Acer Case

This time cellphones where not yet even invented so the market was pretty good for a starter. This is I believe one of the reasons why Acer’s startup was outstanding. One of the other many reasons is because of their willingness to try everything that came their way. They dared to do everything, from providing engineering to publishing trade journals. They were not hesitant and were very hungry to succeed. Acers CEO Shih was also a very charismatic leader, transferring very important philosophies to his employees hence creating a strong foundation. He paid his employees modest salaries and offered them equity. The employees in turn felt a sense of ownership and this had a very good impact on their performances. They were very loyal and followed Shih’s leadership. Shi did not only offer key employees equity but also delegated substantial decision-making responsibility to them. Empowering his employees in such a way only made them more loyal and committed to the company. Shih also believed and valued his employee’s education and created an environment where people were ready to learn and improve themselves. Joint ventures also cut down costs and developed good relationships with suppliers. The whole work environment was like a family and everyone there was very comfortable and happy. When employees are happy, the company’s customers are also happy. All of these reasons and more made Acer then known as Multitech outscore the other Taiwanese PC companies. After a strong decade of growth, why did Acer’s growth and profitability tumble in the late 1980’s? How do you evaluate Leonard Liu’s performance? Acers was founded in the mid 70’s and at that time the market was small. At the end of the 80’s there was a lot of competition and Acer had to struggle with these forces. Its competitors were producing PC’s at very low prices and Acer had to match that. One of the other reasons why Acer struggled is because it had expanded rapidly. This growth caused a shortage in management and some outside help ‘Paratroopers’ had to be brought in. Because of Acers overseas expansion these newcomers were supposed to help with the transition since they knew something about the international market. This however caused confusion in the company because of the culture clashes. The family culture was intruded by outside cultures and the working environments were no longer splendid. As mentioned before, happy employees lead to happy customers. Unhappy employee’s in turn lead to unhappy customers. Acer was also struggling financially. Expansion needs resources and these were not available. In order to solve this Acer had to go public and create equity by selling its stock on the market. As if this was not enough, Acer also had to deal with rebranding. This took up a lot of Shih’s valuable time. I look at Leu in different ways. First of all; he was just a man given a big responsibility and was trying to do the best he could. Some of his transformations were in the long run effective. He reorganized the company and this was very effective. Leu also gave some responsibility to the managers for the outcomes of their work, this made them work harder and they were careful in their decision making. However this changed the whole atmosphere in the company, the culture was changing and this was not appreciated. Culture is something one cannot change overnight but Leu tried to do that and it backfired. He tried to change everything overnight and this was never going to work with a company like Acer that was happy with their current culture and comfortable with it. Leu also spending a lot of money did not help and employees in the end lost faith in him. How effective was Shih in rebuilding Acer in the early/mid 90’s? What do you think of his new business concept (â€Å"fast food† model, Uniload, Smiling Curve, etc. ) and his new organization model (Client-Server, 21 in 21, etc. )? Is this a visionary framework for Acer’s future competitiveness, or a random series of ill-conceived top-down initiatives? Shih came back with some lessons learnt. Some of which came from Leu despite him leaving in a bad way. He found Acers organization was better and this helped him achieve his goals. He brought in new philosophies which lifted up the company and he communicated his ideas to Acer employees making sure they got the message and then acted upon it. The philosophy like ‘fast food businesses’ helped Acer to lower its costs and in the end make more profits. I believe through these philosophies Shih managed to get the attention of its employees and the message was therefore well communicated. Despite these strategies being vague I believe they were visionary. Acer needed to be redeemed to its old position and be given back its power. Its employees needed to be encouraged and be motivated to work. These strategies did the trick and created a turnaround for Acer. As Stan, what action would you take on Aspire? Should he approve its continued development? Should he allow AAC to continue to lead the project? With all of the changes Acer underwent, I would say Aspire was a good innovation and it is a chance not to pass. Aspire is a revolutionary innovation and if Shih lets it go, it will go to his competitors and he will loose out on a good opportunity. Him blessing this innovation will mean that he does what he preaches. He was always encouraging his employees to use their knowledge and skills and do something innovative. This was a chance to prove that he would support those innovations. I also think since AAC came up with the innovation they should be the ones to lead the project. This may even be an opportunity for Acer to expand deeply into other regions. Should Aspire become a global product? If so, who should manage the worldwide? Of course Aspire should go global!!! If the product is successful in one region they could try it in other regions and see how it performs there. In my opinion Taiwan should manage it because it is after the mother company and they have more experience in managing new products. Acer