Company:
GreenRoot (fictitious), a sustainability-focused social enterprise with 150 employees, working across renewable energy access, ecological restoration, and community-led conservation programmes.
Background
When GreenRoot hired Kavitha Nair eighteen months ago, the offer letter described her as someone who “embodies our purpose.”
It was not corporate language inserted for effect. Leadership genuinely believed it.
Kavitha came with deep community experience, a strong reputation for grassroots mobilisation, and the kind of personal commitment to sustainability that people inside GreenRoot admired instinctively. Her hiring was celebrated internally. She felt like the kind of person the organisation wanted to become.
Her manager, Suresh Menon, had strongly backed the hire.
He is now the one pushing for her exit.
Across three review cycles, Kavitha has consistently missed targets. Timelines have slipped.
Deliverables have remained incomplete. The operational side of her role has become a growing concern. Suresh has already spoken to HR twice and now wants a formal performance improvement process initiated.
But CEO Priya Nambiar sees the situation very differently.
Priya believes Kavitha contributes something that conventional performance metrics do not capture well. She points to the way new hires gravitate towards her. The way she steadies teams during difficult periods. The way she keeps the organisation emotionally connected to its mission when the work becomes exhausting.
Losing her, Priya argues, would cost GreenRoot something real, even if it cannot easily be measured on a spreadsheet.
HR is now caught in the middle.
The dilemma
Should HR support Suresh’s position and initiate a formal performance process, making it clear that values alignment cannot replace delivery?
Or should it defend Kavitha’s retention, recognising that cultural contribution is itself a form of organisational value?
And if neither option feels entirely right, is there another path: redesigning her role around where she genuinely adds value, and measuring her against that instead?
What’s really at stake
This is not just a performance management question.
It is a test of whether purpose-driven organisations hold people to the same standards they expect from everyone else, or whether mission slowly becomes a shield against accountability.
Kavitha has not failed to care. She has failed to deliver.
That distinction matters. But it does not make the decision easier.
GreenRoot hired her partly because of who she is, not simply because of what she could execute. The organisation said so explicitly. Walking that back now raises uncomfortable questions too.
There is risk on both sides.
If Kavitha stays without meaningful accountability, people will notice. Over time, the message becomes corrosive: belief in the mission matters more than contribution to outcomes.
But if she is removed without serious attempts to rethink the role or redirect her strengths, GreenRoot risks losing the kind of human glue that often holds values-driven organisations together when morale dips and the work becomes emotionally draining.
The deeper question is harder to ignore:
When organisations hire people for what they represent, do they also carry some responsibility to help make that fit work before concluding it cannot?
We asked three HR leaders how they would approach this dilemma.
What HR leaders said
Arjun Singh, CHRO, Solar PV Business, Reliance Industries
“For me, the question isn’t whether Kavitha should stay or leave. The real question is why it took the organisation 18 months to address a performance issue.
If Kavitha’s contribution to culture, values, collaboration and team morale is genuinely important, those expectations should have been defined and measured from the very beginning. We cannot celebrate someone for living the organisation’s values and then evaluate them solely on output.
That said, values cannot become a shield against accountability. If an employee is consistently unable to meet the core requirements of the role, the organisation cannot ignore that reality indefinitely.
I see only two practical paths forward. The first is to redefine the role so that it genuinely reflects where Kavitha creates value, and then assess her against those revised expectations.
The second is to part ways respectfully, acknowledging her cultural contribution while being transparent about the persistent performance gap.
The larger lesson for leaders and HR is that high values and high performance are not mutually exclusive. Organisations run into trouble when they start treating values alignment as a substitute for execution. Culture matters. Accountability matters just as much. The strongest organisations build systems that reward both.”
Vinod Parur, CHRO, Granules India
“Before deciding whether to protect or exit Kavitha, I would first ask whether the organisation has genuinely exhausted every avenue of support.
Have we provided adequate coaching, training and feedback? Have we explored role redesign or a different position better suited to her strengths? Most importantly, is this a case of someone being aligned with the mission but misaligned with the role itself?
Sometimes, the hiring process overestimates purpose fit while underestimating role fit.
As HR, our responsibility is not to rush towards either protection or termination. We need to examine the situation more deeply. If, after all reasonable developmental interventions, Kavitha still cannot meet the requirements of the role, then HR should support an exit decision.
Otherwise, the organisation risks sending a dangerous message: that commitment to the mission matters more than commitment to delivering results.
Values are important because they guide how work should be done. Performance determines whether the work gets done. Purpose-driven organisations need both. But when a role exists to deliver specific outcomes, those outcomes cannot become optional.
In this case, the timeline is critical. Eighteen months is a substantial period to demonstrate capability. Mission alignment should never become a blanket justification for retaining chronic underperformance. Even organisations built on purpose must operate with discipline and achieve operational excellence.”
