Learning when a consistent process asks the wrong question

I entered personnel work because I was interested in how organisations make decisions about people they know only through records and meetings. A form can preserve useful facts while leaving out the question the person thought they were answering. Early in my career I saw how quickly an administrative convention could become a statement about someone’s suitability, ambition or contribution. I have since learned that a people leader must examine those conventions, especially when the convention is one he previously recommended.

After psychology studies completed in May 1997, I joined Kelqravi Workplace Services in June. I supported a five-person personnel group, maintaining records and helping colleagues find the right owner for employment questions. I did not decide pay, approve appointments or interpret employment law. The role required accuracy, but it also taught me to notice when a person’s concern did not fit the available form. My responsibility was to preserve the question and bring it to someone authorised to consider it, rather than invent an answer because the process expected closure.

In 2003 I became HR service manager with seven colleagues and ₹58 lakh annual function expense. The company’s managers retained their business responsibilities, while our team organised a dependable people service. I learned that explaining a process was different from defending every assumption inside it. An employee could follow an instruction correctly and still encounter a decision whose reasoning had never been discussed. I began asking what the process was intended to establish and whether it requested facts relevant to that purpose.

Terqlavi appointed me people partner in 2010. Ten colleagues worked within ₹1.4 crore annual function expense. The insurer needed people with specialised responsibilities, and I had to learn how employment decisions interacted with technical authority. A higher grade, a completed course or a promising succession nomination did not automatically confer permission to make an underwriting or claims decision. Working with operating and professional owners helped me distinguish development, appointment and authorisation rather than describe them all as readiness.

I became head of reward and development in 2016, leading sixteen colleagues within ₹2.7 crore annual expense. This was the period in which I supported the previous-salary offer rule. The equal percentage seemed easy to explain and administer, but it carried earlier differences into a new role without establishing why the work justified them. The 2018 review made me confront that weakness. Replacing the shortcut required role assessment, financial review and a clearer conversation with managers. I could not repair it merely by saying that the formula had been applied consistently.

The CHRO appointment followed in 2021. Three heads now lead twenty-one people-function colleagues, and I report to Kiran Veqrlavi. Anita Delqrani helps examine how proposed changes affect operating responsibilities. I bring people papers to directors by invitation, without a statutory seat or committee vote. That access has made me more careful about the certainty conveyed by a concise label. A succession chart can appear complete while hiding whether the named employee is willing to accept the conditions attached to the proposed role.

In 2023 we separated capability from relocation willingness for twelve specialist successors. Eight did not wish to move at that time, and four were willing to explore the opportunity subject to further discussion. We did not turn those answers into judgements about loyalty or ask people to justify private circumstances. The later performance-review work required a different distinction: the manager who supplied the original evidence should be heard, but should not be the sole decision-maker on a request to reconsider that same rating. Both changes cost management time and required a more careful account than a completed box on an HR report.

I am interested in people leadership where the organisation will examine the reasoning behind a decision rather than rely on procedural consistency alone. For an outside role, I still need preparation and an assessment of suitability, independence and capacity. I would bring experience of changing my own assumptions while keeping business responsibilities and professional advice visible. The contribution should help directors understand what the company is asking of people and whether its processes support a credible answer, without turning the board into an additional HR department.

Open to Board appointments · Executive opportunities

Languages / Hindi · Urdu · English