Podcasts about Griffith University

Leaders today are drowning in meetings, email, reporting, coaching, planning, performance reviews, and constant firefighting. The real issue isn't whether you're busy—it's whether your time, talent, and treasure are being invested in the work that keeps you effective now and promotable next. Why do leaders feel more time-poor even with better tech? Because faster tools have increased expectations, not reduced workload—and they've made "always on" feel normal. The smartphone, Teams chats, dashboards, and instant messaging don't create time; they compress response windows. Post-2020, hybrid work accelerated this, and the global 24-hour cycle became the default for many multinationals, while SMEs often feel it even more because leadership bandwidth is thinner. In markets like Japan, where consensus and alignment matter, leaders can get pulled into "just one more check-in." In the US, speed can dominate; in Europe, governance and process add another layer. Different pressures—same outcome: leaders feel behind, anxious, and exposed to FOMO. Do now: Identify the 2–3 activities that create strategic leverage (not just motion), and block time for them daily—before the inbox wins. Where should a leader spend time when they're far from the frontline? Spend your time building an "insight engine" through people, not trying to personally touch everything. As organisations scale, you operate through others, and the risk is losing texture: you weren't in the client meeting, you didn't hear the objection, you only see the numbers after the fact. Executives at firms like Toyota solve this by turning frontline intelligence into a system—structured feedback loops, customer listening routines, and disciplined reporting rhythms. Contrast that with a startup: founders may still be close to customers, but chaos can make signals noisy. Either way, leaders need an intentional method to "see the battle" without being everywhere. Do now: Create a weekly cadence: one customer story, one frontline barrier, one competitor insight—delivered in a consistent format by your team. How do I stop being trapped in meetings, email, and rework? You don't win back time by working harder—you win it back by redesigning decisions, standards, and accountability. Meetings multiply when decision rights are unclear. Email explodes when priorities aren't explicit. Rework grows when "good" isn't defined and coaching happens too late. Use the same discipline you'd apply to financial controls: define what decisions sit with you vs your direct reports, set quality standards, and coach early. A multinational might formalise this with governance; a small business can do it with simple rules and a one-page "definition of done." Tools like Slack can help visibility, but they can also create another stream of noise if you don't set norms. Do now: Cut or merge recurring meetings by 20%, and replace them with one clear decision log and one weekly coaching slot. What's the "Pluto problem" in leadership, and how do I avoid it? If you stop learning, the world will reclassify you—even if you're still working hard. Pluto didn't move; the definition changed. In 2006, International Astronomical Union changed the criteria, and Pluto became a dwarf planet. Leadership works the same way: the pace of change shifts the job description under your feet. What worked pre-smartphone, pre-AI, or pre-hybrid may now be insufficient. Strategy cycles shorten. Stakeholder expectations rise. Communication channels multiply. Leaders who don't refresh their thinking risk becoming "dwarf leaders"—still present, but no longer the best fit for the next challenge. Do now: Pick one capability to rebuild this quarter (strategic thinking, coaching, executive presence, sales leadership) and measure progress monthly. How can leaders keep their talent current without going back to business school? Treat professional education like fitness: small, regular sessions beat occasional "big bursts." Executive programmes at Harvard Business School, Stanford Graduate School of Business, and INSEAD can be brilliant—but most leaders don't need another credential as much as they need consistent skill renewal. Since the mid-2000s, business changed fast: Facebook launched in 2004, Google went public the same year, Twitterarrived in 2006, and Instagram in 2010. That reshaped attention, branding, recruiting, and leadership communication. Do now: Schedule 60 minutes a week for learning, and 30 minutes a week to apply it with your team—otherwise it's entertainment, not development. How do I spend "treasure" wisely on development and avoid bad training? Buy learning the way you buy investments: verify the assumptions, not the hype. We have more free and low-cost options than ever—previews, reviews, sample modules, peer recommendations. That's a gift, but it also means more low-quality content. Example: the popular "55/38/7" presentation rule gets misquoted constantly. Albert Mehrabian found those ratios apply in narrow situations—when words and nonverbal cues conflict—yet some trainers present it as a universal rule. If a provider can't explain the limits of their own claims, don't hand them your budget. Platforms like LinkedIn Learning can be useful—if you evaluate the instructor credibility and relevance to your market and role. Do now: Set an annual learning budget, test with samples first, and prioritise training tied to measurable KPIs (team output, quality, retention, sales) Final wrap Leadership is a constant trade: you can't do everything, but you can do the highest-value things—consistently. Guard your time with systems, rebuild your talent with habits, and invest your treasure with discernment. The goal is to stay modern, stay credible, and stay promotable. Optional FAQs How many hours per week should a leader invest in learning? One focused hour weekly plus a short application session usually beats sporadic full-day training for retention and behaviour change. What's the fastest way to reduce meeting overload? Clarify decision rights, cancel low-value recurring meetings, and replace status meetings with a consistent written update. How do I know if training is credible? Look for clear scope limits, evidence quality, relevant case examples, and outcomes tied to KPIs—not just confidence and catchy stats. Author bio Dr Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, he is certified to deliver globally across leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programmes, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers—Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery—along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

Objections are not the enemy — they're signals. In complex B2B and high-ticket selling, an objection often means the buyer is still engaged, still evaluating, and still leaving the door open. The difference between "this is going nowhere" and "we can win this" is whether you follow a disciplined process instead of reacting emotionally. Below is a practical, repeatable objection-handling framework you can run in real time — in Australia, Japan, the US, Europe, in-person or on Zoom — without sounding scripted. Why are objections actually a good sign in sales conversations? Objections usually mean the buyer is still considering you — they're testing risk, fit, and trust rather than silently rejecting you. In most markets post-pandemic (2020–2025), buyers have tightened procurement, involved more stakeholders, and demanded clearer ROI, which means more questions and more pushback — even when they like you. In Japan, where consensus building and risk avoidance are culturally strong, objections often appear as "we need to think" or "it might be difficult." In the US and Australia, you might hear direct resistance like "too expensive" or "we're happy with our current vendor." In all cases, the presence of friction can be healthier than polite indifference. Do now (answer card): Treat objections as engagement. Your job isn't to "win" — it's to discover what's underneath and solve the real concern What's the biggest mistake salespeople make when they hear an objection? The fastest way to lose a deal is to argue with the buyer — even if you're technically correct. The human brain hears pushback and wants to defend: you jump in, correct them, prove them wrong, and accidentally trigger buyer resistance. You might "win the debate" and still lose the decision. This shows up everywhere: startups pitching to procurement, consultants selling transformation programs, and enterprise SaaS teams facing security and legal. In Australia and the US, that argument can feel like a pressure tactic; in Japan, it can feel like you've disrupted harmony and made it harder for the buyer to save face. Instead of debating the headline ("too expensive"), you need the story behind it (budget cycle, internal politics, competing priorities, risk fears). Do now (answer card): Stop defending. Assume the objection is a headline and your job is to uncover the full article. What is a "cushion" and why does it work for handling objections? A cushion is a neutral circuit-breaker sentence that stops you from reacting and buys you thinking time. It's not agreement and it's not disagreement — it's a calm buffer between what they said and what you say next. Examples in plain English: "I hear you." "That's a fair point." "Thanks for raising that." "I can see why you'd ask that." This works because it lowers emotional temperature, keeps the buyer talking, and prevents the "fight or flight" response that turns into arguing. Whether you're selling to a Japanese conglomerate, a US mid-market firm, or an Australian SME, that pause helps you shift from defence mode into discovery mode. Pro tip: keep the cushion short. The cushion isn't the solution — it's the doorway to the right question. Do now (answer card): Build 3–5 cushion phrases you can say naturally, then use one every single time before you respond. What question should you ask first after any objection? Ask: "May I ask you why you say that?" — because the only useful response to an objection is more information.Objections are like a newspaper headline: short, dramatic, and missing context. "Too expensive" could mean cashflow, competitor pricing, CFO scrutiny, or fear of implementation risk. When you ask "why," you throw the "porcupine" back to the buyer — gently — so they explain the real story. This is effective in high-context cultures like Japan because it invites explanation without confrontation. It also works in direct markets like the US and Australia because it signals professionalism: you're diagnosing, not pushing. Watch-out: don't ask "why" with a sharp tone. Make it soft, curious, and slow. The tone is the difference between coaching and challenging. Do now (answer card): Make "why" your reflex. Cushion → "May I ask why?" → listen longer than feels comfortable. How do you clarify and cross-check to find the real objection? Clarify by restating the concern, then cross-check for hidden issues until they run out of objections. Buyers often lead with a minor issue to end the conversation quickly, especially when they don't want a long discussion. Think iceberg: the visible tip is what they say; the big block below the waterline is what they mean. Use two moves: Clarify: "Thank you. So, as I understand it, your chief concern is ___ — is that right?" Cross-check: "In addition to ___, are there any other concerns on your side?" Repeat the cross-check 3–4 times if needed. Then prioritise: "You've mentioned X, Y, and Z. Which one is the highest priority for you?" This is how enterprise sales teams reduce "surprise" objections late in the cycle, and how consultants avoid being derailed by a small complaint masking a major deal-breaker. Do now (answer card): Clarify the core issue, then ask for additional concerns, then rank them. Don't respond until you know the deal-breaker. How do you reply: deny, agree, reverse — and then trial close? Reply to the true main objection with one of three paths — deny, agree, or reverse — then use a trial commitment to confirm it's resolved. Once you've identified the highest-priority concern, you respond in a way that protects trust. Deny (with proof): If it's incorrect ("I heard you're going bankrupt"), deny calmly and offer evidence (financial stability, customer references, audited statements where appropriate). Agree (own reality): If it's true (quality issues, missed deadlines), acknowledge it. Explain what changed: process fixes, governance, QA, leadership actions. Credibility beats spin. Reverse (reframe): If the concern can become a benefit ("you take longer to deliver"), reframe it as risk reduction and quality control — less rework, fewer outages, smoother adoption. Then trial close: "How does that sound so far?" If more objections appear, run the process again. Do now (answer card): Pick the right response type (deny/agree/reverse), then trial close immediately to confirm the objection is gone. Conclusion: the repeatable objection-handling rhythm Objections don't block deals — unmanaged emotions do. When you treat objections as engagement, cushion your response, ask "why," clarify the real issue, cross-check for hidden concerns, and reply with credibility, you stop wrestling the buyer and start guiding the decision. If there are no questions, no objections, no hesitation, it may mean the buyer has already eliminated you and is just waiting for the meeting to end. Better to find out early — and move on to a real opportunity. Author credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results.  He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). 

Preparing safe, enjoyable meals for people with dysphagia can be challenging but it does not have to mean sacrificing enjoyment of food, variety, and social connection. How can clinicians and caregivers help ensure meals remain safe and enjoyable? In this episode, we speak with Dr. Simone Howells from Griffith University, Australia, about the second edition of Beyond the Blender: Dysphagia Made Easier; a freely available cookbook featuring 30 recipes organised according to IDDSI Levels 2–6. We discuss: the inspiration behind creating the cookbook how recipes were developed, selected and adapted across IDDSI levels the challenges of modifying everyday meals while maintaining taste, texture, and visual appeal the broader responsibilities of SLTs beyond recommending modified diets practical strategies and resources to better support patients and families

Most leaders want "alignment," but what they really need is movement—people actually doing the new thing. Motivating action is devilishly hard because humans cling to habits, defend their comfort, and only rent logic after emotion has already bought the decision.  Below is a practical, talk-design framework you can use in leadership meetings, sales kick-offs, internal change programs, and client presentations—especially when you need people to stop nodding and start acting. Is motivating people to change really that difficult? Yes—because habit beats good intentions, and people protect the status quo like it's their job. Even when everyone agrees "something should change," most of us quietly mean other people should change first. In workshops, a tiny experiment proves it: put your watch on the other wrist or fold your arms the "wrong" way. Your brain throws a mini tantrum. That discomfort is what you're up against in every change initiative—whether you're a sales manager in Japan rolling out a new CRM process, or a team lead in the United States trying to shift meeting culture post-pandemic. In practice, logic explains change, but emotion powers it. People act on feeling, then justify with reasons. Do now: Identify the one habit your audience is clinging to—and name the discomfort your change will create. What's the first step to get others to take action? Start with the end in mind: choose one concrete action that is easy to understand and feels easy to do. If the action sounds complicated, political, or time-consuming, motivation evaporates. Leaders often blow it here by proposing "transformation" instead of a single step: "be more customer-centric," "collaborate better," "innovate faster." That's fog, not action. A better move is something measurable: "book three customer interviews this week," "open every proposal with a problem statement," "run a 15-minute pre-brief before the monthly meeting." This works in startups and multinationals because it reduces cognitive load—the brain loves clarity. Make the action small enough to start, but meaningful enough to matter. Do now: Write the action as a verb + object + deadline (e.g., "Call five dormant clients by Friday"). How do you make the audience actually want to do it? You must attach a strong "what's in it for me" benefit that beats the comfort of doing nothing. People don't resist change—they resist loss: time, status, certainty, competence, control. So the benefit can't be vague ("better culture") or distant ("future growth"). It needs punch: less rework, fewer angry customers, faster deals, fewer escalations, more autonomy, more commission, more trust from senior leadership. This is where comparisons help: what motivates action in Australia may be framed around practicality and time; in Japan it may be framed around risk reduction, quality, and team credibility; in the US it may lean toward speed and individual ownership. Same human wiring—different packaging. Do now: Pick one benefit and make it tangible: "This saves you two hours a week" beats "This improves productivity." Why does "telling people what to do" backfire? Because direct instructions trigger resistance, especially in experienced teams who think, "Don't boss me." If you open with the action, you invite critics to immediately attack it. Executives at firms like Toyota and Rakuten (and frankly, any organisation with smart people) have learned that persuasion is smoother when the audience arrives at the conclusion themselves. That's why context matters: when listeners hear the reality, they often decide the action is sensible before you recommend it. You're not forcing them—you're guiding them. This is especially useful across cultures and hierarchies, where blunt "do this" language can be interpreted as disrespectful or naïve. Do now: Remove your first-slide instruction. Replace it with the situation that makes the change feel inevitable. How do you use storytelling to drive action in a talk? Tell the incident with enough real-world detail that people can see it—and feel it—in their mind's eye. Story is the bridge between logic and emotion. Use people, place, season, and time. Not because it's "cute," but because specificity creates belief. "Last quarter, in our Tokyo client meeting…" lands harder than "sometimes clients…" A story can be your experience, a customer moment, a mistake, a near miss, or a win—anything that explains why you believe the action matters. This is where you build credibility without preaching. Keep it tight, but vivid. The goal isn't theatre; the goal is emotional engagement that makes action feel like relief. Do now: Draft a 60–90 second incident story with (1) who, (2) where, (3) what happened, (4) what it cost. What is the "Magic Formula" for motivating others to action? Plan your talk as action → benefit → incident, but deliver it in reverse: incident → action → benefit. This is the Magic Formula.  Here's why it works: the incident neutralises opposition. Instead of a room full of critics, you create a room full of co-diagnosticians. They hear the context, they connect the dots, and they start forming the same conclusion you already reached. By the time you state the action, they're mentally ahead of you—agreeing. Keep it disciplined: one action only, and one strongest benefit only. Multiple actions split attention; multiple benefits dilute impact. This is as true in B2B sales as it is in leadership change programs. Do now: Build your next talk in three parts: Incident (70%), Action (15%), Benefit (15%). One action. One best benefit. Conclusion: turning agreement into action Motivation isn't magic—it's design. When you make the action clear, the benefit personal, and the story vivid, you stop fighting human nature and start working with it. Whether you're leading change in Japan, selling into global accounts, or trying to shift internal behaviour, the goal is the same: move people from "interesting" to "I'm doing it." Quick next steps for leaders Write your one action in a single sentence. Choose your one strongest benefit (make it measurable). Script your incident story with real detail. Deliver in this order: Incident → Action → Benefit. End with a deadline and an immediate first step. Author bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results.  He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー).  Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and X, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

"The trust part is very important." "Change was a dirty word." "Anything controversial was normally me." "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity." Paul Hardisty is a finance-trained executive (CPA) who began his career in Melbourne and became CFO of a group of fashion brands across Australia and New Zealand, including Davenport, with licensing and distribution experience across brands such as Calvin Klein and Carhartt. In 1999, he joined adidas, initially slated for Indonesia just as Jakarta's riots erupted, before ultimately leading adidas Indonesia for five years. He then spent six months in India addressing corruption issues, before moving to South Korea for more than six years, scaling the business significantly. Hardisty's long-held ambition was Japan, and he relocated with his family to lead adidas Japan, where he spent around a decade and helped drive major growth. His career arc reflects repeated adaptation across markets, cultures, and organisational scale, culminating in leading one of adidas's most sophisticated and strategically scrutinised country operations. Paul Hardisty's leadership story is a study in scale, trust, and the mechanics of change inside a complex, matrixed multinational. Having built a finance foundation in Australia and then taken on consecutive country leadership roles across Indonesia and South Korea, he arrived in Japan with a reputation for delivery and a clear-eyed sense that every market has its own "bucket of challenges". Japan's challenge was not drama; it was magnitude. The jump in organisational size, headcount, and global attention required him to rethink how a leader stays close to the business without drowning in it. Hardisty's early focus was listening: diagnosing issues, filling structural gaps, and building a strategy that could plug into global direction without losing local relevance. He frames trust as the non-negotiable foundation — not uniquely Japanese, but especially powerful in Japan when earned through consistency and "walking the talk". This trust, once established, becomes the lubricant for cross-functional cooperation and the antidote to silent compliance. He is candid about engagement measurement and how it can mislead headquarters. Rather than treating scores as a simplistic international comparison, he focused on patterns, feedback, and the real operational drivers behind sentiment — restructures, headcount freezes, and incentives. His most controversial move was transparency: explaining the scoring system, challenging extremely low scorers to reconsider fit, and even enabling anonymous external applications. The point was not punitive; it was cultural clarity — engagement matters, but so does the integrity of the team environment. Hardisty also leaned into pride as a motivational engine. In sport, brand affiliation and national moments (such as major tournaments) can transform "company" into "identity". He institutionalised that energy through internal competitions, event tickets, surprise guests, and subsidised sports clubs, making motivation tangible and social. Where his approach becomes especially instructive is in diversity and global mobility. He resisted the idea that Japan must be led only by Japanese, or that Japanese leaders must stay in Japan. By placing non-Japanese local hires throughout the organisation and building pathways for Japanese talent to take overseas roles (including shorter three-month rotations), he pushed the company beyond passive consensus into practical internationalisation — a form of organisational nemawashi performed through staffing architecture rather than meeting-room persuasion. On innovation, he names the core friction: uncertainty avoidance and the comfort of repeating proven routines. To counter that, he used incentives, anonymity, and then a structural breakthrough — a business development function reporting directly to him, acting as an internal project-management and strategy engine. It reduced "not my job" resistance, spread ownership, and accelerated decision flow in a ringi-sho world where approvals can slow momentum. Ultimately, Hardisty's Japan lesson is not that Japan is "impossible". It is that Japan rewards leaders who operationalise trust, make change safe to attempt, and build systems that carry strategy through the middle layers to the front line. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Hardisty sees Japan as different in flavour, not in degree. The distinguishing feature is the strength of trust and loyalty once credibility is earned. In a consensus environment shaped by nemawashi and ringi-sho processes, alignment is powerful, but it must be cultivated deliberately and communicated repeatedly at scale. Why do global executives struggle? He argues many leaders struggle because they over-index on stereotypes and get "brainwashed" by received wisdom — what cannot be done, what must be done, and why Japan is supposedly exceptional. That mindset can cause unnecessary caution, poor decisions, and a failure to see the "bucket load of good things" that make Japan workable and rewarding. Is Japan truly risk-averse? He frames the issue less as risk and more as uncertainty avoidance. People protect reputation by staying within proven patterns, which can look like risk aversion. His antidote is to reframe experimentation as responsible learning, supported by incentives, clear ownership, and leadership cover when outcomes are not perfect. What leadership style actually works? His style is direct, transparent, and human. He uses openness to build trust, shares personal context to reduce distance, and creates forums where information flows both ways. He is also willing to be "controversial" when cultural drift undermines performance or engagement. How can technology help? While he does not position Japan as a technology problem, his operating model maps well to decision intelligence: creating a central function that gathers intel, runs meetings, manages projects, and accelerates cross-functional execution. In modern terms, leaders can use analytics, scenario planning, and even digital twins of the business to test change before rollout, reducing perceived uncertainty and speeding consensus without bypassing it. Does language proficiency matter? He acknowledges language as a major early hurdle and treats capability-building as an investment. Translation support, English training, and mixed-nationality teams can slow meetings, but they also expand opportunity and shift mindsets. Language is not only communication; it is a gateway to global mobility and a catalyst for new thinking. What's the ultimate leadership lesson? Hardisty's core lesson is that repeating the same actions while expecting different results is organisational self-deception. In Japan, change requires systems, structure, and trust — and leaders must design the pathways that make change executable from the top to the shop floor. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

Listening is the most underrated sales skill because it's the one that actually tells you what the buyer is thinking, not what you wish they were thinking.  Most salespeople believe they listen well, but in real conversations—especially under pressure—we drift into habits that feel like listening while we're actually rehearsing our next line. In Japan, in the US, in Europe—whether you're selling to an SME, a startup, or a multinational—buyers can feel when you're not fully present. Are you really listening to the buyer—or just waiting to talk? Most salespeople aren't listening; they're mentally queuing up their next point, and the buyer can hear the delay. This shows up in every market: a SaaS rep in San Francisco, a relationship banker in London, or an account manager in Tokyo can look attentive while their mind is sprinting ahead. The trigger is usually one "important" phrase—budget, competitor, timing—then your attention snaps away from the buyer and into your internal monologue. You're still hearing, but you're not taking in. That gap matters because buyers don't only communicate in words. In executive-level meetings at firms like Toyota or Rakuten, meaning often sits inside tone, pace, hesitations, and what goes unsaid. Post-pandemic, with more hybrid calls on Zoom or Teams, these cues are easier to miss—unless you deliberately train for them. Do now: Treat every buyer conversation like a live intelligence feed: if you're writing your reply in your head, you've stopped listening. What are the five levels of listening in sales? There are five levels—Ignore, Pretend, Selective, Attentive, and Empathetic—and most sales calls hover around levels 2 or 3.  Ignore doesn't mean staring at your phone; it can mean being hijacked by your own thoughts the moment the buyer says something provocative. Pretend looks like nodding, eye contact, "mm-hmm"—but your brain is busy building the pitch. Selective listening is the killer in modern B2B: you filter for "yes/no" buying signals, but you miss the conditions attached to them (timeline, stakeholders, risk concerns). Attentive listening is full-focus: no interruptions, no filtering, paraphrasing to confirm. Empathetic listening goes further—eyes and ears—reading what's behind the words and "meeting the buyer in the conversation going on in their mind." That's as relevant in procurement-heavy Japan as it is in fast-moving US sales teams. Do now: Identify which level you default to under pressure—and train upward, not sideways. What does "ignoring the client" look like if you're still in the room? You can "ignore" a buyer while looking directly at them—by following your own thoughts instead of their words. This is common when the client says something that sparks urgency: "We're also talking to your competitor," "Budget is tight," "We need this by Q2." The moment you latch onto that, the rest of what they say fades into the mist because you're fixated on the counterpoint you must deliver. In enterprise sales, this is where deals quietly die: you respond to the wrong problem, at the wrong depth, to the wrong stakeholder. In Japan, where meaning can be indirect and consensus-based, this is riskier—what's not said can be the real message. In Australia, where communication is often more direct, you can still miss the nuance in tone—especially in remote calls where you're juggling slides, notes, and chat. Do now: When you feel triggered, pause and mentally label it: "That's my ego talking—back to the buyer." Why do salespeople "pretend" to listen—and how can you spot it? Pretend listening happens when your body language says "I'm with you" but your mind is already pitching, defending, or debating.  You nod. You lean in. You look professional. But internally you're preparing the product dump, building the objection-handling case, or rehearsing the "killer story." It's the classic "lights are on, but you're not home" dynamic—common across industries like consulting, insurance, tech, and professional services. The modern version is worse: you're also glancing at CRM notes, Slack messages, or the next meeting timer. Buyers notice because your responses don't quite match what they said. You answer a question they didn't ask, or you jump too early. In negotiation-heavy environments (Japan, Germany, regulated sectors), this reads as disrespect. In faster markets (US startups), it reads as shallow. Do now: After the buyer speaks, summarise in one sentence before you respond with anything else. Is "selective listening" efficient—or does it sabotage sales outcomes? Selective listening is efficient for hearing buying signals, but it often sabotages effectiveness by skipping the context that makes the "yes" or "no" meaningful.  Salespeople are trained to hunt for signals: interest, hesitation, resistance. But if you only listen for yes/no, you miss the conditions attached—like internal politics, compliance concerns, implementation capacity, or fear of change. You also jump the gun: you hear the "no" early and start crafting your rebuttal while the buyer is still explaining why. The Japan example is instructive: because the verb often arrives at the end of the sentence, you're forced to hear the whole thought before reacting. In English, you can start manufacturing your reply mid-sentence, which feels fast but can be sloppy. Across APAC, where indirectness can be a politeness strategy, selective listening becomes a deal-killer because the meaning sits in the qualifiers. Do now: Don't respond to the first "yes/no." Wait for the full sentence—then ask one clarifying question. What's the difference between attentive listening and empathetic listening—and which closes deals? Attentive listening makes you accurate; empathetic listening makes you influential because it reveals what the buyer is really protecting.  Attentive listening is full presence: you don't interrupt, you don't filter, you paraphrase to confirm understanding. This alone differentiates you in any market—Japan, the US, Europe—because most professionals are distracted. Empathetic listening is the next level: you listen with your eyes and ears, tracking tone, body language, and what isn't being said. You sense anxiety behind a budget objection, or politics behind a "we'll think about it." You aim to "meet the buyer in the conversation going on in their mind," which is exactly what executive-level selling requires. In leadership cultures where saving face matters (Japan, parts of Asia), empathy helps you surface concerns safely. In direct cultures (Australia, US), empathy helps you avoid brute-force pitching and instead guide the decision. Do now: Paraphrase the facts, then reflect the feeling: "It sounds like timing isn't the only concern here." Conclusion If you want to sell more, stop trying to be more persuasive and start trying to be more present. The five levels of listening are a diagnostic tool: most salespeople drift between Pretend and Selective because their brain is busy performing. Attentive listening earns trust. Empathetic listening uncovers truth. And the fastest way to improve your buyer conversations is to practise listening where it's hardest—at home, with people who don't have to pay you to stay polite. Author credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results.  He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー).  Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

New Year's resolutions are a lovely idea—until life body-checks you in week two. Changing habits takes extra energy: consistency, patience, perseverance, and actual application. The good news? If you're a presenter (or you want to be), you've already got the three levers that move the needle every year: time, talent, and treasure—used wisely, they turn "I should…" into "I did." Why do presenters talk about "time, talent, and treasure" as the big three? Because presentation success is a leverage game: time builds repetition, talent grows through practice, and treasure buys acceleration. In a post-pandemic world of hybrid meetings, global teams, and always-on competition, persuasion is the divider—whether you're pitching internally at Toyota, selling B2B SaaS like Salesforce, or leading change in a mid-sized Australian firm. In Japan, the US, and across Europe, the pattern is consistent: people with clearer messages and stronger delivery get faster alignment. If you can't bring others with you, you end up living inside someone else's agenda. The "time, talent, treasure" model keeps you honest: how much are you practising, what skills are you deliberately developing, and where are you investing to shortcut the learning curve? Do now: Pick one presentation you'll deliver in the next 30 days and allocate time (practice), talent (skill focus), and treasure (tools/coaching) against it—on purpose. How does better use of time make you more persuasive? Time is life, and in presenting, time becomes trust—because repetition turns ideas into instinct. Persuasion isn't magic; it's built from small, consistent reps: clarifying your point, tightening your story, and refining your delivery until it sounds like you, not a script. Compare a startup founder in Silicon Valley to a manager in Tokyo: different cultures, similar pressure. The founder needs speed and punch; the Tokyo manager needs clarity, respect, and structured logic. In both cases, the presenter who rehearses wins—because they can think while speaking, handle questions, and stay calm when the room goes quiet. This is where habit science (think James Clear's "Atomic Habits" approach) helps: schedule short practice sprints, not heroic marathons. Do now: Put 15 minutes on your calendar, three times a week, to rehearse out loud—standing up, with a timer, and one clear "next step" at the end. Is presentation skill natural talent, or can it be learned? Great presenting is learned, not born—confidence is trained, not gifted. Most people aren't "naturals"; they're practised. The fear of embarrassment is real (hello, sweaty palms), but it's also beatable with the right method: structure + repetition + feedback. Look at the ecosystems that consistently produce strong communicators: Toastmasters, TED-style coaching, and frameworks used in leadership training programs like Dale Carnegie. The common denominator is guided practice and measurement—voice pace, eye contact, message structure, audience control. If you're in a multinational, you might get formal training; if you're in an SME, you might rely on YouTube and trial-and-error. Either way, the fastest path is: learn the fundamentals, apply immediately, then refine. Do now: Identify one skill to improve this month (openings, storytelling, slides, Q&A). Record a 2-minute practice video weekly and track one metric (clarity, pace, filler words). How do you build talent without drowning in content overload? Talent grows when you consume less content—but apply more of what matters. Content marketing has made learning ridiculously accessible: YouTube explainers, LinkedIn creators, podcasts on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, courses on Coursera and LinkedIn Learning. That's the upside. The downside? You're drinking from a firehose. The fix is a simple filter: choose one "lane" for 30 days—storytelling, executive presence, sales persuasion, or slide design—and ignore the rest. In the US, people often optimise for charisma; in Japan, audiences often reward clarity, humility, and structure. So your learning plan should match your context and industry (tech, finance, manufacturing, professional services). Quick checklist (use this before you watch anything): Will this help my next presentation in 14 days? Can I practise it within 48 hours? Can I measure improvement (time, audience response, outcomes)? Do now: Commit to one creator/course for 30 days and write one line after each session: "What I will do differently next time." When should you invest money (treasure) in training, coaching, or tools? Spend treasure when it buys speed, feedback, and real-world practice—not just inspiration. Free content is fantastic for discovery, but it rarely gives you personalised correction. Coaching, workshops, and quality programs can compress years of trial-and-error into months—especially when your role requires influence: executives, sales leaders, project managers, and subject-matter experts. Think of it like this: in a startup, treasure might be a pitch coach before a funding round. In a Japanese conglomerate, it might be a structured program to lift manager communication across regions. In Australia, it might be a practical workshop that improves internal briefings and client updates. Tools count too: a decent microphone, a ring light, or a slide template system can make your message land better in remote settings. Do now: Set an annual "persuasion budget" (even a small one). Prioritise: (1) coaching feedback, (2) skills program, (3) delivery tools—then measure ROI by outcomes (wins, approvals, reduced rework). What should leaders and professionals do if their resolutions already derailed? Resetting isn't failure—it's leadership: you regroup, adjust the system, and start again with better context. The people who improve each year aren't perfect; they're consistent about restarting. Presenters especially need this mindset because the stakes keep rising—hybrid audiences, shorter attention spans, and higher expectations for clarity. The practical move is to make "presenting improvement" part of your weekly rhythm, not a motivational burst. Use SMART goals, build tiny habits, and attach practice to something you already do (Monday team meeting, monthly client update, quarterly review). If you're leading others, make it cultural: run short "presentation sprints," rotate who opens meetings, and reward clarity—not just confidence. Do now: Choose one recurring event (weekly meeting or monthly update) and upgrade one element for the next 8 weeks: opening, structure, visuals, or Q&A handling. Conclusion Time, talent, and treasure aren't abstract ideas—they're the knobs you can actually turn. Use time deliberately, nurture talent through applied learning, and invest treasure where it accelerates feedback and skill. And if you've already fallen off the wagon this year? Brilliant. Now you've got data. Reset, refine, and climb the next rung. FAQs How long does it take to become a confident presenter? Most people feel noticeable improvement in 6–8 weeks with consistent practice and feedback. What's the fastest way to sound more persuasive? Tighten your opening: one clear point, one reason it matters, one next step. Do I need expensive training to improve? Not always—start with structured practice, then invest when you need faster progress or personalised correction. What if I'm terrified of public speaking? Start small: 60-second updates, then build duration and complexity while recording and reviewing. Author bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan.

