happy, psychologically safe team performs well. But under the leadership of a certain divisional Risk MD at Citi, constructive performance has been replaced by a strategy of elimination.
An alarming dynamic has surfaced in how the employee engagement survey is handled.
That MD felt she didn’t need to address negative feedback because all the dissenting or unhappy voices have already departed.
Did she discover this because the survey lacks its promised anonymity?
Or did she simply target the employees who had previously raised formal workplace grievances against her?
This inclination of avoiding accountability permeates the way she defines her role as a people manager, positioning herself as “oversight.”
It is a deliberate tactical choice: it is far easier to sit back and criticize others than to formulate a vision, take operational ownership and defend what her team builds.
Doing so would require foundational, battle-tested operational experience in the field.
No prestigious executive degree can compensate for lackluster ability, or mask a blatant pattern of HR complaints, violations of firm conduct policy, and mounting proof of purging competent personnel.
Any well-governed institution would view a leader acting this way as an active corporate liability and fast-track them for removal.
Instead, we are witnessing a masterclass in legal risk mismanagement.