Blog

There is a number most Indian HR leaders know but rarely say out loud: roughly one in three new employees in corporate India exits before their 90th day. Some organisations see it cross 40% in high-volume hiring cycles. The cost is not just the replacement recruitment budget. Every early exit erodes team morale, disrupts client continuity, strains managers, and quietly signals something broken in how the company receives its people.

When a product launch slips, when a customer complaint bounces between three departments without resolution, when a strategic initiative loses momentum six months in, the usual diagnosis is a people problem. The wrong team. Misaligned personalities. Poor communication. What rarely gets named is the real cause: the organisation was never designed to collaborate in the first place.

An L&D manager at a logistics company showed us her LMS dashboard last year with visible satisfaction.

Eighty-three percent enrolment across the mandatory compliance modules. A completion rate that looked strong on the summary screen. Green indicators across most of the key metrics the system was designed to show.

A manufacturing company promoted their best plant supervisor into a plant manager role.

He had been exceptional in his previous position. His output numbers were consistently strong. His senior management liked him. His team respected his technical knowledge. The promotion felt obvious.

A CEO called us in for a conversation about culture.

Twenty minutes in, it was clear the issue was not culture. It was that two senior leaders had incompatible views of the organisation’s strategic direction and had been managing their conflict by building separate empires. Their teams had learned to mirror the division. What looked like a culture problem was a structural and leadership alignment problem that had been framed as culture because culture is a more comfortable conversation to have.

We have a version of this conversation with some regularity. The presenting problem and the actual problem are not always the same, and the gap between them is often where the most important OD work begins.

A CHRO asked us a question last year that has stayed with us.

Her organisation was eighteen months into a culture transformation programme. She had been in every workshop. She had seen the values embedded into hiring criteria, into the induction process, into the performance appraisal framework. Leaders were using the right language. The quarterly culture updates looked positive.

“But how do I actually know it’s changing?” she asked. “Not that we’re talking about it differently. That it’s actually different.”

It is a better question than it sounds. And the honest answer, in most organisations running culture programmes, is that nobody has a reliable answer to it.

A mid-sized BFSI organisation spent fourteen months on a culture transformation programme.

They had done everything that culture transformation is supposed to involve. Senior leadership workshops to define the values. A branding exercise to give each value a name and a colour. Cascade sessions for every level of the organisation. Posters in the break rooms. A culture champion network. A new section in the performance appraisal form where employees were rated on value alignment.

At the end of a well-run leadership workshop, the feedback forms are almost always positive.

The facilitator was engaging. The content was relevant. Participants found it thought-provoking. Someone writes that it was the best training they had attended in years. The L&D team sends the results to the CHRO. The programme is marked as complete.

At the end of a well-run leadership workshop, the feedback forms are almost always positive.

The facilitator was engaging. The content was relevant. Participants found it thought-provoking. Someone writes that it was the best training they had attended in years. The L&D team sends the results to the CHRO. The programme is marked as complete.

A pharmaceuticals company came to us after losing three senior leaders in eight months.

The exits were unrelated on the surface. One was a relocation. One was burnout. One cited better opportunity. The organisation accepted each at face value, filled the roles, and moved on.