Consolidated Products Essays - , Term Papers

Abstract This case analysis is about Ben Samuels and Phil Jones who are two managers from Consolidated Products Plant Company with different type of managerial behaviors. Both Ben and Phil in some extent used participative or inspirational leadership and the influence used on employee?s attitudes and performance. Ben and Phil displayed specific relation-driven behaviors, and specific task-oriented behavior. This case analysis will also include personal recommendations on how to achieve employee satisfaction, business high performance, and leadership effectiveness will be addressed in the hypothetical case as a new manager of the Consolidated Products plant. Consolidated Products - Case Analysis The Consolidated Products case is a medium-sized manufacturer of consumer products with ununionized production workers. Yulk (2009). Ben Samuels and Phil Jones worked at the Consolidated Products plant case with different type of managerial behaviors. Ben was well liked by the employees and believed that by treating them properly would generate a sense of loyalty to the business. Also, Ben always tried to accommodate and help his employees, and avoid any layoffs by relocating the staff to other work related positions. Ben knew most of the workers by name, always visited the employees, asked about their families and maintained dynamic interpersonal relationships with subordinates. In addition, taken into account that Ben showed a great deal of supportive leadership, believed that by treating employees correctly, the job performance would be better without requiring close supervision. Ben is the perfect example of a person-oriented, concern for people, and relations-oriented manage r. Employees were satisfied, by Ben?s behavior and there were fewer turnovers among the company?s five plants. However, Ben lacked of task-oriented managerial behavior by letting supervisors to run the departments alone without close monitoring. Standard Operational Procedures (SOP) and the development of a proper planning in order to improve productivity and product quality was never used under Ben?s supervision. As argued by Yulk (2009) monitoring refers to the gathering of information about the supervisor?s work unit, measure progress of the tasks, conduct periodic review meetings, observe operations directly, among other guidelines for monitoring operations. There were no indications that Ben displayed or showed a participative leadership behavior since there was no group supervision, nor did Ben show that he asked for the participation from subordinates in making decision. The supervisors worked alone and made important decisions that led to a second worst record for costs and production levels in the plant since there were no delegation from Ben?s part. As a consequence, when the company was bought in by another firm Ben was asked to retire. On the other hand, Phil was the opposite from Ben. Phil was recognized as an executive that could get the job done. Phil put in place a short-term planning, clarifying roles and objectives, and monitoring of operations and performance immediately. For instance, Phil asked his supervisors to established high performance standards, and insisted that all employees achieve them. This action was a clear indication that Phil was directly into communicating the plans, policies, and role expectations to his subordinates. Phil exhibited the classic task-oriented managerial behavior. Phil emphasized that under the previous manager?s administration, there were not procedures in place, and thus a great deal of doubt or role conflicts existed. In order to remedy this issue, Phil checked closely his subordinates? performance. At the same time this action helped recognize achievements, identify performance deficiencies, and asses training needs. In order to review department performance Phil he ld weekly meetings and requested the supervisors to consult first before taking any action that could have damage the plans and policies in the plant. Phil?s actions positively impacted the plant?s production levels, where costs were reduced by 20 percent and production output was increased to 10 percent. Phil believed that training supervisors to be supportive was a waste of time. In addition, Phil showed rude and inconsiderate attitude towards employees and subordinates, by reprimanding the person right on the spot to set an example. Moreover, instead of implementing coaching and mentoring as a developing component, Phil would rather fire any employee that had had a substandard performance without hesitating. In addition, Phil did not helped employees learn how to solve work related problems, or provided opportunities to learn from experience, and