Read The Case Study: Consolidated Products At The End Of Cha

Read The Case Study Consolidated Products At The End Of Chapter 3 An

Read the case study "Consolidated Products" at the end of Chapter 3 and answer the questions at the end of the reading. Consolidated Products is a medium-sized manufacturer of consumer products with nonunionized production workers. Ben Samuels was a plant manager for Consolidated Products for 10 years, and he was well liked by the employees. They were grateful for the fitness center he built for employees, and they enjoyed the social activities sponsored by the plant several times a year, including company picnics and holiday parties. He knew most of the workers by name, and he spent part of each day walking around the plant to visit with them and ask about their families or hobbies. Ben believed that it was important to treat employees properly so they would have a sense of loyalty to the company.

He tried to avoid any layoffs when production demand was slack, figuring that the company could not afford to lose skilled workers who are so difficult to replace. The workers knew that if they had a special problem, Ben would try to help them. For example, when someone was injured but wanted to continue working, Ben found another job in the plant that the person could do despite having a disability. Ben believed that if you treat people right, they will do a good job for you without close supervision or prodding. Ben applied the same principle to his supervisors, and he mostly left them alone to run their departments as they saw fit. He did not set objectives and standards for the plant, and he never asked the supervisors to develop plans for improving productivity and product quality.

Under Ben, the plant had the lowest turnover among the company’s five plants, but the second worst record for costs and production levels. When the company was acquired by another firm, Ben was asked to take early retirement, and Phil Jones was brought in to replace him. Phil had a growing reputation as a manager who could get things done, and he quickly began making changes. Costs were cut by trimming activities such as the fitness center at the plant, company picnics and parties, and the human relations training programs for supervisors. Phil believed that training supervisors to be supportive was a waste of time. His motto was: “If employees don’t want to do the work, get rid of them and find somebody else who does.” Supervisors were instructed to establish high performance standards for their departments and insist that people achieve them. A computer monitoring system was introduced so that the output of each worker could be checked closely against the standards.

Phil told his supervisors to give any worker who had substandard performance one warning, then if performance did not improve within two weeks, to fire the person. Phil believed that workers don’t respect a supervisor who is weak and passive. When Phil observed a worker wasting time or making a mistake, he would reprimand the person right on the spot to set an example. Phil also checked closely on the performance of his supervisors. Demanding objectives were set for each department, and weekly meetings were held with each supervisor to review department performance. Finally, Phil insisted that supervisors check with him first before taking any significant actions that deviated from established plans and policies.

Paper For Above instruction

The managerial behaviors of Ben Samuels and Phil Jones at Consolidated Products exemplify contrasting leadership styles, reflecting distinct approaches to employee management, organizational culture, and performance outcomes. Analyzing their behaviors through the lens of leadership theories, such as relational and task-oriented behaviors, participative versus authoritarian leadership, illuminates their impact on employee attitudes, productivity, and long-term organizational sustainability.

Ben Samuels’ Leadership Style and Behaviors

Ben exemplified a relational, supportive, and participative leadership style, primarily characterized by his relations-oriented behaviors and a laissez-faire approach to management. He strongly believed in treating employees with respect, compassion, and fairness, fostering a positive work environment that emphasized employee well-being and loyalty. Ben’s engaging behaviors included personal recognition, supporting employee needs, and developing a friendly organizational climate. His approach aligns with transformational and servant leadership paradigms, emphasizing motivating employees through support and trust rather than direct control (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

In terms of specific behaviors, Ben demonstrated high levels of relations-oriented behaviors—supporting, developing, and recognizing employee efforts. He also engaged in tasks like planning and monitoring informally, primarily through his personal interactions rather than formal systems. His leadership did not emphasize clarifying roles or establishing ambitious objectives; instead, he implicitly fostered employee self-motivation and loyalty. His participative leadership style was evident in his open-door approach, giving employees a voice and showing concern for their individual needs (Yukl, 2010).

Ben’s leadership positively influenced employee attitudes, evidenced by low turnover and high morale. Employees felt valued and supported, which strengthened their commitment. However, his lack of formal objectives and performance standards led to suboptimal organizational performance, as evidenced by higher costs and lower productivity metrics. His leadership favored stability and employee satisfaction over efficiency and output (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).

