Company: PrimeEdge Financial Services (fictitious)
A mid-sized asset management firm with 400 employees, managing institutional and high-net-worth portfolios across equity, debt, and alternative investments.
Background
Six months ago, PrimeEdge hired Aryan Shah as Head of Investments following a competitive search. He was selected over several strong candidates, partly because of his MBA from a well-regarded business school – a credential the hiring panel viewed as a strong signal of analytical rigour and leadership potential.
Aryan has since exceeded expectations. His team trusts him. Clients have responded well. He has closed deals worth Rs 80 crore in his first two quarters.
Then, during a routine client due diligence review, a discrepancy surfaced.
The MBA listed on Aryan’s CV is not from the institution he named. The degree is from an unaccredited institution with a similar name to the prestigious school mentioned on his application. The difference is subtle enough to miss at a glance. It was not caught during the original background verification.
HR is now certain the misrepresentation was deliberate.
The question is what to do next.
The dilemma
Should HR terminate Aryan for deliberate misrepresentation, upholding the organisation’s integrity standards regardless of how well he has performed?
Or should the organisation retain him, recognising that his demonstrated capability has validated the role he was hired for, even if the credential that helped him get there was false?
And if neither option feels entirely right, is there a third path: serious consequences that stop short of termination, acknowledging both the misconduct and the contribution?
What’s really at stake
This is a test of what an organisation’s values actually mean when they become costly to uphold.
Integrity as a principle is easy to defend in the abstract. It becomes harder when the person in question has delivered Rs 80 crore in deals, earned the trust of their team, and shown no sign of underperformance. The case for termination is clear on principle. The case against it is uncomfortable but real.
There is also a systemic dimension that cannot be ignored. PrimeEdge operates in a regulated financial services environment where client confidence and fiduciary responsibility are foundational. If this discrepancy surfaces through an investor review or regulatory inquiry rather than an internal process, the reputational and legal consequences could be severe.
Then comes the question of precedent. Retaining Aryan, even with consequences, may signal that results can outweigh ethics. Terminating him may signal that no level of performance can repair a breach of trust at the point of entry.
Neither message is entirely comfortable. Both carry organisational consequences.
The deeper question is harder to avoid: if the credential was misrepresented but the capability it was meant to signal turned out to be genuine, what exactly did the lie cost, and does the answer to that question change what the organisation should do?
We asked three HR leaders how they would approach this dilemma.
What HR leaders said
Unmesh Pawar, Senior HR Leader
“My recommendation would be to separate Aryan from the organisation, but to do so professionally and respectfully.
The degree itself is not the central issue. The lie is. Aryan gained an advantage in a competitive hiring process through a deliberate and material misrepresentation. In a sector such as financial services, where client confidence and fiduciary responsibility are paramount, that fact cannot be ignored.
Many organisations fall into the trap of focusing on the employee’s results. Aryan’s performance may indeed be outstanding, but retaining him creates a precedent that could damage the organisation’s culture far more than losing him. Once employees see that integrity standards can be relaxed for top performers, the message spreads quickly: ethics are negotiable if the numbers are good enough.
There is also a business risk that extends beyond culture. Financial services firms operate in a highly regulated environment. If this discrepancy surfaces through a client review, investor due diligence exercise, or regulatory inquiry, the organisation could face reputational and legal consequences.
That said, the exit should not be punitive or humiliating. Aryan’s achievements were real. A dignified separation acknowledges the value of his contributions while reinforcing the company’s commitment to ethical conduct.
I would add one caveat: if there is genuine ambiguity around the qualification or evidence that the misrepresentation was unintentional, a thorough investigation must precede any decision. But if the deception was deliberate, the conclusion becomes clear.
The case also exposes another issue: how did a senior-level credential discrepancy go undetected for six months? The organisation’s background verification process deserves as much scrutiny as the individual involved.”
Ravi Mishra, Head – HR, BITS Pilani
“I would approach this differently.
Aryan has clearly committed a serious violation by misrepresenting his credentials, and that cannot be ignored. However, I do not believe termination should automatically be the default response. Punishment should be proportionate to the offence and should also consider the broader context.
In this case, I would initiate a formal conversation, obtain a written admission and apology, and impose significant consequences. These could include freezing increments and promotions for a defined period, perhaps one or two years. The individual must feel the weight of the violation, and the organisation must demonstrate that such behaviour is unacceptable.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that Aryan has delivered exceptional results. The organisation originally valued the degree because it served as a signal of capability. The irony here is that although the credential was misrepresented, the capability appears genuine. He has met – or perhaps exceeded – the expectations associated with the qualification he falsely claimed.
There is also shared accountability. Robust background verification exists precisely to detect such discrepancies before hiring decisions are made. While Aryan remains responsible for his actions, the organisation must acknowledge its own process failure.
Leadership decisions often require nuance. A purely procedural response may lead directly to termination, but leadership sometimes calls for balancing values with business realities. The objective should be to correct behaviour, reinforce standards, and retain organisational value where possible.
This should not become a precedent for overlooking misconduct. Rather, it should be recognised as a rare situation requiring a calibrated response.”
Amit Das, Director – HR, BCCL
“For me, this is not a debate about credentials versus capability. It is fundamentally a question of trust.
The problem is not whether Aryan can perform the role. By all accounts, he already has. The problem is that he secured a leadership position using false information. When someone intentionally misrepresents a material fact during hiring, the organisation must question whether it can continue to trust that individual, regardless of how successful they have been afterward.
I do not believe exceptional performance can erase unethical conduct. In fact, values matter most when they are tested by situations involving high performers. If organisations make exceptions for commercially valuable employees, they send a dangerous message: results can outweigh ethics.
The company must verify the facts, give Aryan an opportunity to explain himself, and follow due process. However, if the investigation confirms deliberate misrepresentation, decisive action is necessary. Losing one talented executive is unfortunate, but compromising the organisation’s ethical foundation is far more costly.”
If you were the CHRO at PrimeEdge
Do you:
- Terminate Aryan for deliberate misrepresentation, regardless of performance?
- Retain him with severe consequences, treating this as an exceptional case?
- Complete a full investigation before deciding whether intent, process failure, or business risk changes the outcome?
Or is the deeper question this:
When capability proves genuine but the credential was false, what exactly is the organisation punishing – the lie, the risk, or the breach of trust?
Share your perspective in the comments or on LinkedIn using #HRKathaCaseInPoint.