Team Case Analysis: Wolfgang Keller

Konisgsbrau is a beer brewer in a fiercely competitive market. The company is having various personnel issues that are preventing it from growing into a market dominator. Among these issues, the most significant is the poor working relationship between Wolfgang Keller and his subordinate Dmitri Brodsky. There’s a disconnect between organizational structure and leadership styles, differences in national culture, Brodsky’s motivational preferences, and the relational trust between these two. These issues can be repaired if the following analysis is heded.

Organizational Culture Analysis

The Konisgsbrau organizational culture is best described as piloted by market and copiloted by hierarchy. It is evident in the introduction of the case that they have a market culture as the following quote explains: “Konisgsbrau was known as one of the best managed and most profitable brewers of premium beer in the world” (1). Their market culture is further evidenced in their commitment to creating external partnerships , involvement with customers and suppliers, and their focus on market trends (1). Additionally, Konisgsbrau – TAK hired employees with proven track records of success, such as Keller and Brodsky, to increase the performance of the organization as a whole which also indicates a focus on performance. Furthermore, the commercial strategy that was developed by Keller is service-oriented and focuses on beer distributors since they are in direct contact with vendors (2). Given this information, it is evident that market is the pilot culture of this organization.

Konisgsbrau is headquartered in Munich, Germany and, although Konisgsbrau – TAK is located in Ukraine, the culture is still highly influenced by the German company culture. Dr. Haussler mentions in his letter to Keller that the total corporation is functioning in German style and culture which is direct, and emphasizes the importance of order (12). This national culture highly influences the organizational culture and serves as evidence that the co-pilot of the organization is hierarchy. Both the managing director and the Chairman of the company needed to report back to the Vorstand (which is equal to CEO in the United States) that works in Germany. Although the managers had flexibility in some decision making, they still had to seek approval from their superiors frequently. The problems between Keller and Brodsky largely stem from the lack of clear power division and reporting structure between the two. In addition to this evidence, it is clear that the company’s structure is very important which is why they were willing to utilize such techniques as deep information technology support (6).

Based on the market and hierarchy organizational culture, the recommended leadership style that aligns most closely with the needs of the organization is visionary leadership.This organization needs a leadership style that is low in relational focus and high in task focus. Keller’s skills and personality are already leading him toward being the visionary leader needed; however, it seems that his current style leans more toward pacesetting and directive. So moving forward leadership should focus on stepping back and focusing more on the overall mission.

Motivational Preference Analysis

In order to determine how to more effectively work with Brodsky, it is important to take a look at his motivational preference. These are the motives that explain how a person behaves and what underlying desires drive their actions. There are three basic motivation drivers: achievement, affiliation, and power. Brodsky’s motivational preference is a need for achievement which means he has a need to improve his personal performance through his work and to meet or exceed standards of excellence. People with high needs for achievement can work hard to accomplish new things. For example, Brodsky redesigned the sales force organization and developed a comprehensive set of information and control systems (3). People motivated by achievement also are always planning and pondering the long-term advancement of their careers. This is evident during Brodsky’s first annual performance evaluation when he took it upon himself to create a memorandum that gave a detailed list of his accomplishments during his first year as commercial director. Because he is worried about his future, he wants to create a paper trail of all of his accomplishments so that his achievements can be recognized and not forgotten in spite of his poor performance review.

Unfortunately, this high need for achievement has a downside. People with high needs for achievement have the tendency to try to do things only at a pace that they themselves feel comfortable with. This explains why when it came time to register the new brand label of the newly acquired brewery, Brodsky didn’t feel comfortable having to rush through and make changes so quickly. It’s also why, even though it was innovative, it took over six months for Brodsky to develop the new sales force system. Another issue that people with high need for achievement have is that they also tend to give very few directions to the people they are working with. Brodsky claimed that the “head office should not interfere with the sales function so as to encourage greater autonomy and responsibility in the field” (3). Finally, another problem that achievement-oriented people have is that they focus on goals and outcomes rather than people. Brodsky is formal and distant with employees, and rarely talks about his family with colleagues. Additionally, Brodsky assigned all the seat on a business flight to Munich and divided the key distributors and the sales and marketing personnel, preventing the groups from being able to mingle and get to know each other. This both exemplify Brodsky’s lack of focus on the people around him as he focuses more on tasks.

The best way to work with Brodsky is to recognize his strengths and weaknesses and deal with him in a way that leverages his specific talents all while understanding and accepting the things that drive and motivate him. In order to do this, we recommend choosing a leadership style that takes all of this into account. When a person’s motivational preference is a need for achievement and they are not very relational, it is best that they be guided with a visionary leadership style. The visionary leadership style is authoritative, but rather than simply telling people what to do, the leader gains the support of their employees by clearly expressing their challenges and responsibilities to them. They make sure to do this in the context of the organization’s overall direction and strategy. That way, the employee is able to understand the big picture, they get a clear goal, and it increases the employee’s commitment and energize because they are able to offer their unique and go-getting spirit to the project.

