21/08/2026
Work Ethics, Organisational Codes of Conduct, and Everyday Respect: Lessons from the Elumelu Incident
Work ethics form the foundation of professional life. They are the everyday principles of honesty, diligence, reliability, and respect that guide how people behave in the workplace. These principles ensure that tasks are completed properly, colleagues are treated fairly, and the organisation’s reputation remains intact. Beyond personal character, work ethics create an environment where trust can grow and productivity can flourish.
Closely related to work ethics is an organisation’s code of conduct. This is the specific set of rules, written or taught, that a company expects its employees to follow. It covers matters such as how staff address one another, how they dress, how they handle confidential information, and how they show respect within the walls of the organisation. Unlike the broader values of work ethics, a code of conduct is tailored to the particular culture the company wishes to build. In modern corporations influenced by global practices, this often includes a more informal style of communication designed to flatten hierarchy and encourage open exchange of ideas.
Outside the workplace, however, a different set of norms usually applies. In many African societies, including Nigeria, everyday respect is shaped by culture, age, and status. Younger people are taught to address elders and those in positions of authority with titles such as “Sir,” “Ma,” “Mr” or “Mrs” followed by the surname, or other terms that signal deference. Using only a first name with someone significantly older or more powerful can feel overly familiar or even disrespectful, especially in public settings. This cultural expectation is part of what is commonly called “home training.” It prioritises hierarchy and age as markers of respect and has long guided behaviour in families, communities, and traditional workplaces.
These two systems—the organisational code and everyday cultural respect—do not always align. The recent incident involving Tony Elumelu and a young graduate trainee at the United Bank for Africa’s Graduate Management Accelerated Programme (GMAP) ceremony illustrates the tension clearly. During an interactive session, the young woman greeted the then Group Chairman with the words “Good morning, Tony.” Elumelu promptly corrected her, stating that she should address him as “Mr Elumelu,” “TOE,” or “Chairman.” He added that he does not subscribe to that kind of “Oyinbo life,” a reference to the casual Western style of address. The exchange, captured on video, quickly sparked widespread debate.
From the perspective of the organisational code of conduct, the young woman’s choice was consistent with what she had been taught. Former participants in the same GMAP have explained that the programme explicitly encourages trainees to address colleagues, including senior executives, by their first names. The underlying philosophy treats all staff as colleagues and seeks to create an atmosphere of openness rather than rigid formality. In that specific corporate training context, calling a senior figure by first name was presented as acceptable and even desirable. She was therefore applying the rules of the organisation she was joining, not inventing a personal style of disrespect.
At the same time, Elumelu’s response reflected a different set of expectations rooted in cultural norms and personal preference. As a senior figure and an older man, he regarded the first-name address as too informal for the public setting and the difference in age and status. His correction highlighted that company policy does not automatically erase the cultural instincts many people, including senior leaders, still carry. The moment revealed a genuine clash: the trained corporate culture pulling in one direction, and traditional African respect combined with individual preference pulling in the other.
Both positions contain truth. The young woman was right in the sense that she followed the organisational guidance she had received. She operated within the code of conduct the bank itself had promoted during her training. Elumelu was equally entitled to state his preferred form of address and to uphold the cultural standard he values. The incident does not require choosing one side as absolutely correct and the other as wrong. It simply shows that organisational rules and cultural expectations can diverge, and that awareness of both is necessary.
For anyone entering professional life, the practical lesson is straightforward. When the two systems conflict, the safer starting point is usually the more formal option—using titles or surnames—until a senior person clearly invites greater familiarity. Organisations may teach first-name culture in the classroom, yet the lived reality of hierarchy, age, and public perception often reasserts itself. Understanding this difference equips young professionals to navigate workplaces with both confidence and sensitivity. In the end, respect remains essential; the only question is which form of respect the situation, the culture, and the individual most clearly require.
