In my previous paper, I reviewed Systems Theory of management in regards to the early management practices in Ancient Egypt. Within the current research I will discuss the US Industrial Revolution and its connection to the systematic management. To begin with, the US Industrial revolution started at the end of the 18th century and lasted for almost 100 years. Some may call it as a continuation of the British Industrial Revolution, as most changes in the US manufacturing started after new machinery and technologies were brought from the UK. Cotton production was a pioneer industry to change from handcrafted to machinery-aid mass production. The necessity to industrialize most of the industries was caused by the rapidly increasing population and thus, growing demand. In turn, it led to the need of a strong banking system to support farmers with affordable loans; increased taxes on imported goods to support national producers; and ofcourse a developed transportation network to connect producers, distributors and consumers. And, perhaps, the boost of transport development caused further industrial progress.
Nelson’s “Farm and Factory: Workers in the Midwest, 1880-1990” was chosen as Landmark article. According to the author, machinery and oil firms were the most developed by the end of the 19th century, and many of them started merging and consolidating, which actually turned on the transformation in manufacturing management. The brightest example of the 19th century management was a “systematic management”, which was focused on the improvement of internal coordination and communication. It introduced ad hoc measures and extended the authority of the higher executives. The author claims that shift to the systematic management was caused by the increased competition, as it was the least painful change for most companies (Nelson, 1995, p.72). Zupancic, Dirk, Neckermann, Sonja, and Schagen, Alexander (2010) based on the example of a German private company, The WIRE Group, supported the idea that successful management should "Create connections - from the present into the future" (p.547). Meaning, that in the modern globalized economy, businesses should use management practices of their predecessors to implement the innovations needed. Yoon & Song (2014) extended the standard systematic approach, stating that it should be implemented not only in the internal management, but also as an external approach “to exploring potential partners for open innovation in order to facilitate the process of technological collaboration” (p.1068).
References
Nelson, D. (1995) Farm and Factory: Workers in the Midwest, 1880-1990. Indiana University Press, 258. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=WmE34RV_MpEC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=industrial+growth+and+systematic+management&source=bl&ots=azhM4yzRcb&sig=qOgr6dcVzESG7pVG8isxT_dUg2s&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFiOSXzMnRAhVKDJoKHamXAB8Q6AEITTAG#v=onepage&q=industrial%20growth%20and%20systematic%20management&f=false
Yoon, B. & Song, B. (2014) A systematic approach of partner selection for open innovation Industrial Management & Data Systems, Wembley 114.7, 1093-1068. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/docview/1633959947/F034F97A2F654D90PQ/28?accountid=4870
Zupancic, D., Neckermann, S., and Schagen, A. (2010) Systematic sales channel redesign for the US market. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Santa Barbara 25.7 547-555. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/docview/750883418/F034F97A2F654D90PQ/15?accountid=4870
Response to Ainsworth Alexander
I assume, understanding the Industrial revolution through the social and cultural aspects is as well important as seeing its economic importance for the country. I absolutely agree that shifting traditional manufacturing to the industrial type has largely increased the number of working places, as there existed a need in engineers, managers and most importantly the need in a large number of regular workers. Unfortunately, the pace of industrial development forced many factory owners to hire women and children, as there was not enough men to work. But in the same time, this issue arose a number of legal questions and thus led to formulating the labor laws and standards. It would be also great to see a reflection of Kulik’s views in the modern articles.
References
Kulik, G. B. (1980). The Beginnings Of The Industrial Revolution In America: Pawtucket, Rhode Island, 1672 - 1829 (Order No. 8111129). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (302999836). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/docview/302999836?accountid=4870
Response to Sharonda Giles
I absolutely support the historical statement that Samuel Slater and Samuel Morse are the first to bring Industrial Revolution to the US. Even though some technologies were borrowed from the British factories (i.e. cotton production), both innovations led to further changes in the society and economy. It was truly “the shift from labor on the farm to factory generated money for all people’’.This, undoubtfully led to the standardized concept of the wages and salary payments. Besides that, women got an opportunity to work on the same jobs that their husbands, which later gave a great support for the women’s rights movements. This aspect seems to be relevant to the modern labor rules and standards, as many claim that women and men are still not equally treated.
References
Cobble, D. S. (1990). Rethinking troubled relations between women and unions: Craft unionism and female activism. Feminist Studies, 16(3), 519. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/docview/233177935?accountid=4870
Cranch, W. (1849). Circuit and District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia. The Western Law Journal (1843-1853), 1(8), 372. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/docview/126841983?accountid=4870
Fisher, M. J. (1948). Equal pay for equal work legislation. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 250-57.
Salin, D., & Hoel, H. (2013). Workplace bullying as a gendered phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(3), 235-251. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941311321187