"Everybody having a shared sense of purpose and shared values… is just absolutely imperative." "I trust you, and I start from the perspective of trust." "I would always caution Western leaders… to not just fill up empty space." "Getting buy-in from a Japanese team is really hard. But… once you get buy in… you absolutely over-perform." "Identify who are the biggest obstacles… and move them immediately and publicly." Harry Hill is an American entrepreneur whose career in Japan began by chance and grew into one of the country's most recognised direct marketing success stories. His connection to Japan started in college after discovering Shorinji Kempo, which sparked an interest in Japanese culture and language. After studying Japanese for two years, he moved to Japan and worked as an English teacher, including a posting in Gifu Prefecture. A major turning point came when he worked as an international coordinator for a regional expo, building relationships with businesses across Gifu, Nagoya, and the wider Chubu region. After a short stint in New York as a bond trader, Hill returned to Japan in 1990 and began building businesses by spotting "holes in the market," including work as a sports agent and grassroots exchange initiatives. In Nagoya, he co-founded a relocation and real estate services company for multinationals. His most significant chapter came with Oaklawn Marketing and Shop Japan, where he spent around two decades shaping Japan's TV shopping and direct marketing landscape. Under his leadership, the business grew dramatically—expanding from roughly 15 billion yen to nearly 70 billion yen in annual sales, with around 1,000 employees. In 2009, NTT DoCoMo acquired 51% of the business, placing Hill in the rare position of leading a high-growth company inside a large, formal Japanese corporate structure. Now active in new ventures, Hill remains known for adaptability across industries and for a leadership approach shaped by building culture, empowerment, and sustained performance in Japan. Harry Hill's leadership story in Japan reads like a case study in adaptability—starting with accidental encounters and evolving into deliberate, high-stakes decisions across entrepreneurship, corporate growth, and cultural navigation. His early fascination with Shorinji Kempo led to a deeper interest in Japan's mindset: discipline, hierarchy, and the quiet social architecture that shapes how people organise themselves. That curiosity eventually turned into action—learning Japanese, moving to Japan, teaching English in Gifu, and then shifting into business after exposure to the Chubu region's commercial networks during a major expo. Hill's defining strength is an instinct for recognising market inefficiencies and cultural leverage points. He describes his work in terms of finding "holes in the market" and building solutions that fit the local context without fetishising Japanese exceptionalism. His belief that "people are people" becomes a strategy: focus less on what is uniquely Japanese and more on universal human needs—then customise execution with local sensitivity. This approach carried through to the growth of Shop Japan, where direct marketing and TV shopping became a platform for shaping entirely new product categories, particularly in home fitness. Yet the interview's most valuable leadership content emerges not from growth numbers, but from Hill's hard-won understanding of culture and execution under pressure. He recounts the challenge of building sustainable performance in a call centre environment—an area often defined by churn, stress, and transactional management. When turnover ran as high as 15–20% per month, the business could still be profitable, but it was unstable and costly. Hill's solution was cultural engineering: building shared purpose, professionalism, and empowerment so the work became meaningful, not merely repetitive. That emphasis on meaning also becomes a decision system. Hill talks about integrity as something employees can only judge through transparency and consistent action—particularly in Japan, where leaders are often physically and symbolically removed. He also flips a common managerial assumption: rather than demanding people "earn trust," he starts by giving trust and uses accountability as the mechanism that sustains it. For cross-cultural leadership, Hill offers a practical warning: Western executives often rush to fill silence, mistaking reflection for disengagement. In Japan, silence is frequently where thinking happens—where consensus-building and informal alignment (nemawashi) begin. The result is a leadership style that prioritises listening, synthesis, and decision clarity—then insists on execution. He frames this through his acronym VICES—vision, integrity, competency, efficiency, and sustained success—designed both as a checklist and a caution against ego. Across startups and conglomerates, Hill's core lesson remains consistent: leadership in Japan is less about charisma and more about building a culture that can perform through highs and lows, while removing obstacles before they poison the system. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Leadership in Japan is shaped by comfort with hierarchy and role clarity, alongside a decision culture that values alignment before action. Japanese teams often expect leaders to manage the social process that precedes execution—consensus, context sharing, and careful calibration of group comfort versus productive discomfort. This dynamic connects closely to nemawashi and the ringi-sho style of organisational agreement, where the "decision" is often the final formal step after substantial informal work has already occurred. Why do global executives struggle? Global executives often struggle because they over-prioritise speed and verbal dominance. Hill cautions against filling silence, which can shut down participation and block honest input. Many leaders focus on getting things done without building the cultural environment that makes execution sustainable. Without that base, teams may comply with processes but withhold emotional commitment—leading to fragile performance and passive resistance. Is Japan truly risk-averse? Hill frames the issue less as risk aversion and more as uncertainty avoidance. Teams may resist actions that feel socially destabilising or poorly aligned, even when the underlying idea is sound. Once buy-in is achieved, however, Japanese teams can "absolutely over-perform," because commitment becomes collective and execution standards rise. The challenge is that alignment requires patience, credibility, and consistency—especially in environments where leaders rotate every three to five years. What leadership style actually works? The most effective style combines listening with decisiveness. Hill prefers to "set the table," step back to let others mediate, then synthesise and decide. This approach respects group process while maintaining leadership authority. It also supports a healthier culture: shared purpose, professionalism, empowerment, and clear standards. He emphasises that leaders must "walk the talk," because consistency is the difference between a winning culture and a chaotic one. How can technology help? Hill points to major media and technology shifts—digital TV, mobile, and smartphones—as forces that reshape business models. In leadership terms, technology can support decision intelligence by improving visibility into performance, customer sentiment, and operational bottlenecks. Tools such as digital twins, predictive analytics, and structured feedback loops can help leaders stress-test decisions before rollout, reducing uncertainty and accelerating alignment without undermining consensus. Does language proficiency matter? Language matters, but Hill's emphasis is more on behaviour than fluency. Leaders must demonstrate engagement beyond the inner circle, show curiosity about everyday work, and build trust through presence. Practical actions—wandering the organisation, listening to frontline voices, and respecting the social dance of decision-making—often matter as much as linguistic sophistication. Cultural literacy is the real multiplier. What's the ultimate leadership lesson? Hill's ultimate lesson is that culture drives sustained performance. Start with trust, listen first, and build shared purpose so employees believe their work matters. Then be unflinching about obstacles: identify cultural "cancers" and remove them quickly and publicly, because the organisation already knows who they are. Finally, celebrate small wins to reduce fear of mistakes and to keep momentum alive—sustained success comes from maintaining morale and standards through both gains and setbacks. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

Coaching is the real work of leadership once you start managing other people. In modern workplaces—especially post-pandemic and in hybrid teams—your job isn't just delivering results; it's building capability so results keep happening even when you're not in the room. This guide breaks down a Seven Step Coaching Process leaders can use to develop team members through everyday, on-the-job coaching, not just HR training programs. It's designed for busy managers in SMEs, multinationals, and fast-moving teams where skills, tools, and customer expectations change constantly. How do leaders identify coaching opportunities in day-to-day work? Coaching opportunities show up through observation, self-awareness, external feedback, changing business needs, and sudden situations. Leaders who wait for formal training cycles miss the daily moments where performance can lift quickly with small, targeted coaching. In practice, there are five classic triggers. First, you notice a gap—someone lacks a skill, hasn't been trained, or is moved into a new task with no reps. Second, the staff member flags it themselves, either because they're stuck or ambitious and want growth. Third, customers, vendors, or outsiders complain or comment, which is often the clearest real-world signal that training hasn't landed. Fourth, the business changes—new technology replaces old ways (think "Telex to email" as the metaphor), so yesterday's competencies become irrelevant. Fifth, situations force change, like promotions, role shifts, or remote work onboarding. Do now: Create a weekly "coaching log" with 5 headings (Boss, Self, Customer, Change, Situation) and write one example under each. What's a real example of a "customer complaint" coaching trigger? Customer feedback often reveals tiny skill gaps that quietly damage trust—especially in service culture. Leaders should treat complaints as coaching gold, not just quality problems. A simple example is telephone etiquette in corporate settings. In Japan, one common frustration is when staff answer the phone by stating only the company name, without their own name—creating awkwardness for the caller if they ask for someone and discover the person answering is that individual. The fix is not expensive training or a big workshop; it's a repeatable micro-skill: answer with "Company name + your name." This is the essence of practical coaching—catch a pattern, define the desired behaviour, practise it, and reinforce it until it becomes normal. This same principle applies across markets. In the US or Australia, the equivalent might be email tone, response time, or how staff handle returns. In B2B environments, it might be meeting preparation or follow-up discipline. Do now: Pick one customer friction point from the last 30 days and turn it into a 2-minute coaching drill. What should the "desired outcome" of coaching look like? Coaching only works when both people can clearly picture success and agree it matters. If the outcome is fuzzy—or owned only by the boss—it becomes compliance, not growth. A strong coaching outcome is behavioural and observable: "They can do X task independently, to Y standard, in Z timeframe." That clarity matters even more in remote or hybrid work, where leaders can't rely on informal monitoring. The outcome should also be jointly owned: the team member needs to want it, not just tolerate it. That means the leader's role is to define what good looks like, show why it matters (customer impact, team efficiency, career growth), and confirm the person buys in. In startups, outcomes often focus on speed and adaptability. In large organisations, they may be tied to compliance, brand, or consistency. Either way, "success" must be visible, measurable, and shared. Do now: Ask: "What would 'great' look like here in two weeks?" Write the answer as one sentence you both agree on. How do you establish the right attitudes for effective coaching? Coaching accelerates when the leader understands the person's motivations and role fit. Without that, even good advice lands badly—or gets ignored. Attitude isn't about pep talks; it's about context. How well you know your team determines how quickly you can judge whether you have the right people in the right roles—"the right bus and the right seats." Some people are motivated by mastery, others by recognition, autonomy, stability, or future promotion. A leader who understands this can tailor coaching so it feels supportive rather than corrective. This is especially important across cultures. In Japan, people may avoid direct self-promotion, so ambition can be hidden. In Australia or the US, staff may be more comfortable stating career goals openly. In both cases, leaders need genuine curiosity: "What do you want to get better at, and why?" Do now: In your next 1:1, ask one question: "What part of your job gives you energy, and what drains it?" Use the answer to guide coaching. What resources do managers need to provide for coaching to work? The scarcest and most valuable resource in coaching is the leader's time. If you demand performance but deny support, you're setting people up to fail. Resources can include money, equipment, training materials, access to internal experts, or backing from senior management—but the key constraint is often attention. Coaching isn't a side hobby; it's core leadership work. Many managers confuse "time efficiency" with effectiveness, rushing tasks while leaving capability undeveloped. The result is predictable: repeated mistakes, avoidable escalations, and a team that can't operate independently. In a post-pandemic world, time investment is even more critical for onboarding. New hires who joined after early 2020 often missed informal learning because there was nobody physically nearby to ask. Do now: Block 30 minutes per week for coaching, not status updates. Treat it like a leadership KPI, not optional admin. Why is coaching "job number one" for the boss? When leaders get coaching wrong, performance problems multiply—and the team becomes dependent, fragile, and reactive. When leaders coach well, talent compounds and the organisation scales. Coaching sits upstream of almost everything that matters: customer satisfaction, productivity, retention, and succession. HR can organise training, but only the direct manager can reinforce it in daily work—correcting small behaviours before they become big issues, and building confidence through repetition. The best leaders don't just solve problems; they develop problem-solvers. This is true whether you're leading a sales team, operations team, or a professional services unit. In high-change environments—new tech, new processes, new market expectations—coaching is how teams keep up without burning out. It's also how you build a leadership bench instead of becoming the bottleneck. Do now: Identify one person you're currently "rescuing" too often. Coach them on the skill that removes the dependency. Conclusion: The Coaching Process as a leadership operating system The Seven Step Coaching Process is a practical way to lead: spot opportunities, define success, align attitudes, and provide resources—starting with your time. The goal isn't to create perfect employees; it's to build capability so people can perform confidently as work evolves. If you treat coaching as a daily discipline, you'll scale your team's competence, reduce recurring issues, and strengthen results across customers, culture, and performance. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. Greg has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including ザ営業 (Za Eigyō), プレゼンの達人 (Purezen no Tatsujin), トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう, and 現代版「人を動かす」リーダー. Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, widely followed by executives pursuing success strategies in Japan.

The Five-Phase Sales Solution Cadence: Facts, Benefits, Applications, Evidence, Trial Close When you've done proper discovery—asked loads of questions about where the buyer is now and where they want to be—you earn the right to propose a solution. But here's the kicker: sometimes the right move is to walk away. If you force a partial or wrong-fit solution, you might "grab the dough" short-term, but you'll torch trust and reputation—the two assets that don't come back easily.  Below is a search-friendly, buyer-proof cadence you can run in any market—**Japan vs **United States, SME vs enterprise, B2B services vs SaaS—especially post-pandemic when procurement teams want clarity, proof, and outcomes, not fluffy feature parades. How do you know if your solution genuinely fits the buyer (and when should you walk away)? You know it fits when you can map your solution to their stated outcomes—and prove it—without twisting the facts. If the buyer needs an outcome you can't deliver, the ethical (and commercially smart) play is: "We can't help you with that." In 2024–2026, buyers are savvier and more risk-aware. They'll check reviews, ask peers, and sanity-test claims through AI search tools and internal stakeholder scrutiny. In high-trust cultures (including Japan) and high-compliance industries (finance, health, critical infrastructure), a wrong-fit sale becomes a reputational boomerang. The deal closes once; the story travels forever. Do now: Write a one-page "fit test": buyer outcomes → your capability → evidence. If any outcome can't be supported, qualify out fast.  What does "facts" mean in a modern B2B sales conversation? Facts are the provable mechanics—features, specs, process steps, constraints—and the proof that they work. Facts aren't the goal; they're the credibility scaffolding. Salespeople often drown here: endless micro-detail, endless Q&A, endless spreadsheets. Yes, analytical buyers (engineering-led firms, CFO-led committees) will pull you into the weeds—but remember: they aren't buying the process. They're buying the outcome from the process. Bring facts that de-risk the decision: implementation timelines, security posture (SOC 2/ISO), uptime/SLA history, integration limits, and measurable performance benchmarks. Then move on before you get stuck. Do now: Prepare a "facts pack" with 5–7 proof points (not 57 features). Use it to earn trust, then pivot to outcomes.  How do you turn features into benefits buyers will actually pay for? Benefits are the "so what"—the measurable results the buyer gets because the feature exists. If you can't link a feature to an outcome, it's just trivia. A weight, colour, dimension, workflow, dashboard, or AI model is not valuable by itself. It becomes valuable when it improves a KPI: reduced cycle time, fewer defects, higher conversion, lower churn, faster onboarding, better safety, tighter compliance. This is where classic sales thinking still holds up—think **SPIN Selling and the buyer's implied needs: pain, impact, and value. In a tight 2025 budget environment, "nice-to-have" benefits die quickly; "must-have" outcomes survive. Do now: For every top feature, write one sentence: "This enables ___, which improves ___ by ___ within ___ days." If you can't fill the blanks, drop the feature from your pitch.  What is the "application of benefits" and how do you make it real inside their business? Application is where benefits turn into daily operational reality—what changes in workflow, decisions, and results.This is the "rubber meets the road" layer. Don't just say "we improve productivity." Show where it lands: which meetings get shorter, which approvals disappear, which roles stop firefighting, which customers get served faster, which errors are prevented, and what leaders see weekly on dashboards. Compare contexts: a startup may care about speed and cash runway; a multinational may care about governance, change management, and multi-region rollouts. A consumer business might chase conversion and NPS; a B2B industrial firm might chase downtime reduction and safety incidents. Do now: Build a simple "Before → After" map for their week: processes eliminated, expanded, improved—and who owns each change.  What counts as credible evidence (and what "proof" actually convinces buyers)? Credible evidence is specific, comparable, and close to the buyer's reality—same industry, similar scale, similar constraints. "Trust me" is not evidence. Bring proof that survives scrutiny: reference customers, quantified case studies, independent reviews, pilot results, and implementation artefacts (plans, timelines, adoption metrics). The closer the comparison company is to the buyer, the more persuasive it becomes. This is also where storytelling matters: not hype—narrative. Who was involved? What went wrong? What changed? What were the numbers before and after? Analysts like **Gartner or **Forrester can help with category credibility, but a near-peer success story usually seals confidence. Do now: Collect 3 "mirror case studies" (similar buyer profiles) and write them as short stories: problem → actions → results → lessons.  How do you do a trial close without sounding pushy or sleazy? A trial close is a simple comprehension-and-comfort check that invites objections early—before you ask for the order. Done right, it's calm, not clingy. After you've walked through facts → benefits → application → evidence, ask: "How does that sound so far?" Then shut up. Silence is a tool. If they raise objections, good—interest is alive, and you can add pinpoint proof. If they say nothing (or go vague), start worrying: they may have already mentally deleted you as an option. This is the moment to clarify, re-anchor to outcomes, and confirm next steps in the sales cycle. Do now: Use one trial close per phase. Treat objections as data, not drama, and log them into your CRM as themes to address.  Conclusion: the cadence that keeps you credible and gets you paid This five-phase cadence works because it respects how adults buy: they need proof, relevance, and a clear path from "today" to "better." Keep the sequence tight—facts, then benefits, then application, then evidence, then a trial close—and you'll avoid the two killers of modern selling: feature-dumps and wishful thinking.  Author credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results.  He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー).  Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

Australia’s definition of terrorism was set up after the Sept 11 terror attacks, but now the world and Australia have changed dramatically. In 2026, the landscape of terror and radicalization is complicated with new threats from a range of different groups including lone actors. In this episode of The Briefing Natarsha Belling is joined by Associate Professor Keiran Hardy from the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University to unpack how we define terror and how we crack down on dangerous radicalisation and extremism. Headlines: Israeli President Isaac Herzog arrives in Sydney ahead of national protests, Former Hong Kong media mogul sentenced to 20 years in prison and Bad Bunny's Super Bowl halftime message. Follow The Briefing: TikTok: @thebriefingpodInstagram: @thebriefingpodcast YouTube: @TheBriefingPodcastSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Most talks are totally forgettable because they never land emotionally and logically. If you want real impact — the kind that people remember, repeat, and act on — you need to stop "delivering content" and start designing attention through voice, pacing, phrasing, and purposeful movement.  Why are most presentations forgettable, even when the content is "good"? Because information doesn't stick — impact does. Most presentations are heavy on data and light on connection, so audiences can't remember the speaker, the topic, or both, even a day later. In a post-pandemic, mobile-first attention economy (think 2020s Zoom fatigue plus constant notifications), your audience can disappear in seconds — two or three taps and they're in "distraction heaven". The irony is that many speakers feel impressive at the front of the room, but the audience experiences monotone delivery as a kind of "presenter white noise". Compare it to business: a strategy deck in a shared drive is rarely "scintillating", but a skilled leader can bring the same content alive through delivery. In Japan, Australia, the US, or Europe, the mechanism is the same: if the audience isn't touched (emotion + logic), the message doesn't travel. Do now (answer card): Impact = emotional + logical resonance. Design for attention, not just accuracy. How do you use word emphasis to make your message land? Emphasising key words changes meaning and makes ideas memorable. When every word is delivered with the same weight, your message flattens out — and audiences tune out. The fix is simple: stress the words that carry the intention. Take the phrase "This makes a tremendous difference." Hit different words and you get different implications: THIS(contrast), MAKES (causation), TREMENDOUS (scale), DIFFERENCE (outcome).  This works across contexts: whether you're a SaaS founder pitching in Singapore, a multinational leader briefing in Tokyo, or a sales director presenting to a procurement team in the US, emphasis helps listeners hear the headline inside the sentence. It's also an executive credibility tool: it signals certainty and prioritisation, not verbal mush. Do now (answer card): Pick 3–5 "load-bearing" words per section and punch them. Make your audience hear your priorities. Why do pauses increase attention (and stop people scrolling)? Pauses are a pattern interrupt that drags attention back to you. When you stop speaking, the contrast is so sharp that people who were mentally wandering snap back. That's why a well-timed pause creates anticipation — it makes the next sentence feel important. In live rooms it works because silence is social pressure; on video calls it works because silence is unusual and therefore noticeable. Most presenters under-use pauses because they fear awkwardness. But doubling the length of your current pauses — even in just two moments — increases impact because it forces processing time. It also reduces "verbal clutter" and improves perceived authority, especially for leaders and subject-matter experts who want to sound decisive rather than frantic. Do now (answer card): Add two deliberate pauses: one before your key point, one after it. Let the room absorb the idea.   How do pacing and modulation stop you sounding monotone? Variety in speed and strength keeps listeners engaged from start to finish. Pacing is your emphasis dial: slow down to spotlight meaning, speed up briefly for contrast, then return to normal. The goal isn't "fast talking" — it's controlled variation. A steady pace with no contrast becomes hypnotic in the wrong way. Modulation matters even more if your default delivery is flat. The article notes that Japanese is often described as a monotone language, which means speakers may need to inject extra variety through speed and strength to create highs and lows.   Think of a classical orchestra: if it only played crescendos or only soft lulls, it would be unbearable. Your voice needs both. Do now (answer card): Mark your script: SLOW (key line), FAST (brief energy burst), LOW (serious), HIGH (optimistic). Build contrast on purpose.   What makes phrasing memorable — and how do you create "sticky" lines? Memorable phrasing uses patterns the brain likes: alliteration, rhyme, and contrast. Great presenters don't just explain; they package. A simple shift like "hero to zero" sticks because it's rhythmic, punchy, and easy to repeat — which is the whole point.   When people repeat your phrase, your message travels without you. This is useful across roles: salespeople need repeatable value statements, executives need quotable strategy, and team leaders need language that anchors culture. In Japan vs. the US, the style may change (more subtle in Japan, more direct in the US), but the mechanics are universal: make it short, make it patterned, make it tied to an outcome. Do now (answer card): Create 2 "sticky lines" for your talk: a contrast pair (X to Y) and a rhythmic three-part phrase. How should you use movement and gestures without distracting people? Movement should have a purpose — otherwise it steals attention from your message. Gestures are powerful when they match what you're saying, because they add strength and clarity. But there's a rule: hold a gesture for a maximum of about 15 seconds; after that, its power drops and it becomes visual noise.  The bigger danger is pacing up and down like a caged tiger — it distracts audiences and looks like nervous energy, not leadership. In boardrooms, conference stages, and hybrid setups, the principle is the same: move to signal something (transition, emphasis, audience inclusion), then stop. Stillness can be as impactful as motion when it's intentional. Do now (answer card): Plan your movement: "I step forward for the key point, I step sideways for contrast, I stop for the close." No random wandering. Conclusion Communicating with greater impact isn't about being louder or more dramatic — it's about being more deliberate. When you combine word emphasis, pauses, pacing, modulation, memorable phrasing, and purposeful movement, you stop sounding like everyone else. And that's the real advantage: most speakers stay stuck in the same groove, losing their audience. You become the person who holds attention, lands the message, and strengthens your professional brand.  Author credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results.  He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業) and Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人).  Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

"First thing I'd say is do it… just throw yourself into it."  "Spend the first ninety days getting to know the people… listening… before acting."  "Communication here is more high context… there's a lot of reading between the lines."  "Trust is doing what you say you would do."  "A leader is someone who takes a strategy and a vision breaks that down into habits… and empowers people to execute."  Grant Torrens is an Australian recruitment leader and long-tenured Hays executive who became Managing Director of Hays Japan after a two-decade, multi-country journey with the firm. He joined Hays in London in 2006 through its graduate program—initially as a jobseeker who "fell into recruitment" like many in the industry—working a demanding hedge-fund desk in the City. After navigating the Global Financial Crisis, he took a career break to travel across Southeast Asia, where a short visit to colleagues in Singapore turned into a relocation, leveraging Hays' global internal mobility and his transferable financial-services recruitment expertise. ] Years later, he was offered the Japan role—but COVID-era border restrictions meant he effectively "ran Japan from Singapore" for about 15 months, relying heavily on his Japan leadership team and building data-driven management systems to lead remotely. When he finally relocated to Tokyo, he focused on deep listening, high-clarity communication, and change management—while guiding Hays Japan through a strategic shift toward stronger service for Nikkei clients and hiring more Japanese nationals, including team members who don't work in English.  Grant Torrens' leadership story is built on three threads: global mobility, remote-first problem solving under pressure, and culture-building at the intersection of Hays' global norms and Japan's high-context communication. He joined Hays "by accident" in London—starting in financial services at a moment when the City rewarded performance and speed, then learning to survive and adapt through the post-2008 shock. The early lesson that carries forward is pragmatic: when conditions change, your approach must pivot too. That mindset shows up repeatedly in his later Japan leadership—especially when COVID delayed his physical move and forced him to lead Japan from outside the country. During that "remote with a capital R" period, Torrens deliberately upgraded the mechanics of decision-making: he turned raw sales and activity data into usable management information, taught himself Excel at a much higher level, and used those insights to create sharper, more useful conversations over video calls. It's a very modern leadership move, but grounded in a classic idea: if you can't rely on presence, you rely on clarity—data clarity, expectation clarity, and communication clarity.  Once on the ground in Japan, his operating principle remained "listen first." He emphasizes that many leaders arrive, see processes that look "wrong," and try to replace them with headquarters logic—only to discover later those practices existed to serve customers and local realities. His antidote is explicit: spend the first ~90 days learning, not executing change. In Japan specifically, he adds two important nuances: (1) communication tends to be high-context—direct bluntness that feels "normal" in Australia/UK can land badly in Japan, and (2) trust is tightly linked to process—nemawashi and broad involvement matter, even if it slows decisions compared to London-style speed. On culture, Torrens frames "Grant culture" as mostly aligned with Hays culture after 20 years inside the firm—but he still sees leadership latitude inside the umbrellas of global standards and Japanese expectations. His chosen lever is change: he wants a culture where change is less feared and more celebrated. That includes giving people "permission" to try, treating mistakes as learning data (especially early), avoiding public blame, and celebrating wins so innovation feels worth the effort. He also highlights the practical friction of language and meaning: even company values can translate oddly, so global messaging must be adapted carefully to remain faithful—especially as Hays Japan expands its Nikkei-facing business and hires more Japanese-only speakers.  Q&A Summary Why did you choose recruitment—and how did Japan happen? Recruitment wasn't the plan; it was an opportunity in London when he was unemployed and out of options. Japan was always in the background (he studied Japanese), but Singapore became the stepping stone because it was an easy transition into Asia—English-speaking, same company, and the financial services sector was transferable.  How did you lead Japan while stuck in Singapore during COVID? Two pillars: a supportive Asia boss and a strong Japan management team. Personally, he built better reporting/insight systems—turning "raw data" into actionable information—so he could manage outcomes without relying on physical visibility.  How do you build trust in Japan? He treats trust as universal but harder-won in Japan if you ignore high-context communication and consensus processes. Practically: reciprocate trust, be fair, do what you say you'll do, and follow verbal messages with written confirmation to reduce misunderstanding—especially across language boundaries.  How do you get bottom-up ideas in a high-context culture? He uses second-level (and broader) conversations—while explicitly asking permission and explaining intent so it doesn't feel like bypassing managers. The goal is pattern recognition: common themes that reveal what the organization should improve, not "who said what about whom."  What advice would you give a leader moving to Japan? Do it (don't overthink yourself into regret). Then: listen before acting (including to customers), communicate with extra clarity (avoid slang/idioms), and intentionally build a culture where change is normal and safe—because the organization will look different in 3–10 years no matter what.  Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts multiple weekly podcasts and YouTube shows, including Japan's Top Business Interviews.

Performance appraisals are one of the hardest jobs in leadership because they affect promotions, bonuses, bigger responsibilities — and sometimes who gets shown the door. That's why both sides of the table get tense: employees feel judged, and bosses often feel like they're being asked to play "merchant of doom" inside a system they may not even agree with.  Why do performance appraisals feel so stressful for both bosses and employees? Performance appraisals feel stressful because the stakes are real and the conversation is deeply personal. When someone's pay, promotion prospects, or continued employment is on the line, even good performers can get nervous — and many managers get uncomfortable delivering blunt feedback. This stress spikes in different ways across contexts. In Japan and other high-harmony cultures, managers may avoid direct critique and staff may read between the lines, which can leave the "real message" unspoken. In the US and parts of Europe, the feedback can be more direct, but the legal and HR risk can make leaders cautious and scripted. In multinationals, calibration meetings (HR, department heads, regional heads) add pressure; in SMEs, it's often the owner-manager doing it without any training. Do now: Treat the appraisal as a leadership skill — prepare like you would for a major client pitch.  Is forced ranking and "bottom 10%" performance appraisal still a problem? Forced ranking creates fear and politics because someone must lose by design, even if the team is solid. Leaders hate those meetings where everyone is plotted on a bell curve and the "bottom group" becomes a target — not always because they're hopeless, but because the organisation needs a number to cut.  Historically, forced ranking got popular in big corporate systems (the GE/Jack Welch era still gets cited), but it can backfire in modern work where collaboration is the productivity engine. In a startup, a forced curve can be absurd because every role is critical and teams are tiny. In a Japanese corporate setting, it can feel especially brutal because loyalty is valued, and the manager becomes the "executioner" of a process they may see as flawed. Do now: If your organisation calibrates on a curve, focus your energy on clear standards and documented evidence — not defending by emotion.  What is the RAVE framework for doing performance appraisals properly? RAVE is a simple formula that makes appraisals clearer, fairer, and more future-focused: Review, Analyse, Vision, Encourage.  "Review" anchors the discussion in the role's results description and the "should be" standard, instead of vibes. "Analyse" looks at the "as is" reality using the person's monthly project list and key business elements — where they're strong, where they're short, and why. "Vision" shifts the conversation forward: what does future success look like, what gaps must close, and what support is needed? "Encourage" prevents the classic failure mode where the meeting demotivates the person; the leader's communication style decides whether the employee leaves engaged or defeated. Do now: Write R-A-V-E at the top of your prep notes and build the meeting around those four moves.  How do you "Review" performance results without drowning in subjective judgement? You review performance by starting with the "should be" standard and tying feedback to observable results. When roles are numbers-heavy (sales targets, margin, project delivery dates, customer retention), the "ideal outcomes" are usually obvious. The danger zone is qualitative work — leadership, teamwork, judgment, communication — where managers slip into the fog of opinion. That's where you need standards: specific behaviours, clear expectations, and real examples. In a multinational, this might mean competency frameworks and leadership models; in an SME, it can be a simple scorecard with defined behaviours. In Japan, be careful of over-relying on "effort" or "attitude" as a proxy for results; in the US, be careful of over-relying on numbers without context (territory, market conditions, team dependencies). Do now: Bring three examples: one win, one gap, one pattern — all tied to the role standard.  How do you "Analyse" monthly projects and decide if it's a performance issue or a role-fit issue? You analyse performance by comparing the person's "as is" output to the "should be" goals and asking whether the job matches their capacity.  This is the tough leadership fork in the road: is the person in the right role, and can they realistically meet the level the organisation needs? If they're falling short, the next decision is not moral — it's practical. Sometimes you can redesign the job, move them into a better fit, or coach the missing capability. Other times, the gap is too large and the organisation will replace them with someone more capable. That doesn't make them "bad"; it means the requirements outgrew them. Do now: Identify the root cause: skill gap, will gap, role mismatch, resource constraints, or unclear standards — then choose the right fix.  How do you create "Vision" and "Encourage" so the appraisal motivates rather than crushes them? You motivate by being frank about gaps while painting a believable path forward — and then encouraging effort toward that future.  "Vision" answers: what does success look like next year, what growth is required, and what time/energy/resources must be committed? It also tackles an awkward truth: some bosses fear developing staff because they worry their subordinate will replace them. The smarter view is succession builds your reputation — organisations promote leaders who produce leaders.  "Encourage" is where many managers fail. They do the backward-looking critique, but they don't set up the future in a way that energises the employee. Because appraisals happen only a few times a year, skill doesn't build naturally — preparation must compensate. Do now: End the meeting with a clear 90-day plan: one improvement focus, one support action from you, one measurable outcome.  Conclusion Performance appraisals don't have to feel like judgement day. When you anchor the review in clear standards, analyse real work, set a forward vision, and encourage the person properly, the meeting becomes a leadership tool — not a trauma event. RAVE is a simple, repeatable structure that helps you avoid subjectivity, reduce fear, and lift performance with clarity and humanity.  Quick next steps for leaders Prepare with RAVE: Review → Analyse → Vision → Encourage.  Bring evidence: standards, examples, patterns, and project outcomes.  Decide the real issue: capability, role fit, resources, or clarity.  Finish with a 90-day forward plan and weekly check-ins.  FAQs Should managers do appraisals more than once a year? Yes — frequent check-ins reduce surprise and make the annual review smoother. What's the biggest mistake in appraisal meetings? Talking only about the past and failing to create a motivating future plan.  How do you reduce subjectivity? Use clear standards plus specific examples linked to the role's "should be."  Author credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー).  Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

There's been a lot of discussion in recent years about the financial health of China's Belt and Road Initiative. Critics contend the BRI became overstretched, bankrupting borrowers and straining creditors suffering from a weakening Chinese economy. Even the Chinese government sought to reframe the BRI with its "small yet beautiful" tagline to reflect a new era of purported austerity. And while all of that was certainly true when it comes to state-backed Chinese entities that used to be at the forefront of the BRI, new data from Griffith University in Australia and the Green Finance and Development Center at Fudan University reveals that Chinese private enterprises are now leading the way. Christoph Nedopil, director of the Griffith Asia Institute, joins Eric to review the 2025 BRI data and explain what led to a record year of BRI engagement around the world.

Join Professor Peter Nash from the Griffith University in Brisbane, and Professor Matthew Brown, the Chief Scientific Officer at Genomics England, as they discuss his recent paper ‘Low uveitis rates in patients with axial spondyloarthritis treated with bimekizumab: Pooled results from Phase 2b/3 trials'.

