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 is the H-1B Debate About?

Supporters of the H-1B programme argue its essential for U.S. technological leadership, while critics claim it exploits foreign workers as cheap, bonded labour.

H-1B Debate

At the end of December 2024, a heated debate ignited on social media in the political and tech sectors in America over the H-1B visa programme, which allows U.S. companies to hire temporary foreign workers in specific fields. The controversy highlighted divisions among supporters of newly elected President Donald Trump.


The debate began with Trump’s appointment of Indian-American entrepreneur Sriram Krishnan as his AI advisor. Some white supremacist Trump supporters argued that Krishnan’s Indian heritage would bias him in favour of foreigners in the crucial AI sector. These individuals called for the termination of the H-1B programme and the expulsion of all Indian-origin individuals from the U.S., making racist and offensive remarks targeting Indians, Hinduism, and Hindu deities.


In response, business leaders like Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX strongly supported the H-1B programme, highlighting its importance in attracting skilled engineering talent to maintain America’s technological leadership. Indian-American entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy also supported Musk, despite facing criticism for his stance.


Amid the growing controversy, President-elect Trump clarified his position, expressing strong backing for the H-1B programme, stating, “Many H-1B visa holders work in my establishments. I have always supported H-1B… It is a fantastic programme.”


Established under the Immigration Act of 1990, the H-1B visa programme allows U.S. employers to hire foreign professionals in specialty occupations requiring specialised knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree. It was introduced to address labour shortages in critical sectors, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The programme has been modified over time, including the introduction of a cap on visas and a lottery system to manage oversubscription.


Annual H-1B Visa Issuance

The H-1B programme has an annual cap of 85,000 visas, with 20,000 specifically reserved for those holding advanced degrees from U.S. institutions. Once the cap is reached, a lottery system is used to select applications for processing.


Critics argue that some companies exploit the programme to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labour. Additionally, the programme ties employees to their visas, creating a “bonded labour” situation. Some of Trump’s so-called supporters demand that all U.S. jobs be reserved for Americans, but by “Americans,” they mean only white people, even calling for the expulsion of all Indian-origin individuals, including U.S.-born citizens.

The U.S. issues approximately 140,000 employment-based green cards annually, along with around 225,000 family-based green cards. An annual cap ensures that no more than 7% of green cards are issued to individuals from any single country, based on the applicant’s country of birth, not citizenship.


The Problem of Illegal Immigration

While racism is unacceptable, the presence of foreign workers sometimes creates employment challenges for American citizens. However, the real issue lies in illegal immigration. As of 2022, there were an estimated 11 million unauthorised residents in the U.S., with about 8.3 million participating in the workforce.


The rising number of illegal immigrants from India is particularly concerning. Until 2019, around 8,000 Indians entered the U.S. illegally each year. By 2023, this number surged to 97,000, and in 2024, it likely exceeded 100,000. Alarmed by this, the Indian government is investigating a racket involving fake colleges in Canada that help individuals illegally enter the U.S.


Aspiring immigrants from India who risk their lives to cross borders illegally must understand that while seeking a better future is not wrong, doing so unlawfully is both a crime and a dangerous gamble. Thousands die in such attempts annually, a tragic reality.


The H-1B programme has significantly contributed to America’s economic growth and innovation. While reforms are necessary, abolishing them is not the solution. A balanced immigration policy is essential for America’s future.

However, the recent controversy, where individuals from the U.S., Canada, the UK, and Ireland targeted Indians, suggests that H-1B may have been used as a pretext to target Indians. People of Indian origin are generally peaceful and prosperous in the U.S., making them frequent targets of racist groups.


Though such incidents are regrettable, it is disheartening that some Indians mocked their fellow countrymen and sided with racists in this debate. History shows how divisions among Indians were exploited by foreign powers to subjugate India. This incident is a reminder that we have learned little from our past—perhaps the most important aspect of this controversy.


(The author is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page