Naveen Narayanan, CHRO of Biocon, doesn’t reach for the usual HR hedges. Across this conversation, he argues that AI will genuinely eliminate some jobs even as it creates others, closing the leadership gender gap needs “equity at home” as much as workplace policy, burnout is really a failure of purpose and psychological safety rather than pressure itself, and ESG has no business sitting outside the P&L. He also takes on the harder institutional questions — whether HR is built for advocacy or liability, whether “one culture” survives across dozens of geographies, and how he personally sits with a layoff decision.
Excerpts:
Most companies now say some version of “AI won’t replace jobs, it’ll change them.” How much of that is genuinely true, and how much is HR softening a harder conversation that leadership isn’t ready to have with employees yet?
The statement is directionally true, but it’s not the complete truth. AI will eliminate tasks, redefine roles and, in certain cases, reduce the need for certain jobs. Leaders should be honest about each of these scenarios with their people. But focusing only on job displacement misses the larger story. Most jobs are a combination of judgment, expertise, collaboration and human connection. AI will change that mix—automating some tasks, augmenting others and making new capabilities more valuable. Some industries are surely getting disrupted and certain others augmented.
The responsibility of leaders and HR is not to soften the conversation, but to make it honest and actionable. Employees deserve clarity about what is changing, what skills will be needed in the future, and how the organisation will support their transition. The real question is not “Which jobs will AI replace?” but “How do we help our people evolve their capabilities to create greater value in an AI-enabled workplace?”. I have always believed that the person who knows how to work with AI will replace the person who doesn’t know AI. That requires AI literacy, fluency, alongside judgment, creativity, empathy, resilience and collaboration.
Every senior HR leader eventually has to make or defend a call – a layoff, a termination, a restructuring – that no policy document fully justifies. How do you personally sit with decisions like that without either becoming numb to them or letting them paralyse you?
As a CHRO, I am equally an enterprise leader as much as the leader of the function. I don’t need anyone to tell me on a layoff due to economic circumstances or other reasons as I am equally part of running a business. These decisions however are never easy and should be the last resort. And most important is how respectfully are these carried out. I tend to work through four questions: Is the decision necessary? Have we genuinely considered alternatives? Is it fair and consistent? And can we implement it with dignity?
The first two ensure we are solving a real business need rather than taking the easiest route. The third tests whether the decision is being applied objectively, without compromising our values. The fourth reminds us that behind every organisational decision are people whose lives may be significantly affected. Companies ensure generous packages, outplacement services, some even do job fairs, counselling for employees and family to ensure their colleagues land on their feet. People appreciate honesty and clarity in such situations. The measure of leadership is not avoiding difficult choices but making them responsibly and standing behind them with integrity.
Entry-level diversity numbers have improved industry wide. But representation still tends to thin out sharply the higher you go. Why do you think that pattern persists almost everywhere, despite how much has been invested in fixing it?
I think the pattern persists because representation at senior levels is shaped by many factors accumulated over a career—not simply by hiring. As careers progress, the talent pool of women becomes narrower due to many life situations. A radical thought out there is to assess women for their potential compared to others as there is always a time gap for many. Leadership roles demand experience, business exposure and the ability to navigate increasing complexity and these come through many life events. The pathways through which people build these experiences are influenced by many factors, including individual choices, circumstances and career decisions.
So, while entry-level representation has improved, we need a lot more social change and push, equity at home to translate a larger talent pool availability into senior leadership representation. Biocon has achieved 20 per cent representation in the mid and senior leadership, starting from the CXO team. Several parts of our business such as the Malaysia plant and our scientific verticals are close to being gender equal.
“High-performance culture” is a phrase almost every company uses, and it’s also one of the most common precursors to burnout. Where do you draw the line between pushing performance and quietly damaging the people delivering it?
I don’t see performance and wellbeing as opposing priorities. A high-performance culture should enable both. Some roles are inherently high-pressure, and that reality needs to be acknowledged by the individuals who have chosen that path. It is important to assess not just technical capability, but also a person’s maturity, resilience and ability to operate effectively under sustained pressure. Burn-out occurs when people stop having fun in their work, lack direction or purpose and most importantly psychological safety. Why do entrepreneurs not burn out? Because they have created this for themselves in a high performing environment.
The distinction should be between periods of intensity vs a culture of unnecessary excessive pressure where the latter is difficult to sustain. For me, high performance requires clarity on purpose and priorities, clear expectations, strong managers and an environment where people can speak openly when demands become unsustainable. The measure of a high-performance culture is not how much pressure people can absorb, but whether the organisation enables them to perform consistently and sustainably. Biocon has always been purpose driven, hundreds of our colleagues have spent 2 or 3 decades in the firm. The enthusiasm is fuelled because of the nurturing environment.
ESG commitments sound clean in a mission statement but get complicated the moment they collide with a quarterly target or a cost pressure. When that collision actually happens inside a company, what usually wins – and what should win?
Sustainability of business outcomes is not an agenda outside of business – quarter or annual. We confuse ESG with environment or social indicators. I don’t think ESG should sit outside the business, competing with commercial priorities. If it does, you have the wrong agenda. For example – ESG includes strength of succession pipeline, strength of governance and many such aspects. Today to win commercial contracts in many parts of the world, ESG scores are not only a gating criterion but also a differentiator as we have seen.
The better approach is to build ESG considerations into the operating fabric of the organization and how decisions are made—from capital allocation and operations to leadership KPIs and how we develop people and engage communities. There will be situations where short-term financial pressures can delay or create difficult choices. The question then is whether we are optimising for the next month or quarter or protecting the organisation’s ability to create value over the longer term. For me, what should win is the decision that is responsible for the business and its sustainability over the long term. Investments can happen in one quarter or another towards this. Biocon has made significant strides to be in the top quartile of many ESG ratings. Off late, we have even won certain tenders’ basis the ESG achievements which actually shows that it can be a competitive advantage.
When an organisation operates across dozens of geographies, “one culture” is often more slogan than reality. What, in your view, is actually consistent – and what has to be allowed to differ by region without the whole thing falling apart?
We mix culture as a term with ways of working. I prefer the latter. Do organisations have one way to make decisions, take risks, deal with people and so on? If yes, then you have a unified culture. Some people or geographies may be additive to the ways of working/culture and some maybe dilutive but that is more an implementation and execution issue. You can have this situation in the same building under two different leaders.
Global organisations are also tied by a common purpose and that’s a larger unifying force guiding ways of working. What will not differ are core values that define who we are—integrity, respect for people, ethical conduct, accountability and our commitment to the organisation’s purpose. These are non-negotiable, irrespective of geography. How these get expressed, can reflect local realities. Leadership styles, communication, workplace practices and approaches to engagement can differ across markets. Localisation is very important because employees will connect with it when they see it reflected in their context. Strong global cultures are not built by making every market identical; they are built by being clear about what is non-negotiable while giving local teams the freedom to make it relevant to their context.
Leave a Reply