中文摘要：

在解释企业绩效差异性时，无论是委托代理理论还是能力理论都存在一定的片面性。而结合治理机制与经营能力以探讨企业的竞争力，可以为深入理解企业的性质和成长差异性提供更为丰富的解释。本文立足于企业家要素，以能力理论和委托代理理论为基础，并基于国内283份企业数据，从经营能力和协调治理机制的单因素、多因素以及它们的相互作用三个方面统计检验了企业绩效差异性的渊泉。本文的研究结果表明，当对经营能力、协调治理分别进行考察时，这些因素的不同指标都在一定程度上影响到企业的绩效；当对这些因素进行综合考察时，经营能力的贡献则明显高于治理因子的作用；经营能力与协调治理之间存在较弱的互补性，并且这种作用主要体现为改进市场潜力而不是投资净收益。

英文摘要：

There are several main views in the existing strategic research as to the causes for the growth and competitiveness of firms. Principleagent theory focuses on how to build an efficient governance system. Competence-based theory focuses on building valuable, rare, inimitable, and irreplaceable resources and competences. Principle-agent theory stresses the problems between managers and owners, but it neglects managerial competence, which is the source of strong competitiveness. Similarly, competence-based theory neglects immoral actions, although it takes into account competence. So, in order to help us get a better understanding of the growth and competitiveness of firms, it will be beneficial to combine governance mechanisms and managerial competence in the study of strategic management. In this paper, we focus on entrepreneurship and analyze performance based on both competence-based theory and principal agent theory. Furthermore, we explore the relative importance of the above two theories and examine the effect of entrepreneurial competence and corporate governance mechanisms independently and jointly, as well as considering their interaction effect. Based on the data obtained from a survey of 283 enterprises in China, we find that： （1） when considering entrepreneurial competence and corporate govemance mechanisms separately, all items of the two factors impact the firm per- formance to some extent; （2） when taking into account entrepreneurial competence and corporate governance mechanisms together, the first becomes relatively more important than the later; （3） the entrepreneurial competence and corporate governance mechanisms faintly complement each other, which means the interaction contributes to the marketing performance, but does not significantly contribute to the investing return; and （4） entrepreneur competence-based theory is more effective than principal agent theory in explaining firm performance.