top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 3:28:38 am

The Brand You Left Behind

Before our call ended, I had already searched him. Not because I doubted him. Because that is simply what people do now. A name comes up, a conversation is scheduled, and within seconds — before the other person has even put down their phone — you have searched them. You have looked. You have decided. What I found was not what I expected. A well-established founder. Years in business, a serious operation, the kind of professional who commands respect in a room. And yet online, the story was...

The Brand You Left Behind

Before our call ended, I had already searched him. Not because I doubted him. Because that is simply what people do now. A name comes up, a conversation is scheduled, and within seconds — before the other person has even put down their phone — you have searched them. You have looked. You have decided. What I found was not what I expected. A well-established founder. Years in business, a serious operation, the kind of professional who commands respect in a room. And yet online, the story was fractured. His LinkedIn said one thing. A Google search returned something older, a version of him that belonged to a different chapter entirely. The photograph on one platform bore little resemblance to the man I had spoken with. The narrative across every touchpoint was scattered — not wrong, not dishonest, simply unmanaged. As though the business had grown but the brand had been left behind. This is the identity gap. And it is not a junior founder’s problem. It is one of the most common and most costly blind spots I encounter in founders who are already successful — people who have built real businesses but whose personal brand has not kept pace with the leader they have become. Here is what most founders do not realise. Before your next client agrees to meet you, they have already met you. Before your next investor takes your call, they have searched your name. Before your next partner shakes your hand, they have formed an opinion — based entirely on what they found online, in thirty seconds, without you in the room. Your personal brand is presenting itself constantly, in every search, on every platform, in every digital touchpoint. The question is not whether it is speaking. The question is what it is saying. Uncertainty For this founder, it was saying several different things. And when a brand says several different things, the person receiving it registers one thing — uncertainty. Uncertainty does not sign contracts. It does not refer. It moves on, quietly, to someone whose brand told a clearer story. Think about the last opportunity that came close but did not convert. The partnership that stalled. The client who went quiet. In many cases, the gap is not your product or your price. It is the invisible inconsistency between the leader you are and the brand the world finds when it looks for you. Trust as Currency The most formidable founders I have worked with share one quality unrelated to revenue. They are coherent. Walk into a room with them, search them online, read their bio — it is unmistakably the same person. That coherence is not vanity. It is trust, compressed into a first impression. And trust, at this level of business, is the only currency that truly matters. Building that coherence is the inside-out work that most founders postpone indefinitely. They are too busy running the business to build the brand. But here is what that postponement actually costs — every week the gap exists, another opportunity chooses someone whose brand simply told a clearer, more consistent story. Do this today. Search your own name the way someone who has never met you would. Read what comes up as a stranger. Look at every platform, every result, every photograph. And ask yourself with complete honesty — does this reflect the leader I actually am right now? If the answer gives you even a moment’s pause, that pause is the beginning of the most important work you will do for your business this year. A Founder Brand Audit is a focused, strategic session designed specifically for established founders ready to close the gap between the leader they are and the brand the world currently sees. It is precise, personalised, and built around your specific situation — not generic advice. Only four slots open each week, and they go to the founders who have decided that this gap has cost them enough. Book yours here: https://calendly.com/divyaaadvaani/founder-brand-audit (The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

‘Deep State’ and Donald Trump

Updated: Nov 7, 2024

Donald Trump

If Donald Trump wins a second term as U.S. President, his primary target will likely be what he describes as “the Deep State” in America. According to him, the Deep State comprises the Justice Department, the CIA, and the FBI. Last week, American magazine ‘Politico’ noted that “regaining control of the Justice Department is most vital to his [Trump’s] agenda, both political and personal.”


The U.S. Justice Department has a unique history, as it can be considered even older than the fully ratified U.S. Constitution. Although the Constitution was initially signed by 39 of the 55 delegates on September 17, 1787, it took an additional two years and seven months for all states to ratify it, with the final ratification occurring on May 29, 1790. Meanwhile, Congress passed the Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789, recognizing the importance of establishing a judicial system for peace and security. This was technically possible as the Confederation Congress, established on March 9, 1789, marked the start of the Constitution’s operation.


The final clause of the Judiciary Act addressed the appointment of the Attorney General, stating that they “shall prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and give advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States.”

Following the Civil War (1861–1865), the need for a full-fledged department became apparent. In 1870, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was established, with the Attorney General designated as the Federal Government’s chief law enforcement officer.


The Attorney General serves a dual role, acting as the legal representative of the executive branch to the Supreme Court and advising the President and heads of executive departments.


Over time, more powers have been delegated to the Attorney General. Under the Independent Counsel Act, the Attorney General is responsible for conducting preliminary inquiries whenever they receive sufficient information to justify investigating potential federal law violations, including those involving the President and Vice President.


This was the process that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1994. Janet Reno, whom President Clinton appointed as Attorney General in 1993, selected Robert Fiske as an independent counsel in January 1994 to investigate the Whitewater controversy, which scrutinized Bill and Hillary Clinton’s real estate investments. Fiske was later replaced by Ken Starr.


This suggests that Trump, even if re-elected, would face limitations in reshaping the Justice Department to serve his personal needs. While he may have the power to dismiss the current Attorney General and appoint new personnel, Senate approval would be required for certain key positions. Furthermore, any new appointees would find it challenging to alter existing evidence, as the DOJ operates under rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight.


The next two entities within Trump’s ‘Deep State’ are the FBI and CIA. Established in 1908 under Title 28 U.S. Code 533, the FBI, like the Attorney General, is supervised by the DOJ and other federal law enforcement agencies, operating independently of any president’s personal preferences. While the President requires Senate concurrence for high-level appointments such as the Attorney General and FBI Director, other appointments are within presidential purview. However, all must operate within the law and remain accountable to the courts.


The CIA, created under the Central Intelligence Act of 1949, also requires Senate confirmation for its Director. With a Democratic majority currently in the Senate, Trump may encounter challenges in appointing his preferred candidate if this composition remains unchanged.


Historically, presidents attempting to install their own choice of CIA Director to “teach a lesson” to the agency have often met with limited success. Despite Senate approval, these directors have found it challenging to implement reforms inconsistent with the agency’s statutory mandates under Congressional Intelligence Committee oversight. A New York Times report dated December 22, 1974, noted that James R. Schlesinger, brought in by President Richard Nixon, struggled to enact reforms within the CIA and served only six months.


Conversely, Admiral Stansfield Turner, whom President Jimmy Carter appointed to “sanitize” the CIA, fired 820 agents from the CIA’s Clandestine Service in the so-called “Halloween Massacre.” Reflecting in 2005, Turner admitted he might have overreached in taking such a drastic step.


In fact, Turner’s actions inadvertently fostered cooperation between the CIA and Chinese intelligence services against the Soviet Union, which, as French investigative journalist Roger Falligot detailed in ‘Chinese Spies,’ opened opportunities for Chinese penetration into the Western world—a story I reviewed for Indian readers in 2019.


For the American electorate, the upcoming election will not just be a referendum on Trump’s leadership but a pivotal moment in defining the nation’s commitment to democratic norms and the independence of its institutions. In a time of escalating division, the resilience of these pillars of democracy may be the most crucial battleground of all.

(The writer is a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. Views are personal)

Comments

bottom of page