Teal in principle, uneven in practice: delivery resilience meets leadership disconnect - Program Delivery Manager Raise Employee Review

From the perspective of a recruiter within a Philippines-based delivery environment, recent spend priorities have been difficult to reconcile with the financial trade-offs expected from delivery teams. While recruiters were asked to absorb salary impact, navigate contract-to-permanent transitions, and operate with reduced incentives in support of company sustainability, approvals for high-cost in-person offsites created a visible disconnect. These involved stakeholders not directly tied to day-to-day coaching or delivery enablement, and much of the intended collaboration could likely have been achieved through virtual formats without materially reducing value. This has contributed to a morale gap, particularly as profit-linked outcomes such as PTD, compensation adjustments, and profit sharing remain uncertain for those carrying frontline delivery accountability and protecting margins. There are also growing concerns around role leveling and pay equity. Instances where individuals with comparatively limited delivery exposure are elevated into leadership roles with higher pay bands, without clear communication on criteria, create perceptions of inconsistency. Over time, this risks diluting confidence in merit-based progression and leadership decision-making. There are noticeable credibility gaps emerging in leadership expectations. For example, VM now strongly mandates that recruiters take on US roles, despite previously expressing reluctance to work on those same roles due to their complexity and performance risk. This shift has been acknowledged in discussions, where it was shared that US hiring was earlier avoided out of concern about difficulty and job security. However, the current approach leans heavily on directive enforcement rather than coaching, enablement, or shared accountability. The message being received by delivery teams is that expectations have changed without corresponding support structures or acknowledgement of the challenge involved. This creates a perception of “do as instructed” leadership rather than values-led leadership. In a Teal environment that emphasizes ownership, empathy, and self-management, such inconsistencies can feel misaligned with the principles being promoted. Over time, this risks eroding trust and makes the philosophy appear situational rather than embedded in day-to-day leadership behavior. There is also growing concern around the value realization from certain senior offshore leadership role, SD. Despite being positioned within higher compensation bands, there appears to be limited hands-on recruiting depth and minimal direct contribution to sourcing or delivery problem-solving when teams require immediate support. In instances where operational assistance was requested to unblock active hiring needs, the engagement remained largely advisory and did not translate into tangible recruiting output. This creates a perception gap between compensation levels and on-ground impact, particularly for delivery teams operating under cost pressures and performance expectations. When leadership roles are perceived as removed from execution, yet continue to sit in premium pay brackets, it reinforces the belief that investment is skewed toward hierarchy rather than delivery effectiveness. Over time, this risks disengagement among recruiters who are closest to client outcomes and margin protection. More broadly, this feeds into a narrative that organizational values—particularly around ownership, contribution, and stewardship of resources—are not being applied consistently across levels. Strengthening accountability for measurable leadership impact and ensuring capability-role alignment would help close this gap and reinforce trust. There is a growing perception within delivery teams that certain leadership decisions are having a disproportionately negative impact on morale, delivery effectiveness, and trust in internal programs such as RaiseOne. When initiatives are associated with high investment but limited visible value for recruiters on the ground, frustration builds and confidence in those programs declines. Rather than strengthening engagement, these gaps risk creating skepticism about leadership intent and the practical relevance of such initiatives for frontline teams. Re-centering these efforts around delivery realities, measurable outcomes, and recruiter enablement would significantly improve adoption and credibility.