是很重要的理解在资本市场的运作，财务报告的作用，形成财务报表制度的力量。
因此，我们首先简要说明这些力量，然后我们讨论的步骤，分析师必须执行，以提取信息的财务报表，并提供有价值的预测。
2.从经营活动到财务报表企业管理者负责从公司的环境中获取物理和财务资源，并利用它们为公司的投资者创造价值。
当公司在资本成本的超额投资时，就创造了价值。
管理者制定经营战略，实现这一目标，并通过业务活动实施。
企业的经营活动受其经济环境和经营战略的影响。
经济环境包括企业的产业、投入和产出的市场，以及公司经营的规章制度。
《企业发展战略研究文献综述3400字》
企业发展战略研究国内外文献综述1.1国内研究现状20世纪80年代以后，中国的企业的管理层从外国企业家身上接触到了非常先进的战略管理理念。
从此，中国的战略管理研究逐渐发展起来。
李婧（2007）通过理论研究和案例研究方法，分析战略整合要素模型，结合协同理论。
结论是共生性并购后公司想要通过战略整合实现战略协同作用。
在战略整合过程中，他们必须紧密结合协同作用，不断提高核心发展力。
刘乐铮（2012）将通过使用价值链模型分析跨国公司整合的价值链。
通过价值链结构这个工具可让我们更好地了解公司参与经济活动的过程。
他主要通过分析中国目前的状况，研究为何中国公司处于价值链的低端部分。
结论是要克服这一低级困境，公司和政府必须共同努力，公司通过提高创新能力，扩大市场影响力和品牌影响力。
林毅夫、陈斌开（2017）认为企业发展战略是企业以未来为基点，为寻求和维持持久竞争优势而做出的有关全局的、科学的重大筹划和谋略，是一个企业在市场竞争中占有主动权和谋求大发展、大跨越的关键。
每一个企业都应该根据自身的特点和优势，把未来的生存与发展作为制定战略的出发点和落脚点。
何燕（2017）以YS公司并购SJ公司为例子，从三个方面对合并和收购的整合进行了有效地分析。
结论是只有通过系统的、有效的制度整合、资源整合和文化融合，从能最终保障战略实施的成功。
项保华（2017）认为战略就是抓关键、迎机会、避陷阱，必须认清形势，不同情境有不同的做法。
集团战略的重点在于：开放心态、积极探索、扎根市场、专注创新、淡定取舍、与时俱进。
范志刚、吴晓波（2018）指出联合战略具体又可分为横向联合和纵向联合战略。
横向联合战略就是根据中小企业发展的客观需要，通过与其他企业建立协作关系，改变中小企业在竞争中的不利地位，弥补资源不足的一种主动性选择，纵向联合战略包括企业进人到产品销售或深加工领域的前向一体化战略和企业进人到原材料供应领域的后向一体化战略。
而中小企业可采用依附型战略，与产品销售领域中的大企业建立紧密的协作关系，定向地给大企业提供产品，通过大企业的发展壮大而获得生存和发展。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
中文2715字外文翻译：家族企业战略管理：过去的研究和未来的挑战（节选）原文来源：CALIS外文期刊网译文正文：包含家庭成员在战略实施过程中,家族企业有选择使用家族或非家族成员的自由。
兰兹伯格(1983)建议给所有的亲戚提供学习的机会,但公司只能录用那些最有能力的人。
从战略管理的角度来看可以作为一个起点，但也应考虑家庭成员纳入或排除在政治方面的事务(麦克米兰和琼斯,1986)。
总的来说,研究发现家庭成员是比非家族成员有更多的产出(羅森布莱特,deMik、安德森、和约翰逊,1985分;基尔和基尔,1987)。
然而,在劳动补偿的问题上,罗森布莱特得出这样的结论:家庭成员相信他们更劳累,薪酬较低。
然而基尔确认为家庭成员能得到更高的工资和额外的补贴。
这一问题矛盾还值得进一步研究,因为如果不能意识到和处理好认知与现实之间的明显差异，可能会导致战略实施出现问题。
相反，在基于家的企业工作者的研究中，赫克和沃克(1993)发现家庭成员和无关的工作者比相关的工作者(即，表兄弟)有更好的绩效。
他们提醒说通过家庭关系而就业的亲戚可能是最不能干的。
虽然它提供了家业企业的一个聘用战略，这样研究还有待于在大家庭企业中去证实。
我们也知道否认亲属就业机会导致的后果。
因为招聘决定是一个公司人力资源决策中最重要的部分，为了公司的业绩，进一步研究这个问题，显然需要的。
从一个战略管理方面，对于家族中妇女的研究是另一个卓有成效的区域。
各种各样的研究报告认为妇女不适合被考虑成为家族企业的首席执行官。
其他研究员建议，女性成员作为家庭生活的看守者比男性成员对家业的有更好的效果。
对于妇女自己来说，就应该获得适当的企业技能、训练和经验。
如何最好地训练和部署家庭女性成员的商业、政治影响以及职业发展机会和对家族企业绩效的影响,在这些领域都值得关注。
代际问题虽然他们是密切的继承关系，但我们已列为战略实施的一部分，而不是因为他们对公司日常的日常运作的潜在影响战略制定的代际问题。
许多在这方面所做的研究一直是父亲和儿子之间的关系，明显是片面的。
研究人员报告说，创始人是一般的专制、不愿分享权力）和战略保守的。
另一方面，儿子一般不耐烦战略转变，个人独立性，并希望有机会证明自己的价值。
绝大多数的家族文献似乎认为，冲突是有害的，破坏性的。
这可能是真的。
然而，冲突也可以驱动改变的力量。
判决之前的研究，从战略管理的角度研究的程度和类型的冲突发生在双方家庭和商业情况。
更重要的是，这种研究可以探讨冲突影响战略的实施与企业绩效。
杜马（1989）得出结论认为，父子关系，不能一概而论，还要推广到父女关系。
她建议，父女关系更加和谐和性质不同。
女儿愿意承担起照顾父亲责任的作用。
因此，他们不太可能像儿子一样在与父亲的冲突中出现权力和控制的问题。
这是非常重要的，因为它提供了一个基础比较研究代际关系的基础。
在什么样的背景下考虑战略的实施？通过仔细匹配父子、父女情况类似的企业，研究可以回答这样的问题。
当一个领导者离开时，离开风格可能有所不同。
索南费尔德和斯彭斯（1989）确定了四个领导人的出发风格：君主，将军，省长和大使。
他们认为，一个家族企业的领导者最佳离开方式是大使风格，谁领导的组织中等水平的增长，认识到下台的时间，并保持与组织的顾问接触。
大使风格虽然可以出现概念优越，这并没有被经验证明。
无论是或不是，现有的文献提供了作为离境领导人如何可以说服遵循适当离境的风格，或继承人可以减少一个谁也不能这样说服领导的有害影响的一些线索。
兄弟姐妹的竞争弗里德曼（1991）认为，尽管竞争是针对于父母的爱和关注的竞争。
这是父母的反应，主要影响子女之间的相互关系。
建议解决不和谐的兄弟关系，包括鼓励开放沟通和讨论关于他们的对手，并让他们学会换位思考，并鼓励他们重新确定目前相互之间的关系。
从家族企业的观念出发，然而，我们并不知道是否或者何时，在家族业务中兄弟姐妹的竞争是不和谐的。
研究人员认为，什么是好的，家庭和谐是很好的业务，但这不一定是事实。
同时了解什么是良好的家庭是重要的，家族企业也需要了解权衡参与维持家庭和谐。
这是战略管理的角度来说。
例如，莱文森（1971）建议，如果孩子们提供的每个操作导致兄弟姐妹的竞争可以减弱。
这可能会或可能无法正常工作，因为每个操作的成功或失败取决于家庭是否和睦。
例如，如果位置是成功的关键，兄弟姐妹的竞争可以增加竞争的结果作为一个负责操作的最佳地点。
操作和控制决定一个家族企业的多元化，也影响了公司的盈利能力和竞争力。
研究表明，家族企业是不水平分化的，而且比非家族企业更依赖于非正式的控制。
因此，家族企业要更成功就需要一个精简和明确的结构。
大多数的研究主要是家族企业的组结构演变和变化，然而，与专业管理的转型有关。
霍兰德和埃曼通过制定进化模型找出了三种不同的方法。
第一种方法涉及公司的发展阶段和家族的代际传承。
第二个侧重于企业的需求和公司的关键个人的生命周期之间的相互作用。
第三种观点是企业、家庭和关键个人三者之间之间的相互作用。
在41家企业的实证研究中，霍兰和奥利弗找到由Ward提出的三阶段模型的支持。
在所有这些模型的基本主题是非家庭成员的责任和权力的委派在不同阶段的显著变化。
一个家族企业，因为经济的增长，在家族内缺乏管理技能，准备继承、或变更业务的规范和价值观，可能需要专业化和委托权威。
但是，业主经理人可能不愿因缺乏正规训练和管理技术知识不足以及昂贵的开销，害怕失去控制或认为专业化是不必要的。
从战略管理的其他研究角度和途径来看，可能会导致其他的问题。
例如，如果一些家族企业缺乏管理技能，希望能成功地转型到专业化的管理，他们应该尝试这样做吗？是否有其他的替代办法？如果有的话，是什么？此外，当业务需求和家族的欲望冲突时，公司的短期和长期业绩哪个更重要？综述正如上述讨论清楚地表明，家族企业的文化中描述了战略的实施以及家族对它的影响。
但是，不幸的是，它并不能显示出一个特定家庭因素是如何阻碍或者帮助企业实现其目标和宗旨的。
例如，我们不知道，是否家族企业与外部董事会成员能够做出与其他人不同的、更好的战略决策。
因为生命周期模型并不适用于每个企业。
我们需要了解，在影响家族企业发展的因素中，哪些对组织绩效的影响最大。
