The paper "Ben Samuel Situational Leadership" is a good example of a management assignment. Ben Samuels has high levels of integrity which is an important leadership trait as he is truthful and non-deceitful. He is also a charismatic leader as he has the ability to influence the employees in a positive manner. Due to his charisma, the relationship with employees was good and the level of commitment to the job by the employees was also high. He also possesses good interpersonal skills as he is able to interact well with the employees due to the understanding of their needs.
His management and decision-making skills are also good. Ben is emotional when dealing with the employees as he is caring and understand the needs of the employees. In terms of the leadership behaviors, Ben Samuel has a positive ego, high self-esteem and a strong personality. Phil lacks a positive ego as he does not consider the needs of the employees. He appreciates less the efforts of the employees and only considers them as useful in terms of production. His personality is not as strong as he does not have the ability to positively influence the employees.
His interpersonal skills are poor as he does not know how to relate with the employees and supervisors. The management skill of Phil is poor as most of his decisions with regards to the employees are poor. However, he has a high appetite for achieving results at the company. He lacks charisma and has high levels of neuroticism. This is due to his harshness when dealing with the employees and supervisors. He has poor traits in terms of agreeability he is not caring and gentle when dealing with the employees. Question 2 Ben Samuel is more effective as a leader as compared to Phil.
This is because Ben was more concerned about the welfare of the employees and was involved in the motivation of employees. It is the duty of the leader to listen to the employees and fulfill their needs. Ben was always ready to provide the employees with any assistance and avoided laying off the employees even in times of difficulties. This was because he understood the challenges that the employees were likely to face as a result of lay-offs.
It is the responsibility of the leaders to ensure that their followers are led in a manner that is beneficial to them (Felfe & Schyns, 2010). Phil is not an effective leader as he does not consider the needs of the employees. He treats the employees casually and with a high degree of high handedness. During the 10-year leadership reign of Ben at the company, he was able to meet the needs of most of the employees.
The welfare of the employees was well taken care of which led to a low degree of employee turnover. However, the employee turnover rate at the company was high under the leadership of Phil. The company experienced difficulties in terms of replacing the employees who had left which affected the performance of the company. Strict rules and regulations were also put in place under the leadership of Phil and an employee could be fired within two weeks. It would, therefore, be much better to work under Ben as compared to Phil. The job insecurity created by Phil may make it difficult for career growth.
The chance of being fired within a short period of time is also high when working with Phil as compared to Ben.
Stam, D. et al. (2010). The role of regulatory fit in visionary leadership. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Volume 31, PP. 499-518.
Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2010). Followers’ personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, Volume 21, pp. 393-410.
Miner, B. (2013). Addendum: The Role of motivation Theories of Organizational Leadership. Leadership and management , Volume 5, pp. 395-398.