From Bengaluru to Sydney: My reflections

As my first year in Australia winds to an end, I've spent some time reflecting on how the journey of building something here has differed from back home in India. It has been quite the journey over the past year and I can't wait to see what the next year has in store. 

How to motivate a team: Vision vs Velocity

In Australia, inspiration is the fuel. I found that keeping the team motivated meant continually communicating the vision and making each member feel like an integral part of the journey. They all tended to seek meaning, purpose, and inclusion in their work beyond just the paycheck. It’s about painting the big picture and ensuring everyone is on board with the “why”. This aligns with Australia’s egalitarian culture: managers need to be approachable, communication needs to be direct, and all team members expect to be consulted and heard. Frequent vision refreshers and open dialogue were absolutely key.

In India, ambition and rewards took center stage. By contrast, many teams I led in India came pre-motivated, often driven by rapid career growth and tangible rewards. There is a palpable hunger for success in the fast-growing companies, and many of my ex work-mates were inherently hard-working and competitive to advance their careers. Money and growth opportunities were powerful motivators. High performers expected that putting in longer hours and delivering results will translate to promotions or salary hikes (and they generally did). This environment meant teams often responded strongly to incentives like bonuses, promotions, or ESOPs. Stories of employees striking it rich with stock (e.g. the “Flipkart”, "Zomato/Swiggy", etc.) were well-known, and they fueled the drive to work hard and win big.

What this meant for me: I had to become more of a visionary cheerleader, constantly connecting daily tasks to the broader purpose and recognizing contributions in non-monetary ways: public appreciation, empowering people with autonomy. Compared to back home in India, where I learned to leverage the existing drive: setting ambitious targets and offering clear growth paths. That doesn’t mean vision isn’t important in India or that Aussies don’t care about money. Rather, it’s simply a matter of emphasis.

Getting Things Done: Professionalism and Pace

Another stark difference I noticed was in how work gets executed, particularly when collaborating with partners or vendors and managing project timelines.

In Australia, there is high professionalism, but at a deliberate pace. Working with vendors, service providers, or even colleagues in Australia was refreshingly straightforward. In my view, Australia scores very high on ease-of-doing-business rankings (generally in the global top 15). In practical terms, this meant that when I engaged a vendor or partner, they tended to do what they said, when they said they’d do it. But it was expensive (very expensive) at times. But, most of the time, I got what I paid for: timeliness and quality. I found I could spend far more time focusing on strategy and high-level planning, and far less time micromanaging or following up on every little deliverable. 

This professionalism also came with a more methodical pace. Timelines tended to be longer (sometimes hilariously long for someone used to the fast-paced Indian startup environment) but projects were planned in detail and buffer time was built in. As an anecdote, early on, I pushed a vendor in Sydney with the kind of urgency I was used to in India and I recall being politely told that “good work takes time”. Sure enough, the end result was polished, even if it wasn’t delivered overnight. Culturally, I felt Australians have a moderate tolerance for ambiguity but low tolerance for compromising quality. They will not rush something out the door if it means lowering standards.

India: Frugal, fast, and high-touch execution. In India, the environment was far more frenetic. The business landscape is intensely competitive and dynamic. There was an expected mantra of “move fast and break things” that most startups lived by. Vendors and partners in India were plentiful and generally cost-effective, but the trade-off was often in the variability of quality and reliability. It’s not that people were unprofessional, it’s just that the system around them was complex, hyper competitive and often chaotic (India is still outside the global top 50 on ease of doing business). As a business leader in India, I had to be hyper-vigilant in project management. Follow-ups, check-ins, and course-corrections were daily rituals. In fact, “following up” is an art form I perfected in India (and many Indian leaders do) whether it was confirming a delivery, double-checking a report, or nudging a partner who had gone radio-silent. 

The work culture conditions you to anticipate delays (plan for them) or issues and actively manage them. One humorous take I read described it perfectly: Indian managers/ partners might call you at 9 PM on a Sunday and then message repeatedly until they get a response, whereas their Australian counterparts would “give a respectful nudge” and then patiently wait . That persistence is often necessary to get stuff done in India’s high-growth environment. On the upside, the urgency and hustle mean Indian teams can achieve remarkable goals which, in an Australian context might seem like they are on the other side ludicrously optimistic. I’ve seen products and plans go from idea to deployment in a week. I learned that, in India, you build contingencies and adapt on the fly whereas, in Australia, you trust the process and stick to the plan.

Growth Trajectories: High-Growth Hustle vs Planned Sustainability

The differing economic landscapes shape how companies think about growth and competition.

In India, it’s all about hyper-growth. With a massive market and a flood of venture capital in recent years, Indian startups and even established companies often prioritized blitzscaling: grabbing market share quickly, even if it means “building the plane as we fly it.” Most companies I dealt with in India were laser-focused on aggressive growth targets: doubling user base in months, expanding to new cities or segments at breakneck speed, etc. The expectation from stakeholders (founders, investors, and even employees) is that you should grow fast or someone else will. 

Competition in India’s tech and startup space was beyond fierce- for nearly every new idea, there were multiple players racing neck-and-neck. This reality forces a high tolerance for risk and sometimes a “launch now, perfect later” mentality. Culturally India showed a high acceptance of imperfection in the short term if it enabled seizing an opportunity . The result: shorter product timelines, frequent pivots, and yes, occasional (often more than occasional) chaos but also incredibly rapid innovation. It’s no surprise that India now boasts 121 startup unicorns as of 2025 compared to just 12 in Australia.

