台灣筆記型電腦代工產業的競爭激烈的情況持續已久，目前台灣的五大代工廠的毛利率在數年前就已經呈現個位數。近幾年又面對新競爭者的加入讓整個市場在沒有變大的情況下，競爭的狀況又更加嚴重。
在此嚴峻的情況下，個案公司在多年前意識到此種情況便在2000年開始多角化策略經營，但有些產品線因忽略產業的特殊性與競爭環境導致失敗，反之有些產品線利用產品差異化策略與產業群聚等優勢走出一條屬於自己的道路。
本研究應用質性研究法裡的「個案訪談」來探討內部環境與產業環境特性如何影響多角化策略發展績效。本研究這次訪談的內部同仁總共有10位，其主要分布在本研究所選出的三個事業部，利用訪談的結果整理出相關結論，並以各部門成長率、產業市占率、各部門營收占比等方式來衡量其績效表現。
根據個案分析後的結果顯示：1.組織學習會對績效產生正向的影響，但需要根據不同的產業環境做不同的調整，並且需注意產品的規格化後會削弱組織學習績效表現；2.並沒有那種領導風格適合那種產業環境，還須依照當前產業狀況來做適度調整；3.資源可移轉性的多寡決定了多角化績效的高低，但對於有未來成長性的產業，企業還是需要持續投入資源做先期開發，以圖未來的發展。
最後根據個案分析結論，本研究分別提出組織學習與多角化、市場優勢地位強弱與資源可移轉性兩構面與領導風格與產業成長性關係圖，作為企業多角化經營時須檢視的方向。企業經營者除了必須時刻注意內部環境與產業環境的變動外，更重要的要著重產業未來的成長，不要因為看不到短期的獲利成長就去扼殺了未來具有高成長性的部門，畢竟新產品與技術的開發是需要時間累積。

The fierce competition in Taiwan's notebook computer OEM industry has been
going on for a long time. At present, the gross profit margins of Taiwan's five major
foundries have already reached single digits several years ago. In recent years, with
the addition of new competitors, the situation in the whole market has become more
serious without becoming bigger.
In this grim situation, the case company realized that this situation began to
diversify its diversification in 2000, but some product lines failed due to neglect of the
particularity and competitive environment of the industry. The advantages of strategy
and industrial clustering have come out of their own path.
This study uses the “case interview” in the qualitative research method to explore
how the internal environment and industrial environment characteristics affect the
development performance of the diversification strategy. There are a total of 10
internal colleagues in this interview. They are mainly distributed in the three business
divisions selected in this study. The results of the interviews are used to sort out
relevant conclusions, and the growth rate of each department, the market share of the
industry, and various departments. Revenue ratio and other methods to measure its
performance.
According to the results of the case analysis, 1. Organizational learning will have
a positive impact on performance, but it needs to be adjusted according to different
industrial environments, and it must be noted that the normalization of products will
weaken organizational learning performance; There is no such leadership style
suitable for that kind of industrial environment, but also must be appropriately
adjusted according to the current industrial conditions; 3. The amount of resource
transferability determines the level of diversification performance, but for industries
with future growth, enterprises It is still necessary to continue to invest resources in
the early development to map the future development.
Finally, based on the case analysis conclusions, this study proposes the
relationship between organizational learning and diversification, market superiority
and resource transferability, leadership style and industrial growth, as the direction to
be examined when diversified business operations. In addition to the constant
III
attention to changes in the internal environment and the industrial environment,
business operators must focus on the future growth of the industry. Don't kill the
future high-growth departments because they do not see short-term profit growth.
After all, new The development of products and technologies takes time to
accumulate.

Aaker, D. A. (1995). Strategic Market Management, John Willey & Sons. Inc, 5,
103-105.
Agrawal, P. (2008). My Leadership brands & relationship my future.
Amit, R., & Livnat, J. (1988). Diversification strategies, business cycles and
economic performance. Strategic management journal, 9(2), 99-110.
Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard business review, 35(5),
113-124.
Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate strategy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ansoff, HI (1965b)
StrategicManagement.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reis(77/78), 345-348.
