A CEO reportedly texted an employee for leaving 10 minutes early. HR expert says it reveals more about the CEO than the employee.
For one CEO, 9-to-5 means 9-to-5. Not 9-to-4:50.
The unnamed executive reportedly criticized a Gen Z employee for leaving the office ten minutes before the end of their shift, according to a now-deleted Reddit post that went viral.
Now, the episode is inspiring discussions about clock-watching bosses, Gen Z workers, social media, and the ever-changing dynamic of the American workplace.
Michael Sturman, Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Human Resource Management in the School of Management and Labor Relations, talked to Rutgers Today about who’s really in the wrong in this case. (Hint: It’s not the employee.)
Does it really matter if someone leaves work 10 minutes early?
In most cases, a 10-minute early departure is not a fundamental performance issue.
Unless an individual’s absence directly disrupts operations—such as leaving patients unattended, leaving a customer service desk empty, or leaving before critical information can be handed off to an incoming employee—focusing on missed minutes is a lazy way to pretend you are managing. A CEO reacting strongly to minor attendance fluctuations signals underlying management challenges, most notably low trust and a reliance on outdated norms. If leaders lack the framework to evaluate true substantive contributions, then physical presence and “time in seats” becomes an easy but inaccurate proxy for effort and motivation.
When executive leadership chooses to spend its limited time policing employee schedules, it often reflects a desire for control and a mindset that values image over impact. True performance management requires evaluating whether an employee achieves meaningful objectives, solves the necessary problems, and advances the organization’s goals. Managing by the clock instead of by broader employee outcomes ends up prioritizing control over authentic engagement and results.
Are Gen Z workers more willing to push back than older workers?
The sharp divide over clock-watching stems from both a fundamental values gap and a generational shift in how employees engage with workplace authority.
Raised in an era defined by digital tools, instant information, remote education, and flexible working arrangements, Gen Z operates on an implicit output-for-pay contract. To them, work is defined by task completion and efficacy rather than physical presence during arbitrarily determined hours. When forced to remain at a desk simply to fulfill someone else’s timeline, they view the mandate as an unnecessary, wasteful, and disrespectful effort in control and compliance.
At the same time, I think, Gen Z is more willing to challenge these practices. While older generations may have felt similar frustrations with this type of micromanagement, lower job mobility and traditional norms around workplace behaviors and expectations often kept them silent. I recall hearing managers earlier in my career talk about how they were so well served by showing up five minutes before their boss and leaving five minutes after, or even how they might not work hard all day but would start working at 5pm so as to demonstrate their “dedication” to the company.
For Gen Z, having been raised using rapidly moving information and operating with a lower deference to hierarchies, they are more comfortable bringing these grievances into the open. And, I have to say, “good for them.” They are quick to call out hypocrisy, such as when organizations demand flexibility and availability from employees after hours but refuse to reciprocate.
If this is how a company operates—managing “time in seats”—should that be a warning sign to job seekers?
When a CEO personally polices departure times, I’d be worried. To me, it signals a company culture characterized by low trust, heavy surveillance, and a reliance on impression management over actual accomplishments. It suggests that the organization evaluates employees on the appearance of working rather than having a meaningful way to accurately measure employee contributions.
Job seekers should absolutely treat this behavior as a red flag. CEOs who spend their time watching employee attendance down to the minute are unlikely to foster an environment where employees can thrive or innovate. My experience suggests that companies that strictly prevent employees from leaving a few minutes early do not typically offer reciprocal flexibility when projects demand extra hours after work.
Finally, if watching the number of minutes an employee works is the best use of a CEO’s time, you have to wonder how valuable the CEO’s time really is.
