As manufacturing undergoes rapid transformation driven by automation, digitalisation, AI and evolving workforce expectations, organisations are being challenged to rethink how they attract, develop and retain talent. For industrial companies, the conversation is no longer limited to technology adoption; it is equally about building future-ready talent, strengthening leadership pipelines, fostering continuous learning and maintaining strong employee relations in an increasingly dynamic environment.
In this edition of HR Perspectives, Sushil Baveja, CHRO, Jindal Stainless, speaks on the changing talent landscape in manufacturing, the importance of nurturing leaders from within, creating cultures where employees feel safe to speak up, and why learning must be integrated into everyday work rather than treated as a separate activity. He also shares his views on diversity, engagement, managerial effectiveness and the delicate balance between consistency and flexibility in HR decision-making.
Preparing talent for the future of manufacturing
Manufacturing is undergoing a significant transformation with automation, Industry 4.0 technologies, AI-enabled operations and data-driven decision-making becoming increasingly common. At the same time, the sector continues to face a shortage of skilled technical talent. How is Jindal Stainless preparing its workforce for this transition? When hiring and developing talent today, what capabilities do you believe will matter most over the next five to ten years?
The perspective I find more useful is not whether to hire for today’s skills or tomorrow’s but whether the person in front of you has the willingness and ability to keep learning. In a manufacturing organisation, technical depth matters of course, but it can be progressively built. What cannot be easily developed is curiosity, adaptability and the willingness to be a beginner again when the context changes.
At Jindal Stainless, “future-ready” is not a hiring profile but a mindset that we are trying to cultivate continuously. We are regularly investing in building collaborations and partnerships with the best of the institutions and consulting organisations to support the talent in acquiring skills and competencies that can take the organisation to the next level of scale and size and not just meet the operational outcomes of today. Some of the notable names that we partner with include IIM Bangalore and Xavier School of Management (XLRI), amongst many others.
What ‘future-ready’ means in manufacturing, specifically, is people who can work alongside technology without being threatened by it, adapt to evolving requirements, complexities and challenges, and bring judgment to situations where the playbook does not yet exist. ‘Future ready’ also means talent that takes ownership of one’s own development, looks at the big picture and not just the here and now situation, and partners actively in the various strategic interventions.
Nurturing leaders vs. borrowing them
Manufacturing organisations often rely heavily on technical expertise and institutional knowledge built over decades. As Jindal Stainless continues to expand and modernise, how do you balance developing leaders from within with bringing in external talent who can introduce fresh perspectives and specialised capabilities? What factors influence that decision?
It is a strategic call for any organisation to take and Jindal Stainless is no exception. The real question is, ‘Which capabilities are core to our future identity and which capabilities do we need to source externally?’. We at JSL have a clear preference for nurturing and building a talent pipeline of leaders from within because it helps safeguard institutional or technical knowledge, provides opportunities of fulfilment of career aspirations and facilitates the continuity of leadership, alongside culture.
When you bring in a senior leader from outside, you are not just filling a role; you are importing assumptions, and a way of seeing the world that may or may not fit your organisation’s context and that can be a risk. The exception in getting leaders from outside is when there is a serious vacuum within with no readiness of internal talent and speed is critical. Other situations where external borrowing or buying comes into picture is when we need external thinking or disruption and when new age capabilities are emerging rapidly, such as digital, AI, analytics, sustainability or specialised transformation expertise is required.
A good majority of the leaders that we have today are home-grown leaders, a testimony to the above approach. We continue to build talent from within and have a sharp focus on identify and nurturing talent through a structured process of talent development. We regularly run Career Capability Centres and Parivartan programmes in partnership with some of the best HR consulting firms.
Ensuring psychological safety in Indian workplaces
In manufacturing environments, employee voice is not only a culture issue but also a safety and operational imperative. How do you encourage employees across plants and functions to raise concerns, share ideas and challenge existing practices without hesitation? What role do leaders play in fostering a culture of openness and trust?
The need to be heard, to raise a concern without fear, and to contribute an idea without it being dismissed — these are universal human needs. What differs is how organisations create the conditions for them, given different cultural starting points.
In our experience, it begins with visible, consistent responses to what people raise. At Jindal Stainless, our townhalls and internal platforms are not performative. When employees raise questions or concerns, we respond — always. An unanswered query is not desirable and it tells people whether speaking up is actually worth their while.
