Case analysis

I. Developed complete mastery of the facts in the case √ Relevant critical facts √ Discarding irrelevant facts √ Clear picture of the situation
√ Reasonable assumptions
II. Clarify the problem and diagnose its causes
√ Determining the key problems (overall issues rather than details)
(e. g. leadership, individual differences, communication, organization design, etc.)
√ Appropriate supporting logic
√ Applying OB theories to understand the causes
√ Details and examples (i. e. if communication is determined to be a problem, outline specifically where things went wrong in the communication process – e. g. encoding)
III. Identify alternative courses of action and assess them
√ Acknowledge several possible solutions (2-3 options)
√ Identifying pros and cons for each option
√ Application of OB theories and terminology (not just stated)
√ Each option helps to solve the problem/problems that are identified
√ Logical consistency
√ Solutions are grounded in reality and the context
IV. Decide on a course of action
√ The solution is supported/defended as to why it was selected
√ Discussion of chosen option and steps in greater detail
√ Potential issues associated with implementation
√ Logical Consistency
√ Final solution addressed the main problem and its causes, which are identified prior
√ Verifying the decision from several angles
25 points __________
V. Overall Presentation
√ Grammar, spelling
√ Clarity of writing and ideas
√ Flow of paper
15 points __________
follow this instruction. the case will be provided then what you are doing is just part 3: III. Identify alternative courses of action and assess them
i will providing part 1 &2 and based on these two part and finish part 3.
In the case Wolfgang Keller at Königsbräu-TAK, the Ukrainian brewery had multiple problems within the management team. Managing Director, Wolfgang Keller, and his lower division manager Brodsky, from the commercial department, seemed to have different beliefs while working for Königsbräu. This different belief in cultural values showed up within their performance in the company. Furthermore, this led to personal, relationship style conflicts that demotivated one another to work for the company. Consequently Keller, as a supervisor of Brodsky, needs to make a decision about what he should do with his well experienced and non-relationship style manager, Brodsky.
Wolfgang Keller, a charismatic graduate from the Harvard Business School, is the managing director of premium brewer Königsbräu’s Ukrainian subsidiary, Königsbräu-TAK AE. Before taking his current position at Königsbräu-TAK, Keller was a strategic planner for a large German food products manufacturer. Within six months he was promoted to general manager of a small subsidiary in Ukraine that was struggling financially. Within his roughly two years spent with the company, he managed to turn it around and create a reputation as a successful hands-on manager.
After his short stint as a strategic planner, Keller left the food manufacturer and joined Königsbräu as managing director of its Ukrainian subsidiary. After three years in this position, Keller made significant changes which dramatically helped increase sales and revenues within the company. By changing the marketing strategy, hiring a new top-management group, restructuring the sales force, and acquiring a fourth brewery in Odessa, he increased earnings by €10 million. Keller loved his job here and took it because he loved the responsibility and challenges it offered. These challenges helped to form Keller’s temperament , personality and business style.
Part 2
One of the main issues in this case is that there are two completely different personalities and management styles between Wolfgang Keller and Dimitri Brodsky. The differences between the two have resulted in a hostile working environment and a negative relationship. Keller’s personality is relationship and task oriented and employee oriented. For example Keller likes to establish trust and relationships with co-workers by motivating them and helping them to perform better. However when it comes to Brodsky he is more coercive. Keller is a highly interactive and hands on leader, whereas Brodsky keeps his distance in his interactions. Because of Brodsky’s formality and Keller’s informality their behaviors clash. Keller is more action-based and very suspicious towards other people and very impatient. Conversely Brodsky is patient, good analyzer and is deliberate in his actions.
The second issue is Keller’s lack of effective leadership. He clearly does not know how to apply his leadership skill towards Brodsky. For example Keller’s evaluation: had he taken the time to evaluate him in a monthly basis it would have made Brodsky aware of his faults and he would not have been surprised. As a transactional leader, Keller failed to recognize accomplishment, promise rewards for good performance and contracts exchange of rewards for effort i. e. Contingent Reward.
