British CEO criticized for refusing 2-Day leave to employee for marriage
A British CEO of a marketing firm is facing backlash for refusing to grant two days of leave to an employee who is getting married. Lauren Tickner has been criticized for ‘rage baiting’ the audience with a poorly phrased post on Threads, where she stated that the employee’s request for time off was denied because they had not trained a replacement. In her attempt to defend her position, she ended up contradicting herself. If her intention was to provoke outrage, she certainly achieved that, as her post garnered over 2.9 million views in just two days on Meta-owned Threads, with many accusing the CEO of Scale Systems of fostering a toxic workplace.
What the CEO stated?
Lauren Tickner initially mentioned that she refused to grant two days of leave to an employee getting married because they had already taken 2.5 weeks off and had not trained someone to cover their responsibilities during their absence. She clarified that the team was involved in two important projects that needed to be completed.
Tickner suggested that the employee should “find a replacement” and “train them on your daily tasks” before taking leave.
Post by @laurenticknerView on Threads
“With our unlimited time off policy, don’t ask next time!” she added.
Readers found her statements regarding the leave policy to be quite confusing. Although Tickner denied the employee’s request for two days off, she also indicated that they should not seek her permission in the future and could utilize the company’s “unlimited time off policy” for their leave.
With this policy, employees have the freedom to set their own hours, work from any location, and take days off as they wish. She noted that the main advantage of this approach is that “A-players don’t respect slackers.”
“Anyone taking too much time off loses status,” Tickner stated, emphasizing that the flexible leave policy fosters trust within teams.
In her follow-up post, she discussed “flexible time off,” explaining, “It’s called Flexible Time Off. (The opposite of micromanagement & outdated policies). Your employees set their own hours; they work where they want; they take days off when they choose.” She highlighted the main advantage of this policy, saying, “The biggest benefit? A-players don’t respect slackers. Anyone taking too much time off loses status. Flexible Time Off fosters trust within teams. What’s your approach to unlimited time off?”
Lauren further clarified her comments about finding a replacement, stating, “When I say ‘find a replacement and train them on your daily to-dos,’ I literally meant: show them your checklist and have them follow it. Everything is documented. The reaction to my statement shows how many companies need serious process upgrades!” She added, “We have processes that anyone on the team can follow to get the job done. So they’d just message someone and say, ‘Hey, could you do XYZ for me today?’ It’s very simple and efficient. Most tasks don’t need to be done urgently every day, so they can wait until the person is back from their day(s) off!”
People online started criticizing her for not granting leave and expecting the employee to find a replacement. Many considered her viewpoint unreasonable, sparking a discussion about workplace policies.
The backlash against Lauren’s explanation was significant, with many users feeling she contradicted herself. One user highlighted the confusion by stating, “She said it quite plainly that the employee must train their replacement. Now apparently it’s a job their co-workers can do.” This pointed out the inconsistency in her statements regarding who should handle the workload during the employee’s absence.
Another comment questioned the logic behind her policies: “So you offer unlimited time off but refuse time off for the biggest day of their lives? And why is it your employee’s job to train someone to replace them? It’s yours surely.” This reflects a broader concern about the fairness and practicality of her approach to leave policies.
Additionally, some accused her of ‘rage-baiting,’ suggesting that her controversial post was a tactic to generate engagement. One user expressed frustration, saying, “Train a replacement for 2 days? To get married? If your team can’t function without one person for TWO DAYS, and you can’t help with their tasks or delegate them, then you aren’t running your team very well. I hope this post was rage bait because it’s gross.” This criticism underscores the belief that her policies might not align with effective team management.