Yeshi Qelzani · Chief Human Resources Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Nomination and remuneration committee membership after eligibility, preparation and the board's needs are assessed · A people or organisational-risk committee examining capability, employment arrangements and management evidence |
I am looking for a first appointment with a clear need for people and organisational judgement, sufficient induction and complementary expertise around the table. I do not claim readiness to chair a statutory committee immediately. A nomination and remuneration or people-focused committee could be relevant after the chair and advisers assess eligibility, competence and the company's requirements. I would need to complete the applicable proficiency preparation and confirm the status of my fictional July 2026 databank registration in any real appointment process. Twenty-four days is a planning allowance, not an unconditional availability promise. It must include preparation, meetings, travel and exceptional events, with employer consent and current duties considered. The opportunity should allow me to contribute thoughtfully to shared decisions while continuing to learn the broader responsibilities of a director. I would rather define that fit carefully than accept a seat on the strength of a title alone.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Registered
This fictional leader registered with the IICA databank in July 2026. The proficiency assessment remains unfinished and no exemption is claimed. Registration alone is not evidence of appointment eligibility, independence or suitability.
I would help a board examine how the organisation distributes the cost and responsibility of its work. A recruitment arrangement can leave applicants paying, a reimbursement cycle can depend on employees' cash, and a career structure can push specialists into management roles the enterprise does not need them to take. These are operating choices with people consequences, not merely policy wording. I would ask management to explain the affected population, the alternative, the funding and the evidence for its claimed result. My experience also includes correcting arrangements I had supported, which matters when a board needs an honest account of how a problem developed. I have presented to directors but have not shared a statutory appointment. I would bring this perspective alongside other disciplines and learn the receiving company's context rather than assume that its employment model should reproduce the one I know.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Executive presentations on people, organisation and employment matters; no committee membership
February 2021 onward
Presents through CEO Prakash Qavzuri and answers directors' questions on the people account. No statutory seat, director vote or committee appointment is implied.
Eleven recruits supplied evidence of ₹2.2 lakh in charges, while the wider supplier relationship remained under review. I recommended reimbursement before contractual recovery was settled. The decision accepted a company cash cost and paused a recruitment route rather than making employees wait for a commercial dispute. At board level, I would use that experience to ask whether management has distinguished immediate remedy from investigation and recovery. The board should know what the evidence supports and what remains unresolved. It should not infer that the other 31 recruits were unaffected simply because they were outside the initial documented group. My contribution would be to question the completeness and meaning of the account, not to take over individual claim verification or direct the legal review. A useful oversight discussion preserves both timely action and the limits of the evidence.
The listening proposal would have shown small service-point and role groups, including some with fewer than five responses. Managers wanted local detail so they could act. I supported broader reporting and controlled access while requiring a practical response to the themes that remained. For a board, the lesson concerns the purpose and use of employee evidence. Directors can ask whether the detail is necessary, whether the explanation to employees matches the process and whether management follows through. They should also see that 534 respondents did not represent the views of all 780 invitees. I would avoid presenting a reporting change as proof of trust or anonymity. The judgement was to give up some managerial convenience because the added exposure was not justified by the decision benefit, while retaining an accountable route to action.
Three of five eligible credit professionals chose newly defined specialist roles, supported by an annualised ₹28 lakh pay increase. Two preferred another path. I would bring that case to a board as evidence of a career-design choice and its cost, not as proof that five departures were prevented. The questions concern the professional contribution the company needs, the responsibilities attached to the role and the way authority remains governed separately. A higher grade cannot silently become permission to make larger lending decisions. A board can challenge the structure and its economic rationale without allocating individual grades. My experience would help keep the discussion connected to the work rather than to an attractive launch count, while leaving assessment and appointment with management and the appropriate professional owners.
My first year would begin with understanding the enterprise's business model and workforce before proposing familiar solutions. I would discuss with the chair how the board receives people evidence, how committee responsibilities are divided and which matters need escalation beyond normal management reporting. Site conversations would be arranged through the agreed induction process, not used to create a private reporting channel to me. I would examine how workforce numbers relate to actual responsibilities, how employment costs are classified and how management tests the consequences of its arrangements. I would also learn the company's financial and risk context so that people questions are connected to enterprise choices rather than treated as a separate moral commentary. Later reviews would ask whether promised actions have occurred and whether the original measure still answers the intended question. I would seek feedback on my contribution and adjust where executive habits were interfering with collective oversight.
Before considering confidential papers, I would disclose relationships arising through Veqnuri, its ownership, borrowers and service providers, together with relevant personal interests. A prospective company might have connections that are not obvious from its trading name. The review would need qualified advice on the actual circumstances and the rules applicable to the appointment, including relevant Companies Act and listing requirements where they apply. I would not present absence of a shareholding as a complete independence conclusion. Where a matter could be managed through disclosure and recusal, the arrangement would need to be workable in practice; where the conflict undermined the role, declining could be the appropriate answer. I would also protect employee and borrower information from my executive work. A board discussion should benefit from experience without receiving confidential records that the new company has no right to see.
No personal holding and no current statutory appointment do not determine independence. Veqnuri's founding-family interests, institutional investor, borrowers, recruitment providers and other counterparties require a specific relationship review for any proposed seat.