From coordinating candidates to examining the firm's promises

Mandate

Align employment practices and commitments with the professional judgement the consultancy sells

Outcomes

• Replaced previous-client recruitment files with a common fictional exercise
• Corrected the appraisal account for necessary assurance work
• Limited bid staffing names to supported participation
• Separated accepted offers from vacant-position planning

Decisions in context

I became CHRO in January 2022 and now lead seventeen HR colleagues through three leads. My ₹2.9 crore FY 2026–27 operating responsibility is separate from the ₹1.1 crore approved change programme. The consultancy employs 430 people, operates seven offices and recorded ₹137 crore FY 26 fees; it owns no generation capacity. Anita leads the enterprise and Dev retains technical authority with qualified engineering owners. I helped replace recruitment requests for previous client work, corrected an appraisal measure I had endorsed and examined commitments made through bid biographies and accepted offers. The resulting decisions retained costs rather than convert every correction into a savings claim. I have no statutory seat or shareholding, including through either ownership vehicle. My board presentations concern workforce and professional-service practices, not approval of engineering findings. An outside contribution would require employer consent and a different discipline from executive HR management, including willingness to let the chair and fellow directors define where my experience is useful.

Reason for the move

Current appointment; considering a first outside board contribution

Mandate

Connect hiring, appraisal and deployment with the firm's actual professional and employment commitments

Outcomes

• Brought hiring and deployment assumptions into a shared management discussion
• Worked with specialists to distinguish HR process from engineering competence
• Developed broader responsibility for the consequences of workforce measures

Decisions in context

The head-of-people appointment began in July 2016, with thirteen colleagues through three leads and ₹2.1 crore annual expense. Velqemi then employed 270 people across five offices and recorded ₹78 crore fee revenue for FY ending March 2017. I became responsible for the relationship between recruitment, appraisal and deployment rather than one stage alone. Technical managers needed capable people for real assignments, while commercial teams wanted confidence about the staffing they could offer. I learned to examine where those plans implied a commitment an employee or candidate had not yet made. I also became attracted to the apparent consistency of common performance measures, a preference I later had to reconsider when chargeable utilisation obscured assurance work. This period did not give HR authority over engineering acceptance or client contract terms. It gave me responsibility for helping the relevant owners see the people consequences together. Promotion to CHRO widened that account to the executive team and board presentations, where a concise report needed to preserve distinctions instead of hide them.

Reason for the move

Promoted to chief human resources officer

Mandate

Support technical hiring and deployment while preserving specialist responsibility for competence

Outcomes

• Connected appointment discussions with the actual work to be performed
• Distinguished a specialist's experience from supported assignment availability
• Learned the limits of HR authority in an engineering service

Decisions in context

I joined Velqemi in September 2009 after twelve years in staffing services. The consultancy had 120 employees, three offices and ₹31 crore fee revenue for FY ending March 2010. Nine colleagues worked through two leads within ₹1.2 crore annual operating expense. My job was to help technical managers make employment and deployment decisions on an appropriate basis, while qualified engineers retained the assessment of competence and work scope. I saw that a professional biography could describe useful experience without establishing availability for a particular client assignment. I also learned that HR's desire for a consistent process should not erase meaningful differences between technical roles. The business needed clear responsibility for each judgement rather than a single function claiming to settle everything. Moving into the head-of-people role brought a wider view of the same relationships, including how appraisal and commercial staffing claims could reinforce or undermine the care taken during recruitment. I carried forward the habit of asking what had actually been agreed before a plan was described as ready.

Reason for the move

Promoted to lead the people function

Mandate

Match recruitment schedules with authorised client needs and the commitments already made to candidates

Outcomes

• Separated client staffing requests from authorised appointments
• Recorded changes affecting candidate start arrangements
• Developed a fuller account of the people behind a resource schedule

Decisions in context

I became resource manager in June 2003. Qelmuri had ninety-five employees and ₹17 crore for FY ending March 2004. Eight colleagues worked through two supervisors, with ₹63 lakh annual function expense and separate approval for larger client commitments. The role required more than matching a requested headcount with available names. A candidate might already have resigned, planned a move or agreed a family arrangement around the dates being discussed. Changes that looked minor in a client schedule could therefore carry consequences outside it. I worked with senior colleagues on how to distinguish a request, an approved offer and an accepted commitment, without making legal conclusions from a spreadsheet category. I also learned to preserve uncertainty where a client had not yet settled the role. Joining Velqemi moved me from coordinating staffing for other organisations to helping one employer sustain its own professional workforce. The earlier experience remained useful whenever a later commercial or budget plan tried to treat people as interchangeable slots.

Reason for the move

Joined Velqemi to work inside a professional engineering organisation

Mandate

Support candidate communication and maintain an accurate account of the recruitment stage

Outcomes

• Distinguished experience claims from evidence appropriate to request
• Learned to keep assessment outcomes separate from employment offers
• Worked under senior review without promising appointments independently

Decisions in context

I completed psychology in June 1995 and HR management in June 1997 at Tazqavi College of Social Studies, then joined Qelmuri the following month. The firm employed forty people and recorded ₹5 crore for FY ending March 1998. I worked in a seven-person delivery group without staff or budget authority. Senior colleagues approved client commitments and appointment communications. My early work involved understanding what stage a candidate had reached and ensuring the next conversation did not imply a decision nobody had yet made. I also encountered the difference between discussing experience and requesting documents a person might not be entitled to share. At that stage I did not design assessment policy or decide technical competence. I learned to ask when a request needed review rather than pass it on because it sounded routine. Promotion to resource manager added people and operating responsibility, but the underlying question remained useful throughout my career: what is the firm actually entitled and prepared to promise at this point?

Reason for the move

Promoted to resource manager