Hear the person behind the personnel decision

I once supported a hiring-pay rule that added twenty percent to a candidate’s previous salary. It looked consistent because the percentage was the same. In 2018, two proposed offers for the same assessed role illustrated the problem: previous pay of ₹8 lakh and ₹12 lakh produced offers of ₹9.6 lakh and ₹14.4 lakh. The work and assessed contribution did not explain that difference. I withdrew the shortcut and helped establish a role-based proposal of ₹12 lakh for each, within the evaluated range. These were unissued proposals, not reductions to anyone’s existing pay, and the correction did not by itself prove that every pay question had been resolved.

Today I lead the people function at Terqlavi General Assurance in Lucknow. Twenty-one colleagues work through three heads within ₹3.9 crore annual function expense, separate from group employee expense of ₹67 crore. The insurer has 460 employees and nineteen branches. CEO Kiran Veqrlavi and COO Anita Delqrani work with me on the consequences of people decisions, while technical insurance authority and professional employment advice retain their own owners. I report to the CEO and attend relevant board discussions by invitation. I do not hold a director appointment, and neither those presentations nor my executive title establish readiness for an outside statutory role.

My later work asked different questions of familiar HR records. A succession list labelled twelve specialists ready for roles requiring relocation, but eight did not wish to move at that time. Their capability and willingness were separate facts, and I did not need private family explanations to record the distinction. A performance-rating review route also needed a decision-maker who had not authored the original rating. Giving people another meeting with the same manager was not the same as providing a fresh review. I would consider a CHRO mandate where the company is willing to reconsider the logic of its own processes, including those I have supported. For a future outside contribution, I would bring these questions into collective oversight after completing the required preparation and company-specific assessment, with the people affected still present in the account directors receive.

Current focus

Reward, succession and review processes that distinguish the organisation’s assumption from the person’s actual position.

Conversations I welcome

A CHRO mandate and a first outside contribution after preparation, employer review and appointment-specific assessment.