Baptista, R., & Swann, P. (1998). Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research policy,
27(5), 525-540.
Barney, J. B., & Hesterly, W. (2006). Organizational economics: Understanding the
relationship between organizations and economic analysis. The SAGE
handbook of organization studies, 111-148.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations: Collier
Macmillan.
Bassi, L. J. (1997). Harnessing the power of intellectual capital. Training &
development, 51(12), 25-31.
Bierly, P. E., & Hämäläinen, T. (1995). Organizational learning and strategy.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(3), 209-224.
Blois, K. J. (1999). Trust in business to business relationships: An evaluation of its
status. Journal of Management Studies, 36(2), 197-215.
Boynton, A. C., Zmud, R. W., & Jacobs, G. C. (1994). The influence of IT
management practice on IT use in large organizations. Mis Quarterly,
299-318.
Brooks, H. (1966). Muslim Method Research-A synthesis of Sitles.
Cahan, S. F., Rahman, A., & Perera, H. (2005). Global diversification and corporate
disclosure. Journal of International Accounting Research, 4(1), 73-93.
Carter, C. R. (2005). Purchasing social responsibility and firm performance: The key
mediating roles of organizational learning and supplier performance.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 35(3),
177-194.
Chandler, A. D. (1990). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the
industrial enterprise (Vol. 461): MIT press.
70
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
Crouch, C., & Farrell, H. (2001). Great Britain: falling through the holes in the
network concept. In Local Production Systems in Europe: Rise or Demise? (pp.
154-211): Oxford University Press.
de Hoogh, A., den Hartog, D., Koopman, P., Thierry, H., van den Berg, P., van der
Weide, J., & Wilderom, C. (2004). Charismatic leadership, environmental
dynamism, and performance. European Journal of work and organizational
psychology, 13(4), 447-471.
Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what
they know: Harvard Business School Press.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing
naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods: Sage.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1990). Strategic intent. Harvard business review, 67(3),
63-76.
Hameri, A.-P. (1996). Technology transfer between basic research and industry.
Technovation, 16(2), 51-92.
Harrison, R. T., & Leitch, C. M. (2005). Entrepreneurial learning: Researching the
interface between learning and the entrepreneurial context. Entrepreneurship
theory and practice, 29(4), 351-371.
Hayami, Y., & Ruttan, V. W. (1971). Agricultural development: an international
perspective: Baltimore, Md/London: The Johns Hopkins Press.
House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. Working Paper Series
76-06.
House, R. J., & Mansor, N. (1999). Cultural Influences on Leadeership and
Organizations: Project Globe (Vol. 1): Advances in Global Leadership.
Hsu, Y.-H., & Fang, W. (2009). Intellectual capital and new product development
performance: The mediating role of organizational learning capability.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 664-677.
Huysman, M. (2000). An organizational learning approach to the learning
organization. European Journal of work and organizational psychology, 9(2),
133-145.
Jr Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure: chapters in the history of the
industrial enterprise.
Juntunen, A. (2009). Developing a Corporate Knowledge Management Platform in a
Multibusiness Company. In Handbook of Research on Knowledge-Intensive
Organizations (pp. 193-207): IGI Global.
Khandekar, A., & Sharma, A. (2006). Organizational learning and performance:
71
Understanding Indian scenario in present global context. Education+ Training,
48(8/9), 682-692.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative
research. California, US: SAGE, 230-243.
Lewin, K. (1944). A research approach to leadership problems. The Journal of
Educational Sociology, 17(7), 392-398.
Liao, K.-Y. (2012). 三篇關於創新與研發外溢之實證研究. 清華大學經濟學系所
學位論文, 1-116.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: its management and values.
Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2004). Leadership: Theory. Application, Skill
Development (South-Western Publishing, Mason, OH).
Mansfield, E. (1975). International technology transfer: forms, resource requirements,
and policies. The American Economic Review, 65(2), 372-376.
Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics: unabridged eighth edition: Cosimo,
Inc.
