Company: Brightfield Consumer Goods (fictitious), a mid-sized FMCG company with 1,800 employees, known for its portfolio of packaged foods and beverages sold across modern and general trade in India.
Background: The sales team at Brightfield had just beaten their quarterly target by 23 per cent, delivering the strongest regional sales performance the company had seen in three years. Their numbers had come in ahead of a key competitor in three districts where Brightfield had steadily lost market share over the previous year.
Rohan Desai, the team lead, decided they deserved a proper celebration.
He booked a table at a popular bar in the city. Seven people on the team. Friday evening. Drinks on the company tab.
Six of them showed up.
Priya Menon, the team’s sales executive and one of the people who had spent the last quarter pushing hard into those three contested districts, did not. She does not drink for religious reasons and did not feel comfortable spending her Friday evening in a bar, even as a non-drinker. She came to work on Monday, said nothing to Rohan, and wrote to HR instead.
“Why are all our celebrations centred around alcohol?” she wrote. “I helped the team beat that target. I just didn’t feel I could be part of the celebration.”
When HR raised it with Rohan, his response was straightforward. “It was optional. Nobody was forced to come. We just wanted to let the team unwind”
HR has to decide how to respond, and whether this is a one-off incident or a signal worth taking seriously.
The dilemma: Should HR introduce guidelines around inclusive venues for team events, nudging managers to think beyond alcohol-centred celebrations even if it limits spontaneity and team preference?
Or should HR leave teams to self-organise, accepting that social events will never suit everyone and that occasional exclusion is an unavoidable reality of a diverse workforce?
And if neither feels right, is there a third path: not a policy, but a cultural nudge, encouraging managers to simply check in with their teams before plans are finalised, and to make a small separate gesture for anyone who cannot participate?
What’s really at stake
This is a question about what inclusion actually means in practice, not in policy documents.
Priya was not banned from the celebration. She was not told she could not come. She was simply put in a position where attending meant being somewhere she was not comfortable, and not attending meant missing a moment that recognised work she had contributed to. Neither option felt right. She chose neither and felt the absence of both.
Rohan is not wrong that the event was optional. But “optional” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. In team environments, the line between optional and expected is rarely as clear as managers assume. People notice who shows up and who does not. Absence has a social cost, even when attendance is technically voluntary.
There is also a pattern worth examining. If every celebration revolves around a bar, an evening out, and alcohol, the same employees will keep opting out. Over time, that stops being personal preference and starts looking like structural exclusion.
At the same time, mandating inclusive venues through policy risks creating a different problem: celebrations that feel bureaucratic, over-engineered, and stripped of the spontaneity that makes them worth having in the first place.
The deeper question is harder to avoid: if an employee can be central to a team’s biggest achievement and still feel unable to share in the celebration, what does that say about the culture behind that achievement?
We asked three HR leaders how they would approach this dilemma.
What HR leaders said
Sanjay Gawde, CHRO at a major Indian third-party logistics & supply chain solutions provider
“My personal opinion as an HR professional is that this is a classic policing trap that HR should avoid. HR’s role should not be to judge or dictate how teams celebrate but to help shape the kind of culture the organisation wants to build.
When groups make decisions, there are broadly three approaches. One is where a single person decides and everyone follows. This is an autocratic style that prioritises speed and compliance. The second is where the majority decides after discussion. This democratic approach works on the principle of the greater common good and accepts that there will naturally be some people who disagree.
The third approach is true inclusion, where decisions emerge only after discussion, dialogue and a genuine exchange of perspectives, culminating in unanimous agreement. This is by far the most difficult because it demands time, intent and sustained effort. However, it reflects the philosophy of no one left behind.
For me, personally, inclusion is less about ensuring that every outcome satisfies every individual and more about ensuring that the decision-making process is fair and gives everyone a voice. People are far more likely to accept an outcome they may not personally prefer if they feel they were heard before the decision was made.
That is why HR should resist stepping in to decide what the group should do. Instead, HR’s responsibility is to remind teams of the organisation’s values and encourage thoughtful, inclusive conversations. My personal view as an HR professional is that the team should ultimately decide what works best and, in doing so, define the culture it wants to create.”
Aradhika Ahuja, Head – HR, HT Digital Streams
“I don’t think team celebrations need another policy. What they need is a moment of pause before plans are finalised.
The reality is that no celebration will ever suit everyone, and that’s perfectly acceptable. Trying to design an event that accommodates every individual preference often results in over-engineered plans that lose their spontaneity and, despite the effort, may still leave someone feeling excluded.
Instead of formal guidelines, I would encourage managers to develop a simple habit: check in with the team before locking in plans. It can be as informal as asking on the team chat, ‘We’re thinking of celebrating this way. Does anyone have any concerns?’ Most of the time, the plan will work for everyone. Occasionally, someone may highlight a genuine constraint, and addressing it early is much easier than responding after someone already feels left out.
At the same time, inclusion doesn’t necessarily mean redesigning an entire event because one person cannot attend. If someone is unable to participate, a thoughtful gesture can make all the difference. A separate coffee, lunch or informal catch-up allows them to share in the team’s success without making them feel like an afterthought.
The real problem arises when nothing is done: no conversation, no acknowledgement, no effort to ensure that person still feels connected to the team. That’s when employees begin to feel like they belong to the payroll rather than to the team.
For me, the standard isn’t perfection. It’s consideration. Before making plans, managers should simply ask themselves whether anyone on the team might unintentionally feel left out. If the answer is yes, take a small but meaningful step to address it.”
Viekas K Khokha, CHRO, Sharda Motor Industries
“I don’t believe organisations need rigid policies governing team celebrations, but they do need sensible guidelines that make these occasions safe and genuinely inclusive. Inclusion is ultimately reflected through actions, not intent alone.
In my experience, the concerns that keep some employees from participating are often practical rather than philosophical. Timing and location matter. A late-evening event at a venue far from the office creates barriers that a little thought could easily remove. If someone needs to leave earlier, the celebration can simply begin sooner. These are not complicated adjustments.
The role of alcohol at workplace celebrations also deserves more attention than it typically receives. While social drinking may be common, organisations must communicate clear behavioural expectations. People should understand what constitutes appropriate conduct and what crosses the line, even in informal settings. Psychological and physical safety should never be compromised in the name of celebration.
At the same time, we should avoid making celebrations so heavily regulated that they lose their spontaneity and purpose. The objective is to recognise success, strengthen camaraderie and create positive memories. Thoughtful guidelines are sufficient; strict policies are not.”
If you were the CHRO at Brightfield
You have been asked to respond to Priya’s complaint and give Rohan clarity on what the company expects going forward.
Do you:
• Encourage managers to check with their teams before planning celebrations?
• Leave celebrations to individual teams and avoid creating new guidelines?
• Use this incident to start a wider conversation about inclusion beyond policies?
Or is the bigger question:
If the same people are repeatedly left out of the moments that matter, can an organisation still claim everyone belongs?
Share your perspective in the comments or on LinkedIn using #HRKathaCaseInPoint.