Story 322
A former Director from DART who joined ERM Product into an MD role exhibited a troubling pattern of conduct toward a woman on her team — one who held greater seniority and demonstrated stronger leadership than the MD apparently recognized or took the time to understand.
When the decision was ultimately made for the targeted employee to transition to another team, it was explicitly understood internally that the move was made to prevent a formal HR complaint, given the misconduct well documented by the targeted employee.
Months later, retaliation arrived in the form of a year-end performance review. A peer subsequently disclosed that the MD harbored resentment toward this employee specifically because she had been unable to persuade her to remain on her team.
Notable too: the MD was consistently unresponsive to transition emails and failed to assign resources to cover critical work — a basic managerial responsibility.
When subsequent work went undelivered, blame was directed at the departing employee, despite her having fulfilled every commitment made to the Group Head at the time the transition was agreed.
Using the performance review process as a vehicle for personal retaliation is not a gray area. It is a misuse of institutional power and a weaponization of HR mechanisms.
This conduct does not reflect the emotional maturity, ethical integrity, or moral character expected of anyone fit to lead in challenging situations.
When leaders weaponize performance reviews to settle personal scores, they don’t just harm individuals — they corrode the integrity of the institutions they represent.
Organizations that tolerate this behavior, in spite of explicit conduct policies, become complicit in it.