研究表明如果有性别差异，还需要直接知道，如果有性别差异，从商业的角度，如何采用有效的策略在事实上干预和改善兄弟之间的关系。
尽管在大多数文献的内容中，我们仍然对家族成员如何影响企业中的非家族成员，或者是否这些困扰是作为策略有效实施的促成因素还是是阻碍因素知之甚少。
记载的专制制度的创始人管理的家族企业的研究表明，如果他们还能向我们展示出专制制度在有效或失调时，这些家族企业和非家族企业的实际情况是否是不同的，那就能作出更重大的贡献。
总之，在我们知道在任何情况下，什么样的组织结构、系统和流程在家族企业中是最有效的之前，都需要做很多的工作。
原文正文：Strategic Management of the Family Business: Past Research and Future Challenges（节选）Pramodita Sharma, James J. Chrisman, Jess H. ChuaInclusion of family members.In implementing strategy, a family firm has the choice of using family or non-family members. Lansberg (1983) advises that all relatives be given opportunities to learn, but only the most competent should be taken into the firm. A strategic management perspective could take this as a starting point, but should also consider the political aspects of the inclusion or exclusion of family members in the business (MacMillan and Jones,1986).In general, research has found that family members are more productive than non-family members (Rosenblatt, deMik, Anderson, and Johnson, 1985; Kirchhoff and Kirchhoff, 1987). However, in examining compensation practices, Rosenblatt et al. conclude that family members believe they are overworked and underpaid, while Kirchhoff and Kirchhoff suggests that family members are given higher salaries and perquisites. This contradiction deserves more study, because if not recognized and dealt with, the apparent discrepancy between perceptions and reality can lead to problems in strategy implementation.By contrast, in a study of home-based business workers, Heck and Walker (1993) discover that family members and unrelated workers are more productive than related workers (e.g., cousins). They warn that relatives who depend on family ties for employment could be the least competent. Although it suggests a hiring strategy for family businesses, such research has yet to be replicated in larger family businesses. We also know little about the political ramifications of denying relatives employment opportunities. Since hiring decisions are among the most important human resource decisions a firm can make, further studies of this issue, in the context of a firm’s performance, are clearly needed.From a strategic management perspective, the study of women in family businesses is another fruitful area for research. Various studies report that women are not generally considered for the job of chief executive in family businesses (Hollander and Bukowitz, 1990; Salganicoff, 1990; Upton and Sexton, 1987). Other researchers suggest that female members’ positions as thecaretakers of family concerns can give them a better understanding of the family business than the male members have (Hollander and Bukowitz, 1990).Women, for their part, have been advised to acquire appropriate business skills,training, and experience (Salganicoff, 1990). How best to train and deploy female family members in the business, the political implications of their inclusion,exclusion, and career opportunities, and the impact of all this on the performance of family firm, are areas that deserve more attention.Intergenerational issues.Although they are closely akin to succession, we have classified intergenerational issues as part of strategy implementation rather than strategy formulation because of their potential impact on the day-to-day operations of the firm. Much of the research done in this area has been on relationships between fathers and sons, which Levinson (1971) observes is ambivalent at best.Researchers report that founders are generally authoritarian, unwilling to share power (Birley, 1986; Donckels and Frohlick, 1991; Geeraerts, 1984), and strategically conservative (Levinson, 1974). On the other hand, sons are generally impatient for strategic change, personal independence, and an opportunity to prove their worth (Seymour, 1993). Most of the