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.)

The Long Road Ahead: Foreign Motivations in a Post-Assad Syria

As the house of Assad collapses, Syria’s great tragedy could be that it is not left to rebuild in peace

Post-Assad Syria

In the final chapter of the sixth and final volume (1788-89) of Edward Gibbon’s monumental and endlessly quotable ‘The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ we come upon a famous fragment: “…as all that is human must retrograde if it does not advance.” The inimitable Gibbon says this in regard to a wonderfully melancholic description of the decayed splendour of the western Roman Empire given by the 15th century Italian Renaissance scholar Poggius (Poggio Bracciolini), nine centuries after Rome’s fall.


Gibbon’s famous remark could well apply to Syria - once a cradle of civilization and home to the great cities of Palmyra and Damascus which today stares at an anxious future following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime.


History offers little optimism. The fall of a dictatorship, especially in a country as fractious and fragile as Syria, often unleashes chaos instead of peace. For more than a decade, Syria was a battlefield, a proxy war where foreign powers advanced their own agendas on Syrian soil. Today, those foreign powers are still deeply embedded, their ambitions unchanged.


Amid the fog of war, Israel and Turkey stand out as the two most significant foreign powers poised to shape Syria’s future. But their motivations in the post-Assad era are not just about land grabs but long-standing geopolitical calculations.


For Turkey, the demise of the Assad regime presents an opportunity to reshape the Middle East’s map, with a particular focus on its Kurdish adversaries. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has long seen the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—a predominantly Kurdish militia—as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has waged a decades-long insurgency against Turkey. With Assad’s fall, Turkey now seeks to capitalize on the vacuum by securing the Kurdish-majority areas of northern Syria. Already, Turkey has expanded its footprint in Syria through its proxy forces, the Syrian National Army (SNA), seizing Kurdish-held towns like Tel Rifaat and Manbij. Erdoğan’s ultimate goal is to diminish Kurdish influence in the region, especially in areas like Kobane, which became a symbol of Kurdish resistance against the Islamic State (IS).


But Turkey’s ambitions extend beyond just eliminating Kurdish autonomy. Erdoğan also seeks to create a ‘safe zone’ along Turkey’s southern border to house over three million Syrian refugees currently living in Turkey. The idea of sending refugees back to Syria, under Turkey’s terms, serves a dual purpose: alleviating pressure on Turkey’s overstretched resources while also stabilizing the region under Turkey’s control. However, this strategy risks further alienating the Kurdish population, who are already facing a perilous future as they find themselves increasingly isolated. The potential for renewed conflict with Kurdish forces, backed by their former U.S. allies, looms large.


Turkey’s involvement also has broader geopolitical ramifications. With its sights set on the Kurdish issue, Erdoğan’s government is positioning itself as the dominant player in post-Assad Syria. But this ambition will almost certainly inflame tensions with Iran, which has deepened its presence in Syria through various militias supporting Assad’s regime. As Ankara’s military presence expands, the risk of a direct confrontation between Turkey and Iranian-backed forces becomes ever more real.


While Turkey’s focus is on reshaping the northern part of Syria, Israel’s priorities are centered on its own security, particularly the need to limit Iran’s influence in the region. For years, Israel has waged a covert war against Iranian military infrastructure in Syria, targeting weapons convoys, missile sites, and Iranian-backed militias. With Assad’s regime on the brink of collapse, Israel sees an opportunity to further diminish Iran’s foothold in Syria and prevent the country from becoming an Iranian launchpad for future attacks.


Israel’s involvement is rooted in a deeply entrenched history of conflict with Syria, dating back to the founding of the Jewish state in 1948.


The two countries fought multiple wars — the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War — each one focused on territorial disputes and geopolitical dominance. The most significant of these is the Golan Heights, the strategically vital plateau seized by Israel from Syria in the 1967 war. The Golan is a commanding position overlooking northern Israel and Syria’s main water sources, making it a military and economic prize. Though Israel formally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, the territory remains at the heart of Syria’s ongoing territorial claims. Despite numerous peace talks, including the 1990s negotiations brokered by the United States, Syria has never relinquished its demand for the Golan’s return.


Since the collapse of Assad’s regime, Israel has seized the opportunity to further solidify its control over the Golan, taking advantage of Syria’s weakened state. Israel’s air force has waged a shadow war against Iran’s military presence in Syria for years, targeting weapons convoys, missile sites, and Iranian-backed militias operating in the region. The fall of Assad presents Israel with a chance to eliminate what it perceives as an Iranian foothold in Syria, a move that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region. Israel’s top priority in the coming days will be to ensure that Syria does not become a launchpad for future Iranian attacks.


Israel’s approach is already playing out in the southern parts of Syria, where Israeli forces have conducted airstrikes to target Iranian positions. These strikes are part of a broader effort to limit the ability of Iranian-backed militias to establish a permanent presence in Syria. As the situation in Syria becomes more volatile, Israel’s security calculations are likely to drive it toward even deeper involvement, further complicating any prospects for peace or stability in the region.


Syria, with its rich strategic value, has long been a prize for foreign powers eager to exert influence over the region. While Turkey and Israel are the most prominent players today, they are hardly alone in their ambitions. Iran, Russia and the United States all continue to stake claims in Syria, each with their own objectives.


Russia, despite its challenges in Ukraine, remains deeply committed to its military presence in Syria, particularly along the Mediterranean coast. The Russian military bases in Syria serve as a foothold for Russian influence in the region and provide Moscow with a critical outlet to project power in the Middle East. Even as Russia’s global influence wanes, its presence in Syria remains a key pillar of its foreign policy, and it will not easily relinquish control of its assets.


For the United States, its involvement in Syria is shaped by a mix of counterterrorism objectives and a desire to limit Iran’s expansion. Washington’s commitment to supporting Kurdish forces in the fight against IS has come into direct conflict with Turkey’s interests, resulting in an uneasy and often contradictory relationship. As U.S. troops remain stationed in northeastern Syria, their presence serves as a check on both Turkish ambitions and Iranian influence. However, with the potential shift in leadership in the U.S. after the 2024 elections, the future of America’s role in Syria remains uncertain. If the U.S. withdraws, the balance of power in Syria will likely tip in favour of Turkey and Iran, with significant consequences for the region.


As Assad disappears from the stage, Libya’s descent into warlordism after Gaddafi, or Iraq’s sectarian implosion after Saddam Hussein, is deeply etched into the Arab world’s collective memory. With Syria’s own mosaic of tribes, religions, and foreign interests, the same forces threaten to pull it apart once again.

Comments

bottom of page