My contribution to a board
I would contribute an understanding of how an organisation decides that someone is ready to carry responsibility. A board sees appointment proposals, capability reports and policies, but those documents can hide the conditions required for the work to be done well. My experience helps me ask whether an assessment reflects the role, whether supervisors have the capacity to support new colleagues and whether an employment promise has a funded operating design. I would also ask how management explains exceptions without disclosing personal matters unnecessarily. These are questions about the system directors oversee, not an invitation for a non-executive director to adjudicate routine employee cases. My exposure so far comes from presenting to a board committee as CHRO. I have not exercised a director's collective responsibility and would need a proper induction into the proposed company's business and obligations. I would offer a defined people perspective while remaining willing to engage with the financial, operating and strategic questions that belong to the whole board.
Judgement in practice
01Testing whether the selection process served the role
The promotion exercise initially identified seventeen successful candidates from a group of 53. I did not infer that a disappointing result made the process wrong. We compared the tasks with the decisions a branch leader actually needed to make and found that extended written English was carrying more weight than the job justified. The revised exercise retained necessary written communication and used realistic service situations with a common rubric. All 53 candidates participated; 26 met the benchmark and fourteen were appointed after the remaining checks. Five of those appointments would have been excluded by the first format. In a board role, I would ask management to explain why its assessment predicts readiness for the responsibility being assigned. I would not select the candidates myself or prescribe a preferred outcome. The judgement I can contribute is recognising when a familiar measure deserves examination before it is used to decide who progresses.
02Accepting the cost of a consistent hiring standard
The senior referral was attractive because it might have filled an important vacancy quickly. When the candidate declined the agreed reference process, we had to choose whether the role's requirements still applied. I recommended ending the candidacy respectfully and continuing the search. The CEO accepted six more weeks of vacancy and ₹6 lakh in interim support cost. That consequence matters: a standard preserved only when it is convenient will not offer much guidance when an influential sponsor wants an exception. I would bring this distinction into oversight of senior appointments, asking what evidence supports the recommendation and whether an exception changes the risk being accepted. I would also protect the candidate's privacy. Declining a process is not proof of wrongdoing, and a board should not turn an incomplete appointment into a reputational judgement unsupported by evidence. The question is whether the company has enough information to make its own decision.
My first year on a board
I would begin by understanding the company's service model, ownership and delegated authorities before proposing changes to its people reporting. During an induction agreed with the chair and CEO, I would meet the operating and people leaders, examine the senior-selection process and learn how capability concerns reach the board. A small number of anonymised examples would be more useful than a large collection of confidential employment files. I would ask what directors are expected to decide and which matters remain with management. In committee work, I would look for evidence that appointment and development measures describe the responsibility at stake, rather than simply count completed activities. I would also want to understand how the company funds supervision and working arrangements it has approved. By the end of the first year, I would ask the chair whether my contribution had clarified decisions without drawing directors into daily administration. I would measure my usefulness through the quality of questions and collective decisions, not the number of HR initiatives I persuaded management to add.
Conflicts and their management
A role at another financial-services company could overlap with Dovareli through clients, recruitment, service providers or competition for senior employees. I would disclose those relationships and my current employment before considering acceptance. Confidential selection records, employee circumstances and internal organisation plans would remain with the company entitled to hold them. I would not use access to another board to influence recruitment for my employer or carry one company's private assessment of a candidate into another process. Personal relationships also need disclosure when they could reasonably affect a decision. A narrowly defined conflict may be manageable through the process advised by the chair and company secretary, but repeated exclusion from central discussions could make a seat unsuitable. My executive workload is a separate constraint. Twenty-two days is an indicative annual allowance including preparation, not an unconditional promise that I can absorb every additional demand. I would discuss likely exceptional commitments before accepting and revisit the position if my responsibilities materially changed.
My independence statement
My employment at Dovareli is an executive responsibility, not a board seat. Before any external appointment, my business, financial and personal relationships would need to be examined against the criteria applicable to that company. No conclusion about independence has been reached in advance.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Dovareli Securities
Board people committee
April 2022–present
Present capability, employment and senior-selection matters as CHRO; attend by invitation without membership or a directorship.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Not yet registered in the IICA Independent Directors' Databank. I would complete registration and the applicable learning or assessment requirements before accepting an independent appointment; no pass or exemption is claimed.
- People-committee paper reviews with Dovareli's company secretary
- Practice separating an employment case from the oversight question it raises
- Planned study of directors' duties, independence and committee responsibilities
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Nomination and remuneration · Risk oversight with a people-capability contribution |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 22 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Regional financial services · Business services · Adult learning and workforce development
- Company type
- An Indian service business whose board wants to examine management capability and the conditions supporting responsible work
- Company stage
- Professionalising management or expanding across regions and languages
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider membership of a nomination and remuneration committee or a risk committee where a people-capability perspective is useful, subject to the company's applicable composition requirements. I am not seeking a committee chair position for my first appointment. An employer's CHRO title does not itself establish independence, legal eligibility or readiness for every board responsibility. The company secretary would need to examine the relevant Companies Act criteria and any applicable SEBI requirements, including committee and directorship limits, against the actual proposed role and my circumstances. I have not yet registered in the databank, and the preparation needed for an independent appointment remains work to complete. I would also want to know why the board is seeking this contribution now, how it handles disagreement and whether its members have enough access to understand the business. I would prefer to decline an unsuitable opportunity than accept a nominal seat whose conflicts, timetable or expectations prevented me from exercising considered judgement.