Wolfgang Keller at Konigsbrau-Krayina

Wolfgang Keller, managing managing stationor of Konigsbrau-Krayina, the Ukrainian subsidiary of the German beer company Konigsbrau, faces a complicated coach-and-fourial dilemma. His subordinate, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, is a talented and visitd commercial director who is not meeting his goals appropriately. Keller is an action-oriented manager who analogouss to use a hands-on attempt when dealing with problems. He has the potential to be a great draw as evidence by his drive and people skills.But his pretermit of experience running a multinational company gives him difficulty in dealing with one of his directors with a different instruction style. Khmelnytskys retract and highly formal personality had major problems to adjust to the desired organisational culture and acquiring in touch with customers. Keller must decide the better(p) course of action to take with this difficult employee in an environment in which the industry is rapidly changing and growing and the war for tale nt is strong. He must also consider what comprises an effective surgical operation review and how his give leadership style impacts Khmelnytskys poor cognitive process.1. What is your assessment of Khmelnytskys performance? Khmelnytskys is rather an administrative, operation-oriented person than a customer-oriented one. His focus is not on sales, he would p repair blend ining in back office and dealing with operable issues where analytical brainstorming is required. He is droping on motivation, which becomes evident when flavor at his behavior. He delegates a lot with forth proper follow-ups. Also, he is center solely on his ara and does not see the whole hear of the company.Apart from this, he also has a difficult personality, keeping keep to otherwise people. Khmelnytsky also seems to have a higher opinion of himself than of others. Therefore, other people see him as a difficult person to work with. They call him MR Problem. He is not throw to his direct inform lin e (Keller), so he does not communicate without delay with him on e rattling day issues or future plans. Obviously, there is no reliance between the both (Keller and Khmelnytsky), e extraly from Khmelnytskys side.This mistrust is affecting directly Khmelnytskys performance considering that he is not empowered. Furtherto a greater extent, Khmelnytsky is more concentrated in showing off and telling e realone that he is doing well than in supply future steps or finding a way how to change his performance. Also, he is a truly unflexible person. He is used to the existing working(a) culture and doesnt want to believe that things set up change and that he should be more responsive to these changes.2. What has Keller done well and not-so-well in managing Khmelnytskys performance? (Our observations expressed to Keller) Things youve done well in managing Khmelnytskys performance is your honest approach and open dialogue between the two of you. You promote Khmelnytsky in things he was good at identical planning and implementing a sales reorganization. On the other hand, there argon things you did not so well and which therefore could be improved. Managing should always be a two way stream. Saying all the time dont do this, dont do that is not an efficient way to direct and manage people.In your letter to Khmelnytsky you used the word NOT very often, like you are not a leader, your personality does not check out to maintain personal contacts, you do not like personal contacts, you are not well-integrated into the team, etc Instead of criticizing a persons traits,, your discontent should refer to concrete tasks/work which Khmelnytsky did not handle well. With your coaching you failed to become an admonitory leader and coach to your subordinates, with no or very little might to motivate Khmelnytsky. Your managerial capabilities are ineffective since you are overly focussed on operational, day-to-day operations instead of focusing on more strategic issues of th e company.You are not a team player and you interject too lots and too familiarly in Khmelnytskys range of a function of work you are not leading simply directing. The current performance management system is ineffective since there are no frequent interviews (once a year is not enough) and quantitative goal settings (only qualitative goals, which are too subjective and therefore source of many conflicts). The steps to be taken which were listed in the explanatory letter to Khmelnytsky were in our opinion too wide and too general. The feedback should have rather been concrete, very precise and action-oriented. Furthermore, your well-disposed perceptiveness seems to be very low. You should try to be more open in accepting cultural differences.3. What actions should Keller take upon returning to Kyiv with regard to Khmelnytskys performance? (A letter to Keller) Dear Mr. Keller, First of all thank you very much for your trust in our companys professionalism and experience in coun selling. It is our honour to provide you impartial and objective leadership advice for solving your special managerial dilemma. After a comprehensive analysis of the issue gratify allow us to be very straightforward. Based on our observations we would like to make the following recommendations to you1. Empowerment. Trust the experienced and talented Mr. Khmelnitsky for at least(prenominal) a trial period and let him do his job in all alone. Give him full responsibility and try to get away from getting involved in his daily business.2. Communication. Improve your communication with Mr. Khmelnytsky. A much more relational leadership style can work like a miracle in bypassing the communication gap between you and Mr. Khmelnytsky. Please be much more emphatic. Cultural biases and immature, extremely task oriented management style can affect the behavior of subordinates in a very negative way. We noticed also in your annual appraisal the lack of tactfulness. Expressions like you are n ot a leader were undiplomatic and also unprofessional. With this kind of communication you only hurt the feelings and the pride of your subordinates and on the other hand their motivation will be lost very comfortably after such a verbal offense.3. Follow your instinct and be a real leader. Dont be scared to garble the daily duties of the commercial director. You need to keep a talented manager like Mr. Khmelnytsky at the company, however, if you communicate well with him and start a raw(a) chapter in your relationship a splendid re-organization can take place. allow Mr. Khmelnytsky keep his rank as director of the commercial department but divide the functions and let Mr. Skovoroda allow to lead the sales department as the sales director.You could offer to Mr. Khmelnytsky that he could be the supervisor and mentor of Mr. Skovoroda in the beginning period by offering him also a slight salary increase for that responsibility but he has to focus on marketing and give free hand to Mr. Skovoroda. That way you could bring out the most of Mr. Khmelnytskys experience and on the other hand you can win the best advisor and mentor for Mr. Skovoroda until he gains enough experience and confidence to work completely alone.Conclusion This case demonstrated how differences in management style, communication, personality and culture can result in a conflict that can jeopardize the business results of a company. It also showed that managers without extended managerial experience have to learn how to trust their subordinates and how to communicate with them in a constructive and emphatic way in order to be effective.