top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 3:28:38 am

Presence Before Pitch

Walk into any business networking room and you will witness something far more telling than exchanged cards or polite handshakes. You will see personal brands at work — quietly, powerfully, and often unintentionally. The way a business owner carries himself, engages with others, and competes for attention in public spaces reveals more about future growth than balance sheets ever will. At a recent networking meet, two business owners from the same industry stood out — not because of what they...

Presence Before Pitch

Walk into any business networking room and you will witness something far more telling than exchanged cards or polite handshakes. You will see personal brands at work — quietly, powerfully, and often unintentionally. The way a business owner carries himself, engages with others, and competes for attention in public spaces reveals more about future growth than balance sheets ever will. At a recent networking meet, two business owners from the same industry stood out — not because of what they said, but because of how they behaved. One was visibly assertive, bordering on aggressive. He pulled people aside, positioned himself strategically, and tried to dominate conversations to secure advantage. The other remained calm, composed, and observant. He engaged without urgency, listened more than he spoke, and never attempted to overpower the room. Both wanted business. Both were ambitious. Yet the impressions they left could not have been more different. For someone new to the room — a potential client, collaborator, or investor — this contrast creates confusion. Whom do you trust? Whom do you align with? Whose values reflect stability rather than desperation? Often, decisions are made instinctively, not analytically. And those instincts are shaped by personal branding, whether intentional or accidental. This is where many business owners underestimate the real cost of their behaviour. Personal branding is not about visibility alone. It is about perception under pressure. In networking environments, where no one has time to analyse credentials deeply, people read cues — tone, composure, generosity, restraint. An overly forceful approach may signal insecurity rather than confidence. Excessive friendliness can appear transactional. Silence, when grounded, can convey authority. Silence, when disconnected, can signal irrelevance. Every move sends a message. What’s at stake is not just one meeting or one deal. It is long-term growth. When a business owner appears opportunistic, others become cautious. When someone seems too eager to win, people question their stability. When intent feels unclear, credibility erodes. This doesn’t merely slow growth — it quietly redirects opportunities elsewhere. Deals don’t always collapse loudly. Sometimes, they simply never materialise. The composed business owner in the room may not close a deal that day. But he leaves with something far more valuable — trust capital. His presence feels safe. His brand feels consistent. People remember him as someone they would like to work with, not someone they need to protect themselves from. Over time, this distinction compounds. In today’s business ecosystem, especially among seasoned founders and leaders, how you compete matters as much as whether you compete. Growth is no longer just about capability; it is about conduct. Your personal brand determines whether people lean in or step back — whether they introduce you to others or quietly avoid alignment. This is why personal branding is not a cosmetic exercise. It is strategic risk management. A strong personal brand ensures that your ambition does not overshadow your credibility. It aligns your intent with your impact. It allows you to command rooms without controlling them, influence without intrusion, and compete without compromising respect. Most importantly, it ensures that when people talk about you after you leave the room, they speak with clarity, not confusion. For business owners who want to scale, this distinction becomes critical. Growth brings visibility. Visibility amplifies behaviour. What once went unnoticed suddenly becomes defining. Without a refined personal brand, ambition can be misread as aggression. Confidence can feel like arrogance. Silence can be mistaken for disinterest. And these misinterpretations cost more than money — they cost momentum. The question, then, is not whether you are talented or successful. It is whether your personal brand is working for you or quietly against you in spaces where decisions are formed long before contracts are signed. Because in business, people don’t always choose the best offer. They choose the person who feels right. If you are a business owner or founder who wants to grow without compromising credibility — who wants to attract opportunities rather than chase them — it may be time to look closely at how your presence is being perceived in rooms that matter. If this resonates and you’d like to explore how your personal brand can be refined to support your growth, you can book a complimentary consultation here: https://sprect.com/pro/divyaaadvaani Not as a pitch — but as a conversation about how you show up, and what that presence is truly building for you. (The writer is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

What is an Education for-A Crisis of Mind?

