A few seconds of conversation between Tony Elumelu and a young graduate at the 2026 UBA Graduate Management Accelerated Programme (GMAP) graduation has managed to become one of the bigger corporate culture debates on Nigerian social media. The moment was simple: the graduate began her interaction with “Good morning, Tony,” and Elumelu stopped her, explaining that she should address him as “Mr Elumelu” or “TOE,” adding that he did not subscribe to what he described as “Oyinbo life.”
What followed was predictable. One side saw a young professional failing at a basic test of respect, particularly in a formal setting and when addressing someone considerably older and more senior. The other side argued that she may simply have been following the corporate culture she had been taught, with former UBA personnel claiming that GMAP participants are encouraged to address colleagues by their first names, regardless of rank.
Somewhere between these two arguments is a more useful conversation about corporate culture.
The first lesson is that company policy should be clear enough to survive the room it was designed for.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a first-name culture. In fact, many organisations deliberately adopt it to make workplaces feel less hierarchical, encourage communication and make senior executives more approachable. If employees are consistently told that everyone is addressed by their first name, it is understandable that a young employee might carry that instruction into an interaction with a senior executive.
The problem arises when organisational culture and individual preference contradict each other without a clear bridge between them.
A company can tell its employees, “Call everyone by their first name,” while a senior executive can personally prefer, “Call me Mr Elumelu.” Neither position is necessarily wrong. What matters is whether employees are given enough context to understand when one applies over the other.
Policy creates the default. Emotional intelligence recognises the exception.
This is where the incident becomes particularly interesting.
Corporate policies are designed to create consistency, but human beings operate within context. The way you address your colleague in a meeting room may not necessarily be the way you address the same person while they are representing the organisation at a formal ceremony, speaking as a chairman, guest, founder or executive.
The ability to recognise that difference is emotional intelligence.
It is also why cultural awareness remains important, particularly in Nigeria. Respect here is often communicated through language. “Sir,” “Ma,” “Mr,” “Mrs,” “Chief” and professional titles can carry a meaning that extends beyond the literal words. They acknowledge age, authority, position and social context.
At the same time, younger professionals are entering workplaces that increasingly borrow from global corporate culture, where hierarchy is deliberately softened and first-name communication is normal. Neither culture needs to completely displace the other.
The better approach is adaptability.
A good professional should be able to operate within a company’s culture without becoming blind to the culture outside it. If your organisation encourages first-name communication, that should be your working default. If you notice that an executive, client or stakeholder prefers a title, adapting to that preference is not necessarily a rejection of company culture. It is simply reading the room.
This is also where organisations have a responsibility.
Corporate culture should not be left to assumption.
If an organisation wants employees to use first names across levels, it should communicate the boundaries clearly. Does the policy apply to public events? External stakeholders? Formal ceremonies? Clients? Board members? Founders? What happens when an executive has a personal preference that differs from the general policy?
These may seem like insignificant details until a three-second interaction becomes a national conversation.
The other important lesson is neutrality.
There is a tendency, particularly online, to turn moments like this into morality plays. The graduate becomes disrespectful. The executive becomes arrogant. One person must be completely right and the other completely wrong. However, workplace etiquette rarely operates that neatly.
The graduate may have followed the culture she was taught. Elumelu was equally entitled to establish how he wanted to be addressed. Once he made that preference clear, she adjusted and continued the conversation. That should probably have been the end of it.
Instead, social media turned a correction into a referendum on Nigerian culture, Westernisation, hierarchy, feminism, corporate etiquette and even wealth.
Perhaps the more useful takeaway is much simpler: professionalism is not just knowing the rules; it is knowing when context changes how those rules should be applied.
For companies, the responsibility is to create policies that are clear, consistent and culturally intelligent. For employees, the responsibility is to understand those policies while developing enough emotional intelligence to recognise situations that require adaptation.
The future of Nigerian corporate culture does not have to choose between “Tony” and “Mr Elumelu.” It can accommodate both, provided people understand when each is appropriate, because ultimately, good corporate culture is not about removing hierarchy or enforcing it. It is about giving people enough clarity to navigate it respectfully.
