Shahid Dezqemti · Chief Strategy Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Strategy committee after induction · Risk committee where planning experience complements specialist expertise |
I am interested in a first outside seat where investment alternatives and organisational capacity need careful discussion. A strategy committee could draw directly on my experience, while a risk committee would require induction and complementary specialist knowledge. I do not claim readiness to chair either committee at the outset. My current record is of executive presentations and recommendations, without statutory board service, databank registration or completed proficiency assessment. Those facts should remain clear to a nomination committee considering the example.
The twenty-one-day availability figure is provisional and includes the work around meetings. A real appointment would require examination of the company calendar, travel, preparation, learning and exceptional demands alongside my executive responsibilities. I would want the chair to describe where my judgement adds something distinct and where another director's expertise is stronger. The opportunity should justify the obligations of collective responsibility, rather than merely extending my public profile. These fictional details illustrate the questions an actual candidate would need to substantiate before seeking an appointment.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Registration and proficiency assessment have not begun. No exemption or appointment eligibility is asserted.
I would bring a habit of separating the choice being made from the ambition attached to it. A portfolio paper may contain several individually credible proposals whose benefits cannot all be added together or whose demands cannot fit the same review calendar. My contribution would be to ask how those relationships affect the recommendation, without taking over the responsibilities of finance, insurance specialists or management. The experience is relevant where directors need to understand what they are being asked to approve, what remains conditional and what a smaller selection would give up.
I would also bring an account of an error for which I was responsible. In 2018 I supported a combined benefits figure before testing overlap adequately. That experience matters more to my proposed board contribution than a claim that I always challenge assumptions successfully. It taught me to recognise the point at which the strategy function's own presentation can conceal a decision. I have presented such matters through the CEO, but I have not served as a statutory director and would need to learn the responsibilities of collective oversight in that capacity.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Board strategy and investment discussions, through the CEO
2021–2026
Presented portfolio capacity, conditional growth and investment continuation recommendations; no statutory seat or delegated board vote.
When finance and operating colleagues identified ₹9 crore counted twice in the 2018 annual benefits model, I had to withdraw a figure I had supported. The complete three-programme estimate became ₹27 crore instead of ₹36 crore. The board's eventual two-programme selection, with ₹28 crore proposed capital, required its own assessment rather than borrowing the complete portfolio's benefits. I would use that experience to question whether the numerator and denominator in an attractive investment account refer to the same option. The ₹38 lakh review expense belonged in the consequences of the correction. It was not offset by an invented cash recovery. As a prospective director, I would want to hear both the sponsor's recommendation and the qualified challenge that changed it, then understand what the approving body was actually committing to after the alternatives had been revised.
The 2022 proposal required 110 specialist weeks where 72 were available. Recommending seven initiatives at 68 weeks, with four weeks held in reserve, meant explicitly deferring four proposals that represented 42 weeks. I would bring that distinction to oversight of a change portfolio: approving a larger list does not create the expertise needed to assess it. Nor can a strategy function decide that professional review should become lighter to make its plan fit. The choice had a cost, because deferred sponsors lost time and some preparation would need revisiting. A board discussion should keep those consequences visible while asking whether management has proposed a credible combination. I would look for the actual skills and periods involved, the treatment of continuing duties and the conditions under which a deferred initiative should return for consideration.
The broker-service platform had incurred ₹7.2 crore and was estimated to need another ₹6.8 crore to finish after its expected benefit had weakened. A closure route required ₹1.1 crore, with existing service maintained separately. I recommended the stop decision while retaining the expenditure already incurred and the work required to close. I would not treat this as an example of recovering sunk money or automatically saving the whole unspent completion estimate. For a board, the useful questions concern what each remaining option delivers, what must still be funded and who owns obligations that survive the project's end. I would also ask management to distinguish stopping a technology programme from ending an insurance or service responsibility. An orderly decision has to recognise those boundaries rather than letting a project label determine the fate of continuing commitments.
My first year would begin with the company's decision process and the responsibilities attached to it. I would read selected past proposals alongside the later decisions and results, asking where the board's conditions were recorded and how management revisited assumptions. I would listen to finance, operations and specialist owners before proposing a new way to present their work. The point would be to understand how a number acquires authority in this enterprise, not to impose the format used by my current employer.
I would ask the chair what contribution is expected from me, which areas need further learning and how dissent is handled when the underlying facts remain uncertain. Early committee work would be as a member, with preparation and induction included in the capacity assessment. I would avoid making promises about chairing a committee before gaining the necessary experience. Progress would mean a better understanding of the company's choices, relationships and obligations, including matters outside my strategy background. It would not be measured by the number of processes I could replace or the visibility of my interventions.
My 0.2% holding sits within Qevzenti's employee ownership vehicle. The insurer's financial investor, industrial parent, commercial relationships and my continuing executive duties could all be relevant to a proposed appointment. I would disclose the relationships needed for a proper assessment before receiving protected board material. A small percentage holding does not settle the question, and the absence of a current directorship does not establish independence. Qualified advice would be needed on the actual company, role and applicable requirements.
I would examine whether a conflict could be managed without removing me from so much of the agenda that my contribution became ineffective. Employer consent and the ability to maintain confidentiality would also matter. Programme papers, acquisition assumptions and specialist assessments from my employment would not become material I could share with another board. If the role depended on transferring that knowledge in an unauthorised form, or demanded more availability than I could responsibly provide, I would decline. The enquiry should test the fit rather than presume that a familiar designation makes the relationship suitable.
Independence cannot be inferred from this fictional profile. Employment, the 0.2% equity interest, investor and parent relationships, commercial connections and the proposed appointment would require case-specific qualified review.