WFH approved but on a leash: Employee’s reply stuns manager into silence

The work-from-home and work-from-office debate continues to dominate the professional landscape today. What gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic has slowly turned into discussions regarding productivity, flexibility, and work-life balance. Many companies have already started granting WFH to employees or have allowed WFH for some days in a week. This modern set-up challenges traditional ones, encouraging convenience, autonomy, reduced commute stress, and clearer boundaries. But recently, career counsellor Simon Ingari shared an account of an employee who was granted WFH, but on a bizarre, strict leash.

Simon Ingari dropped a post on X where he talked about the incident in detail. In a candid exchange between the employee and the manager, the latter informed the employee that his work-from-home request had been approved, but there was a catch.

Flexibility under watch

The manager told the employee that the company has introduced a new policy known as geo-fencing. Under this directive, employees need to stay or relocate within a 50-kilometre radius of the office. When the employee asked the reason behind the rule, the manager replied that it was to ensure accessibility and accountability.



Contrary to the manager’s words, the employee questioned the logic of implementing such a policy. He pointed out that his ability to attend meetings and deliver work would remain unchanged regardless of whether he was 40 or 60 kilometres away. However, turning a deaf ear to his words, the manager insisted that the policy was simply a part of the company guidelines.

Trust vs tracking

What followed was a subtle but telling shift in tone with the employee firmly interpreting the restriction as ‘flexibility with boundaries,’ hinting at a contradiction between trust and surveillance. When the manager reassured that the organisation still trusts its workforce, the employee raised another important question: if trust exists, why track location at all?



The manager failed to offer a clear response to the question, leaving his exchange with the employee hanging in an awkward silence. The conversation has, however, resonated widely online, with many seeing it as a reflection of a broader corporate dilemma on how to balance employee autonomy with organisational control in the age of remote work. Many users pointed out that the policy was actually rolled out to implement control in the guise of productivity.