Josna Belkaruni · Chief Human Resources Officer · India
A workforce question worth bringing to directors
My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine the employment decisions underneath a workforce narrative. A company can report a strong pipeline while managers quietly prevent capable employees from moving. It can describe acting duties as development while leaving responsibility and terms unresolved. My contribution would be to ask which decision the organisation has actually made, who is affected and what evidence directors need to assess the consequence. I would connect that question to operating capacity and financial cost rather than treating employee experience as a separate conversation. My experience is executive: I present to our nomination and remuneration committee but do not sit on it, and I have never held a statutory director appointment. I would enter a first board with that distinction explicit. I would seek to complement existing commercial and financial expertise, not become a parallel HR head or a private route for managers to bypass the chief executive.
Judgement in practice
01
Paying for responsibility while fixing the decision process
The eighteen acting assignments could have been handled as a payment exercise alone. That would have left the organisation free to recreate the same ambiguity. I asked for the work, authority and duration of each arrangement to be examined alongside the terms. The resulting ₹22 lakh adjustments were accompanied by written decisions and review dates, with different outcomes for different circumstances. In a board role, I would ask whether a proposed remedy addresses only the visible cost or also the way the organisation reached that position. I would not assume that every case calls for identical treatment. Directors should be able to understand the principle, the exceptions and the process for questions, while individual employment decisions remain with properly authorised management and advisers. The evidence of a fairer process is more specific than a claim that the company values people.
02
Making employee movement a capacity decision
Opening promotion assessment exposed a conflict that nomination-only practice had concealed. Managers wanted to keep capable people because releasing them created a real staffing gap. I supported a route for eligible employees to express interest and required operations to plan for successful moves. Ten appointments and three delayed releases gave us a more honest account than a simple pipeline total. For a board, I would examine whether succession measures describe people who can actually move or names whose release nobody has considered. I would also ask whether smaller locations bear a disproportionate burden when experienced employees progress. The answer may require funding cover or slowing another initiative. A board should see that trade-off rather than accept either unrestricted movement or managerial veto as the only practical options. Access to assessment and readiness for appointment must remain distinct.
My first year on a board
I would begin with the company's operating model and the decisions its managers repeatedly make about people. With the chair and chief executive, I would agree an induction that includes branch or site visits, discussion with functional leaders and a review of a few completed workforce decisions. I would not treat a listening visit as an alternative grievance channel or make personal commitments to employees. The purpose would be to understand how authority, evidence and escalation work. In early committee discussions, I would ask how succession, remuneration and workforce capacity are connected to the business plan. I would look for differences between the populations represented by a headline measure and those experiencing the policy. Later in the year, I would review whether my questions helped directors make a clearer decision or simply generated more reporting. My twenty-two-day allowance includes preparation and visits; the actual calendar, employer consent and possible periods of greater demand would need agreement before appointment.
Conflicts and their management
My current role gives me access to sensitive employee information and relationships with recruitment, training and other service providers. An outside company may share those providers or compete for the same people. I would disclose relevant connections through an appropriate process before receiving its confidential papers. I would not use knowledge of individual employees to make myself more useful to another board. Where a conflict arises, I would declare it promptly and follow the agreed restrictions on discussion and decision-making; some relationships could rule out the role altogether. I would also consider the demands of my executive appointment and obtain the necessary consent. Independence criteria, directorship limits and any listed-company committee requirements should be assessed for the particular company with its advisers. A people-function background is not a shortcut through that assessment. The same care applies to requests for informal advice from a chair before a formal appointment has been considered.
My independence statement
I would disclose employment, interests and relationships before a prospective board considers my position. Experience in employee relations does not establish my independence or eligibility for a particular company.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Kerumati Housing Finance
Nomination and remuneration committee
April 2020–present
Present workforce plans, succession evidence and employment-cost proposals by invitation; no committee membership or director appointment.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Kerumati Housing Finance
Full board
2021–present
Explain acting-role review, internal movement and early-tenure findings as the responsible executive.