Personal Development Plans, long a staple of corporate HR, are losing relevance as employees demand greater ownership of their careers. Neha Singh, Director – People Experience at PowerSchool India, said the traditional top-down model has weakened because it relies on compliance rather than meaning, reducing development conversations to administrative tasks rather than deliberate growth.
“The old command-and-control paradigm is no longer relevant,” she said in an interview, arguing that development must move from “telling to enabling”. Singh said employees, particularly millennials and Gen Z, expect to co-create their development path, not simply follow a managerial checklist. She described true development as the intersection of aspiration, capability and ownership — a shift she linked to Maslow’s theory of self-actualisation.
Singh said employee-led development does not absolve managers or HR of responsibility. Instead, she characterised it as shared accountability. “Employees drive, managers co-pilot and HR builds the map,” she said. At PowerSchool, managers are encouraged to act as coaches, offering feedback and creating stretch opportunities, while HR designs frameworks and learning ecosystems that support skill building and mobility.
Indian workplaces, she noted, now bring together Baby Boomers, Gen X, millennials and Gen Z, each with distinct expectations. Boomers value stability and legacy; Gen X seeks autonomy and recognition; millennials look for purpose and mobility; and Gen Z prioritises flexibility and rapid learning. Singh argued that employers should avoid fragmented generational playbooks and instead build a single, adaptable framework anchored in universal principles — self-driven development, accessible learning and meaningful career conversations — with room for customisation.
Behavioural design, she added, is helping employees engage more meaningfully with career tools. Metaphors such as “driver’s seat” or “career runway” create cognitive shortcuts and make abstract concepts tangible. “Meaning moves people,” she said, noting that such metaphors turn processes like PDPs into “vehicles for self-actualisation”.
Measuring the impact of employee-led development requires a broader view than traditional performance ratings. Singh pointed to learning hours, course completions, mentorship participation, promotions, internal mobility and technology-readiness indicators as markers of progress across the sector. Retention, she said, can be tracked through career-satisfaction scores, attrition patterns and links between learning engagement and belonging. She emphasised the importance of feedback loops that refine frameworks over time.
Asked whether employee-led development is a retention mechanism or a strategy to build long-term employability, Singh said it serves both purposes. When employees see personalised growth pathways, engagement strengthens and loyalty improves. At the same time, she said, building employability equips organisations with a resilient, future-ready workforce even when employees eventually move on. “It’s not an either/or proposition,” she said. “When thoughtfully implemented, it drives near-term retention while strengthening long-term readiness.”
Singh’s own stance on career ownership was shaped by experience rather than theory. She recalled a moment when a high-potential employee told her they already knew their career direction — they only needed help getting there. That conversation, she said, pushed her to rethink traditional managerial control. “Frameworks are useful, but enablement is powerful,” she said.
As workplaces contend with rising attrition, shifting expectations and rapid technological change, Singh argued that employee-led development is emerging as a strategic imperative. “When we equip people with the tools, space and support to pursue their path, we don’t just retain talent — we ignite it.”