Nanjundeswaraswamy, T., & Swamy, D. (2014). Leadership styles. Advances in
management, 7(2), 57.
Nieto, M., & Quevedo, P. (2005). Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity,
knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort. Technovation, 25(10), 1141-1157.
Obiwuru, T. C., Okwu, A. T., Akpa, V. O., & Nwankwere, I. A. (2011). Effects of
leadership style on organizational performance: A survey of selected small
scale enterprises in Ikosi-Ketu council development area of Lagos State,
Nigeria. Australian journal of business and management research, 1(7), 100.
Ojokuku, R., Odetayo, T., & Sajuyigbe, A. (2012). Impact of leadership style on
organizational performance: a case study of Nigerian banks. American Journal
of Business and Management, 1(4), 202-207.
Pérez López, S., Manuel Montes Peón, J., & José Vazquez Ordás, C. (2005).
Organizational learning as a determining factor in business performance. The
learning organization, 12(3), 227-245.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors.
Competitive Strategy. New York: Free.
Porter, M. E. (1993). The competitive advantage of nations: Harvard Business School
Management Programs Cambridge.
Ramanujam, V., & Varadarajan, P. (1989). Research on corporate diversification: A
synthesis. Strategic management journal, 10(6), 523-551.
Reed, R., & Luffman, G. A. (1986). Diversification: The growing confusion. Strategic
management journal, 7(1), 29-35.
Rosenfeld, S. A. (1997). Bringing business clusters into the mainstream of economic
72
development. European planning studies, 5(1), 3-23.
Schwandt, D. R., & Marquardt, M. J. (2000). Organizational learning: From
world-class theories to global best practices: St. Lucie Press.
Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. Berkeley. In: CA: University of
California Press.
Shepherd, W. G. (1972). The elements of market structure. The review of economics
and statistics, 25-37.
Škerlavaj, M., Štemberger, M. I., & Dimovski, V. (2007). Organizational learning
culture—the missing link between business process change and organizational
performance. International journal of production economics, 106(2), 346-367.
Smilor, R. W., & Gibson, D. V. (1991). Accelerating technology transfer in R&D
consortia. Research-Technology Management, 34(1), 44-49.
Teece, D. J. (1982). Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(1), 39-63.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization,
and extension. Academy of management review, 27(2), 185-203.
Zaleznik, A. (1992). Managers and leaders: are they different? Harvard business
review, 70(2), 126-135.
方至民, & 鍾憲瑞. (2006). 策略管理: 建立企業永續競爭力, 台北: 前程文化.
王宗鴻. (2006). 人格特質, 主管領導風格與人力資源管理措施對工作投入與工
作績效之影響; The Impact of Locus of Control, Leadership Styles and
Human Resource Practices on Job Involvement and Performance. 國立中央
大學圖書館,
伍家德, & 杜啟躍. (2006). 創新氛圍, 知識外溢與產業群聚對科學園區廠商競爭
優勢影響性之研究. 科技管理學刊, 11(3), 53-87.
吳思華. (1996). 策略九說: 策略思考的本質. 台北: 麥田.
林文寶. (2001). 技術知識特性, 整合, 知識能量與組織學習對核心競爭力及創新
績效關聯性之研究. 國立成功大學企業管理學系.
林晉寬. (1995). 從資源基礎理論探討資源特性與成長策略之關係. 甲, 國立政治
大學企業管理研究所博士論文.(未發表).
孫梅瑞, & 蕭瑞子. (2008). 國際多角化與企業績效, 企業風險的關聯性及其影響
因素之研究. 管理與系統, 15(4), 617-643.
曾燦燈. (1976). 國中校長領導型式與教師服務精神之關係.
劉橫智. (1999). 華人研發創業者之生涯研究. In: 國立中山大學人力資源管理研
究所碩士論文.
潘淑滿. (2003). 質性研究: 理論與應用: 臺北市: 心理出版社.
蔡明達. (2000). 市場資訊處理程序與組織記憶對行銷創新影響之研究. In.
蘇拾忠. (1994). 策略規劃指南: 遠流出版公司.