Make the larger job an explicit decision

In 2021, several branch staffing reviews referred to employees temporarily covering larger roles. The arrangements had different start dates and little consistency in how they were reviewed. Managers saw them as useful development opportunities and a practical response to vacancies. Employees described a less settled position: some were supervising colleagues without knowing when the assignment would end or whether their terms would be reconsidered.

I commissioned an assignment-by-assignment review rather than announce a universal allowance. Eighteen cases had continued beyond the intended period. We collected the original instruction, the work actually performed and the authority the employee had been given. Finance and the relevant operational leaders joined the review, with appropriate advice where the employment position required it. The chief operating officer was concerned that a retrospective exercise would create expectations the company could not meet consistently.

I recommended company-funded pay adjustments totalling ₹22 lakh, alongside a written decision for each assignment. The approved treatment differed according to the circumstances; it was not presented as a standard legal remedy for every temporary duty. We also required a named reviewer and an end or review date for future arrangements. Managers retained the ability to make temporary appointments, but they could no longer allow the label to substitute for a decision about duration and terms.

All eighteen employees received a written explanation and a route to raise questions. Four assignments became permanent appointments after separate assessment, nine ended with the return or appointment of a substantive role holder, and five continued under revised time-bound arrangements. Those outcomes mattered more than calling the exercise complete after payment. I would now ask employees about acting duties directly during routine branch reviews. The original list depended too heavily on managers identifying arrangements they had gradually come to regard as normal.

Our branch leadership pipeline depended heavily on managers nominating employees for assessment. In 2023, a review of twelve upcoming opportunities showed that several eligible colleagues had never been put forward. Their managers were not necessarily questioning their ability. Some feared losing the person who kept a small branch functioning, and the nomination decision had become a hidden way of managing that capacity problem.

I proposed an expression-of-interest route against published eligibility criteria, with a separate discussion about release timing for successful candidates. Operations argued that this would create expectations before replacement capacity existed. I accepted that concern and required a staffing plan for each likely vacancy, but I did not accept it as a reason to keep assessment access dependent on one manager. We funded temporary cover and scheduled assessments to reduce avoidable travel for colleagues in smaller locations.

Thirty-one employees entered the process. A panel considered evidence against the role, including customer handling, control discipline and the ability to support colleagues. We did not treat sales volume as a complete leadership record. Ten appointments followed; two opportunities remained open because the assessed candidates needed further experience. The unsuccessful colleagues received specific feedback, and the development plans did not imply that a later appointment was assured.

The change made access more visible, while also exposing the cost of releasing capable people. Cover and assessment expenditure totalled ₹16 lakh. Three releases took longer than the original plan because replacements were not ready, and we reported those delays rather than treating appointment letters as the end of the transition. My next improvement would be to review branch succession capacity before vacancies are announced. An open process is more credible when the organisation has already considered how successful movement will be supported.

A joining cohort of 104 employees recorded 27 voluntary departures within ninety days. Exit summaries frequently used broad labels such as personal reasons or better opportunity. Branch managers believed recruitment was sending candidates who did not understand field work. Recruiters argued that the job had changed after joining. The disagreement was becoming a contest between functions rather than an examination of what new employees had actually been told and asked to do.

I arranged a review of recruitment descriptions, induction schedules and employee accounts for a sample of the cohort. We found variation in travel expectations, supervisor availability and the timing of system access. I did not infer that every departure was preventable or that the sample established a single cause. The practical decision was to make those conditions explicit before joining and to check them again during the first month.

We introduced a structured role conversation before an offer, a branch induction owner and a review at days thirty and sixty. Operations allocated supervisor time, while recruitment changed the way it described travel and field responsibilities. The programme cost ₹19 lakh across preparation, manager cover and follow-up. It also led us to pause hiring into three branches until supervision arrangements were clarified, a choice that delayed the business plan rather than producing an immediate benefit.

In the next cohort, 19 of 110 joiners left voluntarily within ninety days. The role mix and recruitment locations were different, so I reported the counts without attributing the entire change to induction. We also examined the experience of those who stayed, including unresolved access delays. I would strengthen the initial baseline next time by recording what employees understood before they accepted the offer. Retrospective recollection helped identify questions, but it was a weaker basis for assessing whether our recruitment explanation had improved.