We find significant evidence that academic directors enhance firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance after examining a sample of S&P 1,500 firms for years 2002 to 2011. The presence of academic directors in corporate board increases firms’ CSR performance. Within academic directors, female academic directors have positive incremental effect on firm’s CSR performance. We also find that academic directors’ and female academic directors’ influence on CSR activity is not similar across CSR components. Among seven qualitative components of CSR, academic directors have significant positive effect on community, diversity, environment and product components. At the same time, female academic directors have positive effect on diversity and employee relations but negative effect on environment. Finally, we observe that the effect of academics on CSR is heterogeneous across their academic specialization and experience. In particular, we note that academics with administrative responsibility, business background and industry experience have significant positive effect on firms’ CSR performance.

The first essay shows that academic directors significantly increase firms' innovation. Following an academic director's death and relative to a non-academic director's death, the average firm reduces the number of citation-weighted patent applications by 30.7%. The number of patent applications also increases when an academic director becomes less busy after another company she holds directorship is acquired. Consistent with an advising channel, academic directors in STEM disciplines are particularly pro-innovation. In line with monitoring channels, firms with academic directors tend to dismiss CEOs who do not innovate and restrict real earnings management that waste financial resources. The relation between academic directors and innovation is not driven by PhD CEOs or non-academic PhD directors. Academic directors are associated with higher firm value at firms where innovation is more important but not at other firms. Overall, our results highlight the vital advising and monitoring roles academic directors play in corporate innovation. The second essay finds that pre-existing professional ties with a firm's board significantly increase a CEO candidate's probability of being hired by the firm. Considering all CEOs hired this year as potential candidates, a board-connection corresponds to a 152% increase in the probability the candidate is selected as CEO. Consistent with the hypothesis that boards select connected candidates to increase shareholder value, we find significantly greater firm performance improvement after CEO turnovers for firms hiring connected CEOs than those hiring unconnected CEOs. Further, the performance increases are significant only among firms with severe information asymmetry, large CEO termination risk, and high coordination costs. We also find that connected CEOs make better acquisitions than unconnected CEOs. These results suggest connected hiring increases firm performance because it reduces information asymmetry, CEO termination risk, and CEO-board coordination costs. Inconsistent with boards rendering favors to friends, connected CEOs are not awarded a larger pay package when they assume office. Overall, our results suggest that it pays for a firm to hire a CEO with pre-existing ties to the board. / Doctor of Philosophy / We see professors seating on corporate boards all the time. Why do firms hire them? Do they make firms innovate more because they have strong research orientation? The first essay finds that these directors enhance corporate innovation. They improve innovation with their STEM expertise. Because STEM disciplines are particularly relevant to production technology, they are able to advise the CEO about innovation. We also find that these directors make firms innovate more by linking CEO termination decisions to innovation and by preventing companies from wasting resources that could otherwise be used for innovation. Lastly, these directors improve firm value at firms where innovation is important. The board makes CEO recruiting decisions. We are interested in knowing (1) whether candidates are more likely to be hired if they already had a connection with the board; (2) whether these candidates outperform candidates without any connections. The second essay finds that having an acquaintance on the board helps a CEO candidate land the CEO position. We also find that these CEOs outperform CEOs without any connections. This is because there is little information gap between the connected CEO and the board. Also, the pre-existing connections allow the two parties to have better coordination.

