top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 8:58:38 am

Your First Impression Is Delegated

A prospective partner called your office last week. You do not know his name. You were not told he called. The phone rang four times before it was answered, he was asked to repeat himself, and he was promised a callback that arrived two days later as a message with no greeting. He formed an opinion of you in under three minutes. You were not in the room, and you will never know that opinion existed. Most founders believe their personal brand begins when they walk into a meeting. It does not....

Your First Impression Is Delegated

A prospective partner called your office last week. You do not know his name. You were not told he called. The phone rang four times before it was answered, he was asked to repeat himself, and he was promised a callback that arrived two days later as a message with no greeting. He formed an opinion of you in under three minutes. You were not in the room, and you will never know that opinion existed. Most founders believe their personal brand begins when they walk into a meeting. It does not. It begins at the first point of contact, and in any business of real size, that point is almost never the founder. It is the assistant who manages your calendar. The sales executive who sends the first proposal. The person who handles your WhatsApp, the receptionist, the coordinator who confirms the meeting. These people speak for you every day, in your name, using your reputation, and most of them have never been told what that reputation is supposed to feel like. Many are loyal, hardworking and capable. That is not the issue. The issue is that nobody ever showed them what a first impression of this founder should feel like. Here is what a prospective client experiences. They do not separate you from your team. They cannot. To them, the speed of a reply is how seriously you take them. The tone of the first email is the tone of your leadership. A proposal with a spelling error, a late response, a careless "will check and let you know" becomes evidence about the person at the top. If this is how the organisation presents itself while trying to win my business, they reason, this is how it will treat me once I have signed. And they never tell you. They simply go quiet. The deal that stalls after a promising first call. The partner who becomes "busy". The client who chooses a competitor and offers a reason that has nothing to do with the real one. Across a year, that is every enquiry that stalled, every proposal left unanswered, every introduction that never became a meeting. This is a personal brand problem, not a staffing one. A founder can spend years refining how they present in a room and still lose the room before they enter it, because the impression was formed by someone else, in a conversation the founder was never part of and never heard about. The founders who avoid this are not the ones with the most polished staff. They are the ones who have made their brand legible to the people around them. Their team knows how the founder speaks, what the business stands for, what warmth looks like in a reply, how a delay should be explained and how a client should feel in the first thirty seconds. The team is not following a script. They are carrying a standard, because someone took the time to define it. When did you last experience your own business the way a stranger does? Not a test call arranged with your team's knowledge. A real one. Send a first enquiry from a number nobody recognises. Notice how long it takes to be answered, what the tone is, and whether you would want to do business with whoever replied. Then ask yourself honestly whether that person sounds like you, and whether you would be proud to be represented that way. If the answer is uncomfortable, it is worth acting on now. Every week of that experience is a week someone forms a verdict about you without your knowledge. Your personal brand is not only what you say. It is everything said on your behalf. If you have a suspicion about how your business is being experienced before you ever walk in, that suspicion deserves a direct, focused brand consultation, not a casual chat. Book yours here: https://www.calendly.com/divyaaadvaani/founder-brand-audit — Divyaa Advaani, Personal Branding Strategist (The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Tough Policing

Writer: Kiran D. Tare
Kiran D. Tare
Mar 16, 2025
3 min read

Updated: Mar 17, 2025


The Ahmedabad Police, in conjunction with the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), recently undertook a decisive operation against individuals accused of vandalism and terror in the Vastral area. Fourteen individuals, including a minor, were arrested for engaging in violent acts using weapons. More significantly, in a move designed to deter future offenders, authorities razed the illegal properties of seven accused individuals, while publicly parading and punishing the perpetrators. If deterrence was the aim, then the police’s execution was near flawless.


But there is something else in this incident. For years, a segment of India’s commentariat has been quick to paint the Gujarat police as selectively heavy-handed, particularly in cases involving communal tensions. The charge often levelled was that law enforcement is ‘anti-Muslim’ in its response to crime and public disorder. Yet the events in Ahmedabad last week tell a different story - one of firm, unbiased policing that puts public order above political posturing.


The accused, who are all from the majority community, were neither shielded by identity politics nor given leniency based on affiliations. Not a single one spared. This is precisely the kind of even-handed action that should be replicated across the country - one where criminals are treated as criminals, not as political symbols to be defended or targeted based on convenience.


The approach taken by the Ahmedabad Police is a masterclass in law enforcement strategy: swift arrests, visible punitive measures and the use of state resources to dismantle illicit networks. Illegal properties of offenders were not just seized but demolished, reinforcing the notion that the long arm of the law extends beyond mere custodial detentions. In an age when many police forces hesitate to act decisively for fear of backlash - legal, political or otherwise - this is an example worth emulating.


Predictably, there were protests. Family members of the accused attempted to obstruct the demolition drive, a familiar spectacle where lawbreakers seek public sympathy by casting state action as draconian. But the police stood firm. This refusal to buckle under pressure is a key takeaway: a state that enforces the law without hesitation is one that commands respect.


Many police forces in India struggle with both credibility and operational effectiveness. Too often, political interference hampers their ability to act with impartiality. Too often, criminals find protection in identity politics, making the simple act of law enforcement an exercise in public relations management rather than governance. The Ahmedabad incident offers a compelling counterpoint in police action that is firm, immediate and unambiguous in its messaging.


While elements of the operation - the public sit-ups, the compelled apologies, the lathi punishment - may raise eyebrows among human rights activists, they serve a larger purpose: reinforcing the cost of public disorder. In a society where lawbreakers often operate with impunity, visible punishment acts as a crucial deterrent. The question then is not whether such methods are too harsh, but whether they are necessary.


India’s police forces are frequently maligned as corrupt, communal or incompetent. While some of this criticism is well-earned, blanket generalizations erode public trust in the very institutions tasked with maintaining order. When policing is reduced to a narrative of selective victimhood, it creates an environment where genuine criminals can operate with greater confidence, secure in the belief that political and ideological forces will shield them.


The Ahmedabad operation stands as a rebuttal to this trend. Here was a case where police action was neither selective nor politically motivated. It was a demonstration of what a functional police force looks like - one that does not hesitate, does not discriminate and does not fear backlash.


While the main accused is still at large, the message is clear: those who disrupt public peace will be held accountable, regardless of who they are. The rest of India’s police forces would do well to take notes.


Comments

bottom of page