Looking at the differences and similarities between two top CEO’s of the technology field that grew up in two different eras helps business professionals put things into perspective as it pertains to the structure, strategy, and building blocks of a Fortune 500 company. This comparison and contrast is a learning experience for any student of business and will open the eyes of any business professional on what it takes to be successful at any age or juncture in your career.
Through the review of chapter 2 and chapter 5 in, “What the Best CEO’s Know: 7 Exceptional Leaders and Their Lessons for Transforming Any Business,” (Krames, 2003, pp. 55-77 and pp. 131-152) Andy Grove is antiquated in his theories and strategies on managing a business which worked for him as opposed to Michael Dell’s refreshing and simple take on how to manage a business which is why he is more relatable to the business professional. Contributions
Michael Dell’s contribution to the field would be his focus on meeting the customer’s needs, cutting out the “middleman” thus being the innovator of the “bottom up” strategy. (Krames, 2003, p.59) Andy Grove’s contribution to the field would be his innate ability to be a strategic leader by sticking with the mantra, “only the paranoid survive,” which was a key factor in his success through adversity. (Krames, 2003, p. 135) Resistance
Michael Dell met with resistance by “placing the customer at the epicenter,” which was unheard of and uncommon. (Krames, 2003, p. 59) Andy Grove met with resistance two times one with Japan and the other with IBM that he calls a “strategic inflection point.” (Krames, 2003, p.141) He states that “the difference between ordinary change and a strategic inflection point (SIP) is the magnitude of the potential effect on the business.” (Krames, 2003, p.141)
Similarities and Differences
There are a few similarities between Michael Dell and Andy...