In Australia, growth is steady and strategic. Australia’s business ecosystem is smaller and more mature in most sectors. Companies here (startups included) tend to pursue more deliberate growth paths, scaling up methodically after careful planning and market testing. It’s not that Australians lack ambition; rather, the approach to growth weighs sustainability and risk management more heavily. This translates to detailed business plans, pilot programs before big launches, and growth forecasts that might seem modest by Indian standards but come with a high degree of confidence. The culture is more about “let's rather be a bit late but excellent” than first-to-market with flaws.

The competitive environment in Australia also differs: in most industries, a handful of players dominate (often the Big 4), so startups find niches or focus on global markets from day one. In fact, the Australian home grown tech companies like Atlassian and Canva thought internationally from the start, whereas many Indian unicorns first conquered the domestic market (Ola in ride-hailing, Zomato in food delivery) before expanding abroad. This global orientation is another facet of Australian strategy, and given the domestic market’s limited size, the best Australian startups aim to compete on quality and innovation at a world stage, rather than purely on speed of expansion.

Hiring and Talent: Different Challenges, Different Criteria

Recruitment turned out to be a lot tougher in Australia than I expected, and in very different ways from India. Here’s what I observed:

Talent Supply vs Demand: I experienced first-hand the mismatch between talent demand and supply in the country- especially hiring for specialised roles could take months, and you often compete with well-paying corporates for a very limited talent pool. In India, by contrast, the talent pipeline was huge. I often got flooded with applications for most openings. The challenge in India was less about quantity and more about quality match and retention. In Australia, attracting top talent to a risky startup is hard unless you offer something truly compelling, since comfortable stable jobs are available and work-life balance is valued.

Hiring Philosophy: Potential vs Experience

This was one of the biggest differences. Indian startups are often hired based on potential and aptitude – the attitude is, “If you’re smart and hungry, we can train you.” I went through interviews in India (at both ends) that were case studies and problem-solving puzzles, with little regard to my prior industry experience. Companies valued generalists who could adapt as the company grew, and indeed I saw many colleagues successfully jump from one function to another as opportunities arose. 

In Australia, I was struck by how much more weight is given to direct experience. The market here tends to be specialized and risk-averse in hiring- startups (and other firms) often look for a candidate who has “done the exact job before” . During interviews in Australia, candidates expected technical or role-specific questions, and some were surprised when I instead gave them a generic case study like I used to in India . My approach had been shaped by India- test for smarts and cultural fit but in Australia that was not the norm. I learned that personality and cultural fit are still crucial in Australia (perhaps even more so given small team sizes).

Key takeaway: Hiring in Australia taught me to emphasise what makes a startup appealing beyond money. I couldn’t always outbid big competitors on salary, so I highlighted things like impact, learning opportunities, high ownership roles, etc.

Work-Life Balance

The super obvious one: Australia takes this very seriously! Even at high-growth firms, people generally unplug in the evenings and weekends. Society encourages taking your annual leave and enjoying life. India, on the other hand, currently has a more work-centric culture- long hours and being “always on” are more common (especially in tech hubs). This doesn’t mean Indians don’t value family or downtime. They do, deeply but the workplace expectations often push people to put in extra hours routinely. I had to adjust my management style accordingly (this was often a difficult one for me). In fact, I had to start using Slack's "send later" feature a lot more than I ever used in India.

Communication and Hierarchy

Australian workplaces are very informal and egalitarian. People address even the CEO by first name, challenge ideas openly, and prefer straight-talk. I learned that any hint of excessive hierarchy or micro-management would alienate Australian colleagues quickly. India’s office culture, shaped by tradition, is a bit more hierarchical and nuanced in communication. There is great respect for elders and superiors; people may not voice open disagreement as readily. As a leader in India, I had to be mindful to invite dissenting opinions more actively because many team members were not used to directly saying “I disagree” to a boss whereas in Australia, you’ll hear that feedback unprompted! Being aware of these differences helped me avoid misinterpretations: what might seem like lack of initiative in India could just be deference, and what might seem like pushback in Australia is just healthy debate.

Competitive vs Collaborative Attitude

In India, competition is intense. Sometimes, multiple firms are vying for the same emerging market, and it’s all-out execution war. This can foster a bit of a zero-sum mindset at times. In Australia, I sensed more collaboration. Perhaps because the market is smaller, startups often don’t directly go head-to-head; instead, they differentiate or even partner to expand globally. Also, Australian business culture places a premium on fair play and relationships. The stereotypical aggressive tactics are less common. Not to say it never happens, but there’s a general politeness in competition. This collegial atmosphere can be a strength; it’s easier to ask advice or learn from peers. The flip side is it can feel less urgent. In India, the fear that a rival is right on your heels can be a great motivator to keep pushing.

Closing thoughts

Working in Australia after India has been a transformative experience. It pushed me to adapt from a high-octane, grow-at-all-costs mindset to a measured, people-centric leadership style. Ultimately, neither approach is inherently better- they are products of their environments and adapting to the environment is more crucial than having any preconceived notion of how work/ business is done. The ideal might be a blend: the ambition and hustle of India, combined with the strategic discipline and inclusivity of Australia.

On a personal note, I feel I have massively grown as a business leader by experiencing these contrasts. In India, I learned to think big and act fast, to rally motivated teams who chase audacious goals. In Australia, I learned to listen better and communicate clearer, to value quality over quantity, and to build teams through vision and respect. As I continue my journey, I carry forward a more holistic management approach- one that can flex between sprint and marathon, between inspiration and incentive, depending on what my team needs.

For anyone straddling these two worlds, my advice is simple: stay adaptable and keep a growth mindset. With the rise of global teams and cross-border ventures, understanding these cultural nuances is not just an academic exercise but a practical toolkit for success. I am deeply grateful for the lessons that Australia has taught me over the past year, built on the foundation of years in India. Each has made me a better leader than the other.