本研究試圖從治理機制探討集團成長模式。利用個案研究法，以集團的角度，探討集團對內生成長與收購成長的治理系統如何影響整個集團成長率。在集團治理的機制中，研究者分做管理資源與治理機制兩面向：管理資源部分，主要研究集團整體調整成本、管理資源多寡、團隊知識、團隊在集團經驗四個指標對於集團的影響為主；治理機制部分，主要探討集團對於齊下相關子公司公司的控股方式，研究者根據內生型與收購型公司之控股方式差異，針對成長率為高低的原因作說明。

　　比較內生型與收購型公司的管理資源：在內生成長型公司高階管理團隊董事成員中，集團偏好運用集團整體調整成本高、管理資源多、團隊知識高、團隊在集團經驗高的董事成員。在內生成長型公司高階管理團隊經理成員中，集團偏好運用集團整體調整成本高、管理資源多、團隊知識高的董事成員，但不特別需要：團隊在集團經驗之能力。收購型公司管理資源中，顯示經理人與董事成員在集團整體調整成本低、管理資源多、團隊知識高、團隊在集團經驗低。對於集團治理的角度來看，收購型公司在治理時控制的模式與內生成長型公司不同，反而需要各種不同經理團隊的外部經驗支撐公司成長。

This study attempts to explore the growth method of corporations and its governance mechanisms. Using the case study method (in this case, of the Uni-President group and its affiliates/subsidiaries), the study explores how governance and mamagerail resources affect its growth. The research considered two methods for company growth: whether by growing through developing internally or by acquisition of external companies.
The aim of this research is to analyze the characteristics of these two growth methods.
In this study, we consider two main governance mechanism used to determine the corporation’s growth: managerial resources (human factor) and financial resources. These both elements can influence how a corporation can grow, through internal development or acquisition of other companies, and its relation to its subsidiaries.
By comparing both types of corporation growth, the study inferred the following characteristics for those two growth methods:
• Internal development growth: changes of company presidents are lower (therefore costs are higher), management resources usage and technology is higher. People in these affiliated companies that grew from internal resources present higher level of experience with the original company’s culture and knowledge.
• Acquiring growth: changes of company presidents are higher (costs are lower because of that), level of company experience is lower. Management resources and technology usage is the same as the other method.

中文文獻
中華徵信所，2008，台灣地區集團企業研究，中華徵信所，臺北。
洪世章、陳忠賢，2000，台灣企業集團發展是漸趨同形嗎？台大管理論叢11(1)，73-101。
陳建男，2008， 集團企業及其分子公司之績效：台灣的實證研究，臺灣大學商學研究所學位論文， 1-155。
葉銀華、許培基、王健安、李佩恩，2001，台灣集團企業治理機制之研究，行政院經濟建設委員會委託專案。
蘇怡如，2002，台灣集團企業多角化程度之探討，國立成功大學國際企業研究所碩士學位論文，,1-117。
英文文獻
Connell, C. M. (2009). Method, Structure and Argument in Edith Penrose's Theory of Growth. Review of Political Economy, 21(4), 549-566.
Haleblian, J., & Finikelstein, S. (1993). Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: the moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 844-863.
Helmich, D., & Brown, W. (1972). Successor type and organizational change in the corporate enterprise. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 371-381.
Iacobucci, D., & Rosa, P. (2010). The growth of business groups by habitual entrepreneurs: The role of entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(2), 351-377.
Lockett, A., Wiklund, J., Davidsson, P., & Girma, S. (2011). Organic and Acquisitive Growth: Re‐examining, Testing and Extending Penrose's Growth Theory. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 48-74.
McKelvie, A., & Wiklund, J. (2010). Advancing firm growth research: A focus on growth mode instead of growth rate. Entrepreneurship theory and practice,34(2), 261-288.
Penrose（1995）.The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 1-267.
Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: Institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of management review, 492-528.
Penrose, E. (1959). Limits to the Growth and Size of Firms. The American Economic Review, 45(2), 531-543.