Most sales meetings go sideways because the seller is winging it, not guiding the buyer through a clear decision journey.  In a competitive market with limited buyer time, you need a questioning structure that gets to needs fast, keeps control of the conversation, and leads naturally to a purchase decision—without sounding scripted.  Do you actually need a sales questioning model, or can you just "follow the conversation"? You need a questioning model because buyers will pull the conversation in random directions and you still need to reach a purchase outcome. A lot of salespeople have little structure because they're untrained, they're used to winging it, or they hate being "shackled" by a system and want to be a free bird in the meeting. The problem is: you don't have unlimited time, and competitors are offering similar solutions, so you must get to a clear understanding of needs quickly and match a solution precisely. A model gives you a logical cadence and a "track of your choosing" so you can steer back to what matters when the conversation wanders. Do now: Go into your next meeting with a written question flow, not just a list of topics.  What are "As-Is" questions and why do they matter in discovery? As-Is questions establish the buyer's baseline—what they're doing now and how well it's working. You're mapping the current reality: what has the client been doing so far, what's working, what isn't working well enough, and what the situation inside the organisation looks like today. Sometimes buyers jump straight to where they want to be; that's fine, but you still need the "before" picture to measure the gap between current and desired states. Without the baseline, you can't diagnose properly, you can't quantify distance, and you're guessing at priorities. Do now: Ask three baseline questions before you pitch anything: current process, current result, current constraint.  What are "Should Be" questions and how do you uncover real goals? Should Be questions reveal what outcomes the buyer is aiming for—strategic, financial, or operational. Clients have goals whether they publish them or keep them private, and you need to know them to judge whether you can help. These goals might be in an annual report, an internal plan, or just in the head of the decision-maker. Your job is to get them into the open so you can measure fit and value. This is also where you start building a clear "destination" so the buyer can see the difference between today and the target state. Do now: Ask: "What does success look like this quarter?" then "What metrics prove it?"  What are implication questions, and why should you always include time? Implication questions create urgency by showing the downside of staying as-is—especially the cost of taking too long. The point is to plant doubt: can they hit the goal by themselves, fast enough, and cost-effectively enough? Time is the accelerator—because even if they could get there eventually, they usually don't have "100 years." Strong implication prompts include: "If things stay the way they are, will you still reach the target fast enough?" and "What happens if you don't meet the goal in the required timeframe?" You're not bullying them; you're helping them face the reality that no action has opportunity costs. Do now: Add one time-based implication question to every discovery call.  What are "Change" questions and how do they uncover your real sales opportunity? Change questions ask the key truth: if they know where they are and where they need to be, why aren't they there already? This is where your value often appears, because their answer exposes capability gaps, speed gaps, political roadblocks, or resource limits—exactly the reasons they may need you. The companion implication here is serious: if they can't make the necessary changes, will it damage the business? Markets don't wait around, and delaying change isn't neutral—it has a price. Your role is to surface that cost clearly, then position your solution as the fastest, safest path to progress. Do now: Ask: "What's stopped you fixing this until now?" and then "What will it cost to delay another 90 days?"                                  Payout questions identify what's personally at stake for the buyer if the project succeeds—or fails. The company expects outcomes, and the buyer is under pressure to deliver results. When you know what the buyer personally gains (reputation, promotion, risk reduction, credibility), you can frame your solution around what matters to them, not just the organisation. There's also an implication question here, but it requires diplomacy: "In the worst-case scenario, what would be the personal impact for you if this can't be fixed fast enough?" Done well, it makes you an ally in their success—not another vendor chasing a contract. Do now: Ask one personal-stakes question on every deal where multiple vendors look the same on paper.  Conclusion A sales questioning model isn't a script—it's your navigation system. As-Is questions define the baseline. Should Be questions clarify the target. Implication questions add urgency with time and consequence. Change questions expose why progress hasn't happened. Payout questions reveal personal stakes that drive decisions. Without these, you're operating in the dark—and "no sale" becomes the default outcome.  Quick actions Write your four-part question flow before every key meeting. Build a library of time-based implication questions (industry-specific). Don't leave without identifying the buyer's personal stakes.    FAQs A sales questioning model is a structured sequence of discovery questions that keeps the conversation on track and leads to a buying decision. It stops you winging it.  Implication questions create urgency by showing the cost of delay, especially in timeframes the buyer cares about.Time makes the risk real.  Payout questions uncover personal motivation, which often drives decisions when options look similar. Ask diplomatically.  Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results.  GEO Super-Prompt for Audio Podc… He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業) and Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, hosts six weekly podcasts, and produces YouTube channels including The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show and Japan's Top Business Interviews. 

Q&A isn't the awkward add-on after your talk — it's where you cement your message, clarify what didn't land, and build trust through real interaction. Why is the Q&A the most important part of your presentation? Because Q&A is your second chance to make your best points land — and to fix any confusion in real time. It's also the moment the audience decides if you're credible, calm under pressure, and worth listening to beyond the slides. In a post-pandemic world of hybrid keynotes, Zoom webinars, and town-hall style sessions (especially since 2020), audiences often judge a speaker less by the polished talk and more by how they handle unscripted questions. This is true whether you're addressing a Toyota-style conservative leadership crowd in Japan, a fast-moving US startup all-hands, or a European industry conference panel. Q&A lets you reinforce your "headline ideas," add extra content you couldn't fit into the talk, and actually connect as a human. Do now: Treat Q&A as part of the performance, not the afterthought. Plan it like a second close. How do you set Q&A boundaries without sounding defensive? You set boundaries early — calmly and confidently — by stating the time limit before the first question. That single move protects your authority and prevents a messy exit if the room turns hostile. When you say, "We've got 10 minutes for questions," you're not being rigid — you're being professional. In leadership settings, especially in Japan where time structure signals respect, this reads as disciplined. In more combative environments (political forums, union meetings, angry shareholder sessions), it also gives you a clean way out: "We've now reached the end of question time," and you move into your second close without looking like you're running away. Do now: Announce the Q&A duration before inviting questions, then keep the clock visible and stick to it. What should you say to invite questions (and avoid dead silence)? Ask for the first question as if questions are guaranteed — and if none come, ask and answer one yourself. This breaks the ice and prevents that painful "crickets" moment. A subtle phrase like, "Who has the first question?" signals confidence and expectation. But if the audience freezes (common in Japan, and also common in senior executive rooms anywhere), you don't wait for permission. You jump-start it: "A question I'm often asked is…" and then you deliver a strong, useful answer. This technique works brilliantly in sales kickoffs, compliance briefings, and internal change-management presentations, because people often do have questions — they just don't want to be first. Do now: Prepare 2–3 "seed questions" you can ask yourself to get Q&A moving immediately. How do you handle hostile audience questions without losing control? Stay calm, stop "agreeing" body language, paraphrase the sting out of the question, then redirect your attention to the whole room. Hostile questioners feed on spotlight — your job is to cut off their oxygen. The instinct in polite society is to nod while listening, but with a hostile question that can look like agreement. So: look at them steadily, don't nod, hear them out. Then shift your gaze to the wider audience and paraphrase their point in a softened, neutral way (e.g., "The question is about staffing…"). That buys you thinking time and removes the emotional framing. Give the first few seconds of your answer with brief eye contact to the questioner, then stop feeding them attention and address everyone else. In 2025-era public speaking, this matters even more because a single heckler can hijack the room (or the clip). Do now: Practise "neutral paraphrase + audience redirect" until it's automatic under pressure. Should you repeat the question word-for-word, or paraphrase it? Repeat neutral questions so everyone hears them — but paraphrase hostile questions to remove the invective and control the framing. You're not censoring; you're translating chaos into clarity. If someone asks a fair question and parts of the room didn't hear it, repeating it word-for-word is helpful. But if someone asks an aggressive, loaded question ("Isn't it true you're sacking 10% of staff before Christmas?"), repeating that sentence becomes a public amplification of the attack. Instead, you paraphrase in a deliberately weakened way: "The question is about staffing and timing," or "The question is about workforce planning." This does two things: it gives you 5–10 seconds to think, and it reframes the issue on your terms — critical in high-stakes contexts like listed-company updates, restructures, or crisis comms. Do now: Build a "paraphrase toolbox" (staffing, strategy, timing, budget, risk) to neutralise loaded questions fast. How long should your answers be, and how do you finish the Q&A cleanly? Keep answers concise so more people can ask questions — and always engineer a strong ending with a "final question" and a second close. Long answers reduce interaction and increase the chance you say something you'll regret. In executive communication, brevity signals confidence. It also helps you manage the room, especially when time is tight or questions are wandering off-topic. If you need time to think, use a "cushion" phrase that's neutral: "Thank you — I'm glad you raised that point." Then answer clearly, without rambling. To finish with authority, announce it: "We have time for one final question. Who has the last question?" Answer it, then deliver your second close so the audience leaves with your message — not the last random question. Do now: Use "final question + second close" every time. It turns Q&A into a controlled finish, not a fade-out. Conclusion: the Q&A is where your credibility gets tested If the talk is your planned message, Q&A is your proof of competence. Set time boundaries early, seed questions if the room is quiet, paraphrase hostile framing, and redirect attention to the broader audience. Keep answers short, protect your authority, and end with a deliberate "final question" followed by a second close. Next steps for leaders, executives, and presenters Pre-write 10 likely questions before every talk (including 2 hostile ones). Rehearse neutral paraphrasing and "attention redirect" as a muscle memory skill. Script your Q&A opening line, cushion phrases, and final-question close. FAQs How do I stop one person from hijacking Q&A? Limit their attention, paraphrase neutrally, and address the room instead of debating them. You control the spotlight. What if I don't know the answer to a question? Acknowledge it and commit to a follow-up path, not a vague promise. "I don't have that figure here — my team will confirm it after the session." Should I allow off-topic questions? Briefly bridge off-topic questions back to the core theme whenever possible. It keeps momentum and protects relevance. Is it okay to answer my own question if the room is silent? Yes — it's a proven ice-breaker that gives others permission to speak. Prepare 2–3 seed questions in advance. Author Bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan.

"Don't be the loud foreigner who just says we do this and this and this." "It's okay to make mistakes if you identify them, if you learn from them in the future." "If you have an open mind, just listen first." "You cannot spend enough time on just talking and communicating with people." "For me, right now a leader is somebody who helps employees to achieve the potential, their mission." Beat Kraehenmann is a Swiss-born electrical engineer who moved to Japan to change the trajectory of his life and immerse himself in Asia. After studying at a technical university and working in network engineering at Swiss Railways, he relocated to Japan independently, began full-time language study, and built early career momentum through contract roles before securing permanent employment as a network engineer. A long-time university friend working at Levitronix connected him to the company when the Swiss headquarters needed someone who could bridge Japan and Switzerland across language, culture, and technical detail. He joined Levitronix Japan around twelve and a half years ago and became Managing Director roughly a year later—his first formal management role. Under his leadership, the organisation expanded from four people in one location to a thirteen-person team spread across five offices (from Tokyo through Ogaki, Kyoto, Fukuoka and Kumamoto), supporting demanding customers in semiconductor and life sciences manufacturing with magnetic levitation pump technology designed to reduce particle contamination in ultra-fine production environments. Beat Kraehenmann leads Levitronix Japan at the intersection of Swiss engineering precision, Japan's uncompromising quality expectations, and the realities of scaling a specialist business across multiple regional offices. Levitronix is a Swiss company producing fluid control devices—especially pumps for semiconductor manufacturing and life science production—where particle avoidance is mission-critical. As chip structures push deeper into nanometre ranges, even microscopic contamination can become catastrophic, and the firm's magnetic levitation approach is positioned as a practical advantage in an industry that prizes stability and repeatability. Kraehenmann's leadership story begins with a deliberate personal disruption: he chose Japan because it felt safe enough to navigate while still offering a gateway to broader Asia, and he committed to language learning on the ground. That same pattern—commit, learn, adapt—shapes his approach as Managing Director. He describes leadership less as command-and-control and more as enabling others: providing the means, information, and training so employees can succeed without dependency on him. In Japan, where consensus-building (nemawashi, ringi-sho) and uncertainty avoidance often influence decision velocity, he emphasises communication discipline: listening, checking understanding, and creating the time to align—especially across non-native English environments where misunderstandings compound quickly. He also frames long-term commitment as a trust accelerator, both for customers and for employees: staying power matters in Japan, and reliability is read as intent. A defining cultural bridge in his management is psychological safety around learning. Levitronix's stance that mistakes are acceptable when identified and learned from runs counter to "no defect" instincts that can dominate Japanese quality mindsets. Kraehenmann doesn't dismiss that instinct; instead, he contextualises it with real-world examples of fast growth, supplier constraints, and even customer admissions that quality issues are a daily struggle. The message is not "mistakes don't matter," but "learning matters more than denial"—a practical compromise that maintains credibility with Japanese expectations while keeping a smaller, faster-moving organisation functional. As the company expanded geographically, he encountered the classic distributed-team problem: "frogs in wells" with limited visibility into each other's context. His solution is deliberately flexible—more meetings when communication gaps appear, fewer when the system stabilises—paired with careful hiring for autonomy. He also differentiates customer engagement from template-driven "Japanese" presentations, pushing teams to stand out through demonstrations and tactile proof, while still respecting relationship norms. And while AI dominates headlines, he notes semiconductor's conservatism: innovation must serve stable mass manufacturing, not disrupt it for fashion—though decision intelligence, digital twins, and data-driven reliability will increasingly shape how suppliers prove value without threatening uptime. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Leadership in Japan is shaped by long-term orientation, relationship continuity, and high expectations for reliability. Consensus processes (nemawashi, ringi-sho) can be invisible to outsiders yet decisive in outcomes, and leaders must work with cultural uncertainty avoidance rather than against it. For Kraehenmann, the practical implication is time: time to listen, time to confirm understanding, and time to build trust through consistent behaviour. Why do global executives struggle? Many global executives arrive expecting headquarters logic to translate directly, then get frustrated by different rhythms of decision-making, communication, and customer expectations. Kraehenmann's warning is straightforward: don't arrive as "the loud foreigner." Respect is conveyed through curiosity, patience, and willingness to adapt the approach to local reality—especially before trying to "fix" anything. Is Japan truly risk-averse? Japan often appears risk-averse because the cost of defects is treated as existential, particularly in high-precision industries. But Kraehenmann frames the nuance: once trust exists and the learning story is clear, improvement is expected and experimentation is possible. Risk is not rejected; it is managed through process, narrative clarity, and demonstrated commitment to not repeating errors. What leadership style actually works? A credible, team-embedded style works: being "part of the team," leading from the front, and doing whatever needs doing. Kraehenmann positions himself as a counsellor and mentor—helping employees prepare, equipping them with case studies, training, and presentation skills—rather than obsessing over targets and directives. This balances authority with approachability and reinforces "same boat" solidarity. How can technology help? Technology helps when it improves stability and learning without threatening continuity. In conservative manufacturing environments, tools that support reliability—analytics, decision intelligence, simulation, and digital twins—tend to be more acceptable than disruptive experimentation. AI may have value, but only when it strengthens repeatability, quality, and uptime rather than becoming a buzzword project. Does language proficiency matter? Yes, because language is trust and speed. Kraehenmann notes that multilingual environments are often "non-native on both sides," which increases misunderstanding risk. Investing time in communication—speaking, listening, re-checking meaning—matters as much as vocabulary. Japanese proficiency also improves daily work enjoyment and strengthens customer and employee rapport, even if fluency takes years. What's the ultimate leadership lesson? The ultimate lesson is enabling others: leadership is helping employees fulfil their potential and mission, and doing the quiet work of communication and trust-building that makes that possible. In Japan, that means commitment, humility, and consistent follow-through—paired with a learning mindset that treats mistakes as data, not shame. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

When an organisation has lots of moving parts, coordination becomes a competitive advantage. Divisional rivalries, egos, "not invented here," and personal competition can quietly shred performance, while external shocks—regulatory changes, competitor M&A, natural disasters, and market movements—keep landing on your desk. The leader's job is to create solid alignment between what the company needs and what individuals actually do every day.  What is performance alignment and why does it matter in 2025-era organisations? Performance alignment is the tight fit between company direction and individual behaviour so the business operates like one smooth machine. Without alignment, internal friction beats you before the market does—teams compete instead of coordinate, priorities conflict, and effort gets wasted on "busy work" that looks active but doesn't move results. In post-pandemic business (2020–2025), this got harder: hybrid work increased miscommunication, supply chains became less predictable, and regulation shifts plus competitor consolidation raised complexity. In Japan, alignment can be strong once decisions land, but slower if consensus and cross-division coordination drags. In the US, execution can be fast, but priorities can splinter if each function runs its own agenda. In multinationals, the "moving parts" problem is amplified; in SMEs, a single misalignment can derail the whole plan. Do now: Write the one-line "main game" for this quarter and check every team goal against it.  How do vision and mission create alignment across divisions and teams? Vision and mission align performance by clarifying where you're going and what you will (and won't) do to get there. Vision is the window to a brighter future and the goals for where you want to be—and there's usually a macro company vision plus a unit-level vision that translates strategy into local execution. When teams can "juxtapose" their contribution to the enterprise vision, motivation rises because people can see how their work matters. Mission then adds operational clarity by defining purpose and boundaries, preventing scattergun activity. This is where big organisations often win: leaders at firms like Toyota or Unilever typically cascade strategy into unit-level execution targets; startups do it faster, but sometimes leave it implicit, which can cause drift as the company scales. Do now: Rewrite your unit vision in one sentence that shows exactly how it supports the enterprise vision.  How do shared values drive engagement and commitment (especially across cultures)? Shared values align performance because they act as the cultural glue that keeps behaviour consistent under pressure. Values aren't posters—they're the rules of the road for how decisions get made, how conflict gets handled, and what "good" looks like when nobody is watching. The hard truth is the personal value spectrum is extremely varied, so alignment doesn't happen by accident. Leaders have to make values explicit, visible, and reinforced through recognition and consequences. In Japan, values often support harmony and consistency, but can also discourage constructive challenge if not balanced. In the US, values may champion individual initiative, but can turn into silos if each team's "value" becomes their private religion. In both contexts, values determine whether people truly commit or just comply. Do now: Pick 3 values and define the observable behaviours that prove each one in meetings, customer work, and decision-making.  What is a position goal and how does it motivate teams to perform? A position goal aligns performance by giving teams a clear competitive target: where do we want to rank? That could mean market share dominance, profitability leadership, or rapid growth—inside your industry, sector, or even within your own global organisation. This is powerful because many teams feel isolated and assume their work doesn't make much difference. A visible ranking goal (top ten by revenue, number one in customer retention, highest NPS in the region) turns effort into identity and recognition. In large enterprises, position goals can be highly motivating because teams can see how they compare globally. In SMEs, position goals should be chosen carefully—too grand and they feel fake; too small and they don't inspire. Consumer sectors may chase share; B2B may prioritise margin and renewal stability. Do now: Choose one position goal for 2026 and define the single metric that proves it.  How do KRAs, standards, and activities translate strategy into daily execution? KRAs, standards, and activities align performance by turning "strategy" into measurable work that gets done consistently. Key Result Areas (KRAs) identify where results must be achieved and what matters most; constant measurement and broadcasting keeps focus. Performance standards then create objectivity—use frameworks like SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-specific) so everyone knows what "good" looks like. Finally, required activities must directly produce the desired outcomes; otherwise, you collect "barnacles" of superfluous tasks that slow the ship. In Japan, standards can be strong and consistent, but activity lists can grow bloated if nobody challenges legacy tasks. In the US, activity can be energetic, but standards can vary if not enforced. Do now: List your top 3 KRAs, define one standard for each, and delete one "busy work" activity that doesn't support them.  How do skills audits and results reviews keep alignment strong over time? Skills and results close the alignment loop by ensuring the team can perform—and learning whether the system worked. A skills audit tells you if the team has the capacity to achieve the goals, what training/coaching is required, and whether you need new talent. The article notes that changing personnel can be difficult and expensive in Japan, which makes skill-building and coaching even more critical. Results then answer the leadership questions: did we achieve what we set out to do, what was the quality, and what did we learn? Even failure can be a learning experience that makes the next cycle stronger. Startups can iterate faster with shorter review loops; multinationals may need quarterly or annual alignment reviews, but should still build in regular check-ins. Do now: Run a quarterly skills audit + results review: capability gaps, coaching plan, and 3 lessons to apply next quarter.  Conclusion Performance alignment is not "soft culture work"—it's a hard business system that prevents friction, wasted effort, and internal competition from destroying results. The eight elements—vision/mission, values, position goal, KRAs, standards, activities, skills, and results—work like a checklist leaders can use to keep the main game in sight, even when emergencies and meltdowns try to hijack attention.  Next steps for leaders and executives Re-state the unit vision and mission in execution language.  Choose one position goal and one proving metric.  Set KRAs + standards, then strip out "barnacle" activities.  Audit skills and lock in coaching or hiring actions.  Author credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動okasu" Rīdā).  Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

When an organisation has lots of moving parts, coordination becomes a competitive advantage. Divisional rivalries, egos, "not invented here," and personal competition can quietly shred performance, while external shocks—regulatory changes, competitor M&A, natural disasters, and market movements—keep landing on your desk. The leader's job is to create solid alignment between what the company needs and what individuals actually do every day.  What is performance alignment and why does it matter in 2025-era organisations? Performance alignment is the tight fit between company direction and individual behaviour so the business operates like one smooth machine. Without alignment, internal friction beats you before the market does—teams compete instead of coordinate, priorities conflict, and effort gets wasted on "busy work" that looks active but doesn't move results. In post-pandemic business (2020–2025), this got harder: hybrid work increased miscommunication, supply chains became less predictable, and regulation shifts plus competitor consolidation raised complexity. In Japan, alignment can be strong once decisions land, but slower if consensus and cross-division coordination drags. In the US, execution can be fast, but priorities can splinter if each function runs its own agenda. In multinationals, the "moving parts" problem is amplified; in SMEs, a single misalignment can derail the whole plan. Do now: Write the one-line "main game" for this quarter and check every team goal against it.  How do vision and mission create alignment across divisions and teams? Vision and mission align performance by clarifying where you're going and what you will (and won't) do to get there. Vision is the window to a brighter future and the goals for where you want to be—and there's usually a macro company vision plus a unit-level vision that translates strategy into local execution. When teams can "juxtapose" their contribution to the enterprise vision, motivation rises because people can see how their work matters. Mission then adds operational clarity by defining purpose and boundaries, preventing scattergun activity. This is where big organisations often win: leaders at firms like Toyota or Unilever typically cascade strategy into unit-level execution targets; startups do it faster, but sometimes leave it implicit, which can cause drift as the company scales. Do now: Rewrite your unit vision in one sentence that shows exactly how it supports the enterprise vision.  How do shared values drive engagement and commitment (especially across cultures)? Shared values align performance because they act as the cultural glue that keeps behaviour consistent under pressure. Values aren't posters—they're the rules of the road for how decisions get made, how conflict gets handled, and what "good" looks like when nobody is watching. The hard truth is the personal value spectrum is extremely varied, so alignment doesn't happen by accident. Leaders have to make values explicit, visible, and reinforced through recognition and consequences. In Japan, values often support harmony and consistency, but can also discourage constructive challenge if not balanced. In the US, values may champion individual initiative, but can turn into silos if each team's "value" becomes their private religion. In both contexts, values determine whether people truly commit or just comply. Do now: Pick 3 values and define the observable behaviours that prove each one in meetings, customer work, and decision-making.  What is a position goal and how does it motivate teams to perform? A position goal aligns performance by giving teams a clear competitive target: where do we want to rank? That could mean market share dominance, profitability leadership, or rapid growth—inside your industry, sector, or even within your own global organisation. This is powerful because many teams feel isolated and assume their work doesn't make much difference. A visible ranking goal (top ten by revenue, number one in customer retention, highest NPS in the region) turns effort into identity and recognition. In large enterprises, position goals can be highly motivating because teams can see how they compare globally. In SMEs, position goals should be chosen carefully—too grand and they feel fake; too small and they don't inspire. Consumer sectors may chase share; B2B may prioritise margin and renewal stability. Do now: Choose one position goal for 2026 and define the single metric that proves it.  How do KRAs, standards, and activities translate strategy into daily execution? KRAs, standards, and activities align performance by turning "strategy" into measurable work that gets done consistently. Key Result Areas (KRAs) identify where results must be achieved and what matters most; constant measurement and broadcasting keeps focus. Performance standards then create objectivity—use frameworks like SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-specific) so everyone knows what "good" looks like. Finally, required activities must directly produce the desired outcomes; otherwise, you collect "barnacles" of superfluous tasks that slow the ship. In Japan, standards can be strong and consistent, but activity lists can grow bloated if nobody challenges legacy tasks. In the US, activity can be energetic, but standards can vary if not enforced. Do now: List your top 3 KRAs, define one standard for each, and delete one "busy work" activity that doesn't support them.  How do skills audits and results reviews keep alignment strong over time? Skills and results close the alignment loop by ensuring the team can perform—and learning whether the system worked. A skills audit tells you if the team has the capacity to achieve the goals, what training/coaching is required, and whether you need new talent. The article notes that changing personnel can be difficult and expensive in Japan, which makes skill-building and coaching even more critical. Results then answer the leadership questions: did we achieve what we set out to do, what was the quality, and what did we learn? Even failure can be a learning experience that makes the next cycle stronger. Startups can iterate faster with shorter review loops; multinationals may need quarterly or annual alignment reviews, but should still build in regular check-ins. Do now: Run a quarterly skills audit + results review: capability gaps, coaching plan, and 3 lessons to apply next quarter.  Conclusion Performance alignment is not "soft culture work"—it's a hard business system that prevents friction, wasted effort, and internal competition from destroying results. The eight elements—vision/mission, values, position goal, KRAs, standards, activities, skills, and results—work like a checklist leaders can use to keep the main game in sight, even when emergencies and meltdowns try to hijack attention.  Next steps for leaders and executives Re-state the unit vision and mission in execution language.  Choose one position goal and one proving metric.  Set KRAs + standards, then strip out "barnacle" activities.  Audit skills and lock in coaching or hiring actions.  Author credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動okasu" Rīdā).  Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

Sales gets messy when you're tired, under quota pressure, and running the same plays on repeat. Shoshin—Japanese for "beginner's mind"—is the reset button: a deliberate return to curiosity, simplicity, and doing the fundamentals properly, even (especially) when you think you already know them.  Is "beginner's mind" actually useful in sales, or just motivational fluff? Yes—shoshin is a practical operating system for performance, not a vibe. In sales, experience can quietly harden into assumptions: "buyers always say no," "price is the only issue," "I can wing the prep." Shoshin cuts through that and forces clean thinking: What are we trying to achieve this quarter? What behaviours actually move deals forward? What am I doing out of habit versus impact? In Japan, you'll see disciplined fundamentals in everything from Toyota's continuous improvement mindset to how enterprise sellers prepare for a first meeting. In the US and Australia, the temptation is speed and hustle—great strengths, but risky when they become mindless motion. Shoshin blends both: high activity with higher quality. Do now: Pick one sales habit you've stopped doing well (prep, follow-up, referrals) and rebuild it like you're new. Why do experienced salespeople stop doing the basics that used to make them successful? Because pressure creates "running on the spot," and busyness disguises drift. Quotas, pipeline reviews, CRM updates (Salesforce, HubSpot), internal meetings, and end-of-quarter panic can turn a year into an endless treadmill. You're moving constantly, but not necessarily improving. Post-pandemic selling (especially from 2020–2025) added extra noise: more stakeholders, more remote calls, more procurement scrutiny, and more "ghosting." In big multinationals, process can crush initiative; in SMEs, chaos can crush consistency. Either way, people carry last year's baggage into the new year and simply "start again" without reflection. Shoshin is the interruption: stop, deconstruct the cycle, and decide what to stop, start, and double down on. Do now: Block 60 minutes to audit your sales cycle end-to-end—then delete one time-wasting activity. How do I use shoshin to improve my sales cycle without overthinking it? Break the sales cycle into components and interrogate each one like a beginner. Not "How do I sell better?" but: prospecting, referral asks, lead response, discovery, proposal quality, objection handling, negotiation, closing, and retention. This mirrors how elite performers operate in sport and in consultative selling frameworks like SPIN Selling (Neil Rackham) and Challenger Sale (Dixon & Adamson): diagnose what's actually happening, not what you hope is happening. In B2B enterprise, a tiny improvement in discovery quality can change deal velocity. In consumer sales, follow-up timing and clarity can lift conversions fast. Japan versus the US? Japan often rewards preparation and risk reduction; the US often rewards decisive action. Shoshin lets you choose intentionally, not culturally by default. Do now: Score each stage 1–10. Fix the lowest score first. What's the smartest way to ask for referrals without sounding awkward? Ask for a specific "group of faces," not an open-ended universe. The classic weak ask—"Do you know anyone who…?"—forces your client to scan their entire life and shuts them down. A shoshin-style referral ask is structured and easy: "In your Chamber of Commerce group… who else struggles with X?" or "In your golf group / industry association / leadership team… who's wrestling with Y right now?" This works across markets, but tone matters. In Japan, you'll often earn referrals through trust, consistency, and subtlety; in Australia and the US, you can be more direct—if you've delivered value and you ask with confidence. The point is: if you've served them well, you've earned the right to ask. Don't let past rejections train you into silence. Do now: Write two referral asks tied to specific communities your clients belong to. How fast should I follow up leads in 2025-style digital selling? Fast enough that you're top-of-mind while intent is still hot—usually within hours, not days. A common benchmark in digital funnels is a very short response window after someone opts in (newsletter, demo request, pricing page). The exact "best" timing varies by industry and region, but the principle is stable: speed signals professionalism and prevents competitors from getting there first. In startups, speed is easier because decision chains are short. In large enterprises, speed fails because lead routing is messy and ownership is unclear. Shoshin asks: do we actually have a system that gets lead details to the right person quickly—and do we treat that follow-up like a priority, not an afterthought? Do now: Test your lead process end-to-end today. Submit a lead and see how long it takes to get contacted. How much research should I do before contacting a prospect? Enough to earn the next conversation—without disappearing into "prep procrastination." When you start in sales, you're often a hungry detective. Later, complacency creeps in: "I know this industry," "I'll wing the call." Shoshin restores the edge: learn the company's priorities, business model, leadership signals, and context. As of 2025, this is easier than ever: LinkedIn, company sites, investor decks (if public), podcasts, YouTube interviews, job ads, and even executive posts. In Japan, where credibility and fit matter heavily, this prep can be the difference between a polite meeting and a real opportunity. In the US, it helps you personalise fast and avoid generic outreach. In B2B, find connectors—shared networks, shared customers, shared challenges. Do now: Build a 10-minute research checklist and use it before every first contact. Conclusion: shoshin is an unfair advantage when everyone else is exhausted Beginner's mind isn't about pretending you're new—it's about behaving like excellence still matters. When competitors drag last year's habits into this year unchanged, shoshin lets you reset: simplify, focus, rebuild fundamentals, and execute with intent. Do the basics sharply—referrals, speed, research, and cycle discipline—and you'll feel momentum return. Next steps (quick actions) Pick one stage of your sales cycle to rebuild this week (not all of them). Standardise your referral ask into two scripts for two different client "groups." Create a lead-response rule your team can actually follow. Use a 10-minute pre-call research checklist—every time. FAQs Beginner's mind doesn't mean being inexperienced—it means staying curious and disciplined. It's the habit of questioning assumptions and doing fundamentals well. Referrals work best when you ask for specific people in a specific group. Make it easy for clients to visualise who you mean. Speed matters because buyer intent cools quickly. Fast follow-up is a competitive advantage, especially in digital lead funnels. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

Complex doesn't mean "technical". Complex means your audience can't quickly connect what you're saying to what they already know. In a post-pandemic, hybrid-meeting world (Zoom, Teams, half the room on mute), that gap gets bigger fast—especially when you pile on jargon, acronyms, and dense slides. This guide turns complex topics into clear, persuasive presentations without turning them into kindergarten stories. We'll keep it logical, visual, and human—because nobody ever said, "That was a wonderfully confusing briefing, let's do it again." What makes a subject "complex" for an audience? A subject is complex when the audience lacks context, not when the content is inherently difficult. A room full of engineers at Toyota can handle technical depth; a cross-functional leadership group at a startup in Sydney or a trading firm in Singapore may need the same ideas in plain English. Complexity spikes when people don't share definitions, don't know the backstory, or are hearing unfamiliar terms for the first time. In Japan, for example, hierarchy can make people less likely to ask clarifying questions in public; in the US, people may interrupt freely—so you must design for both behaviours. As of 2025, attention is scarcer than ever, so the "expert level" approach often fails unless you're at a specialist conference. Do now: Define your audience's baseline knowledge in one sentence, then strip jargon until a smart outsider can follow.    How do you simplify complex material without "dumbing it down"? You simplify by reducing cognitive load, not by removing substance. Think "clarity upgrade", not "content downgrade". Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller) is your friend here: working memory is limited, so don't make people decode your message and understand it at the same time.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Start with BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): the key point in one clean sentence. Then chunk your proof into a small number of chapters (three to five beats is plenty). Use the Pyramid Principle (Barbara Minto): claim →reasons → evidence. If you must use acronyms, say the full term once, then use the acronym consistently—don't swap variants like a DJ changing tracks mid-song. Do now: Write your core message in 12 words. If you can't, the audience definitely can't.    How do you keep complex content interesting instead of sounding like a robot? Complex doesn't need to be boring—delivery and story make the facts land.  Storytelling gives relevance: what changed, why it matters, what happens next. You can talk about a technical process and still make it feel alive—otherwise you're just reading out the bloody entrails of the subject in a monotone.               Use contrast: before/after, risk/opportunity, cost of action vs cost of delay. Add "human anchors": a customer moment, a frontline failure, a leader decision under pressure. Compare contexts: "In Europe, regulation shapes this; in Japan, process discipline shapes it; in the US, speed-to-market often drives trade-offs." Voice modulation matters: pause, punch key words, and let silence do some heavy lifting. Even NASA engineers use narrative when stakes are high. Do now: Add one real example per chapter—something that actually happened, with a place, time, and consequence.  What's the best structure so people don't get lost? A logical progression is non-negotiable: if the structure is messy, complexity becomes chaos. People can tolerate hard ideas, but they won't tolerate hard-to-follow sequencing. Build the talk like this: Close #1: your key conclusion (what you want them to believe) Close #2:the same point, said differently (what you want them to remember) Body chapters: the proof that earns the conclusion -Opening: the doorway that makes the journey easy   In practice, your delivery order becomes: opening → body → close #1 → transition to Q&A → close #2. This keeps momentum and prevents the "Q&A hijack" where the session ends in fragments. For mixed-expertise rooms (SMEs + non-experts), aim for the lowest common denominator without insulting the experts: use clear language, then add optional depth as "if you want the detail…"   Do now: Title each chapter as a short sentence (not a topic). If it reads like a storyline, you're winning.  Why do visuals and emotion matter when presenting complex ideas? Emotion is not fluff—emotion is how understanding sticks. The brain remembers what it can see and what it can feel. That's why "one idea per slide" is such a brutal (and brilliant) discipline: your audience should get the slide's point in two seconds. Use visuals that do real work: before/after photos, a simple flow diagram, a single chart with one takeaway. Consider the Assertion–Evidence approach (Michael Alley): put the claim in the headline, and let the visual prove it. Avoid the "chart salad" slide where everyone squints, gives up, and checks their phone. Also, in hybrid settings, small text dies—what looks fine on your laptop becomes unreadable on a projector in Osaka or a screen share in London. Do now: Audit your deck: delete any slide that contains two unrelated ideas, and split it   How should you open and close a complex presentation? Open with an analogy that makes the unfamiliar feel familiar, then close twice to lock in the message. Analogies connect dissimilar things to reveal the point fast—like saying, "Designing strategy is like ordering gelato: it can look perfect, but you don't know until you taste it." Then you explain the analogy in plain language so the audience doesn't have to do mental gymnastics.   Your closes are your brand moment. Close #1 is the crisp summary and the decision request (approve, fund, prioritise, change). Close #2 is the memory hook—repeat the key point in a different phrasing, so it survives the walk back to their desks. This matters even more as of 2025, when meetings are stacked and attention is fragmented. Do now: Write your final slide as one sentence + one action. If it doesn't demand action, it's a lecture.  Conclusion             Complex presentations succeed when you design from the audience's point of view: reduce cognitive load, build a clean logic chain, and make the message human with story and visuals. The basics still apply—strong design and strong delivery—but your mindset must shift from "show what I know" to "make them understand and act". If you do that, your talk doesn't just inform—it influences. And that's the whole point.   Author bio Dr. Greg Story (Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making) is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. A two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012), he is a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer certified to deliver global programs in leadership, communication, sales, and presentations, including Leadership Training for Results. He is the author of multiple books including best-sellers *Japan Business Mastery*, *Japan Sales Mastery*, and *Japan Presentations Mastery*, with works translated into Japanese. Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, hosts six weekly podcasts, and produces YouTube shows including *The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show* and *Japan's Top Business Interviews*.

