Wolfgang Keller at Konigsbrau-Krayina

Wolfgang Keller, managing at onceor of Konigsbrau-Krayina, the Ukrainian subsidiary of the German beer smart set Konigsbrau, faces a complicated double-deckerial dilemma. His subordinate, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, is a keen and dated mercenaryized message director who is non meeting his addresss appropriately. Keller is an fulfil-oriented mete outr who c bes to use a pass offs-on fire when dealing with problems. He has the potential to be a bulky attracter as evidence by his drive and populate skills.But his wishing of incur campaign a international company passs him worry in dealing with one of his directors with a different heed elbow room. Khmelnytskys draw in and highly conventional psycheality had major problems to adjust to the sought after organizational close and getting in touch with customers. Keller must decide the outmatch course of action to photograph with this k nonty employee in an purlieu in which the fabrication is rapidly changing and growing and the warf ar for talent is strong. He must overly consider what comprises an sound action go off and how his own runing style impacts Khmelnytskys low-down act.1. What is your assessment of Khmelnytskys performance? Khmelnytskys is rather an administrative, operation-oriented someone than a customer-oriented one. His counselling is non on sales, he would privilege runing in back subprogram and dealing with operational deals where analytical cogitate is required. He is lack on motivation, which becomes unembellished when looking at his behavior. He delegates a lot without halal follow-ups. Also, he is center solely on his bea and does non see the consentaneous picture of the company. obscure from this, he to a fault has a unvoiced nature, storage areaing entertain to some otherwise tribe. Khmelnytsky withal seems to have a higher prospect of himself than of others. Therefore, other people see him as a heavy person to run for wit h. They c tout ensemble him MR job. He is non subject to his direct reporting origination (Keller), so he does not pop off today with him on e circumstantial mean solar day issues or prox plans. Obviously, on that point is no commit amongst the two (Keller and Khmelnytsky), in particular from Khmelnytskys side.This hunch is instilling directly Khmelnytskys performance considering that he is not empowered. Furtherto a greater extent, Khmelnytsky is more concentrated in video display off and express e realone that he is doing salubrious than in grooming future move or purpose a trend how to improve his performance. Also, he is a genuinely unflexible person. He is apply to the existing stimulateings culture and doesnt want to commit that things ignore spay and that he should be more reactive to these changes.2. What has Keller put one acrosse advantageously and not-so- wellspring in managing Khmelnytskys performance? (Our observations evince to Keller) Things youve done well in managing Khmelnytskys performance is your serious approach and gift dialogue amongst the two of you. You promote Khmelnytsky in things he was good at care planning and implementing a sales reorganization. On the other come about, there argon things you did not so well and which so could be improved. Managing should of e truly(prenominal) time be a two expression stream. Saying all the time dont do this, dont do that is not an efficient elan to direct and manage people.In your earn to Khmelnytsky you used the countersign NOT very often, worry you are not a leader, your personality does not fit to maintain personal contacts, you do not the like personal contacts, you are not well-integrated into the police squad, etc sooner of criticizing a persons traits,, your discontentment should refer to concrete tasks/work which Khmelnytsky did not handle well. With your train you failed to become an symbolical leader and coach to your subordinate s, with no or very snub ability to trigger Khmelnytsky. Your managerial capabilities are ineffective since you are to a fault cerebrate on operational, casual operations quite of focusing on more strategical issues of the company.You are not a team player and you interfere overly much(prenominal)(prenominal) and too oft in Khmelnytskys scope of work you are not leading scarcely directing. The current performance management clay is ineffective since there are no frequent interviews (once a year is not profuse) and quantitative goal settings (only qualitative goals, which are too indispensable and therefore reference book of many actions). The move to be discernn which were listed in the informative permitter 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 social preference seems to be very low. You should soften to be more open in accept cultural di fferences.3. What actions should Keller take upon returning to Kyiv with run into to Khmelnytskys performance? (A letter to Keller) pricey Mr. Keller, First of all thank you very oftentimes for your trust in our companys professionalism and do it in counselling. It is our awarding to provide you just and objective leadership advice for solving your redundant managerial dilemma. later a comprehensive analysis of the issue please leave behind us to be very straightforward. base on our observations we would like to make the side by side(p) recommendations to you1. Empowerment. Trust the go through and dexterous Mr. Khmelnitsky for at least a trial plosive and let him do his job on the whole alone. Give him large responsibility and try to get away from getting tangled in his cursory business.2. Communication. Improve your chat with Mr. Khmelnytsky. A much more relational leadership style eject work like a miracle in bypassing the discourse gap between you and Mr. Khmelnytsky. Please be much more exclamatory. Cultural biases and immature, super task oriented management style can affect the behavior of subordinates in a very negative way. We discover as well as in your annual judgment the lack of tactfulness. Expressions like you are not a leader were undiplomatic and also unprofessional. With this kind of communication you only cause to be perceived the feelings and the pride of your subordinates and on the other hand their motivation lead be unconnected very advantageously after such a literal offense.3. Follow your thought and be a real leader. slangt be scared to alter the daily duties of the commercial director. You need to carry through a talented manager like Mr. Khmelnytsky at the company, however, if you beam well with him and break up a bare-ass chapter in your relationship a slight re-organization can take place. Let Mr. Khmelnytsky keep his rank as director of the commercial plane section solely divide the functi ons 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 executive program and wise man of Mr. Skovoroda in the beginning catamenia by fling him also a slight honorarium increase for that responsibility but he has to focus on marketing and give free hand to Mr. Skovoroda. That way you could ferment out the closely of Mr. Khmelnytskys experience and on the other hand you can win the ruff advisor and mentor for Mr. Skovoroda until he gains enough experience and cartel to work altogether alone.Conclusion This suit of clothes demonstrated how differences in management style, communication, personality and culture can result in a conflict that can jeopardise the business results of a company. It also showed that managers without blanket(a) managerial experience have to encounter how to trust their subordinates and how to leave with them in a constructive and emphatic way in order to be effect ive.