What a brief workplace exchange reveals about organisational culture and leadership communication
Author of Brand Yourself, Ghanaian scholar-practitioner in corporate communication and personal branding
A brief exchange at the graduation ceremony of UBA’s Graduate Management Accelerated Programme has generated an intense public debate. A young trainee stood to ask a question and began, ‘Good morning, Tony.’
Mr Tony Elumelu immediately corrected her. He preferred to be addressed as ‘Mr Elumelu,’ ‘TOE’ or ‘Chairman.
’ The trainee accepted the correction and proceeded.
That should ordinarily have been the end of the matter. Instead, the moment became a national conversation about respect, upbringing, corporate etiquette, African culture, generational differences and workplace hierarchy.
I do not believe either person must be made the villain.
Mr Elumelu had the right to indicate how he preferred to be addressed.
The young woman may also have acted in accordance with her understanding of modern corporate etiquette, in which first names are commonly used.
The real issue is organisational culture.
When Culture Is Present but Unspoken
Culture shapes how people speak, behave and interpret meaning within an organisation.
It tells employees what is acceptable, even when nobody has written it down.
In my book, Communicating Change in Africa, I argue that culture is often ignored in organisational communication.
Institutions introduce policies, structures and new ways of working without paying sufficient attention to the cultural assumptions that influence how employees understand them.
The same problem appears in this incident.
The trainee probably understood the occasion through the language of contemporary corporate culture. Many organisations promote accessibility, reduced hierarchy and communication on a first-name basis.
Mr Elumelu understood the encounter through another cultural frame.
That frame recognises age, status, institutional authority and African conventions of respect.
Neither interpretation is inherently unreasonable.
The communication failure occurred because the expected culture was not mutually understood.
If employees are expected to address senior executives by their titles, this should be part of the organisation’s induction and everyday practice.
Young employees should not have to discover such expectations while standing before hundreds of people and facing a camera.
Culture should guide people.
It should not ambush them.
African Culture Is More Than Titles
I understand Mr Elumelu’s rejection of what he called the ‘Oyinbo life.’
African organisations should not simply import every Western management practice without considering local realities.
Our workplaces are influenced by age, social position, communal identity and relational expectations.
These cannot be dismissed as backwards simply because some global corporations operate differently.
However, we must also be careful about how we invoke African culture.
African culture is not expressed only through titles, hierarchy and deference. It is equally expressed through dignity, patience, guidance and concern for the other person.
Respect must travel in both directions.
The younger employee should recognise the experience and position of the senior leader.
The senior leader should also recognise the vulnerability of the young employee.
That is relational leadership.
Leadership Communication Is Tested in Small Moments
Leadership is not demonstrated only in boardroom decisions, major speeches or annual reports.
Employees experience leadership through everyday interactions.
A greeting can reveal leadership. A correction can reveal leadership.
The tone used when someone makes an innocent mistake can reveal leadership.
Mr Elumelu was entitled to correct the trainee.
The important leadership question is how correction can establish the expected standard while preserving the dignity of the individual.
A leader may simply say, ‘Please address me as Mr Elumelu,’ and allow the conversation to continue.
The lesson is delivered. The standard is made clear.
The person is not diminished.
Leaders must remember that power changes the meaning of communication.
The same words do not carry equal weight when spoken by a trainee and when spoken by a chairman.
The chairman’s correction carries institutional authority.
It may affect the employee long after the event has ended.
Leadership communication therefore requires emotional intelligence and restraint.
The Stanford Comparison
A video from Stanford Graduate School of Business has resurfaced.
In that interview, the student interviewer addressed Mr Elumelu as ‘Tony,’ and he responded calmly. People have used the video to accuse him of applying different standards.
Context matters. At Stanford, he was an invited guest.
At UBA, he was the Chairman interacting with a graduate trainee. Different organisational settings can have different communication protocols.
However, the comparison still raises an important question.
Was the difference cultural, institutional or hierarchical?
If the name ‘Tony’ was acceptable at Stanford but unacceptable at UBA, employees must understand why.
An organisational culture that exists only in the leader’s mind will create uncertainty. Leaders should not assume that employees can read unwritten expectations.
The Personal Branding Lesson
There is also a personal branding lesson to be learned from this incident.
In Brand Yourself: From Invisible to Influential, I argued that a personal brand is not merely what a person claims to be.
It is what others consistently recognise and remember about that person.
Mr Elumelu has built a powerful brand around entrepreneurship, Africapitalism, opportunity and the development of young Africans.
That brand has been strengthened through years of visible investment in enterprise and leadership.
Yet personal brands are often tested in unplanned moments.
The public may forget a prepared speech, but remember a spontaneous response. A few seconds of unscripted behaviour can become the lens through which people interpret years of carefully built reputation.
This does not mean that one brief encounter should define Mr Elumelu’s character.
That would be unfair. It means that leaders must understand that personal branding does not end when the official speech ends.
Every public interaction communicates something.
The trainee’s personal brand was also exposed.
Some people have judged her intelligence, upbringing, and character based on two words.
That is equally unfair. One misunderstanding of protocol cannot provide enough evidence to define a young professional.
Personal branding must be grounded in consistency, not isolated incidents.
What Organisations Should Learn
This debate should not end with people choosing between Mr Elumelu and the trainee.
It should encourage organisations to examine how they communicate culture.
• How should senior executives be addressed?
• Is the workplace formal or informal?
• What does respect mean within the organisation?
• Are the same standards applied consistently?
• How are employees corrected when they misunderstand protocol?
These questions may appear small.
They are not.
They influence psychological safety, employee confidence, leadership credibility and organisational reputation.
Young professionals must also develop contextual intelligence. Before addressing a senior leader, observe the setting. Listen to how the person is introduced.
When uncertain, begin formally. Familiarity can always develop later.
Senior leaders must equally recognise that correction is a communication responsibility.
The aim should be to teach, not to embarrass.
Two Reasonable People, One Cultural Gap
Mr Elumelu was reasonable in stating his preferred form of address.
The trainee was not necessarily wrong for using a communication convention accepted in many contemporary organisations.
Two reasonable people encountered each other through different cultural expectations.
The gap between them was organisational communication.
This is why culture matters.
It shapes what people say, what they hear and what they believe an interaction means.
When culture is ignored, even a simple greeting can become a national controversy.
The lesson extends beyond UBA.
African organisations must build cultures that reflect their identities.
But those cultures must be clearly communicated, consistently practised and humanely enforced.
Otherwise, employees will continue to guess the rules, and leaders will continue to interpret misunderstanding as disrespect.
The real question is not whether she should have said ‘Tony’ or ‘Mr Elumelu.’
The real question is whether the organisation had made its cultural expectations clear before she stood up to speak.
That is where the conversation should begin.
-DR IKE TANDOH
