Company: Zenith Consulting (fictitious), a management consultancy.
Background:
Three years ago, Priyanka Malhotra left Zenith Consulting for a competitor. She didn’t leave quietly. She took two key clients with her—clients she’d cultivated over years, relationships she’d built through late-night calls and strategic insight. Clients who trusted her more than they trusted the firm.
Her departure stung. The practice she led struggled. Some colleagues felt betrayed. Others quietly admitted she was exceptional at what she did.
Now she wants to come back.
The situation
Priyanka has reached out to HR. She says her current firm is a “cultural misfit”—too rigid, too political, not collaborative enough. She’s learned valuable lessons. She wants to return. And she’s offering to bring back one of those clients—a Rs 15 crore annual account that Zenith lost when she left.
The team she left behind is split.
Some are furious. “She abandoned us when things were tough. Now she wants back in because the grass wasn’t greener? What message does that send to those of us who stayed?”
Others are pragmatic. “She’s exceptionally talented. The practice is still struggling. If she can bring back that client and stabilise things, we’d be foolish to say ‘no’ out of pride.”
Leadership is divided too. The Managing Partner sees the business case—major client, proven performer, immediate impact. The COO worries about morale and precedent: “If we take her back, what does that say about loyalty? That it doesn’t matter? That you can leave, take clients, and waltz back in when it suits you?”
The dilemma
Should HR allow her return—signalling that loyalty doesn’t matter and potentially demoralising those who stayed? Or reject her—losing top talent and a major client because of pride?
What’s really at stake
This is a test of whether the organisation values loyalty and trust over pure performance—and what message it sends about “greener pastures.” If Zenith takes her back, employees will conclude that leaving carries no penalty. If they don’t, they may lose the talent and revenue they desperately need.
And there’s a deeper question: if clients followed her once, what stops them from following her again?
What HR leaders said
Vivek Tripathi, Former VP-HR, Newgen Software
“This is a classic case of rehiring—a boomerang employee wanting to return—and most organisations already have guardrails for such situations.
The first principle is fairness to those who stayed whilst remaining open to talent that wants to come back. Typically, companies allow rehiring provided the employee left in good standing. That means no record of poor performance, behavioural misconduct, or unethical practices.
We must also be careful about assumptions. When we say Priyanka ‘took away’ two clients, what does that really mean? Did she act unethically, or did the clients simply choose to continue working with someone they trusted? If nothing improper occurred, it shouldn’t automatically become a black mark against her.
Another important guardrail is a cooling-off period—usually six months to a year—so that the decision isn’t emotional. Compensation is equally sensitive. The returning employee shouldn’t receive a package that makes those who stayed feel penalised. A common rule of thumb is to place them roughly where they would have been had they never left, perhaps factoring in one appraisal cycle if they were top performers—but certainly not doubling their increment.
Transparency is critical. Employees should know that rehiring follows defined guidelines, not favouritism. Once people understand the framework, speculation reduces.
If Priyanka exited cleanly and meets the criteria, the organisation should consider welcoming her back—but within clearly communicated boundaries that protect internal equity.”
Venkattesh R, Former president, DCB Bank
“Integrity is binary—it’s either zero or one. If it’s grey, it must be treated as black.
Performance and talent can never sit above integrity. Short-term underperformance is tolerable; a breach of trust is not. Organisations must demonstrate that values stand above everything else—otherwise, how do you build a culture that holds even when no one is watching?
Leaving an organisation is Priyanka’s choice. But taking clients along suggests a misuse of access granted through her role. That’s not just a business loss; it’s a violation of trust. What concerns me even more is the pattern: she’s now offering to bring clients back from her current employer. That signals the same behaviour repeated in a different direction.
Our shadows reach ahead of us—values reveal themselves in difficult moments. If someone has breached trust once, what prevents it from happening again?
Rather than rebuilding a practice on compromised integrity, I would argue it’s wiser to rebuild it with someone whose conduct aligns with organisational values. HR should reject her return. Culture is strengthened not by convenience but by consistency in what you stand for.”
Manish Majumdar, Head–HR, Centum Electronics
“Frankly, this is a complicated situation with no single right answer.
From a purely business perspective, the fact that clients followed Priyanka tells us something important—she’s exceptionally good at what she does. Clients were deeply invested in her, and if she can bring major business back, the commercial logic for rehiring becomes strong.
But HR must anchor decisions in process. Does the organisation have a policy on boomerang employees? Is there a minimum time gap before rehiring? Under what terms can someone return? Fairness flows from consistency, and consistency comes from following established processes.
If she returns at the same level, compensation should align with what she would have earned through normal increments—unless she brings extraordinary new capabilities that justify a deviation. And if a deviation is required, approvals and justifications must be formalised.
The team’s reaction also matters. If her only ‘fault’ was leaving, HR can mitigate resentment by positioning the move correctly: we welcome alumni back, and the same process applies to everyone. Tomorrow, anyone who exits and returns under similar circumstances will be treated the same way.
However, HR must also flag any past behavioural or cultural concerns. If she previously created disruption, rehiring her could risk losing other strong performers.
There’s another lesson here: the organisation should never become so dependent on one individual that it feels compelled to rehire them. Client relationships need institutional depth. If she managed to take clients once, she could do so again—so risk mitigation and stronger relationship ownership are essential going forward.
Ultimately, the decision depends on how critical the client is and which risk feels greater: bringing her back, or letting her go for good.”
Your turn
What would you do? Share your response in the comment box or share on LinkedIn with #HRKathaCaseInPoint