Company: Apex Solutions (fictitious), a business process outsourcing firm with 5,000 employees, specialising in financial services and insurance clients.
Background:
A Vice President role has opened in Client Delivery, a position that oversees three major accounts worth Rs 80 crore annually and manages a team of 300. It’s a make-or-break role. Leadership wants someone who can stabilise operations, improve margins, and keep clients satisfied.
Two internal candidates have applied.
The candidates
Prerna Joshi has been with Apex for eight years. She currently manages one of the firm’s largest accounts, a global insurance client that generates Rs 35 crore annually. She is methodical, detail-oriented, and has built deep trust with the client’s leadership. Her team respects her. Her track record is solid, though not exceptional. She is the safer, steadier choice.
In her interview, she makes it clear:
“I’ve been waiting for this opportunity for three years. If I don’t get it, I’ll have to look outside.”
Kunal Mehta joined Apex 18 months ago from a competitor. He is a star. In less than two years, he has turned around a struggling account, improved NPS scores by 40%, and cut operational costs by 15%. His energy is infectious. His thinking is sharper. Leadership is clear: Kunal is the stronger candidate.
And then comes the real risk.
Prerna manages the insurance account that represents nearly half of the firm’s revenue from this division. If she resigns, the client relationship is at risk. The client’s VP has told Apex’s CEO privately:
“Prerna is why we stay with you. If she leaves, we’ll reassess.”
HR now faces a difficult choice.
The dilemma
Should HR recommend Kunal (the stronger candidate) and risk losing Prerna and potentially the firm’s largest client?
Or promote Prerna to retain her and the account, knowing that Kunal will likely leave for a competitor, taking his talent and momentum with him?
What’s really at stake
This is a test of whether organisations truly promote on merit, or whether retention risk and client dependency override capability.
If Apex promotes Prerna, it risks signalling: threaten to leave, and you’ll be rewarded. If it promotes Kunal, it is betting it can manage the fallout with both Prerna and the client.
Either way, someone exceptional walks out the door.
We asked three HR leaders how they would approach this dilemma.
What HR leaders said
Gopalji Mehrotra, CHRO, Hindustan Power
(The views expressed are in personal capacity and in no way to be interpreted as policies or practices of current or past employers of the author.)
“I believe the role of HR and management is fundamentally to nurture talent and enable individuals to perform at their best in service of the client. That is the core. Everything else, including structure and titles, should be flexible enough to support that goal.
In a skill-based talent market, we often talk about agility, but rarely practise it internally. We continue to operate within rigid hierarchies where there is only ‘one box’ available for a Vice President, and that constraint ends up dictating talent decisions. To me, that is an outdated way of thinking.
In this situation, Kunal is clearly the stronger candidate for the VP role. His performance, impact, and demonstrated capability make him the best fit for the demands of the role. Denying him the opportunity, despite merit, sends the wrong signal. Not just to him, but to the broader talent pool watching closely.
At the same time, I do not see this as a binary choice. Prerna’s contribution is equally valuable, though in a different way. The voice of the customer (arguably the most credible metric) clearly validates her impact. She has built trust, ensured continuity, and delivered consistent performance on a critical account. That cannot be overlooked.
This is where organisational agility must come into play. Why should there be only one path to growth? Why should recognition be tied solely to a title? In my view, HR should recommend Kunal for the VP role based on merit. Simultaneously, Prerna should be recognised through a parallel leadership role, expanded responsibilities, or a differentiated title that reflects her strategic importance.
If structures are limiting us from making the right talent decisions, then it is the structures that need to change, not the decisions.
Merit should not be compromised due to structural limitations. Organisations must evolve their frameworks to reward both performance and strategic value without forcing an either-or decision.”
Ashit Bhalerao, VP & Head-HR, Tata Cancer Care
“To me, this is a classical dilemma. One that looks straightforward on paper but becomes complex in practice. This is not just a choice between two employees; it is a conflict between merit and risk.
Situations like this do not arise overnight. They are typically the result of systemic gaps that build over time: excessive dependency on a single individual, lack of alignment during hiring, inadequate succession planning, and the absence of clearly defined career progression paths.
Now, coming to the decision. Whilst Kunal may be the stronger candidate on merit, the risk associated with losing Prerna is too significant to ignore. The Rs 35 crore account she manages is not just a revenue stream; it is a relationship built on trust over years. The client’s explicit dependence on her signals that this is not an institutional relationship yet. It is deeply personal.
In such a scenario, prioritising continuity becomes not just a cautious choice, but a strategic one. Promoting Prerna is not about compromising merit; it is about recognising the value of stability and client confidence.
At the same time, this does not mean sidelining Kunal. High-potential talent like him must be retained and engaged meaningfully. I would recommend creating a high-impact role for him: leading transformation initiatives, driving new client acquisitions, or spearheading strategic projects. Alongside this, there should be a clearly defined and accelerated growth path to ensure he sees a future within the organisation.
However, beyond the immediate decision, this case highlights the need for structural correction. Organisations must work towards institutionalising client relationships so that they are not overly dependent on individuals.
In high-risk scenarios, prioritising business continuity is a strategic choice. But it must be paired with deliberate efforts to retain and develop high-potential talent whilst fixing systemic gaps.”
Praveen Purohit, CHRO, Vedanta Aluminium, Power, Port, Mines
“I look at this situation from a slightly different lens. One that focuses on recognising both capability and context, rather than forcing a strict merit-versus-risk choice. When both are strong, the organisation’s role is not just to choose but to ensure neither feels undervalued.
In this case, whilst Kunal’s performance is impressive, the role itself demands a certain depth of experience, especially given its scale and complexity. Managing multiple large accounts, ensuring client stability, and leading a team of this size requires not just energy and impact, but also maturity and exposure. Prerna, with her longer tenure and deeper experience, is better aligned with the expectations of this role.
For me, the decision should therefore be based on a combination of performance and role fit, not performance alone.
That said, I don’t see this as a situation where one wins and the other loses. I’ve encountered similar scenarios where two individuals were equally capable of stepping into a critical leadership role. In one such case, whilst only one could formally take on the title, we ensured that the other received equal recognition through expanded responsibilities, enhanced visibility, and a clear pathway to future leadership roles.
The same approach can work here. Prerna can be promoted to the VP role, given her experience and the immediate business need. At the same time, Kunal must be retained and motivated through a broader mandate, perhaps by adding strategic responsibilities, giving him ownership of new initiatives, or positioning him for the next leadership opportunity.
The key is to strike a balance. Make a clear decision, but ensure that both individuals feel valued and see a future within the organisation.
Leadership decisions should balance performance with role readiness. Promote the best fit for the role, but design parallel growth paths to retain and motivate equally strong talent.”
If you were the CHRO at Apex
You have been asked to recommend a course of action to the leadership team.
Do you:
- Promote Kunal based on merit, accepting the risk of losing Prerna and the client relationship?
- Promote Prerna to protect business continuity, whilst creating a compelling alternative role for Kunal?
- Create parallel leadership roles, redesigning the structure to retain both?
Or is the deeper question this:
If client relationships depend on individuals rather than systems, is the real problem not who to promote but the dependency itself?
Share your recommendation in the comments or on LinkedIn using #HRKathaCaseInPoint.
1 Comment
If Govt & Countries can have Deputy Prime Minister, multiple Deputy Chief Ministers etc. I do not see why an office cannot have multiple VPs. A new designation can be created. Even a family owned business can think of this & solve this problem in minutes & here large corporates are debating & asking what to do? I feel the author invented a problem that wasnt there just to write an article. Waste of time reading it.