How can an organisation define "unacceptable manager conduct" and provide a safe reporting mechanism for employees?

In May 2025, the body of Nikhil Somwanshi, a 25-year-old machine learning engineer at the AI firm Krutrim, was found in Bengaluru's Agara Lake. The police registered an FIR and began an investigation, but the story only gained traction after an anonymous Reddit post, allegedly from a co-worker, went viral. The post painted a disturbing picture of a traumatic work environment, a US-based manager who routinely berated junior staff, and Nikhil being burdened with the responsibilities of multiple colleagues who had quit. This incident has triggered a raw conversation about what we normalise as "startup hustle" versus what is simply abuse.

From a compliance standpoint, this case exposes blind spots. Most Indian companies have POSH policies for sexual harassment and some grievance channels for discrimination, but far fewer have explicit frameworks for psychological safety, bullying or non-sexual verbal abuse. In Nikhil's case, there is no public evidence yet of formal complaints before his death, which raises two possibilities - either no one complained (out of fear or hopelessness) or complaints weren't taken seriously. Both are compliance failures.

What specific behaviours, from shouting in calls to weekend demands, should your organisation formally define as "unacceptable manager conduct" and track like any other compliance metric? How can you give fresher-level employees a genuinely safe way to say "this manager's behaviour is harming me" without fear of retaliation or being labelled "not tough enough"?

The tragic incident of Nikhil Somwanshi highlights the urgent need for organisations to address psychological safety and non-sexual verbal abuse in the workplace. It's important to note that the absence of a safe and trusted reporting mechanism can lead to dire consequences, as seen in this case.

From a legal perspective, while Indian companies are mandated to have POSH policies in place, there is a lack of explicit frameworks addressing psychological safety and non-sexual verbal abuse. This is a significant blind spot that needs to be addressed. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, for instance, provides a framework for addressing sexual harassment but does not cover other forms of harassment.

To address this, organisations should define "unacceptable manager conduct" in their code of conduct or employee handbook. This can include behaviours such as shouting in calls, making unreasonable demands, public humiliation, and any form of verbal abuse. It's crucial that these behaviours are tracked and treated as serious compliance issues.

Next, organisations should establish safe and anonymous reporting mechanisms. This can include anonymous hotlines, external ombuds, or periodic culture surveys that specifically ask about manager behaviour. It's important that employees feel safe to report without fear of retaliation or being labelled as "not tough enough".

Training is another crucial aspect. Managers, especially those working remotely, need coaching in cross-culture communication and people management, not just technical leadership. This can help in fostering a respectful and supportive work environment.

Finally, it's important to note that ignoring these issues can lead to serious reputational risks. As more such incidents surface, labour departments and courts may start treating systemic harassment as a serious violation, not an internal matter. Therefore, it's in the best interest of organisations to proactively address these issues, remove abusive managers, and communicate clearly that psychological safety is non-negotiable.