top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 3:28:38 am

When Culture Costs Growth

Global business today is not limited by geography, capital, or capability. It is limited by interpretation. A founder recently shared an experience that quietly captures a much larger issue. While working with a business leader from the Netherlands, he realised how quickly intent can be misunderstood. Dutch professionals are known for their directness. Indian professionals, by contrast, value respect, nuance, and indirect communication. Neither approach is wrong. Yet when these worlds collide...

When Culture Costs Growth

Global business today is not limited by geography, capital, or capability. It is limited by interpretation. A founder recently shared an experience that quietly captures a much larger issue. While working with a business leader from the Netherlands, he realised how quickly intent can be misunderstood. Dutch professionals are known for their directness. Indian professionals, by contrast, value respect, nuance, and indirect communication. Neither approach is wrong. Yet when these worlds collide without context, friction follows. Conversations become strained, decisions slow down, and credibility begins to blur — not because of competence, but because of perception. What makes this problem particularly dangerous is that it rarely announces itself. No one says, “I don’t trust you anymore.” Instead, calls become shorter. Emails turn formal. Opportunities stall without explanation. Founders often attribute this to market conditions or timing, unaware that the real issue lies elsewhere — in how they are being read, interpreted, and experienced. This is not an international problem alone. Within India itself, business cultures shift dramatically from region to region. What signals confidence in one room may come across as arrogance in another. What feels respectful in one setting may appear indecisive in another. For founders operating across cities, states, and cultures, these subtleties compound. Over time, the gap between intent and impact widens. Here is the uncomfortable truth most leaders are never told: growth today is as dependent on perception as it is on performance. And perception, left unmanaged, becomes a liability. This is where personal branding moves out of the realm of visibility and into the realm of strategic necessity. Personal branding is not about posting more, speaking louder, or becoming a public personality. At its core, it is about consciously shaping how your values, decisions, and leadership style are understood — especially by people who do not share your cultural reference points. Founders often assume their work speaks for itself. In earlier decades, it did. Today, work speaks, but interpretation decides. Without a clearly articulated personal brand, others are left to fill in the gaps themselves. And they do so using their own cultural lens, biases, and assumptions. This is how capable leaders are misunderstood, how strong businesses face invisible resistance, and how trust erodes without a single visible conflict. A well-defined personal brand acts as a stabiliser in these moments. It provides context before confusion sets in. It allows people to understand not just what you do, but how you think, what you value, and how you make decisions. When this clarity exists, directness is not mistaken for rudeness, and politeness is not confused with lack of conviction. Conversations become cleaner. Alignment happens faster. Credibility holds firm even across borders. The most significant shift occurs internally. Leaders with a clear personal brand stop second-guessing how they should show up. They communicate with confidence without overcompensating. They hold authority without appearing distant. Most importantly, they attract relationships that are aligned rather than transactional. This is not accidental; it is the result of intentional positioning. The cost of ignoring this is subtle but cumulative. Deals that could have moved faster do not. Partnerships that seemed promising lose momentum. Teams hesitate instead of committing fully. None of this shows up on balance sheets immediately, which is why it is often dismissed. But over time, it defines the ceiling of growth. Founders are particularly vulnerable here because they are too close to themselves. They know their intent, their ethics, their effort. Others only know what is visible. Personal branding bridges this gap — not by exaggerating, but by translating. If you are a business leader navigating diverse teams, international clients, or culturally varied markets, and you sense that growth is slowing for reasons you cannot fully explain, this is worth examining. Not as a marketing exercise, but as a leadership one. Sometimes, the most important work is not expanding into new markets, but ensuring you are being clearly understood in the ones you already occupy. If this perspective resonates, I invite you to connect with me for a conversation. Not to sell, but to explore whether perception — not performance — might be the quiet variable influencing your next phase of growth. Clarity often begins with a single, honest conversation. You can book a consultation here: https://sprect.com/pro/divyaaadvaani (The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page