Chief Human Resources Officer India

What changed after we examined our assumptions

Four function leads: 26 HR staff; ₹4.7 crore FY27 expense; ₹1.6 crore people programme separate
Six owned, four managed: 10 estates; 680 direct employees; tenant and contracted workforces excluded
People services and estate work: 30 years; July 1996 entry; CHRO since January 2022

Decisions & consequences

Removing the household assumption from a scarce housing benefit

In 2022 forty-eight colleagues applied for the company's voluntary leased-housing programme. Twenty-nine passed the initial eligibility rule; nineteen were excluded because their circumstances did not fit its family-status and primary-earner conditions. I had endorsed that rule during an earlier policy review. It appeared to give administrators an objective first step before they considered accommodation need. In practice it allowed us to avoid the difficult allocation question by excluding people for a reason we had not connected adequately to the benefit's purpose.

Some managers wanted to keep the rule because the housing stock was limited and a wider process would disappoint more applicants. I accepted that a revised policy could not create enough units for everyone. I did not accept that this justified retaining an unrelated assumption about a household. We removed the condition, reopened all forty-eight applications and used a needs review with a clear explanation of the available accommodation. Appropriate employment and property advice informed the arrangements; we did not treat a new HR form as a legal conclusion about housing rights.

Forty applicants completed the revised review and eight withdrew. Twenty-two accepted unit offers, while eighteen remained on the waiting list. The company leased twenty-six units, but four required physical adaptation and were not available for this allocation. We kept those four out of the available count instead of making the programme appear larger by listing every lease as immediately usable. Existing residents were not displaced to improve the new allocation result. The annual lease commitment was ₹54 lakh, with ₹11 lakh spent on the review and administration redesign.

The outcome was a more relevant basis for allocation, not a complete answer to employee housing needs. We retained the waiting list and did not interpret a withdrawal as proof that the applicant no longer needed help. Nor did we collect a detailed private family financial history simply to replace one intrusive condition with another. I acknowledged my part in the original design and asked that future eligibility rules state how each requested fact relates to the purpose served. A scarce benefit requires an honest limit. It does not require the company to invent a narrow picture of the person whose need is allowed to count.

Keeping five workplace-adjustment requests open after the programme announcement

A 2023 programme examined eighteen requests from our employees for changes to workplace access or working arrangements across owned and managed estates. Some involved physical adaptations; others concerned how the work could be organised. The initial programme account grouped completed consultations together with implemented changes. It therefore made progress look more complete than the employees' experience supported. I asked that each request retain its actual stage and a responsible person, without publishing private health or personal details in management reports.

Meera Velqomi and the appropriate property and operating specialists examined the proposed changes. At managed estates, some decisions also required the separate owner's agreement. Managers wanted a consistent deadline for closing the programme. I supported a clear timetable for decisions but resisted treating an ownership boundary or an unfinished technical review as a completed refusal. Our responsibility as employer required a continuing response, including consideration of other workable arrangements where the first proposal could not yet proceed. The actual legal and technical questions required qualified advice for the particular circumstances.

The approved programme was ₹84 lakh. Seven requests reached implemented physical adaptations and six reached agreed working arrangements. Five remained unresolved at the review date. Those categories accounted for all eighteen requests, but they were not a ranking of the quality of the outcomes. A working arrangement could be appropriate where it met the person's needs and the work's requirements; a physical change could still need follow-up. HR did not certify a building or declare a medical outcome. Relevant specialists retained assessment and acceptance responsibilities, and employees remained part of the discussion about whether an arrangement was useful.

The board received the five open cases alongside the thirteen implemented or agreed arrangements and the full approved cost. That was less tidy than announcing a completed access programme. It was also more faithful to the decisions still required. I would establish those reporting distinctions at the beginning next time, before activity measures acquire the status of outcomes. The case taught me that consultation is necessary but insufficient. A colleague should not disappear from a programme's account because the organisation has completed its meeting while the practical question of access remains unanswered.

Reopening two consultation forums whose representatives managers had chosen

In 2024 we introduced voluntary employee consultation forums at six estate locations. I reported the rollout as complete after each forum had a representative and a meeting schedule. A subsequent review showed that employees had selected representatives at four locations, while managers had nominated them at two. The nominees were respected colleagues, but that did not answer the question of who had authorised them to speak through this particular route. My completion measure had counted occupied positions without examining the basis of representation.

The two managers argued that nomination had allowed the forums to begin quickly and that the chosen colleagues already understood the operation. They worried that reopening selection would suggest those people had done something wrong. I agreed that the individuals should not be blamed for a process management had designed. I nevertheless asked that employees at both locations receive a genuine selection opportunity, with the purpose, limits and method explained. We funded facilitated selection, paid participation time and manager preparation at a total cost of ₹14 lakh.

After the revised process, all six forums had employee-selected representatives. The two earlier nominees could participate on the same basis as eligible colleagues rather than receive an automatic entitlement to remain. These were voluntary consultation arrangements. They did not replace recognised representation channels, statutory committees or any process required for a particular issue. We made those boundaries clear so that the new forum would not become a convenient reason for management to redirect every concern into a route with insufficient authority.

The corrected selection method was a necessary improvement, not proof that employees now trusted every discussion. Managers still needed to respond to matters raised, explain what they could decide and carry unresolved questions to the appropriate owner. We did not publish identifiable comments or use the absence of complaints as a success measure. Some concerns may never belong in an open group. I took responsibility for the earlier completion claim and changed the review to examine participation and management response as well as the meeting calendar. A listening arrangement becomes credible through the freedom to choose a voice and the quality of the answer that follows; the existence of six meetings alone had established neither.

Requiring a reason for sameness in the workplace dress rule

In 2025 thirty-seven employees asked for variations to a formalwear rule inherited from head office. The requests concerned different garments and personal preferences; we did not classify people's private identities from what they asked to wear. The rule used a broad idea of a consistent professional appearance across estate offices and client-facing work. It had not adequately distinguished an office preference from requirements associated with a particular operating task. I asked that the actual role become the starting point for review.

Some managers believed a common appearance made the company easier for clients to recognise. Meera Velqomi raised a separate and legitimate concern: certain duties required protective equipment or conditions that HR could not alter through a general policy. I kept those arguments separate. A qualified operating assessment could establish a necessary requirement; a familiar head-office image did not establish the same necessity. Employees received an individual response process, with relevant specialists examining technical questions and no demand for unnecessary disclosures about religion or personal circumstances.

Twenty-four requests were approved. Nine required further role-specific technical assessment, and four awaited clarification from the employee about the proposed variation. Review, sample garments and manager preparation cost ₹19 lakh. The nine pending technical cases were not recorded as refusals, and the four awaiting clarification were not treated as a lack of commitment. We retained applicable protective requirements while exploring appropriate options with qualified owners. HR approval could not certify that a change was suitable for a task whose conditions had not yet been assessed.

The result was a narrower and more explainable rule, with individual work still unfinished. We did not claim that every employee felt included or that the review established universal legal compliance. Managers had to spend more time explaining a requirement instead of pointing to a single photograph in a policy. I regarded that as part of the cost of making the rule relevant. Next time I would ask each policy author to identify what work the restriction protects and what evidence supports it. A professional workplace needs dependable conduct and appropriate protections; it should be able to explain when it genuinely needs people to look the same.

Discuss a leadership challenge