Managerial Behavior of Ben and Phil

Managerial Behavior of Ben and Phil

Consolidated Products Case Study

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 that 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 a number of 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 lime 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.

As another cost-cutting move, Phil reduced the frequency of equipment maintenance, which required machines to be idled when they could be productive. Because the machines had a good record of reliable operation, Phil believed that the current maintenance schedule was excessive and was culling into production. Finally, when business was slow for one of the product lines, Phil laid off workers rather than finding something else for them to do.

By the end of Phil’s first year as plant manager, production costs were reduced by 20 percent and production output was up by 10 percent. However, three of his seven supervisors left to take other jobs, and turnover was also high among the machine operators. Some of the turnovers was due to workers, who were fired, but competent machine operators were also quitting, and ii was becoming increasingly difficult to find any replacements for them. Finally, talk of unionizing was increasing among the workers.

Questions:

  1. Describe and compare the managerial behavior of Ben and Phil. To what extent does each manager display specific relations behaviors (supporting, developing, recognizing) and specific task behaviors (clarifying, planning, monitoring)? To what extent does each manager use participative or inspirational leadership?
  2. Compare Ben and Phil in terms of their influence on employee attitudes, short-term per-formance, and long-term plant performance, and explain the reasons for the differences.
  3. If you were selected to be the manager of this plant, what would you do to achieve both high employee satisfaction and performance?

Consolidated Products Case Study

Solution 1


Managerial Behavior of Ben and Phil

Case study 1:

Ben Samuels and Phil Jones had different managerial behavior, Samuels had consideration for his workers while Jones did not have compassion for his employees, and rather he was always after results and the company’s performance. While Samuels was not after changes and improvements in the company’s overall performance, Jones always made sure employees always stick to their roles and ensure change and improvement in the organization.

Samuels and Jones managerial Behaviors

SamuelsJones
Compassion for employees-result oriented
-democratic-autocratic kind of behavior
-trust-result-oriented trust; hard work pays
-consideration behaviors: Listening-initiating behaviors of getting people to work hard and task direction.

Samuels and Jones displayed different relations behaviors to their employees. Samuels, for instance, is supportive. He spends time with his employees and knows almost all of them by their names and spent most of his time around visiting employees and asking them about their families. Samuels would even look for a job within the plant to sustain an injured employee. However, Samuels was not developing, under Samuels, there were no set standards and objectives for plant and he never asked his supervisors to cultivate plans for civilizing productivity as well as product quality. It is due to the plant recorded the lowermost turnover amongst the company’s 5 plants, it also recorded high costs as well as production levels. In terms of recognizing employees, Samuels was the best. He built them a fitness center and recognized their need for social life by introducing the company’s picnics and holidays every year. On the other hand, Jones was not supportive, using his motto, it is clear that Jones was not supportive of such employees who got injured at work and he could also lay off employees who at some moment underperformed. Jones was however developing, he had a growing reputation for the plant and he quickly made changes. He also made sure that supervisors establish high-performance standards for their department and he went ahead to acquire a computer monitoring system for work and task evaluation. One problem with Jones was that he never recognized employees’ performance rather he was just after results and turn-over, he could not recognize the need of talking to employees and listening to any view/grievances raised. This led to employee dissatisfaction and most of them started quitting, for example, the supervisors.

Clarifying, planning and monitoring.

Both Samuels and Jones achieved clarity for their task assignments. Samuels interfaced well with the employees and clarify issues with the employees though he didn’t pay attention to their performance and delivery. On planning, Samuels had poor planning compared to Jones. Over the 10 years of Samuel’s tenure, he was not able to develop a strategic plan for the company’s productions and quality product improvement. On the other hand, Jones was able to lead his supervisors to develop plans for productivity improvements and product quality. Jones was also able to monitor his employee performance by holding weekly meetings with his supervisors, unlike Samuels who only trusted that if he treats employees’ right, they will do a good job and may not require supervision. He didn’t monitor the company’s performance as he almost left the supervisors alone to run their departments, he neither set objectives nor standards for the plant.

