My contribution to a board
I could help a board examine whether the organisation's employment choices support the professional contribution it asks for. An enterprise may commission internal review, describe expertise as valuable and then use a career measure that primarily sees billable time or the number of people managed. I would ask management to explain the connection between the work required, the evidence used in assessment and the responsibilities offered in progression. The question is about the coherence of the system, not a request for directors to decide individual ratings from incomplete public information.
My contribution includes the limitation shown by the appraisal framework I endorsed. I accepted a convenient commercial measure until a technical colleague made the omitted responsibility visible. The correction required a review and a specific cost. That experience would make me attentive to the people affected by a broad programme claim, including those whose cases remain unresolved. I would bring it as evidence of judgement developed through correction, rather than proof that my own preferred framework should be imposed on another enterprise. Qualified owners must still determine technical competence and the professional obligations of its work.
Judgement in practice
01A career proposition with a funded alternative
The principal-role decision involved nineteen professionals and three different positions at review: eight technical-role choices, seven management-route choices and four still considering. I would ask directors to understand the work each route requires and the recurring cost of supporting it. The ₹56 lakh annual addition did not buy extra people-management capacity or prove a retention benefit. Those limits belong beside the recommendation. The board should be able to examine whether management has connected its capability needs with the role proposition, while leaving individual professional assessment with the appropriate owners and avoiding the assumption that every experienced employee should want the same next responsibility.
02A client request that requires an employment response
The eleven-request review separated substantive issues for follow-up, unsubstantiated personal pressure and unfinished enquiries. I would ask how management gives a fair response while retaining the customer's legitimate concern and the professional owner's authority. A staffing move should not quietly become a performance conclusion without the relevant process. Equally, hearing an employee does not establish that the assignment should remain unchanged. Directors need an account of the response system and its material consequences, with personal details protected. The purpose is to examine whether commercial urgency has displaced the employment judgement, not to conduct individual investigations through a committee paper.
My first year on a board
My first year would begin with the enterprise's actual professional and commercial undertaking. Through an induction agreed with the chair and management, I would seek to understand which capabilities the company depends on, how responsibilities are assigned and where technical authority sits. Familiar people terminology can hide different work. I would want to hear how operating and professional leaders describe contribution before assuming that a model from survey services fits another business.
I would examine a few substantial people decisions through their original purpose and subsequent account. Who was included? What changed for them? Which cases remain open, and what evidence supports the claimed result? That review should preserve privacy and avoid turning a board member into an alternative manager for individual concerns. Appropriate employee or site conversations would require agreed channels and permissions. I would ask the chair for feedback on whether my questions help the board understand capability and responsibility without taking over execution. A first appointment should build informed participation, rather than produce activity simply to demonstrate that an experienced executive has joined.
Conflicts and their management
My executive role brings contact with professional founders, an employee ownership vehicle, investors, clients, recruitment providers, advisers and technical-service partners. I would disclose relevant relationships and personal connections when considering another enterprise. A prospective appointment could involve competing commissions, recruitment or an acquisition where those relationships matter. Some circumstances may require restricted participation; others may make the role unsuitable. I would not assume that disclosure alone resolves every conflict or that having no personal shareholding removes the need for examination.
Time is another constraint to assess honestly. Twenty days is an initial annual estimate, including preparation and travel, with exceptional events capable of changing the demand. The proposed role must be considered alongside the current executive calendar and any employer permissions. I would rather decline an opportunity whose requirements cannot be met than treat an attractive availability number as a substitute for capacity. The nomination discussion should have enough information to reach that conclusion if appropriate, including the preparation that remains unfinished and the practical demands of learning a new enterprise.
My independence statement
I am an executive employee of Zaqvermi and hold no personal equity or statutory seat. I would not claim independence from my employer. Any proposed outside appointment needs examination of relevant employment, financial, client, investor, professional and personal relationships under applicable Companies Act criteria, including section 149(6), and relevant SEBI LODR requirements. Committee composition and directorship limits require review for the actual company. The absence of an equity holding does not settle independence, and disclosure or recusal must follow the appropriate assessment rather than a general assurance in a biography.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
The fictional preparation record shows IICA Independent Directors' Databank registration from August 2026. Proficiency-assessment work remains unfinished; no pass or exemption is asserted. Appointment-specific requirements and the current evidence must be checked before this preparation status is treated as adequate.
- I am learning to examine management's people recommendation collectively rather than carrying my executive decision authority into a board discussion.
- Preparation includes financial reporting, relevant appointment requirements and the relationship between professional accountability and employment systems.
- I want to develop questions that preserve employee privacy while making an unresolved programme consequence visible to directors.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Nomination and remuneration oversight where appropriate to the company's requirements · People and enterprise-capability risk oversight within an agreed board remit |
|---|
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Zaqvermi Asset Surveys
People and enterprise-capability review through the CEO
May 2021–present
Presented acquisition-recognition, principal-role and client-interface recommendations through Farhan. This is management exposure to directors, without statutory membership or committee chairmanship.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Zaqvermi Asset Surveys
Appraisal correction account through the then CEO
2018
Explained the framework I had endorsed, the twenty-eight-record review and resulting pay correction. Presentation did not appoint me to the board or transfer technical assessment authority to HR.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 20 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Professional infrastructure-service enterprises · Technical advisory employers · Regional businesses integrating professional teams
- Company type
- A company with qualified professional leadership and directors willing to examine how employment decisions affect the contribution they seek
- Company stage
- An enterprise reviewing professional careers, acquisition integration or the employment implications of commercial expansion
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider a first board role in a professional, technical-service or infrastructure-related enterprise where the people system is a material part of capability. I am interested in how the company recognises judgement, develops responsibility and responds when a commercial request has employment consequences. I am not offering immediate committee chairmanship or claiming to replace professional, legal or financial specialists. The board should identify a contribution that can be tested against the specific experience in this profile, including its limits.
Before accepting, I would need the applicable preparation, independence, eligibility and relationship reviews for that company. I would also want a clear account of the chair's expectations and the boundary between oversight and management. The transition deserves care: being able to recommend a people decision as CHRO does not automatically establish the same effectiveness in a collective board. This fictional readiness statement keeps that unfinished work visible. It is intended to support an informed conversation about suitability, rather than present a public page as if it completed the appointment assessment.