Chief Human Resources Officer / India
The time and cost behind a defensible choice
- Colleagues across the business
- 620
- Dovareli Securities; March 2026
- Regional offices
- 27
- Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
- People-function colleagues
- 31
- Led through four functional heads
Decisions & consequences
01Funding the preparation the completion report concealed
In September 2024, a group of 84 new colleagues had completed the entry requirements relevant to their respective roles. The recruitment plan assumed that they would move into normal assignments together. Our role simulations told a less uniform story. Twenty-nine needed further practice in recognising the boundary of an instruction, explaining an escalation or recording a client interaction. These were internal capability observations, not findings that a person lacked a particular statutory qualification. Compliance confirmed the credential position separately for each role.
The operating heads wanted the planned deployment to proceed because existing teams were carrying vacancies. They proposed learning through normal work. I asked them to identify the supervision that would make that proposal credible. Several offices could not provide it without withdrawing experienced colleagues from other responsibilities. Sending a learner to an office did not create the capacity to supervise that learner. We therefore separated the 55 colleagues ready to proceed through the normal authorisation process from the 29 who required additional preparation.
I proposed six more weeks of coached practice, with a planned cost of ₹18 lakh for trainers, supervised exercises and the associated arrangements. The CEO approved that provision after operations accepted the effect on its staffing timetable. We retained the same role expectations and gave each participant specific feedback. The purpose was not to keep repeating an exercise until everyone passed. Each reassessment would inform an individual deployment decision, and restricted work remained subject to the required qualifications and operating permissions.
The immediate result was an approved preparation plan and a delayed assignment for part of the intake. I did not report the budget as a saving or claim that the intervention had prevented a particular client loss. We had chosen to spend more and wait longer because the evidence did not support the original timetable. For subsequent intakes, the staffing paper included supervised learning capacity alongside the recruitment count, so directors could see whether the business had provided for people becoming ready as well as people joining.
Changing what a promotion exercise actually measured
In June 2025, 53 colleagues entered a branch-leadership promotion exercise. The first format placed substantial weight on extended written answers in English. Seventeen met its benchmark. When the assessors compared those scores with observed work, several capable colleagues appeared to have been filtered out by the presentation format. We needed to investigate that discrepancy without assuming that every unsuccessful candidate had been treated unfairly or that language requirements could simply be removed.
The learning team and operating heads mapped the role's actual decisions. A branch leader needed to explain processes to local clients, review records, handle an uncertain request and communicate an escalation clearly. Some written English remained necessary for records and coordination. A long essay under timed conditions was not the only way to test those capabilities. We designed service situations in the languages used by the relevant offices, retained the required written tasks and used a common scoring rubric. Assessors compared sample responses before evaluating candidates.
Some managers objected that changing the format after an initial result would look like lowering the standard. I agreed that a selective second chance would be difficult to defend. The revised exercise therefore applied to all 53 candidates, with its purpose and criteria explained in advance. Twenty-six met the revised benchmark. Fourteen were appointed after the remaining role and vacancy checks; five of those fourteen would have been excluded under the first format. Passing the assessment did not itself create a vacancy or confer appointment.
We accepted the additional assessor time and a delayed promotion timetable. We also retained the records of both exercises so that the change could be examined rather than described as an unqualified success. The decision was to assess capability more faithfully, not to promise a particular distribution of results. Managers subsequently had to explain how an assessment task related to the work before reusing it, rather than treating the familiarity of the format as evidence of its suitability.
Giving a return-to-work promise an operating budget
Nine employees returning from extended leave asked for predictable early work blocks during their transition back. Their circumstances differed, and we did not require them to disclose unnecessary personal details to justify examining the work. The existing policy encouraged managers to consider flexibility, but it did not explain who would cover a later handover or how that cost should be approved. Several managers interpreted the absence of a budget as a reason to refuse every request.
I asked people partners and operating managers to review the nine roles individually. Seven could support a six-month pilot if specified later tasks were covered and the handovers were documented. The additional cover required an annualised budget of ₹9.6 lakh; that figure described a full-year cost rate, not expenditure already incurred during a six-month trial. Two roles could not support the proposed hours because essential work remained tied to a later process. Those employees needed a discussion of different patterns or roles rather than a misleading approval.
The COO was concerned about creating arrangements that depended on colleagues informally working longer. I shared that concern and made funded cover a condition of the seven pilots. We agreed the work allocation, the manager responsible for reviewing it and the points at which service or staffing problems would be discussed. The employees knew that the arrangement was a pilot with a defined review, not an assurance that every future request would receive the same answer.
The company accepted an additional cost instead of presenting flexibility as free. It also accepted that two requests remained unresolved in their original form. My team recorded the reasons at the level needed for a fair process without circulating private circumstances more widely. The useful outcome was a workable trial and an accountable response to every request. We did not infer improved retention or productivity from approval alone; those questions required evidence over time and could not erase the operating constraints that shaped the decision.
Leaving a referred senior appointment unfilled
During a senior operations search in 2025, a candidate was introduced through a connection to the promoter family. The introduction gave the candidate access to the process and helped us understand their interest. It did not replace the agreed evidence requirements. After initial discussions, the candidate declined to complete the reference process established for the role. They were entitled to withdraw, and we had no basis for turning that choice into an allegation about their character or previous work.
The business sponsor wanted to make an exception because the vacancy was affecting management capacity. A family representative also asked whether the introduction should provide enough confidence to proceed. I explained that the company had specified the checks because of the role's responsibilities, not because it distrusted this particular applicant. Removing them would leave the appointment dependent on an assurance that could not be examined through the usual process. I recommended closing the candidacy respectfully and continuing the search.
The CEO supported that recommendation. We retained the candidate's privacy, recorded that the required process had not been completed and avoided speculation in the wider organisation. The vacancy remained open for six additional weeks, with ₹6 lakh of interim support cost incurred. That amount and the management burden belonged in the account of the decision. A hiring standard that directors are unwilling to fund when inconvenient will be difficult for the people function to maintain consistently.
This case was not a campaign against referrals. Referrals remain a useful way to meet candidates whose experience may fit the business. The distinction was between an introduction and a completed appointment assessment. I wanted both the sponsor and the people team to know that a respectful refusal was possible when the evidence remained insufficient. The company accepted a delay rather than convert personal influence into an undocumented exemption, while leaving the candidate free to make a different choice about participation.