Why NIMF’s employees don’t leave — and why most companies can’t replicate it

In a world of churn, where corporate growth often leaves people behind, the case of Nippon India Mutual Fund (NIMF) presents a quiet counterpoint. With a 1,100-strong workforce across more than 300 locations—including financial hubs like Singapore and Dubai—the asset management firm claims to have cracked the code of “scaling with stability.”

That phrase, repeated by leaders across industries, has become something of a mantra. But it’s one thing to assert it, and another to embed it in organisational design, workforce policy, and leadership behaviour. At NIMF, the challenge hasn’t just been about expansion. It’s been about holding a common centre while the organisation grows outward in both geography and complexity.

Rajesh Derhgawen, Chief Human Resources Officer at NIMF, insists that culture has held steady. But the question remains—how do you truly preserve cohesion in a rapidly diversifying workforce? What’s the cost of such stability, and can it be maintained as employee expectations continue to shift?

For Derhgawen, the answer lies in “standardisation and automation.” Those aren’t buzzwords; they’re operational tools. “Single-window systems, process reviews, SPOCs—we’ve used these to build consistency across locations,” he says.

The underlying logic is simple. If cultural cohesion is the goal, then the scaffolding—policies, platforms, governance—must not vary wildly from one location to another. But NIMF has layered this with emotional anchors: town halls, branch visits, celebrations that loop in families.

This dual-pronged approach—rigid process, fluid connection—is what Derhgawen calls the “NAM India Way of Life.” It’s an idea that aims to make company culture portable. Retention Is a Lens, Not a Metric
NIMF’s attrition rate, at 13%, is significantly lower than the BFSI average. But raw numbers don’t tell the whole story. The real question is: Why are people staying?

The answer, according to Derhgawen, is multifaceted. “We focus on future potential. We reward it. We give people a sense of direction,” he says.

The emphasis is on internal mobility—about 25% of employees rotate roles annually. Leadership stability is another factor; most of the executive team has been around for over a decade, and two key CXOs have clocked more than 20 years. There’s a message of continuity being sent, not just from HR, but from the top.

Yet, while longevity can offer cohesion, it can also breed inertia. How does an organisation balance continuity with the injection of fresh perspectives? It’s notable that over 70% of current leaders are homegrown. That figure could suggest a strong pipeline—or a glass ceiling for outsiders.

Derhgawen counters this by pointing to a meritocratic culture and a "vibrant" work environment. But these are claims many organisations make. What distinguishes NIMF’s claim is its unusually long employee tenure for a relatively young workforce (average age: 37). This may not be the outcome of novelty perks, but of deeper structural alignment between career development and business needs.

The Flexibility Question: Policy or Philosophy?

When the pandemic forced companies into remote work, many scrambled to formalise hybrid models. NIMF, too, shifted gears, but has since institutionalised flexibility in a way that extends beyond crisis management.
Its flexi-work model includes hybrid options, full remote roles, sabbaticals and even advisory stints. On the surface, it’s a textbook case of agility. But what’s more telling is the long-term framing. “This was about future readiness,” says Derhgawen. “Not just survival.”

The decision was partly demographic. A younger workforce, distributed locations, and a need for disaster preparedness made hybridisation a logical step. But NIMF’s framing of flexibility seems less about empowering the employee and more about ensuring business continuity.

That’s not a criticism—just a reframing. In sectors like asset management, where client confidence hinges on stability, flexibility must serve both the employee and the enterprise. The challenge is ensuring that remote roles don’t become career cul-de-sacs, and that hybrid workers aren’t seen as second-class citizens. The jury is still out on whether organisations can institutionalise flexibility without compromising equity.

Inclusion Without Uniformity

One of the most underexplored aspects of organisational growth is cross-cultural sensitivity. Derhgawen is careful not to call it a “challenge,” but a “delicate integration.”

That semantic distinction is worth unpacking. NIMF operates across regions that differ not just in language and law, but in their very conception of what constitutes good work. What makes an Indian employee feel recognised may not work for someone in Dubai. Holiday calendars, benefits, even employer branding must be localised.
Derhgawen lists off a range of interventions: D&I workshops, cross-team projects, celebration of religious and generational diversity. He even notes that employees range in age from 23 to 58, and that managing this spread is “like painting one big picture with many colours.”

It’s a poetic metaphor, but beneath it lies a logistical puzzle. How does one operationalise inclusion when the workforce is not just diverse but also dispersed?

At NIMF, the answer appears to be decentralised sensitivity built into centralised systems. Policies are designed at a global level, but fine-tuned locally. Still, it’s not clear whether employees feel equally heard across all regions. Inclusion, after all, is not what the policy says—it’s what people feel.

Digital Transformation, or Just Automation?

Technology has been another cornerstone of NIMF’s scale journey. The company has adopted Oracle Fusion for core HR processes and digitised nearly every major touchpoint—from hiring to health benefits.

It’s a classic example of HR tech deployment done right: invisible, integrated and intuitive. Yet, the risk with such digitisation is that it can render the human invisible too.

Derhgawen insists otherwise. “Automation gives HR more time to engage meaningfully,” he says. “It’s not about replacing the human—it’s about freeing it.”

Performance reviews at NIMF follow a 3-tier model, incorporating continuous feedback, mid-year and annual assessments. What’s notable is that HR reviews 100% of employee evaluations and insists on individual feedback sessions.

That degree of involvement is rare. Most firms have ceded performance management to line managers or outsourced it to algorithmic dashboards. NIMF, by contrast, seems to be reinforcing human judgment within a digital framework.

But this raises another concern—does such centralisation slow things down? And in a future that’s hurtling toward AI-led productivity models, can NIMF’s people-centric ethos keep pace?

Workforce Planning in a VUCA World

The term “VUCA”—Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous—has become something of a cliché in corporate discourse. But Derhgawen wields it with precision. “Of all business functions, workforce planning is the most volatile,” he says.

The future of workforce design at NIMF is rooted in skill, not scale. The leadership is betting that AI, digital fluency, and subject-matter depth will define the next phase of competitive advantage. Headcount projections are being replaced by capability matrices.

This shift mirrors what many HR futurists have been saying: tomorrow’s workforce won’t be built on job roles, but on fluid capabilities. NIMF seems to be adapting by making continuous learning a structural imperative rather than an optional perk.

Still, this approach presumes a degree of self-direction from employees—something not every worker is prepared for. As roles evolve and boundaries blur, the risk is not just skill obsolescence but identity erosion. What does it mean to be an “employee” in a world where roles are modular, short-term, and ever-shifting?

A Work in Progress

NIMF’s journey offers a compelling case study in how an organisation can grow without splintering. But it’s also a reminder that scale is not just about numbers—it’s about narrative.

The company has done much to create a shared story: of resilience, inclusion, and continuity. But stories can ossify. The danger is that culture becomes a museum, not a movement.

Derhgawen’s vision is grounded, but not uncritical. He acknowledges the uncertainties ahead, the shifting skills landscape, and the growing complexity of human capital. What he offers is not a blueprint, but a mindset: adaptive, deliberate, and deeply anchored.

In an era where headlines are dominated by layoffs, burnout and disconnection, NIMF’s experience suggests another possibility. Not a utopia—but a work in progress, where growth and groundedness are not mutually exclusive.