My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine whether employment practices support the professional judgement its business relies on. My experience connects staffing coordination, people partnership and executive HR responsibility in a power-engineering consultancy. It has taught me to look at what performance measures omit, what a named staffing promise implies and when a planning assumption has become a commitment to another person. I have no statutory board experience, and presenting to directors is not equivalent to holding their responsibilities. My contribution would need complementary financial, legal and sector expertise. I would seek to improve management's account of these decisions while leaving technical acceptance, individual appointments and employment processes with their responsible owners. The useful board question is whether the business model and its people practices can be defended together, not whether I can reproduce my current company's HR arrangements elsewhere.
My first year on a board
I would start by learning how the company earns its fees and which professional obligations its employees carry. Through agreed induction, I would examine a small number of hiring, appraisal and staffing decisions from the initial proposal through the commitment made. One should be a case management reconsidered, because the correction can reveal more than a polished success. I would ask the chair where my experience could help and where another director or specialist should lead. I would review how board reporting distinguishes employee numbers, available capacity, accepted offers and future plans, without requesting unnecessary personal records. Contact with managers would follow the board's agreed arrangements. During the first annual cycle I would seek evidence that my questions improved the explanation of incentives and commitments rather than add another operating approval step. I would welcome feedback if I was importing an engineering-consultancy assumption that did not fit the company's actual model.
Conflicts and their management
Velqemi's senior-professional vehicle, family investor, employee vehicle, clients and staffing suppliers may overlap with a proposed company's interests. I would map those relationships and seek Anita's consent before receiving private material. Having no shares does not remove the interest created by continuing employment or access to confidential workforce and client records. I would not carry candidate assessments, employee biographies or commercial staffing assumptions into another board's discussion. Where a conflict could be managed, disclosure and appropriate withdrawal would need to be agreed and recorded; where it would repeatedly exclude me from the central work, the role may be unsuitable. Qualified advisers should confirm independence, eligibility, applicable committee and directorship limits, and continuing requirements for the actual appointment. My provisional twenty-four days must be tested against preparation, travel and exceptional events as well as meetings. A useful appointment needs both freedom to contribute and sufficient time to understand the decisions being made.
My independence statement
I do not describe myself as independent of an unidentified future company. My employment, professional relationships and the proposed company's connections require a specific assessment before an appointment.
Judgement in practice
01Owning the management use of an arithmetically correct measure
I had supported the chargeable-utilisation measure used to assess twenty-four reviewers. Of 1,600 hours, 1,180 were chargeable and 420 assurance; 73.75% was mathematically correct but incomplete as an account of contribution. A ₹32 lakh programme changed the appraisal discussion while retaining scrutiny of quality, cost and capacity. I would ask a board to examine which necessary obligations its incentive system makes inconvenient to perform. I would also resist treating every assurance hour as self-evidently valuable. Technical owners need to assess the actual work, and directors need enough context to understand the tension without managing individual reviews. My own earlier support for the measure belongs in the account because it explains the judgement that had to change.
02Keeping a bid opportunity separate from a supported people promise
The proposed ₹4.6 crore engagement named fifty-two colleagues. Thirty-one confirmed the defined participation, twelve declined and nine remained pending. After ₹18 lakh of process repair, the commercial team submitted a narrower proposal rather than assume agreement from silence. I would bring the distinction between broad capability and supported availability to a board discussion about professional-service growth. A proposal's value is not revenue already secured, and a refusal to join one assignment is not proof of weak employee commitment. The board should see the commercial inconvenience and the limits of what management can promise. Appropriate technical and commercial owners must still decide whether the resulting team can deliver the proposed work.
03Separating accepted offers from positions that remain only in a plan
When demand changed, twenty-eight candidates had accepted offers. Eighteen starts continued and ten required a separate conversation about the proposed deferral. The ₹24 lakh support envelope led to eight supported arrangements and two other agreed resolutions, with legal and employment specialists examining the actual terms. I had initially approached the revision too much as a headcount exercise. Directors should ask which commitments already exist before treating a workforce change as one aggregate cost reduction. The separate ₹1.2 crore vacancy proposal was not a realised cash saving from accepted offers. Agreement to an arrangement did not establish that nobody was inconvenienced. I would want the commercial reason, the individual process and the retained cost visible without turning one company's solution into a general employment rule.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Nomination and remuneration committee after remit, competence and appointment-specific review · Risk or people committee examining professional-service incentives |
|---|
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Velqemi Power Studies
Board workforce and professional-practice reviews
January 2022–present
Presents people practices and workforce commitments through the CEO; no statutory seat, committee membership or director's vote.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 24 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Specialist engineering and advisory services · Knowledge-intensive businesses with material employment commitments · Professional firms outside significant client or ownership conflicts
- Company type
- A company whose board combines professional, financial and legal judgement with scrutiny of its people practices
- Company stage
- Revising incentives, professional staffing commitments or a growing employment model
The seat I am pursuing
I am interested in one professional-services or knowledge-intensive company whose board wants to examine the relationship between commercial growth and credible employment practice. A nomination and remuneration role could be relevant after competence, remit and appointment conditions are confirmed, but I do not offer prior chair experience. The company would need a clear reason to use my perspective alongside other expertise. My assessment completion is a preparation milestone, not permission to skip the company's own review. I want an appointment in which management remains responsible for individual people decisions and directors can ask whether the overall incentives and commitments support the service being sold. Employer consent, a realistic calendar and relationship checks are necessary before that conversation becomes a nomination.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Proficiency assessment passed
Fictional IICA databank registration in August 2025 and proficiency assessment passed in June 2026. Continuing requirements and the actual appointment conditions still need confirmation; the result is not a blanket eligibility finding.
- Executive presentations on workforce decisions since January 2022
- Fictional IICA proficiency assessment completed June 2026 after August 2025 registration
- Practising the distinction between board scrutiny of incentives and executive management of individual employment decisions