NEP 2020 envisions education as the foundation for building an equitable and innovative society. Although it is a comprehensive vision, its full realization is evaluated by its capacity of overcoming significant implementation challenges, especially in governance and equitable access. According to the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, the primary goal of education in India is to transform the system to an integrated, versatile, multidisciplinary, and aligned to the 21st century needs, and the ultimate objective is to create an equitable and diverse knowledge society. Forgetting the simple answers that involve: “to get a job”, “to learn facts”, a critical analysis of education would reveal that education is an extremely contested terrain of power, ideology, and social vision. We shall conjecture about the purposes of education and consider its conflicting roles in society. Any education should not just be a policy-making, but should be skill based with student orientation to nurture the ecology as well. and It is the predominant narrative in the present day. Schooling is an investment in human resources. It is focused on providing skilled, conforming workers to the economy, innovating, and increasing national competitiveness. They are informed that education is a means of questioning employment and economic mobility. Critiques of this view ask: Are students merely "products" to be fitted to market needs? Does this reduce learning to training?


Depending on the works of Socrates and Rousseau, these views on education are individual development and enlightenment. It focuses on developing the “whole person”, that is, moral reasoning, critical thinking, creativity, and wisdom. It is aimed at individual freedom, self-actualization, and the “good life”.


To democratic theorists such as John Dewey, education is the foundation of a healthy democracy. It gives rise to knowledgeable, active citizens who are able to take part in public life, hold power accountable, ideas and promote social cohesion. In this case, education is a social reproduction of democracy itself. Critics indicate that schools usually prepare passive citizens and nationalistic narratives as opposed to truly critical participation.


Education can be structured to build true agency, educating students to question, and not just to answer. It has the potential to develop the ability to solve problems together, deliberate ethically, and act socially. Actually, poverty has not been conquered by illiteracy but by education. Education is destroying the ecology in the name of development.


Asking "what is education for?" forces us to ask: Who benefits? The answer is never singular. Education is determined by the values and power of the people who control the institutions, the curriculum, and assessment. Truly critical education, nevertheless, renders this conflict visible. It must not only prepare students to perform well within the system, but also to analyze, critique, and transform the system itself. Its ultimate aim, as per this critical perspective, is not adaptation to the world as it is, but the development of the ability to re-imagine and rebuild the world as it ought to be. In order to accomplish this, the policy shifts the focus of content-heavy, rote-learning approaches towards an education that encourages critical thinking, creativity, morals, and practical problem-solving.


In place of these myths, Orr proposes six guiding principles for what education should be for:

1. All Education is Environmental Education: By what is included or excluded, every lesson teaches students they are either part of or apart from the natural world.


2. Mastery of Oneself over Subject Matter: The primary goal is not intellectual command, but the development of wisdom, humility, and self-discipline.


3. Knowledge Carries Responsibility: Learning should be accompanied by awareness of the impact on people, communities, and biosphere.


4. Minimize the "Say-Do" Gap: Education must confront the gap between its proclaimed ideals (e.g., justice, sustainability) and institutional practices.


5. Learning Transcends the Classroom: Real education takes place when we are directly engaged with the living world and community.


6. Improve the Learning Process: Go beyond the passive lectures to the interdisciplinary approaches that educate about interconnectedness.


The main thesis expressed by Orr is that the ecological crisis is a “crisis of mind”. He transfers the failure to a technical know-how to the flawed educational paradigm that teaches domination as well as separation. Critical pedagogy should go beyond education. While thinkers like Freire critique education for social oppression, Orr extends this to ecological oppression. He agrees with Freire in his disdain of the “banking model” of education, instead promoting an educational model based on engagement with place and community. His philosophy is similar to but extends beyond the critical theory by making the human-nature relationship the centre.


According to some critics, ecological awareness is necessary, but education should deal with economic systems, political power, and social justice, with equal rigor. The Orr-inspired curriculum risks, in other words, is a curriculum that concentrates on consciousness, but does not prepare students to deconstruct the structural drivers of unsustainability. His localized, place-based paradigm is strong but immensely challenging to scale in and resource-limited public education systems. Finally, David Orr makes us evaluate education based on its results: Does it help people who will preserve a habitable, humane, and beautiful world? His essay is a fundamental and provocative work for anyone reconsidering the ultimate purpose of education.

(The writer is Head and Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Mahatma Basweshwar College, Latur. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page