Konigsbrau Tak Essay

Abstract

Konigsbrau-TAK is a subsidiary based in the Ukraine which was established by Konigsbrau A.G. in order to expand their company. Wolfgang Keller was hired to lead Konigsbrau-TAK. In the three years that he has been in charge, the company has gone from an annual 2.9 million Euro loss to a 7 million Euro gain. Dmitri Brodsky is the commercial director of Konigsbrau-TAK. He reports directly to Keller. He brings a great deal of experience and maturity to the company. Unfortunately, Keller and Brodsky have experience significant conflict and have a strained relationship. In this paper I will discuss the dynamics of the conflict and the relationship between Keller and Brodsky.
First, I will discuss the cause of the problem. Second,
I will discuss how Keller could have handled the situation more effectively. Third, I will discuss how the Thomas-Kilmann conflict-resolution model would have helped Keller build a better relationship with Brodsky. Finally, I will conclude with specific steps Keller should take to improve their relationship.
Cause of the problem
Keller has failed to effectively manage the relationship between Brodsky and himself. To evaluate the cause of the conflict, we must look at the three fundamental causes of conflict in organizations: identity related differences, role incompatibility and environmental stress. (Davidson, 2001)
Identity Differences
Their different personal backgrounds, experiences and cultural values have contributed to the core issue of their relationship problem which is that they have completely opposite management styles. (Davidson, 2001) Their different styles and approaches in conducting business have contributed to a poor working relationship and lack of productive communication.
Keller is a “D” DiCS management style. He creates a sense of urgency, likes to get people moving, holds other people accountable and pushes people to reach their potential. (Goodman, 2012) Keller’s show his uncooperative nature each time he interferes in Brodsky’s department. (Gabarro, 2008)
Brodsky is a “S” DiCS management style, he prefers a slow methodical pace, he doesn’t like changes, doesn’t like high-speed environments, he is very cautious, he needs more hands-on support and he prefers working behind the scenes. (Goodman, 2012)
Role Incompatibility
Keller’s management role is responsible for the entire company. Brodsky is directly responsible for the Commercial department. Each of these roles allows each of them to have different responsibilities which places different priorities placed on organizational goals. (Davidson, 2001) Keller’s constant interference in the Commercial department has caused their roles to conflict which hindered trust-building and accountability with Brodsky.
Environmental Stresses
Brodsky’s lack of commitment to Keller’s commercial strategy has allowed Brodsky to develop an avoidance of accountability. (Lencioni, 2002) Keller has noticed the lack of accountability. Therefore, he feels justified in intruding in on the activities of the Commercial department. The stress this has built in the work environment has lowered trust, increased conflict, lowered commitment and further reduced Brodsky’s participation in decision making.
Improved Keller Actions
Teamwork facilitates the ultimate competitive advantage. (Lencioni, 2002) If Keller had taken the time to read Brodsky’s emotions he would have built a better relationship with Brodsky and his entire staff. According to Goleman, this is called emotional intelligence and it has five components: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills. (Lecture 2, Week 3)
Keller was lacking self-awareness. The first step in developing emotional intelligence is becoming self-aware. If Keller had been self-aware he would have noticed that his dominate management style was causing his management team to be dysfunctional. On occasions Keller would go around Brodsky and other members of his management team to work directly with their staff members to accomplish his goals. This created an atmosphere of distrust. If Keller had been self-aware he would have been able regulate his own actions. To self-regulate he could have done two things. The first, develop his management team by understanding and overcoming Lencioni’s five dysfunctions of a team. His management team including Brodsky did not trust Keller to allow them to run their own departments.
The second, he needs to stop circumventing his management team. Instead, he should have worked his management team to establish goals for their departments. Then allowed them to work with their teams to accomplish the mutually agreed upon goals. This step would have allowed Keller to establish trust with his team which would have minimized his conflicts with Brodsky. Maybe he could have prevented the conflict.
Thomas-Kilmann conflict-resolution model
Using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Resolution Model, the Keller- Brodsky conflict can be defined as competing vs. avoiding. Keller is using a competing style of conflict handling. Brodsky is using an avoiding style.
Keller is very assertive.
He has decided how the sales team should operate. However, Brodsky is the Commercial Director and it his responsibility to run the sales department. Brodsky doesn’t agree with Keller’s plan. Being that Brodsky is unassertive he dismisses Keller’s plans and runs department as he wants. On several occasions Brodsky ignored specific requests given to him by Keller. When Keller sees that Brodsky is not working as expected, he takes matters into his own hands. He works directly with Brodsky staff to carry out his desired action. (Thomas, 2007).
If Keller had used the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Model to evaluate the situation he would have realized that he was dominating the conflict and acting in a competing way which was causing Brodsky to withdraw to avoid the conflict. In further study of the model, Keller would have found that collaboration is an effective way to work out conflicts. However, since Keller and Brodsky differences are completely opposite they will likely need to compromise to end the conflict. They need to work together to achieve a middle ground. Each party will need to make concession. Most importantly they each commit to carrying out the plan exactly as agreed.
Keller and Brodsky could have specifically used their TKI profiles to assist them in compromising on Keller’s thoughts that Brodsky should spend more time in the field with the sale representatives and the distributors. (Thomas, 2007)
Conclusion Keller needs to take steps to improve the relationship between himself and Brodsky. The first thing he should do is to give Brodsky a call. During the call Keller should have a high level discussion of he following items:
• Inform Brodsky of his realization of his part in their failed relationship
• Acknowledge that he has not effectively utilized Brodsky experience and skills
• Announce that he would like to collaborate with him to build a new strategy for the Commercial department.
• Request a weekly one on one meeting until the two can reach a mutual agreement.

The second step should be the face to face meeting. This meeting should be used to clear the air. Keller needs to go into detail on how he has contributed to the failed relationship with Brodsky. He should spend time focusing on Brodsky’s strengths. They should collaborate on the structure for their future meetings where they will continue to collaborate to build the new strategy for the Commercial department.
The third step that Keller should take is to schedule a series of weekly one on one meetings with Brodsky.