Employee Behavior Development Analysis: Competency v. Commitment

Throughout the case, we learn a great deal about Brodsky and his personality and work ethic both at Konisgsbrau-TAK and prior employers. Brodsky had a great deal of experience prior to his current position including holding influential positions in two multinational firms and working in three different countries across the world (3). He showed that he had excellent analytical and organizational skills that were proven by his redesign of the sales force organization and development of information systems (3). There is no doubt that Brodsky has the talent, but the issue is that he’s not maximizing his potential and putting his talent to its true use. The problem lies in his commitment. On more than one occasion, Brodsky was shown to be unable to meet deadlines and fulfill obligations. As Keller said, he saw an “almost total incapacity to react to problems expeditiously” (3).

One particular area in which he failed was with relationship management. For example, consider the annual distributor’s meeting. Brodsky was responsible, by virtue of being in his position, for contacting all of the distributors and inviting them to the annual meeting. Three days prior to the meeting, less than half of the distributors had indicated that they were planning to attend the meeting. This was discovered at the very last hour by Keller and his attention to detail. Where normally Keller would reach out to Brodsky to understand why he hadn’t ensured that the rest of the distributors were attending, he couldn’t because Brodsky was long gone from the office for the weekend and, of course, unreachable. Keller took it upon himself to coordinate with area managers, whom Brodsky supervised, to ensure that as many distributors as possible would attend the meeting and made any necessary arrangements to make that happen (5).

This specific issue points to issues with relationship management and commitment to the company. Brodsky has shown that while he has the skills to build and maintain these relationships, he does not have the necessary level of commitment to do so. His “refusal to get his feet wet in dealing with customers”, lack of desire to spend time in the field, and his minimization of “need for face-to-face contact with subordinates” are true signs that he simply does not want to put forth the necessary effort(4). Had he spent more time with his customers (the distributors) in the field, or even delegated the field work to his subordinates, those relationships would have been much stronger and Keller et. al would not have had to go to such great lengths to bolster attendance at the meeting. This is further seen when Brodsky wrote off a bad debt of 87,000 EUR from a firm that would soon be bankrupt (6). Brodsky did not make any attempts to collect the debt and simply took the action of inaction and wrote it off. While that did, in a way, solve the problem of handling the debt, Konigsbrau-TAK was now out 87,000 EUR that they potentially could have had if Brodsky had been more committed. As per usual, Keller stepped in with his pacesetting leadership style and fixed the situation by going out into the field and meeting with the customer and returning with a check for the full amount of the debt.

One potential source for Brodsky’s lack of commitment is Keller’s continual interference into tasks assigned to him. While Brodsky is a very passive individual and not overly concerned with deadlines and relationships, he did (albeit eventually) get the job done. Brodsky maintained his position in the company primarily due to his experience despite his continual failures, admitted by Keller when he wouldn’t fire him because of concerns of not being able to find a qualified replacement (7). If he knows that he most likely won’t get fired and he only has to put in a minimal amount of effort to keep his job, why should he build personal relationships with customers and coworkers and show true commitment to the company? After all, Keller would step in and do all of the hard work once the deadline approached anyway – or at least in his brain that may have been how he saw things.

In any case, the major issue that has to be addressed is Brodsky’s lack of commitment – he’s more than competent enough to exceed at his job, he just chooses not to. Whether it is due to a conflict of passive and active management styles or Brodsky’s focus on achievement over the long term getting in the way of achieving short-term goals, something must change. There needs to be a shift to make Brodsky more focused on his relationships, rather than on long-term achievements. Brodsky is not generally one for interference from upper management, as evidenced by his request for “greater autonomy and responsibility in the field.” By Keller interfering in Brodsky’s processes, his level of autonomy and responsibility is being reduced and therefore limiting his ability to get the tasks completed as he sees fit. By Keller embracing a relational leadership model and ensuring that Brodsky feels included, his input considered, and by empowering him to see tasks through end-to-end without interference from management, his level of commitment should greatly increase. Knowing that he is expected to complete a task fully, rather than him resting on the “crutch” that is upper management’s interference, should make him realize that he does actually have skills that can be put forth to better serve the company and improve the processes that he is in charge of.

Relational Trust Analysis

Relational trust in the case of Brodsky and Keller is non- existent. This is largely due to the lack of trust development at the beginning of their working relationship and breeches that were created and experienced by both parties throughout the course of their work together. Moving forward it will be important to address and repair trust to create a more productive working environment.

From the beginning, trust was not established between the two men and this has led to many of the problems that they have been unable to resolve. They did not have a perception of similarity because they do not have the same values, personality, or social category outside of gender. They did not have the trust building actions that we would have expected such as self-disclosure, partially due to Brodsky being closed-off at work, or a demonstration of skill to one another.

