Andrew Carnegie's Leadership

Andrew Carnegie was one of the wealthiest men in America but his wealth didn’t come without hard work and dedication. Carnegie was born in “Dunfermline, Scotland on November 25, 1835” (Tyle). According to Laura B. Tyle, the invention of the weaving machine unfortunately pushed Carnegie’s family in to poverty “In 1848, Carnegie’s family left Scotland and moved to Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, where his father and eventually him worked in a cotton factory” (Tyle). After leaving the cotton factory “Carnegie became a messenger boy for the Pittsburgh telegraph office and eventually made his way up to telegraph operator” (Tyle). According to Laura B. Tyle “Thomas A. Scott, the superintendent of the western division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, made Carnegie his secretary at the age of eighteen.” Later, Carnegie took over Scott’s position of the railroad. Furthermore Carnegie “began to see that steel was going to replace iron and by 1873 he organized a steel rail company” (Tyle). According to Laura B. Tyle he continued to build his company when he “cut prices, drove out competitors,

Andrew Carnegie was a man who started from nothing and built his way up to find his fortunes in world of steel and factories and after retiring set himself to a life of philanthropy donating his fortunes to the people. This isn’t to say he was an entirely good person however, as his time as a business owner and as an employer. Whether he was a captain of industry or a robber baron is up to your opinions, but I believe he was a true captain of industry.

Things went out well for Toyota and the years 2003 to 2007 could be inferred as the most profitable years in the company’s history. But it faced a major problem in the events of recession in 2008 and the recall crisis of 2009-2010. “Toyota Under Fire” describes the recall crisis in details and provides valuable lessons and leadership techniques to survive at the time of crisis and how to turn a crisis into opportunity by three principles – i) Build strong culture long before the crisis hits, ii) culture matters far more than decisions made by top executives, iii) Investing in

Andrew Carnegie was an industrialist who led the expansion of the steel industry in America. He made his fortune in the steel industry, controlling the most iron and steel

Andrew Carnegie was a captain of the industrial growth of America during the early twentieth century, builder of the formidable American steel industry, and the wealthiest man in the world at the time. His success was not accidental. Most decisions in his life were well planned in order to achieve specific outcomes.

The Gilded Age was a period from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in which Americans greatly increased the rate of industrialization, bringing rise to many economic and social problems. Although many people responded to these problems, two of the most famous were Andrew Carnegie, a wealthy “captain of industry,” and Upton Sinclair, a novelist. Industrialization brought about many economic and social problems. It brought a great amount of wealth to very few and brought poverty to many, widening the gap between the two classes and causing tension between the wealthy and the poor, the factory owners and the laborers. Laborers had to work in hazardous environments for wages and with few ways to advance their position.

Andrew Carnegie is Scottish born immigrant who moved to America when he was 13 with his family. He and his family landed and settled in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Carnegie starts working at a factory and earns $1.20 a week. A year later he was able to find a job as a telegraph messenger. He was then in 1851 promoted to telegraph operator. In 1851, He starts working as the assistant/telegrapher for Thomas Scott. Thomas Scott is one of the highest officials on the Pennsylvania railroad. Through 3 years of being the assistant and telegrapher to Thomas Scott, he earns valuable lessons and experience about and on the railroad. He then took the position of being a superintendent. When Carnegie is working for and on the railroad,

Although, “Pittsburgh wasn’t really Andrew Carnegie’s town,” and, “Steel wasn’t the only major industry in Pittsburgh,” Andrew Carnegie, a millionaire businessmen, stood out in front of all others in the minds of the citizens. Even at a young age, Carnegie was a forward thinking man who defended the rights both of slaves and workers. After successfully building up a steel business worth almost half a billion dollars, he sold it and spent the rest of his life creating libraries and museums for the city. Carnegie firmly believed that a man of wealth should give it away for the public good, and not weaken his sons with it; one of his famous quotes is, “The man who dies rich, dies disgraced.” Due to the fact that Pittsburgh’s astounding wealth

