A Dilemma for the HR Head: When Integrity Clashes with Authority

One of the toughest challenges any HR Head may face is being asked to terminate a high-performing employee, not because of poor performance, misconduct, or policy violations, but because of a directive from the top: “Either one has to go.”

In that moment, the HR leader stands at a moral and professional crossroads.

Your instincts resist. Your conscience says it’s wrong. Yet your role demands obedience. You’re expected to execute a decision that contradicts everything you stand for as a people leader. What should you do?

At such a juncture, the most responsible course of action is to seek clarity, request a one-on-one with the CEO or Business Head to understand the reasoning and present a case for reconsideration. But what if that door is firmly shut? What if there’s no willingness to engage in dialogue?

This isn’t an isolated incident. Most HR professionals, especially those with strong ethics and long-term vision, encounter similar dilemmas at least once in their careers. The challenge lies not just in executing the decision, but in how to manage it, with grace, professionalism, and a clear sense of long-term organizational impact.

Let’s be clear: terminating a dedicated, high-performing employee due to personal friction at senior levels sends shockwaves through the workforce. It undermines the principles of meritocracy, fairness, and trust. It silently tells others that performance may not be their shield.

At the same time, the HR Head cannot afford to be seen as defiant or emotionally driven, especially when they lack visibility into strategic nuances known only to leadership. It’s a tightrope walk, between upholding integrity and honoring hierarchical authority.

This internal tug-of-war often becomes a lonely battle: one person’s career vs. an unclear agenda, personal politics vs. organizational values, short-term obedience vs. long-term cultural cost.

A true HR leader is a custodian of people, potential, and purpose. They don’t just manage exits, they manage meaning. Every termination, especially of a high-value employee, must be justified, transparent, and sensitively communicated. Anything less can erode the very foundation of the culture they’ve worked hard to build.

And so, the most haunting question lingers: Why wasn’t the HR Head involved earlier? Why was this decision handed down as an ultimatum, not a discussion?

Only the CEO can answer that. But it does raise deeper concerns around transparency, governance, and leadership maturity.

In the end, HR isn’t just about policies and payroll—it’s about people, principles, and the courage to navigate grey zones. And sometimes, it’s about silently carrying the weight of decisions you didn’t make, but were made to own. sincerely-Gurcharan