By George Bamidele Ogunjimi Esq
The recent interaction between Tony Elumelu and a young lady from the UBA Graduate Management Accelerated Programme (GMAP) raises an interesting question about the relationship between respect, organisational culture, hierarchy, and familiarity.
During the programme’s graduation ceremony, the young graduate addressed Tony Elumelu simply as “Tony.” He corrected her and indicated that she should address him as “Mr Elumelu” or “TOE.” To some observers, this was a straightforward lesson in respect. To others, particularly those familiar with UBA’s workplace culture, the young lady may simply have been following what she had been taught: that people within the organisation should address one another by their first names, regardless of rank.
This distinction is important. Calling someone by their first name does not automatically mean that the person is being disrespectful. In many modern organisations, first-name culture is deliberately encouraged because it reduces unnecessary hierarchy and makes senior leaders more approachable. It can encourage younger employees to ask questions, share ideas, challenge assumptions and speak openly without being intimidated by titles.
At the same time, the African and particularly Nigerian understanding of respect often goes beyond an individual’s intentions. Age, position and social status influence how people are expected to address one another. Words such as “Sir,” “Ma,” “Chief,” “Dr.” and “Mr.” are not merely formalities; they can communicate recognition, courtesy and appropriate social boundaries.
This is where the Elumelu incident becomes particularly interesting. If UBA has cultivated a culture in which employees are encouraged to use first names, then it is understandable that a young graduate might assume that the principle applies even when addressing the Group Chairman. Her use of “Tony” therefore may have reflected organisational conditioning rather than arrogance or bad manners.
On the other hand, leaders also have the right to establish how they wish to be addressed. If Elumelu believes that “Tony” is excessively familiar in a particular setting, correcting the young woman is entirely legitimate. Respect should not be reduced to whether someone uses a title; it should also include recognising another person’s preferences, position and the context of the interaction.
The deeper lesson is that respect and hierarchy are not necessarily the same thing. A leader can promote an egalitarian workplace without requiring every individual interaction to be informal. Likewise, a person can address a senior executive formally without feeling intimidated by him.
There is therefore a balance to be found between organisational culture and cultural sensitivity. An organisation may encourage first-name communication because it wants to eliminate fear and excessive hierarchy. But employees should also be taught that context matters. A casual conversation in the office, a formal board meeting and a public graduation ceremony may require different levels of formality.
For the young lady, this appears to have been a moment of learning rather than a serious breach of respect. For Elumelu, it was an opportunity to communicate his personal preference and reinforce the distinction he wanted to maintain. The incident becomes problematic only if a simple correction is transformed into a judgment about the young woman’s character or upbringing.
Ultimately, true respect is found more in how we treat people than in the titles we use for them. Titles can express respect, but they do not create it. Similarly, first names can create accessibility and equality, but they should not be used to disregard legitimate boundaries.
The most valuable lesson for young professionals is therefore simple: be confident enough to engage senior leaders, humble enough to recognise hierarchy, and wise enough to understand the context. And for leaders, the lesson is equally important: create an environment where people are not afraid to speak to you, while making your expectations about formality clear.
The objective should not be to choose between “first-name culture” and “African respect.” It should be to build a culture where accessibility and respect can coexist.
George Bamidele Ogunjimi Esq
jurisrepubliclegal@gmail.com