本研究旨在了解桃竹苗地區國小教務主任工作壓力、復原力及幸福感之概況、不同背景變項國小教務主任工作壓力、復原力及幸福感差異、不同背景變項國小教務主任工作壓力、復原力及幸福感間的關係、工作壓力及復原力對幸福感的預測力及復原力在工作壓力及幸福感間的調節作用。 本研究以桃竹苗四縣市公立國民小學教務主任為施測樣本，以「國小教務主任工作壓力量表」、中文版「成人復原力量表」及「中國人幸福感量表」為研究工具，共發出問卷424份，有效樣本356份。所蒐集的資料採用t考驗、單因子變異數分析、皮爾遜積差相關、逐步迴歸和層次迴歸進行資料分析，最後獲致五項結論： 一、桃竹苗地區國小教務主任工作壓力屬中下程度，其中以「行政負荷」的壓力感受最高；復原力屬中上程度，其中以「家庭團結」復原力得分最高；幸福感屬中上程度。 二、背景變項不同之國小教務主任工作壓力、復原力及幸福感的差異為： 1.「女性」國小教務主任的「整體復原力」及「社會資源」復原力高於「男性」主任。 2.「40歲以下」國小教務主任的「專業能力」工作壓力高於「46歲以上」者。 3.「一般大學或學院畢業」之國小教務主任在「專業能力」上的工作壓力高於學歷為「研究所以上畢業」者。 4.「已婚」國小教務主任的「家庭團結」復原力高於「未婚」者。 5.年資「16至20年」國小教務主任在「人際關係」上的工作壓力高於年資「21年以上」者；而年資「10以下」國小教務主任在「專業能力」上的工作壓力高於年資「21年以上」者。 6.學校規模不同之國小教務主任的工作壓力、復原力及幸福感沒有顯著差異存在。 7.學校所在地不同之國小教務主任的工作壓力、復原力及幸福感沒有顯著差異存在。 三、不同背景變項之國小教務主任，其工作壓力、復原力與幸福感間的 關係為： 1.不同背景變項之國小教務主任的「整體工作壓力」和各分量表與幸福感間的關係皆為負相關。 2.不同變景變項之國小教務主任的「整體復原力」和各分量表與幸福感間的關係皆為正相關。 四、國小教務主任工作壓力、復原力及幸福感的解釋力為： 1.「角色衝突」及「人際關係」上的工作壓力可以有效預測國小教務主任的「幸福感」，解釋的總變異量為27.0％。 2.「個人強度」、「未來組織風格」及「社交能力」復原力可以有效預測國小教務主任的「幸福感」，解釋總變異量為46.1%。 3.「個人強度」復原力、「角色衝突」壓力、「未來組織風格」復原力、 「社交能力」復原力及「行政負荷」壓力等五個變項，可以有效預測國小教務主任的「幸福感」，解釋總變異量為50.9%。 4.不同背景變項國小教務主任的復原力與工作壓力皆能預測其幸福感。其中以「未婚」國小教務主任的「未來組織風格」復原力對幸福感的預測力最高，達68.7%。 五、國小教務主任的復原力，在其工作壓力及幸福感之間，具有調節作用。 最後，依本研究所獲結論，分別對國小教務主任、教育行政主管機關及後續未來研究者提出相關建議。 / The purpose of this research is to understand the work stress, resilience and well-being of the academic directors of Taoyuan-Hsinchu-Miaoli counties elementary schools; the differences in work stress, resilience and well-being among academic directors from different background profiles; the correlations of the differences in work stress, resilience and well-being; the predictions from stress and resilience to well-being; and the effects of resilience between work stress and well-being. The samples of this research are the academic directors from Taoyuan, Hsinchu, and Miaoli counties plus Hsinchu city elementary schools. The research tools used are: “The work stress scale for academic directors of elementary school”; the Chinese version of "Adult resilience table"; and "The questionnaire of happiness for Chinese". A total of 424 questionnaires were sent out, and 356 valid samples collected. The data were analyzed by T test, One-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation, Stepwise regression and Hierarchical regression analysis. In the end, there are five conclusions: 1.The work stress of academic directors from Taoyuan-Hsinchu-Miaoli is classified as medium low. Among all the work stress, the one due to administrative affairs is the highest. The resilience is classified as medium high, and family unity is highest among all. The well-being is classified as medium high. 2.The findings in differences in work stress, resilience and well-being among academic directors from different background profiles are: i. The overall resilience and the resilience from society resouces for females are higher than males. ii. The work stress due to professional capability is higher in the group of age 40 and under than age 46 and above. iii. The work stress due to professional capability is higher in the graduates from 4-year colleges than those with master degree. iv. The resilience from family unity is higher in married group than in singles. v. The work stress due to personal relationship is higher in goup with 16 to 20 years working experience compare to those with 21 or more years of experience；the work stress due to professional capability is higher in goup with less than 10 years working experience compare to those with 21 or more years of experience. vi. There is no significant difference in work stress, resilience, and well-being due to the size of schools. vii. There is no significant difference in work stress, resilience, and well-being due to the locations of schools. 3.The correlations of differences in work stress, resilience and well-being among academic directors from different background profiles are: i. All academic directors’ overall work stress are negatively correlated to every subscale and well-being. ii. All academic directors’ overall resilience are positively correlated to every subscale and well-being. 4.The explanation findings from this research in work stress, resilience and well-being of academic directors in elementary schools are: i. The two variables in work stress that can resolve 27.0% total variance in explaining the well-being of academic directors are: role conflict and personal relationship. ii. The three variables in resilience that can resolve 46.1% total variance in explaining the well-being of academic directors are: dictatorship, organizing style and sociability in resilience. iii. The five variables that can resolve 50.9% total variance in explaining the well-being of academic directors are: dictatorship in resilience, role conflict in work stress, organizing style in resilience, sociability in resilience and administration load in work stress. iv. The well-being can be predicted from work stress and resilience of different background profiles. The predictability is highest on single academic directors whose resilience from organizing style can resolve 68.7% total variance in explaining their well-being. 5.The resilience these academic directors possess can adjust their work stress and well-being. In the end, according to the conclusions of this research, there are suggestions made to Education Administration, the school administration and to academic directors.