My contribution to a board
I would help directors examine whether employment arrangements support the work the company says it wants people to do. My experience is in the practical decisions behind hiring, appraisal and support, including the costs that a well-intended policy can conceal. At board level, I would ask management to show how it knows a process is operating as described and which cases remain unresolved. I would not direct individual employee matters from the committee room or present my own preferences as employment law. Qualified advice and accountable management remain necessary. My contribution would be strongest alongside directors who bring finance, customer and technical perspectives, because people choices have consequences across those areas. An initial appointment should make space for me to learn the company's governance practice and for the chair to assess whether my questions improve the collective discussion.
Judgement in practice
01A fair-looking assessment can impose an unexamined cost
The recruitment case began with a practical sample that managers regarded as useful evidence. Its use of live client material and the time demanded from candidates changed the character of the request. We introduced controlled material and payment for longer final-stage work, accepting a visible cost. On a board, I would ask how management identifies similar mismatches between the stated purpose of a process and its actual consequences. I would want evidence beyond a policy declaration or a satisfaction average. The question is not whether every candidate receives the same outcome, but whether the company can explain the work requested, its use and the terms on which it is obtained. Directors should expect a proportionate management response and follow-up, without designing every assessment themselves.
02An unchanged outcome can still need a better explanation
Our appraisal review changed eighteen of thirty-one questioned decisions and retained thirteen after examining the evidence. Reporting only the changed ratings would have concealed an important part of the work. A board reviewing people information should distinguish the reason for opening a review, the evidence considered and the resulting action. The initial sample did not prove a company-wide rate of bias, and we did not present it that way. I would ask management to show the limits of its conclusion alongside what it has corrected. That approach can support confidence without requiring a perfect result. It also recognises that an employment process may need improvement even where a particular outcome remains justified after careful examination.
My first year on a board
Before making recommendations, I would learn how the company's service model depends on different kinds of work and how directors currently receive people information. I would review the board calendar, committee remit and recent discussions with the chair and company secretary. With management's agreement, a small number of anonymised hiring or progression examples could help me understand what lies beneath the aggregate measures. I would ask how employees can question a decision and how directors learn about recurring concerns without taking over case handling. My first contribution might be a clearer account of one workforce risk, followed through to management's response. Twenty days is a proposed annual allowance including preparation and induction, subject to the actual calendar and employer consent. A major organisational event could require additional capacity, which I would assess before accepting the responsibility. I would also agree how the chair will review my contribution after the first year, including whether I have respected the boundary between oversight and operational advice.
Conflicts and their management
Mavqeri's customers, language partners and specialist recruitment relationships could overlap with a prospective board's business. I would disclose relevant connections early and seek advice about their significance rather than assume a different company name removes the conflict. Private employee information from my executive role would not be used to support arguments elsewhere. A seat that repeatedly excluded me from the company's central workforce decisions might offer too little useful contribution, even if individual conflicts could technically be managed. I would also examine any expectation that the appointment includes informal human-resources consulting or access to my employer's candidates. Those are separate relationships requiring their own consideration. Independence is a specific assessment of the proposed appointment and interests, not a quality established by a long career or a willingness to challenge a chief executive.
My independence statement
My employment and relevant personal and commercial relationships would need assessment for each proposed seat. Presenting people matters to directors does not establish independence or confer director status.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 20 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Language and knowledge services · Specialist technology operations · Professional services outside conflicting client relationships
- Company type
- Indian growth company with an experienced chair and a clear distinction between management and oversight
- Company stage
- Expanding specialist teams across locations
The seat I am pursuing
I am interested in an initial non-executive role where a company is growing specialist teams and wants stronger oversight of the assumptions behind its employment model. Knowledge services and technology operations are closest to my experience. I would seek a committee-member contribution before considering any chair responsibility, with eligibility and preparation assessed for the actual position. The company should be clear about what it expects a people leader to add to the full board, beyond occasional advice on recruitment. I have presented to directors but have not served as one, and my databank preparation remains incomplete. A suitable opportunity would acknowledge those facts and allow an orderly induction. I would decline a seat if its time demands, conflicts or expectations of operational intervention prevented me from making a properly independent and informed contribution.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Nomination and remuneration work subject to the appointment's eligibility requirements · People and organisational-risk committee |
|---|
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Databank registration and applicable proficiency preparation have not yet been completed. I would establish the requirements of the actual appointment and complete the necessary preparation before accepting it; no exemption is asserted.
- Internal discussions with the company secretary on the distinction between executive recommendations and board accountability
- Preparation on how remuneration and succession evidence should reach directors without disclosing unnecessary personal detail
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Mavqeri Language Technology
Board people and organisation discussions
April 2021–present
Invited executive presenter on employment processes, people expenditure and management capability; not a director or appointed committee member.