原文：Corporate Board Attributes, Team Effectiveness andFinancial PerformanceA Team-Based Model of Corporate Board EffectivenessThe existing literature examining teams and knowledge-based work groups demonstrates a causal link between team practices or attributes, effectiveness, and outcomes (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Marks et al., 2001). Extending on the literature regarding team effectiveness, some governance scholars have started to focus on managerial competence and empowerment arguments to help explain organizational performance differences (Davis et al., 1997; Hendry, 2002; Shen, 2003). In their seminal theoretical work, Forbes and Milliken (1999) integrated literature on corporate boards and team effectiveness arguing that board effectiveness is identified by the same criteria as many previous models of team effectiveness. Further, they suggest that the various board demographics typically used in board research, such as insider/outsider ratio, board size, and tenure, are expected to influence overall team effectiveness independently. Similarly, Sonnenfeld (2002) describes effective boards as being distinguished by robust, effective social systems and contends that board demographics between Forbes Magazines (2001) most-admired and least-admired companies are actually similar. This suggests that structural characteristics in and of themselves do not differentiate between high-performing and low-performing boards. Sonnenfeld (2002, p. 106) goes on to state, We need to consider not only how we structure the work of a board but also how we manage the social system a board actually is. This is consistent with the conclusion of Papadakis et al. (1998) that decision-specific and relationship attributes, rather than board demographics, represent the greatest influence on the strategic decision-making process. Drawing from both the corporate board and groups/teams research, we argue that the same conditions enabling workgroups to achieve their goals should be related to corporate board effectiveness. Others have acknowledged this relationship, but in a less explicit way (e.g. Daily et al., 2003; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1996; Finkelstein and Mooney, 2003; Huse, 2005; Sonnenfeld, 2004a). So rather than develop an original model of boards as teams, we apply previous research on the attributes of highper forming teams to boards of directors (Mohrman et al., 1995). Hence, we recognize that the relationships between group inputs, processes and outcomes depend on factors that are specific to the type of group under study and the specific criteria of effectiveness that are being considered (Forbes and Milliken, 1999; Mathieu et al., 2008). We apply a model of group effectiveness that fits within a larger framework that has dominated groups and teams research for decades (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Mathieu et al., 2008). Although it has been modified and extended over the years, the basic inputprocessoutput model (IPO) holds that contextual factors and other individual and team level antecedents enable and constrain (p. 412) team member interactions and define team processes which in turn drive task effectiveness (Mathieu et al., 2008). In this study, we focus on team inputs using an established model derived from years of research on employee participation and involvement (Cotton, 1993; Galbraith, 1973; Lawler, 1986; Vandenberg et al., 1999). Specifically, we draw upon Mohrman et al.s (1995) model of team effectiveness, which is based on five key attributes of highperforming groups, and has been previously applied to corporate boards (Conger et al., 2001). The key attributes highlighted in this model include: (1) knowledge that is closely aligned with the organizations needs and requirements; (2) current and comprehensive information drawn from multiple sources and perspectives; (3) sufficient power to reach independent decisions, as well as to evaluate and challenge the CEO; (4) sufficient incentives, typically achieved through rewards systems to align directors and owners interests; and (5) sufficient opportunity and time for the board and committees to prepare for and complete tasks.By applying this established model of group effectiveness we hope to contribute to our understanding of corporate boards in several ways. First is to empirically demonstrate that board effectiveness is related to the same team inputs that have been shown to impact group performance in other contexts. Second is to provide an integrative framework for the existing research on board characteristics and test their relationship to actual board task performance. While many of these attributes have been examined independently for their relationships to firm financial performance, we test them together for their relationships to board performance as rated by directors themselves. In the following paragraphs, we draw on multiple theoretical perspectives to discuss each of these five team attributes