Case Wolfgand Keller

Wolfgang Keller at Konigsbrau-TAK(A)
Case Points : -
a). Wolfgang Keller is the MD of Konigsbrau-TAKs Ukrainian Subsidiary. He handles operations. He is

HBS MBA.
b). Before joining Konigsbrau, Keller has worked with a German food manufacturer as strategic planner
and then headed its subsidiary in Ukraine.
c). Keller has perfect track record of revitalizing loss making companies.
d). Keller and Dmitri Brodsky, who is the commercial director, doesnt have good working relationship.
e). Dr. Hans Haussler is part of Vorstand, which is CEO level committee.
f). Keller spend 2 months in Brazil as head of Konigsbrau startup venture. He strategized and
implemented the business.
g). Antonov is the Chairman of subsidiary. He handles external relationship with banks, trade
associations, and govt. agencies.
h). No. of beer distributors is increasing in Ukraine.
Three options Keller has:-
A). Fire Brodsky or give him zero increment but this would not be well received at the headquarter.
B). Help Brodsky improve his performance.
C). Splitting the sales and mktg departments.
Actions took by Keller at Konigsbrau:
A). Consolidated and strengthen Konigsrabu distributors through heavy support and service.
B). Focused on Service oriented commercial strategy - high margin, quality service, IT and logistics support,
and heavy advertising and promotional strategy.
C). He cultivated ties and strong relationship with distributors and focused on strategic growth of
distributors.
D). His approach was to create hands on contact with distributors and not to emphasis on trade discounts.
E). This strategy increased the market share, revenue, and profitability
Dmitri Brodsky:-
A). 10 years younger than Keller. He worked in toiletries industry before this assignment and in US, France,
and Ukrain.
B). He has excellent analytical skills and is a good administrator but his dealings with Keller were strained
and stormy.
C). His methodical approach was delaying decision making, and believes in formal relationship within
company and outside stakeholders.
D). Done superb job in redesigning sales force organization and develop IT set-up and control systems.
Problem with Brodsky:-
A). Lack of quick decision making and very formal in his approach.
B). He delegates almost everything and has no personal ties with sales force and his subordinates. He likes to
use administrative systems in dealings.
C). He refrained visiting sales rep and from involving day to day sales and mktg activities.
D). Reluctant to deal directly with customers and distributors.
Brodskys 1st appraisal:-
A). Keller gave sufficient rating initially but changed to good after brodksy convinced keller to change his
wording from low level leadership to average leadership and lengthy discussion.
B). Brodsky sent a memo to Keller to attach with his appraisal form. Memo had description of his
accomplishments and issues with Kellers criticism.
Post appraisal Scenario :-
A). Brodsky failed to address annual distributor meeting, collection of bad debts, and resolution of pending
lawsuit, which would have cost 1.3 mil a year.
B). Brodsky assigned seats in flight to Munich in a way that interaction of sales with distributors was not
possible and it fulled keller.
C). In a social event Brodsky called distributors with formal Vy instead of personal Ty.
D). He wrote of bad debt of 87k, which was collected by Keller.
E). Zelenko Mktg Director had close ties with sales force and was active and social and had good relationship
with Keller, with whom he worked before. Brodksy saw this as favoritism.
Kellers appraisal by Haussler:
A). Rated sufficient, though keller felt disappointed, which means his performance was adequate but he
could be promoted to vorstand.
B). Haussler sent a letter to keller describing the details of the appraisal; Keller replied with thanks and
clarifications.
C). His relationship with Brodsky and Anotov was not well received by headquarter.
D). Letter showed that keller had less cultural fit with Ukrain.
E). Munich was not well informed by Keller.
F). He is asked to delegate more and not indulge directly with day to day activities, showing lack of
teamwork.
G). He is asked to improve relationship with Anotov and involve him in operations.
Brodsky 2nd appraisal:-
A). Keller has not finalized the appraisal, though he has discussed Brodsky performance with him.
B). Instead of actual form he used a letter to detail the Brodsky performance. He did this for 2 reasons
1). Go through the performance without committing the
final judgment.
2). Brodskys efforts and cooperation with other depts. For
budget preparation has impressed him.
C). Brodsky reaction to letter is explosive. He argued his performance has improved. He blamed keller for
intrusion and micromanaging.
D). Keller agreed to change wording from you are not a leader to you are not a charismatic leader.
E). Keller finalized that he shouldnt fire Brodsky as finding replacement is difficult, in-spite of Anotovs
recommendation to fire him.
F). Keller cant promote Zelenko as hes not ready to take over sales function.
G). He is unable to decide if he should give increment to Brodsky or not.
Keller has good track record of revamping the business in positive direction
Problem solver hands on.
Bad leader but a good manager.
Not a micromanager.
Great relationship management skills.
Visionary in terms of business.
He doesnt know how to delegate.
He understands business well and can handle the things on a broader level.
He is a good manager. Knows how to direct a company and make strategies

but when it comes to handle the team conflict he couldnt manager.
He prefers administrator style. He likes processes.
Hes very formal in his approach.
Hes good analytical professional.
Hes slow in decision making.
Hes not a peoples person.
Hes a not a fit with the role.
Hes not self-driven for the role of commercial director.
Second option is the best.
Keller can appoint him administrative director.
Bad impression for emloyees of the company.
Hes competent in admistration and process oriented work.
He analytical, so core marketing would suit him the best.
Feedback should be given to help
Ongoing feedback.

Case Wolfgand Keller

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Wolfgand Keller

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Wolfgand Keller

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the strengths and weaknesses of Wolfgang Keller?

What are the issues with Dmitri Brodsky's performance?

Wolfgang Keller at Konigsbrau-TAK(A)

a). Wolfgang Keller is the MD of Konigsbrau-TAKs Ukrainian Subsidiary. He handles operations. He is

He is a good manager. Knows how to direct a company and make strategies

You might also like