leadership HW

I need two different work for me and for my classmate

read the filed below

INMGT 400/600 Organizational Leadership Assignment 3

Leadership Development Case Study: Consolidated Products (p. 58-59 text)

Assignment Instructions and Requirements

1. Read the case study found in the textbook on the pages identified in the title above.

2. You are encourage to discuss the case with other members of the class, specifically considering the following 2-part question as it relates to the case study:

· How would you assess/describe Phil Jones’s level of emotional intelligence in terms of the four components listed in Chapter 5 of the textbook?

· What advice would you give Phil Jones to improve his level of emotional intelligence?

3. Submit a written copy (not less than, but not more than 2, pages) of your assessment (2a) and recommendations (2b) in accordance with the formatting requirements stated below.

a) Title – centered, 12 pt. Times New Roman Bold font, name of assignment (as listed on class schedule unless otherwise noted) followed by your name.

b) Content – left margin aligned, 12 pt. Times New Roman, double line spacing – following the subheading ‘
Assessment of Emotional Intelligence
’ your response to question 2a above.

– following the sub-heading ‘

Recommendations

’ your response to question 2b above.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not write a summary of the case study (I have already read the case and do not need to read it again)

4. Submit your paper to the respective D2L drop box before the stated due date and time. Late submissions will be accepted.

The following criteria will be used for evaluation:

(1 point)
Wrote something but it is not related to topic or case study

Unsatisfactory

Criteria
Assessment of Level of EI	(4 points) A clearly written, insightful assessment of all four components. Met expectations	(3 or 2 points) Superficial assessment and/or assessed level of EI is based on less than four of the components Fell short of expectations		(1 point) Wrote something but it is not related to topic or case study Unsatisfactory
Recommendations	(2 points) Recommendations are clearly written and reasonable based on information provided. Met expectations	(1 point) Recommendations are unrealistic, impractical, and/or based on false information Fell short of expectations
Professionalism	(2 points) Followed directions, no formatting errors, no writing errors	(1 point) Followed directions and less than 3 formatting and/or writing errors	(0 points) Did not follow directions or formatting requirements and/or more than 2 writing errors
Timeliness	(0 point) Submitted on or before the due date	(penalty -2 points) Submitted after the time due but within 24hrs

The first leader you chose represents something of a projective test based on what you’ve heard or read. You imagine the leader has the qualities you listed. The deeds and qualities you listed say more about what you admire than about the actual traits of the leader you chose. This is something like an inkblot test, and it is important because the traits you assign to the leader are traits you are aware of, have the potential to develop, and indeed can develop as a leader. The qualities or achievements you listed are an indi- cator of the traits you likely will express as you develop into the leader you want to become. The second leader you chose is someone you know, so it is less of a projective test and represents traits you have had direct experience with. You know these traits work for you and likely will become the traits you develop and express as a leader. What is similar about the traits you listed for the two leaders? Different? Interview another student in class about traits he or she admires. What do the traits tell you about the person you are interviewing? What are the common themes in your list and the other student’s list of traits? To what extent do you display the same traits as the ones on your list? Will you develop those traits even more in the future?

Consolidated Products is a medium-sized manufacturer of consumer products with non- unionized production workers. Ben Samuels was a plant manager for Consolidated Products for 10 years, and he was very well liked by the employees there. 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 dif- ficult 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 would 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 human relations training was a waste of time; if employees don’t want to do the work, get rid of them and find some- body else who does. Supervisors were instructed to establish high performance standards for their depart- ments 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, and 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. As another cost-cutting move, Phil reduced the frequency of equipment maintenance, which required machines to be idled when they could be productive. Since the machines had a good record of reliable operation, Phil believed that the current maintenance schedule was excessive and was cutting 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 turnover was due to workers who were fired, but competent machine operators were also quitting, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to find any replacements for them. Finally, there was increasing talk of unionizing among the workers. 54”