Building cultures where employees can share contrarian perspectives or challenge assumptions is a journey that begins at the leadership levels where they need to role model behaviours of vulnerability and openness. The cascade is then easier and people down the line then emulate the same.
When leaders are accountable for the kind of culture they create for their teams, the incentive to foster openness is real and not just aspirational. Nobody reached anywhere without questioning and innovating, and allowing hesitation and silence to breed within organisations is equivalent to letting moulds fester in houses.
Building learning cultures, not just programmes
Introducing learning programmes is not the same as being a learning organisation. How do you create a culture where continuous learning is embedded into day-to-day work, especially in operational environments where productivity pressures are high? What are the biggest blockers?
The difference between a learning programme and a learning organisation is simple: one happens in a room, the other happens every day. We try hard to build the second.
Building learning as a cultural capability is a progressive process. It requires an enabling ecosystem. It has to begin with the commitment of the top leadership and at JSL we have a strong sponsorship of our managing director, Abhyuday Jindal. Our learning interventions have moved beyond episodic training to continuous capability creation. Each learning intervention, be it classroom or online, is followed up by on-the-job application of learnings, action learning projects and a learning journey that is regularly tracked and reviewed. Employees are encouraged to create an Individual Development Plan after each performance cycle, which is then tracked by the line manager and HR.
Our digital learning platform, WeLearn, provides curated learning pathways, and a mobile-enabled intuitive interface to make development easier, more accessible, and meaningful for the learner. It offers Artefacts – a vast repository of open-source content including articles, videos, TED Talks and more, ranging from bite-sized learning nuggets to hours of in-depth learning that’s available on the go. We have Work Integrated Learning Programme (WILP) tie-ups for employees with leading institutions to pursue BTech, MTech and MBA courses. These are well curated and customised to the needs of the business for easy relatability and application at work. We also offer R&R Programmes designed to appreciate and recognise learning behaviours at work. Additionally, there is PMS process that gives due consideration for initiatives on self-development, reskilling and upskilling.
The biggest block to learning cultures is not time or budget but the belief, often unspoken, that learning happens outside work and productivity happens inside it. Breaking that belief requires leaders who model curiosity themselves, who ask questions openly and credit good ideas wherever they come from. In operational environments, the pressure is real but organisations that separate learning from doing will always struggle. The ones that integrate the two are the ones that improve continuously.
Going beyond the engagement survey
Employee engagement scores have become an obsession, yet many organisations still struggle with retention and performance. What’s wrong with how we measure engagement? Are we asking the right questions, or merely measuring satisfaction instead of commitment and discretionary effort?
Engagement surveys have become a ritual, and like many rituals, they can be performed without real intent. The problem is not measurement itself but what we choose to measure and what we do with the data. Most surveys are designed to produce a score and they are easy to report. What they do not always capture is whether people are genuinely invested in the organisation’s success or simply content enough to stay.
Employee-engagement surveys alone cannot be relied upon as the only source of truth. They need to be supplemented well by other initiatives and programmes such as the stay interviews, focussed group discussions, townhall meetings, regular manager conversations and some informal engagements. Together, these can provide very useful insights and perspectives.
Are people raising real issues or only safe ones? Are managers responding in ways that build trust or close it down? Are people staying because they want to contribute, or because they have not yet found a reason to leave? These questions are harder to put in a survey, but they are the ones that actually matter.
Preparing managers for leadership
People often say employees leave managers, not companies. Yet, organisations continue promoting strong individual contributors into leadership roles without adequately preparing them. How do you identify who will make an effective people manager, and how do you build managerial capability at scale?
This problem persists in organisations because we have not been honest enough about what makes someone a good manager. Being excellent at your own work and being effective at enabling others to do theirs are genuinely different skills. One does not automatically lead to the other.
We have a robust process in place when we consider promotions. Performance is just a qualifying criterion. Any employee who gets recommended for a role change or promotion is subjected to a comprehensive potential assessment using a psychometric tool, High Potential Traits Indicator (HPTI), followed by a Cross Panel Interviews (CPI) along with external experts and senior leaders who assess the potential of an individual to take up higher responsibilities.
