HR Perspectives by Rajesh Jain: “High-potential employees don’t need investment—they make their own way”

Manufacturing presents a peculiar challenge for human resources: people must be treated as valuable capital whilst simultaneously being managed as cost centres. Unlike service industries where inefficiency might be absorbed, manufacturing margins are unforgiving. Every rupee of human capital expenditure must justify itself through throughput and productivity.

Rajesh Jain, President and CHRO of Welspun Living, operates within these constraints daily. His perspective is shaped by the realities of industrial operations—where “first-time right” isn’t aspirational language but operational necessity. In conversation, he articulates why learning agility matters more than technical depth, why genuinely high-potential employees largely develop themselves, and why communication failures cause more organisational damage than strategic missteps.

Fungibility over expertise

Technical skills depreciate rapidly. Are you hiring for today’s capabilities or tomorrow’s learning capacity?

Future-ready talent is fungible and demonstrates strong learning agility. That’s the profile we prioritise, regardless of level. Everything changes—perhaps within six months—so we seek candidates who combine current technical competence with the capacity to continuously learn.

The specific skills someone possesses today matter less than their demonstrated ability to acquire new ones quickly. In manufacturing, where processes, technologies and market demands shift constantly, adaptability isn’t optional. It’s the baseline requirement.

“Succession planning is glamorous. Listening well is underrated—but far more powerful”

The attrition equation

Beyond compensation, what are the less obvious reasons talented people leave?

Attrition is primarily a function of demand and supply. When market value for talent rises, attrition follows. When demand softens, people stay. This isn’t complicated.

Certain irritants can trigger departures, but if market conditions are favourable and someone leaves purely for money, there’s little you can do—and frankly, shouldn’t try. Money will always be the top reason, and that’s legitimate.

What you can influence is whether people feel valued. I’ve observed that employees who feel genuinely valued by their manager and their manager’s manager will tolerate lower compensation. The moment someone feels unvalued, that becomes the trigger.

Engagement isn’t entertainment—it’s about making people feel their contributions matter. That’s where retention battles are won or lost, market conditions aside.

“High-potential employees don’t need investment—they create their own opportunities”

The high-potential paradox

Organisations invest disproportionately in high-potential employees, often creating two-tier systems. How do you balance this?

I’ve spent a decade searching for the “best method” to assess potential. It remains fundamentally subjective. Over time, potential reveals itself organically. When you spend time with someone, you understand if they possess it.

Here’s my contrarian view: high-potential individuals don’t need massive investment. They largely take care of their own development if given opportunity. Politics can occasionally suppress them, but generally, they don’t hide their capabilities.

Companies shouldn’t focus on heavy development investment. Instead, protect these individuals and let them drive their own growth. They will.

Regarding democratising development, we should value people who actively learn and upgrade themselves. That mindset matters more than structured programmes. Development is ultimately a personal responsibility, not an organisational gift.

“Generalists who understand the business will always outperform narrow specialists”

The internal mobility deficit

Internal candidates often lose out to external hires on both roles and compensation. How do you change this?

Long-standing organisations—those over a century old—typically grow internal talent to senior levels. Their hiring concentrates at entry points. If you don’t feed the pipeline internally, you’re forced into expensive lateral hiring, creating perceptions that external candidates are valued more highly.

Transforming this mindset requires approximately five years of consistent practice: hiring primarily at lower levels and developing talent internally. Internal hires generally yield better results and prove more economical.

It’s gradual, but the sooner an organisation commits, the better the outcomes. There’s no shortcut to building genuine internal pipelines.

“Money makes people move; feeling unvalued makes them leave”

Generalists over specialists

As HR grows more complex—people analytics, digital transformation—do you need deep specialists or versatile generalists?

I prefer versatile, fungible generalists. Specialists often lack broader business context. When specialist expertise is genuinely needed, consultants exist in the market.

My belief is that individuals must own their development. We don’t see it as HR’s job to “feed” them knowledge—they need the mindset to invest in themselves.

Specialists have their place, but we prioritise generalists who can adapt and contribute across multiple domains. In manufacturing, where HR intersects with operations, finance, and supply chain constantly, breadth matters more than depth.

“Development isn’t an organisational gift; it’s a personal responsibility”

Strategic HR as necessity, not aspiration

What actually earns HR a seat at the strategic table?

You can’t operate without HR strategy—it’s fundamental, not aspirational. Business is delivered through the organisation, and HR carries accountability for mitigating people-related risks. Strategy isn’t optional.

I spent six to nine months in a business role at Srei as a zonal head. I enjoyed it, but I missed the strategic dimension. Today, roughly 70 per cent of my time is spent engaging with MDs and CEOs—brainstorming, discussing, shaping strategy. That’s what strategic HR actually means.

It’s not about earning a seat at the table. If you understand that people risks are business risks, your presence at strategic discussions is self-evident.

“Manufacturing HR is about balance—valuing people while managing costs with precision”

Manufacturing’s hidden complexity

What’s misunderstood about HR in manufacturing?

Many assume manufacturing HR requires deep industrial relations or trade union experience. Understanding labour law matters, but what’s truly critical—and often overlooked—is basic communication: empathy, listening, problem-solving, solution-oriented thinking. Anyone can develop these skills, and they matter more than extensive union exposure.

Manufacturing is fundamentally about throughput and efficiency. Human capital matters, but so does human cost. Every expense counts—you cannot afford redundancy or inefficiency. That demands cost consciousness. Just as manufacturing operations require “first-time right” execution, HR needs the right hiring bench, careful lateral and internal hiring, and effective succession planning.

Manufacturing HR is more complex than non-manufacturing HR because you must balance treating people as valuable capital whilst managing costs with precision. That tension defines the role.

“The best indicator of future success? Fungibility—the ability to learn, unlearn, and adapt”

The communication deficit

What critical challenge rarely gets discussed in public forums?

We overlook basics whilst focusing on grand strategy. Succession planning, for instance, receives enormous attention. But most organisational problems arise from poor interpersonal handling. Miscommunication or small missteps turn a two-minute task into a two-month ordeal.

We undervalue communication—beyond mere English proficiency. Effective communication means getting people to act, solving problems, enabling collaboration. This is fundamental, yet HR doesn’t prioritise it urgently enough.

We spend resources on sophisticated talent management systems whilst people struggle with basic interpersonal exchanges. That’s where real damage occurs—not in the absence of strategic frameworks, but in the failure of everyday human interaction.