Inspired by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie about the danger of a single story, the author, Dr Vilakazi wrote the book to inspire courage to own one’s truth and refusal to let outside forces and circumstances own your narrative. The book is about a true-life event that demonstrates leadership lessons that leaders at all levels can learn from, including aspiring leaders. The following are the key lessons conveyed in the book:

· Governance principles

· Employer/employee relations

· The South African labour court system

Extract from Chapter 3: Navigating Corporate and Academic worlds

Five months to the day after Professor Alagidede called me to his office about the Kantar contract, I was going about my usual routine when I opened my emails to find an invitation for a disciplinary hearing from Employee Relations at the main campus. Attached to the email was the disciplinary hearing bundle, which included the Kantar contract, the Cost Recovery (CORY) policy I was accused of violating, and gate access information detailing when and how often I had accessed the WBS campus.

Two charges had been brought against me: the first was that I had neglected my duties as a lecturer due to my limited time on campus, and the second was that I had accepted full-time employment without the university’s knowledge, thereby prejudicing the institution. The charge stated that this constituted gross misconduct, and if found guilty, I faced dismissal. I was confused and terrified by the email. Immediately, I called Professor Alagidede to ask what could be happening. He replied that he didn’t know but had received the same email. He reassured me that it was probably nothing and that I just needed to show up at the disciplinary hearing on the designated day. However, I knew it was definitely not nothing; it was potentially serious. No one gets invited to a disciplinary hearing for trivial matters.

I then called my colleague, Dr Thanti Mthanti, who was quite vocal about issues of unfairness at the university and served as the chairperson of the Transformation Forum for WBS academics. He was one of my close colleagues at the time and was helpful to both other academics and students. When I asked him about the email, he immediately recognised the seriousness of the situation. He advised me that something like this had never happened during his tenure but urged me to take it seriously. He didn’t know what I should do and suggested that I speak to Professor Anthony Stacey, who might have insight into the situation since he had been with the university for over 20 years and knew WBS very well. I called Professor Stacey, who confirmed the seriousness of the matter.

He echoed Dr Mthanti’s statement that it was unprecedented for someone to face disciplinary action at WBS. He offered to represent me as a fellow colleague, which I greatly appreciated, as I had no idea what to do. I accepted his offer and forwarded him the email to start preparing for the hearing.

Professor Stacey analysed the policy landscape and concluded that nothing in the policies contradicted the Kantar contract. He pointed out that the Cost Recovery (CORY) policy was specifically about consulting work done by academics using university resources. The accusation was that I was not sharing my income with the university and was therefore in breach of the CORY policy. This policy required academics who used university resources to share income with the university; however, I was clearly not utilising any university resources for the Kantar work. He was as confused as I was, but we decided to go to the hearing together.

On the day of the hearing, Professor Alagidede came to my office to offer me a lift to the main campus, where the hearing was set to take place. As we talked about the situation, I could feel the tension rising. He blamed me for not acting promptly to change the contract as he had advised, suggesting that if I had, we wouldn’t be in this predicament. Our voices grew louder, and just then, Professor Stacey happened to walk by and overheard our conversation. He became upset, perceiving that Professor Alagidede was intimidating me. In his view, it was inappropriate for him to come to my office just before the hearing.

I interpreted Professor Alagidede’s actions as genuine concern for my well-being, believing he felt remorseful about the situation and wished he could alleviate my distress. We drove together to the hearing, and upon arrival, I was met in the corridor by a very hostile senior manager from Employee Relations. This immediately set a daunting tone for the proceedings. The hearing chairperson, Ms Marie-Luise Winter, invited us into the room, and as soon as the hearing commenced, I was taken aback during the opening statement. It was revealed that Professor Alagidede had reported the matter to Employee Relations and was acting as the university’s witness against me. I was in utter disbelief as the hearing unfolded. Anger welled up in me as I recalled Professor Alagidede’s earlier assurances that he had no idea what was happening and that I had no reason to worry. I glanced over at Professor Stacey, who mirrored my shock as the reality of the situation sank in.

When the charges were presented to me, I pleaded not guilty, determined to defend myself against these baseless accusations. Then, Professor Alagidede took the stand, and to my astonishment, he lied about our relationship. He claimed that the trust between us had been irrevocably broken, asserting that I had planned to deceive him from the very beginning when I first approached him for guidance. It was jarring to see him speak in such a manner, completely out of character and seemingly rehearsed as a witness for the university.

During the cross-examination, Professor Stacey deftly questioned him, revealing that the Cost Recovery (CORY) policy did not apply to my case. The inconsistencies in Alagidede’s testimony began to surface, particularly when Professor Stacey pressed him on the specifics of when and how trust had been broken between us. It was clear that he was struggling to justify his claims, and the evidence began to point in my favour.

Professor Stacey’s questioning was incisive as he pressed Professor Alagidede on the credibility of his claims. “Did the trust get broken when he discovered the contract five months ago, yet still proceeded to give you additional work and even praised your performance in a glowing appraisal afterward? When did this trust actually break?” Alagidede was left stumbling for an answer, visibly uncomfortable under the scrutiny. It was clear that the weight of the situation was pressing down on him, and I couldn’t help but feel a convoluted mix of sympathy and frustration.

Realising that I needed more evidence to counter his assertions, I took the step of requesting a postponement to gather additional documentation and witness testimonies. Initially, the chairperson, Ms Winter, seemed reluctant to grant the extension, likely believing that the hearing should proceed as planned. However, Professor Stacey advocated for me with compelling arguments about the necessity of a fair hearing and the importance of allowing me the chance to adequately defend myself. After some deliberation, she reluctantly agreed to a two-day postponement, giving me a glimmer of hope amid the turmoil.

As the hearing came to a close, a blend of anxiety and a strong sense of resolve washed over me. I had a brief window to prepare and gather the evidence I needed to clear my name and counter the accusations against me. With the support of Professor Stacey and my colleagues, I was resolved to fight back and expose the truth behind this unjust situation.

The matter resumed two days later, and I had the evidence I needed. To my surprise, the goalposts had changed. The first charge, for which I had prepared evidence, was now being dropped. Professor Alagidede testified that the access information to the university didn’t hold any significance because it was normal for academics at WBS not to come to campus daily, and they were not expected to.

My performance was also not under scrutiny, as it had been satisfactory. Additionally, he was abandoning the CORY policy and was now citing the policy on the declaration of interests, which included moonlighting as one of the interests to declare. He argued that my work with Kantar constituted moonlighting and that, according to the policy, I needed to seek permission before engaging in it. I was seeing this clause for the first time, and I was completely confused and traumatised by what was happening.

Professor Alagidede testified that the Director of the MBA program, with whom I was working closely, had also told him that she couldn’t trust me. This was even more

shocking news to me. The lies and the shifting information were unfolding right in front of my eyes. By this time, I didn’t know exactly what I was defending. My understanding of the policy on declarations was that I needed to declare my interests annually, and Human Resources would send out reminders, even if I forgot to do it. I gave my testimony, explaining that I had not seen the threat or urgency of declaring my interests since the deadline for declarations, which was the 28th of February that year, had not yet arrived, and the hearing was taking place in January. When the hearing ended, I left with Professor Stacey feeling confused, shocked, and guilty. I couldn’t help but think I must have done something terrible to make him throw me under the bus like that, as if I had genuinely disappointed Professor Alagidede for him to sell me out like that.