familybusiness literature seems to assume that conflict is unhealthy and disruptive.This may be true. However, conflict can also be a driving force for change. Before passing judgment, research from a strategic management perspective could examine the extent and types of conflicts that occur in the context of both family and business situations. More importantly, such research could investigate the impact of conflicts on strategy implementation and firm performance.Dumas (1989) concludes that the father-son relationship cannot be generalized to the father-daughter dyad. She suggests that the father-daughter relationship is more harmonious and different in nature. Daughters willingly assume the role of caretakers, both of the father and the business. As a consequence, they are less likely than sons to be in conflict with their fathers over the issues of power and control. This insight is very important because it provides a basis for comparative research on intergenerational relationships. Is—or when is—conflict or accommodation preferable in the context of strategy implementation? By careful matching father-son and father-daughter situations in similar businesses, research may be able to answer such questions.When a leader does let go, departure styles may vary. Sonnenfeld and Spence (1989) identify four departure styles of leaders: monarchs, generals, governors, and ambassadors. They suggest that the best departure style for a family business leader is that of the ambassador, who leads the organization to moderate levels of growth, recognizes the time to step down, and maintains contact with the organization as advisor. While the ambassador style can appear to be conceptually superior, this has not been empirically proven. And whether it is or not, the existing literature provides few clues as to how a departing leader can be persuaded to follow the appropriate departure style, or how successors can minimize the deleterious effects of a leader who cannot beso persuaded.Sibling rivalry.Friedman (1991) argues that although competition for parental love and attention spurs sibling rivalry, it is the parents’ response that is the major influence on the children’s rel ationships with one another. Suggestions to resolve dysfunctional sibling relationships include encouraging open communication and discussions among the siblings about the roots of their rivalries, establishing empathy by inviting them to imagine their roles reversed,and encouraging them to redefine current relationships (Friedman, 1991; Lundberg, 1994). From the point of view of a family’s business, however, we do not know if or when sibling rivalry is dysfunctional for the family business. Researchers have assumed that what is good for family harmony is good for the business, but this is not necessarily the case. While understanding what is good for the family is important, family businesses also need to understand the trade-offs involved in maintaining family harmony. This is where the strategic management perspective comes in. For example, Levinson (1971) suggests that if children are each provided with an operation to lead, sibling rivalry can be abated. This may or may not work, because the success or failure of each operation depends on more than family harmony. For example, if location is the key to success, sibling rivalry can increase as a result of the competition to be in charge of the operations with the best locations. The fragmentation of operation and control or the diversification of a family businesscan also impact the firm’s profitability and competitiveness.Organizational structure, evolution, and change.Research suggests that the family business is less horizontally differentiated and more reliant on informal controls than non-family firms (Daily and Dollinger, 1992; Geeraerts,1984). As a