The Entitled Team: When Should Managers Respond to Employee Expectations, and When Should They Draw the Line?

02.07.2026

Matylda was the CFO of an IT agency, while Roman held a senior management position within the company. Both breathed a sigh of relief when the company finally entered a period of stability following a turbulent restructuring process. They were convinced that the most challenging period was behind them. They focused on day-to-day operations and setting new, ambitious business objectives for the company. It soon became apparent, however, that the apparent calm within the organisation was deceptive, and a new phenomenon – difficult to manage – began to emerge within the teams.

The team managed by Roman gradually began bringing various requests to his attention. It started with requests for better equipment and an increased training budget. Roman saw no issue with this. In his view, employees were entitled to comfortable working conditions, and investing in their professional development would ultimately contribute to improved business performance. Over time, however, the requests became increasingly frequent. Virtually every week, Roman received emails from employees raising new demands – all justified on the grounds that they would enable them to perform their duties more effectively. Moreover, employees insisted that all benefits should be granted equally to everyone, arguing that any differentiation could amount to discrimination. Roman approved every such request, unwilling to risk creating tension within the team. The company was in the middle of delivering a critical project, and Roman could not afford any potential conflicts.

Eventually, the team requested the introduction of a four-day working week while retaining full salary. Roman felt that the employees had begun taking advantage of the situation, but he found himself in a difficult position. He was prepared to consider their proposal.

“If we refuse, they’ll leave for our competitors. Employees now hold the strongest negotiating position. We need to be modern, flexible, and committed to supporting work-life balance,” he argued.

Matylda, looking at the financial projections, viewed the situation quite differently. The new project required continuous technical support from Monday through Friday, and although the project’s margin was strong, it would not absorb a 20% reduction in productivity. Nevertheless, under pressure from Roman, she agreed to a one-month pilot programme reducing the working week by one day. She hoped employees would appreciate the company’s willingness to accommodate their expectations and that this would bring the growing list of demands to an end.

A week later, however, a delegation of employees approached management with a further demand: that the company should cover the cost of workplace catering and purchase ergonomic massage chairs for the office. At that point, Matylda said, “Enough.” She considered the team to have become excessively entitled and regarded Roman’s approach as overly accommodating. The pilot programme introducing the shortened working week was suspended, and Matylda also froze the budget for additional training. As a result, employee motivation declined dramatically. Staff visibly reduced their level of engagement, which led to a noticeable deterioration in performance.

The conflict escalated when one of the company’s key software developers declared that he would not participate in the urgent resolution of a critical system failure that threatened to expose highly sensitive data belonging to one of the company’s largest clients. The incident occurred outside normal working hours.

“My evenings are my private time, and the company has no right to interfere with my mental wellbeing,” he argued.

Roman wanted to let the matter go and urgently find an external contractor instead. Matylda, however, concluded that the line had been crossed and announced that disciplinary action would be taken against the employees concerned.

Where should the line be drawn between legitimate employee needs and simple entitlement?

When should a manager seek compromise, and when should they establish firm boundaries based on legal requirements? What does the law say?

Labour law imposes a duty on employers to respect employees’ dignity and other personal rights. Employers are required to comply with statutory working time regulations, and labour legislation also obliges them to facilitate employees’ professional development. Employees are entitled to equal treatment, as well as safe and healthy working conditions. The question therefore becomes: how can employers distinguish between requests that they are legally required to fulfil and those that remain entirely within their own discretion?

Managing employee expectations requires distinguishing between two separate concepts: statutory employment rights and employee benefits that form part of the company’s motivation and retention strategy. Compliance with employees’ statutory rights is a legal obligation. Granting additional benefits, by contrast, is a matter of business judgment and employer discretion. Problems arise when managers begin to confuse these two concepts and respond positively to every request simply to avoid the risk of infringing employees’ rights.

To avoid operational paralysis and prevent employees from taking advantage of the situation, managers must understand the legal framework governing the most common areas of tension. Managing an entitled workforce requires a clear distinction between what constitutes the employer’s legal obligation and what remains an additional, discretionary benefit. Managers who are faced with an ongoing stream of employee demands should keep several fundamental principles in mind.

1. Overtime Work and Private Time

Under the Labour Code, overtime work may be required where justified by the employer’s particular operational needs. Employees are under a statutory obligation to comply with such instructions, even where they are issued outside their regular working hours. Refusing, without valid justification, to participate in the resolution of a critical system failure constitutes a breach of the employee’s duties and may provide grounds for the imposition of disciplinary measures or, in serious cases, termination of employment.

2. Working Time Arrangements (e.g. a Four-Day Working Week, Remote Work)

The introduction of a shortened working week or the ability to work remotely from anywhere in the world has become one of the most common employee demands. Employees may request flexible working arrangements; however, the employer is entitled to refuse such requests where they are incompatible with the organisation of work, the nature of the employer’s business, or the need to ensure business continuity and uninterrupted project delivery.

3. Employee Benefits and Discrimination

When a company decides to offer employee benefits (such as training budgets or home office allowances), employees often expect that everyone should receive identical benefits, arguing that any differentiation would breach statutory anti-discrimination rules. While employment law does indeed require equal treatment in employment, it also permits differentiation of benefits where this is based on objective criteria, such as business performance or the nature of a particular role. A claim that every employee, regardless of individual circumstances, should receive an identical benefits package has no legal basis. Managers are therefore fully entitled to differentiate employee benefits, provided that the applicable criteria are clear, transparent, and objective.

4. Work Equipment and Ergonomics

Employers are under a strict legal obligation to provide safe and healthy working conditions. This includes functional workstations, adequate lighting, chairs that comply with occupational health and safety standards, and all equipment necessary for employees to perform their duties. However, demands for luxury equipment, massage chairs, or office accessories justified solely by the “office aesthetic” go beyond the employer’s statutory occupational health and safety obligations. It is for management to determine which tools are necessary to achieve the company’s business objectives, and managers are fully entitled to refuse requests that fall outside that scope.

5. Lack of Motivation and Engagement May Justify Disciplinary Action

Employees are entitled to express their expectations—after all, employee benefits are an important component of a company’s motivation and retention strategy. However, granting benefits beyond those required under employment law remains entirely at the employer’s discretion. There is therefore a clear distinction between expressing expectations and engaging in workplace boycott or deliberate disengagement where those expectations are not met. If employees respond to the absence of discretionary benefits by reducing their level of engagement, resulting in deteriorating work performance, the employer is fully entitled to impose disciplinary measures, including disciplinary sanctions or, where appropriate, termination of the employment relationship.

Conclusion

Additional employee benefits are valuable motivational tools. However, it should always be remembered that they reflect the employer’s goodwill rather than a statutory legal obligation. Whenever managers receive requests from employees for additional workplace benefits or arrangements, they should first determine whether there is any legal obligation to provide them. If no such obligation exists, the decision whether to introduce the requested benefit is purely a matter of the company’s strategic business judgment.

Managers should also ensure that the applicable rules are fully transparent. Employees should receive a clear explanation as to whether their requests fall within their statutory employment rights and, where benefits are discretionary, what criteria govern their allocation.

Finally, managers must draw a clear distinction between supporting employee wellbeing and yielding to an increasingly entitled workplace culture. Making concessions with respect to discretionary benefits must never come at the expense of enforcing employees’ fundamental contractual obligations, which they are required to perform under their employment contracts and for which they receive regular remuneration.