Elaine Zerqnari · Chief Human Resources Officer · India
Ask what the workforce measure allows directors to conclude
My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine whether management’s people account describes an activity, a capability or an obligation that remains unfinished. My experience includes correcting a readiness label I endorsed, funding a task-sensitive workstation review and preserving unresolved role questions after an acquisition. Those are executive decisions, but they suggest useful oversight questions. Directors should know what a programme’s evidence supports, which colleagues or tasks were examined and what management must still provide. I would ask those questions without seeking access to every personnel file or directing individual employment cases. The receiving company needs its own executives, qualified advisers and appropriate employee consultation. My contribution should make the board’s understanding more precise and its resource decisions better informed, while respecting the confidentiality and dignity of people whose working lives sit behind the measures. I would also ask whether a senior sponsor’s own assumption can be challenged through the reporting process.
Judgement in practice
01
Completion could not carry the readiness claim on its own
The induction report described 112 completers as ready, but a practical exercise with forty selected adults found sixteen needing more support. I would ask directors what evidence links a people-programme result to the operating decision it is meant to support. Our repeat exercise left six people still receiving help, and the account retained them rather than claiming universal completion. The board should know that I endorsed the earlier label. A useful challenge concerns both the meaning of the measure and the resources required when the employer’s own programme leaves a gap. It should not turn directors into individual assessors or make the report a public ranking of colleagues. Management must retain the assessment and support responsibilities.
02
A familiar title did not settle an acquired role
The acquisition brought fifty-two colleagues and thirty-two role profiles. Twenty-two profiles had been evaluated and ten remained under review. I would ask a board whether management distinguishes the organisational work from individual employment matters and whether its reporting makes the remaining cases visible. A grade proposal does not by itself authorise a change to someone’s terms. Our programme included appropriate advice, consultation and a review route. Directors should understand the cost and time of that process without deciding each job’s evaluation themselves. My contribution would be to challenge an integration headline that assumes a common chart means the practical employment work has finished, and to ask who is accountable for the unresolved decisions.
My first year on a board
I would start by understanding how the receiving board hears about workforce capability and organisational change. With the chair and management, I would follow one people commitment from the original proposal through implementation and later review. I would ask which measures describe activity and which have a defensible link to the work people perform. Twenty-four annual days would be an initial capacity estimate to test against induction, reading, travel and exceptional demands, not only the published meeting schedule. I would seek feedback on whether my questions help directors understand the commitment or draw them into individual case management. A useful first-year contribution could make an unresolved workforce obligation more visible before it becomes a claim of improved productivity or culture. I would also learn how the board obtains specialist advice and hears relevant employee perspectives without compromising confidentiality or displacing executive accountability.
Conflicts and their management
My current role gives access to employee information, pay structures, organisation plans, acquisition assumptions and the priorities of our owners. An outside appointment must be assessed for connections involving Nerqvani, its founders, investor, service providers, acquired businesses and competitors. I would disclose relevant relationships before receiving confidential papers and obtain appropriate advice on eligibility, independence and committee participation. I would not carry identifiable employee cases or restricted reward plans into another board’s discussion, or use its people information to benefit my employer. Recusal may address a particular matter, but a role that repeatedly excludes me from its central workforce decisions may not be effective. Employer consent where required and realistic capacity are also necessary. I would decline an appointment whose intended contribution depends on information I cannot properly disclose or obligations that cannot be reconciled with my current employment.
My independence statement
I am an employed people executive with no shares or statutory seat. Any outside role needs a separate assessment of relationships, suitability and independence rather than an assumption based on that absence.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Nerqvani Outdoor Stores
Invited workforce and organisational-change reviews
April 2022–present
Presents capability, work-design and integration recommendations as CHRO; no statutory seat or committee membership.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Further preparation and registration relevant to a prospective independent appointment remain unfinished. Invited people presentations are executive exposure.
Studying how directors oversee workforce commitments without becoming an alternative people department
Preparing to assess employment-related conflicts, committee responsibilities and the evidence in people reports