Company: BrightWave Consulting (fictitious), a mid-sized strategy firm with offices in Mumbai and Bangalore.
Background:
BrightWave Consulting has just won a Rs 15 crore contract with a global FMCG client—their largest deal this year. It is a high-stakes, high-visibility engagement that could open doors to similar multinational accounts. Leadership needs to appoint a project lead who will represent the firm for the next 18 months.
The decision should be straightforward. Except it is not.
The Candidates:
Priya Kulkarni is a data scientist based in Pune. She works remotely and is known for her outstanding technical brilliance. Six months ago, she helped a retail client save Rs 3 crores through a predictive analytics model that optimised their supply chain. Her analytical depth and problem-solving ability are consistently sharp.
But Priya rarely visits the office and communicates asynchronously. She has never met a client in person, although her virtual presence and technical delivery have been impeccable. The challenge is that this FMCG client has expressed a strong preference for relationship-building and in-person collaboration.
Arjun Malhotra is a senior consultant based in Mumbai. He has been with the company for a decade. He is known for his charisma, interpersonal skills, and his ability to establish trust with clients. Having previously worked with this client on smaller projects, he already enjoys their confidence. In fact, the client’s CEO has personally expressed interest in having Arjun lead the engagement.
However, Arjun’s technical expertise is relatively modest compared to Priya’s, and his project reports, while solid, have not been groundbreaking.
The Dilemma:
Should BrightWave appoint Priya, the technically superior performer who consistently delivers extraordinary results but lacks physical presence and client interaction? Or should they choose Arjun, the relationship-oriented professional who strengthens client trust but may not match Priya’s innovation and technical edge?
What’s really at stake:
This decision carries significance far beyond a single project. It will set the tone for BrightWave’s organisational philosophy—whether it values measurable outcomes and innovation more, or personal connection and client presence. The choice will also shape future decisions around promotions, hybrid work norms, and the overall culture of how success is defined and rewarded in the company.
What HR Leaders said:
Satyajit Mohanty, senior HR professional and former VP-HR, Dabur India
“The decision must stem from a deep understanding of what drives success for this particular client engagement. There is no one-size-fits-all answer—it depends on several contextual factors.
If innovation and technical sophistication are critical to delivering the desired outcomes, then Priya’s expertise may hold greater weight. However, if the project’s success hinges on trust-building, stakeholder alignment, and managing client expectations through regular face-to-face interactions, then Arjun’s relational strengths become invaluable.
The key is to assess what the client truly values. Have they emphasised deliverables and data-driven insights? Or have they stressed the importance of collaboration and being physically present during critical decision-making moments?
BrightWave should also consider a hybrid approach. Could Priya lead the technical workstream while Arjun manages client relationships and acts as the primary point of contact? This structure would leverage both their strengths without forcing an either-or decision.
Ultimately, leadership must define what ‘project lead’ means in this context. If it means technical excellence and innovation, choose Priya. If it means client management and trust-building, choose Arjun. If it means both, design a co-leadership model.
The worst outcome would be choosing based on outdated assumptions about what ‘leadership’ looks like—rather than what this specific project actually needs.”
Sharad Verma, CHRO, Iris Software
“Performance and presence are not conflicting attributes—they are complementary forces in modern workplaces.
Strong technical ability creates tangible business results, but leadership in high-stakes projects also demands visibility, collaboration, and the ability to build trust through shared human moments—something that cannot always be replicated virtually.
Real impact comes from being truly available to the people and outcomes that matter. Whether that availability is physical or virtual depends on context. Effectiveness is not about choosing between remote brilliance and physical presence but about integrating both seamlessly.
Leadership decisions such as this one should consider three core dimensions—competence, connection, and commitment. Both candidates should be evaluated not just on what they deliver, but also on how they engage with stakeholders and the degree to which they embody the organisation’s evolving work philosophy.
The right choice would be someone who harmonises capability with connection, driving both technical success and relational trust.”
Praveer Priyadarshi, senior HR leader
“This situation is symbolic of the larger transformation underway in how organisations define leadership in the hybrid era. The question is not merely who is better suited for this project, but how the organisation can design roles that leverage both kinds of strengths effectively.
While Arjun may be the more natural fit for this specific assignment given the client’s preference for personal engagement, the company must simultaneously recognise and retain talents such as Priya, who represent the new generation of high-impact professionals thriving in digital and remote environments.
A more collaborative approach would be better than a binary choice. BrightWave could structure a model where Arjun handles client interfacing and relationship management, while Priya anchors the project’s technical delivery and innovation. This dual-leadership setup would allow the firm to deliver both relationship capital and intellectual capital—maximising value for the client and reinforcing teamwork internally.
The future of leadership will increasingly rely on such complementary partnerships, where different capabilities intersect to create holistic outcomes.”