Company: Synapse Technologies (fictitious), a mid-sized IT services and product engineering firm with 2,200 employees, delivering software development, cloud solutions and digital transformation services to enterprise clients across the US, UK and India.
Background
Synapse Technologies has unusually low attrition for a company of its size. The CEO, Vikram Anand, believes he knows one reason why.
Over the past four years, Vikram has deliberately built what he describes as a culture of genuine connection. Monthly team outings. Quarterly off-site retreats. After-hours celebrations for project completions, client wins and personal milestones.
Participation has never been formally mandatory. But the expectation is understood, and most people attend.
The culture has become part of how Synapse sells itself externally. In hiring conversations, the social cohesion of its teams is presented as a differentiator. Vikram talks about it at industry forums. It is, by his account, one of the reasons Synapse retains people that competitors cannot.
Three months ago, Priya Nair, a senior software engineer who has been with Synapse for two years, asked to speak to HR.
She did not want to file a formal complaint. She simply wanted someone to know that she was finding the culture increasingly difficult to navigate.
Priya has social anxiety. The frequency of social events, the implicit expectation of attendance and the visibility around who shows up and who does not had begun affecting her more than her work performance suggested.
She was not the only one.
A working mother had informally told HR that after-hours events were becoming difficult to reconcile with responsibilities at home. Another employee, a quiet introvert, had begun dreading the monthly outings to the point where they were affecting how he felt about work itself.
None of them wanted to confront Vikram.
All of them wanted HR to do something.
HR now has to decide how to raise concerns about a culture the CEO believes is one of the company’s strengths, without dismantling something many other employees may genuinely value.
The dilemma
Should HR raise the concerns directly with Vikram, arguing that a culture built around frequent participation may unintentionally exclude employees with different personalities, caregiving responsibilities or personal boundaries?
Or should HR create discreet opt-outs and accommodations for employees who need them, preserving the broader culture while accepting that the underlying expectation to participate remains unchanged?
And if neither feels sufficient, is there a third path: work with Vikram to redesign the participation model itself, distinguishing between occasions where collective presence genuinely matters and those where attendance should be entirely voluntary?
What’s really at stake
This is a question about where cultural encouragement ends and social obligation begins.
Vikram’s intent is not cynical. Informal interaction can build relationships that formal meetings rarely do. Colleagues get to know one another beyond their roles, interpersonal barriers can soften and teams may collaborate more easily as a result.
Synapse also has something tangible to point to. Attrition is unusually low. The culture is sufficiently distinctive that the company uses it in recruitment and Vikram speaks about it externally. It would be too easy to dismiss the entire model simply because it does not work equally well for everyone.
But that is also where the difficulty begins.
A voluntary event is only genuinely voluntary if declining it carries no social or professional cost. Once employees begin wondering whether absence will be noticed, interpreted as disengagement or affect how they are perceived by leaders, the distinction between invitation and expectation becomes less clear.
Priya experiences the outings differently from colleagues who enjoy them. The working mother faces a practical constraint rather than a cultural objection. The introvert may value his colleagues while having little appetite for spending additional hours socialising with them.
None of those reactions necessarily means the culture is wrong.
But they do suggest that one model of belonging may not feel like belonging to everyone.
There is also a visibility problem for HR. The employees who enjoy Synapse’s social culture are easy to see. They attend, participate and reinforce the CEO’s belief that the model works. Those who struggle with it may still attend, smile and say nothing precisely because they do not want to appear disengaged.
That makes low attrition useful evidence, but not conclusive evidence. People stay with organisations for many reasons: managers, compensation, career opportunities, meaningful work, flexibility and personal circumstances among them. Social cohesion may contribute to retention without necessarily explaining it.
The challenge for HR, therefore, is not to choose between a social culture and no social culture. It is to determine whether Synapse can preserve the connection Vikram values without making one particular form of participation the unofficial test of belonging.
The deeper question is harder to avoid: if employees are free to opt out in theory but worry about the consequences of doing so in practice, how voluntary is participation really?
We asked three HR leaders how they would approach this dilemma.
What HR leaders said
Emmanuel David, senior HR leader
“I believe the CEO’s intent is not misplaced. Social interactions outside work often help people understand one another beyond their professional roles, break preconceived notions and reduce interpersonal friction. When colleagues spend time together, workplace conflicts tend to remain professional rather than personal, and people begin to feel a stronger sense of belonging.
That said, culture should always be inviting, not compulsory. The moment participation becomes mandatory, it loses its purpose. Team outings and celebrations are meant to create friendships, not compliance. Nobody should ever be penalised or judged for choosing not to attend an after-hours event.
I would also caution against overdoing such activities. Quarterly or annual gatherings can be meaningful, but if every month revolves around outings, employees begin to lose interest and the spirit behind these events disappears.
If someone consistently opts out, HR should have a conversation, not to pressure them, but to explain why these gatherings exist. Often, once people understand the objective and experience a positive event, they choose to participate voluntarily. At the same time, organisations must respect those with genuine personal obligations, family responsibilities or social anxiety. Individual circumstances deserve empathy, not scrutiny.”
Manish Majumdar, head, HR, Centum Electronics
“I see this as a case where HR needs to strike a balance between organisational goals and individual preferences. We now understand much more about different personality types than we did a decade ago. Introverts and people with social anxiety genuinely find prolonged social engagements exhausting. Ignoring that reality would be counterproductive.
At the same time, an organisation cannot redesign its culture around every individual discomfort. The answer is not to eliminate engagement activities but to rethink how they are structured.
If there are ten outings in a year, perhaps two or three could be considered strategically important, while the rest remain optional. Even during off-sites, not every session needs to involve the entire group. Employees should have dedicated personal time rather than being scheduled from morning to night. That creates space for different personalities without diluting the purpose of the event.
HR should also challenge the CEO’s assumption that social activities alone account for low attrition. Employee retention is usually influenced by multiple factors: good managers, meaningful work, competitive pay, growth opportunities and supportive policies. Engagement initiatives contribute, but they are rarely the sole reason employees stay.
The solution is not compulsory participation or complete opt-outs. It is redesigning engagement so that inclusion accommodates different personalities while preserving shared experiences.”
Anil Mohanty, group CHRO, Falcon Marine
“I see value in organisations encouraging people to spend time together because informal interactions often remove invisible barriers that exist in the workplace. When colleagues know each other personally, misunderstandings reduce, collaboration improves and people become more comfortable working together. That is a positive cultural objective.
However, I draw a clear line between encouragement and enforcement. Social gatherings should never become another performance expectation. Employees should attend because they see value in them, not because they fear being viewed as disengaged.
I also believe organisations should exercise restraint. Occasional celebrations are healthy, but excessive outings eventually lose their impact and become another obligation on employees’ calendars. The emphasis should remain on meaningful interactions rather than frequent events.
If an employee repeatedly declines invitations, HR should first explain the purpose of these gatherings rather than assuming resistance. Often, people simply need clarity about why the organisation invests in these activities. Still, there will always be employees who prefer not to participate because of personal choices, family commitments or individual comfort levels.
Those choices must be respected without penalty or adverse consequences.
Once work ends, employees have legitimate responsibilities outside the office. Organisations should not interfere with those boundaries.”
If you were the CHRO at Synapse Technologies
Three employees have raised concerns privately. The CEO believes the culture is one of the company’s strengths.
What would you do?
Or is the bigger question this:
If employees are free to say no, but worry about what saying no will signal, is the choice really theirs?
Share your perspective in the comments or on LinkedIn using #HRKathaCaseInPoint.