Phil Jones’ Leadership Style and Behaviors

Conversely, Phil represented a task-oriented, directive, and transactional leadership style, emphasizing high performance standards, monitoring, and control. His behavior was characterized by high-high leader behaviors (initiating structure and consideration), with a strong focus on task behaviors such as clarifying, planning, and monitoring. Phil’s approach is consistent with transactional leadership, where performance is closely supervised, and compliance is enforced through rewards and sanctions (Bass, 1985).

Phil exhibited high levels of task-focused behaviors, seen in his implementation of monitoring systems, strict adherence to performance standards, and immediate reprimands for mistakes. His behavior lacked elements of support, recognition, or development, reflecting a top-down, controlling leadership style. His belief that “if employees don’t want to do the work, get rid of them,” highlights an authoritarian, results-driven approach, discouraging participation or developmental support. His weekly meetings and direct supervision reinforce a culture of compliance and performance accountability.

This leadership style, while effective in rapidly reducing costs and increasing short-term productivity, adversely affected employee attitudes and organizational climate. The high turnover, especially among skilled workers, indicates low morale and job satisfaction. The pressure for immediate results often breeds resentment and a lack of organizational commitment, risking long-term operational sustainability (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Moreover, the aggressive monitoring and punitive actions potentially undermine trust and cooperation among employees.

Comparison of Leadership and Impact on Organizational Outcomes

The contrast between Ben and Phil illustrates differing impacts on employee attitudes, performance, and organizational health. Ben’s leadership fostered high employee morale, low turnover, and organizational loyalty, but at the expense of efficiency and productivity. His relational approach creates a positive organizational climate, which is crucial for long-term sustainability but may hinder rapid performance gains (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Phil’s focus on immediate performance results and control mechanisms led to quick improvements in costs and output, exemplifying effective short-term management. However, this came with increased turnover, lower employee satisfaction, and potential erosion of organizational commitment. His leadership style risks creating a toxic work environment if sustained long-term, potentially leading to a decline in organizational capacity and innovation (Yukl, 2010).

The reasons for these differences stem from their underlying assumptions: Ben’s focus on human relations and intrinsic motivation versus Phil’s emphasis on extrinsic motivation through external controls. While both styles can be effective depending on organizational context, sustainable organizational success typically requires a balanced integration of relational support and task-focused effectiveness (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).

Recommendations for Achieving High Employee Satisfaction and Performance

If entrusted with managing this plant, I would adopt a transformational leadership approach, combining the relational strengths of Ben with the task orientation exemplified by Phil. This includes establishing clear objectives and performance standards while simultaneously fostering a supportive environment that emphasizes employee development, recognition, and participation (Bass, 1995).

Specifically, I would implement structured goal-setting systems, such as SMART objectives, combined with regular feedback and coaching sessions to motivate employees and improve performance. I would foster participative decision-making, encouraging employees to contribute ideas for efficiency and quality improvements. This participative approach boosts intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, and ownership of organizational goals (Yukl, 2010).

Recognizing employee achievements through awards, acknowledgment, and opportunities for career growth would strengthen organizational commitment. Additionally, investing in training that enhances both technical skills and interpersonal competencies ensures workforce adaptability and engagement. Maintaining open communication channels and cultivating a trusting, respectful workplace culture are vital for balancing productivity with satisfaction (Hackman & Johnson, 2013).

Lastly, establishing a rewards system that integrates both performance outcomes and behaviors aligned with organizational values will promote sustained high performance, innovation, and employee well-being. By integrating the positive aspects of Ben’s relational approach with strategic task management, it is possible to achieve a high-performing, satisfied workforce capable of driving long-term organizational success.

References

• Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire manual. Mind Garden.
• Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A Communication Perspective. Waveland Press.
• Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications.
• Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux. Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 463–478.
• Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
• Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 554–571.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leadership behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of organizational effectiveness. Journal of Management, 16(3), 759–778.
• Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and leader-member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), 491–525.