Leadership review
Peter Mavrelan
Chief Human Resources Officer · India
Highlights
40 years
Manufacturing people experience
Continuous career from July 1986
34
People-function colleagues
People remit through five heads, funded by ₹8.6 crore of yearly function expense
820
Employees in the enterprise
Hosur and Belagavi; company scale, not Peter's direct reports
A letter from Peter Mavrelan
A people policy is a commitment someone else may build a life around. I want its scope to survive the change from a factory conversation to a group presentation. I once approved an attendance award that treated authorised leave as evidence against reliability. Later, I learned to examine who could make a commitment on behalf of an employer, what an overseas assignment meant on return and whether permission to speak internally also covered a public campaign. Clarity must reach the person affected, not merely the approving committee.
The attendance award was meant to recognise reliability. By the end of its three-month assessment in 2016, it had excluded 104 people, including 68 whose only absence was approved leave. I had supported the rule as head of people operations at Zevrashi Industrial Valves. The approval record was available, but the award treated a permitted absence as evidence against the colleague. We stopped before making awards and retained ₹18 lakh of design and administration cost. My mistake was not simply choosing an inconvenient threshold. I had allowed an attendance measure to say more about reliability than it could support.
Peter Mavrelan
Chief Human Resources Officer
Strategic priorities
01
02
03
04
Performance
Priority outcome 01
In 2016 I endorsed an attendance-recognition scheme while leading people operations. Its three-month review excluded 104 colleagues, including 68 whose only absence had been approved. The proposal described the award as recognition for reliability, but its calculation treated authorised leave as evidence against that quality. I had reviewed the simplicity of administration more carefully than the meaning of the exclusion. The approval record did not disappear; the programme simply failed to distinguish it in the conclusion it drew about a person. We stopped before awards were made. The ₹18 lakh spent on design and administration remained a cost of a programme we did not proceed with. I owned the original endorsement and explained why the rule could not support the recognition claim. We did not quietly change the name of the award and continue using the same list. Nor did the discovery about 68 colleagues establish that excluding the other 36 was correct. Their circumstances still needed examination rather than being validated by subtraction. The decision required a conversation with managers who had prepared for an event and with employees who had already heard its purpose. A cancelled ceremony could be explained as inconvenience, but the more important correction concerned what we had said about approved absence. I wanted the explanation to retain that substance. The example does not settle every legal entitlement or prescribe a universal attendance policy; the actual employment arrangements and professional advice remain relevant. The outcome was a stopped award, an acknowledged design error and a clearer requirement for any replacement proposal. It was not a measured improvement in attendance or employee trust, and the cost was not recovered by changing the rule. I now ask what an exclusion will communicate before approving a people measure. If the answer conflicts with a commitment the employer has already made, ease of administration is an insufficient reason to proceed.
Priority outcome 02
After the overseas parent acquired 70% of Zevrashi in 2020, group expectations began to enter employment discussions through several channels. In 2021 we identified six decision areas where the relationship between a parent recommendation and an employer decision needed clarification: hiring, remuneration, conduct, redeployment, learning and exit arrangements. Eleven proposals were held while the allocation was examined. I had become CHRO and reported to our CEO, with functional coordination to the parent's people director. That reporting description was useful, but it did not answer every approval question. We undertook a ₹39 lakh programme to document who proposed, reviewed, approved and communicated decisions, with qualified assessment of the actual arrangements. The work separated a group objective from the authority to commit the employing enterprise. It also required us to identify what employees would be told and by whom. A centrally prepared presentation could support a proposal without becoming an instruction that a local manager had no authority to issue. The difficulty was not simply obtaining a more detailed chart. Parent colleagues wanted consistency; local managers needed decisions they could act on; employees needed an accountable employer rather than a series of referrals between functions. We worked through those practical concerns while retaining the formal review. I did not present subsidiary status as a universal legal answer, and the documented allocation could not replace the approvals required in an individual case. The eleven holds prevented ambiguous proposals from moving forward as settled commitments during the review. The programme's cost and documentation do not establish a permanent absence of error. Its value lay in making responsibility discussable before communication reached the workforce. My board-level lesson is to ask whether institutional authority follows the decision all the way to the person affected, especially when a familiar group title creates an impression of power broader than the arrangement actually supports.
