My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine the assumption hidden inside a confident people category. Consistent offers may preserve different histories; ready successors may not have accepted the conditions of the role; a reviewed rating may still have been reconsidered only by its original author. My executive experience includes changing those accounts and acknowledging my own part in a rule that needed correction. The board contribution would be to ask management what has actually been established and what remains a choice, an estimate or an unfinished discussion. I would bring that perspective alongside financial, legal and sector skills held by other directors and advisers. It should not make the board the hiring panel or a second HR service desk. A useful question improves the collective understanding of the organisation’s people commitments while leaving managers accountable for decisions through the proper process.
My first year on a board
I would begin with the chair’s induction into how management frames people decisions and how directors hear disagreement about them. I would follow one succession proposal and one reward review from the underlying evidence to the board account, asking where employee choice, professional advice and operating constraints enter. I would also learn the routes through which a process can be reconsidered without directors taking over individual cases. Twenty-three annual days must include reading and learning as well as attendance, with exceptional demands considered alongside my current role. I would ask the chair to tell me when a question adds useful oversight and when it drifts into executive detail. The receiving company’s economics and workforce arrangements may differ substantially from insurance. My first-year contribution should therefore improve one relevant board discussion rather than import a complete set of policies from my employer.
Conflicts and their management
I have access to reward ranges, succession assessments, employee concerns, executive plans and the interests of the insurer’s investment owner and employee vehicle. An outside role needs review of relationships with those parties, competing insurers, recruitment firms, professional advisers and operating suppliers. I would disclose the relevant connections before receiving confidential material and seek advice on the actual appointment and any committee requirements. I would not share private employee histories or use knowledge from another board to strengthen my employer’s hiring position. Recusal can be appropriate for a particular matter, but recurring exclusion from the people agenda could make the intended contribution impractical. Employer permission and the calendar also need attention, especially around annual reward and succession work. I would decline an arrangement that depends on confidential access or expects informal handling of individual employment concerns outside an agreed process. The absence of a personal shareholding does not remove the interests and duties attached to current employment.
My independence statement
My current employment and access to people and insurer plans require a specific relationships review. No personal holding does not by itself establish independence for an outside role.
Judgement in practice
01The formula was consistent but its starting points were different
Two proposed offers used the same twenty-percent increase but arrived at different pay for work the assessment had not distinguished. I would ask a board what its reward process is intended to recognise and whether the chosen calculation supports that purpose. My own correction did not prove that every pay difference should disappear or authorise a reduction to existing contractual terms. It required a relevant explanation of the proposed offer. Directors need to understand the judgement, affordability and professional advice behind the framework, rather than approve a formula simply because it is easy to apply. They should also hear when management has revised a rule it previously supported. That account is more useful than presenting the change as though the earlier reasoning had never been part of the organisation’s policy.
02The succession chart had not asked the relocation question
Eight of twelve named specialists did not wish to relocate at the time of our review, while four would explore the conditions. I would ask directors which parts of the succession account concern capability, willingness and actual appointment readiness. An employee’s choice should not be converted into a finding about commitment simply to preserve the chart’s appearance. The company still needs to address the uncovered roles and fund practical alternatives. Our local development work did not turn twelve names into twelve completed moves. The oversight value lies in seeing the true options and gaps before an urgent vacancy makes the assumption consequential. A board can ask for that clarity without requesting private family explanations or choosing the individual successor itself.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | People, reward and succession discussions · Culture and employment-process oversight |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 23 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Insurance and professional service enterprises · Organisations reassessing reward and succession practices
- Company type
- A company with an experienced chair and management willing to explain the reasoning behind people decisions
- Company stage
- Improving the credibility of succession, reward or employee-review arrangements
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider one non-executive role where the board wants to understand whether its people arrangements are credible in practice. An experienced chair should explain how my perspective complements the existing financial, legal and industry skills. Preparation, registration where applicable and the company’s assessment of eligibility and independence remain necessary before appointment. I would first contribute to people, reward, succession or culture discussions under established governance arrangements. I would need further board experience before accepting responsibility to chair a statutory committee. The role should welcome examination of management’s assumptions without treating directors as routine employment decision-makers. I would avoid an appointment sold as access to candidates, confidential salary knowledge or a convenient substitute for a properly resourced HR function. The contribution I seek is a better collective account of what the company asks of people and how it decides.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Terqlavi General Assurance
Invited people and succession discussions
April 2021–present
Presents CHRO recommendations and explains their evidence and costs; no statutory seat or committee vote.
Reported to a committee
Terqlavi General Assurance
Reward and development papers through the CHRO
April 2016–March 2021
Prepared executive analysis and supported responses under the CHRO; not committee membership.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Preparation and registration for a possible independent appointment remain incomplete. No assessment pass, exemption or prior statutory appointment is claimed.
- Learning to examine people systems through collective oversight rather than individual executive intervention
- Preparing to assess appointment requirements, remuneration responsibilities and relationships involving employees, investors and advisers