The first time you mentor someone, it rarely feels strategic. It feels generous—a natural extension of leadership, a way to strengthen team capability, and a gesture workplaces have long rewarded. Experienced professionals guide younger colleagues because it signals maturity, builds institutional knowledge, and reinforces the belief that organisations value those who develop others.
Which makes a recent viral account particularly unsettling. A 30-year-old professional was made redundant, only to discover later that the intern he had personally mentored had been hired into his role. The story triggered more than outrage—it sparked uncomfortable introspection across corporate India. What precedent does this set? And are workplaces, perhaps unintentionally, teaching employees that generosity carries professional risk?
The emotional response proved immediate and widespread. But beneath the social media fury lies a more troubling organisational question: when knowledge-sharing starts resembling vulnerability, does mentoring transform from leadership credential into career gamble?
The scarcity trap
For decades, mentoring functioned as currency. Leaders who built successors were considered indispensable. Today’s business climate—defined by cost optimisation, leaner structures, and preference for early-career talent—has subtly altered that equation.
“Operating from a mentality of scarcity does not generate positive energy in an organisation—from the perspective of ethics or making the world better.”
Shailesh Singh, CHRO, Axis Max Life Insurance
Shailesh Singh, CHRO, Axis Max Life Insurance, acknowledges the instinctive reaction such stories provoke. “When I read something like this, I completely understand and empathise with the sentiment,” he observes. Yet he warns against organisations slipping into what he terms a “scarcity mindset”—the belief that resources, opportunities, and value are finite.
“Operating from a mentality of scarcity does not generate positive energy in an organisation—from the perspective of ethics or making the world better,” Singh explains. He assesses leadership decisions through two lenses: goals and values, or what he calls karma and dharma. “No karma can be pure unless it passes the test of dharma.”
Reflecting on the viral case, Singh is unequivocal: “Dharma is being flouted. The organisation may have the right to promote efficiency and lower costs, but the manner does not pass ethical tests.”
He proposes a simple leadership criterion: “Whatever we do—if everyone were to start doing it—will the world become better? Will the enterprise improve? Will culture strengthen? The only answer here is no.”
The consequences extend beyond individual grievance. “It creates a mindset of scarcity and lack of trust in the system. Why would leaders impart knowledge if they feel insecure? They will hold themselves back—and that hurts collaboration.”
The alleged secrecy surrounding the episode compounds the damage. “How can withholding information help build an enterprise for the future? Trust is missing—and without trust in any relationship, the enterprise suffers,” Singh argues. “It’s a complete breach of trust and completely avoidable. It doesn’t set the bar high—it sets it low, and is not inspirational at all.”
Once employees begin associating knowledge-sharing with personal risk, behaviour shifts. Information becomes guarded, collaboration turns selective, and instead of building institutional capability, professionals focus on safeguarding individual relevance. The psychological calculus changes: mentor generously or protect yourself?
The execution failure
Praveen Purohit, CHRO, Vedanta Aluminium, offers structural perspective on such situations. “This is not something new or very unique—it has been happening for ages,” he notes. Organisations routinely assign junior employees to experienced professionals—whether called mentors, buddies, or anchors—to develop future talent.
“Change is always bound to happen—but how systematically and respectfully you handle it matters enormously.”
Praveen Purohit, CHRO, Vedanta Aluminium
When young employees demonstrate capability, leadership potential, and value, elevation follows naturally. “The company will always think of promoting sharp people… mentoring someone and replacement are two distinct subjects altogether.”
Yet Purohit becomes emphatic about execution. “The whole objective is how gracefully you do that. Change is always bound to happen—but how systematically and respectfully you handle it matters enormously.”
He challenges leaders to consider: “What did the company gain by doing it so improperly? You gain nothing.”
Grace, he argues, must translate into concrete actions—extended transition periods, redeployment opportunities, outplacement support. Because poorly handled exits don’t remain confidential. “It all boils down to how you treat your people—that defines organisational culture.” Damaged employer brands suffer recruitment consequences. “If this is how a company behaves, no quality person will want to join.”
The distinction between succession planning and betrayal lies entirely in process. Transparent succession conversations, adequate transition support, and dignified exits signal that organisations value contributions even when circumstances change. Secrecy and abruptness signal something far less flattering.
The transactional reality
Chandrasekhar Mukherjee, a senior HR leader, introduces another dimension: modern employment relationships are fundamentally transactional. Organisations ensure continuity before managing transitions—whether driven by performance gaps, evolving requirements, or cost structures. The sense of betrayal often stems from misaligned expectations rather than organisational malice.
“It’s not so much an ethical question—it’s a process question.”
Chandrasekhar Mukherjee, senior HR leader
“It’s not so much an ethical question—it’s a process question,” he suggests. Professionals must protect relevance not by hoarding knowledge but by continuously upgrading skills and adaptability.
This perspective, whilst pragmatic, assumes employees enter mentoring relationships understanding that developing potential replacements carries inherent risk. Yet organisations actively encourage mentoring through competency frameworks, leadership assessments, and culture messaging that positions knowledge-sharing as valued behaviour.
The contradiction becomes apparent: companies simultaneously celebrate mentoring as leadership whilst creating conditions where it potentially threatens careers. When these tensions surface publicly, employees rationally recalibrate risk.
The cultural cost
Even strategically sound decisions can create perception problems that become cultural liabilities. A single story suggesting secrecy can erode psychological safety across entire organisations.
Without trust, mentoring loses emotional depth. Leaders may comply with development mandates but stop investing personally. Sponsorship fades. Guidance becomes transactional. The informal knowledge transfer that builds real capability—the context behind decisions, the unwritten rules, the hard-earned wisdom—disappears.
Every organisational decision carries symbolic weight. When replacements appear to emerge quietly from mentors’ own circles, the unintended lesson proves simple: protect your turf. This creates a paradox. Organisations depend on mentoring to build succession pipelines, yet if employees begin hoarding expertise to remain indispensable, those pipelines weaken.
Singh’s “scarcity mindset” becomes self-fulfilling. Organisations trying to reduce costs through quiet succession may inadvertently create cultures where information hoarding seems rational, collaboration becomes selective, and institutional knowledge slowly evaporates.
The abundance alternative
Strong cultures operate on abundance—the belief that growing others doesn’t diminish one’s worth. Scarcity cultures breed silent competition.
What precedent should organisations establish? Perhaps one where succession is transparent, transitions are humane, and mentoring is recognised as leadership capital rather than expendable generosity. This requires deliberate design: explicit conversations about succession timelines, adequate transition support, redeployment opportunities, and recognition that developing others represents genuine contribution even when roles change.
Singh’s dharma test offers useful guidance: would widespread adoption of this practice improve the enterprise? If the answer proves negative, the approach requires rethinking regardless of short-term cost benefits.
The deeper danger isn’t replacement—it’s the possibility that mentoring starts feeling like professional gamble. Because the moment employees begin calculating personal risk before developing others, leadership itself changes character. Knowledge-sharing becomes conditional, collaboration turns cautious, and the informal networks that build real organisational capability gradually dissolve.
The viral story may fade, but the question lingers: in tomorrow’s workplaces, will mentoring remain a leadership hallmark—or quietly evolve into an unintended professional risk? The answer depends less on what organisations say about culture and more on how they handle the inevitable moments when succession and dignity must coexist.
If employees conclude that the safest survival strategy involves sharing less, the enterprise doesn’t just lose trust—it loses the ecosystem sustaining long-term growth. And no cost savings can compensate for that erosion.