Priority outcome 03
Eighteen colleagues returned from two-year overseas assignments in 2023. Ten resumed the roles agreed for their return. Four accepted different roles after their original positions had ceased. Two remained in bridging work while a longer-term placement was unresolved, and two left voluntarily. A summary that called all eighteen completed assignments successful returns would have erased the distinctions that mattered most to the people involved. The departure arrangements had been more developed than the process for changes during the assignment. We established a ₹68 lakh bridging and transition programme over twelve months. It was a programme budget, not evidence that the entire amount had been spent or that every colleague had secured an agreed permanent role. The four people who accepted different positions had a different experience from the ten who returned as planned. The two in bridging work needed continuing attention; a temporary allocation could not be relabelled as closure merely to improve the report. The practical work connected the sending business, the host team and the manager responsible for the return. We reviewed individual arrangements with the relevant professional support rather than infer one entitlement from the word assignment. We also changed what a new proposal needed to explain about return expectations, changed circumstances and responsibility for an open case. That did not mean promising that a future organisation could never change. It meant giving the colleague a clearer account of the process that would apply if it did. I retained the two voluntary departures in the outcome account without claiming to know every personal reason behind them. The case shows a programme that exposed unfinished obligations, not a universal verdict on international mobility. For oversight, I would ask directors to distinguish a movement completed on a calendar from a commitment completed for a person. The unresolved return deserves the same visibility that the original opportunity received when the assignment was approved.
Priority outcome 04
In 2024 a comparison for three proposed international moves used a foreign annual salary on one side and Indian fixed pay on the other. Relevant variable pay, employer retirement contributions, housing and insurance were not consistently included. Converting the headline amounts into one currency made the table look comparable without making its scope equivalent. I challenged the conclusion that the packages were the same in economic terms, rather than treating the conversion as sufficient evidence for an employee's decision. The three moves were paused for individual assessment. We incurred ₹27 lakh in advice and analysis to reconstruct the relevant package components and explain the assumptions. A component paid by the employer is not automatically cash available to the employee; a variable amount is not necessarily received; housing and insurance can have different practical meanings in different circumstances. Those distinctions needed to remain in the explanation rather than disappear into a single reassuring total. We did not claim that the new analysis could establish universal net-pay equivalence. Individual circumstances, actual terms and qualified tax or employment assessment were still required. Nor did the pause mean that all three opportunities were unattractive or permanently cancelled. It meant that the available comparison did not support the statement being made about them. The employees needed a more intelligible account before deciding whether the move fitted their circumstances. The ₹27 lakh was a cost of rebuilding the advice, not a saving or a measured retention benefit. The case changed how I review the employee-facing summary of a mobility proposal. A total can be mathematically tidy while its components answer different questions. HR should make the comparison usable without borrowing certainty from the currency conversion. At board level, the question is whether the organisation is allowing a simple presentation to carry a promise that the underlying analysis has not established.
Priority outcome 05
Seventy-two employees contributed to internal learning interviews in 2025. A later campaign proposal selected twenty clips for external use. The original participation did not establish specific permission for that new audience and purpose. I asked that all twenty clips be withheld while the proposal was reconsidered. The colleagues had offered accounts of their work to one setting; it was not appropriate to let the availability of attractive footage decide what else their words would represent. We budgeted ₹31 lakh for replacement production rather than proceed on an unverified assumption. That was an approved production budget, not a statement that every rupee had been spent. The twenty clips had not been published through the proposed campaign. We also did not describe the decision as evidence that all 72 interviewees refused publicity. Their views on a different use had not been established by the original interviews, which was precisely the gap the proposal needed to respect. The work required a clear division between the content team's wish to tell a good story and the employee's opportunity to understand a different use. Professional review remained necessary, but the human conversation could not be reduced to finding a convenient form. A manager needed to explain the proposed audience, the context in which a clip might appear and the practical choice being offered. Internal participation should not silently become an expectation of public endorsement. The outcome was a withheld set of clips and a replacement-production decision. It does not establish a measured increase in trust or a legal conclusion applicable to every interview. I carry the case into governance discussions because employee voice can be made to serve an institutional purpose beyond the one the speaker understood. Directors should ask how an organisation knows that a contribution still belongs in the context in which it is about to be used.
Stakeholder voices
Peter kept the eleven held proposals focused on who could make the employment commitment. He did not let an ambiguous group instruction become something a manager had to explain after the fact.
The return-assignment account kept the two bridging cases open rather than treating every completed trip as a completed placement. That gave operations a clearer responsibility for what still needed a decision.
Outlook
An award I approved turned authorised leave into a judgement about reliability. Cancelling the event was easier than acknowledging the meaning we had allowed a simple measure to acquire.
Read the essayEighteen returning colleagues did not have one common outcome. A mobility programme needs to retain the unfinished return as carefully as it records the opportunity to leave.
Read the essayFollowing an ownership change, eleven proposals exposed uncertainty about who could commit the enterprise. Functional alignment and employment authority needed to be explained separately.
Read the essayAn invitation
I would explore a first outside-board role where industrial workforce experience and cross-border people judgement could complement existing skills. I have no statutory seat or equity. My fictional preparation records IICA registration in April 2026, with the assessment unfinished and no exemption. Twenty-two provisional days would require a realistic workload assessment, employer consent and qualified review of relationships before any commitment.
office@petermavrelan.example