Question1: How effective has Keller been as a coach to Brodsky? Why? Could you have done better?
I do not believe that Keller was fully efficient at mentoring Brodsky and neither did he effectively train him. As a result, Brodsky was unable to meet the expectations and standards held by Keller. However, from Brodsky’s reactions to the annual reviews given to him by Keller, it is clear that Brodsky may not have been open to Keller’s feedback which was actually trying to impress him to attempt and direct his efforts and attention to areas that required improvement. In addition, there seems to some personal background that is restraining the relationship between Brodsky and Keller. This personal background is somehow complicating matters between the two and is in fact enhancing what appears to be some kind of disrespect towards Keller from Brodsky even if he is his superior. On the other hand, Keller must be very careful to ensure that the advice he gives to Brodsky does not affect his performance and is also not micromanaging. A subordinate may feel frustrated or confined if he thinks that he is being micromanaged and is therefore not able to perform his duties fully. In light of this, Keller needs to be extra careful in the manner in which he gives recommendations to Brodsky.
I am of the belief that if I was in Keller position, I would have certainly done better. As soon as I witnessed the poor performance of Brodsky in some significantly key areas, I would have made an attempt to reach out to him before the annual review and discuss some of these issues with him. After I have made him aware of the issues, I would then attempt to guide him without actually intervening unless I deemed it absolutely necessary. Intervening constantly creates impressions of micro-management, something that will not appease the subordinates. I am of the opinion that if I executed guided direction and more care towards Brodsky’s mentorship. I could have actually enacted an improvement in his technique and performance without straining the relationship existing between us.
Question 2: What are the underlying causes of Brodsky’s performance problems? What actions should Keller take upon returning to Kiev? Be specific.
There are several causes of the problems witnessed in Brodsky’s performance. First, there is his distant management style as well as his administrative approach. Secondly, Brodsky’s total disregard and lack of attention for the recommendations forwarded to him by his superiors is also another cause of his performance problems. Brodsky also practices a “hands-off” approach when it comes to dealing with clients and customers something that has negative consequences. The fact that he is allocated a huge time requirement for his projects is also another significant cause of his performance problems.
As described briefly by Keller, there are three clear options for the action to be taken one being to dismiss Brodsky or deny him a pay raise (which would ultimately have a similar effect). The second option is to try helping Brodsky make an improvement of his performance. The final option would be to try to reorganize the department around Brodsky, which is trying to compensate for his incompetency, for example through splitting up the sales and marketing areas. In my opinion, the best options would be the second and the third. If Keller pays more attention and is more careful with manner in which he guides Brodsky, he may actually succeed in helping him without dismissing him. In addition, to make up for the errors already made by Brodsky that are too critical to be overlooked, he should initiate some changes revolving around Brodsky.
There is a negative effect to the implications for Keller’s development as a leader mainly because of the disrespect shown by Brodsky to the feedback given to him by Keller both in writing and verbally in his annual review. In addition, the development of Keller may have been significantly hindered because if the areas under Brodsky do not improve, Keller’s performance will be negatively affected because he is ultimately responsible for the actions of Brodsky. Finally, if Keller is to continue with his leadership development, he has to start being more sensitive to the feedback given to him his subordinates like Brodsky and also ensure that his staff does not feel micro-managed by his actions. This means giving them sufficient assistance, guidance and an opportunity for high performance. Therefore, Keller has three choices if he is to continue developing as an effective leader: fire Brodsky, attempt to work with him more or finally retain him but continue working around him so that he can fix the areas or sections in which Brodsky is exhibiting failure.
