Chief Human Resources Officer / India
Changing the assumption changed the personnel decision
- People-function colleagues
- 21
- Three heads reporting within the CHRO remit
- Annual people-function expense
- ₹3.9 crore
- Separate from ₹67 crore group employee expense
- People and employment experience
- 29 years
- Personnel service, insurer partnering, reward and CHRO roles
Decisions & consequences
012018: the same offer percentage had carried different histories forward
As head of reward and development, I had supported a simple starting point for hiring pay: twenty percent above the candidate’s previous salary. In a review of eighteen unissued proposals, two candidates for the same assessed role showed why that was not a sufficient explanation. Previous annual pay of ₹8 lakh and ₹12 lakh led to proposed offers of ₹9.6 lakh and ₹14.4 lakh. The hiring assessment did not establish a contribution difference that explained those figures. The apparent consistency was in the calculation, not in the reasoning about the new work.
I withdrew that shortcut and took responsibility for recommending it. The CEO approved ₹28 lakh for an eight-week role and offer review with finance, hiring managers and appropriate employment advisers. We examined responsibilities and the evidence relevant to each proposal rather than assume that earlier pay settled the new decision. For the two illustrative candidates, the evaluated annual range was ₹10 lakh to ₹14 lakh and the supported proposal was ₹12 lakh for each. These were proposals before issue; nobody’s existing contractual pay was reduced by the example.
The remaining sixteen proposals required their own assessment, and this account does not invent a common outcome for them. Nor does the two-person comparison prove that every difference across the company was inappropriate. The change was to require a relevant explanation of the offered position within the range, with affordability and professional review still part of the decision. No aggregate saving or retention improvement was claimed from the revised approach.
The difficult part was admitting that an easily administered rule had spared us a discussion we needed to have. A percentage could carry an earlier employer’s choices into ours without showing why the new role justified them. I learned to examine what a formula preserves before praising its consistency. The resulting process required more judgement, and therefore clearer accountability, rather than replacing one automatic calculation with another.
2023: twelve capable names were not twelve willing relocations
The succession account listed twelve specialists as ready for future roles that would require relocation. The technical assessment addressed capability and development, but the chart did not separately establish whether the people were willing to move. Managers had read a readiness label as though it included that decision. I asked for a direct, respectful conversation about the proposed conditions before the names were treated as available coverage.
Eight colleagues did not wish to relocate at that time. Four were willing to explore the possibility, subject to role details and further discussion. We did not infer a lack of ambition from the eight answers or ask for private family explanations to justify them. Nor did the four expressions of willingness become appointments. Technical assessment, authorisation, selection and agreed employment arrangements remained separate steps with their respective owners.
The CEO approved ₹44 lakh over twelve weeks for development planning, local shadowing and role discussions. We kept local growth routes open for the eight colleagues and worked with operating leaders on the actual gaps in the relocation-dependent succession plan. That cost bought a more credible development and coverage conversation, not twelve completed succession moves. The revised board account distinguished capability, willingness and the remaining conditions, with the uncovered roles still visible.
Anita Delqrani helped managers understand why the new account was operationally stronger even though it looked less complete. A list that relies on an unasked personal choice cannot provide dependable coverage. My responsibility was to prevent the organisation’s planning convenience from being presented as the employee’s commitment. I also learned to revisit willingness when circumstances or role conditions change, without treating an earlier answer as a permanent judgement about the person. The case did not establish improved retention or a universal relocation policy; it corrected what the company could honestly say about those twelve proposed successors.
2025: a rating review needed a fresh decision-maker
Twenty-four employees requested reconsideration of their performance ratings. The existing route sent each request back to the manager who had written the original assessment. That manager held useful evidence, but the arrangement offered no distinct decision owner for the reconsideration. I proposed a separate review route that would hear the original manager and the employee while assigning the decision to an authorised reviewer who had not made the initial rating.
The CEO approved ₹36 lakh over ten weeks for reviewer capacity, case preparation and appropriate professional support. We explained the grounds and records to be considered, how the parties could contribute and how the reasoned outcome would be communicated. The exercise concerned performance ratings; it did not replace statutory complaint channels, decide disciplinary allegations or remove access to other applicable processes. Sensitive records remained within the authorised review arrangements.
Ten ratings changed after the review and fourteen were upheld. Each outcome had its own reasoning. Those figures did not prove the original managers had acted dishonestly, nor did they establish that the entire performance system was now free of bias. A changed rating was not automatically a pay award; any related decision needed its proper authority and evidence. Managers retained responsibility for future performance conversations and for the quality of the assessments they produced.
The practical result was a route in which reconsideration could lead to a different conclusion without requiring the employee to persuade the sole author of the disputed rating. That arrangement took more time than repeating the first meeting. I considered the cost part of making review credible, while recognising that reviewer independence in one decision is not a substitute for broader employment advice or ongoing attention to how the process works. The lesson was to distinguish hearing a request from giving it a genuinely fresh decision owner, without promising that every request should succeed.