Case Analysis: Acer, Inc.: Taiwan’s Rampaging Dragon
1. As to a comparison we can say that both were looking for the best of the company, Shih being his company had worked thru years for having his company blossom not only locally but also internationally, reason why he then brought Liu to bring to the company professional management structures; structures that had an American base since were brought from the previous company he had worked: IBM. Other than that and being both Taiwanese, they actually had more contrast than similarities on his management styles. Shih was more of a paternalistic and democratic manager, he was more traditional in his management practices as to the Asian community, and they are more of a collectivistic community than Americans which are individualistic. Shih since the beginning of the company gave “key employee’s equity and the opportunity to obtain substantial ownership positions in subsidiary companies” He came up with the idea of Acer 1-2-3 customer’s first, employees second, shareholders third. He was a delegator who would give participation to his employees on decision making, Liu in the other hand brought more of a professional (based on American-individualistic culture) model to Acer since it was believed that the company was “frugal and hard-working, but with little organizations structure or procedure-based administration.” In contrast with Shih, Liu would not give importance to relationships, and instead of following the austerity campaign Shih had implemented; Liu started with harder measures like Acer first major layoffs in January 1991. The two type of management are very well described in page 59: Shih was a paternalistic he had a supportive, family oriented approach different from Liu’s Authoritarian approach had a “by-the-numbers” approach. And care less about employee satisfaction. 2. The most important factors were: (1) Change of name, we can compare this is the most recently problem Gap suffered when...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document