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.)

‘Vote for Cash’ – now at a different level!

Mahayuti leaders dangle ‘tijori’ carrot to woo voters

Mumbai: As the curtain falls on Maharashtra’s December 2 civic poll campaign, the spotlight fell onto a series of controversial remarks by ruling alliance leaders who openly linked public development funds to voter support. Opposition parties slammed the statements as “a display of arrogance of power” and a direct threat to democratic norms.

 

The latest controversy erupted after Mahayuti ally and Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar said at a Malegaon poll rally: “You have votes, I have funds. If you elect all my 18 NCP candidates, there will be no shortage of funds. But if you reject, I will also reject.”

 

The blunt remark triggered a political firestorm. Ajit Pawar, who holds the powerful Finance Department, (the ‘key to the treasury’ as he said), later attempted to soften the impact, claiming that “such things are routine during poll campaigns across the country.”

 

But the Opposition said the message to the masses was: “development only for votes or face punishment”.

 

Ajit Pawar’s statement revived memories of his similarly aggressive pitch during the 2024 Lok Sabha campaign in Baramati, when he warned voters that development resources would “dry up” unless they backed his wife, Sunetra Pawar. Though Sunetra lost to cousin Supriya Sule, she was later elected to the Rajya Sabha.

 

Another Bharatiya Janata Party Minister Nitesh Rane added fuel to the fire. Rane has repeatedly used the same “funds-for-votes” formula - first as a BJP MLA in 2022 and now as a minister - warning villagers that development money would flow only if BJP-backed candidates were elected.

 

This week, he went a step further, advising voters to ensure “the Lotus blooms in every home” and arguing that only the BJP had “the capacity to secure funds for development.”

 

The remarks echoed the BJP’s favourite slogans of “double-engine” and now “triple-engine” governance pitch - the promise that electing the party at the Centre, State, and local bodies can guarantee smooth development.

 

However, this time, the BJP also took a jab at its own ally. Responding to Ajit Pawar’s claim of controlling funds, party insiders quipped: “If you have the key to the ‘tijori’ (treasury), we have the owner,” a veiled reference to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, without whose consent things apparently can’t move.

 

Attempting to douse the flames, Fadnavis argued that “everyone says such things during elections,” but that governments, once elected, work for the progress of all citizens.

 

The latest in the list is Minister Jaykumar Gore, who told women beneficiaries of the Ladki Bahin scheme that they should remain “loyal” to the CM because they “don’t even get Rs 100 from their husbands.”

 

In the past few years, several Opposition-ruled states had accused the BJP-led Centre of “step-motherly treatment” in funds allocation. In early-2022, the then CM Uddhav Thackeray had written to the Centre seeking clearance of pending dues amounting to Rs 26,500 crore - a request that remained unfulfilled till his government toppled in June 2022.

 

SEC mum as MVA cries foul

Opposition leaders say such statements from the ruling side leaders “are not casual slips but part of a deliberate, national-level pattern” of weaponizing public money for electoral advantage and demanded that the State Election Commission (SEC) immediately act to curb this growing trend.

 

NCP (SP) Working President Supriya Sule called it the SEC’s “moral responsibility” to intervene, warning that unchecked intimidation “undermines the spirit of free and fair elections.”

 

Congress leader Vijay Wadettiwar asked pointedly: “If those in government threaten voters, how can impartial elections be ensured?”

 

Shiv Sena (UBT)’s Ambadas Danve was more scathing: “Development funds come from taxpayers, not from Ajit Pawar’s home. How can he threaten voters as if he owns the treasury?”

 

The SEC’s silence has irked the Opposition, which says the inaction “emboldens those in power to re-package intimidation as campaign strategy - and end up laughing all the way to the treasury and the vote banks.”

 

 


Comments

bottom of page