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.)

What if Joseph Stalin had become a priest?

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

What if Joseph Stalin had become a priest?

It is 1894. A short, intelligent adolescent with a pockmarked face (owing to a severe bout of smallpox) is kneeling in prayer in a dimly lit room of the Tiflis Theological Seminary in the distant country of Georgia. The air is thick with the scent of candle wax and the echoes of hymns sung in Georgian.

The boy’s name is Iosif Dzhugashvili, better known as ‘Joseph Stalin.’ Looking back at this point in time, it seems fantastic that Iosif, son of a cobbler, who would one day become one of the most ruthless dictators and change the course of world history, had once flirted with the idea of becoming a man of God.

The tantalizing question is what might the world have looked like had Stalin become a priest?

Yet, in a twist of fate that would alter the course of the 20th century, Stalin’s ambition took him down a different path—a path of revolution, bloodshed, and power.

The seminary, as his great biographer Stephen Kotkin suggests, was both a crucible and a battleground for young Stalin. It was here that he first learned the power of ideology (Marxist), the thrill of defiance, and the strength of iron discipline—traits that would later define his rule over the Soviet Union.

Had Stalin embraced the priesthood, his intellect and charisma could have propelled him to prominence within the church, perhaps even as a reformer or a nationalist leader rallying against the Tsarist regime.

Imagining a world where Stalin never left the seminary, one might envision a Russia where the Bolshevik Revolution still occurs, but without the brutal efficiency and paranoid purges that Stalin brought to the Soviet leadership.

Leon Trotsky, who Stalin would later exile and hunt down, might have steered the Soviet Union towards a different kind of socialism—one less steeped in the terror and cult of personality that Stalin cultivated. There would have been no Great Purge (1936-38) and no Gulags where millions of innocent Soviet citizens perished in the name of political consolidation.

On the international stage, Stalin’s absence could have dramatically altered the dynamics of World War II. A Soviet Union led by someone less ruthless than Stalin might have responded differently to Hitler’s advances.

Perhaps a less iron-fisted leader might have sought peace with Nazi Germany sooner, leading to a drastically different outcome in Europe.

The Cold War, too, might have unfolded with less intensity, devoid of Stalin’s paranoia-driven policies that shaped the Iron Curtain and defined the East-West divide.

The trajectory of global communism without Stalin’s iron grip would likely have been less monolithic and more fragmented. Stalin’s dogmatic imposition of Marxism-Leninism shaped not only Soviet policy but also the trajectories of countless communist movements worldwide.

His influence extended from Mao’s China to Castro’s Cuba, setting a template for authoritarian socialism that would not have taken root without him. Stalin’s spirit continues to influence authoritarian leaders in the world even today in the form of personages like Vladimir Putin.

The absence of Stalin’s personality cult could have allowed for a more pluralistic form of international communism.

Until his death at age 74 in 1953, Stalin pretty much dominated world history and his geopolitical policies continue to reverberate even today. Had he remained a priest in that Georgian seminary, the world would have been spared a dictator whose butcher’s bill exceeded that of Hitler’s or Mao’s.

Comments

bottom of page