"If we can sell it in Japan, we can sell it also in other countries." "The first thing I believe is honesty, especially in difficult situations." "The word "musukashi" is not allowed anymore in our company." "When an engineer is working at the customer and he cannot solve the problem… even if time is up, he would not walk away." "You need to give them… a safety rope." Joerg Bauer is the Representative Director of Heidelberg Japan, leading a business that provides industrial printing and packaging solutions across software, machinery, and consumables. Trained in electronics and data processing, he joined Heidelberg early and built his career at the intersection of engineering, customer service, and operational transformation. He first came to Japan as a young engineer—curious about Japanese manufacturing and culture—and expected a three-to-five-year stint that became a decade. After returning to Germany for several years, he relocated again to Japan in 2008 and has remained since, spending the majority of his professional life in-country. Over nearly four decades with Heidelberg (including his student period), Bauer progressed from technical roles to sales support, then into major integration work as a project manager during corporate merger and SAP rollout, later becoming IT business manager. Back in Japan, he led initiatives such as introducing an online shop for consumables—initially resisted internally as "not possible in Japan"—before moving through service leadership and sales leadership. In November 2019, he became the top executive in Japan, drawing on long-term relationships, practical bilingual experience, and a clear view of how global standards must be delivered through local Japanese expectations. Heidelberg is not a desktop-printer brand; it is an industrial backbone for companies producing packaging, books, and brochures—machines that can stretch 30–40 metres, weigh dozens of tonnes, and require deep integration of mechanics, electronics, and software workflows from PDF to professional output. In Japan, where customer expectations for precision and service are famously demanding, Joerg Bauer describes the market as a proving ground: if a solution succeeds here, it can succeed almost anywhere. That mindset shapes not just product quality, but operating tempo—such as rapid call-back expectations and a service culture that must feel uncompromisingly Japanese to the customer. Bauer's leadership story is inseparable from cultural translation. He sees genuine overlap between German and Japanese monozukuri—high-precision engineering and pride in build quality—yet emphasises that working methods diverge. In his view, Japanese competitors historically excelled by targeting operators' pain points and incrementally automating "the hardest parts" of a process. Heidelberg's approach leaned more holistic, sometimes slower, aiming for a unified system rather than a patchwork of quick fixes. That contrast becomes a leadership lesson: Japan often rewards kaizen and immediate usability, while global headquarters may prioritise system architecture and standardisation. The leader's job is to bridge both without triggering organisational paralysis. He also treats Japan's "zero defect" instinct as both strength and tension. Perfection is culturally persuasive, but defining "perfect" is complex—especially in areas like colour, where human perception varies and measurement systems (LAB values) can create a more rational definition of quality. Bauer frames this as an executive's communication challenge: aligning printing companies, their clients, and internal teams around what quality means in measurable terms, without dismissing the cultural preference for flawless outcomes. Internally, he is candid about the real constraint: uncertainty avoidance. When teams say "muzukashii," they often mean risk, status loss, channel conflict, or fear of being linked to failure. His response is practical: find early adopters, run controlled trials, protect participants from reputational downside, and then scale what works. As the top executive since 2019, he anchors trust in honesty—especially during difficult periods involving financial pressure and restructuring—while resisting the temptation to hide behind "Japan is different" as an excuse. For Bauer, effective leadership in Japan is not softness; it is clarity, preparation (nemawashi), and a consistent safety rope that makes innovation feel survivable. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Leadership in Japan is uniquely shaped by consensus-building, nemawashi, and a deep preference for harmony that reduces surprises. Bauer's experience suggests that outcomes improve when stakeholders are aligned before formal decisions—similar to ringi-sho logic—because it lowers execution risk and face-loss. The practical implication is that leaders must invest earlier in communication, even when it feels like "over-communication" to global executives. Why do global executives struggle? Bauer highlights isolation as a core failure mode: arriving as president without language, relationships, or a trusted internal power base leaves leaders cut off from the real data and informal context. Teams may answer only what is asked, not what is relevant. Without the ability to ask precise questions—and verify through multiple sources—leaders can drift off-track while believing they are informed. Is Japan truly risk-averse? Bauer treats "risk aversion" as uncertainty avoidance rather than laziness. "Muzukashii" often signals fear of failure, channel conflict, or reputational cost. The workaround is not motivational speeches; it is risk design: small pilots, visible executive sponsorship, and protection for participants. In decision intelligence terms, leaders must reduce perceived downside, increase clarity, and make learning safe. What leadership style actually works? His emphasis is direct: honesty in difficult situations, plus a clear rationale for change. He can be "very German" in being frank and direct, but he pairs that with structured buy-in and visible modelling of how to communicate with headquarters. He argues that near the customer, the organisation must behave Japanese—language, documents, yen-based business norms—while headquarters discussions sometimes require unusually direct boundary-setting. How can technology help? In Bauer's domain, technology is not abstract transformation theatre; it is operational leverage. Software workflows, automation, measurement standards (such as colour metrics), and modern service systems can reduce ambiguity and speed decisions. Applied well, digital twins and predictive maintenance concepts can also shift service from reactive "fix it now" pressure to planned reliability—supporting both customer expectations and internal resource planning. Does language proficiency matter? Bauer implies language is a major accelerator for trust and accuracy. Without Japanese proficiency, leaders rely on interpreters who may lack business judgment, or on English speakers who may not be organisational power players. Language competence improves question quality, speeds nemawashi, and reduces misalignment between intent and interpretation. What's the ultimate leadership lesson? Bauer's core lesson is that leadership is bridge-building under uncertainty: earn trust through honesty, reduce fear with a safety rope, and translate between cultures without letting either side become an excuse. In Japan, sustainable performance comes from combining consensus with clarity—bringing people along while still insisting on profitability, accountability, and forward movement. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

Following several shark attacks off the coast of Sydney, marine biologist Dr. Olaf Meynecke from Griffith University talks about the current threat situation and possible causes. The expert, who has also intensively researched bull sharks before his current work on humpback whales, explains how such encounters occur — and which measures make sense to better protect people. - Nach mehreren Haiangriffen vor der Küste von Sydney spricht der Meeresbiologe Dr. Olaf Meynecke von der Griffith University über die aktuelle Gefahrenlage und mögliche Ursachen. Der Experte, der neben Buckelwalen auch intensiv zu Bullenhaien geforscht hat, erklärt, wie es zu solchen Begegnungen kommt – und welche Maßnahmen sinnvoll sind, um Menschen besser zu schützen.

In this episode, I'm coming to you live from NAPSA Congress, the National Australian Pharmacy Students' Association's week-long flagship event that brings together pharmacy students from across Australia. The Congress is packed with education sessions, workshops, social events, networking opportunities, and a vibrant trade exhibition, and this episode captures the energy of being right in the middle of it all. I spoke with Sebastian Harper from Griffith University, NAPSA's National President, Sebastian Schulke from the University of Queensland, and Mia Avram from Monash University and NAPSA's National Treasurer. We spoke about their favourite moments from Congress, what stood out most, and the key learnings they will be taking forward into their future pharmacy careers. Our conversations explored a wide range of timely and important topics, including practical insights into probiotics, the expanding role of pharmacists in harm reduction and dependency services such as naloxone take-home programs, and the skills of full-scope physical assessment. We also discussed how pharmacists can better support patients using GLP-1 agonists, from counselling to ongoing care, and what it really means to serve your community as a healthcare professional. We also touched on highlights from Pharmacy Student of the Year (PSOTY), unpacking the qualities that set leaders apart, as well as a thoughtful conversation on authenticity in pharmacy. We discussed why being yourself matters, how to avoid the "pharmacist Barbie" stereotype, and the value of showing up as a real, relatable professional. This episode was recorded live in the trade exhibition space at NAPSA Congress, so you may hear some background noise throughout. Every effort has been made to optimise the audio while keeping the authentic atmosphere of Congress intact.

In this episode, we discuss everything about men's health. We explore: Applications for diagnostic ultrasound in men's pelvic healthPhysiotherapy for post prostatectomy patientsRole of manual therapy in men's healthUpskilling in men's health physiotherapyWant to learn more about men's health? Dr David Cowley recently did a brilliant Masterclass with us called “Pelvic Health in Men: Practical Approaches for Physiotherapists” where he goes into further depth on this topic. 

¿Qué sucede cuando te alejas de tu entorno y decides vivir bajo tus propios términos? En este episodio nos acompaña Alejandra Ramírez, más conocida en redes sociales como Alejandra Travels, una mujer cuya vida es un testimonio de libertad, valentía y dinamismo.Desde sus raíces en una finca en Venadillo, Tolima, rodeada de la naturaleza que forjó su espíritu, hasta las aulas de Griffith University en Australia como profesora, Alejandra ha recorrido un camino de contrastes. Creció bajo la exigencia de unos padres que, desde el amor, buscaban la excelencia; pero fue a los 17 años, al migrar sola a Australia, donde descubrió que existían infinitas formas de habitar el mundo.Con Ale conversamos sobre su decisión de dejar una carrera estable y exitosa para construir su hogar en Mostaza, la van que la acompañó a recorrer Australia en solitario. Reflexionamos sobre lo que ha implicado ser migrante durante los últimos 18 años y, finalmente, exploramos su momento actual: una etapa de reflexiones profundas sobre la maternidad, el deseo de estabilidad y una nueva forma de viajar que ya no busca solo el movimiento, sino la pertenencia.Una charla inspiradora para cualquiera que sienta que está viviendo una vida que no le pertenece y necesite el impulso para crear su propio mapa.

Clients don't need to do anything — and that's the brutal truth every salesperson meets early. If a buyer can stick with the same supplier, or do nothing at all, many will. The only thing that moves them is a felt gap between where they are now and where they want to be, plus a reason to bridge it now, not "sometime later". This piece unpacks how to surface that gap without bruising ego, how to test the buyer's DIY confidence with diplomacy, and how to quantify the pain of inaction so urgency becomes logical and emotional — the kind that actually triggers action. Why don't buyers take action even when they agree there's a problem? Buyers can agree there's a gap and still do nothing, because "no change" is often the lowest-risk option. In B2B and complex services, inaction is a decision: keep the incumbent, keep the budget, keep the politics calm. Post-pandemic (2021–2025), many firms tightened discretionary spend, so "we'll revisit next quarter" became a default script — whether you're selling into a Tokyo conglomerate, a US mid-market SaaS firm, or a European manufacturer. Procurement teams are trained to delay; senior leaders are trained to back their own judgement; and everyone is juggling competing priorities. Your job isn't to force urgency — it's to reframe the cost of waiting so the buyer persuades themselves. That's classic Challenger thinking and it pairs neatly with Dale Carnegie-style respect: tough on the issue, gentle with the person. Mini-summary: Agreement isn't action; urgency comes from reframing risk. Do now: Ask, "What happens if nothing changes by the end of this quarter?" What exactly is the "buyer's gap" in sales — and how do you diagnose it fast? The buyer's gap is the distance between the buyer's current reality and their desired future, measured in outcomes, not opinions. Think of it as a before/after delta: revenue leakage, churn, quality defects, compliance exposure, missed hires, stalled strategy. In Salesforce or HubSpot terms, it's the difference between "pipeline health today" and "forecast reliability we need by FY2026". In SPIN Selling language, it's the implication of the problem, expressed in business impact. Diagnosing it quickly means anchoring in concrete targets (KPIs, SLAs, customer NPS, cycle time, cost-to-serve) and a timeframe (this quarter, next six months, before a product launch). Compare contexts: Japanese decision-making often needs broader internal alignment; US teams may move faster but demand ROI proof; both still require clarity on what "better" looks like and what "staying put" costs. Mini-summary: A gap you can't measure becomes a gap you can't sell. Do now: Get the buyer to state one KPI and one deadline they'll be judged on. How do you test a buyer's DIY confidence without insulting them? You don't tell leaders they're wrong — you ask questions that let them discover the limits of "we can do it ourselves". Most executives have strong self-belief. If you attack it, you'll trigger defensiveness and stall the deal. Instead, use diplomatic, diagnostic questions that probe resourcing, capability, and trade-offs: "Who owns this internally?", "What will they stop doing to make time?", "What's the plan if your top performer leaves?", "How will you measure progress in 30 days?" That's subtle pressure, not arrogance. It's also psychologically smart: people trust conclusions they reach themselves (behavioural science 101, think Kahneman). In Japan, where saving face matters, this matters even more; in startups, the risk is overconfidence and bandwidth collapse. Your goal is respectful doubt — enough to show that DIY has hidden costs and timelines. Mini-summary: Self-persuasion beats salesperson persuasion. Do now: Ask, "What would have to be true for DIY to work on time — and what usually gets in the way?" How do you create urgency without sounding manipulative or desperate? Urgency isn't hype — it's a credible timeline tied to consequences the buyer already cares about. Manipulative urgency ("discount ends Friday") works in low-stakes retail; it backfires in enterprise sales. What works is a shared clock: contract renewals, regulatory deadlines, board reviews, hiring cycles, seasonal demand, or tech deprecation. As of 2025, AI and cyber risk conversations have made timelines sharper — but buyers still resist if the consequence is fuzzy. So you build urgency with cause and effect: "If implementation slips past March, your Q2 launch misses the marketing window", or "If churn stays at 12% for another two quarters, CAC payback blows out". Use comparative framing: multinationals have bureaucracy delays; SMEs have cashflow risk; both suffer when waiting compounds losses. Mini-summary: Real urgency is timeline + consequence, not theatre. Do now: Co-create a milestone plan and ask, "What breaks if we miss this date?" How do you quantify the cost of inaction when you don't have all the numbers? You don't need perfect data — you need credible ranges and the right questions to surface the buyer's own numbers. Opportunity cost sounds theoretical until you attach it to money, time, and risk. Start with what you can observe: volume, conversion, defect rate, cycle time, average deal size, staff turnover. Then use ranges: "If delays cost you 1–3 deals a month, what's that in gross margin?" or "If rework is 5–10% of project hours, what's that in payroll dollars?" Gartner and Forrester-style ROI thinking isn't about precision; it's about decision clarity. In heavily engineered sectors (manufacturing, logistics), buyers often have better operational metrics than they realise; in professional services, time-to-value is your lever. The key is to make the buyer feel the leakage with concrete estimates. Mini-summary: Concrete ranges create felt pain; vague talk creates procrastination. Do now: Build a simple "cost of waiting" calculator with the buyer in the meeting. What should sales leaders coach teams to do now to close the buyer's gap? Coach your team to run "gap conversations" that are respectful, evidence-based, and relentlessly action-oriented. This is not about being aggressive; it's about being professionally brave. Train reps to (1) diagnose the gap in one sentence, (2) test DIY assumptions with diplomacy, (3) quantify inaction in ranges, and (4) land a clear next step with a date. Role-play implication questions, not product pitches. Use call reviews to check whether reps anchored to a deadline and KPIs. Bring in frameworks: SPIN for problem/implication, Challenger for reframe, Dale Carnegie for relationship, MEDDICC for qualification discipline. In Japan, coach patience and consensus mapping; in the US, coach ROI and speed; across both, coach "action now" language that still feels respectful: "What would make it reasonable to start in the next 30 days?" Mini-summary: Skills, not slogans, create urgency. Do now: Add one KPI, one deadline, and one implication question to every discovery call script. Conclusion Most prospects won't move just because you're enthusiastic, or because your solution is objectively good. They move when the gap is real, measurable, and emotionally felt — and when they accept that DIY is riskier than it sounds. Your best persuasion isn't a monologue; it's a sequence of smart questions that lead the buyer to persuade themselves. Next steps for leaders Audit discovery calls for KPI + deadline + implication questions Build a lightweight "cost of delay" worksheet your team can use live Run weekly role-plays on diplomatic DIY-testing questions Align sales and delivery on realistic milestone plans (no fantasy timelines) Hold reps accountable to scheduling the next action with a date Author Bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan.

Logging Off: Inside Australia's Landmark Social Media BanAustralia has become the first country to ban children under sixteen from social media, forcing platforms to block millions of young users overnight. Supporters say the move draws a long-overdue line around online harm while critics feel that it could push teens into riskier digital spaces with less oversight. As legal challenges mount and other countries watch closely, we cover what drove the country to implement this hardline policy on social media.  Guests: Susan Grantham, researcher, lecturer, communication, Griffith University; Terry Flew, professor, digital communication and culture, University of SydneyHost: Gary Price.  Producer: Grace Galante and Amirah Zaveri.   Inside The Strain On America's Animal Rescue SystemMore than six million companion animals enter U.S. shelters each year and a little over four million are adopted. Sadly, shelters still rely on euthanizing when facilities are overcrowded and an animal has been there for a while. Author Laurie Zaleski has made it her life's work to rescue hundreds of these unwanted pets and care for them on her farm. We speak with Zaleski as well Dr. Joshua Fisher, an animal expert, about the importance of approaching any pet adoption with the mentality that it's a lifelong commitment.  Guests: Laurie Zaleski, author, Funny Farm: My Unexpected Life with 600 Rescue Animals; Dr. Joshua Fisher, Director of Animal Services, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.Marty Peterson.  Producer: Polly Hansen.   Viewpoints Explained: How Nuuly Cracked The Clothing Rental BusinessFor years, clothing rental was billed as the future of fashion, but few companies could make the numbers work. We cover what sets Nuuly apart and if this model is sustainable in the long-term.  Host: Ebony McMorris.  Producer: Amirah Zaveri Culture Crash: Why Actor Ethan Hawke Isn't Slowing DownActor Ethan Hawke continues to surprise decades into his career, with a standout turn in this new crime comedy drama series that was one of our favorite shows of 2025.  Host:  Evan Rook.  Producer: Evan Rook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Most business careers don't stall because people lack IQ or work ethic — they stall because people can't move other humans. If you can command a room, energise a team, excite customers, and secure decisions, you compound your influence fast — especially in the post-pandemic world of hybrid meetings, Zoom pitches, and global audiences.  Does persuasion power matter more than technical skill for promotion? Yes — technical skill gets you into the conversation, but persuasion power wins you the job. In most organisations, the higher you climb, the more the work becomes "people deciding" rather than "people doing". This is why brilliant engineers, finance stars, and operational legends can still hit a ceiling. They're exceptional in the engine room, but when it's time to sell a strategy to a board, rally a division, or win internal funding, they can't land the message. In Japan's consensus-heavy corporate culture, you often need influence across multiple stakeholders; in the US, you may need crisp executive presence in faster decision cycles; in Europe, you might need stronger narrative and risk framing. Same game: decisions move when people feel clarity and confidence. Do now: Identify one upcoming meeting where you must persuade (not "update") — and design it like a pitch. Why are so many senior executives surprisingly bad at speaking? Because nobody trains them for "stage time" — they get responsibility, not rehearsal. Many leaders are promoted for performance, not persuasion. You see it everywhere: high-status, high-stakes people who can't string together a five-minute case for themselves or their ideas. They've been rewarded for competence, reliability, and execution — then suddenly they're expected to represent the brand, defend strategy, and inspire others. That's a different profession. Startups often over-index on charisma early; multinationals over-index on process and tenure — both can produce leaders who are undercooked when they're in front of customers, boards, or a chamber of commerce AGM audience. Do now: Treat speaking as a core leadership skill, not a "nice-to-have" — schedule training and practice like you schedule finance reviews. How do you self-promote without sounding cringe or arrogant? You self-promote best by making your value useful to others. The trick isn't "talk about me"; it's "here's what I learned, here's what it changed, here's how it helps". Personal brand isn't your logo — it's your reputation at decision time. The strongest self-promotion is evidence-based: outcomes, lessons, frameworks, and how you'd repeat the win. Use story, but anchor it in business reality: customers, revenue, safety, quality, speed, retention. In B2B, credibility often comes from clarity and risk management; in consumer, it's momentum and narrative. Either way, you're building trust. You can also borrow structure from Aristotle's ethos/pathos/logos: establish credibility, connect emotionally, then land logic. Do now: Create a 60-second "value story" with: problem → action → result → lesson → next step. What changes when you present to a global audience like TED or online? The upside is massive — but the downside lasts forever. A local talk fades; a recorded talk can follow you for years. Online audiences behave differently: they're less forgiving, more distracted, and they can replay your weak moments. But if you deliver professionally, your credibility scales globally — especially if you're known for communication, training, sales, or leadership. Post-2020, many leaders now "present" via webinars, town halls, podcasts, and investor updates more than they do in ballrooms. That means your persuasion power is constantly on display. TED's own guidance to speakers is blunt: rehearse repeatedly and treat preparation as part of performance. [1] TED ted.com Do now: Assume every important talk will be shared — build it to survive replay. What's the fastest escape hatch from speaking disasters? Rehearsal — not talent — is the catastrophe escape hatch. You don't get confidence by "hoping"; you get it by seeing yourself succeed in practice. Most business talks are delivered once: one-and-done. That's like launching a product without QA. Effective rehearsal isn't memorising every line; it's building a structure you can drive under pressure. Harvard Business Review makes the same point: rehearse a lot, but don't trap yourself in robotic scripting — aim for confident flow and strong openings/closings. [2] Harvard Business Review Harvard Business Review Do now: Rehearse the first 60 seconds and last 60 seconds until they're unshakeable — that's where trust is won or lost. How do you rehearse and get feedback without getting crushed? Ask for feedback that builds you up and sharpens you — never invite a vague judgement. "How was it?" is a confidence grenade. Use a two-part prompt: "What did I do well?" and "What's one thing I can improve?" This keeps feedback specific, actionable, and survivable. Then rehearse in layers: content, timing, and delivery (voice, gestures, eye line). Dale Carnegie advice on rehearsal commonly emphasises practising for timing and delivery — not just slide polishing. [3] Dale Carnegie dalecarnegie.com Here's a simple rehearsal loop: Rehearsal round Focus Output 1 Message + structure Clear beginning, middle, end 2 Timing + transitions Fits the slot, smooth flow 3 Delivery under pressure Voice, pauses, gestures, presence Do now: Book 3 rehearsals in your calendar before the event — and collect feedback using the two-part prompt above. Final wrap Persuasion power isn't decoration — it's leverage. The people who rise fastest aren't always the smartest or the busiest; they're the ones who can make others see it, feel it, and back it. If you want the bigger role, the bigger client, and the bigger stage, don't wait for promotion to "learn speaking". Build the skill first — then let it pull you upward. FAQs Yes — rehearsal beats talent for most business speaking. Talent helps, but rehearsal makes you reliable under pressure. Yes — technical experts can become persuasive speakers. With structure, practice, and feedback, "engine room" people can lead the room. Yes — you can self-promote without being arrogant. Make it outcome-based and useful: lessons, impact, and what you'd do next. Yes — online talks raise the stakes. Recordings scale credibility or embarrassment, so design and rehearse accordingly. Next steps for leaders and executives Audit your next 3 presentations: where do you need a decision, not applause? Build a "talk ladder": small internal talks → customer updates → industry events. Rehearse in three rounds (structure, timing, delivery) and capture feedback each time. Train the top team — your brand is on stage every time they open their mouths. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan.

Logging Off: Inside Australia's Landmark Social Media BanAustralia has become the first country to ban children under sixteen from social media, forcing platforms to block millions of young users overnight. Supporters say the move draws a long-overdue line around online harm while critics feel that it could push teens into riskier digital spaces with less oversight. As legal challenges mount and other countries watch closely, we cover what drove the country to implement this hardline policy on social media.  Guests: Susan Grantham, researcher, lecturer, communication, Griffith University; Terry Flew, professor, digital communication and culture, University of SydneyHost: Gary Price Producer: Grace Galante and Amirah Zaveri Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

"The purpose of my business is not only bake and sell, because we are introducing… culture or food habits of France to the Japanese people." "Japanese people don't buy baguettes because they don't know how to eat it." "After twenty shops, I needed to change my mentality to be the new type leaders." "I have responsibility for the life of the workers." Shu Kimura is the founder of Boulangerie Maison Kayser Japan and a fellow Rotarian. Born into the Kimura family, whose ancestors helped introduce bread-making techniques to Japan via Nagasaki (Dejima) in the 1600s, he chose to build a separate path rather than continue the established family business. He studied law at university, then worked in insurance for six years in market development before deciding to become a baker. He trained in the United States in Kansas, studying wheat science and fermentation chemistry, then worked as a baker at Amy's Bread in New York City. He later went to France to train closely with artisanal baker Eric Kayser living near his home as a private trainee before being invited to become a business partner to bring the brand concept to Japan. Kimura built the company in 2000 and opened the first Japan store in Takanawa in 2001. Over time, he grew the business to dozens of locations across Japan, leading hundreds of employees while navigating Japan's distinctive customer habits, service expectations, and people-management realities. Shu Kimura's leadership story is a case study in translating a food culture—not merely selling a product—into a market with different habits, assumptions, and decision styles. He entered baking after a first career in insurance, then rebuilt himself through technical study of fermentation and wheat science in Kansas, practical craft in New York, and high-intensity apprenticeship in France. That blend of science, craft, and commercial pragmatism shaped how he approached Japan: with conviction about quality, but equal focus on "how to sell" in a society where bread is often treated as a one-hand snack rather than part of a shared table. His early strategic insight was not that Japanese consumers disliked baguettes, but that many simply lacked a usage framework. That is a leadership lesson in market education: changing behaviour requires storytelling, context, and repeated micro-demonstrations. Sampling hundreds of baguette slices daily, Kimura used seasonal moments—Christmas and New Year's gatherings—to help customers discover bread as a centrepiece of hospitality. The result was not incremental improvement but a demand inflection point: the product did not change; the meaning did. As the company expanded, Kimura's definition of leadership evolved in stages: hands-on labour at one to three shops, charisma and founder-driven momentum from four to twenty, and then a deliberate shift from "activist and baker" to architect of systems, accountability, and culture. This transition mirrors a broader Japan leadership truth: scale forces leaders to move from doing to enabling, from individual mastery to organisational capability. Kimura also highlights a practical contrast between European-style top-down authority and Japan's preference for shared understanding and bottom-up execution. Rather than merely issuing task-level directives, he argues that people in Japan need the whole picture first—the total view—before work can be broken into puzzle pieces. This aligns with consensus dynamics such as nemawashi (pre-alignment) and ringi-sho (circulating approval), where clarity of purpose and social alignment can matter as much as speed. In an uncertainty-avoidant environment, trust is built through repeated communication: purpose, targets, role clarity, and recognition systems that show personal growth. Technology appears in his leadership thinking not as novelty, but as operational resilience—sales planning, ordering, loss control, and cross-application data transfer. The strategic point is decision intelligence: reducing waste and stabilising performance through better signals, with the potential to build digital-twin-like visibility into demand, production, and staffing over time. Yet Kimura remains grounded: culture, education, and human motivation are the levers that keep quality consistent across many locations. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Kimura frames Japan as a context where leadership effectiveness depends on shared understanding, not merely authority. He contrasts European "boss is boss" top-down control with a Japanese style that works better when leaders explain the total view of the company first, then break it down into actionable pieces. In practice, that means investing heavily in communication of purpose, targets, and role boundaries—an approach consistent with consensus-building patterns such as nemawashi and ringi-sho. Why do global executives struggle? He implies the struggle often comes from applying familiar command-and-control habits in a market that expects alignment, context, and relationship-based coherence. Leaders who only provide "do this, do that" instructions may fail to create commitment. Without the larger narrative—why the work matters—people drift, and brand consistency erodes across locations. Is Japan truly risk-averse? Kimura's experience suggests "risk-averse" is often a shorthand for "uncertainty-avoidant." The baguette challenge was not fear of trying something new; it was uncertainty about how to use it. When he taught customers how to eat baguette and anchored it to family occasions, behaviour changed rapidly. The leadership implication: reduce uncertainty with education, examples, and social proof. What leadership style actually works? He describes a staged evolution: doer-leader at small scale, charismatic founder at mid-scale, then system-builder after twenty shops. The effective style becomes one of delegation with accountability—pushing responsibility down to store and area leaders while reinforcing philosophy and standards through education. Trust is sustained through fair, frequently improved HR systems that recognise growth and provide future pathways. How can technology help? Kimura points to connected planning for orders and sales, and systems to manage loss control and operational accuracy. He also discusses using systems to support smaller independent bakeries with HR and payroll calculations. This is technology as operational leverage—moving toward decision intelligence and potentially digital twin capabilities—while acknowledging cost constraints and the reality that some AI applications may still be premature. Does language proficiency matter? He treats language as a tool rather than the essence: interpretation can solve comprehension, but the substance of what a leader communicates is decisive. In other words, clarity of message, philosophy, and intent carries more weight than linguistic perfection. What's the ultimate leadership lesson? For Kimura, leadership is responsibility for people's livelihoods: failure affects hundreds of jobs, not just the founder's personal assets. That sense of stewardship drives his focus on communication, education, continuous system improvement, and the creation of a "happy life with bread" shared by bakers, shop staff, and customers alike. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

