“Not our culture”: Injured employee requests 2nd WFH in 7 months but CEO calls it ‘very bad’; Internet floods with brutal advice

A CEO’s “special warning” to an employee who worked from home without explicit permission has ignited a heated debate about modern workplace culture, approval etiquette, and empathy in management. The situation, shared via a viral Reddit post, centers on an employee who notified his CEO that he would work remotely due to a leg injury—only to be reprimanded for not asking first.

What happened

According to the employee’s account, the company had no clear work-from-home or leave policy. Historically, workers emailed their manager and HR for approvals. But after both resigned, all formal communication shifted directly to the CEO.

When the employee twisted his leg and found walking difficult, he sent a professional email informing the CEO that he would work from home. It was only his second WFH day in seven months, and he believed a clear notification would suffice in the absence of a formal policy.

The CEO disagreed, responding that notifications were not acceptable and that prior approval was mandatory. The message, which quickly became the centerpiece of the debate, read:

“It is not our culture. Very bad. I did not allow you to work from home; you must ask for permission, not just notify.”

Why it blew up

The employee said he kept the message professional and chose not to disclose detailed health information. He also emphasized that he seldom used WFH. The CEO’s tone and the phrase “not our culture” struck a nerve online, especially given the lack of formal guidelines at the company.

The exchange highlighted a familiar tension: traditional approval-heavy hierarchies versus modern, trust-based flexibility—particularly in hybrid environments where expectations aren’t documented.

What people are saying

Online reactions broadly split into two camps:

• Critics of the CEO’s response: Many called the tone needlessly harsh and emblematic of rigid, outdated corporate culture. They argued that workers shouldn’t be penalized for making reasonable, health-related decisions—especially when policies are unclear.
• Supporters of formal approvals: Some noted that in companies with cross-border operations, processes often require explicit permission for WFH, and employees should confirm procedures when in doubt.

Sarcastic comments also poured in, mocking the “permission culture” and the idea of issuing a “special warning” for a single remote day prompted by injury.

The bigger picture

The incident spotlights the confusion many professionals face in organizations without documented WFH norms. As more teams straddle offices and time zones, a lack of clarity on expectations—notification vs. approval, how soon to inform, and what details to share—creates friction that can erode trust and morale.

It also underscores the growing expectation that leaders balance operational needs with empathy. In a world where hybrid and remote models are commonplace, insisting on rigid approval for one-off, health-driven WFH days—especially without a written policy—can feel tone-deaf to employees.

Lessons for companies

• Publish clear policies: Define when WFH requires notification versus approval, who grants it, and acceptable notice periods.
• Specify communication channels: Standardize requests via email or HR tools to avoid ad hoc decisions and ambiguity.
• Train managers on tone: Critical feedback can be delivered firmly but respectfully; tone shapes culture as much as policy.
• Accommodate health needs: Short-term flexibility for injuries or illness supports productivity and retention.

Tips for employees

• Confirm the process: If policies are unclear, ask explicitly whether WFH is notification-only or requires approval.
• Document requests: Keep communications professional and time-stamped; summarize the reason without oversharing medical details.
• Offer a plan: Outline how you’ll stay reachable and deliverables you’ll complete while remote.

Why this struck a chord

As workplace norms evolve, many employees expect trust-based flexibility, especially for occasional, health-related WFH. Leaders who rely on “culture” as a catch-all—without clear, written guidelines—risk sending mixed messages and fueling public backlash. This episode has become a lightning rod not because WFH approvals are inherently unreasonable, but because tone, ambiguity, and consistency matter just as much as rules themselves.

Whether one sides with strict approvals or practical flexibility, the takeaway is simple: clear policies and empathetic communication prevent conflicts—and keep small issues from becoming viral flashpoints.