Lauren Tickner, chief executive of a British marketing firm, inflamed controversy when she refused to allow an employee to take two days off to attend her wedding. Then came the plot twist: Tickner took to Threads to explain that the employee had already been off 2.5 weeks and had not trained anybody to cover for them, jeopardizing two big projects. She added that, in preparation, the employee should find and train a substitute before the employee goes on leave.
Next, Tickner explained her previous remarks by citing the company’s ‘flexible time off’ policy, which allows employees to leave without their manager’s approval. Even when the employee’s first approach was denied, Tickner encouraged her to avail herself of unlimited time off so she wouldn’t have to seek leave approval.
In a post, she said, “It’s called Flexible Time Off. (It’s the opposite of micromanagement and outdated policies.) Your employees set their hours, work where they want, and take days off when they choose.” She also added that high-performing employees don’t respect those who take too much time off, insinuating that this policy makes teams trust each other.
The post has since caused an uproar of debate on social media, with several users bewildered by her approach. Such critics pointed to the apparent contradiction between her actions and the company’s policy. “Finding and training a replacement is the manager’s job, not the employee’s,” said one user. What if there isn’t a replacement available?”
Others expressed concerns that this policy may intimidate workers from asking for leave. However, the backlash refused to die down, as Tickner’s attempts to explain herself were met with accusations that she was “rage-baiting” her way to controversy and comments for better engagement. Comments like, “You offer unlimited time off but refuse to leave for their wedding?” show a rising discontent among users about her style of management.