Discussion of things literally or figuratively unearthed in the last quarter of 2025 continues. It begins with potpourri then covers tools, Neanderthals, edibles and potables, art, shipwrecks, medical finds, and repatriations. Research: Abdallah, Hanna. “Famous Easter Island statues were created without centralized management.” PLOS. Via EurekAlert. 11/26/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1106805 Abdallah, Hannah. “Early humans butchered elephants using small tools and made big tools from their bones.” PLOS. Via EurekAlert. 10/8/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1100481 Abdallah, Hannah. “Researchers uncover clues to mysterious origin of famous Hjortspring boat.” EurekAlert. 10/12/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1108323 Archaeology Magazine. “Medieval Hoard of Silver and Pearls Discovered in Sweden.” https://archaeology.org/news/2025/10/14/medieval-hoard-of-silver-and-pearls-discovered-in-sweden/ Archaeology Magazine. “Possible Trepanation Tool Unearthed in Poland.” 11/13/2025. https://archaeology.org/news/2025/11/13/possible-trepanation-tool-unearthed-in-poland/ Arkeologerna. “Rare 5,000-year-old dog burial unearthed in Sweden.” 12/15/2025. https://news.cision.com/se/arkeologerna/r/rare-5-000-year-old-dog-burial-unearthed-in-sweden,c4282014 Arnold, Paul. “Ancient ochre crayons from Crimea reveal Neanderthals engaged in symbolic behaviors.” Phys.org. 10/30/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-ancient-ochre-crayons-crimea-reveal.html Arnold, Paul. “Dating a North American rock art tradition that lasted 175 generations.” Phys.org. 11/28/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-11-dating-north-american-art-tradition.html Bassi, Margherita. “A Single Gene Could Have Contributed to Neanderthals’ Extinction, Study Suggests.” Smithsonian. 10/30/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-neanderthal-gene-variant-related-to-red-blood-cells-may-have-contributed-to-their-extinction-180987586/ Benjamin Pohl, Chewing over the Norman Conquest: the Bayeux Tapestry as monastic mealtime reading, Historical Research, 2025;, htaf029, https://doi.org/10.1093/hisres/htaf029 Benzine, Vittoria. “Decoded Hieroglyphics Reveal Female Ruler of Ancient Maya City.” ArtNet. 10/27/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/foundation-stone-maya-coba-woman-ruler-2704521 Berdugo, Sophie. “Easter Island statues may have 'walked' thanks to 'pendulum dynamics' and with as few as 15 people, study finds.” LiveScience. 10/19/2025. https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/easter-island-statues-may-have-walked-thanks-to-pendulum-dynamics-and-with-as-few-as-15-people-study-finds Billing, Lotte. “Fingerprint of ancient seafarer found on Scandinavia’s oldest plank boat.” EurekAlert. 10/12/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1109361 Brhel, John. “Rats played major role in Easter Island’s deforestation, study reveals.” EurekAlert. 11/17/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1106361 Caldwell, Elizabeth. “9 more individuals unearthed at Oaklawn could be 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre victims.” Tulsa Public Radio. 11/6/2025. https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/local-regional/2025-11-06/9-more-individuals-unearthed-at-oaklawn-could-be-1921-tulsa-race-massacre-victims Clark, Gaby. “Bayeux Tapestry could have been originally designed as mealtime reading for medieval monks.” Phys.org. 12/15/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-12-bayeux-tapestry-mealtime-medieval-monks.html#google_vignette Cohen, Alina. “Ancient Olive Oil Processing Complex Unearthed in Tunisia.” Artnet. 11/21/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ancient-olive-oil-complex-tunisia-2717795 Cohen, Alina. “MFA Boston Restores Ownership of Historic Works by Enslaved Artist.” ArtNet. 10/30/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/mfa-boston-david-drake-jars-restitution-2706594 Fergusson, Rachel. “First DNA evidence of Black Death in Edinburgh discovered on teeth of excavated teenage skeleton.” The Scotsman. 11/5/2025. https://www.scotsman.com/news/first-dna-evidence-black-death-edinburgh-discovered-teeth-excavated-teenage-skeleton-5387741 Folorunso, Caleb et al. “MOWAA Archaeology Project: Enhancing Understanding of Benin City’s Historic Urban Development and Heritage through Pre-Construction Archaeology.” Antiquity (2025): 1–10. Web. Griffith University. “Rare stone tool cache tells story of trade and ingenuity.” 12/2/2025. https://news.griffith.edu.au/2025/12/02/rare-stone-tool-cache-tells-story-of-trade-and-ingenuity/ Han, Yu et al. “The late arrival of domestic cats in China via the Silk Road after 3,500 years of human-leopard cat commensalism.” Cell Genomics, Volume 0, Issue 0, 101099. https://www.cell.com/cell-genomics/fulltext/S2666-979X(25)00355-6 Hashemi, Sara. “A Volcanic Eruption in 1345 May Have Triggered a Chain of Events That Brought the Black Death to Europe.” Smithsonian. 12/8/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-volcanic-eruption-in-1345-may-have-triggered-a-chain-of-events-taht-brought-the-black-death-to-europe-180987803/ Hjortkjær, Simon Thinggaard. “Mysterious signs on Teotihuacan murals may reveal an early form of Uto-Aztecan language.” PhysOrg. 10/6/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mysterious-teotihuacan-murals-reveal-early.html Institut Pasteur. “Study suggests two unsuspected pathogens struck Napoleon's army during the retreat from Russia in 1812.” Via EurekAlert. 10/24/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1102613 Jones, Sam. “Shells found in Spain could be among oldest known musical instruments.” The Guardian. 12/2/2025. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/dec/02/neolithic-conch-like-shell-spain-catalonia-discovery-musical-instruments Kasal, Krystal. “Pahon Cave provides a look into 5,000 years of surprisingly stable Stone Age tool use.” Phys.org. 12/16/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-12-pahon-cave-years-stable-stone.html Kristiansen, Nina. “Eight pages bound in furry seal skin may be Norway's oldest book.” Science Norway. 11/3/2025. https://www.sciencenorway.no/cultural-history-culture-history/eight-pages-bound-in-furry-seal-skin-may-be-norways-oldest-book/2571496 Kuta, Sarah. “109-Year-Old Messages in a Bottle Written by Soldiers Heading to Fight in World War I Discovered on Australian Beach.” Smithsonian. 11/6/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/109-year-old-messages-in-a-bottle-written-by-soldiers-heading-to-fight-in-world-war-i-discovered-on-australian-beach-180987649/ Kuta, Sarah. “A Storm Battered Western Alaska, Scattering Thousands of Indigenous Artifacts Across the Sand.” Smithsonian. 10/31/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-storm-battered-western-alaska-scattering-thousands-of-indigenous-artifacts-across-the-sand-180987606/ Kuta, Sarah. “Archaeologists Unearth More Than 100 Projectiles From an Iconic Battlefield in Scotland.” Smithsonian. 11/5/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/archaeologists-unearth-more-than-100-projectiles-from-an-iconic-battlefield-in-scotland-180987641/ Kuta, Sarah. “Hundreds of Mysterious Victorian-Era Shoes Are Washing Up on a Beach in Wales. Nobody Knows Where They Came From.” Smithsonian. 1/5/2026. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hundreds-of-mysterious-victorian-era-shoes-are-washing-up-on-a-beach-in-wales-nobody-knows-where-they-came-from-180987943/ Lawson-Tancred, Jo. “Golden ‘Tudor Heart’ Necklace Sheds New Light on Henry VIII’s First Marriage.” Artnet. 10/14/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/tudor-heart-pendant-british-museum-fundraiser-2699544 Lawson-Tancred, Jo. “Long-Overlooked Black Veteran Identified in Rare 19th-Century Portrait.” ArtNet. 10/27/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/black-veteran-thomas-phillips-portrait-identified-2704721 Lipo CP, Hunt TL, Pakarati G, Pingel T, Simmons N, Heard K, et al. (2025) Megalithic statue (moai) production on Rapa Nui (Easter Island, Chile). PLoS One 20(11): e0336251. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336251 Lipo, Carl P. and Terry L. Hunt. “The walking moai hypothesis: Archaeological evidence, experimental validation, and response to critics.” Journal of Archaeological Science. Volume 183, November 2025, 106383. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440325002328 Lock, Lisa. “Pre-construction archaeology reveals Benin City's historic urban development and heritage.” 10/29/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-pre-archaeology-reveals-benin-city.html#google_vignette Lock, Lisa. “Pre-construction archaeology reveals Benin City's historic urban development and heritage.” Antiquity. Via PhysOrg. 10/29/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-pre-archaeology-reveals-benin-city.html#google_vignette Lynley A. Wallis et al, An exceptional assemblage of archaeological plant fibres from Windmill Way, southeast Cape York Peninsula, Australian Archaeology (2025). DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2025.2574127 Lyon, Devyn. “Oaklawn Cemetery excavation brings investigators closer to identifying Tulsa Race Massacre victims.” Fox 23. 11/6/2025. https://www.fox23.com/news/oaklawn-cemetery-excavation-brings-investigators-closer-to-identifying-tulsa-race-massacre-victims/article_67c3a6b7-2acc-44cb-93ce-3d3d0c288eca.html Marquard, Bryan. “Bob Shumway, last known survivor of the deadly Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire, dies at 101.” 11/12/2025. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/11/12/metro/bob-shumway-101-dies-was-last-known-cocoanut-grove-fire-survivor/?event=event12 Marta Osypińska et al, A centurion's monkey? Companion animals for the social elite in an Egyptian port on the fringes of the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd c. CE, Journal of Roman Archaeology (2025). DOI: 10.1017/s1047759425100445 Merrington, Andrew. “Extensive dog diversity millennia before modern breeding practices.” University of Exeter. 11/13/2025. https://news.exeter.ac.uk/faculty-of-humanities-arts-and-social-sciences/archaeology-and-history/extensive-dog-diversity-millennia-before-modern-breeding-practices/ Morris, Steven. “Linguists start compiling first ever complete dictionary of ancient Celtic.” The Guardian. 12/8/2025. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/dec/08/linguists-start-compiling-first-ever-complete-dictionary-of-ancient-celtic Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Resolves Ownership of Works by Enslaved Artist David Drake.” 10/29/2025. https://www.mfa.org/press-release/david-drake-ownership-resolution Narcity. “Niagara has a 107-year-old shipwreck lodged above the Falls and it just moved.” https://www.narcity.com/niagara-falls-shipwreck-iron-scow-moved-closer-to-the-falls Newcomb, Tim. “A 76-Year-Old Man Went On a Hike—and Stumbled Upon a 1,500-Year Old Trap.” Popular Mechanics. 11/21/2025. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/a69441460/reindeer-trap/ Nordin, Gunilla. “Ancient wolves on remote Baltic Sea island reveal link to prehistoric humans.” Stockholm University. Via EurekAlert. 11/24/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1106807 Oster, Sandee. “DNA confirms modern Bo people are descendants of ancient Hanging Coffin culture.” Phys.org. 12/6/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-12-dna-modern-bo-people-descendants.html Oster, Sandee. “Rare disease possibly identified in 12th century child's skeletal remains.” PhysOrg. 10/10/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-rare-disease-possibly-12th-century.html Osuh, Chris and Geneva Abdul. “Lost grave of daughter of Black abolitionist Olaudah Equiano found by A-level student.” The Guardian. 11/1/2025. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/01/lost-grave-daughter-black-abolitionist-olaudah-equiano-found-by-a-level-student Silvia Albizuri et al, The oldest mule in the western Mediterranean. The case of the Early Iron Age in Hort d'en Grimau (Penedès, Barcelona, Spain), Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105506 Skok, Phoebe. “Ancient shipwrecks rewrite the story of Iron Age trade.” PhysOrg. 10/14/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-ancient-shipwrecks-rewrite-story-iron.html The History Blog. “600-year-old Joseon ship recovered from seabed.” 11/15/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74652 The History Blog. “Ancient pleasure barge found off Alexandria coast.” 12/9/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74860 The History Blog. “Charred Byzantine bread loves stamped with Christian imagery found in Turkey.” 10/13/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74352 The History Blog. “Early medieval silver treasure found in Stockholm.” 10/12/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74343 The History Blog. “Roman amphora with sardines found in Switzerland.” 12/15/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74904 The Straits Times. “Wreck of ancient Malay vessel discovered on Pulau Melaka.” 10/31/2025. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/wreck-of-ancient-malay-vessel-discovered-on-pulau-melaka Thompson, Sarah. “The forgotten daughter: Eliza Monroe Hay’s story revealed in her last letters.” W&M News. 9/30/2025. https://news.wm.edu/2025/09/30/the-forgotten-daughter-eliza-monroes-story-revealed-in-her-last-letters/ Tuhkuri, Jukka. “Why Did Endurance Sink?” Polar Record 61 (2025): e23. Web. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/polar-record/article/why-did-endurance-sink/6CC2C2D56087035A94DEB50930B81980 Universitat de Valencia. “The victims of the Pompeii eruption wore heavy wool cloaks and tunics, suggesting different environmental conditions in summer.” 12/3/2025. https://www.uv.es/uvweb/uv-news/en/news/victims-pompeii-eruption-wore-heavy-wool-cloaks-tunics-suggesting-different-environmental-conditions-summer-1285973304159/Novetat.html?id=1286464337848&plantilla=UV_Noticies/Page/TPGDetaillNews University of Glasgow. “Archaeologists recover hundreds of Jacobite projectiles in unexplored area of Culloden.” 10/30/2025. https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_1222736_en.html University of Vienna. “Neanderthal DNA reveals ancient long-distance migrations.” 10/29/2025. https://www.univie.ac.at/en/news/detail/neanderthal-dna-reveals-ancient-long-distance-migrations Zhou, H., Tao, L., Zhao, Y. et al. Exploration of hanging coffin customs and the bo people in China through comparative genomics. Nat Commun 16, 10230 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-65264-3 Zinin, Andrew. “Ancient humans mastered fire-making 400,000 years ago, study shows.” Phys.org. 10/10/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-12-ancient-humans-mastered-years.html See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Doing more, faster, better with less has become the permanent setting in modern business. Post-pandemic, with tighter budgets, higher customer expectations, and AI speeding up competitors, leaders can't rely on "the boss with the whiteboard marker" to magically produce genius ideas on demand. You need a repeatable innovation system that draws out creativity from the whole organisation—especially the people closest to customers. Below is a practical nine-step innovation process leaders can run again and again, so innovation becomes a habit—not a lucky accident.  How do leaders define "success" before trying to innovate? Innovation gets messy fast unless everyone is crystal clear on what "good" looks like. Step One is Visualisation: define the goal, the "should be" case, and what success looks like in concrete terms—customer outcomes, cost, quality, time, risk, or growth. In practice, this is where executives at firms like Toyota or Unilever would translate strategy into a shared target: "Reduce onboarding time from 14 days to 3," or "Increase repeat purchase by 10% in APAC by Q4." Compare that with many SMEs where the goal is vague ("be more innovative") and the team sprints hard in random directions. Do now (mini-summary): Write a one-sentence "should be" target and 3 measurable success indicators (KPI, timeline, customer impact). Align the team before you chase ideas. What's the fastest way to gather the right facts without killing creativity? Great ideas come from great inputs, and Step Two is Fact Finding—collect data before opinions. Leaders should separate "facts" from "feelings" by digging into who/what/when/where/why/how. This is where many organisations discover their measurement systems are weak—or worse, wrong. In the US, you might lean on product analytics, A/B testing, and voice-of-customer tools. In Japan, you'll often combine frontline observation (genba thinking) with structured reporting—useful, but sometimes filtered by hierarchy. Either way, don't judge yet. Just get the evidence: customer complaints, churn reasons, sales cycle delays, defect rates, staff turnover, and time wasted in approvals. Do now (mini-summary): Collect 10 hard facts (numbers, patterns, examples) and 10 "customer voice" quotes. No solutions yet—just reality. How do you frame the real problem so you don't solve the wrong thing? The way you state the problem determines the quality of the ideas you'll get. Step Three is Problem (or Opportunity) Finding: clarify what's actually holding you back, where resources leak, and what success constraints exist. This is harder than it sounds. Ask five people the main problem and you'll get eight opinions—especially in matrixed multinationals or fast-moving startups. Use smart problem framing techniques: "How might we…?", "What's the bottleneck?", "If we fixed one thing this quarter, what would move the needle?" Compare Japan vs the US here: US teams may jump to action quickly; Japan teams may seek consensus early. Both can miss the root cause if the framing is sloppy. Do now (mini-summary): Rewrite your problem three ways: customer-impact, process-bottleneck, and cost-leakage. Pick the clearest, most actionable version. How do you run ideation so the loud people don't crush the good ideas? Step Four is Idea Finding, and the golden rule is: no judgement, chase volume, and do it in silence. This is where most leaders accidentally sabotage innovation—someone blurts an idea, the "bolshie" confident voices start critiquing, and the timid thinkers shut down. Silent idea generation (think brainwriting rather than brainstorming) helps deeper thinkers contribute and reduces status bias—critical in hierarchical cultures and in teams where junior staff defer to seniority. If you want better ideas, ask the people closest to the coal face: new hires, customer support, frontline sales, and the group that best matches your buyers' profile. Often they see problems the C-suite never touches. Do now (mini-summary): Run 10 minutes of silent brainwriting: each person writes 10 ideas. No talking. Then collect and cluster ideas by theme. How do leaders choose the best ideas without politics or "rank wins"? Step Five is Solution Finding—now you're allowed to judge, but you must judge fairly. The risk here is predictable: seniority dominates, juniors defer, and the "easy consensus" becomes a polite rubber stamp. Use a structured selection method: score ideas against agreed criteria (impact, effort, speed, risk, customer value). Borrow from frameworks like Stage-Gate, Lean Startup (testable hypotheses), and even RICE scoring (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort). Compare sectors: in B2B, feasibility and implementation risk often weigh more; in consumer markets, speed and customer delight can dominate. The point is to remove the "who said it" factor. Do now (mini-summary): Build a simple 4-criteria scorecard and rank the top 10 ideas. Make scoring anonymous if hierarchy is distorting decisions. How do you get buy-in and actually execute innovation in the real world? Ideas don't win—execution wins, and Steps Six to Nine turn creativity into results. Step Six is Acceptance Finding: sell the idea internally for time, money, and people. Step Seven is Implementation: define who does what by when, with budget and resources. Step Eight is Follow Up: check progress early so you don't discover the team is zigging when you needed zagging. Step Nine is Evaluation: did it work, was it worth it, and what did we learn? In 2025-era organisations, this is also where AI can help: drafting business cases, mapping risks, creating implementation plans, and summarising learnings—without replacing leadership accountability. Startups might run faster experiments; conglomerates might need governance and change management. Either way, the process keeps you moving. Do now (mini-summary): Assign an owner, set a 30-day milestone, and define the success metric. Review weekly. Capture learnings as you go. Final wrap-up A surprising number of companies still have no shared system for generating ideas—so innovation depends on mood, meetings, or the loudest voice in the room. A repeatable nine-step process creates better ideation, stronger decision-making, and cleaner execution. Run it consistently, and innovation becomes part of your organisational DNA—not a once-a-year workshop. Quick next steps for leaders Pick one business pain point and run Steps 1–4 in a 60-minute session this week. Use silent idea generation to protect the deeper thinkers. Score ideas with a simple rubric to avoid politics. Pilot one idea in 30 days, then evaluate and repeat. FAQs Is brainstorming or brainwriting better for innovation? Brainwriting usually beats brainstorming because it reduces groupthink and status bias. Silent idea generation produces more ideas and more diverse ideas in most teams. How long does the nine-step innovation process take? You can run Steps 1–5 in a half-day and Steps 6–9 over 30–90 days. The timeline depends on complexity, risk, and resources. What if leadership won't support the idea? Treat Step Six like a sales process—build a business case and show trade-offs. If you can't win resources, scale the idea down into a testable pilot.   Author credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

When you present—whether it's a Toyota leadership offsite in Japan, a Canva all-hands in Australia, or a Series A pitch in San Francisco—you don't just need a close. You need two. One to wrap your talk, and one to reclaim the room after Q&A, when the conversation can veer off into the weeds. Why do I need two closes in a presentation? Because Q&A can hijack your final impression, and your final impression is what people remember. You finish your talk, you open the floor, and suddenly you've lost control of the narrative—especially in post-pandemic hybrid sessions (2021–2025) where someone remote drops a left-field question in the chat and the room latches onto it. This is true across contexts: in Japan, a senior person's question can redirect the entire mood; in the US, an assertive audience member can turn Q&A into a debate; in Europe, a compliance or risk angle can dominate the last five minutes. The danger is the final question becomes the "headline" in everyone's mind, not your key message. Do now: Design Close #1 to end the talk, and Close #2 to overwrite the Q&A ending with your intended message. How do I stop Q&A from wrecking my message? You don't "control" Q&A—you plan to recover from it. Treat Q&A like a high-variance segment: it might be brilliant, it might be irrelevant, and it might turn into a no-rules street fight. That's not pessimism; it's professionalism. In a multinational (think Rakuten-scale), Q&A can drift into politics, budgets, or someone's pet project. In a startup, Q&A can spiral into tactical rabbit holes ("What about feature X?"). In B2B sales, the last question can be a procurement curveball. If you end on that, you've accidentally handed the microphone to chaos. Your second close is your reset button. After the final question, you say: "Let me wrap this up with the core message," and you land your point—cleanly and deliberately. Do now: Write a 20–30 second "reclaim" close you can deliver after any final question. What does a "crescendo" close actually sound like? It sounds like certainty—clear structure, stronger energy, and a finish that doesn't trail off. A common speaker failure is the slow fade: voice drops, pace slows, shoulders relax, and the ending lands like a wet towel. That's fatal because audiences weight the last moments heavily—especially in boardrooms, town halls, and conference keynotes. A crescendo close is not yelling. It's controlled escalation: you shorten sentences, sharpen verbs, and make the final line punchy. Think TED-style cadence, but with your own voice. In Japan, you may keep it respectful and precise; in Australia, you can be more direct and practical; in the US, you can go bigger and more emotive—same spine, different suit. Most importantly, the close is rehearsed. The last 15 seconds are designed, not improvised. Do now: Mark your final sentence, practise it aloud, and finish on a full stop—no apologising, no fading. How do I close to convince or impress an audience? Pick one major benefit, repeat it, and make it the thing they can't un-hear. When people are flooded with information—especially in 2024–2026 attention-fragmented workplaces—more points don't equal more persuasion. They equal dilution. So you choose the strongest takeaway and repeat it in fresh language. This works in executive settings (McKinsey-style clarity), sales pitches (value anchored), and internal change comms (one idea that sticks). Then, when it fits, borrow credibility with a quote—an established expert, a known framework, or a memorable line people already recognise. It shifts the reference point from "me saying a thing" to "a bigger truth we all respect". Use this approach whether you're speaking to SMEs, conglomerates, or cross-cultural teams. Do now: Identify your #1 benefit and write two versions of it: one plain, one more powerful. How do I close an "inform" talk without confusing people? Repeat the single most important point, then recap the structure that made the talk easy to follow. Inform talks often drown in detail: steps, data points, timelines, edge cases. Your audience shouldn't have to analyse what matters—you do that work for them. A clean method is numbered packaging: "the four drivers," "the nine steps," "the three risks." It's the same principle used in training programs, MBA classrooms, and operational playbooks: structure reduces cognitive load. At the close, you restate the headline insight and then briefly re-walk the map: "We covered A, B, C—here's the one thing to remember." In Japan, this supports precision; in the US, it supports speed; in Australia, it supports practicality. Same job: reduce confusion, increase retention. Do now: Decide your one key point and your numbered structure—and repeat both in 20 seconds. How do I close to persuade people to take action? Make the action obvious and connect it to the benefit people actually care about. Persuasion fails when the audience thinks, "So what?" or "What do you want me to do?" Fix that by linking action → outcome in one breath. Example logic: "If you do X this week, you get Y within 30 days." That works for leaders driving change, for salespeople asking for the next meeting, and for project owners seeking resources. Then you finish with a final recommendation—one course of action, stated plainly, with conviction. Don't add five extra suggestions at the end; that's how you lose momentum. This is especially critical after Q&A, because the room is mentally scattered. Your job is to snap everyone back to the decisive move. Do now: Write a single-sentence recommendation that includes the action, the timing, and the benefit. Conclusion: the final impression is yours to shape You don't leave the ending to chance. You design it. Close #1 completes the talk. Close #2 dominates the final memory, regardless of what Q&A tried to do. Deliver the last close with energy, clarity, and intention—so the audience walks out with your key message ringing in their minds. Quick next steps for leaders and salespeople Draft two closes (talk close + post-Q&A close) and rehearse both. Cut your ending down to one benefit, one recommendation, one final line. Practise the last 15 seconds until it sounds inevitable. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. Greg has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan.

The show's coverage of things literally or figuratively unearthed in the last quarter of 2025 begins with updates, books and letters, animals, and just one exhumation. Research: Abdallah, Hanna. “Famous Easter Island statues were created without centralized management.” PLOS. Via EurekAlert. 11/26/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1106805 Abdallah, Hannah. “Early humans butchered elephants using small tools and made big tools from their bones.” PLOS. Via EurekAlert. 10/8/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1100481 Abdallah, Hannah. “Researchers uncover clues to mysterious origin of famous Hjortspring boat.” EurekAlert. 10/12/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1108323 Archaeology Magazine. “Medieval Hoard of Silver and Pearls Discovered in Sweden.” https://archaeology.org/news/2025/10/14/medieval-hoard-of-silver-and-pearls-discovered-in-sweden/ Archaeology Magazine. “Possible Trepanation Tool Unearthed in Poland.” 11/13/2025. https://archaeology.org/news/2025/11/13/possible-trepanation-tool-unearthed-in-poland/ “Rare 5,000-year-old dog burial unearthed in Sweden.” 12/15/2025. https://news.cision.com/se/arkeologerna/r/rare-5-000-year-old-dog-burial-unearthed-in-sweden,c4282014 Arnold, Paul. “Ancient ochre crayons from Crimea reveal Neanderthals engaged in symbolic behaviors.” Phys.org. 10/30/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-ancient-ochre-crayons-crimea-reveal.html Arnold, Paul. “Dating a North American rock art tradition that lasted 175 generations.” Phys.org. 11/28/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-11-dating-north-american-art-tradition.html Bassi, Margherita. “A Single Gene Could Have Contributed to Neanderthals’ Extinction, Study Suggests.” Smithsonian. 10/30/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-neanderthal-gene-variant-related-to-red-blood-cells-may-have-contributed-to-their-extinction-180987586/ Benjamin Pohl, Chewing over the Norman Conquest: the Bayeux Tapestry as monastic mealtime reading, Historical Research, 2025;, htaf029, https://doi.org/10.1093/hisres/htaf029 Benzine, Vittoria. “Decoded Hieroglyphics Reveal Female Ruler of Ancient Maya City.” ArtNet. 10/27/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/foundation-stone-maya-coba-woman-ruler-2704521 Berdugo, Sophie. “Easter Island statues may have 'walked' thanks to 'pendulum dynamics' and with as few as 15 people, study finds.” LiveScience. 10/19/2025. https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/easter-island-statues-may-have-walked-thanks-to-pendulum-dynamics-and-with-as-few-as-15-people-study-finds Billing, Lotte. “Fingerprint of ancient seafarer found on Scandinavia’s oldest plank boat.” EurekAlert. 10/12/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1109361 Brhel, John. “Rats played major role in Easter Island’s deforestation, study reveals.” EurekAlert. 11/17/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1106361 Caldwell, Elizabeth. “9 more individuals unearthed at Oaklawn could be 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre victims.” Tulsa Public Radio. 11/6/2025. https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/local-regional/2025-11-06/9-more-individuals-unearthed-at-oaklawn-could-be-1921-tulsa-race-massacre-victims Clark, Gaby. “Bayeux Tapestry could have been originally designed as mealtime reading for medieval monks.” Phys.org. 12/15/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-12-bayeux-tapestry-mealtime-medieval-monks.html#google_vignette Cohen, Alina. “Ancient Olive Oil Processing Complex Unearthed in Tunisia.” Artnet. 11/21/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ancient-olive-oil-complex-tunisia-2717795 Cohen, Alina. “MFA Boston Restores Ownership of Historic Works by Enslaved Artist.” ArtNet. 10/30/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/mfa-boston-david-drake-jars-restitution-2706594 Fergusson, Rachel. “First DNA evidence of Black Death in Edinburgh discovered on teeth of excavated teenage skeleton.” The Scotsman. 11/5/2025. https://www.scotsman.com/news/first-dna-evidence-black-death-edinburgh-discovered-teeth-excavated-teenage-skeleton-5387741 Folorunso, Caleb et al. “MOWAA Archaeology Project: Enhancing Understanding of Benin City’s Historic Urban Development and Heritage through Pre-Construction Archaeology.” Antiquity (2025): 1–10. Web. Griffith University. “Rare stone tool cache tells story of trade and ingenuity.” 12/2/2025. https://news.griffith.edu.au/2025/12/02/rare-stone-tool-cache-tells-story-of-trade-and-ingenuity/ Han, Yu et al. “The late arrival of domestic cats in China via the Silk Road after 3,500 years of human-leopard cat commensalism.” Cell Genomics, Volume 0, Issue 0, 101099. https://www.cell.com/cell-genomics/fulltext/S2666-979X(25)00355-6 Hashemi, Sara. “A Volcanic Eruption in 1345 May Have Triggered a Chain of Events That Brought the Black Death to Europe.” Smithsonian. 12/8/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-volcanic-eruption-in-1345-may-have-triggered-a-chain-of-events-taht-brought-the-black-death-to-europe-180987803/ Hjortkjær, Simon Thinggaard. “Mysterious signs on Teotihuacan murals may reveal an early form of Uto-Aztecan language.” PhysOrg. 10/6/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mysterious-teotihuacan-murals-reveal-early.html Institut Pasteur. “Study suggests two unsuspected pathogens struck Napoleon's army during the retreat from Russia in 1812.” Via EurekAlert. 10/24/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1102613 Jones, Sam. “Shells found in Spain could be among oldest known musical instruments.” The Guardian. 12/2/2025. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/dec/02/neolithic-conch-like-shell-spain-catalonia-discovery-musical-instruments Kasal, Krystal. “Pahon Cave provides a look into 5,000 years of surprisingly stable Stone Age tool use.” Phys.org. 12/16/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-12-pahon-cave-years-stable-stone.html Kristiansen, Nina. “Eight pages bound in furry seal skin may be Norway's oldest book.” Science Norway. 11/3/2025. https://www.sciencenorway.no/cultural-history-culture-history/eight-pages-bound-in-furry-seal-skin-may-be-norways-oldest-book/2571496 Kuta, Sarah. “109-Year-Old Messages in a Bottle Written by Soldiers Heading to Fight in World War I Discovered on Australian Beach.” Smithsonian. 11/6/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/109-year-old-messages-in-a-bottle-written-by-soldiers-heading-to-fight-in-world-war-i-discovered-on-australian-beach-180987649/ Kuta, Sarah. “A Storm Battered Western Alaska, Scattering Thousands of Indigenous Artifacts Across the Sand.” Smithsonian. 10/31/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/a-storm-battered-western-alaska-scattering-thousands-of-indigenous-artifacts-across-the-sand-180987606/ Kuta, Sarah. “Archaeologists Unearth More Than 100 Projectiles From an Iconic Battlefield in Scotland.” Smithsonian. 11/5/2025. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/archaeologists-unearth-more-than-100-projectiles-from-an-iconic-battlefield-in-scotland-180987641/ Kuta, Sarah. “Hundreds of Mysterious Victorian-Era Shoes Are Washing Up on a Beach in Wales. Nobody Knows Where They Came From.” Smithsonian. 1/5/2026. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hundreds-of-mysterious-victorian-era-shoes-are-washing-up-on-a-beach-in-wales-nobody-knows-where-they-came-from-180987943/ Lawson-Tancred, Jo. “Golden ‘Tudor Heart’ Necklace Sheds New Light on Henry VIII’s First Marriage.” Artnet. 10/14/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/tudor-heart-pendant-british-museum-fundraiser-2699544 Lawson-Tancred, Jo. “Long-Overlooked Black Veteran Identified in Rare 19th-Century Portrait.” ArtNet. 10/27/2025. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/black-veteran-thomas-phillips-portrait-identified-2704721 Lipo CP, Hunt TL, Pakarati G, Pingel T, Simmons N, Heard K, et al. (2025) Megalithic statue (moai) production on Rapa Nui (Easter Island, Chile). PLoS One 20(11): e0336251. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336251 Lipo, Carl P. and Terry L. Hunt. “The walking moai hypothesis: Archaeological evidence, experimental validation, and response to critics.” Journal of Archaeological Science. Volume 183, November 2025, 106383. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440325002328 Lock, Lisa. “Pre-construction archaeology reveals Benin City's historic urban development and heritage.” 10/29/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-pre-archaeology-reveals-benin-city.html#google_vignette Lock, Lisa. “Pre-construction archaeology reveals Benin City's historic urban development and heritage.” Antiquity. Via PhysOrg. 10/29/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-pre-archaeology-reveals-benin-city.html#google_vignette Lynley A. Wallis et al, An exceptional assemblage of archaeological plant fibres from Windmill Way, southeast Cape York Peninsula, Australian Archaeology (2025). DOI: 10.1080/03122417.2025.2574127 Lyon, Devyn. “Oaklawn Cemetery excavation brings investigators closer to identifying Tulsa Race Massacre victims.” Fox 23. 11/6/2025. https://www.fox23.com/news/oaklawn-cemetery-excavation-brings-investigators-closer-to-identifying-tulsa-race-massacre-victims/article_67c3a6b7-2acc-44cb-93ce-3d3d0c288eca.html Marquard, Bryan. “Bob Shumway, last known survivor of the deadly Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire, dies at 101.” 11/12/2025. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/11/12/metro/bob-shumway-101-dies-was-last-known-cocoanut-grove-fire-survivor/?event=event12 Marta Osypińska et al, A centurion's monkey? Companion animals for the social elite in an Egyptian port on the fringes of the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd c. CE, Journal of Roman Archaeology (2025). DOI: 10.1017/s1047759425100445 Merrington, Andrew. “Extensive dog diversity millennia before modern breeding practices.” University of Exeter. 11/13/2025. https://news.exeter.ac.uk/faculty-of-humanities-arts-and-social-sciences/archaeology-and-history/extensive-dog-diversity-millennia-before-modern-breeding-practices/ Morris, Steven. “Linguists start compiling first ever complete dictionary of ancient Celtic.” The Guardian. 12/8/2025. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/dec/08/linguists-start-compiling-first-ever-complete-dictionary-of-ancient-celtic Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. “Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Resolves Ownership of Works by Enslaved Artist David Drake.” 10/29/2025. https://www.mfa.org/press-release/david-drake-ownership-resolution “Niagara has a 107-year-old shipwreck lodged above the Falls and it just moved.” https://www.narcity.com/niagara-falls-shipwreck-iron-scow-moved-closer-to-the-falls Newcomb, Tim. “A 76-Year-Old Man Went On a Hike—and Stumbled Upon a 1,500-Year Old Trap.” Popular Mechanics. 11/21/2025. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/a69441460/reindeer-trap/ Nordin, Gunilla. “Ancient wolves on remote Baltic Sea island reveal link to prehistoric humans.” Stockholm University. Via EurekAlert. 11/24/2025. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1106807 Oster, Sandee. “DNA confirms modern Bo people are descendants of ancient Hanging Coffin culture.” Phys.org. 12/6/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-12-dna-modern-bo-people-descendants.html Oster, Sandee. “Rare disease possibly identified in 12th century child's skeletal remains.” PhysOrg. 10/10/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-rare-disease-possibly-12th-century.html Osuh, Chris and Geneva Abdul. “Lost grave of daughter of Black abolitionist Olaudah Equiano found by A-level student.” The Guardian. 11/1/2025. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/01/lost-grave-daughter-black-abolitionist-olaudah-equiano-found-by-a-level-student Silvia Albizuri et al, The oldest mule in the western Mediterranean. The case of the Early Iron Age in Hort d'en Grimau (Penedès, Barcelona, Spain), Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105506 Skok, Phoebe. “Ancient shipwrecks rewrite the story of Iron Age trade.” PhysOrg. 10/14/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-10-ancient-shipwrecks-rewrite-story-iron.html The History Blog. “600-year-old Joseon ship recovered from seabed.” 11/15/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74652 The History Blog. “Ancient pleasure barge found off Alexandria coast.” 12/9/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74860 The History Blog. “Charred Byzantine bread loves stamped with Christian imagery found in Turkey.” 10/13/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74352 The History Blog. “Early medieval silver treasure found in Stockholm.” 10/12/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74343 The History Blog. “Roman amphora with sardines found in Switzerland.” 12/15/2025. https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/74904 The Straits Times. “Wreck of ancient Malay vessel discovered on Pulau Melaka.” 10/31/2025. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/wreck-of-ancient-malay-vessel-discovered-on-pulau-melaka Thompson, Sarah. “The forgotten daughter: Eliza Monroe Hay’s story revealed in her last letters.” W&M News. 9/30/2025. https://news.wm.edu/2025/09/30/the-forgotten-daughter-eliza-monroes-story-revealed-in-her-last-letters/ Tuhkuri, Jukka. “Why Did Endurance Sink?” Polar Record 61 (2025): e23. Web. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/polar-record/article/why-did-endurance-sink/6CC2C2D56087035A94DEB50930B81980 Universitat de Valencia. “The victims of the Pompeii eruption wore heavy wool cloaks and tunics, suggesting different environmental conditions in summer.” 12/3/2025. https://www.uv.es/uvweb/uv-news/en/news/victims-pompeii-eruption-wore-heavy-wool-cloaks-tunics-suggesting-different-environmental-conditions-summer-1285973304159/Novetat.html?id=1286464337848&plantilla=UV_Noticies/Page/TPGDetaillNews University of Glasgow. “Archaeologists recover hundreds of Jacobite projectiles in unexplored area of Culloden.” 10/30/2025. https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_1222736_en.html University of Vienna. “Neanderthal DNA reveals ancient long-distance migrations.” 10/29/2025. https://www.univie.ac.at/en/news/detail/neanderthal-dna-reveals-ancient-long-distance-migrations Zhou, H., Tao, L., Zhao, Y. et al. Exploration of hanging coffin customs and the bo people in China through comparative genomics. Nat Commun 16, 10230 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-65264-3 Zinin, Andrew. “Ancient humans mastered fire-making 400,000 years ago, study shows.” Phys.org. 10/10/2025. https://phys.org/news/2025-12-ancient-humans-mastered-years.html See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"I listen and I also am always very transparent." "Who cares about what people think about me?" "If my boss, my future boss, thinks that I'm capable, I must be." "Leadership is really defining where we're going, whether it's the end state or whether it's a goal." Mika Matsuo is a Japan-based executive and former AIG Japan CHRO known for repeatedly stepping into unfamiliar roles and delivering change. Born and raised in Japan but educated in an international school environment in Yokohama, she took an early decision to build a global career, studying at Tufts University in Boston and completing an MBA at the University of San Francisco. She began her career at Citibank Japan during the build-out of its retail business, where exposure to strong, international leaders shaped her standards for integrity, preparedness, and opportunity-taking. After earning Six Sigma Master Black Belt credentials, she moved into an internal consulting role at JPMorgan Chase during the post-merger integration period, then joined Tokyo Star Bank as Head of HR without prior HR experience—learning labour law, restructures, and culture change in real time. She later expanded her scope as Head of HR for Asia Pacific at Moody's and returned to Tokyo Star Bank to lead the retail business, navigating crisis leadership after the March 2011 earthquake. She joined AIG to help integrate AIU and Fuji Fire & Marine, later serving nearly a decade and attributing successful integration to clear leadership direction and a "build a new company" mindset. Today, she contributes through board and advisory work, drawing on a career defined by adaptability in Japan's complex corporate environment. Mika Matsuo's career arc reads like a deliberate challenge to the usual Japanese corporate script: international education, overseas degrees, and then a sequence of high-stakes roles where she often began as an outsider to the function, the business line, or both. Rather than treating those gaps as liabilities, she used them as leverage—asking questions early, leaning on strong teams, and creating trust through transparency. The result is a leadership style that is calm under uncertainty, candid about limitations, and built around listening as a strategic discipline rather than a soft skill. Her formative years in global finance gave her two lasting advantages. First, mentors who rewarded capability over status helped her internalise a belief that many professionals—especially women—struggle to adopt: if the organisation has decided she can do it, she can. Second, she saw how quickly culture shifts when leaders normalise openness, practical delegation, and continuous learning. Those lessons mattered most when she moved into Japan's banking transformation era, where legacy norms around hierarchy, gender expectations, and "we've always done it this way" thinking still dominated. At Tokyo Star Bank, she helped introduce practices that would be routine in many gaishikei firms but were disruptive inside a traditional Japanese bank context—removing women's uniforms, supporting spousal transfers to preserve women's careers, and encouraging leave for study and volunteering. The aim wasn't cosmetic modernisation; it was building a more transparent, sustainable system that could attract and retain talent. That commitment to sustainability becomes a recurring theme in her advice: organisations that still depend on extreme overtime, weekend obligations, and performative busyness are not structurally built for the future workforce Japan needs. A defining moment of her leadership development came during the March 2011 earthquake response, when she saw high-performing teamwork replace individual heroics. With a Sendai branch that had to reopen under Ministry of Finance expectations, her role shifted to decision-making, prioritisation, and supporting a team that was independently executing critical actions. That experience reinforced her belief that leadership is not doing everything—it is creating clarity, building trust, and letting capable people run. Across roles—from HR transformation to business leadership to post-merger integration—she returns to the same core: authenticity paired with respect, vulnerability as a trust-builder, and an open mind that actively checks bias. In Japan, where consensus-building (nemawashi) and formal approval flows (ringi-sho) often shape outcomes, her approach offers a practical bridge: respect the process, accelerate it through clarity, and build followership by being transparent about goals, trade-offs, and constraints. Q&A Summary What makes leadership in Japan unique? Leadership in Japan is uniquely shaped by the need for trust, respect, and collective alignment. Decision-making often relies on consensus-building through nemawashi and formal pathways such as ringi-sho, meaning leaders must manage time, stakeholders, and expectations while maintaining harmony. Matsuo's emphasis is that respect for Japanese ways of doing business is non-negotiable, but understanding the process helps leaders make it faster and more effective once they know how the pieces fit together. Why do global executives struggle? Global executives often struggle because they misread capability through the lens of English fluency and underestimate how much "invisible coordination" is happening beneath the surface. They may also push for rapid decisions before alignment has formed, mistaking slower Japanese pacing for resistance. Matsuo's warning is blunt: don't be deceived by language skill, and don't accept "not possible in Japan" as a default answer—often it means someone simply doesn't know how to do it legally, respectfully, and in an organised way. Is Japan truly risk-averse? Japan is frequently labelled risk-averse, but a more accurate framing is uncertainty avoidance. Leaders may appear cautious because they are working to reduce ambiguity and prevent downstream disruption. Once a decision is made, execution can move quickly—especially if the leader has done the groundwork to secure buy-in. What leadership style actually works? The leadership style that works is clarity plus trust. Matsuo's playbook is listening deeply, being transparent (including about personal constraints), and staying respectful regardless of personal affinity. She also models vulnerability—admitting what she doesn't know, asking teams to teach her, and reframing "not knowing" as a normal condition in modern complex work. How can technology help? In environments overloaded with information and stakeholder constraints, technology can support better leadership decisions by improving visibility and scenario planning. Approaches such as decision intelligence can help leaders prioritise key risks and opportunities, while tools like digital twins can model operational impacts before changes are rolled out—reducing uncertainty and supporting consensus-building without relying on endless meetings. Does language proficiency matter? Language helps, but it is not decisive. Making the effort can signal commitment, and language learning can accelerate cultural understanding, but many successful leaders in Japan remain effective without high Japanese proficiency. The critical requirement is respect for culture, discipline in stakeholder management, and the ability to avoid confusing language ability with professional capability. What's the ultimate leadership lesson? Leadership is defining the destination clearly and moving the whole team along a believable path. Whether leading from the front or supporting from behind, the leader's job is to simplify the goal, align the top team, and create the conditions for the organisation to move together—especially in times of uncertainty. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have also been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). In addition to his books, Greg publishes daily blogs on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, offering practical insights on leadership, communication, and Japanese business culture. He is also the host of six weekly podcasts, including The Leadership Japan Series, The Sales Japan Series, The Presentations Japan Series, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews. On YouTube, he produces three weekly shows — The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews — which have become leading resources for executives seeking strategies for success in Japan.