Keller’s third issue surrounds his inability to identify a dysfunctional team. According to the Fielder model, effective groups depend on a proper match between a leader’s style of interacting with subordinates and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader. Since Keller was task oriented towards Brodsky, for Brodsky to perform well Keller should have had a good leader-member relations, a high task structure and a strong position power. Also if Keller wanted to be an authentic leader he should have shown a lot of trust toward Brodsky. For example Keller never showed any type of trust toward Brodsky and equally in reverse. As a leader Keller’s first duty is to Königsbräu and then Brodsky so that they can build an effective team. In a letter from Dr. Hanspeter Haussler it states that Haussler doubts Keller’s ability to work as a team.   According to the “ creating an effective team” model, Keller lacked context which included a climate of trust, leadership structure and a proper performance evaluation system. Keller also does not take one moment to recognize that Brodsky’s failures are a direct correlation to Keller’s failure. According to the theory of the leader’s trust-worthiness, the nature of trust includes integrity, benevolence, ability and propensity to trust, which will lead to trusting a person and create risk taking, information sharing, group effectiveness and productivity. Both Keller and Brodsky lacked benevolence, both of their trust was not based on mutual understanding and appreciation of each other’s wants and desires which also violates the identification based-trust theory.
The fourth issue surrounds Brodsky overall performance. It took Brodsky a long time to complete a task, even though Keller praised Brodsky by saying that he has great analytical skills with regards to designing the sales force and information and control systems, we know that the real problem here was that it actually took him longer than he needed. It took him 6 months to do this and it probably would have taken longer if Keller had not intervened. We also see other incidents where Keller has no choice but to step in and intervene. For example when a deadline was approaching we see at times that Brodsky refused to take action. As a transactional leader we see that Keller did the right choice, being passive management by exception, where he only intervenes if standards are not met.
3: III. Identify alternative courses of action and assess them.
Alternative 1: Focus on Brodsky. The narrative of events shows that Brodsky has many skills but is not adapting well to his new boss Keller. He is rather rigid in his approach to his job, and though he recognizes and values the different styles of his subordinates, he has trouble accepting the faster pace and more casual relationship style that Keller prefers.
Staff development could be designed especially for Brodsky. This would involve a psychometric analysis, highlighting his strengths and weaknesses, and a management training program which involves networking with other managers outside the immediate Königsbräu network. This can be presented to Brodsky and his team as an elite finishing course, preparing him for possible future promotion, so that Brodsky does not lose the respect of his team. The focus of this training should be on HRM, and particularly on Leadership styles and communication skills, with an emphasis on the development flexibility . A corporate trainer with expertise in cognitive behavior would be a good choice to deliver this training.
This is a good option to deal with the immediate Brodsky/Keller conflict, but it may not solve the longer term issue of corporate style and prioritizing.
Alternative 2: Focus on Keller
Keller is good at controlling his own domain, but he does not have enough of the big picture at Königsbräu. He should be seconded to another Königsbräu operation, where he can absorb more of the company culture. He does not seem to realize that Brodsky may well embody more of the Königsbräu ideals than he does himself. If Keller copes well with this transition, he should be given targets on staff relations improvements when he returns to the Ukraine. If he does not absorb the company ethos well, the company should review Keller’s appointment in the Ukraine, and consider moving him permanently to another crisis situation, since his skills are better suited to this context than to steady state management.
This is quite a radical solution, especially if Keller is moved on to another senior job elsewhere. It needs the headquarters in Germany to get involved. It causes short term disruption, and some succession planning issues in the Ukraine, but it may be the better strategic choice from the point of view of the parent company.
Alternative 3: Focus on culture
A team building program should be developed that embraces both the country to country cultural differences, and the individual style differences that are causing friction.
Transformational theory should be used, eliciting opinions from the whole of the organization in the Ukraine, including sales staff and managers, and designing a development plan based on workshops and feedback loops which operate outside the formal management channels. Both Keller and Brodsky should be involved in listening as well as directing what the future plans of the branch are going to be, and a separate local culture should be worked out, with new mission statement and objectives designed by the whole company. A company restructure, with reconsideration of all roles, should emerge from this, with a lot of input from all departments.
This deals with both immediate and long term issues in the company. One difficulty will be in finding the right external provider to lead this initiative, and there are also cost implications. It has the advantage of moving the problem away from the binary conflict between two senior staff, and into a collective transformation scenario that is ready to deal with future challenges, whatever they might be.