Case This time cellphones where not yet even invented so the market was pretty good for a starter. This is I believe one of the reasons why Acer’s startup was outstanding. One of the other many reasons is because of their willingness to try everything that came their way. They dared to do everything, from providing engineering to publishing trade journals. They were not hesitant and were very hungry to succeed. Acers CEO Shih was also a very charismatic leader, transferring very important philosophies to his employees hence creating a strong foundation. He paid his employees modest salaries and offered them equity. The employees in turn felt a sense of ownership and this had a very good impact on their performances. They were very loyal and followed Shih’s leadership. Shi did not only offer key employees equity but also delegated substantial decision-making responsibility to them. Empowering his employees in such a way only made them more loyal and committed to the company. Shih also believed and valued his employee’s education and created an environment where people were ready to learn and improve themselves. Joint ventures also cut down costs and developed good relationships with suppliers. The whole work environment was like a family and everyone there was very comfortable and happy. When employees are happy, the company’s customers are also happy. All of these reasons and more made Acer then known as Multitech outscore the other Taiwanese PC companies. After a strong decade of growth, why did Acer’s growth and profitability tumble in the late 1980’s? How do you evaluate Leonard Liu’s performance? Acers was founded in the mid 70’s and at that time the market was small. At the end of the 80’s there was a lot of competition and Acer had to struggle with these forces. Its competitors were producing PC’s at very low prices and Acer had to match that. One of the other reasons why Acer struggled is because it had expanded rapidly. This growth caused a shortage in management and some outside help ‘Paratroopers’ had to be brought in. Because of Acers overseas expansion these newcomers were supposed to help with the transition since they knew something about the international market. This however caused confusion in the company because of the culture clashes. The family culture was intruded by outside cultures and the working environments were no longer splendid. As mentioned before, happy employees lead to happy customers. Unhappy employee’s in turn lead to unhappy customers. Acer was also struggling financially. Expansion needs resources and these were not available. In order to solve this Acer had to go public and create equity by selling its stock on the market. As if this was not enough, Acer also had to deal with rebranding. This took up a lot of Shih’s valuable time. I look at Leu in different ways. First of all; he was just a man given a big responsibility and was trying to do the best he could. Some of his transformations were in the long run effective. He reorganized the company and this was very effective. Leu also gave some responsibility to the managers for the outcomes of their work, this made them work harder and they were careful in their decision making. However this changed the whole atmosphere in the company, the culture was changing and this was not appreciated. Culture is something one cannot change overnight but Leu tried to do that and it backfired. He tried to change everything overnight and this was never going to work with a company like Acer that was happy with their current culture and comfortable with it. Leu also spending a lot of money did not help and employees in the end lost faith in him. How effective was Shih in rebuilding Acer in the early/mid 90’s? What do you think of his new business concept (â€Å"fast food† model, Uniload, Smiling Curve, etc. ) and his new organization model (Client-Server, 21 in 21, etc. )? Is this a visionary framework for Acer’s future competitiveness, or a random series of ill-conceived top-down initiatives? Shih came back with some lessons learnt. Some of which came from Leu despite him leaving in a bad way. He found Acers organization was better and this helped him achieve his goals. He brought in new philosophies which lifted up the company and he communicated his ideas to Acer employees making sure they got the message and then acted upon it. The philosophy like ‘fast food businesses’ helped Acer to lower its costs and in the end make more profits. I believe through these philosophies Shih managed to get the attention of its employees and the message was therefore well communicated. Despite these strategies being vague I believe they were visionary. Acer needed to be redeemed to its old position and be given back its power. Its employees needed to be encouraged and be motivated to work. These strategies did the trick and created a turnaround for Acer. As Stan, what action would you take on Aspire? Should he approve its continued development? Should he allow AAC to continue to lead the project? With all of the changes Acer underwent, I would say Aspire was a good innovation and it is a chance not to pass. Aspire is a revolutionary innovation and if Shih lets it go, it will go to his competitors and he will loose out on a good opportunity. Him blessing this innovation will mean that he does what he preaches. He was always encouraging his employees to use their knowledge and skills and do something innovative. This was a chance to prove that he would support those innovations. I also think since AAC came up with the innovation they should be the ones to lead the project. This may even be an opportunity for Acer to expand deeply into other regions. Should Aspire become a global product? If so, who should manage the worldwide? Of course Aspire should go global!!! If the product is successful in one region they could try it in other regions and see how it performs there. In my opinion Taiwan should manage it because it is after the mother company and they have more experience in managing new products.