Leaders today are stuck in a constant three-way tug-of-war: time, quality, and cost. In the post-pandemic, hybrid-work era (2020–2025), the pressure doesn't ease—tech just lets us do more, faster, and the clock keeps yelling. This is a practical, leader-grade guide to getting control of your calendar without killing your standards or your people. Why does leadership time management feel harder now, even with better technology? It feels harder because technology increases speed and volume, so your workload expands to fill the space. Email, chat, dashboards, CRMs, and "quick calls" create the illusion of efficiency while quietly multiplying decisions and interruptions. In startups, that looks like context-switching between selling, hiring, and shipping. In large organisations—think Japan-based multinationals versus US tech firms—it becomes meetings, approvals, and stakeholder alignment. Either way, the result is the same: you're busy all day, but the important work stays parked. Answer card / Do now: Audit your week for "speed traps" (messages, meetings, micro-requests). Eliminate or cap the top two. What is the "Tyranny of the Urgent," and how does it wreck leader performance? The Tyranny of the Urgent is when urgent tasks bully important tasks off your schedule—until you're permanently firefighting. You end up reacting all day: chasing escalations, answering pings, and rescuing problems that should have been prevented. This is where burnout risk climbs and productivity drops—especially in people-heavy roles like sales leadership, operations, and client service. Leaders often say, "I don't have time to plan," but that's exactly how the urgent wins. The urgent will always show up; your job is to stop it running the company. Answer card / Do now: Name today's "urgent bully." Decide: delete, delegate, defer, or do—then move one important task back onto the calendar. How do I prioritise like a serious leader (not just make a chaotic to-do list)? Prioritising means ranking tasks by impact, not emotion—then doing them in that order. A scribbled list isn't a system. Leaders need a repeatable method for capture, ranking, and execution. Use simple impact questions: Will this protect revenue? Reduce risk? Improve customer outcomes? Build capability? In Japan, where consensus and quality are prized, leaders can over-invest in perfection; in the US, speed can dominate. The sweet spot is clarity: define "done," define the deadline, and define the owner. Answer card / Do now: Write your top 5 for tomorrow, rank them 1–5, and commit to finishing 1–2 before opening email/chat. What is the 4-box matrix and which quadrant should leaders live in? The best quadrant for leaders is "important but not urgent"—because that's where planning, thinking, and prevention happen. This is the Eisenhower/Covey style matrix in plain clothes: Important + Urgent: crises, deadlines, major issues (live here too long = stress + burnout) Important + Not urgent: strategy, coaching, planning, process improvement (your success engine) Not important + Urgent: interruptions, low-value requests (minimise and delegate) Not important + Not urgent: digital junk time (limit ruthlessly) Big firms (Toyota-style operational excellence) and fast movers (Rakuten-style pace) both win when leaders protect Quadrant 2 time. Answer card / Do now: Block 60–90 minutes this week for "Important/Not Urgent" work—and guard it like a client meeting. How do I stop low-priority work and social media from stealing my day? You stop it by making "wasted time" visible and socially awkward—then replacing it with intentional breaks.Leaders often underestimate the drag of "just checking" feeds, news, or random videos. It's not the minutes; it's the mental fragmentation. If you need a break, take a break that restores you: a 30-minute walk, a short workout, a proper lunch, or a reset chat with someone who energises you. In high-output cultures across Asia-Pacific and Europe, the smartest leaders build recovery into the week because it protects decision quality. Answer card / Do now: Put friction on distractions (log out, remove apps, notifications off). Replace with one "recovery break" you actually schedule. What tactical system works: daily task lists, time blocking, delegation, or batching? It's all four—stacked into one simple operating rhythm: list, block, protect, batch, delegate. Start the day with a written, prioritised list, then time-block the top items by making an appointment with yourself. Protect that time as aggressively as you would protect a client meeting. Next: delegate "not important but urgent" tasks where possible, and batch similar work to stay in flow—calls together, approvals together, email twice a day, admin in one chunk. This reduces ramp-up time and context switching, which is a silent killer in leadership roles. Answer card / Do now: Choose one batching rule for next week (e.g., email at 11:30 and 16:30 only). Tell your team so expectations reset. Conclusion: the leader's real edge is intentional time investment Time management for leaders isn't about being "busy." It's about choosing where your time goes so you get better outcomes with less chaos. The urgent will always knock. Your job is to build a system that keeps the important work moving—planning, coaching, prevention, and decisions—so your team isn't living in crisis mode. Quick next steps for leaders (this week) Block one Quadrant 2 session (strategy/planning) and defend it. Create a daily top-5 list and finish 1–2 items before messages. Delegate one "urgent but not important" task permanently. Implement one batching rule for communications. Track your time for 3 days and delete your biggest "time thief". Optional FAQs Yes—time tracking is worth it, because it shows you the truth, not your intentions. Even three days of tracking can reveal where meetings, messages, and busywork are leaking value. Yes—delegation can reduce quality short term, but it increases capability long term. Use clear "definition of done," checklists, and feedback loops to lift standards while distributing load. No—planning doesn't slow you down; it prevents rework and constant firefighting. A small investment in planning typically saves hours of avoidable churn. Author Bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including best-sellers Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery, along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, hosts six weekly podcasts, and produces YouTube shows including The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan.

Have you ever wondered what humpback whales do when no one is watching? With the help of temporary, non-invasive cameras, Dr. Olaf Meynecke and his team from Griffith University were able to gain new insights into whale research. In the images, the research team came across another species, the so-called remoras. The relationship between these suckerfish and whales raised questions that could reshape what we know about whales. - Was tun Buckelwale, wenn niemand zuschaut? Mithilfe von nicht-invasiven Kameras konnte der Wissenschaftler Dr. Olaf Meynecke und sein Team von der Griffith University neue Erkenntnisse in der Walforschung gewinnen. In den Aufnahmen stieß das Forschungsteam auf eine andere Spezies, den sogenannten Schiffshaltern. Das Verhältnis zwischen diesen Saugfischen und den Walen warf Fragen auf, die die Meereswissenschaft grundlegend beeinflussen könnten.

Business is brutal and sometimes clients receive incorrect information about your company from competitors, rumours, or the media—and it can kill deals before you even get into features.  Why do misperceptions about a company derail sales so fast? Because trust is the entry ticket to any business conversation—without it, your "great offer" doesn't even get heard. If a buyer suspects your firm is unstable, unethical, or incompetent, they'll filter everything you say as "sales spin" and you'll feel resistance no matter how good the solution is. This is especially sharp in relationship-heavy markets like Japan, where reputation risk is taken seriously, but it happens everywhere—Australia, the US, Europe—because buyers fear being blamed for a bad vendor choice. The worst part is misperceptions are often hidden: in strong relationships a client might tell you what they've heard, but in new relationships they may never mention it while silently disengaging. Do now: Treat "reputation risk" as a normal obstacle, not a rare exception—assume misperceptions may exist and plan to surface them early.  What's a real example of reputation damage caused by misinformation? A single error can wipe out trust at scale, and recovery can take years. A famous case involved a Japanese TV news report in 1985 that linked a wine adulteration scandal to "Australia," when the scandal actually involved "Austria"—a mix-up made easier because the country names sound similar in Japanese. The result was devastating: Australian wine sales in Japan collapsed and took a long time to recover. That story is a reminder that "fake news" doesn't need to be malicious to be damaging; sometimes it's a linguistic slip, a competitor's whisper campaign, or a lazy assumption repeated as "fact." In modern terms (as of 2025), misinformation spreads faster via social media and industry chat groups, so the impact can be immediate. Do now: Collect 2–3 "reassurance proof points" (stability, client results, certifications) you can deploy if a rumour appears.  How do you uncover negative perceptions the buyer isn't saying out loud? Ask directly, gently—and then shut up. The simplest line is: "So what are your perceptions about our organisation?" Then don't add a single extra word. Silence is the tool. If you soften it with excuses or explanations, you reduce the chance they'll tell you the truth. This matters because you can't fix what you can't see. Many salespeople are far too optimistic and assume the buyer starts neutral-to-positive. In reality, the buyer may have heard something ugly from a rival, read something outdated online, or had a bad past experience with someone "like you." Your job is to draw it out early, before you waste time presenting to a sceptic. Do now: Add the "perceptions question" to your first-meeting checklist and practise staying silent for 5–10 seconds after asking it.  What should you say when the buyer shares a negative belief (without getting defensive)? Don't argue—use a neutral "cushion" to buy thinking time. When a buyer says something negative, your instinct is to correct them fast. That's dangerous: defensive reactions make your mouth outrun your brain and you can say the wrong thing. A cushion is a neutral statement that neither agrees nor disagrees, and it lets you stay calm and professional. Think: "I see," "That's helpful to know," or "Thanks for sharing that." Then you choose your pathway based on what they said. This works across cultures: in Japan it protects harmony and face; in Australia and the US it signals maturity and confidence. Do now: Write 3 cushion phrases you can say naturally, and ban yourself from instant "No, that's wrong…" reactions.  What are the three best ways to respond: agree, dissociate, or correct? Pick the response that matches the type of misperception—partial truth, social proof gap, or factual error. Agree (with clarification): If it was true in the past, acknowledge it and update the reality (e.g., systems upgraded, issue eliminated). Dissociate (social proof): Show that other credible clients worked with you and got results—implying the fear didn't stop them. Correct (evidence): If it's factually wrong, provide hard proof to remove the concern. The skill is not choosing "the nicest" option—it's choosing the right option. If you try to "correct" something that's emotional or reputation-based without rapport, you can make them dig in harder. Do now: Build a mini playbook: one Agree line, one Dissociate line, and one Correct-with-evidence pattern you can reuse.  After you neutralise the misperception, how do you rebuild credibility and move forward? Shift into positive territory by highlighting your most relevant USP and expanding their view of your strengths—without turning it into a pitch. Once the concern is handled, you reinforce why you're the best partner by selecting the USP that fits their situation (not your favourite USP). This forces you to do your research: you may have many differentiators, but you have limited "face time," so bring the big guns. Then widen their understanding of what you can do—buyers often pigeonhole you into a narrow category based on outdated impressions. Expand the scope carefully: more capability, more depth, more proof—still conversational, not a monologue. Do now: Choose one "best-fit USP" for the buyer and prepare a 30-second credibility expansion that feels informative, not salesy.  Quick checklist: Dealing with misperceptions (copy/paste) Ask: "What are your perceptions about our organisation?" (and stay silent)  Use a cushion (neutral pause phrase)  Choose the right route: Agree / Dissociate / Correct  Present proof (not opinions) when correcting  Reinforce: best-fit USP + expand strengths (no hard sell)  Conclusion: what salespeople should do now Misperceptions are part of the rough-and-tumble of business. The naïve approach is hoping the buyer "probably thinks well of us." The professional approach is drawing it out early, handling it calmly, and then rebuilding trust with relevant proof. When you do this well, you don't just save deals—you protect your reputation and stop competitors (or random misinformation) from writing your story for you.  FAQs How do I stop getting defensive when buyers criticise my company? Use a neutral cushion first, then choose agree, dissociate, or correct. It buys time and prevents reactive arguments.  What if the buyer won't tell me what they've heard? Ask gently and then stay silent. The silence is what often prompts honesty.  When should I correct misinformation with evidence? When it's factually wrong and you can provide hard proof.Otherwise, clarify or use social proof first.  Author Bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results.  He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダā). 

