A recent social-media post by Lauren Tickner, CEO of a British marketing company, has ignited widespread debate after her post disclosed that she had denied an employee’s request for two days off to attend their own wedding.
In her post on Threads, Tickner justified the decision by explaining that the employee had already taken 2.5 weeks off. She noted that the employee had failed to train a temporary replacement, putting two critical projects at risk. This initial refusal sparked controversy, with many questioning her approach to employee time off, especially given her company’s flexible leave policy.
Tickner initially cited the employee’s lack of preparation as the key reason for denying the request. Furthermore, she instructed the employee to find and train a suitable substitute before requesting any additional time off.
However, in a follow-up clarification, Tickner emphasised that the company’s ‘Flexible Time Off’ policy allows employees to take leave without managerial approval, further complicating the situation.
While she denied the immediate request, she encouraged the employee to use the company’s unlimited leave policy for future absences, bypassing the need for approval altogether.
However, the post took an unexpected turn when she mentioned, “Anyone taking too much time off loses status,” a comment that struck a nerve with many readers, leading to an online backlash.
Social- media users were quick to highlight perceived contradictions in Tickner’s stance. Some questioned whether it should be the responsibility of the employee to find and train a replacement, suggesting that this task typically falls to management. Others raised concerns about the pressure created by the mention of “loss of status” for taking too much time off, arguing that such a policy might discourage employees from using their allotted time. There were also doubts about who decides what constitutes “too much” time off, with some observing that different employers may have varying views on acceptable leave duration.
Despite Tickner’s attempts to clarify her position, many users felt her explanations only fuelled more confusion. Her repeated pleas for people to ‘read till the end’ of her explanations were met with scepticism, as some accused her of “rage-baiting”—deliberately posting provocative content to drive engagement.