We also conduct role transition programmes for first-time managers (i-Step Up), manager’s managers (Step-Up 1), functional leaders (Step-Up 2) and business leader (Step-Up NXT) to support a smooth and seamless transitioning of managers and leaders from one responsibility level to another. These programmes are undertaken annually, along with an external partner, at the end of every performance cycle. They have a learning journey of 6-8 months, well supported by professional trainers and mentors.
Offering equal opportunity
“We’d love to hire more diverse candidates, but the pipeline isn’t there” is a common refrain across industries. In manufacturing, when is this a legitimate constraint, and when does it become an excuse? What has your organisation done to actively build more diverse talent pipelines?
Sometimes it is a genuine constraint. In manufacturing, certain functions have historically not attracted diverse talent, and the structural reasons for that, from how institutes are perceived to how factory environments have been designed, are real. While the constraint cannot be dismissed, the pipeline argument is kind of overused at times as a reason to avoid the harder work.
If you are waiting for the pipeline to change before you change your practices, you will wait indefinitely. Pipelines follow demand. When organisations signal consistently and credibly that diverse talent will be welcomed, valued, and given real opportunity, not just as a symbolic inclusion, the pipeline does respond.
Things are changing and one gets to see diversity ratios, in general, improving from where they used to be earlier.
At Jindal Stainless, we position ourselves as equal-opportunity employers and welcome diversity across all functional domains and units. We have made deliberate choices: in how we design roles, how we communicate opportunities, and how we build environments that retain women and underrepresented groups once they join. Our gender-diversity ratio has significantly gone up and is tracked regularly as a KPI by the HR team and leaders, alike. Our factory units today show a good diversity presence. Our CII HR Excellence recognition in 2026 reflected, in part, our sustained work on building people-centric and inclusive systems. There is more to do, always.
Investing in employer-employee relationship
In industries with a strong employee relations legacy, how do you balance progressive people practices with collective frameworks and business realities? How has the relationship between management and employees evolved over the years, and where do you see the greatest opportunities for partnership?
The relationship between management and employees, whether in unionised or non-unionised environments, is healthiest when it is built on a foundation of genuine respect, care, trust and faith. Collective frameworks exist for a reason. They reflect a history of workers needing representation, and that context does not disappear because business environments change.
What has evolved significantly, in my experience, is the nature of the conversation. The discussions that matter most today are not just about wages and conditions – they are about how work is changing, what skilling the workforce needs to stay relevant, and how the business can grow in a way that takes people along. That is a richer conversation, and it requires a relationship where trust has been built over time.
At Jindal Stainless, our employee-relations philosophy is grounded in transparency and consistency. We are equally invested in both our white-collared and blue-collared workforce in terms of opportunities to learn, grow and contribute. People respect organisations that are honest about challenges and involve them in finding solutions. That is where the greatest opportunity for partnership lies — not just in managing the relationship, but in genuinely investing in it.
Living with the trade-off
Every CHRO faces difficult trade-offs—speed versus inclusivity, consistency versus flexibility, cost versus capability building. What’s the one trade-off you grapple with most often, and how do you navigate it?
One of the competencies that HR leaders need to have, as per Dave Ulrich, is the ability to navigate paradoxical situations and like any other leader I have to navigate through such situations almost every other day. Some trade-offs are easy and some not so.
The trade-off I sit with most often is between consistency and flexibility. Consistency matters enormously. It is the foundation of trust, fairness and credibility. When people feel that rules apply equally to everyone, the organisation earns credibility. But one has to be a little sensitive of the fact that rigid consistency, applied without judgment, can be its own form of injustice. Different people, different circumstances, different contexts – sometimes what looks like flexibility is simply good sense. It is very important to keep in mind that flexibility is exercised carefully and not as arbitrary discretion.
The way I navigate it is by being very clear about what must be consistent — principles, code of conduct, policies and processes, values. These are the basic commitments the organisation makes to its people. Additionally, one has to be more fluid about how those principles are applied in practice. The non-negotiables do not move but the path to upholding them can look different in different situations.
People generally accept variation or deviation when they understand the reasoning. What they cannot accept is arbitrariness, rules being bent to favour a few. So, the work is always to make the thinking visible – to explain not just what the decision is but why it was made that way. While this does not resolve every tension, it does keep the relationship intact even when the answer is not what is hoped for.
Fairness is not about pleasing everyone — it is about consistency and making the reasoning visible.