Nikhil Sarvayan · Chief Human Resources Officer · India
I would bring a view of the employment assumptions inside a services company's growth plan. Revenue ambitions can depend on people joining, learning, moving between accounts or taking responsibility for unfamiliar work. A board should be able to understand which of those changes management has actually arranged and which remain expectations. My experience would help frame that discussion without taking over the allocation or development decisions that belong to executives.
The contribution is particularly relevant when a business describes talent as both its principal asset and its principal constraint. I would ask for a more precise account of the constraint. Is the issue capability, availability, a delayed release, an uncertain customer requirement or an employment proposition that the company cannot explain consistently? Those distinctions matter because the appropriate response may involve investment, a commercial decision or a change in management behaviour. Expanding recruitment is not a universal answer.
I also bring experience of correcting an incentive design I supported. The 2016 utilisation scorecard encouraged managers to postpone activities we expected them to undertake. That episode would make me attentive to the behaviour a board-approved objective could encourage below the executive level. I would not assume that a measure is neutral merely because it is clearly defined. I would ask management to explain plausible unintended consequences and how those would be monitored.
My experience is functional and executive. I would need to develop broader judgement through induction, preparation and working with experienced directors. I do not present myself as an audit chair, a legal specialist or a technical authority on customer systems. The board's collective capability should complement the particular perspective I offer. I have no current directorships and would approach an initial appointment as a responsibility to learn the whole enterprise, rather than an invitation to reproduce my executive role in another setting.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Nomination and remuneration committee
2019–present
Executive presentations on workforce commitments, management incentives and development investment; no committee membership or director appointment.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Nomination and remuneration committee, subject to mandate and suitability review |
I am interested in a first non-executive appointment at a technology or business-services company whose board would value a people perspective grounded in delivery economics. A business strengthening its management processes during growth or ownership transition could be a suitable context. I would prefer to begin with committee membership and structured induction, supported by directors with complementary financial, commercial and sector experience.
The proposition is conditional on the role, the company's circumstances and the applicable eligibility and independence review. My fictional databank preparation is one part of readiness, not an appointment credential that settles those questions. I would want to understand why the board needs my contribution and how it expects directors to work together. A clearly bounded opportunity to improve oversight would be more valuable than a title attached to expectations that remain vague. I would decline a role that required access to confidential material from my current employer or an amount of time I could not responsibly provide.
At the review of our 2020 transition programme, 232 of 312 employees had entered other client assignments and 36 had accepted external opportunities. Forty-four still needed an individual resolution. I asked for that final category to remain prominent in the executive and committee account. A favourable redeployment total did not settle the company's responsibility to those colleagues. We also retained the ₹8.4 Cr funding envelope in the discussion rather than presenting the result without its cost. The oversight lesson is that management should explain the unresolved part of an outcome, including who owns the next decision. I would bring that question to a board without asking directors to select individual assignments or intervene in confidential employment cases. Their role is to examine whether management has a credible process and an honest account of its limitations.
The 2024 customer delay affected 96 accepted offers. We retained the communicated joining dates and funded ₹2.7 Cr of interim employment and preparation. The decision required the chief executive and finance to consider a real cost against commitments already created. My recommendation was specific to that cohort and its circumstances. I would not ask a board to adopt an unconditional rule that every commercial delay should be handled identically. I would ask whether management knows when a staffing forecast becomes a promise to a person, how that promise is approved and what contingency has been considered. The later assignment of 74 colleagues to the intended work and 22 to alternatives was useful evidence, but did not eliminate the need to learn from the original approval process.
I would begin with the services company's operating model, ownership expectations and main sources of financial exposure. Understanding how work is sold, staffed, delivered and renewed would be essential before offering a workforce perspective. I would ask for the board calendar, committee responsibilities and the papers through which directors examine performance. I would also learn how the company receives employee concerns and how assurance reaches the board without relying solely on management's preferred summary.
Through agreed induction conversations, I would seek to understand the differences between delivery units rather than assume that one staffing model describes the whole company. With the chair, I would identify a limited area for an early contribution, perhaps the people assumptions in a growth plan or the interpretation of management incentives. I would prepare for that contribution and seek feedback on the quality of my questions. My first-year aim would be better-informed collective judgement, not a personal programme of operational interventions that bypasses the executive team.
My continuing employment creates relationships that would need careful review before I considered a board seat. Customers, competitors, recruitment markets, suppliers and investment interests could all matter. I would provide a complete account of relevant circumstances and obtain the necessary employer consent. Where a matter created a conflict, I would follow the company's agreed process and the requirements applicable to the appointment, including seeking advice where the boundary was unclear.
Confidential knowledge would remain confidential. I would not bring another company's staffing plans, pay information or customer commitments into a board discussion as though they were general industry evidence. I would also examine whether my available time was credible alongside my executive responsibilities. The stated twenty-four days is an initial annual allowance including preparation and travel, subject to the actual board and committee calendar. A major transaction or difficult period could require more. I would want that possibility considered before accepting rather than addressed through optimistic scheduling afterwards.
I would disclose my employment, financial interests and relevant professional relationships before any proposed appointment. I would want the company and its advisers to examine those circumstances against the requirements that apply to it. A different customer market or the absence of an existing board seat would not, by itself, settle independence or suitability.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Proficiency assessment passed
Alongside my executive work in 2025, I joined the IICA Independent Directors’ Databank and completed its online proficiency self-assessment successfully. That preparation does not establish eligibility, independence or suitability for a particular appointment; those require a separate review of the applicable requirements and circumstances.