Y.A.S. BUSINESS WOLFGANG KELLER AT KÖNIGSBRAU-TAK (A)
PROBLEM: Wolfgang Keller is a high performer. He desires to advance to the firm’s Vorstand , who serves as the corporation’s collective chief executive office but conflicts with Brodsky (commercial director at the Ukrainian subsidiary) is stalling Keller to achieve his desired career outcome. Keller’s current situation as manager director holds uncertainty in regard to the Vorstand promotion considering Dr. Hassler’s (his boss) concerns about his work relationships. The gap between Keller’s desired and actual state represents difficulty in his desired career outcome. This is problematic because Keller loves working for Königsbräu and desires to obtain the promotion to be the firm’s Vorstand. CAUSES Keller values achievement, power, and stability whereas Brodsky values autonomy, flexibility, and delegation. Opposing values, by Schwartz Value Theory, conflicts; Brodsky’s independent behaviors on completion of tasks in his own time frame and distant interpersonal relationships with co-workers create cognitive dissonance, a state of psychological discomfort, for Keller. Applying Festinger’s Theory on cognitive dissonance, psychological discomfort happens when a person experiences two or more conflicting cognitions; Keller does not want to fire Brodsky and is well-aware that it will be difficult to find a qualified replacement yet is not satisfied with his interpersonal skills. Under the Big Five Personality dimensions, Keller’s high extroversion compared to Brodsky’s low fabricates Keller to be bothered by Brodsky’s socialization with customers whereas Brodsky sees nothing wrong with his isolation and reserved relationships with others. Keller possesses high conscientiousness whereas certain incidents that Brodsky failed to fulfill can make Keller perceive that he is not dependable. An example is Brodsky’s unavailability during the urgent annual distributors’ meeting. By the fundamental attribution bias, Keller doubts Brodsky’s character and leadership ability, not considering his situational factors. Brodsky, in turn, holds a self-serving bias where he attributes his failures to Keller’s micromanagement and interference. Recall Kelly’s Model of Attribution: Brodsky's low consensus (behaving differently from colleagues) and distinctiveness (working relatively-similar in most of his tasks) while high in consistency (performing similarly with not much variation) makes Keller internally attribute Brodsky’s failure to meet his standards to lack of effort. Attributing behaviors to lack of effort causes Keller to reprimand Brodsky and give negative feedbacks. However, Keller’s negative feedbacks are always objected and discounted by Brodsky increasing poor relationship and conflict. This undesired outcome is putting Keller at risk for his desired career promotion.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 4 pages?
- Spring '11
- Fire Brodsky, Wolfgang Keller