In addition to the lack of established trust, there have been breeches in the small amount of trust that was built. Keller believes that he is in a position of absolute authority over Brodsky, and this positional/legitimate authority should be enough for Brodsky to change and adapt his work style. In addition, Keller outlined many issues that made him unable to trust Brodsky in the role of commercial director outside of just his hands-off leadership style. These incidents included: his inability to effectively communicate and resolve the distributor’s lawsuit, his lack of planning when arranging the flight to the firm’s annual convention of top sellers by keeping the sales and marketing team separate from the key distributors, and the break of trust through insistence of formality with vendors that he had previously agreed to be informal with (5,6).

However, Brodsky was put into the director position by the company leadership due to his expertise and does not believe that his expert authority is trumped by Keller’s title. He often sees Keller as breaking his trust when he “oversteps his authority” and interferes in the Commercial Department’s affairs. “He claimed that the head office should not interfere with the sales function so as to encourage greater autonomy and responsibility in the field” (4).

The time has now come for these breeches to be put in the past and for situational constraints to start dictating some of their relationship. When in a crisis, Brodsky can be counted on to turn out results; however, unless Keller wants to create a high stress competitive environment, he needs to start relaying his mutual need for Brodsky’s contributions or create an economic incentive. This economic incentive is largely tied to Keller’s authority over Keller and must be handled in their next meeting.

Recommendations

In order to re-establish trust with Brodsky, Keller needs to enact the following recommendations in his trust building conversation. He needs to start by taking responsibility for micromanaging and for not appreciating the experience and insights that Brodsky has/can/could provide. He then needs to explain that his reaction was due to the high-pressure nature of their situation, and go on to further detail the tasks that need to be accomplished in order to successfully fulfill the company’s plan. At this point in the conversation he should start to get Brodsky’s input on how Brodsky thinks that he can best contribute, determine how the roles that he is unable to fulfill should be delegated, and how the roles that he is now solely responsible for will be monitored and dealt with. After fleshing out these details, Keller should now be able to step back and allow Brodsky to work without being micromanaged and the two will have concrete documentation that will show if and how well the new workload is being handled by Brodsky.

As the situation stands now, Keller is in a position where he has to decide how to apply his reward and coercive authority over Brodsky. As identified in the case, he has to decide if he is going to withhold the annual bonus that Brodsky is expecting as a punishment or give it to him as a reward for his past performance. Moving forward, this will be a critical decision and will largely dictate if and how the reparatory trust building between himself and Brodsky will happen. It is important to note that Keller has only rewarded Brodsky’s work when it involved him cooperating with others to accomplish goals “Brodsky’s efforts and cooperation with other departments during the preparation of the budget impressed him” (7). Going forward, Keller needs to readjust these rewards.

To begin to repair the situation, Keller needs to make some immediate changes. Keller is currently leading Brodsky in a directive and pacesetting way and that leadership style is clearly not fitting the situation or the motivational preferences of Brodsky (based on the evidence previously stated). Instead, Keller should be using more of a visionary leadership style; visionary leadership is useful in situations where someone’s motivational preference is a need for achievement. It’s also an effective leadership style when an organization has a market culture. Since Keller has been exhibiting a leadership style that’s not most effective given the organizational culture and Brodsky’s personal motivational preference, it’s no surprise that he’s been experiencing issues with his subordinate.

In addition to changing his leadership style, it is in the best interest of Konigsbrau for Keller to split Brodsky’s position into two new positions, Director of Sales and Director of Marketing. Keller says himself that the marketing position better fits Brodsky’s skills and another employee, Ivan Zelenko, is likely to do well in the Director of Sales position. Zelenko has more of the interpersonal and networking skills required of the sales position and Brodsky is more analytical and thorough which is necessary in the marketing position. Keller’s two concerns about splitting this position are that Zelenko isn’t quite ready for the position and that Brodsky will be offended and seek employment elsewhere. Zelenko’s preparedness for the position will likely not be an issue. Keller and Zelenko already have a great rapport and Keller’s natural directive and pacesetting management style will be appropriate in a situation where competency is the issue. Furthermore, if Keller uses a visionary leadership style when handling telling Brodsky about the split in responsibilities, Keller should be able to get Brodsky on board. He needs to make it clear that this is really an opportunity for Brodsky. He can play to his need for achievement and explain to him that this will really allow him to succeed. Additionally, Keller could tie real marketing goals to Brodsky’s future performance reviews and bonuses so that Brodsky knows exactly what to achieve in order to succeed. Once giving him these goals, Keller needs to step back and allow Brodsky to make his own decisions and actions to complete the job appropriately.

To handle the issue of addressing Brodsky’s current pay rate increase, Keller should give him a cost of living adjustment but no further pay increase. This will make it so Brodsky doesn’t feel as though he’s getting a pay cut but also isn’t sending the wrong message about his current level of performance and commitment to his job. Again, Keller should emphasize that Brodsky will have more opportunity to earn in the future with given goals and a job that better suits his individual working style.

Given the evidence, it’s clear that Keller and Brodsky can not continue working together in their current manner. After Keller changes his leadership style and Brodsky’s position is realigned to something that plays to his proficiencies, Konisgsbrau will be performing better and more profitably and Keller and Brodsky will have a positive working relationship.