top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 3:28:38 am

When agreement kills growth

In the early stages of building a business, growth is often driven by clarity, speed, and conviction. Founders make decisions quickly, rely on their instincts, and push forward with a strong sense of belief in their methods. This decisiveness is not only necessary, it is often the very reason the business begins to grow. However, as businesses cross certain thresholds, particularly beyond the Rs 5 crore mark, the nature of growth begins to change. What once created momentum can quietly begin...

When agreement kills growth

In the early stages of building a business, growth is often driven by clarity, speed, and conviction. Founders make decisions quickly, rely on their instincts, and push forward with a strong sense of belief in their methods. This decisiveness is not only necessary, it is often the very reason the business begins to grow. However, as businesses cross certain thresholds, particularly beyond the Rs 5 crore mark, the nature of growth begins to change. What once created momentum can quietly begin to create limitations. In many professional environments, it is not uncommon to encounter business owners who are deeply convinced of their approach. Their methods have delivered results, their experience reinforces their judgment, and their confidence becomes a defining trait. Yet, in this very confidence lies a subtle risk that is often overlooked. When conviction turns into certainty without space for dialogue, conversations begin to narrow. Suggestions are heard, but not always considered. Perspectives are offered, but not always encouraged. Decisions are made, but not always explained. From the outside, this may still appear as strong leadership. Internally, however, a different dynamic begins to take shape. People start to agree more than they contribute. This is where many businesses unknowingly enter a critical phase. When teams, partners, or stakeholders begin to hold back their perspective, the quality of thinking around the business reduces. What appears as alignment is often silent disengagement. What looks like efficiency is sometimes the absence of challenge. Over time, this directly affects the decisions being made. At a Rs 5 crore level, this may not be immediately visible. Operations continue, revenue flows, and the business appears stable. But as the organisation attempts to grow further, this lack of diverse thinking begins to surface as a constraint. Growth slows, not because of lack of effort, but because of limited perspective. On the other side of this equation are individuals who consistently find themselves accommodating such dynamics. They recognise when their voice is not being fully heard, yet choose not to assert it. The intention is often to preserve relationships, avoid friction, or maintain a sense of professional ease. Initially, this approach appears collaborative. Over time, however, it begins to shape perception. When individuals do not express their perspective, they are gradually seen as agreeable rather than essential. Their presence is valued, but their input is not actively sought. In many cases, they become part of the process, but not part of the decision. This is where personal branding begins to influence business outcomes in ways that are not immediately obvious. A personal brand is not built only through visibility or achievement. It is built through how consistently one demonstrates clarity, confidence, and openness in moments that require it. It is shaped by whether people feel encouraged to think around you, or restricted in your presence. At higher levels of business, this distinction becomes critical. If people agree with you more than they challenge you, it may not be a sign of strong leadership. It may be an indication that your environment is no longer enabling better thinking. Similarly, if you find yourself constantly adjusting to others without expressing your own perspective, your contribution may be diminishing in ways that affect both your influence and your growth. Both situations carry a cost. They affect decision quality, limit innovation, and over time, restrict the scalability of the business itself. What makes this particularly challenging is that these patterns develop gradually, often going unnoticed until the impact becomes difficult to ignore. The most effective leaders recognise this early. They create space for dialogue without losing direction. They express conviction without dismissing perspective. They build environments where contribution is expected, not avoided. In doing so, they strengthen not only their business, but also their personal brand. For entrepreneurs operating at a stage where growth is no longer just about execution but about expanding thinking, this becomes an important point of reflection. If there is even a possibility that your current interactions are limiting the quality of thinking around you, it is worth addressing before it begins to affect outcomes. I work with a select group of founders and professionals to help them refine how they are perceived, communicate with greater impact, and build personal brands that support sustained growth. You may explore this further here: https://sprect.com/pro/divyaaadvaani In the long run, it is not only the decisions you make, but the thinking you allow around those decisions, that determines how far your business can truly grow. (The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

How DeepSeek Is Making Silicon Valley Nervous

Updated: Feb 18, 2025

DeepSeek

Until recently, the artificial intelligence (AI) ‘arms race’ seemed like an all-American affair. OpenAI’s ChatGPT led the charge, with Google’s Gemini and Meta’s LLaMA models not far behind. American dominance in AI was assumed to be an inevitability, and an extension of Silicon Valley’s long-standing supremacy. Now, DeepSeek, the homegrown Chinese model has sent tremors through the AI industry, despite its baggage of state-backed propaganda.


DeepSeek’s emergence should have been unremarkable: yet another large language model (LLM), another iteration in a rapidly evolving space. But it has out-optimized its American competitors by achieving comparable - if not better - results through an optimized co-design of algorithms, frameworks and hardware. Since it is not just a matter of fewer parameters but also the algorithms operating on them more efficiently.


This has thrown a wrench into Meta’s grand AI ambitions. Meta, along with OpenAI and Google, have built their models on the assumption that more parameters mean better performance. Training these behemoth models requires staggering computational resources, and American tech firms have been quick to justify their exorbitant costs. But DeepSeek has shown otherwise. It has outperformed GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet - the two US flagship models - on a series of standard and open-ended benchmarks.


Unlike its closed-source competitors, DeepSeek has open-sourced its model, allowing smaller players to adapt it without relying on subscription services of OpenAI or Anthropic. Small but clever modifications like the use of rotary embeddings and group relative policy optimization (GRPO) - a reinforcement learning paradigm - have led it to achieve impressive results without the usual computational bloat.


This has made American AI firms uneasy. Perplexity, a relatively small startup in the U.S., had to rely on post-training methods rather than foundational model training because it simply lacked the resources. Aravind Srinivas, CEO of Perplexity, has publicly noted how DeepSeek’s cost-effectiveness exposed flaws in the current American approach. Whereas OpenAI and Google charge sky-high fees for API access, DeepSeek offers a pricing structure - around $0.34 per 1,000 tokens - that undercuts them significantly.


For years, the prevailing assumption in AI research was that Western firms, with their access to the best talent and most powerful hardware, would remain untouchable. Yet, DeepSeek has shown that even modest improvements in model efficiency can disrupt the market. And now, other countries are taking notice.


American tech firms and policymakers alike have been quick to point out its ties to the Chinese government, warning of potential security risks and propaganda concerns. These concerns are not unfounded. AI models trained in authoritarian regimes inevitably reflect the biases of their environment, and DeepSeek is no exception. But to dismiss its technical achievements outright would be myopic. The reality is that DeepSeek’s advancements are not confined to China. Its innovations in model optimization can be repurposed by anyone. The backlash also smacks of a certain American hubris. Silicon Valley has long viewed itself as the sole architect of the AI revolution. When OpenAI and Google release new models, the conversation revolves around their transformative potential. When China does the same, the narrative shifts to fears of espionage and state control. It is in the interests of American firms to bash DeepSeek not just for geopolitical reasons, but because it threatens their bottom line.


While DeepSeek is unlikely to dethrone OpenAI or Google anytime soon, and its government ties will always make it a controversial player in global AI development, its existence has nonetheless forced a reckoning in Silicon Valley. It has shown that more efficient AI is possible and that cost need not be a barrier to entry. For the first time in a long while, Silicon Valley is feeling just a little bit jealous.(The author is a U.S.-based data scientist)

Comments

bottom of page