Compare and explain the historical political instability experienced Essay

Compare and explain the historical political instability experienced by France, Germany and Italy - Essay Example There is a period in every nation’s history when political turbulence reigns. These are periods when governments experience economic, social and political crises, which could be the result of contemporary development or a change in political system. More specifically, political instability could be attributed on several factors such as industrialization, population growth, â€Å"the revolution of rising expectations† or even international tensions. â€Å"Some social scientists have followed Aristotle's view that political instability is generally the result of a situation in which the distribution of wealth fails to correspond with the distribution of political power and have echoed his conclusion that the most stable type of political system is one based on a large middle class. Others have adopted Marxist theories of economic determinism that view all political change as the result of changes in the mode of production. Still others have focused on governing elites an d their composition and have seen in the alienation of the elite from the mass the prime cause of revolutions and other forms of violent political change.† Vibrant democracies in Europe have undergone same internal political conflicts, which have brought down governments and have shaken political systems. France, Germany and Italy have experienced their own respective political upheavals in differing timelines in their history. This made it possible for us to improve our ability to describe and analyze any pattern, situations or factors that brought about conflicts in European political system.

Third assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Third assignment - Essay Example He does this through combining discussions of ape behavior, ethnographies, cognitive studies, mental research, hormonal and neurological studies. He clearly points out the difference between sexual love and nurturing love. To him these two have different evolutionary origins and creates opposite psychological demands. To Goldschmidt, affect hunger is a biological instrument for cultivation affection, for instance he explains that affect hunger make infants to comply with orders from their guardians so as to be taught their language and regulations. Goldschmidt goes ahead and states that much as affect hunger provides an incentive scheme for language learning and other institutions of culture it is a motivation for societal manners all through life of a human being in the society. Goldschmidt,( 2006:13), Abraham Maslow selected love and liking and belongingness desires less important only than continued existence and physiological requirements. With the significance of support to huma n endurance and wellbeing, Goldschmidt poses an argument that evolutionary push on human being is not mere cutthroat but human child need to encourage their mothers to care for them. According to research it is revealed that affect for hunger is evident in infants especially when infants have bodily contact and proximity to their mothers affects their sleep patterns and even in regulating their bodies through protection. Due to the need for contact human infants have sociophilic qualities that appear to have no other function but to encourage, make possible and reward social interaction such as laughing, smiling, imitating and facial expressions. Goldschmidt,(2005,29)these traits can be traced back to the neonatal trick and keep mothers’ attention to their infants. Goldschmidt provides a perfect weighted knowledge to understanding of the origins and importance of affect in human beings. For instance the focus on the mother-child links as the origin of human being socially, ap art from social interactions among grownups. This is the most interesting suggestions that Goldschmidt. More often than not evolution significance of social behaviors is premise on mating activities. This appears much less plausible since the two bonding between the male and the female is much less vital compared to the mother-infant bonding. Bonding pair in human beings is universal. For instance, it must be contended with the painful evidence experiences that human are not the best at making two bonding, Goldschmidt,( 2006:123). And that male does not stick around to assist in raising their young ones. He further outlines the cultural variations in child upbringing, processes of learning and evolution of culture. Goldschmidt discusses on affect of hunger and its significance on an account of evolution and the increase of altruism and social among others. To him pressures of natural selection can be favorable to a particular gene only if the gene displays an attribute that makes on es relatives more certain to exist since that relative has the tendency to carry several of the particular one gene. From this we suppose there is a mean selective way to altruism and this is an advantage simply because it creates that genes more likely to survive in those assist to survive even if their replica in our bodies reduce.. I this case therefore to ones advantage to be selfish on altruism.