Case Analysis

Wolfgang Keller at Königsbräu -TAK (A)

Wolfgang Keller the Managing Director at Königsbräu –TAK on his way back to Europe from a temporary assignment in Brazil was reviewing several problems that would need his attention when he returned to Kiev. The most important amongst them was the performance evaluation of Dmitri Brodsky, the company’s commercial director. He did not finalize Brodsky’s 2nd annual performance review, questioning Brodsky’s. The company’s new commercial strategy has created the need for Brodsky to provide more guidance within the sales force and take a more hands on approach with the distributors. Whether or not Brodsky will be able to fulfill these needs and his capacity to manage a sales team was questionable .Keller was also facing pressure from Vladimir Antonov, the company’s chairman, to fire Brodsky. Keller wanted additional time to reassess the entire situation before he could take any further decision. But he must finalize Brodsky’s performance appraisal once he returns to Kiev. Keller was contemplating several different options with respect to Brodsky. The first option was giving Brodsky a minimum or no raise in his annual salary. Secondly he thought of giving Brodsky another chance to improve his performance. The third option was to split the marketing and sales into two different division and let Brodsky handle the marketing.

Keller’s success in the Ukraine had been noticed in Munich, rumors of his potential of someday being promoted to the firm’s Vorstand (American equivalent of CEO).The manner in which he handles this situation could determine his future as an executive within the company. A decision needs to be made within the next month (upon Keller’s return back to Kiev).

One of the main problems regarding Brodsky’s performance was the amount of time that Keller said it took Brodsky to complete tasks. While Keller did explain Brodsky’s adeptness in his ability to redesign the sales force organization and the development of a comprehensive set of information and control systems, proving he is capable of good work. The problem comes when we learn how long it took Brodsky to do this. It took him 6 months to create even with intervention by Keller to speed up the process. An additional concern is that Keller saw that Brodsky would not make an attempt to complete something when it had an impossible deadline, forcing Keller to step in and take action. Keller also realized that Brodsky’s formal and somewhat distant management style affected his ability to be a commercial director. This style of management hurt his ability as a leader. Furthermore, Keller also felt that Brodsky’s ability as a leader was further diminished because his inability to connect with people on a personal level. This inability was in direct contrast with the company’s attitude. To build loyalty among his subordinates he needs to connect with them personally as well as become much more involved with his customers. Overall, Keller had a very valid argument to why Brodsky was not a good fit with this company. While he may be able to effectively lead an organization, his style of management was not a good fit with this particular company. Therefore Keller’s concerns were highly reasonable because Brodsky’s approach directly affected his relationship with his peers, subordinates as well as his distributers.

Keller clearly did not view his encounters with Brodsky as opportunities to evaluate, coach, and build self-confidence. From an operations perspective, Keller and Brodsky both exhibited strengths. The interpersonal skills that Brodsky lacked regarding social situations and his nature of procrastinating were exactly what Keller possessed as strengths. Instead of micromanaging Brodsky’s business by employing a hands-on approach, Keller should have taken the opportunity to lead by example, model the way, and coach Brodsky. This would have built Brodsky’s self-confidence and credibility amongst his subordinates and Keller’s credibility with his subordinates and superiors.

Consistent with statements made by Dr. Haussler in Keller’s performance review, Keller did not fully comprehend the vision of the company, making it difficult for him to inspire it amongst his team. In fact, his hands-on approach reflected his weaknesses of poor communication, lack of candor, and not being a team player. This is further evidenced by the reality that Brodsky’s two performance appraisals offered elements of surprise. If Keller had taken the approach of being candid with Brodsky throughout the two year time period and had served as a mentor and coach to him, there would not be any surprises in the performance appraisal. Keller needed to empower Brodsky to do his job by providing the proper tools such as setting specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely goals. Keller also needed to encourage two-way communication. Open dialogues would serve him well both with his subordinates and the superiors. It would lead to greater transparency and trust where Keller is concerned.

Brodsky’s shortcomings as a leader can be directly correlated with Keller’s inability to recognize his own role in Brodsky’s failure to perform to his standards. Keller needs to be introspective and implement behavior modifications. He needs to remove himself from functional activities by delegating and coaching. Keller needs to embrace the diversity of his team and the individual member’s skill sets. Such change would lead to greater objectivity when assessing his team members’ abilities and conducting performance appraisals. Providing opportunities for open dialogues, both vertically and horizontally throughout the organization, would encourage a more cohesive team. He needs to inspire a vision where he allows enough time for everyone to process and embrace it. Keller also needs to incorporate the personal attributes of empathy, self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-control. Possession of these attributes represents emotional intelligence and will enable Keller and his team to succeed. If Keller employs the aforementioned competencies, he will build a mutual trust and respect throughout the company and as a leader, will provide the necessary vehicle for his team to follow.

Keller was a young leader, as is evidenced by his leadership style and his biological age. As such, earning the respect of his subordinates as well as his superiors posed some challenges. Keller tended to be a micromanager who exhibited poor interpersonal skills. Keller has a propensity to enjoy making key decisions; achieving results; overcoming obstacles; and promoting innovation. Conversely, he does not enjoy spending time recognizing his teams ‘contributions; being empathetic or focusing on the emotional needs of his team; providing clear direction; or dealing with team members who do not meet his standards. Keller exhibits positive and negative attributes

The new organization chart that Keller so proudly hung in his office spoke volumes of how his team perceived him. They felt he liked to have problems. As a leader he needs to upgrade their team, using every encounter as an opportunity to evaluate, coach, and build self-confidence. He should make sure people not only see the vision, they live and breathe it. He should get into everyone’s skin, exuding positive energy and optimism. He needs to celebrate successes with his team and exhibit the personal attributes of emotional intelligence. This would better allow Keller to probe and push his team with a curiosity that borders on skepticism, whiling ensuring his questions were answered with action. Keller’s team would be more receptive of his line of questioning if he did it in a manner consistent with facilitation, whereby he was inspiring risk taking and learning by setting the example himself.