Chief Human Resources Officer / India
A process improved without making every outcome certain
- Recruitment and people leadership
- 23 years
- Career starts July 2003
- Company employees
- 710
- Kollam and Palakkad operations
- People-function colleagues
- 24
- Four leads; ₹5.6 crore annual function expense
Decisions & consequences
01Paying for participation instead of counting the invitation
The ownership-briefing schedule was open to all employees in principle, but ninety-six shift workers could not attend the available sessions. The company could have reported that everyone had been invited and treated absence as a matter of personal interest. That would have confused a communication action with a practical opportunity to participate. I asked the team to examine the working patterns before drawing any conclusion from attendance.
Operations proposed recordings that employees could view outside the shift, protecting production time and avoiding repeated sessions. Employee representatives wanted an opportunity to ask questions within paid time. I supported sessions across three shift windows and proposed ₹26 lakh for coverage and facilitation. The CEO approved the expenditure with the operating implications visible. We accepted the cost and coordination required rather than assume that a recording supplied the same opportunity for a colleague with a question.
Eighty-two of the ninety-six attended the revised sessions. Fourteen still required another route, and we retained them in the follow-up account. Attendance did not establish agreement with the ownership arrangements or prove that every person understood them. The sessions also remained distinct from statutory employee representation and individual employment discussions. The appropriate governance owners retained responsibility for the trust's decisions; my function supported practical access without taking over that authority.
The decision changed the question I ask about participation. Instead of beginning with how many invitations were sent, I ask what conditions somebody needs in order to use the opportunity. A board considering employee ownership should understand that practical access can require paid time and operating cover. It should also see the people still outside the process after a change. The result was a more usable route for a defined group, with residual work acknowledged. It was not a claim that a different timetable had created consensus, improved productivity or completed every obligation associated with shared ownership.
Moving seven performance reviews away from their original assessors
We examined eighteen disputed performance decisions after employees questioned whether the review route was genuinely separate from the original assessment. In seven cases, the proposed reviewer had already participated in that assessment. A different meeting and a different label would therefore have left the same person examining a decision they had helped make. The concern was about the relationship within the process, not a presumption that any original outcome was wrong.
Some managers wanted to retain the route because the proposed reviewers knew the work and could explain the assessment quickly. I accepted the value of their knowledge but did not consider it sufficient to resolve the conflict. We reassigned the seven reviews through an agreed internal route and approved ₹19 lakh for case-handling and training work. The eleven other cases retained their route after examination. Reassignment did not itself decide the merits of a complaint, and no outcome is invented here for the underlying employment cases.
The change required additional time and preparation. Original assessors could provide relevant evidence, but the capacity in which they contributed had to be clear. The reviewer needed authority to examine the account rather than merely repeat the earlier explanation. We also clarified that an ownership role did not automatically give someone authority to decide another employee's performance dispute. Applicable employment processes and appropriate advice remained necessary; the internal example is not a statement of universal legal sufficiency.
My lesson was that a review route should be tested through the actual people involved. Organisation charts can make roles look separate while informal participation reconnects them. I would ask directors whether management knows who shaped the original decision and how the reviewing role is protected from simply defending it. The board should oversee the integrity of the process without deciding individual assessments itself. A credible route can reach a result either party dislikes, but it should make the responsibility and evidence clear enough that disagreement is not dismissed as a failure to understand the original answer.
Correcting the explanation of a proposed profit pool before it became a pay expectation
The company discussed a proposed ₹2.8 crore discretionary profit pool in an employee briefing. An understanding exercise with 120 participants found that sixty-four interpreted it as an addition to fixed monthly pay. The proposal's conditional nature and its approval process had not been explained clearly enough. I did not want ownership enthusiasm to create a recurring-pay expectation that the proposal itself did not establish.
The communications team suggested a short written clarification so the original announcement could stand without reopening every conversation. Managers and employee representatives argued that the distinction needed discussion, especially for colleagues planning household spending. I supported revised explanations and manager conversations, with ₹22 lakh for preparation, sessions and follow-up. Finance and the appropriate governance bodies retained authority over the proposal and any eventual distribution. Our communication work did not approve a payment or change base pay.
In the repeat exercise,103 of 120 participants distinguished the proposed variable pool from fixed monthly pay; seventeen still needed assistance. We kept those seventeen in the result rather than report the communication as universally understood. The exercise did not establish that every employment or trust requirement was satisfied. It measured a narrower question about what participants believed the proposal meant. The remaining conversations needed to preserve that boundary and avoid replacing one overconfident message with another.
The case taught me that clarity about ownership-related benefits is part of the people function's responsibility even when the financial decision belongs elsewhere. A conditional proposal, an approved distribution and dependable recurring pay are different states. Directors should ask whether the company's language makes those states understandable to the people affected. A favourable announcement is not successful merely because it receives an enthusiastic response. If colleagues rely on a meaning the company did not intend, the communication has created an obligation to correct the account carefully, with time and cost attached to that correction.
Keeping peer popularity alongside demonstrated supervisory readiness
Twenty-six employees applied for supervisory opportunities. In an employee-trust-owned business, peer regard carried considerable weight and some colleagues proposed selecting mainly through peer preference. That approach could recognise cooperation and credibility within the workforce. It could also leave technical judgement, difficult feedback and responsibility for a shift insufficiently examined. I wanted the selection process to use the value of peer knowledge without asking it to answer every question about readiness.
Plant manager Devraj Nertheli and qualified operating colleagues defined observed tasks and assessed the relevant work. HR coordinated a process combining that evidence with peer feedback and structured discussions. The programme cost ₹34 lakh, including assessor preparation and time away from ordinary assignments. Operations initially preferred a shorter nomination route to fill the vacancies quickly. I supported the fuller exercise and accepted the additional time, with the assessment boundaries stated rather than implying that HR could certify technical capability through an interview.
Eight applicants met the assessed readiness standard. Five received appointments to available vacancies, and three remained eligible for later opportunities. Eighteen received development feedback. Eligibility was not presented as a promise of a future appointment, and the five appointments were not treated as proof that all future supervisory performance would be successful. The distinction between readiness and a current vacancy helped explain why a capable applicant might not receive an immediate role.
The lesson was to keep different kinds of evidence visible. Peer respect matters, but it should not erase the responsibilities attached to supervision. Equally, a technical exercise should not make colleagues' experience of working with a person irrelevant. A board can ask whether management's selection process reflects the actual role and gives a clear account to people who do not progress. It should not choose individual supervisors. My contribution was to make the appointment basis more defensible and the remaining development needs explicit, accepting that a credible process could take longer than a popular nomination.