The history of U.S steel and the industrial revolution

Extract

[...] As noted by Foster, the development of unions in the steel industry not only revolutionized the industry, but also forced management to reexamine management practices and worker rights. Arguably, the unionization of the workforce which occurred principally in the 1920sis one specific issue that had a notable impact on the development of US Steel. Research on the organization after the 1920s demonstrates that significant organizational changes were still impacting the organization. McKenna (1995) notes that once the labor disputes of the 1920s were over, many organizations began seeing notable declines in profits as a direct result of competition from international companies. [...]

[...] Cotter (1921) notes that Carnegie became an integral part of the steel industry in the mid- and late- nineteenth century. Although the steel industry had not yet reached its apex, by the beginning of the twentieth century, Carnegie sold his steel empire. J.P, Morgan and Elbert H. Gary purchased Carnegie's steel operations in 1901 and combined these companies with their holdings in the Federal Steel Company to create US Steel. Cotter argues that while Carnegie did not play an active role in the development of US Steel, his work in developing the steel industry was essential for the creation of this organization. [...]

[...] However, as a direct result of the developmental history of the US Steel organization, the issue of unionization in the steel industry did not become prominent until the 1910s. From the standpoint of labor, unions represented a salient means by which to improve working conditions. When this could not be effectively accomplished, the union served as a point of social respect, a means of bringing dignity to a group of workers that were otherwise unrecognized for their efforts. From that standpoint of the organization, the process of unionization brought with it considerable change that meant not only improvements in working conditions, but also the reinvention of management and its role in the organization (Van Tine, 1973). [...]

[...] Management essentially evolved from an egocentric organization-driven entity into a middle man, balancing the needs of organizations with the needs of labor. Through an examination of this process, it is possible to better understand how the development of modern management in the organization ensued. Thus, the history and analysis provided in this investigation offers a concise picture of the macro-evolution of modern management. Appendix Table Common and Preferred for the Top 10 Steel Companies COMPANY COMMON PREFERRED STOCK STOCK (Cotter p. 26) When combined, Carnegie [...]

[...] Given the broad production activities that took place in most steel organizations, it is evident that these paradigms of scientific management had notable ramifications for organizational and management development. After emerging from the labor disputes of the 1920s, US Steel faced daunting competition from foreign competitors. In order to improve the efficiency of the organization, US Steel commissioned an external consulting firm to assess the organization and make recommendations that could be used to improve the organization. Taylor and Thompson note that the changes that occurred at US Steel as a result of the application of scientific management had profound implications not only for improving production in the organization, but also for augmenting the role of management in the organization. [...]