In the textbook, the author has stated that a leader must enable other people to act. Decisions that that affect others should not be made without involving them. In the Millar case, Rebecca Olson did not just decide on what to do with the VP of the company. She talked to him and convinced him to resign. Some may argue that this was because the VP had played major role in her securing the CEO Job, but it could also be an element of good leadership.
The case on sexual harassment and the fact that the person filing the case had physical disabilities, meant that the case would be given the first hand priority by state employment agency. This would not suite Millar and just as stated in the textbook, a good leader would have made considerations on the dreams and aspirations of Millar. Firing Millar would have created an unexplainable vacuum on Mr. Millar’s CV and would have made it very hard for him to secure a job. Olson therefore did what a good leadership requires of her: being considerate of others as stated in the textbook.
The textbook argues that good leadership must challenge the process. Olson refused to follow the expected solution and the demand of the clerical employee that the VP be fired. Instead, she came up with a solution that was not so extreme on the involved parties. She looked outside the laid out guidelines and came out with a lasting solution to the situation. This means that Olson would be able to look outside the box in solving the company’s problems in future and considering the interest of the employees and other stakeholders while doing so.
However, Olson’s leadership style failed to meet some requirements stated in the textbook. The book states clearly that eloquent speeches are not the factors that make a great leader, but the emphasis on the organization’s values. Leadership practices are very vital in such a technical case where a leader finds him or her in a dilemma on decision-making. The leadership practices were very significant and applicable in this case where first, values need to be clarified. Olson’s decision to consult with Millar was marred by the role the VP played on her employment. This shows that Olson did not stand by the values of the organization. When a situation demands for an employee to be fired, it should be done regardless of the position or the relationship with the CEO. Mr. Millar should also not have taken advantage of his junior staff. The textbook shows clearly that leaders must show good examples that others are supposed to follow; Millar did opposite of the requirements of good leadership.
In envisioning the future, there is a need to set standards over what the organization wants to achieve and its goal. These calls for strict measures and discipline enhancement from the word go and this involves taking actions too. Olson should have fired Millar to set a good example to others who may have the same habit. Good habits are essential for the prosperity of any organization and the CEO should work hard to ensure that bad habits like sexual harassment are dealt with the seriousness they deserve. There is need to search for opportunities in Millar’s case, the CEO should take that initiative to work out on the case by searching and sourcing ideas from others. It might be argued that Olson searched for opportunities by looking for other ways to remove Millar from the company, but that does not give strong support to the concept. She should have consulted with the board of directors on the possible ways out of the predicament.
There is a sharp contrast on credibility as stated in the textbook and as witnessed in the Millar’s story. Good leadership requires integrity and a strong character. A leader is expected to be honest and religiously follow ethics and values in their decisions. This would make their juniors admire them and be happy working with them. Olson was not honest as her decision not to fire Millar was based on their relationship with the VP. She did not consider the values or ethics of the organization to make her decision. This could create problems for her when dealing with similar cases in future
It is therefore true to say that, Olson did not envision the future when she made the decision. The textbook explains that the envisioning the future demands that the leader clarifies values, which he or she hopes to take to the future. The vision of the expected future would be the leader’s message to the juniors and should be made clear. The experiences of the present enrich the experiences of the future. Olson should have exploited this opportunity to make known, her values, and vision for the company.
All the leadership cases are characterized by some challenges and these challenges in the cases leads more often to change in the status quo. Leadership being a relationship, we have those who aspire to lead and those who opt to follow the leaders. This relationship matters a lot since everyone is accountable and it is in such a case where the leader is looked up by the followers to give the necessary advice. Millar is a bad influence and may have helped Olsen to get the job because of her gender and he could take advantage of her: A very bad leadership.