← Back to Library

How westinghouse lost its way

This isn't just a corporate history; it's a forensic autopsy of how a technological titan lost its soul to the very management theories it helped invent. Asianometry argues that Westinghouse's collapse wasn't a sudden accident, but the inevitable result of a century-long drift from engineering excellence to financial speculation, a cautionary tale that feels startlingly relevant to today's tech giants. The piece forces us to ask: when a company stops caring about the product and starts caring only about the portfolio, how long until the lights go out?

The Engineer's Hubris

The narrative begins by dismantling the myth of the founder as a savior. Asianometry writes, "George was a brilliant engineer, but as many an arrogant Silicon Valley computer programmer, are they engineers really, learns, when they take on management duties, that doesn't make for a great manager." This is a sharp, modern reframing of historical failure. The author suggests that George Westinghouse's fatal flaw wasn't a lack of vision, but an excess of centralization and a "fearless entrepreneurial optimism" that led to disastrous debt-fueled expansion before the Panic of 1907.

How westinghouse lost its way

The commentary here is effective because it connects 19th-century industrial history to a very contemporary problem: the engineer-founder who cannot scale. Asianometry notes that after the founder was sidelined by bankers, the company actually stabilized, adopting a more disciplined management style similar to its rival, General Electric. This shift allowed them to thrive during the "benign circle" strategy, where selling appliances drove electricity demand, which in turn drove demand for their turbines. The author argues this synergy was the company's golden era, creating a self-reinforcing loop that eliminated boom-and-bust cycles for decades.

"The benign circle would drive the two companies' corporate strategies for decades."

However, this stability bred complacency. When the Great Depression hit, the company's R&D efforts became disconnected from market realities. Asianometry points out that while their "Atom Smasher" was scientifically impressive, it produced no commercial products. The author writes, "Indubitably good science, but no products came out of this." This highlights a critical vulnerability: investing in science without a clear path to application is a luxury few industrial giants can afford indefinitely. The real money, the author notes, came from microwave electronics and radar, not particle physics.

The Strategic Blind Spot

The piece takes a darker turn as it examines the post-war era, where Westinghouse's failure to anticipate market shifts proved fatal. While General Electric aggressively pivoted to larger, custom-designed turbines, Westinghouse clung to standardized, smaller units. Asianometry quotes an engineering manager from the era who admitted, "Oh golly, that is when the real desires of the power industry became more apparent... and we simply had to put on a crash program to find out the behavior of these materials." This candid admission reveals a company playing catch-up, starved of talent and resources.

The author argues that the company made a series of cascading errors: over-investing in manufacturing capacity to clear backlogs while slashing R&D, and then getting entangled in a massive price-fixing scandal. The fallout from the 1961 electrical trust case was devastating. Asianometry writes, "The fallout of the electrical trust case of 1961 smashed prices, allowed in foreign competition, and forced out the number three American turbine maker, Alice Chalmer's." This external shock forced the remaining players to reinvent themselves, but Westinghouse's reinvention was a disaster.

Critics might note that the article places significant blame on individual CEOs and specific decisions, potentially underplaying the broader macroeconomic pressures of the 1960s, such as the shift from defense spending to domestic social programs under the Johnson administration. Yet, the author's point stands: the company's reaction to these pressures was fundamentally flawed.

The Diversification Trap

The climax of the story is the tenure of CEO Donald Burnham, who arrived with a mandate to escape General Electric's shadow. Asianometry describes his strategy as a radical pivot: "In other words, all goes if it makes money." This led to a chaotic diversification into soda bottling, car rentals, and even mail-order watches. The author captures the delusion of the era perfectly: "We had this conviction that we could manage anything."

This section is the most damning. The author argues that Burnham's belief that management skills were transferable across any industry was a fatal hubris. Westinghouse tried to build entire cities and develop electric vehicles, driven by a mix of social idealism and profit-seeking. Asianometry writes, "Reading with the benefit of hindsight, it all feels like a stretch at best and cope at worst." The core argument is that by chasing short-term profits in unrelated fields, the company neglected its core competency, leaving it vulnerable when the technology landscape shifted again.

"We had this conviction that we could manage anything."

The irony is palpable. A company founded by an engineer who revolutionized train safety ended up losing its way because its leaders forgot that engineering and management are different disciplines. Asianometry concludes that the "benign circle" was replaced by a vicious cycle of distraction and decline.

Bottom Line

Asianometry delivers a masterful analysis of how corporate identity can erode when leadership prioritizes financial engineering over product excellence. The strongest part of the argument is the clear line drawn from the founder's centralization to the later CEO's chaotic diversification, showing a consistent pattern of managerial overreach. The biggest vulnerability is the assumption that a different leadership style could have easily solved the structural issues of the 1960s energy market. Readers should watch for parallels in today's conglomerates, where the temptation to diversify often masks a lack of confidence in the core business.

Deep Dives

Explore these related deep dives:

  • Panic of 1907

    This financial crisis directly triggered the bankers' takeover of Westinghouse, illustrating the specific moment when the company's engineering-led culture was replaced by financial management.

Sources

How westinghouse lost its way

by Asianometry · Asianometry · Watch video

Founded in 1886, Westinghouse Electric grew to be one of America's industrial giants, second only to General Electric. In August 1998, the company sold off its industrial and power generation businesses and became a media company. How did such a titan so badly stumble and lose its way? We like the simple answers.

Managers were greedy. They took their eyes off the ball. Dive into the history and the historical circumstances and things get a bit murkier. In today's video, we discuss how Westinghouse Electric lost its way.

This video is brought to you by the Asian Patreon. Westinghouse Electric was founded in 1886 by the legendary engineer George Westinghouse. At the age of 23, George invented the air brake device that made stopping a heavy train far safer, saving the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands of railroad workers. And over the long term, the airreak enabled the economic scaling up of rail transport by allowing trains to go faster and pull more cars.

It's truly revolutionary device. So, Westinghouse Electric was George's second big venture. He first got into electricity because he wanted to control his train systems with it. He then got into alternating current systems.

In 1886, he licensed a patent for a step- down transformer system that made long-d distanceance AC power distribution practical. This and other systems formed the basis of Westinghouse Electric. It has no ties to the Westinghouse Air Company, now known as Wabco. The company then gained considerable fame for its ferocious competition with Thomas Edison and his Edison General Electric to wire up the country.

The war of the currents as they called it. It took a heavy financial toll on both companies and thus in 1896 the two negotiated peace via a shared patent pool that cemented them as oligopoly players in the US electric industry. George was a brilliant engineer, but as many an arrogant Silicon Valley computer programmer, are they engineers really, learns, when they take on management duties, that doesn't make for a great manager. George centralized company decision-making around himself and delegated little to his subordinates and his fearless entrepreneurial optimism led the company into fruitless speculations and a disastrous debtfueled expansion in the leadup to a major financial crisis.

That crisis, the so-called panic of 1907, toppled the overleveraged company and caused George's bankers to sideline him from operations. He had little involvement with the ...