Case Study: Leadership Behaviors In Consolidated Products

Case Study: Leadership Behaviors Consolidated Products Consolidated Products is a medium-sized manufacturer of consumer products with nonunionized pro~uction workers

Consolidated Products is a medium-sized manufacturer of consumer products with nonunionized production workers. Ben Samuels served as a plant manager for a decade, gaining employees' respect through his personable and supportive style. He built a fitness center, organized social activities, and engaged freely with employees by knowing them personally, which fostered loyalty and a sense of community. Ben prioritized employee well-being by avoiding layoffs during slack periods and assisting workers with disabilities, believing that treating employees well would lead to better performance without close supervision. He also used a hands-off approach with supervisors, refraining from setting objectives or standardizing performance benchmarks. While his approach contributed to low turnover and a positive work environment, the plant struggled with higher costs and lower productivity compared to other facilities.

When the company was acquired, Phil Jones replaced Ben as plant manager. Phil introduced a more aggressive, results-oriented management style focused on cost-cutting and high performance. He eliminated employee-focused programs like the fitness center and social events, viewing support activities as unnecessary. Phil emphasized strict standards, high-performance expectations, and monitored production via computer systems to ensure compliance. He mandated immediate reprimands for substandard performance and set weekly performance reviews with supervisors. his management style was confrontational and demanding, discouraging supportive supervision and emphasizing discipline and accountability. Phil also reduced equipment maintenance to cut costs, which ultimately affected machine reliability and production consistency. When business slowed, he preferred layoffs over reassignments, resulting in increased turnover among workers and supervisors alike. Although his strategies increased productivity and decreased costs significantly, they also caused high employee turnover, low morale, and growing dissatisfaction, risking unionization efforts.

Paper For Above instruction

The comparison of the leadership behaviors of Ben Samuels and Phil Jones reveals contrasting management styles rooted in their approaches to employee relations and operational efficiency. Ben exemplifies a participative and supportive leadership style characterized by a high concern for people and a relaxed approach to task standards. He fostered a positive work environment through social activities, personal interactions, and supportive measures, such as helping injured workers find suitable roles despite disabilities. His leadership strategies reflected a concern for employee well-being and loyalty, believing that these elements would naturally translate into motivated and committed workers. However, Ben’s approach lacked a focus on formal performance standards and goals, which resulted in low costs but also relatively poor productivity and higher operational costs compared to peer plants. His soft management style prioritized employee satisfaction over measurable performance, which, while beneficial for morale, limited the plant's competitiveness and efficiency.

In stark contrast, Phil Jones adopted an authoritarian and results-driven leadership approach, emphasizing high performance, cost-cutting, and efficiency. Phil believed in strict standards, close monitoring, and immediate discipline for underperformance. His management included setting demanding department objectives, employing computer monitoring systems, and holding frequent performance review meetings. Phil sought to eliminate any support activities or programs perceived as unnecessary expense, such as social events and training programs, viewing supportive supervision as a waste of resources. His style was confrontational—warning and firing employees on the spot for performance issues—and he closely supervised supervisors, requiring pre-approval for any deviations from established plans. His aggressive management resulted in significant cost savings and increased productivity but also high turnover among workers and supervisors, which threatened long-term stability. His focus on short-term gains over employee morale and development exemplifies a task-oriented style that prioritizes operational control over employee relations.

Both styles reflect distinct leadership paradigms: Ben’s compassionate, relationship-oriented approach fostered employee loyalty and low turnover but lacked emphasis on productivity and performance standards; Phil’s task-oriented leadership prioritized efficiency and measurable results, often at the expense of worker satisfaction and stability. Effective management often requires balancing these paradigms, integrating supportive leadership that motivates employees and a focus on productivity and organizational goals. In dynamic environments, transformational leadership—combining high task performance with high regard for employee development—can be particularly effective in sustaining high performance and fostering a committed, satisfied workforce.

To achieve both high employee satisfaction and high performance, a manager should adopt a transformational leadership approach. This involves setting clear, achievable performance goals while simultaneously fostering a supportive work environment that values employee input, development, and well-being. Implementing participative decision-making processes can motivate employees by involving them in goal setting and problem-solving, thereby increasing their commitment and satisfaction.

Effective communication is crucial; managers should clearly articulate expectations, provide constructive feedback, and recognize achievements regularly. This creates a sense of purpose and accountability. Training programs that develop supervisory skills in supportive leadership and performance management can help supervisors balance task achievement with employee motivation, creating a positive feedback loop where high standards motivate employees, and their engagement leads to improved performance.

In practice, this balance can be achieved through flexible management practices that recognize individual differences, promote fairness, and foster trust. For example, establishing performance standards with employee input can enhance buy-in. Offering professional development opportunities signifies a commitment to employee growth, which encourages loyalty and effort. Additionally, creating non-monetary incentives such as recognition programs, opportunities for skill development, and participation in social activities can help improve job satisfaction without compromising productivity.

Furthermore, leaders should promote organizational justice by ensuring fair treatment and transparent decision-making processes, which boosts morale and reduces turnover. By integrating some of Ben’s relational style—such as personal engagement and support—with Phil’s focus on objective standards and performance metrics, managers can cultivate an environment where employees feel valued and motivated to contribute their best efforts. This balanced approach can enhance both productivity and employee satisfaction, ultimately leading to sustainable organizational success.

Conclusion

The case of Consolidated Products exemplifies the stark differences between a compassionate, employee-centered leadership style and a strict, performance-oriented approach. While Ben’s style fostered loyalty and low turnover, it failed to optimize productivity and cost efficiency. Conversely, Phil’s aggressive, task-focused style achieved immediate financial gains but at the cost of employee morale and stability. Effective leadership in manufacturing environments requires a strategic blend of these approaches—adopting transformational leadership practices that emphasize both performance standards and supportive relationships. Such a balanced style promotes a motivated, loyal workforce capable of sustaining high performance over the long term.

References

• Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.
• Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 225-236.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Robinson, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (17th ed.). Pearson.
• Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. Wiley.
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298.
• Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (1989). Leader reward and punishment behavior: Preliminary results on a new observational rating measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 340-347.