Joining the “Get Funded” webinar with @Galeno Chua today raised some great reminders and questions ! - Did you know that in a first impression when an investor is asking themselves “can I trust this person?” 55% of that answer comes from your body language, 38% from your tone, and only 7% from the actual content? - Investors are paying attention to how you show up: your presence, your awareness, the way you read the room, how you talk about people who aren’t even in the room. - Preparation matters way beyond your pitch deck: who are you actually pitching to? - How do you show up authentically when startup culture feels like you need to “have it all together / fake it till you make it”? Integrity and being forward-thinking will make you stand out. If you say you have no competitors? That sounds off. But if you’ve identified who does something similar, how you’re different, and how you could even learn from or collaborate with them? You sound realistic. Like a more mature, less risky company to invest in… and that’s worth trust coins. I’m curious too: what are things you’ve learned from your own investor pitches? 👇

We often treat empathy in business as a "soft skill", a virtue we aspire to because we want to be seen as "good" leaders. But in leadership, treating empathy as a mere nicety is a strategic error. True innovation, the kind that lasts for generations, requires more than just a good idea or brute force (outside of pure luck!). It requires empathy. Empathy is a skill that helps you make better decisions. It validates if your "game-changing" idea is actually useful, or just an expensive vanity project. Whether you’re solving a huge problem for people, or creating something incredible for the sake of it, it’s often something for people. This includes yourself! How could you possibly know if you’re on track without zooming out and considering perspectives of the people you’re trying to serve? Empathy here acts as the root source of data that helps you inspire, guide, and validate people-problems. Additionally, my experience with leaders at all levels in public office, corporations, NGOs and even royalty have led me to a fundamental conclusion: almost all business problems and all sustainability problems are people problems. Even the most powerful people on the planet are not immune to incompetence, poor communication, poor teamwork and bad intentions. Collectively, we have the technology, the financing, the authority and almost everything you can imagine to do incredible things today, but what blocks us, is each other. Without empathy, you’ll be stuck with the biggest roadblocks humanity has ever faced, other humans! On that note, simply "being empathetic" isn't enough. Most of us confuse empathy with kindness, and that confusion creates two specific risks that can destroy both ventures and visions: waste and manipulation. Before we start master planning your legacy, we need to clear this poor definition in two parts: 1. Empathy without kindness 2. Kindness without empathy 1.Kindness Without Empathy When empathy and values (like kindness) are decoupled, they become dangerous to leadership and the people you influence.

I drove ~1h out of the city to join the Open Door of GOMI Recycle... And it was worth it! While I didn't have a guide for the tour at GOMI, here are a few general notes I wanted to share: ➡️ The facility also processes small cables like phone cables ➡️ I saw some glass bottles which I thought were collected to be industrially washed and sanitized being crushed so interested in further understanding what is available locally. Please reach out if you know more ! ➡️ Some number from the SEA-MaP event: In 2022, 54% (295kt) of overall plastic waste was collected and 0.015% (8.5kt) ended up being recycled. I highly recommend anyone looking to see how we can achieve a 52% of plastic circularity by 2040 (vs 2% in 2022) in Cambodia to take a look at the 2026 Plastic Action Roadmap (https://lnkd.in/gfxwwaE6) ➡️ I didn't see any washing stations so curious how that part is being handled. ➡️ Stamp stations are a nice addition to engage with visitors and having them visit all of the tour stations . For all of you who missed the tour, I put together a small video of what could be seen.

Ironically, in a session about inclusion, I felt excluded. I attended an international group workshop on systems change last Sunday and left disappointed, however, took away 5 great lessons on facilitation and inclusion I'll share with you today. Here are my observations: 1) Never leave a concept floating, always anchor it. This will reduce the feedback that concepts are 'airy fairy'. When participants say a framework feels "fluffy", they aren't critiquing the theory. They're saying, "I don't know how to use this on Monday." Intellectual depth without relatable references creates more distance than people realise, that's the opposite of connection and often gets facilitators and leaders further than what they wanted to begin with! - Bad: "Let's sit with the energy of this system." (actual quote) - Good: "Notice the tension in your chest right now. That tension is great data for you. In a board meeting, that data often signals for you to pause before you answer." 2) Close the loop on every comment. The worst feeling for a participant isn't being disagreed with, it's being ignored or dismissed. When someone speaks and gets silence in return, they feel invisible, confused or dismissed. An input that isn't acknowledged divides group morale and trust. The facilitator must ensure every comment lands somewhere, even if they disagree with it. - Bad: [Silence after a participant shares] ... "Okay, who wants to go next?" - Good: "I noticed the room went quiet after you shared that. I want to repeat back what I heard to make sure we really got it." 3) Safety isn't comfort. Facilitators often mistake "keeping it light" for positive progress, often wanting to show their participants that the workshop or session went from bad to good. This assumes way too many things: - That feeling bad at any stage of the workshop is a bad experience. - Which in turn assumes the participant doesn't have the emotional maturity nor intelligence to gain an insight from negative feelings - It also assumes that learning needs to come from a place of safety, ignoring the fact that learning new things means sitting in uncertainty, failure and confusion to gain new insights. Learning by default sits outside the comfort zone.