Toyota by itself did not have a significant impact on GM by its self but It play a pivotal in the demise of general motors as being the killing blow to a company that was already breaking down due to a number of factors Toyotas impact was multiplied with external and internal factors that were effecting the automotive giant. Within this essay it has broken down into 5 main segments that brought about General motors downfall and explain why Toyota impact was heightened. The first segment is quality management focusing on Deming’s profound knowledge and his 7 deadly diseases and 14 points on quality management (Berry, B 2011. P.1) highlighting where GM failed and Toyota succeeded and took advantage. The next segment that

In light of the above discussion on Ford, we can analyse Toyota across the dimensions of Leadership, Culture, Power/Politics and Structure. This will help us better understand whether Toyota, the second largest automobile manufacturer in the world, took a different management approach from Ford. As mentioned earlier, it is evident that both were fighting entirely different battles, albeit repercussions of which were similar. Ford was trying to keep its head above water as GM and Chrysler submerged in the subprime crisis’ fallout. On the other hand, Toyota was trying to ensure that the impact of this crisis, now affecting the larger automotive industry especially in terms of falling profit margins and sales volumes, could be limited at its doorstep

James Womack, one of the authors of “The Machine that Changed the World”, a book about Toyota's innovations in manufacturing, dates the origin of its present woes to 2002, when it set itself the goal of raising its global market share from 11% to 15%. The 15% target was “totally irrelevant to any customer” and was “just driven by ego”(James P. Womack).

As we all know that Toyota’s have an adding up to 8.5 million vehicles in recalls and their down fall was not listening or their organization skills was not up to par, to say the least. Toyota is now finally getting a clue, that the recall system exists and most every consumer-product company get hit. One thing about Toyota they were not discreet, they we in denial, from engine sludge problems way back in the 2002. They even had the nerve to blame it on the drivers that they need some serious organization skills to put them back on the map. Toyota everyone within the organization from upper managers to the floor workers is a challenged to use their initiative and creativity to experiment and learn. They are now selecting the best of the best that includes sales people, engineering service, accounting and human resources. Toyota, has spent a lot of money and time to become the model for true learning organization.

“Toyota’s information and decision making has been highly centralized. The result: Top management in Japan has been less sensitive to the expectations of regulators, culture and politics in overseas markets, and consequently, they have been slower to respond to local problems. The reality is that Toyota’s problems were not caused by a faulty production system but by poor management decisions” (Cole, 2011, pg. 34). In the past, Toyota was a company that trained employees to embrace the Toyota Way and pushed their employees to strive for continuous improvement and perfection. The upper management at Toyota has strayed away from their core; founding principles that empowered their employees and contributed to making them a successful automobile manufacturing juggernaut. A major source for of their ongoing improvement and innovation has been from employees.

Toyota is a successful automaker. The quality of the products brought to market is of high quality and sold for a reasonable price. Their leadership showed strong business acumen and they were on the tip of the spear when it came to the innovation and marketing of hybrid vehicles. Their senior leadership and managers have anticipated market changes and kept their finger on the pulse of the consumers. Increasing market share, revenue, and profit have been the standard for Toyota. Management is a discipline of organizing and allocating a firms resources to achieve a desired outcome (Keat and Young 2009). For years, Toyota has reaped in the fruits of achieving their outcomes, but in late 2009 and early 2010 they faced economic conditions that turned their prosperous world upside down.

Peter Drucker, who is claimed to be “the greatest management thinker of the last century”[2], once declared: “The automotive industry is an industry of industries”[3]. The automobile industry exists for more than a century and tracing the changes and development that took place there could tell volumes about the human history. In some way automotive industry reflects it, but if one looks deeper into it one could notice that in some way the industry itself formed the history of the 20th century. Though the industry is market driven now, it was not always like that. The example of Henry Ford producing just one car model with