Emmanuel David, Senior HR leader
“Situations like these often force us to revisit a more uncomfortable question: did we define success correctly in the first place?
When we hire, we focus heavily on job descriptions, qualifications and values alignment. But do we clearly define the behaviours that are essential for success in that role? Often, the answer is no.
I’ve encountered similar situations in my own career. One insight from personality science is that people with strong social skills can be highly persuasive. They impress stakeholders, build relationships effortlessly and create goodwill. Sometimes, we mistake high sociability for ambition, organisation or execution capability.
I remember a leader whom everyone in the selection process admired. I endorsed the hire, the managing director supported it, and even the board was convinced. Yet within a few months, we realised that performance wasn’t matching the promise. Eventually, the exit became inevitable. Looking back, I recognised how easily charisma can mask underlying weaknesses.
That experience reinforced an important lesson: values alignment is important, but it cannot be assessed in isolation from role expectations. When business performance begins to suffer, especially in environments with commercial accountability, leaders have to ask a difficult question: what is the bigger value we are trying to protect?
The answer lies in ensuring that behaviours, values and job requirements are aligned from the outset. Organisations also need the courage to pay attention to warning signs, whether they emerge through performance discussions, psychometric assessments or day-to-day observations.
Good intentions and cultural fit matter. But if someone consistently falls short despite support and intervention, organisations must act in the broader interest of the business and the teams that depend on it.”
If you were the CHRO at GreenRoot
What would you do?
- Initiate a formal performance process, making it clear that values alignment cannot replace delivery?
- Redesign Kavitha’s role around where she genuinely creates value, and measure her against that instead?
- Retain her, accepting that some contributions matter even when they are difficult to quantify?
Or is the real question this:
When organisations hire people for who they are, not just what they can do, can performance alone decide whether they stay?
Share your perspective in the comments or on LinkedIn using #HRKathaCaseInPoint
4 Comments
Values are important, but only values cannot compensate for a consistent lack of performance. Organizations hire and pay to employees to achieve business objectives. If an employee demonstrates strong values but repeatedly fails to meet targets despite support and coaching, performance must ultimately be the deciding factor because without achieving business objectives we can’t survive in market for long term on the behalf of values.
This is not only a values versus performance issue; it is also a role fit versus role requirements problem.
Three review cycles of missed targets cannot be ignored. If HR overlooks the performance concerns simply because Kavitha strongly embodies the organization’s mission, it risks creating a dangerous precedent. Employees who consistently deliver results will question whether accountability standards apply equally to everyone.
Purpose should never become immunity from performance expectations.
Suresh is therefore justified in raising the issue.
My approach would be –
1. Acknowledge the performance gap clearly and objectively.
2. Initiate a formal development and role-fit assessment process.
3. Explore redeployment or role redesign aligned to Kavitha’s demonstrated strengths.
4. Define measurable success criteria for any redesigned role.
5. If the performance gap persists despite these interventions, proceed with a respectful separation process.
This approach enables the organization to uphold accountability while also honouring its responsibility to support employees and make a genuine effort to find the right fit before concluding that the match is not working.
After all, the real question is not whether values should outweigh performance. It is whether the organization has done everything possible to align an employee’s strengths with a role where they can create meaningful value. Once that responsibility has been fulfilled, under performance or poor performance shall not be tolerated.
This is not only a values versus performance issue; it is also a role fit versus role requirements problem.
Three review cycles of missed targets cannot be ignored. If HR overlooks the performance concerns simply because Kavitha strongly embodies the organisation’s mission, it risks creating a dangerous precedent. Employees who consistently deliver results will question whether accountability standards apply equally to everyone.
Purpose should never become immunity from performance expectations.
Suresh is therefore justified in raising the issue.
Before initiating an exit process, I would take a structured approach:
1. Acknowledge the performance gap clearly and objectively.
2. Initiate a formal development and role-fit assessment process.
3. Explore redeployment or role redesign aligned to Kavitha’s demonstrated strengths.
4. Define measurable success criteria for any redesigned role.
5. If the performance gap persists despite these interventions, proceed with a respectful separation process.
This approach enables the organisation to uphold accountability while also honouring its responsibility to support employees and make a genuine effort to find the right fit before initiating separation process.
After all, the real question is not whether values should outweigh performance. It is whether the organisation has done everything possible to align an employee’s strengths with a role where they can create meaningful value. Once that responsibility has been fulfilled, performance must ultimately determine whether the individual succeeds in the role.
Performance is a critical driver of business growth. While values shape culture and guide behavior, they cannot substitute for performance. However, when employees consistently demonstrate values, they gain a distinct advantage by staying one step ahead.
The conversation around retention and exit is inevitable, but it must be anchored in both performance and values. Retaining talent requires recognizing not only what employees achieve but also how they align with organizational principles and goals. Similarly, exit discussions should be fair, transparent, and rooted in these same standards. Evaluation after 18 months & initiate performance process is also to check to make the organization value driven.