Stroke etanercept injection 18 months on: what lasted, what changed, and what Andrew learned after the PESTO trial Some stroke survivors are told a version of the same sentence in hospital: “After three months, what you have is what you'll have.” Andrew Stops didn't buy it, not because he was naïve, but because he needed a reason to keep showing up for rehab when nobody could give him a straight answer about what “recovery” would look like. Four years after his ischemic stroke, and 18 months after a stroke etanercept injection, Andrew is back to share what improved quickly, what continued to evolve, and how he made peace with research results that didn't match his lived experience. The question so many survivors are really asking When people reach out about perispinal etanercept (often discussed as “etanercept after stroke”), they're rarely asking for a science lecture. They're asking: Will this help me get my life back? Will I be the person it works for… or the person it doesn't? How do I decide without being misled by hype, fear, or my own desperation? Those questions are valid. They're also heavy, because the stakes are high: the treatment is expensive, travel can be intense, and the emotional cost of hoping—then not getting results—can be brutal. Andrew's baseline: what his stroke took at the start Andrew's stroke most impacted his right side. Early on, he had: No use of his right arm or hand A weaker right leg Right foot drop A slight speech impediment He worked hard to walk again quickly, using practical supports early (including an elastic extension on his shoe to help keep his foot up). But his bigger mission was clear: find ways to complement rehab—because medical staff couldn't give him a timeline, and he felt a “lack of hope” from their perspective. That's a common moment for survivors: you're doing the work, but you also want a map. The “complement” phase: why hyperbaric helped, even without perfect measurement Before etanercept entered the picture, Andrew leaned on what had helped him before: hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). He had a history of a brain tumor and had used hyperbaric previously for healing, so he rented a soft-shell chamber at home for three months and went in daily for 90 minutes. Andrew was careful with his claims: he couldn't measure physiological changes in real time at home. But he could measure something important, his ability to cope. HBOT became a daily “warm cocoon” where he could breathe oxygen-rich air and calm his nervous system. For him, that mental-health benefit wasn't a side note. It was fuel. And when you're rebuilding your life after stroke, fuel matters. The etanercept decision: hope, uncertainty, and the reality of the “roll the dice” problem Andrew discovered perispinal etanercept through a media story about Dr. Tobinick's clinic, and after about a year, decided he needed to know he'd tried everything he reasonably could. He crowdfunded to afford the trip and treatment. That detail matters because it introduces the single biggest ethical challenge around treatments like this: Even if you try to stay balanced, it's hard not to hang hope on something that costs time, money, energy, and pride. Andrew doesn't tell people to go. In fact, when people contact him now (he's spoken to more than 50), he's careful: He explains it worked for him, but might not work for them He encourages going without expectation He frames it as “knowing you tried everything,” not a guaranteed fix That's responsible guidance from someone who understands how fragile hope can become when it's under financial pressure. What changed fast (and what stayed improved 18 months later) Andrew's report of early changes is striking not because it proves causality, but because it describes specific, functional shifts: Cognitive fatigue and sensory overload He noticed cognitive fatigue dial down immediately. He still experiences it, but it takes far more to trigger now. The most vivid example: on the way to the clinic, he used an eye mask, noise-cancelling headphones, and had medication ready for overload. On the return flight 24 hours later, he didn't need any of it. He stood in the airport like any other traveler. Pain and cramping A persistent cramp in his right calf eased significantly. Emotional regulation He noticed improvement in emotional control, something many stroke survivors quietly struggle with and often feel ashamed about. Hand function and fine motor control His right hand went from feeling like it moved “in molasses” to loosening up. And here's where the “18 months on” part becomes powerful: Andrew recently discovered he could play scales on his clarinet again, covering holes with independent finger movement, something he hadn't been able to do since the stroke. That's not framed as: “etanercept did this.” It's framed as: recovery kept unfolding. “Your stroke recovery doesn't stop. There's no end date.” The PESTO trial: when research challenges your story Then came the PESTO trial results, which (as discussed in your episode) reported that etanercept was not more effective than placebo in the studied group. This is where Andrew's story gets even more human. He didn't just shrug it off. He described feeling guilt, even fraudulence, because he couldn't reconcile the research headline with his lived experience. That response is deeply relatable: when something helps you, and others don't get the same outcome, it can feel like survivor's guilt, especially when people have spent enormous money and emotional energy. A careful theory: the blood–brain barrier question In your conversation, Bill raises a hypothesis, not a proven conclusion that deserves careful attention: If etanercept struggles to cross the blood–brain barrier in general, could certain people have a more permeable barrier due to factors like stroke, surgery, or radiation therapy (which Andrew had)? Andrew himself wonders if radiation could be part of his “why.” This isn't a sales pitch. It's a research direction, a possible explanation for why outcomes might vary so dramatically between people. If that line of thinking ever becomes clinically actionable, it could change the whole decision-making process for survivors, because the question would shift from “roll the dice” to “are you likely to be a candidate?” What a stroke survivor can take from this without being sold to If you're reading this because you're considering a stroke etanercept injection, here are the grounded takeaways from Andrew's 18-month update: Recovery can continue for years. Don't let a timeline kill your momentum. Treatments don't have to be “proven” to feel meaningful, but meaning isn't the same as certainty. Hope needs guardrails. Don't stake your whole future on one intervention. If you pursue something controversial, protect your mindset. Go in informed, realistic, and supported. You deserve respect, not ridicule, for wanting your life back. If you want ongoing encouragement and tools to navigate recovery (and the emotional complexity that comes with it), Bill's work is built for that: Book: recoveryafterstroke.com/book Patreon: patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult your doctor before making any changes to your health or recovery plan. Andrew's 18-Month Etanercept Update: Fatigue, Function, and What the Research Says 18 months later, Andrew shares what improved after etanercept fatigue, function, and the tough questions raised by the PESTO trial. Highlights: 00:00 Introduction and Background 06:15 Exploring Treatment Options 08:59 Stroke Etanercept Injection And It’s Impact 12:14 Research Findings and Controversies 17:59 Conversations with Other Survivors 23:26 Reflections on Treatment and Guilt Transcript: Stroke Etanercept Injection – Introduction and Background Bill Gasiamis (00:00) Hey again there everyone. Welcome back to the Recovery After Stroke podcast. Before we get started, a quick thank you to everyone who supports this podcast on Patreon. Your support helps cover hosting costs and after more than 10 years of doing this largely solo, it’s what helps me keep showing up for stroke survivors who need hope and real conversations. A huge shout out to everyone who comments on YouTube, leaves reviews on Spotify and Apple podcasts. has bought my book, The Unexpected Way That a Stroke Became the Best Thing That Happened, and even the folks who don’t skip the ads, thank you. All of it helps this podcast reach the people who are searching for answers late at night when recovery feels heavy. Now today’s episode is a follow-up many of you have asked for. Andrew Stopps is back, and we’re talking about stroke and etanusept injections 18 months on. We’ll unpack what changed for him, what’s continued to improve and how he processed the PESTO trial results that found Etanercapt wasn’t more effective than the placebo. If you’re considering this treatment or you’re trying to make sense of conflicting stories and research, this conversation will help you think more clearly without hype and without fear. All right, let’s get into it. Bill Gasiamis (01:17) Andrew stops. Welcome back. Andrew (01:20) Thank you for having me. It’s good to back. Bill Gasiamis (01:22) It is so good to have you back. The last time we spoke, was March 26, 2024. At least that’s the date that I uploaded the podcast Andrew (01:30) it would have been before that even, probably a couple of weeks before that. Bill Gasiamis (01:34) Yeah, something like that. So a good 18 months since we last spoke. And the original reason why you reached out and kind of we connected was I think because you had found my podcast, I had maybe had a couple of conversations about Etanercept like, and I had no idea what it was, how it worked, if it worked. And then you reached out and said, hey, I’ve had this injection. I’ve tried it. Why don’t connect about it? Andrew (01:36) So a good 18 months. Bill Gasiamis (02:03) And then we connected and we had a really great conversation and that interview has had like 19 and a half thousand views since then. And then what’s been happening a lot about that interview is heaps of people have reached out to me to say, can I speak with Andrew? Can you connect me with Andrew? Andrew (02:23) And he’s people reached out to me because of that. And also they found me on the interwebs somehow and contacted me that way. So I’ve probably been spoken now, well over 50 people. Bill Gasiamis (02:40) Wow, man, that is fascinating. So and what I love about it is that we put out information. What we hope is we hope people make a more informed decision. Right. That’s kind of the idea is like, how do I help people make people make a more informed decision, especially when I haven’t experienced something and I’m trying to get across the benefits or the pitfalls or, you know, what to avoid on a product. It’s just impossible. But You were very gracious as well as you. I’ve interviewed, by the way, a bunch of other about Etanercept. And one of them was Dwayne Simple. Dwayne also gets a few people who I sent to him that are in Canada because Dwayne is in Canada. He’s had Etanercept and it worked out for And then I’ve spoken to another lady from Australia, Karen. who also a shot or two of Etanercept and had positive results. But of course, Etanercept is extremely controversial. And one of the challenges with it is that it doesn’t work for everybody. And there’s only one way of knowing if it’s going to work is to go and get the injection to pay the money and then to kind of roll the dice and see what happens. Now, that’s what we’re going to talk about today. But before we talk about the new Andrew (03:37) Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Bill Gasiamis (03:58) research that has come out, the PESTO trial research. Before we talk about that, we’ll briefly talk about your condition, where you started. We’ll have a real short version of that, where you started, what happened, and then how you ended up overseas experiencing Dr. Tobinick’s procedure, and then update us on what happened in the last 18 months. Andrew (04:17) Okay, so I had my stroke exactly four years ago last Thursday. So I’m a four year old stroke survivor now. And my most damage was done to my right side. So I had no use of my right arm or hand at all. My right leg was weak, but it was okay. But my right foot just fell. I had a slight speech impediment. But otherwise physically that was really it for the stroke. And I worked really hard to get myself walking again as quickly as I could. And so when I got home I could walk but I’d had an elastic extension on my shoe to help keep my foot up. And I… From that moment, I was looking for ways to complement my rehab to help me recover fully from the stroke because the doctors and people in the hospital, no one could say to me like how long, how I was going to be, how much recovery, what I could expect, like anything. was just everyone’s unique. And I understand that, but there was a ⁓ lack of like hope from their perspective. So the first thing we did when we got me home was I’d heard, well, I knew that hyperbaric chambers helped healing. And I knew that because I had a, previously had a brain tumor and I used hyperbaric to help me heal from that. It was really, really good. So we hired one, we rented one for three months and had a soft shell chamber at home, which I went in every day. for 90 minutes and it was fantastic. I can’t say how, if that physiologically helped because I don’t have access to an MRI at home or anything. Yeah, I can’t measure it, but it did wonders for my mental health. Like it was brilliant because for an hour and half every day, I got to sit in this nice warm cocoon shell, they do not over me. Bill Gasiamis (06:01) You can’t measure it. Exploring Treatment Options Andrew (06:15) and listen to really nice music and breathe in almost, you know, pure, very heavily oxygenated air. And so it was like meditation for an hour and half. And the hour and a half went just like that. It was so quick. And I was really sad to have to, you know, give it up after three months. But yeah, it very much helped with my mental health during that time. And I mean, It’s hard to say if it helped me physically, but I certainly got back my ability to move my foot. My arm was another beast though, and that took a long time. That took about two months before it even moved slightly before I could just, you know, move it up and down. So getting back the function of my arm was a longer process. So I kept researching online and finding, you know, other ways that I could help myself to recover. That’s when came across the 60 minutes interview with Dr. Tobinick and the clinic and the lady from Australia. Bill Gasiamis (07:17) Which by the way, 60 minutes has taken down. You can only find that on Dr. Tobinick’s YouTube channel now. Yeah, right. So that’s interesting just as a thing that I observed that people might find interesting as well to hear. It doesn’t mean anything perhaps. Andrew (07:24) really? Interesting. Yeah, I mean, yeah, can be anything anyway, so I found that I watched it. I was really really inspired and I thought well I’ve got to know that I have tried everything like if this is how I’m going to be and this was After one year and I was told that you know after three months or That pretty much what I had after three months was was how I was going to be so I figured after one year, I’ve got to try everything. And so I crowdfunded and had about 30 or 1000. Bill Gasiamis (08:13) You raised how much? US, New Zealand dollars. Andrew (08:22) Yes, so that was to that was to fly that was for the flights accommodation the shots like the whole the whole package And yeah, and we flew out in in February Last last year 2025 Was it last year? can’t remember Bill Gasiamis (08:37) I did 20, 24, 18 months ago. Stroke Etanercept Injection And It’s Impact Andrew (08:40) 2024. And yeah, had the shot and it was it was amazing how fast I found things start to to wake up and recover. By then I had had more movement in my arm, but my hand was very sluggish. And I really didn’t have any fine motor control at all. ⁓ So yeah, that was the 32nd story of Andrew’s stroke recovery. Bill Gasiamis (09:04) Yeah, that’s a cool story. So we did a full deeper dive interview for Andrew’s story, an hour and 18 minutes worth of conversation. And the link to the original interview with Andrew about Etanercept will be available in the show notes, right, and in the YouTube description of this video. So anyone who wants to go back and watch that can do that as well. Now, like I said, it’s had 19,000 views. It’s 521 likes and it has just a ton of comments, just a ton, a ton of comments. Now, one other thing that has happened since then is I haven’t been able to find people who are willing to talk about Etanercept who did not have positive results when they went to Dr. Tobinick’s clinic. just, people don’t want to be interviewed if it’s about that. It seems as though it’s been really hard, right? So. I can’t give this balanced view of here’s somebody who has had good results, here’s somebody who hasn’t had results. They comment on the YouTube comments and they send me emails about it, but they don’t really tell me whether or not they will join me on the podcast to discuss it properly. recently the Griffith University study came out about Perispinal Etanercept and it had some positive results. It didn’t find that it was able to help restore certain functions, et cetera, but it did have an impact on pain relief for some people. Now, after that, the highly anticipated study was the one from the Flory Institute here in Australia called the PESTO trial. I’ll share my screen and I’ll put it on the screen while we chat about it, right? We’re gonna chat about what if. what it found, Andrew, just so that we can bring people up to speed so they can just hear a conversation about it. Bill Gasiamis (10:50) We’ll be back with more of Andrew’s story in just a moment, but if you’re listening right now and you feel stuck, want you to hear this clearly. Recovery isn’t a three month window. It’s not even a one year window. Your brain can keep adapting for a long time. And the real challenge is learning how to keep hope without putting all your hope in one thing. In the second half of this episode, Andrew shares what actually lasted 18 months on. What still improved over the time. And we’ll talk about the biggest question. If the PESTO trial says the Etanercept shouldn’t work better than the placebo, then why do some people still report a night and day difference? Bill Gasiamis (11:30) OK, so this is the PESO trial. Now, I interviewed recently ⁓ Vincent Thijs the doctor who headed the study. but the Flory Institute is basically reporting on his findings. He has presented these findings at stroke conferences around the world. And what was interesting was that this study started in, I think, 2018. And then because of COVID had to be paused, amongst other things. And then finally, all the research was reviewed and it became available at the beginning of 2025. And then it’s been out probably for about seven or eight months now. Stroke Etanercept Injection Research Findings and Controversies And what they found was that the, and they’re being a little bit provocative here calling it a miracle cure, but what they found was that a perispinal etanusept, the arthritis drug, ⁓ was not effective in treating people that were experiencing symptoms because of a stroke anymore. than the placebo. So what they found was that the people on the placebo who ⁓ received the placebo, 56 % of them had a positive result from the placebo as opposed to less than 56 % of people who were actually using the Etanusept. And the reason being, they say, is because the drug doesn’t have the capability of crossing the blood-brain barrier to get to where the ⁓ inflammation is and to actually ⁓ decrease the inflammation. In arthritis, for example, the inflammation is in the joints, which are not part of the brain. There is no blood-brain barrier or some barrier that stops the atanasip from going there. And therefore, when people get injected to experience relief from ⁓ the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, they do experience that relief sometimes almost immediately, et cetera. And ⁓ as a result of that, the guys published the study and basically concluded that it is not effective and more research needs to be done to understand why or why not it works for some people and why it doesn’t for others. And I’ve had a couple of kind of ideas since then. And I’ll stop sharing my screen now because we can go back to just you and I, Andrew. And I’ve had some ideas as to how do I then talk to people about that, right? So I know I’ve interviewed Andrew, five other people that I’ve interviewed at least who said they had a positive result. And I should tell people there’s people who had a positive result, right? And then there’s the other people on the other side of the spectrum, which are really hostile saying like, it’s snake oil. My idea is that even if you go there and you receive Etanercept and it works when it’s not meant to and it’s just a placebo working because you’ve got high expectations of it working. You need it to work. You’ve invested $30,000. You you’ve traveled half a way across the world. Even if it works and it didn’t cross your blood brain barrier, to me, that’s a tick, right? That’s like. It worked fantastic. People improve their function. They got their life back. The body is very powerful. It can achieve amazing things. Who cares how it did that? A B, your blood brain barrier might be compromised. So there is a thing called leaky gut. We’ve heard about leaky gut. It is a compromised gut barrier which allows toxins to escape the gut and get into the blood. and causes a lot of autoimmune conditions. The same thing is possible for the blood brain barrier. If you’ve got a really compromised blood brain barrier because you’ve had a stroke or you’ve had brain surgery or something like that, it’s possible. Andrew (15:47) we’ve had radiation therapy, which I have. Bill Gasiamis (15:50) or you’ve had radiation therapy because of previous medical conditions, et cetera, then there could be a more permeable blood brain barrier, which enables the Etanercept to actually penetrate it and get to the root cause of the stroke inflammation or the root location of the stroke inflammation. And therefore, some people through no… ⁓ you know, through no fault of their own, I either have a really healthy blood brain barrier and Etanercept can’t cross it or have a compromised blood brain barrier and Etanercept can cross it. And therefore they experience positive results. But the issue then is how do we know? How can we work that out for people, you know, before they go and drop 30 grand on a treatment that they may not get a result for. Now. That’s my thinking about it, right? But I still send people to you and I still send you these studies as they come up, just so that I can say, Andrew, I need your feedback. I need you to talk to me. I need you to tell me something. Like, where do you stand on all of this? I’m going to keep sending people to you who reach out to me to speak to Andrew because they’re interested. So like, how does that conversation go in your head and then with the people that you connect with? Andrew (17:09) Okay, so having having been a teacher, career teacher, I’m really careful of what I advise people like I would be really careful what I advise my students. So I never say to people, yes, you’ve to do it because it worked for me. God, do do it, do drop it again. I never ever say that I tried to give them the balance for you. And and even though it worked for me, I make sure it’s I’m very clear that they understand that it worked for me, but it might not work for you. Conversations with Other Survivors So you’ve got to go like I did and don’t go with any expectations. Just go, just know that you’ve tried everything you can to help your recovery. That’s all. And so that’s how that conversation usually goes. They ask me lots of questions about what it feels like, what the place is like, what Dr. Tobinick was like. just all the sort of the mechanical questions around it. But generally, it’s, I don’t know whether I should go. And it’s also, I want to go, but my family don’t want to go. And I can’t go because they don’t support me, because they think it’s snake oil. Bill Gasiamis (18:18) Okay, that’s an interesting conversation. So I often try and advise stroke survivors to be careful who they share information with. Not saying that you shouldn’t share information with your loved ones and your family members after a stroke. What I’m saying is like, even in situations where things are not that critical, where you’re not talking about spending 30 grand, I’m just talking about people who have the experience sometimes Andrew where they say, oh, I wanna try this meditation thing, you know, and. somebody hasn’t meditated before, thinks it’s woo woo and says, don’t worry about that stuff. What do you wanna be? Like a hippie or something? There’s those types of people who hang out in our world who do intervene with things that we’re curious about and we wanna kind of shift away from perhaps old habits to new habits, especially around alcohol as well. I found that people would go, aren’t you gonna have one drink? Like what’s the point of going out if we can’t have a drink? It’s like, dude, like I’m a completely different version of myself. I’ve had a stroke, I can’t drink. But understanding how to deal with people like that is a bit of an issue. So then you’ve spoken to about 50 people who have either gone or not gone. Like have some people gone and contacted you and said it worked and some people gone and contacted you and said it hasn’t worked. Andrew (19:40) Yes. Yep. And I’ve. The contact normally starts to go quiet once they actually go, whether it works or doesn’t work. And I usually just get a quick message saying, hey, I went and it worked and that’s great. And, you know, have a good life. You know, I don’t want to keep bugging them. But the people that it didn’t work for have been pretty gutted. Bill Gasiamis (20:03) Right. Andrew (20:04) Because I’ve, you know, even though I’ve tried not to make it something they hang all their hopes on, you know, they still do to a certain extent. And so they come back pretty, not bitter or angry at me, just at the situation, that it didn’t work. And they don’t know where to turn next. Bill Gasiamis (20:22) So they might’ve had all their hopes kind of set on this working, all their eggs in one basket, so to speak, didn’t work and now they feel like maybe they’ve lost hope or they haven’t got another alternative or option. Andrew (20:35) Yeah, yeah. And what I’ve learned in the last 18 months is that your stroke recovery doesn’t stop. There’s no end date. So when you’re told in hospital that after three months that’s what you’ve got, no, no. doesn’t, like your brain is constantly evolving and working and learning and repending itself. If you want to work something and exercise something and rehab part of your body, eventually it’s going to improve. Even if it’s only by a little bit and it’s really slow, it’s going to improve. Bill Gasiamis (21:09) Yeah. So you’ve been 18 months down the track. One of the questions I got asked recently was, does the procedure need to be repeated every couple of years? Does it last? What have you found about how you have changed or experienced your body in the last 18 months? ⁓ Tell us first what you got back and how quickly and then what that led to, what you were able to achieve as a result of what you got back. Andrew (21:34) Yeah, okay. So, um, immediately the things that came back is is that my cognitive fatigue like just just lowered like straight away. Um, and I was when I had the shot, I was exhausted because they take it through a battery of tests. So I like was an hour and a half of tests. And so I was I was done. I was ready to go lie down. Um, And that just lifted like straight away and it didn’t come back. I still get cognitive fatigue now, but I really have to be doing stuff that that really taxes my brain to do it. And or I have to be really tired. But before I had the injection, I would get I would be on the verge of fatigue all the time. So it wouldn’t take much to push me over into it. So that was gone. I had a ⁓ really nasty cramp in my right calf that never went away. That went away. That literally just dialed down as I was sitting there after the shot. the emotional control also came back. Bill Gasiamis (22:42) Uh-huh. Andrew (22:43) which was good. Now, for me, I was, for the first shot, I was only in Florida for 24 hours. So we flew down from Memphis and I had the shot the next day and then we flew back that afternoon. So when we flew down, because of my cognitive fatigue and sensory overload, I had eye mask, had noise-canceling headphones, had like, lorazepam in my pocket. Like, you know, I had all the, you know, all this stuff to, you know, save my senses. When we flew back, I didn’t need any of it, and that was 24 hours later. So I just stood in the airport like any other traveler. And that was… Reflections on Stroke Etanercept Injection Treatment and Guilt Bill Gasiamis (23:26) Yeah. Andrew (23:28) That was the biggest sign that something profound had happened. Bill Gasiamis (23:33) Yeah. Andrew (23:34) The other thing was that my hand, my right hand went from feeling like it was sort of like moving in molasses really slow to loosening up and being more independent. And I found only a month ago that I was able to start to play scales on my clarinet again. So I can move my fingers independently. I could cover the holes with my clarinet here. Bill Gasiamis (23:52) Wow, man. Andrew (23:57) I can the holes in my fingers. It’s something that I haven’t been able to do since the stroke. To be able to play the thing, to be able to just play a scale, just says to me, at some point in the future, you’re gonna be able to play the thing again. Bill Gasiamis (24:11) So things are still improving. Your function is changing still. you, being able to play the clarinet, would you can attribute that to a tenor sept that long ago or just things getting better? Andrew (24:26) I think because it was if I come home and was able to play the clarinet then I would have a definite causality you know so I would rather say the definite yeah it was a tenor step that did it because before I went away I couldn’t even you know I couldn’t pick up things one more right hand so but because it’s been 18 months I think it’s because that that skill has come back Bill Gasiamis (24:50) Yeah, okay. What about work wise? Were you working or not working before the injection? Andrew (24:57) No, no. So I was able to go back to relief teaching. The classroom as a music teacher is ⁓ in a high school is too busy and there’s too many moving parts. So that’s not something I’ll be able to do again, at least not in the foreseeable future. And I don’t know if I want to now. Bill Gasiamis (25:11) Wow. Andrew (25:20) I have done some relief teaching. There are days where I’m in a school and I just feel that it’s a bit too much. And that could be because I had a bad night the night before or it was hot and I couldn’t sleep. And that wasn’t like that before the stroke. yeah, coming up with a new career now has been an interesting journey itself. Bill Gasiamis (25:41) Yeah. So there isn’t a need for another injection or anything like that. Nobody ever told you about another injection or what will happen in two years or anything like that. Andrew (25:51) No, If I can go there and get one, if I think it’s going to make even more improvement, because I had improvement from, you know, from the first. But yeah, there was no compelling sort of needs to go back. And I’m thinking that I probably would like maybe to have a second one, a second trip there and have. having the shot but ⁓ I don’t know I’ll see how my improvement goes. Bill Gasiamis (26:20) Yeah, okay. Andrew (26:22) It’s so hard to One of the things I did do, I had an MRI about two months ago. And it was an MRI to check the status of my tumor and to see where it was. And obviously they also had a look at the stroke site. And comparing the stroke site now to when it was taken when I had the stroke. there’s a day and night difference. Whereas I had a hole in my brain after the stroke, all I had was a little bit of glial, called glial scar tissue. So scar tissue of the brain cells, a little white line in my brain. ⁓ Bill Gasiamis (27:08) as opposed to a round circle of what appeared to be offline or dead brain cells. Yeah, which, you know, it sounds like to me, it’s like where the inflammation was, that area they usually call, they often call, sometimes called the penumbra, which is the area that’s able to be rehabilitated, which is around the site of the stroke, which is offline but not dead, which HBOT targets, the right kind of, Andrew (27:15) Yes. Yeah. Bill Gasiamis (27:38) hyperbaric oxygen therapy can target those as well and try and reduce them. So day and night, like a proper difference between one and the other. Andrew (27:47) Yeah, I was expecting to see when I saw the scan, know, where my brain tumor was and also the big hole and the hole was gone and there was just this like, this is a little, a little line there with scar tissue. Bill Gasiamis (28:01) Yeah, fabulous. How long has the brain tumor been there for? Andrew (28:05) 20 years. Bill Gasiamis (28:07) Okay, and what does it do just sort of sit around and ⁓ Andrew (28:10) Yeah, so ⁓ what happened is it just gradually grows bigger and bigger and bigger and then eventually if you don’t get it treated, it crushes your brain stem and that kills you. So I had mine irradiated 20 years ago and it’s got growing and it’s just started dying off and now it’s just like a… dead mess in there and they check every four years to make sure it hasn’t done anything naughty and It hasn’t so they actually said of this last scan look it hasn’t changed in the last 12 years, so no more scans Bill Gasiamis (28:41) I hear you, okay. So it’s benign now. Andrew (28:46) Yeah. Bill Gasiamis (28:47) Yeah, okay. So you’ve through the rigor, mate. You’ve had an interesting neurological experience, Andrew (28:54) Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, feels like my brain’s out to get me. Bill Gasiamis (29:00) Yeah. Well, seems like the interventions have been really helpful in prolonging your life and then your life experience, like how you go about life. So as far as you’re concerned, like it’s all it’s all. You know, it’s been a good outcome, both both interventions. Andrew (29:19) Yes. Yeah. Yeah, I think so. I mean, my biggest challenge this year has actually not been the stroke or the brain tumor, but it’s been the medications for stroke to prevent another one. So my stroke was caused by an overactive adrenal or adrenal glands producing too much aldosterone. Bill Gasiamis (29:31) What man which man say you want? Andrew (29:43) And that was only diagnosed and found last year. So What was happening is that my body was? Was was keeping salt it was it was send my blood pressure sky-high and then crash it down And for 10 years we thought that was anxiety. But what it was was that because my blood pressure wasn’t consistently high, I could go to the doctors and I could be normal. And then my other doctors didn’t have high blood pressure. It was not consistent. So I was just treated for anxiety and given a sort of a low dose blood pressure medication. But actually what it was is both glands like over producing this hormone and that’s what gave me the stroke. So they’ve they’ve given me a hormone suppressant which helps, but they’ve been trying to. to juggle multiple types of blood pressure medication to also bring my blood pressure down to a consistent normal. And so up until about three weeks ago, my blood pressure was still all over the place. And they had me on a really nasty cocktail at one point this year where I literally could not function. I couldn’t even get up. It suppressed my whole system so much. that every time I stood my blood pressure would drop 50 points and I would almost pass out. So I was like a zombie. ⁓ It was just the combination of too many blood pressure medications at once. And finally, I’ve seen a different specialist and he changed my medication and I’ve just got one little pill at the minimum dose and it’s actually stabilized my blood pressure to normal. Bill Gasiamis (30:51) All right. Righto, that’s good. Andrew (31:18) So like when I took it today, was 122 over 72. So it hasn’t been like that for I don’t even know how long. Bill Gasiamis (31:25) Yeah. Fantastic, what kind of stroke did it cause? Andrew (31:31) are ischemic, so a clot. Bill Gasiamis (31:34) ⁓ huh, okay. Wow, man. What an interesting journey you’ve been on. And this insight into Etanercept and how and why it might work for some people and not for others is probably helpful for it again, for a whole bunch of people to hear and kind of get a better understanding about scientifically speaking, Etanercept is not a viable solution for people who have had stroke and there will be some people who will become all, what’s the word? Like they will, they’ll be all, this is snake oil stuff. And then there will be people who brag about it as being the best thing they’ve ever done, which seems to be kind of the camp that you’re in. I think, no, no, no, no. I mean, it’s one of the best things you’ve ever done with regards to your stroke recovery, right? Andrew (32:18) I don’t feel like complaining about it though. Yeah, yeah, and I found that when I got the results for the for the pesto test I really had to do a lot of soul searching because because I couldn’t explain to myself Why it seemed to have worked for me and yet the study was saying hey, doesn’t really have any effect and and I had to to Bill Gasiamis (32:36) Wow. Did you feel remorse or guilt about that? Wow, Wow. Andrew (32:47) Yes, very much. I felt like a fraud. Because why? I couldn’t explain how I had such a huge night and day difference. And that couldn’t be placebo and it’d be still working 18 months later. Bill Gasiamis (33:08) Yeah, I think our hunch about the blood brain barrier is where the research needs to go. And I don’t know how you investigate the blood brain barrier. But if you can go there and investigate the blood brain barrier and if you can understand who has a compromised blood brain barrier and therefore. Andrew (33:15) Yeah. Bill Gasiamis (33:31) due to a compromised blood-barrier barrier, a candidate for a Etanercept I think that’s kind of where it needs to go. Because the biggest issue that people have with clinics who offer a Etanercept perispinally, like Dr. Tobinick’s, the biggest issue that people have that makes it hard for them to make a decision is will I be the right candidate? Will I be the one who will it work for? Or will I be the one that it doesn’t, you know? But I… I find it very fascinating that you would respond that way, that you would feel guilty and remorseful that it worked for you and the pesto child says it shouldn’t have. Andrew (34:10) I feel guilty that it worked for me and didn’t work for someone else. You know, as well. Yeah, yeah, I mean, it’s like survivor’s guilt in a way. Yeah, that’s that and that’s how I felt. so the way I’ve thought of it is, well, OK, if it was placebo, it worked for me. Bill Gasiamis (34:14) Yeah. just wishing for the best for everybody. Yeah, I can relate to that. Yeah. Andrew (34:37) like it just it worked for me whatever it was it worked for me so and that’s that’s that’s all I can all I can say but I think this blood brain theory is is a good one and I would like to I would like to research and understand what what makes the brain leaky like what what events can make your brain Bill Gasiamis (34:41) Yeah. Yeah. Andrew (35:00) ⁓ better suited to receiving Etanercept Like for me, probably the main cause could have been the fact that I had radiation on my brain years ago. Bill Gasiamis (35:05) Yeah. Andrew (35:13) Or it could be that I have a high blood pressure for 10 years. Or it could be I have my appendix out when I’m 17. But I would like to do some research into what it is, what factors make people more likely to have a leaky brain. Bill Gasiamis (35:17) Who knows? Yeah, I think that’s a great thing. I want to research that too, because I have known about it. I’ve understood it. I appreciated that I might be somebody who has had a leaky brain because of the strokes that I experienced, the brain surgery and all the stuff that I went through. And I know that if you restore the blood brain barrier, you can really decrease the fatigue that happens to people after a stroke. And you can make it impenetrable again to toxins. and heavy metals and all that kind of stuff, which is often the cause of real chronic neurological fatigue, even in people who haven’t had a stroke, who are, quote unquote, normal. So that’s fascinating. I really appreciate your continued willingness to have conversations about this topic and sharing your story more than once with me. And then also being being an ear to the people who are curious about whether or not they should go down this path and then kind of just like, you know, being honest about your story, sharing what happened to you, what you experienced and even your own reservations because I don’t think you have anything to, and you probably know this cognitively anyway, right? You don’t have anything to be guilty about or feel bad about or. anything like that. But I understand why emotionally you might go down that path because you’re a guy that cares deeply for other people. You appreciate how hard it is for people to go through stroke and you wish them the same solution or other solutions that you had so that we don’t have to suffer. I know exactly what’s behind it. Andrew (37:08) Yeah, yeah, that’s exactly right. Yeah. Bill Gasiamis (37:12) Yeah. Well, hopefully this continues the conversations to give people more things to think about. Leave us a comment in the YouTube comments section. Reach out via email. Yeah, drop us a comment. Reach out to us and we’d be happy to continue the conversation, support you, guide you. Just being here and I don’t know, help you make a more informed decision. That’s all we can do. We’re not going to suggest. Andrew (37:35) Yeah, definitely. Bill Gasiamis (37:41) that you should or should not go and experience Perispinal Etanercept one way or another. Bill Gasiamis (37:46) Well, that was Andrew Stopps again. What a fascinating conversation. If today’s episode connected with you, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the YouTube comments, especially if you’ve looked into Etanercept Try it. I decided not to. Your experience can help someone else make a more informed decision. And if you found this helpful, please subscribe on YouTube and follow the podcast on Spotify or Apple podcasts. Reviews and comments genuinely help more. stroke survivors find these conversations. If you want to go deeper, you can grab my book at recoveryafterstroke.com slash book. And if you’d like to support the podcast and help keep it going, you can join us on Patreon at patreon.com slash recovery after stroke. Thanks again for being here. You’re not alone in this recovery journey and I’ll see you in the next episode. The post Stroke etanercept injection 18 months on: Andrew's update after the PESTO trial appeared first on Recovery After Stroke.

When you've got a dozen priorities, meetings, emails, and "urgent" requests hitting you at once, the real problem usually isn't effort—it's focus. This is a simple, fast method to get your thinking organised, coordinate your work, and choose actions that actually improve results: build a focus map, then run each sub-topic through a six-step action template.  How do I get focused when I'm overwhelmed with too much work? You get better results by shrinking the chaos into one clear "area of focus," then organising everything else around it. In practice, overwhelm comes from competing directions—sales targets, KPIs, internal politics, client deadlines, hiring, and admin—all demanding attention at the same time. In Japan, this can be amplified by stakeholder-heavy coordination; in the US and Europe, it can be amplified by speed and constant context switching. Either way, your effort becomes scattered and poorly coordinated.  The fix is to pause briefly and decide: "What is the one thing (or two things) I need to improve most right now?" That becomes your anchor. Once you can name the focus, the brain stops thrashing and starts sorting. Do now: Write down the one or two words that define your key focus for this week.  What is a "focus map" and how do you make one quickly? A focus map is a one-page visual map: one central focus, surrounded by the sub-topics you need to improve. Put a small circle in the middle of the page and write your main focus inside (for example: "Better Time Management"). Then add related words that come to mind as surrounding circles—like planets around the sun—creating sub-categories you can work on.  This works because you already have the answers in your head; you just haven't "released" them into a structure. The visual element matters: arranging the circles stimulates thinking differently than typing a list in a notes app. It's fast, low-tech, and effective—especially for leaders toggling between deep work and constant interruption in a post-pandemic, hybrid world. Do now: Draw one central circle and add 6–10 surrounding circles of related sub-topics.  What should I put on my focus map (examples leaders actually use)? Use practical "better" themes—time, follow-up, planning, communication—then generate sub-categories that are behaviour-based. Common centre-circle themes include: Better Time Management, Better Follow-up, Better Planning, Better Communicator.  Example: if your centre circle is "Better Time Management," your surrounding circles might include: prioritisation, block time, procrastination, Quadrant Two focus (Eisenhower Matrix), to-do list, weekly goals, daily goals. This is where the method beats generic productivity advice. Instead of "be more organised," you can see the real levers: calendar blocking, priority choice, and the habit of starting the day with a ranked list. In an SME, this might be about protecting selling time; in a multinational, it may be about reducing meeting bloat and stakeholder drag. Do now: Choose one sub-category you can improve in 7 days (e.g., prioritisation).  What are the six steps to turn a focus map into action? The six steps force clarity: attitude → importance → new behaviour → desired result → vision alignment. After your focus map is complete, pick one sub-category (say, prioritisation) and run it through this template:  What has been my attitude in this area? Why is this important to me and my organisation? Specifically, what am I going to do about this differently? What results do I desire? How is this going to impact my Vision? This is essentially strategy on a page. It connects behaviour change to outcomes and makes it harder to stay vague. It also works across cultures: whether you're operating in Japan's consensus environments or in faster-moving US/Europe contexts, you still need a clear "why" and a specific "what next." Do now: Write answers for steps 1–3 today; do steps 4–5 tomorrow.  Can you show a completed example (so I can copy the format)? Yes—use the example below as a plug-and-play model for any topic you choose. For "Time Management" with the sub-category "Prioritisation," a completed version looks like this (edited only for formatting):  Area of focus: Time Management → Prioritisation Attitude: "I know I should be better organised…but I never get around to taking any action…because I don't choose activities based on priorities." Why important: "If I am better organised I can get more work done…focus on the prioritised areas of highest value…contribute more value to the organisation." What I'll do differently: buy an organiser; use to-do lists + a calendar; block time for highest value items; start each day by nominating tasks, then prioritising and working in that order. Desired result: spend best time on highest value tasks with greatest impact. Impact on vision: efficiency and effectiveness rise dramatically. Do now: Copy this structure and fill it in for your sub-category (block time, procrastination, weekly goals, etc.).  How do I use this system every week to get better results (not just once)? Repeat the map-and-template cycle weekly, focusing on one sub-category at a time until the habit "sticks." The magic is consistency: you can repeat the same process for block time, procrastination, Quadrant Two focus, to-do lists, weekly goals, daily goals—each becomes its own mini-improvement project.  Think of it like leadership development: you don't "fix productivity" once; you build a personal operating system. Some weeks will be chaotic (product launches, quarterly reporting, client crises), so you pick a small, controllable lever. Other weeks you can go deeper. This method is described as a go-to tool because it's fast, it goes deep, and it produces practical ideas you can apply immediately.  Do now: Schedule 15 minutes every Monday to create one focus map and choose one sub-category to improve.  Quick checklist (copy/paste) Choose 1 key focus (1–2 words).  Build a focus map (6–10 sub-circles).  Pick 1 sub-category for this week.  Run the six steps and define 1–2 new behaviours.  Review weekly; repeat with the next sub-category.  Conclusion Better results come from better-directed effort. The focus map gives you clarity fast, and the six steps turn that clarity into behaviour change tied to results and vision. If you try it once, you'll get insight. If you run it weekly, you'll build momentum.  FAQs A focus map is basically a mind map for execution. It moves you from "busy" to "clear" in minutes by visualising priorities.  Start with one sub-category, not the whole map. Results come from focusing on one lever (like prioritisation or block time) per week.  The six steps work because they force specifics. You can't hide behind vague intentions when you must name attitude, actions, results, and vision.  Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー).  Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

Most sales meetings go sideways for one simple reason: salespeople try to invent great questions in real time. You'll always do better with a flexible structure you can adapt, rather than relying on brilliance "on the fly," especially online where attention is fragile.  Why should you design qualifying questions before meeting the client? Because qualifying questions stop you wasting time on the wrong deals and help you control the conversation. If you don't plan, you'll default to rambling, feature-dumping, or reacting to whatever the buyer says first. A light structure keeps you adaptable without sounding scripted: you set the parameters, then fill in the details as the conversation unfolds.  Answer card / Do now: Build a reusable "question bank" and adjust it per client instead of improvising everything live.  What is the "permission question" and why does it matter? The permission question earns consent to ask sensitive questions from someone who doesn't trust you yet. You're effectively asking a stranger to reveal weaknesses in their business—something people naturally resist—so you must frame it as: you've helped similar organisations, you may be able to help here too, but you need to ask a few questions to find out.  This is especially important in relationship-driven markets like Japan, and still crucial in Australia and the US where buyers are wary of pushy sellers. Permission lowers defensiveness and increases honesty. Answer card / Do now: Memorise one permission line you can say naturally on Zoom, phone, and in-person.  What "need questions" actually uncover the real problem? Start broad, then narrow—because the first issue they mention is often not the biggest one. A clean opener is: "What are some key issues for your business at the moment?" If they struggle to answer, prompt with a realistic scenario from similar clients (for example, sales performance in a virtual environment) and ask whether that's true for them or if they're satisfied. Then ask what other issues are priorities, so you don't anchor on the first answer and miss the real driver.  Answer card / Do now: Prepare 3 "prompt examples" (common issues) to help buyers respond when your question is too broad.  Which qualifying questions reveal the scale (quantity) and constraints (budget)? Use quantity questions to size the problem, and budget questions to test seriousness without triggering defensiveness. A quantity question gives you the scale, like: "How many salespeople do you have who could benefit…?" That helps you calibrate your recommendation. Budget can be asked directly ("How much have you allocated?"), but many buyers won't share it—especially early—so you can work indirectly from team size and solution scope to estimate what's realistic.  Answer card / Do now: Write one direct budget question and one indirect "scope-based" alternative you can use when they clam up.  How do you ask the authority question without making it awkward? Ask who else has the strongest input, framed as necessary to help them properly. Buying decisions usually involve multiple stakeholders now, so you need to identify who matters early. Use wording like: "In order for me to help you, may I ask, apart from you, who would have the most interest and input into the buying decision?" It's respectful, it doesn't challenge their status, and it surfaces the buying committee.  Answer card / Do now: Add the authority question to every first meeting agenda—no exceptions.  What is an agenda statement, and how does it help control the meeting? An agenda statement is a simple way to guide the meeting flow while still staying flexible. You remind them why the meeting matters, outline what you'd like to cover, and then ask if they want to add anything—so the agenda becomes shared, not imposed. A practical sequence is: check their familiarity with your company (to correct misconceptions), learn what they're doing now and what systems they use, clarify future goals, uncover challenges blocking those goals, and—if there's a match—discuss how you could work together. Then invite their additions.  The conversation won't go in perfect order, and that's fine—your job is to ensure the key questions get answered while you still have the chance.  Answer card / Do now: Use a 6-point agenda statement, get agreement, then work through your question bank calmly—even if the order changes.  Simple meeting structure you can copy Permission question (earn consent)  Need questions (broad → narrow)  Quantity (size the issue)  Budget (direct or indirect)  Authority (map stakeholders)  Agenda statement (control flow + invite additions)  Conclusion: what salespeople should do now Qualifying isn't "being clever"—it's being prepared. Build a structure, customise it to the client, and then stay adaptable in the moment. The sellers who win in 2025 are the ones who can guide the conversation without sounding scripted, earn permission before probing, and leave meetings with real decision clarity instead of vague friendliness.  FAQs What's the biggest mistake in sales discovery? Improvising questions under pressure instead of using a simple structure you can adapt.  Why add an agenda statement at the start? It sets shared expectations and reduces random detours, while still allowing flexibility.  What if the buyer won't discuss budget? Use indirect sizing questions (headcount, scope, rollout timing) to estimate what's realistic.  Author Bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results.  He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). 

