Company: Apex Financial Services (fictitious), a high-pressure investment banking firm
Background
Apex Financial Services runs on adrenaline. Deals close at midnight. Markets move while you sleep.
The Managing Director role is not just senior — it is high-stakes and unrelenting. Fourteen-hour days are common. Client crises are routine. The pressure is constant.
The firm is conducting leadership assessments for succession planning. High-potential VPs undergo psychometric testing, interviews with industrial psychologists, and 360-degree feedback. The process is positioned as rigorous and confidential — designed to identify readiness for the next level.
The Situation
During his assessment, Vikram Mehta — a Vice President in Mergers & Acquisitions — discloses something to the psychologist in confidence.
He manages clinical depression and anxiety through medication and therapy. He has done so for three years. The condition is under control. He is a top performer. His team respects him. Clients trust him. For five years, he has delivered consistently.
The psychologist, following what she describes as “protocol” under the assessment engagement, flags this in her report as “something leadership should be aware of for succession planning.”
The report goes to HR.
Now HR knows.
But Vikram does not know they know.
Leadership is considering him for Managing Director — a role overseeing Rs 500 crore in annual deal flow, managing more than 40 people, and navigating high-stakes negotiations under extreme pressure.
The Dilemma
Should HR factor this health disclosure into his promotion to Managing Director — potentially discriminatory, but arguably relevant in a high-stress role?
Or should they ignore it entirely, and risk placing him in a role that could trigger a crisis?
Should they disclose to Vikram that the information has reached HR — risking breach of confidentiality but giving him a chance to respond?
Or proceed as if they do not know — withholding information from the Board and possibly setting him up to fail?
What’s really at stake
This is not merely a promotion decision. It tests the boundary between duty of care, confidentiality, and discrimination — and whether mental health is treated differently from physical health.
If Apex factors in the disclosure, they risk sending a message that seeking help limits leadership potential.
If they ignore it and something goes wrong, they could face accusations of negligence.
And if Vikram discovers they knew, the breach of trust could be irreparable.
What HR Leaders Said
Anju Jumde, head-HR, Aditya Birla Money
“My immediate view is that this is a breach of trust. If an employee shares something in confidence with a psychologist, it should remain there. That is the purpose of mental health support.
Depression is not permanent. It is often cyclical and treatable. We do not remove someone from succession because they have diabetes or hypertension. This should not be different.
Now that HR knows, bias becomes the risk. Leaders may subconsciously reinterpret normal stress as instability. That would be unfair.
If I were part of the discussion, I would argue he remains in the succession pipeline. Succession unfolds over time. There is room to observe performance trends. If he continues delivering, there is no justification to remove him.
The information, if known, must remain tightly restricted to decision-makers. Unless there is sustained performance decline, it should not influence promotion.
If the employee discovers the breach, he should raise it. HR must address it firmly with the psychologist. Trust in these systems is fragile. If confidentiality is compromised, employees will stop seeking help.
At the end of the day, he is performing. That is what matters.
Performance must outweigh diagnosis. Protect confidentiality — or undermine the entire support framework.”
Pankaj Lochan, former CHRO, Navin Fluorine
“My instinct is simple: mental health should be treated like physical health.
We do not deny leadership roles because someone has hypertension. Anxiety or depression should not automatically raise red flags. Many executives manage such conditions successfully through medication, therapy and self-awareness.
This VP has five strong years of performance. That is evidence of effective management. If the condition were destabilising, we would see it in KPIs, behaviour or team feedback. Without such manifestations, factoring it into promotion becomes discrimination.
The larger concern here is confidentiality. The psychologist–participant relationship carries an expectation of privacy. Unless there was imminent risk of harm, sharing this without consent is ethically questionable. I would review that engagement seriously.
HR’s role is to create supportive ecosystems, especially in high-stress environments. This is perhaps a signal to strengthen resilience frameworks for senior leaders.
We must also confront stigma. In India, physical illness is discussed openly; mental illness is not. Organisations must change that narrative.
Promotion decisions should remain anchored in meritocracy — performance, capability, behaviour and outcomes.
Let meritocracy prevail. Support leaders managing health conditions; do not stigmatise them.”
Rishav Dev, former head–TA, Century Plywoods
“If I were in this situation, my first instinct would be to clarify, not judge. We are discussing a senior leader who has delivered consistently for five years. The only new variable is that he sought psychological support and is on medication.
My first action would be to meet the employee directly and inform him that this information has reached us. The longer we sit on it, the more complicated it becomes. It is better he hears it from HR than through corridors.
I would not rely on one psychologist’s opinion as a definitive career assessment. One clinical view cannot become a succession verdict. If necessary, I would recommend a second professional opinion.
What concerns me is labelling. The moment we hear ‘clinical depression’, we begin building a replacement plan. Would we do the same if the promoter were experiencing anxiety? Or is our boldness reserved for those lower in hierarchy?
Succession planning should always exist. No one should be indispensable. But it must be universal — not triggered by a diagnosis.
Medical conditions, physical or mental, can be treated. The issue is the condition, not the person. HR’s responsibility is to support stability and recovery, not initiate replacement.
A psychologist can breach confidentiality only in cases of imminent danger to self or others. Otherwise, managed depression should remain private.
Focus on supporting the individual, not sidelining him. Treat the condition — not the person — as the issue.”
Your turn
What would you do? Share your response in the comment box or share on LinkedIn with #HRKathaCaseInPoint