result, the family firm can be more successful in businesses that require a lean and responsive structure (Harris, Martinez, and Ward, 1994).Mos t of the studies on the family firm’s organizational structure, evolution,and change, however, are concerned with the transition to professional management.Hollander and Elman (1988) identify three different approaches adopted by researchers to formul ate evolutionary models. The first approach relates the firm’s developmental stages to the family’s generational progression (e.g.,Barnes and Hershon, 1976). The second focuses on the interaction between the firm’s needs and the life stages of individuals crucial to the firm (Danco,1975; Davis and Tagiuri, 1989; McGivern, 1989). The third views the interaction of three sets of life cycles: firm, family, and key individuals (Ward, 1987).In an empirical study of 41 businesses, Holland and Oliver (1992) find support for the three-stage model proposed by Ward (1987). The underlying theme in all these models is that the delegation of responsibility and power to nonfamily members varies significantly in the different stages.A family business could need to professionalize and delegate authority because of growth, lack of management skills within the family, preparation for succession, or to change the norms and values of the business (Matthews,1984; Dyer, 1989). However, owner-managers could be reluctant to delegate control because of a lack of formal training, insufficient knowledge of management techniques (Dyer, 1989), fear of losing control (Perrigo, 1975), or a belief that professionalization is an unnecessary, expensive overhead. A strategic management perspective could lead to other questions and avenues for research. For example, if some family firms lack the skills or the will to successfully make the transition to professional management, should they even try to do so? Are there other alternatives, and if so, what are they? Also, when business needs and family desires conflict, which is more important for the short- and long-term performance of the firm?Summary.As the discussion above clearly illustrates, the family-business literature describes the influences of family on strategy implementation. Unfortunately,however, it stops short of showing how a particular family influence helps or hinders the firm’s achievement of its goals and objectives. For example, we do not know if family firms with outside board members actually make better—or even different—strategic decisions than those without them.Since experience has shown that life-cycle models do not apply to every business (Dhalla and Y uspeh, 1976), we need to understand the conditions that cause differe nces in family firms’ evolutionary patterns and which of these conditions has the greatest implications for organizational performance. Studies also need to be directed toward understanding from the perspective of the business how effective the intervention strategies suggested actually improve sibling relationships are, and if there are gender differences. Despite the behavioral orientation of much of the literature, we still know too little about how family dynamics impact non-family members of the business, or if these pressures act as contributors or constraints to the effective implementation of strategy. Studies that chroniclethe authoritarian system of the founder-managed family business could make a more significant contribution if they also showed us when the authoritarian system is effective or dysfunctional, and whether these instances differ for the family business and the non-family business. In sum, more work is required before we will know what kind of organization structures, systems, and processes are likely to be most effective for family businesses, and whether these differ according to the situation.。