Samuels and Jones had a different influence on employee attitudes and performance; short-term and long-term plant performance. Samuels had a good rapport with the employees that developed a sense of confidence in engaging with the manager. Short-term and long-term plant performance was however detrimental because Samuels lacked set objectives and standards, the influence of the company’s plant performance is poor. On the other hand, Jones’s take-over didn’t quite well impress his employees since they enjoyed good moments under Samuels. Employees lost moral to execute their duties and that resulted in some leaving their jobs. Jones, however, had a good influence on short-term and long-term plant performance. Introducing plans with set standards and objectives for production improvement and quality products is a boost. This influences the company to have a well laid down standards and objectives sustaining productions over a couple of years.

If employed as a manager, I will first establish the kind of relationship Samuels had with his employees; being open and always encourage open conversations with employees to achieve good communication. Concerning plant production, I will work hand-in-hand with the supervisors to set objectives and standards for improving plant operation; production improvement and quality product attainment. I will also hold meetings with my supervisors to discuss improvements that are needed for the plant to cut down on expenses and increase turn over for the plant and making sure that all the plant employees are satisfied with the roles they perform.

Case study 2:

Smith is a task-oriented person. Some of the task-oriented behaviors she possesses have led to her success and hence generating the highest revenues. The specific task-oriented behaviors she possesses are Planning, coordinating and scheduling work or activities to get the job done at the Superior Staffing. Smith sets challenging monthly goals for recruiters on the number of successful recruits’ placement with clients. She also has a good plan by holding a monthly meeting to discuss individual progress with recruiters to check each person’s performance. If the placement goal is not achieved, she helps recruiters develop improvement plans for the coming month and helps them communicate any problems they might be facing so that they can work together in achieving a solution promptly. Smith also coordinates all the recruiters by holding meetings with them to establish their progress and work performance. It is because she is well-liked by her employees. Smith helps her employees work around the set schedule monthly.

Specific relations-oriented behaviors used by Smith

Smith is focused on the relationship with the recruiters working under her. She takes interest within individual lives of their recruiters and always willing to help them with their needs. Smith is sincere and has a concern about her recruiters leading to a highly supportive work environment.

Other specific tasks and relations behaviors offered by Smith are being participative. Smith offers participative relations to her employees. She gives individual coaching to anyone who needs it. After observing a recruiter calling or holding meetings in the offices, she praises him/her for their performance and goes ahead to offer advice on how to be more effective. Smith also involves recruiters in planning to help them create a good recruiting team.

Reference

https://moodle3.iauonline.org/pluginfile.php/185624/mod_resource/content/1/Week%201%20Case%20Studies.pdf

Solution 2


1. Ben’s management conduct was accommodating and egalitarian where workers respected their freedom to the degree that they produced an unethical nature against the assigned work when there was no monitoring or assessment of the actual employee’s work. Although the workers well understood the positive actions and work benefits he sought to offer the employee, on the other hand, such employee conduct lowered morale and caused the company to slip into the low-performance pit.

There was little clarification as to how the job would be done, and the supervisors did not participate in any preparation to carry out the mission that the subordinates were expected to execute which contributed to the management’s unstructured approach. Compared to the management style of Ben Phil, although it was not encouraging, it was the need for the hour, and according to the law, management can only work effectively if careful preparation is accompanied by more organisation that needs to be managed by the managers and leaders of management to ensure the performance of the company. Phil continued to use an optimistic management style in which the boss learned how to accept jobs from workers and turn the team into a good staff community, without making them inefficient.

2.

When we speak about employee mindset, the mindset of workers under Phil ‘s leadership shifted as they were inexperienced and were not accustomed to monitoring and control their job and reach the expectations along with the Deadlines that was vice versa under Ben’s leadership style. Both, under Phils’ leadership the short-term and long-term efficiency of workers improved as the managers were now educated and forced to strategize the job that was not completed under Ben’s leadership. Urgent acts by Phil and a performance-based approach have brought the company to new heights.

3.

If I was the boss, I would not have followed Phil ‘s strategy, but I would not have had workers restrict the continuing bonuses they enjoyed earlier, such as gymnastics, corporate picnics, etc., as work-life harmony and additional rewards are still an important part of high growth enterprise.

Is this question part of your Assignment?

We can help

Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.

We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals

Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples