The Tony Elumelu First-Name Debate I have been following the conversation around the young lady who called Tony Elumelu by his first name, and honestly, I think a lot of us are looking at the issue purely from a social and cultural standpoint, when there is actually an interesting workplace policy question underneath it. Let me explain where I stand. If a company’s policy says employees should address one another by their first names, and that policy does not specifically exclude the Chairman, CEO, directors, executives, or any other level of the organisational hierarchy, then technically, I don’t think the girl was wrong for calling him “Tony.” Simple. If that is the policy, then that is the policy. The question I would actually ask is: Does the policy recognize cultural context? Was there a provision saying, “Employees may address one another by their first names, except members of the board, the Chairman, CEO or certain senior executives”? If there wasn’t, then we have to be careful about creating an exception after the fact simply because the person involved is Tony Elumelu. However, this is where I think the girl could also have exercised some workplace wisdom and contextual judgment. Because the reality is that not everything that governs workplace behaviour is written in the employee handbook. There are formal rules, and then there are informal organizational norms. Personally, my position has always been: Don’t address people by their first name unless the organization’s policy or culture clearly gives you the basis to do so. If there is any ambiguity, I would rather err on the side of professionalism and respect. So, would I have called him “Tony” in that situation? NO. I would have said “Chairman.” Not necessarily because I believe the girl violated any policy, but because wisdom at work is not always about proving that you are technically right. Sometimes, it is about understanding the room. And this is where the African context becomes important. Tony reacted, in my opinion, as an African man. Again, I’m not saying that to justify the reaction or excuse anyone’s behaviour. I’m saying it because our understanding of hierarchy, age, status, titles and respect is deeply influenced by our culture. You can create a modern corporate environment where everyone is encouraged to use first names, but that doesn’t automatically erase decades of cultural conditioning around how we address people who occupy certain positions. That is why I think both sides of this conversation can actually have a point. From a policy perspective: if there was no exception, the girl may have been completely within the rules. From a cultural and contextual perspective: calling him “Chairman” would probably have been the wiser move.