Company: NovaTech Systems (fictitious), a software development firm with 1,200 employees across Bangalore, Hyderabad, and Pune.
Background:
NovaTech prides itself on its “culture of innovation and ownership.” Posters in the office declare it. Leadership mentions it in town halls. Employees once believed it. But over the past six months, something has shifted. Ravi Sharma, a senior engineer and 12-year veteran, has gone quiet.
The Situation:
Ravi no longer volunteers ideas in brainstorming sessions. He delivers work—barely—at the last possible minute. His code is functional but uninspired. His peers have started complaining privately to their managers about having to “cover for Ravi.” In stand-ups, he is disengaged, offering one-word updates and avoiding eye contact.
His manager, frustrated, has labeled him a “quiet quitter” and wants HR to initiate a formal performance improvement plan (PIP). “We can’t have people coasting,” the manager says. “It sends the wrong message.”
But then HR’s quarterly pulse survey arrived. Buried in the anonymous comments was this:
“I’ve been running on empty since the pandemic. I worked 70-hour weeks for two years while the company grew 3x. Now I’m exhausted, invisible, and done. Nobody noticed I was drowning. Now they notice I’m surviving.”
HR reached out privately. Ravi admitted: “I gave everything. And when I had nothing left, no one asked if I was okay. They just asked why my output dropped.”
The Dilemma:
Should HR treat this as a performance issue—initiate the PIP, set an example for accountability, and signal that output matters regardless of circumstances? Or treat it as a well-being crisis—reduce Ravi’s workload, offer counseling support and recovery time—knowing that others may expect similar accommodations?
What’s really at stake:
If HR goes the performance route, they risk losing 12 years of institutional knowledge and sending a message that burnout is a personal failing, not an organisational one. If they go the well-being route, they risk perceptions of favoritism and creating a precedent that “quiet quitting” gets rewarded with lighter loads.
Either way, the entire organisation is watching. And what happens to Ravi will define what “culture of innovation and ownership” actually means.
What HR leaders said:
Anju Jumde, CHRO, Aditya Birla Money
“The starting point is not performance metrics—it is human connection.
Before I look at Ravi’s output over the last six months, I want to see his history. How did he perform over the last 12 years? Was he recognised appropriately? Did anyone notice when he was working 70-hour weeks, or did the company just take it for granted?
Burnout and disengagement often stem from emotional neglect, not lack of skill. Sometimes people don’t need a promotion or a raise—they just want acknowledgment. A pat on the back. A coffee. A casual check-in that shows someone noticed their effort.
The modern workplace becomes a second home. Employees spend 12 to 14 hours commuting and working. If they don’t feel like part of a family, they start disconnecting. Not because they stop caring—but because they feel unseen.
Trace the root cause first. Is Ravi’s disengagement emotional, personal, or professional? Each situation is unique. If an employee who has consistently delivered suddenly falters, it signals a deeper problem—likely exhaustion or invisibility. A PIP may be warranted for chronic underperformance. But when the drop is sudden and uncharacteristic, it calls for empathy and reconnection.
HR’s role is to act as a bridge that reconnects employees to the organisation—not as a compliance arm that enforces standards without empathy. If you don’t fix the emotional disconnect, people will stay, but they’ll stop contributing. And that is a far bigger loss.
Look beyond the numbers. Reconnect with the human.”
Anil Mohanty, G-CHRO, Falcon Marine
“This is not a performance issue. It is a human one.
Ravi’s silence is not defiance—it is exhaustion. A performer doesn’t suddenly become a non-performer. Something has gone wrong. Maybe his manager stopped supporting him. Maybe he is dealing with something personal. Maybe he simply burned out carrying the company through the pandemic and nobody noticed.
Organisations often ignore the mental and emotional strain employees carry, especially after periods of hypergrowth or crisis. Nobody asked Ravi why he is tired or why he is withdrawing. Everyone just noticed his lower output. HR should prioritise moral and psychological support before resorting to punitive measures. Rather than labeling people as ‘quiet quitters,’ leaders should ask: what led to the withdrawal?
Using a PIP prematurely is reactive and impersonal. Instead, offer counseling, health assistance, or managerial intervention to help the employee recover. Employee well-being is inseparable from organisational well-being.
At the end of the day, people don’t need big words or incentives—they need to know someone cares.
This case is an opportunity for NovaTech to demonstrate that empathy and productivity can—and must—coexist.
Performance falls when support fails.”
Manish Majumdar, Head–HR, Centum Electronics
“PIPs are rarely the solution. Nine times out of ten, they don’t work. They are like chemotherapy—the last, desperate option. Either the person quits or the relationship becomes irreparably strained.
The core problem with PIPs is psychological. Once you put someone on a PIP, the message is clear: prove yourself or leave. That pressure kills morale. It also kills trust.A better alternative is an Individual Development Plan (IDP)—a proactive framework that emphasises development, coaching, and partnership. PIPs focus on fixing performance. IDPs focus on developing the person.
One is punitive. The other is humane.
In Ravi’s case, start with an honest diagnosis. Has the role changed? Did he miss recognition when others advanced? Is the manager’s leadership part of the problem? If nothing structural has changed and only Ravi’s energy has dropped, the cause is likely emotional fatigue or disengagement.
Using a PIP here would not only risk losing Ravi—it would send a poor signal across the organisation. That loyalty and past performance don’t earn trust during tough times. That exhaustion is weakness.
You cannot expect better performance by putting a gun to someone’s head.
If the issue persists even after genuine efforts—coaching, reskilling, role realignment—then HR can decide to part ways. But until then, the goal should be to restore confidence and capability, not punish the temporary loss of it.
Replace PIP with IDP. Develop, don’t discipline.”