PESTO Trial Results: What Stroke Survivors Need to Know About Perispinal Etanercept If you've spent any time in stroke recovery communities, you've probably seen the same pattern: a treatment gets talked about with real intensity, people share personal stories that pull you in, and suddenly you're left trying to sort hope from hype from “maybe.” When the decision also involves significant cost, that uncertainty can feel even heavier. That's exactly why I recorded this episode: to help stroke survivors and their families understand the PESTO trial results in plain language without drama, without attacks, and without jumping to conclusions. In this interview, Professor Vincent Thijs explains what the PESTO trial set out to test, why it was designed the way it was, and what the results can (and can't) tell us about perispinal etanercept in stroke recovery. The real problem: not “hope vs skepticism”… it's confusion If you're a stroke survivor, you're already doing something heroic: you're living inside a recovery journey that demands patience, grit, and constant adjustment. The challenge isn't that you “don't want to believe” in something. The challenge is that it's genuinely hard to make an informed decision when: People report different outcomes Online conversations become polarised fast Scientific studies use unfamiliar language The same treatment can be described in completely different ways depending on who you're listening to My goal here isn't to tell you what to do. It's to help you think clearly, ask better questions, and understand what the best available evidence from this trial actually tested. What the PESTO trial was trying to investigate (in simple terms) Professor Thijs explains that the PESTO trial was designed in response to strong community interest. Stroke survivors wanted to know whether the way perispinal etanercept is currently administered in some settings could be demonstrated to work under the standards used for medicines to become widely accepted as part of routine care. So the researchers designed a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. In this type of study: A computer assigns participants to either the treatment or a placebo Participants and clinicians are kept “blinded” (they don't know who got what) Outcomes are measured in a consistent way at set time points In the PESTO trial, the focus was on stroke survivors with moderate to severe disability and reduced quality of life. The primary question was straightforward: Does quality of life improve after one or two injections compared with placebo, over the measured timeframe? Why this study looked at quality of life (not one symptom) One key detail Professor Thijs highlights is the design choice: the trial didn't only target one issue, like pain or walking. It aimed to be more “pragmatic,” reflecting how treatment is used in real-world settings where people seek help for different post-stroke challenges (mobility, fatigue, speech, cognition, pain, and more). That means the main outcome wasn't “Did walking speed improve?” or “Did pain reduce?” It was broader: Quality of life at 28 days And again after the second injection timeframe (56 days total) This matters because your results can look different depending on what you measure. A trial targeting one symptom might see a signal that a broad quality-of-life measure doesn't detect (and vice versa). What the PESTO trial results found In Professor Thijs' words, the trial did not show a difference in quality of life between the treatment and placebo groups at the measured time points: No clear quality-of-life improvement at 28 days No clear improvement after two injections at 56 days That's the central outcome. But there's another finding that grabbed my attention—and it's one many listeners will find surprising. Quote block (mid-article): “We saw that 58% of the people also had that improvement [with placebo] and 53% had it with etanercept… our initial guess was very wrong.” — Professor Vincent Thijs The “placebo signal” and why it matters A strong placebo response doesn't mean “it was all in their heads.” It means that in a blinded clinical trial, people can improve for multiple reasons that aren't specific to the drug itself, such as: Expectation and hope Natural fluctuations in symptoms The impact of being monitored and supported Regression to the mean (symptoms often move toward average over time) The structure and attention that come with trial participation Professor Thijs describes how, during the blinded phase, participants reported improvements in a variety of areas (like sensation, vision, speech). The crucial point is: the team didn't know who had a placebo or an active treatment at the time, which is exactly why blinding exists. For you, the listener, this is a reminder of something empowering: Personal stories can be real and meaningful—and still not answer the question of efficacy on their own. “Am I a candidate?” The trial's honest answer: we don't know how to predict it (yet) One of the most important parts of this conversation is the desire to identify who might benefit most. Professor Thijs explains that the team looked at subgroups (for example: age, sex, severity, diabetes, time since stroke). In this trial, they didn't find a clear subgroup where the treatment stood out as reliably beneficial compared with placebo. He also adds an important caveat: subgroup analysis is difficult, especially in trials that aren't extremely large. So the absence of a clear “responder profile” here doesn't automatically prove none exists—it means this trial didn't reveal one. What this episode is (and isn't) saying Let's keep this grounded and fair. This interview is not about attacking any person, provider, or clinic. It's not about shaming stroke survivors who tried something. It's not even about telling you that you should or shouldn't pursue a treatment. It is about this: Understanding what the PESTO trial tested Understanding what the results showed within their timeframe Knowing the limits of what the trial can conclude Using evidence to reduce confusion before making big decisions A simple “clarity plan” before you decide anything big If you're considering any high-stakes treatment decision, here's a neutral, practical way to move forward: 1) Ask: “What outcome matters most for me?” Is it pain? walking? fatigue? speech? cognition? daily function? quality of life? A treatment might be studied for one outcome and discussed online for another. 2) Ask: “What does the best evidence say—specifically?” Not “Does it work?” in general, but: In what population? Using what method? At what dose? Over what timeframe? Compared with what? 3) Ask: “What are my options and trade-offs?” Talk with a qualified healthcare professional who understands your medical history, risk factors, and rehab plan. Ask about: Potential risks and side effects Opportunity cost (what else could you do with the same time, money, and energy?) Evidence-based rehab and supports that match your goals Listen to the full interview If you want the clearest explanation of the PESTO trial results—from the lead researcher himself—listen to the full episode with Professor Vincent Thijs. And if you'd like to support the podcast (and help keep these conversations going for stroke survivors who need hope and clarity): Bill's book: recoveryafterstroke.com/book Patreon: patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke Medical disclaimer This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult your doctor before making any changes to your health or recovery plan. PESTO Trial Results (Etanercept After Stroke) | Interview with Professor Vincent Thijs Confused about perispinal etanercept after stroke? Prof Vincent Thijs explains the PESTO trial results clearly, calmly, and evidence-first. More About Perispinal Etanercept: Etanercept Stroke Recovery: Wesley Ray's Relentless Comeback Dwayne Semple's Remarkable Stroke Journey and Perispinal Etanercept Etanercept for Stroke Recovery – Andrew Stopps Support The Recovery After Stroke Podcast on Patreon Highlights: 00:00 Introduction and Overview of the PESTO Trial 04:19 Design and Objectives of the PESTO Trial 11:23 Recruitment and Methodology of the Trial 18:31  PESTO Trial Results and Findings 24:28 Implications and Future Directions for Research 32:15 Conclusions and Final Thoughts Transcript: Introduction: PESTO Trial Results Bill Gasiamis (00:00) Hello and welcome back to Recovery After Stroke. Before we get started, a quick thank you to my Patreon supporters. Your support helps cover the hosting costs after more than 10 years of me doing this show solo. And it helps me keep creating episodes for stroke survivors who need hope and practical guidance. And thank you as well to everyone who comments on YouTube, leaves reviews on Spotify and Apple podcasts. buys the book and even to those of you who don’t skip the ads. Every bit of that supports keep this podcast going. Now today’s episode is about the PESTO trial results and I’m interviewing Professor Vincent Theis. If you’ve ever felt confused by the conversation online about perisponal antenna sept, some people sharing positive experiences while others are feeling disappointed and plenty of strong opinions in between, this episode is designed to bring clarity. We talk about what the PESTO trial set out to test, how the study was designed, what it found within the measured timeframes and what the results can and can’t tell us. Just a quick note, this conversation is educational and not medical advice. Always speak with a qualified health professional about your situation. All right, let’s get into it. Professor Vincent Dase, welcome to the podcast. Vincent Thijs (01:24) Thank you for having me, Bill. Bill Gasiamis (01:26) I’m really looking forward to this conversation. Atenosept is one of the most hotly discussed topics in stroke recovery. And there’s a lot of misconceptions about whether or not it is or is not efficacious. And while there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence where some people have had positive outcomes from injections, there’s also a lot of people’s feedback, which is very negative about their experience with the Etanercept injections and the lack of results. So today, the reason I reached out is because I wanted to get to the bottom of the findings of the PESTO trial. And I’m hoping that you can shed some light on that. The first question basically is, can you start by explaining in simple terms what it was that the PESTO trial set out to investigate? Vincent Thijs (02:22) All right. The PESTO trial was in response to community members, stroke survivors, wanting to find out whether the current practice of administering Etanercept has done in the U.S. in private practice. In Denmark, I hear there are some sites that provide this treatment. Whether the treatment and genders can be actually proven according to the standards that we use in the pharmaceutical industry to get it to become accepted as a standard of care treatment. For that, you need to do what we call a randomized controlled clinical trial, preferably two that show evidence that treatment does what it’s set out to do. And that’s why with this background and the community pressuring the minister several years ago, Mr. Hunt at the time, to fund a trial that would help answer that question. Design and Objectives of the PESTO Trial There was a call was set out to do this trial and several groups in Australia applied and then an independent committee decided to award the trial to the PESTO study group. And then we tried to design this trial to give an answer. So it’s mostly about people that have moderate to severe disability after their stroke that have reduced quality of life. And We wanted to know, does their quality of life improve when Etanercept is administered? And we wanted to test whether one or two injections were needed. Because that’s what we heard from stroke survivors that from Australia and internationally that went over to the US. Well, this is how it’s done. You get one or two injections and there was a paper that had shown big effects with one injection. So that was the primary endpoint, but then we also looked at whether two injections could help. And when you design a trial, you have to make a decision, will we focus on people with. pain after stroke, or will we look at people who have mobility issues or speech issues or cognitive issues? And we saw that current clinical practice actually was people with various impairments after stroke were accepted and received the treatment. And what would have been the advantage of doing say only mobility or only pain? Well, you can then look at the outcome of pain or mobility, does it improve? Or is your cognition improved? But because we wanted to be pragmatic and we know that recruitment in clinical trials needs to reflect how is current practice. So we thought let’s put in all the people with moderate to severe disability, whatever their impairment after stroke and reduce quality of life. And then we looked at quality of life as an outcome rather than an individual impairment. And so what we did then was to use the randomized technique and where it’s left up to the computer to decide what treatment a person will receive, the active Etanercept or a similar looking placebo, and then look at 28 days and we had to make a decision what makes sense 28 days, what is practical. to see whether that injection then had improved quality of life. And then we did another injection again with a placebo or the active drug. And then after 28 days again, we looked again whether that had made a difference. So we have people that had received two times the placebo, one time the placebo, and one active injection. And then we have people that had received two active injections. And then we were able to compare those and see whether they had made bigger improvements if you receive two injections versus one or zero. Unfortunately, we couldn’t show a difference in quality of life at 28 days. And we also couldn’t show an improvement at 56 days after people had two injections. But that was in a nutshell how we designed and the background of the study. Bill Gasiamis (07:25) So the main difference then between the Griffith University study and your particular study was that they did go after a specific improvement in one area, I believe. it in? Okay. So although those guys went after pain, you guys went after just a general improvement in quality of life after the injection and your stroke survivors. Vincent Thijs (07:39) Mostly, think. Bill Gasiamis (07:54) would have been as far as 15 years post stroke. Is that right? Vincent Thijs (07:59) Yes, correct. We wanted to have people early after stroke between one and five years, and then also between people five to 15 years after stroke. That was also for practical reasons. Once you start trial, you see how good recruitment is, how many people want to participate in the study. And we saw that if we went to up to five years. Recruitment was relatively slow. So we added this additional group of people later on after their stroke. that because many people, I’m five years, I’m six years after stroke. Why can’t I get the treatment? And you know, so we also wanted to expand the pool. And that’s also what happens in clinical practice. Current clinical practice, I don’t think the sites and the US and they would refuse the patient six years or so. We just wanted to reflect the people that we see on the website going for this treatment. Bill Gasiamis (09:01) Yeah, yeah. And then the difference between the Griffith trial and your trial as well was the actual dosage of Etanercept the amount that was in the injection. I do believe that your trial was a 25 milligram injection. And I believe that the Griffith University trial was 25 milligram. injection to 50 milligram injection. Vincent Thijs (09:34) Yeah, we just based on what people told us they received when they went to the clinic, also the other sites and then also 35 milligram was chosen because that’s in the patent for the street. Bill Gasiamis (09:49) Okay, I see. So you’re trying to as much as possible mimic what was happening out there in in the private practice Vincent Thijs (10:00) We wanted to answer the question, is current clinical practice, is that beneficial? And that’s what sort of what the call was to do a clinical trial in current clinical practice. You can, you have to make decisions, right? And I think this was the most relevant for a stroke survivor. Bill Gasiamis (10:17) Now that’s really interesting that stroke survivors were able to twist the arm of a minister to get the funding to begin that process of the trial. How long ago did this actually start? Vincent Thijs (10:28) I think it was 2016, 2017 or so. So it takes a while to get the minister and then I think that the trial started in 2019. took a while to complete as well. Bill Gasiamis (10:43) Right understood. Okay So then you recruit people they come along and they go through the trial through the particular trial How does that work on the day do they turn up are they admitted? We’ll be back with more of professor face explanation in just a moment But I want to pause here because if you’ve ever felt stuck between hope and uncertainty, you’re not alone When you’re recovering from stroke, you’re constantly making decisions and some decisions feel high stakes, especially when confronting information that’s conflicting. Recruitment and Methodology of the Trial In the second half of this conversation, we get into the parts that really help you think clearly. What the trial results do and don’t mean, and why placebo responses matter in blinded research, and how to frame smarter questions before you commit time, money, or energy to any path. If you want to support the podcast and keep these episodes coming, You can grab my book at recoveryafterstroke.com/book or join the Patreon at patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke All right, back to the episode. Vincent Thijs (11:51) All right, so we recruited from a variety of sources. So we had kept a log of people that were interested in this. We had a Facebook post in New Zealand, for instance, where we recruited as well. We had people from the Stroke Clinical Registry that were approached. We had a website and people could register their interest if they were doing a search online to participate in clinical trial. So the variety of sources and then we have to determine eligibility that was mostly done either via an in-person visit or remotely via telehealth. We tried to get their medical information, what type of stroke they had. And then we also questioned whether they had this modified rank in scale, the disability they had, the impairments they had from their stroke. so then people came. they were considered eligible, then we scheduled a visit and they would typically come in no overnight stay needed. It was a day procedure that was done. People were then receiving another questionnaire on the day itself to measure their quality of life and other measures like their fatigue levels and how much help they required, etc. And then we proceeded with the injection, which was done. We had bought a special bed that was able to do the, the, the tilting that was required. So we set the people up, injected and then tilted the table. so, we received the drug. It was prepared independently by the pharmacist. So the pharmacist, they took the drug off the shelf or the made the placebo. and they made sure it looked exactly alike. So then somebody from the trial team picked it up from the pharmacist. The pharmacist didn’t tell, of course, what it was. And then the administration happened. So the doctor who administered and the participant did not know what they received. So after the procedure, they were left like this for four minutes. And then after four minutes, people could sit up again. And we waited about half an hour. then we asked them how they were doing, whether there were any adverse reactions, ⁓ and ⁓ then after that half an hour of observation people could go back to their habitual situation. ⁓ it’s a very simple ⁓ procedure to do. Bill Gasiamis (14:35) I believe there was a was there 126 participants Vincent Thijs (14:40) Yes, 126 people participated. had anticipated a little bit more people to participate. So we had hoped 168, but recruitment fell flat after a while and we were not able to find more people to recruit. So we made a decision and then, you know, these clinical trials, they have some funding ⁓ and they require the treatment team to be paid, et cetera, and that ran out. So we had to stop at a certain time. Bill Gasiamis (15:13) Was the study stopped early because of a decrease in the amount of funding or was there an issue with the funding at some point? Vincent Thijs (15:23) Funding ran out. You hire people for a certain amount of years and then you have fewer patients than you anticipate. So you have to stop. Bill Gasiamis (15:32) huh, okay. So would that affect the outcome of the trial? Would you say the lack of funding or the lack of the ability to take the trial further? Vincent Thijs (15:42) Yeah, well, what we had when you do the trial, when you plan the trial, you say, well, this is what we’re going to expect in terms of efficacy. You have to make a guess and say, well, that many people will have an improvement in quality of life if we give them the placebo and that many people will have an improvement in quality of life with the trial drug. And we had thought that about 11 % would improve with the placebo based on an earlier study. And then we had to make a guess because nobody had done this type of study on what Etanosap would provide. But reading the report that was published several years ago now, where 90 % of the people reported improvement in their impairments, we thought, well, Let’s not go for 90%, but a 30 % improvement. And so that was based on that we needed 168 people to participate in the trial. So that was what we call the pre-planned sample size estimation, which is a guess. When we stopped at 126 participants, actually we saw that the results were very different. There was not that 11 % actually in the placebo arm. saw that 58 % of the people also had that improvement and 53 % had it with ethanosab. So our initial guess was very wrong based on some statistical advanced statistical techniques we have. We have quite a lot of power to estimate whether there was a difference. So I think the trial can provide us an answer. It’s large enough to give us an answer about this particular question. Is current clinical practice in these people with this range after their stroke, does it improve? quality of life after a month or after two months. I’m not speaking about early improvement, I’m not speaking about six months down the line. We only can decide what we see in this study. Bill Gasiamis (18:05) So you have some limitations because you can’t have the funding to test one month, two months, six months, 12 months. You have the funding to basically meet the design of your study and then you can report on that. Now what’s really interesting is that the placebo had such a large result. PESTO Trial Results and Findings Vincent Thijs (18:34) What kind of things were people reporting that improved for the people who had the placebo injection?Look, this is, course, when we were in the blinded phase, when neither myself or my colleagues who did these scales, we were totally blinded. And that’s, remember vividly people saying, it didn’t do anything for me. But then there were also people said that they could see again. And so people that had improvement in sensation. Some people had improvement in their speech. there were, we, we observed these things, but we didn’t know whether they were active or placebo. And then surprisingly we had some people in whom we thought, they must have had active drug that turned out to have the placebo, but that’s years after, right? Because it takes a little bit of time to accumulate a sufficient number of patients. And we were only reporting and breaking the blind when the trial was finished. because otherwise you may be biased in all your analysis, et cetera. You don’t want to do that. So you wait until the end of the study to break the blind. And that’s very frustrating for the participants because there were many people that said, I must have had the placebo because it didn’t do anything for me. And there were other people that were, and some people like that, they said, I still want to go to the US. Bill Gasiamis (19:37) I see. Vincent Thijs (19:59) And please, can you tell me if I received a placebo? And I understand it was terribly frustrating for these participants. But we were very strict. No, we don’t want to break the blind. This is against the rules that you have to adhere to in a clinical trial. And so we didn’t do that. Of course, once the trial was finished, we were able to report the results back to the the participants. And then there were some people that were very surprised that they had received the active drug. I remember one person vividly who said, you have to tell me now because I’m going. And then I said, hold off, hold off. And then we told them you had twice the active drug. And so they decided not to go anymore. So you see how From a clinical trial perspective, it’s very important to remain very objective and not being able to see what people have received. From a humane level, of course, I understand it was very important to these people. Bill Gasiamis (21:02) Yeah, that’d be difficult. ⁓ And then I imagine that had the placebo not worked and then the tenisept did work, then there would have been people who would have said, well, I’ve received the placebo. It didn’t work for me. Other people received the tenisept. It did work for them. Why can’t I get the tenisept injection now? Vincent Thijs (21:26) Yeah, and we also had two people, people that had twice the placebo who noticed an improvement and have told me the improvement is still there. Bill Gasiamis (21:35) Wow. Vincent Thijs (21:36) So it. Bill Gasiamis (21:38) That’s amazing. Now was the. Vincent Thijs (21:40) And often that, and I must tell you, often those were relatively little things that seemed to improve both with the placebo and in the active group. And you see that there are changes in quality of life that people have reported, but it happens as well with the placebo. Bill Gasiamis (21:58) Wow. Was the intention of the study that was funded at the very beginning in 2016 by Minister Hunt, was it to determine whether or not this was going to be an effective treatment for people in stroke and therefore to roll it out somehow in the Australian medical system for stroke survivors? What was the thinking for Minister Hunt? Do you know? Vincent Thijs (22:24) Of course, I was not involved in that lobbying to the minister or anything, but it was to bring it on a pathway towards regulatory approval. We know that Etanercept is a relatively cheap drug that you can get ⁓ and is approved already for some indications, especially in people with rheumatoid arthritis, the condition of the joints, but it’s not approved for stroke. And to be officially approved and then potentially re- reimbursed on the PBS. You need to have some trials that have been done such as PESTO. We do different trial phases. One would be a phase two trial and a phase three trial. So phase one is typically in people just to assess the safety and some dosages usually in healthy people. And then a phase two is safety amongst stroke survivors. and preliminary efficacy. And that’s where PESTO was what we call a phase two B trial. And then a phase three trial would then be a trial in many more participants based usually on the results of a phase two B trial. And then usually when you have a phase three trial and it’s convincing and the authorities may approve such a trial. Bill Gasiamis (23:46) So in this case, the phase two B trial, this PESTO trial didn’t find that it’s efficacious. And as a result, there’s not going to be a further trial. Would that be accurate? Vincent Thijs (23:56) Well, based on the findings we have in this particular type of ⁓ way of administering in this particular group of people, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to argue for a phase three trial. It may be that you could say, well, we want to focus on pain because that was more promising. Well, you’ll need to do another trial in that condition. Implications and Future Directions for Research After stroke or maybe within a year after stroke. I mean, there are other possibilities, but at the moment, current clinical practice type trials, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to move forward with that. Bill Gasiamis (24:43) What would the numbers have had to look like for the trial to conclude that there was evidence of efficacy? Vincent Thijs (24:51) Well, I think based on what we have now, you would need to design a much, much bigger trial because there was only a 5 % difference between the placebo and the active group. And actually it was in favor of the placebo. So the placebo did a little bit better, not statistically significant. So it could just be by chance, but you would need probably thousands of people. Bill Gasiamis (25:15) I see. And I imagine there’s not a lot of excitement about funding something like that by the people who fund these trials. Vincent Thijs (25:25) Yes, typically the funders will look at how good is the evidence to pursue this. And if you were a pharmaceutical company on a pathway to development for a drug, you probably would say, well, it looks safe, but it didn’t do what it intended to do. So let’s stop the development of this drug for this indication. Bill Gasiamis (25:45) I say so. I think one of the challenges with the path of administering a TANACEP to stroke survivors is that there seems to be a missing step. And the step to me is determining whether or not somebody is a candidate for a TANACEP. perhaps if we knew more about the stroke survivor, what was actually happening in their particular brain, and we were able to determine some similarities between the people who have had a positive result and we developed a method, then that would make it a lot easier. to say, well, I’m a stroke survivor. I’d like to have a TANACYPT and then go through a process of determining whether or not I was a candidate rather than just guessing whether I’m a candidate or not and then having to pay money to find out whether in fact I was a candidate. Vincent Thijs (26:33) The trial provides a little bit of answers to that. ⁓ You want to identify a marker or a subgroup of people in whom the drug will work particularly well. And so you could look at, and we looked at different things like females versus males, if you’re younger versus older, if you have very severe disability or less severe disability, if you have diabetes, are you early after your stroke or later? That one to five versus six to 15 category. And we could not identify a group in whom the the drug worked particularly well. Now there’s a caveat when you do a clinical trial, it’s really hard to look at subgroups, especially if your trial is relatively small and the PESTO trial is relatively small. So you have to take this with a grain of salt, but it was nothing really promising. that we could identify. So probably you need other markers. If you believe in Etanercept as a drug, you would possibly need to look at what are the levels of TNF alpha, the drug, the molecule that actually is targeted. Unfortunately, there’s nothing like readily available to do that. Could it be that people with a… a stroke in a particular location that would work particularly more than in others, but we don’t have any real way at the moment to do that. Bill Gasiamis (28:08) Okay, so we’re assuming that the people who experience an improvement after they’ve had an attempt to shut that the markers of TNF alpha were lower or higher or Vincent Thijs (28:21) Well, the theory is that they have a lot higher TNF-alpha. Now, as you know, the premise is Etanercept works by reducing this molecule and we have good evidence that it reduces this molecule in the blood, but we don’t have good evidence that it reduces the levels in the brain. That’s where you want it to be. And one of the difficulties and many scientists that work on the Etanercept and ⁓ have said, look, it doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. It doesn’t. go against the natural defense that we have to protect the brain against substances that could potentially be harmful for the brain or that have a large size. And the Tandacep we know has a large size would not cross the blood-brain barrier. So it doesn’t reach the brain. And many people look at it with relative skepticism that it actually enters the brain. Bill Gasiamis (29:18) ⁓ And then with regards to rheumatoid arthritis, doesn’t need to cross the blood-brain barrier. It just somehow gets to this, position or the place where inflammation is occurring. TNF-alpha is active and it can easily mitigate the impact that TNF-alpha is causing. In the brain, the brain is protected by the blood-brain barrier and it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier under normal conditions and therefore it can’t get to where the TNF-alpha is. if there’s any TNF alpha, if inflammation is the issue and it cannot resolve it one way or another. So for some people perhaps it can’t resolve it. Now, I don’t understand about Etanercept a lot. I don’t understand exactly how the molecule works, et cetera. But if it was injected into a blood vessel, is that not something that can occur? And if it was, if it can occur, would that then cross the blood brain barrier? Vincent Thijs (30:15) That wouldn’t cause a blood brain barrier, no. You would have to do what we call a lumbar puncture or put a little ⁓ injection into the ventricles and then hope that it would enter the area that is stark where the TNF alpha is elevated. Those experiments have not been done. Bill Gasiamis (30:17) Either. Okay, so a lumbar puncture is probably riskier than… Vincent Thijs (30:44) Well, it’s uncomfortable. It’s uncomfortable and we do it to administer drugs if needed. Some people with brain cancer receive it. There are other trials ongoing in certain areas of stroke where it’s done. Bill Gasiamis (30:58) Then the difficulty is, and my job here is to report back to the community how they should proceed with Etanercept going forward. Now, I don’t expect you to answer that. However, your study probably gives enough information for people to be able to make an even more informed decision than they did before. Previously, what I think was happening is people, and it still happens every day. And I’ve interviewed a lot of stroke survivors who’ve had positive results with Etanercept. The challenge is getting interviews with stroke survivors who have had negative results with Etanercept. That is something I haven’t been able to do. So if somebody happens to be watching and listening to this and they have had the Etanercept shots and they didn’t get positive results, please reach out so that we can share a balanced story of what’s happening out there in the community. Would there be a reason for the community to perhaps begin again to lobby a government or a minister of a government to look at perisponinal tenosept and study it in a different way, like administration via a lumbar puncture. Conclusions and Final Thoughts Vincent Thijs (32:08) I think we need more, probably go back to the drawing table to see whether, because we’re just taking a step back. The idea is that there is inflammation after stroke and we know that there is inflammation after stroke. We don’t, we just don’t know how long it is. We don’t have a good marker. Is it present only for weeks or months after stroke or can it persist for years? The theory is that it persists for years, but if you look at the actual experiments that have been done, it’s really hard to study in humans because we don’t have good tests. But if you look in animals, it’s also hard to do long-term studies in animals, but nobody has really proven that conclusively that there is still after the stroke causes a scar, that process is still really active. Is TNF-alpha years after a stroke still present? Yes, it’s present because we use TNF as a transmitter in the brain or a chemical in the brain, but is it still worth reducing its activity? That’s probably, I think, a bigger question that science needs to answer is to understand that all inflammation piece and the time after stroke that it persists in my Bill Gasiamis (33:35) Yeah, because it could still be the fact that the person has had brain damage. The particular part of their brain that’s damaged has, for example, taken offline one of their limbs and there is no way to recover that once it’s gone. there is no, there may also be no inflammation ⁓ there. So somebody in that situation receiving Etanercept wouldn’t get a result even if it was able to cross the blood-brain barrier because the damage is done and that’s the challenge with the brain is once it’s damaged restoring the damaged part is not possible. Vincent Thijs (34:15) Yeah, look, after this experience with the PESTA trial, I think we need to work on other avenues and I’m not as hopeful with this based on the data that I have seen. Bill Gasiamis (34:28) Yeah Well, my final question then is, are you planning on exploring inflammation and recovery after stroke with any work that you’re doing in the future? Is there any more of this type of work being done? Vincent Thijs (34:46) we’ve just launched a new study, which is not a randomized trial, but it’s trying to get at this common symptom that people have after stroke, which is fatigue and cognitive changes. And one of my post-docs, Dr. Emily Ramech, she’s a physio by background. We just launched what we call the deep phenotyping study after stroke. And we are looking at young people that have had a stroke up to age 55 and we’re taking them into the scanner. We will do a PET scan that’s looking at inflammation. We’re taking their bloods and looking at markers of inflammation and see how that relates to fatigue after stroke. This is between the first month and the sixth month after stroke. That will give us a little bit of timeline of inflammation after stroke. It will give us some information about fatigue, which is very common, but I have no plans at the moment to look at ethanocephaly. Bill Gasiamis (35:53) Fair enough. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. All right, well, that brings us back to the end of the episode with Professor Vincent Dease on the PESLO trial results. My hope is that this conversation gives you more clarity, especially if you’re felt caught between personal stories, strong opinions, and a lot of uncertainty. The goal here isn’t to tell you what to do. It’s to help you ask better questions and make decisions with your eyes open alongside a qualified healthcare professional who knows your situation. If this episode helped you, please do a couple of things. Subscribe on YouTube or follow the podcast on Spotify or Apple. Leave a review if you can. It really helps more stroke survivors find the show. And if you’ve had an experience you’re willing to share respectfully, positive, negative or mixed, add a comment. Those real-world perspectives help community feel less alone. And if you’d like to support the podcast and keep it going, my book is at recoveryafterstroke.com/book. And you can join the Patreon at patreon.com/recoveryafterstroke. Thanks for being here with me. And remember you’re not alone in this recovery journey. Importantly, we present many podcasts designed to give you an insight and understanding into the experiences of other individuals. Opinions and treatment protocols discussed during any podcast are the individual’s own experience, and we do not necessarily share the same opinion, nor do we recommend any treatment protocol discussed. All content on this website and any linked blog, podcast or video material controlled this website or content is created and produced for informational purposes only and is largely based on the personal experience of Bill Gassiamus. Content is intended to complement your medical treatment and support healing. It is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice and should not be relied on as health advice. The information is general and may not be suitable for your personal injuries, circumstances or health objectives. Do not use our content as a standalone resource to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease for therapeutic purposes or as a substitute for the advice of a health professional. Never delay seeking advice or disregard the advice of a medical professional, your doctor or your rehabilitator. program based on our content. you have any questions or concerns about your health or medical condition, please seek guidance from a doctor or other medical professional. If you are experiencing a health emergency or think you might be, call 000 if in Australia or your local emergency number immediately for emergency assistance or go to the nearest hospital emergency department. Medical information changes constantly. While we aim to provide current quality information in our content, we do not provide any guarantees and assume no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, currency or completeness of the content. If you choose to rely on any information within our content, you do so solely at your own risk. We are careful with links we provide. However, third-party links from our website are followed at your own risk and we are not responsible for any information you find there. The post PESTO Trial Results (Etanercept After Stroke) | Interview with Professor Vincent Thijs appeared first on Recovery After Stroke.

In Part One we covered three foundational human relations principles: avoid criticism, offer honest appreciation, and connect your requests to what the other person wants. In Part Two, we level up the relationship-building process with three more principles that are simple, timeless, and strangely rare in modern workplaces. How do leaders build trust when everyone is time-poor and transactional? Trust is built by slowing down "relationship time" on purpose—because rushed efficiency kills human connection.In post-pandemic workplaces (hybrid, remote, overloaded calendars), teams can become purely transactional: tasks, Slack messages, deadlines, repeat. The problem is: efficiency is a terrible strategy for relationships. If people don't feel known or understood, you don't have trust—you have compliance (and even that is fragile). Across Japan, the US, and Europe, the pattern is consistent: when leaders invest time in people, cooperation rises; when leaders treat people as moving parts, motivation drops. Relationship-building is a leadership system, not a personality trait—schedule it like you'd schedule a customer meeting. Do now: Put one 15-minute "relationship slot" on your calendar each day this week and use it to learn something real about one team member.  How can a leader "become genuinely interested" without it feeling fake? Genuine interest means curiosity without agenda—because people can smell manipulation in seconds. A lot of leaders worry, "If I ask personal questions, won't it look like I'm trying to use them?" That's a fair concern, because we've all met the "networking vampire" who's only being nice to get something. The reality is: being "nice" to take advantage of people usually works once—then you're done, especially in a hyper-connected organisation where word spreads fast. The difference is intent. Real interest isn't a technique; it's respect. Every colleague has a story—skills, family background, side projects, passions, scars, ambitions. The workplace becomes richer and happier when leaders make space for that humanity, rather than pretending everyone is a job title. Do now: Ask one non-work question you can genuinely listen to: "What are you into outside of work these days?" Then shut up and learn.  Why does "shared interests" matter so much for team performance? Shared interests create closeness, and closeness makes cooperation easier when pressure hits. In any team—whether it's a Japanese HQ, a Silicon Valley startup, or a regional APAC sales unit—conflict isn't usually about the task. It's about interpretation: "They don't care," "They're lazy," "They're political," "They're against me." When you know someone's point of view (and why they think that way), you stop writing hostile stories about them. This is where relationship-building becomes performance insurance. When deadlines tighten, the team with trust can debate hard and move forward. The team without trust gets passive-aggressive, silent, or stuck. Leaders who take an honest interest create the bonds that prevent small issues from turning into culture damage. Do now: Find one "common point" with each direct report (sport, kids, music, learning, food) and remember it.  Does smiling actually improve leadership outcomes—or is it just fluff? A deliberate smile makes you more approachable and lowers threat levels, which increases cooperation. It sounds too simple, so leaders dismiss it—then wonder why people avoid them. Walk around most offices and you'll see the default face: stressed, pressured, serious. Not many smiles. Technology was supposed to give us time, yet in the 2020s it often makes us busier and more tense—meaning we're losing the art of pleasant interaction. A smile is not weakness. In Japan especially, a calm, friendly demeanour can change the whole atmosphere before you even speak. In Western contexts, it signals confidence and openness. Either way, it reduces friction. Start with the face, and the conversation gets easier. Do now: Before your next team conversation, smile first—then speak. Watch how their body language changes.  Why is using someone's name a leadership "power tool" in Japan and globally? A person's name is a shortcut to respect, recognition, and connection—so forgetting it is an avoidable disadvantage. In organisations, you'll deal with people across divisions, projects, and periodic meetings. In Japanese decision-making, multiple stakeholders are often involved, and you can't afford to blank on someone when you run into them at their office or in the hallway. The same is true at industry events and client meetings: you represent your organisation, and names matter. This isn't about being slick. It's about sending a signal: "I see you." If competitors remember names and you don't, they feel warmer, more attentive, and more trustworthy—even if their offering is identical. Do now: Use the name early: "Tanaka-san, quick question…" then use it once more before you finish.  What if I'm terrible with names—how do I get better fast? You don't need a perfect memory—you need a repeatable system that works under pressure. Leaders often say, "I'm just bad with names," as if it's permanent. It's not. Treat it like any business skill: practise, build a method, and improve. In a hybrid world, you often have fewer in-person touchpoints, which means you must be more intentional when you do meet. Try this in Japan, the US, or anywhere: repeat the name immediately, connect it to something visual or contextual ("Kato = key account"), and write it down after the meeting. If it's a client team with multiple stakeholders, map names to roles the same day. This one skill upgrades your executive presence quickly. Do now: After your next meeting, write down three names and one detail for each—then review it before the next interaction.  Conclusion These principles aren't "soft skills"—they're leadership mechanics. Genuine interest builds trust. Smiling changes the emotional temperature. Names create recognition and respect. In any market—Japan, the US, Europe, or Asia-Pacific—the leaders who practise these consistently get more cooperation, fewer misunderstandings, and better results. FAQs Can I build trust without spending lots of time? Yes—small, consistent moments of genuine interest beat rare, long catch-ups. Will smiling make me look weak? No—a calm smile reduces stress and increases cooperation without lowering standards. What's the fastest relationship habit? Use people's names correctly and give one sincere recognition each day. Author Credentials Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales, and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery, and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー).  Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery, and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan. 

Interview recorded - 2nd of December, 2025On this episode of the WTFinance podcast I had the pleasure of welcoming back Warwick Powell. Warwick is an Adjunct Professor at Queensland University of Professor working at the intersection of China, digital technologies, supply chains, financial flows and global political economy & governance.During our conversation we spoke about Warwick's overview of 2025, accelerating shift away from US hegemony, BRICS institution, currency and more. I hope you enjoy!0:00 - Introduction0:57 - Overview of 20256:50 - Accelerating US hegemonic shift?12:25 - Drivers of Western challenges18:28 - Real capital investment into US23:44 - AI impact on employment28:18 - Shifting alliances33:25 - BRICS institutions39:03 - European type alliance42:01 - BRICS currency48:33 - One message to takeaway?Warwick began his career in academia, teaching Chinese history and European cultural history at Griffith University. He graduated with First Class Honours and is the recipient of the prestigious University Medal for Academic Excellence. Warwick was also awarded a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade scholarship to undertake postgraduate studies at People's University, Beijing. He deferred his studies to begin work for Kevin Rudd in the Queensland Government.He is the chairman and founder of Sister City Partners Limited, a not-for-profit investment bank focusing on developing links between regional Australia and the markets of Asia. Through this work, Warwick has experience in diverse industries including cattle and sheep production and processing, information and communication technology, infrastructure, energy, natural resources, travel and tourism and property development.He is a director of a number of funds management companies responsible for funds established under an ASIC-approved Australian Financial Services License. He is a member of the Central Highlands Accelerate Agribusiness Advisory Board and was the founding Treasurer of Innovation NQ Inc., a not-for-profit innovation incubator in North Queensland.He continues to teach professional courses in areas such as innovation, creativity, regional economic development and blockchain technology with James Cook University, QUT and Edith Cowan University.Warwick Powell: LinkedIn - https://au.linkedin.com/in/warwickpowellSubstack - https://substack.com/@warwickpowell Twitter - https://x.com/baoshaoshanWTFinance -Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/wtfinancee/Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/67rpmjG92PNBW0doLyPvfniTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wtfinance/id1554934665?uo=4Twitter - https://twitter.com/AnthonyFatseas

Welcome to another episode of the Sustainable Clinical Medicine Podcast! In this podcast episode #150 we shine a light on the real experiences of early-career medical professionals and listening to the voices of junior doctors. I'm your host, Dr. Sarah Smith, and today we're joined by Victoria Lister—researcher, workplace coach, and passionate advocate for change in healthcare. Diving into the hidden struggles junior doctors face: the culture of silence, the impact of discrimination and burnout, and the critical importance of psychological safety at work. Victoria shares her research and personal insights on why so many doctors feel unable to speak up, and what leaders and colleagues can do to create safer, more supportive environments. Whether you're a medical professional, a student, or simply interested in the future of healthcare, this conversation is packed with eye-opening stories and practical advice. Let's get started! Here are 3 key takeaways from this episode: The Culture of Silence in Medicine: Junior doctors often feel unable to speak up about their working conditions due to fear of retaliation, career setbacks, and entrenched hierarchies. This silence can have serious consequences for both staff wellbeing and patient safety. Psychological Safety is Essential: Creating environments where junior doctors feel safe to voice concerns is crucial. Leadership that listens, acts, and genuinely supports staff can transform toxic workplaces into supportive, high-performing teams. Discrimination and Burnout are Widespread: Issues like bullying, harassment, and discrimination—based on gender, race, or background—are still prevalent in medical training. Addressing these challenges requires systemic change, open conversations, and collective action to ensure a healthier future for all healthcare professionals. Meet Victoria Lister: Victoria Lister is a researcher in the Business School at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. Her PhD research investigates junior doctors' working conditions silences and how the medical profession acts as a barrier to voice. To support junior doctors, Victoria trained as a workplace coach and is currently researching and delivering a ‘coaching for communication' program for emergency medicine clinicians. She also works on other research projects in the medical context; has consulted on a healthcare workforce wellbeing initiative and a cultural change program designed to address bullying, harassment and discrimination in medicine; and has published on these themes. Connect with Victoria Lister: