By Princely Onyenwe | Editorial Desk
A seemingly simple greeting has opened a much wider conversation about respect, professional etiquette, corporate hierarchy and the changing culture of workplace interaction.
At the graduation ceremony of UBA’s Graduate Management Accelerated Programme, a young graduate addressed UBA Group Chairman Tony Elumelu as “Tony” during an interactive session. Elumelu immediately corrected her, asking that she address him as “Mr Elumelu” or “TOE”. The exchange quickly went viral, attracting sharply divided reactions and generating a debate that extended far beyond the room where it occurred.
For many Nigerians, the issue appeared straightforward. In a formal Nigerian corporate environment, particularly when addressing a senior executive or an elder, using a first name without an invitation can be considered overly familiar or disrespectful. From that perspective, Elumelu was within his rights to establish how he wished to be addressed, especially in a setting where hierarchy, protocol and professional courtesy remain important.
But the controversy does not end there. The more important question is how such correction should be handled in a professional learning environment. A graduate programme is not merely about certificates and technical competence; it is also meant to prepare young professionals for real-world corporate interaction. If the young woman misunderstood the expected protocol, the moment could have served as a valuable lesson in professional etiquette without necessarily becoming an uncomfortable public experience.
At the same time, young professionals must understand that workplace etiquette is not identical everywhere. First-name culture is common in many international organisations, where junior employees may address senior executives by their first names. But what is acceptable in one corporate culture may be inappropriate in another. Professional intelligence therefore includes understanding the culture of the organisation, the setting and, importantly, the person being addressed.
This makes the UBA episode particularly instructive. UBA is a pan-African financial institution operating across different markets and cultures, while Elumelu himself has extensive exposure to international business and academic environments. The encounter therefore sits at the intersection of two realities: a younger generation increasingly comfortable with informal and global workplace culture, and a Nigerian corporate tradition in which titles, age and institutional authority continue to carry considerable weight.
The lesson, however, should not become a simplistic battle between an “old-school” Nigerian executive and a supposedly “modern” young graduate. Neither age nor international exposure automatically makes one side right. The graduate could have shown greater sensitivity to the setting and the status of the person she was addressing. Elumelu, equally, had an opportunity to demonstrate the mentoring leadership expected of a senior figure interacting with young professionals.
A leader can correct without belittling, just as a young professional can demonstrate confidence without becoming unnecessarily familiar. Respect should not mean fear, and confidence should not be mistaken for disregard for protocol.
The public reaction also reveals something deeper about Nigeria’s changing workplace culture. Younger professionals increasingly operate across borders, cultures and institutions where traditional titles may be less important than competence, accessibility and collaboration. Yet Nigeria remains a society where age, position and institutional authority carry considerable social weight. Neither culture should be dismissed outright; the challenge is learning when and how each applies.
There is also a cautionary lesson for both sides. Young professionals entering corporate spaces should learn the importance of protocol, context and appropriate forms of address. Confidence does not eliminate the need for cultural and institutional awareness. Senior executives, on the other hand, should remember that moments of correction can become powerful opportunities for mentorship. Authority is strongest when it educates rather than intimidates.
This is particularly important in programmes designed to groom the next generation of professionals. Young graduates are not simply being assessed for what they already know; they are also learning how to navigate environments that may differ from those they have previously experienced. A senior executive who corrects with dignity can leave a lasting lesson, while a young professional who accepts correction with maturity can turn an awkward moment into professional growth.
However, the “Tony” controversy is not really about one name. It is about power, courtesy, confidence, hierarchy and leadership. Young professionals need the confidence to speak, ask questions and participate, while senior executives need the wisdom to correct, mentor and inspire. A good workplace culture should accommodate both.
Perhaps the most useful lesson from the UBA episode is that professionals should know their environment, respect boundaries and understand that correction, when necessary, should never strip another person of dignity. That is not merely Nigerian etiquette; it is professional maturity.
