Glenn Daniels II

Experiential Keynote Speaker & Engaging Content Creator for Senior Level Leaders | Empowering Leadership Excellence for Your Organization

As a senior leadership trainer, keynote speaker, and author, I’ve spent my career helping executives cut through the noise and lead with greater clarity, confidence, and measurable impact.

At Touch Stone Publishers, I partner with senior leaders to build intelligence environments that go beyond data—they empower decision-making, foster innovation, and accelerate real-world results. I believe intelligence should serve your mission, not overwhelm it. That’s why my approach is rooted in human judgment, ethical standards, and a relentless focus on action.

My philosophy:

Curate, Don’t Accumulate: I deliver insights that matter—filtered, actionable, and always tied to your most critical objectives.

Executive Growth First: Every engagement is designed to sharpen decision-making and unlock your leadership potential, not just collect information.

Human + Technology: I use advanced analytics and AI as tools to support your instincts, not replace them. The “human in the loop” isn’t just a catchphrase—it’s my commitment.

Learning Organization Mindset: Successes and setbacks are both fuel for growth. I foster a culture of smart experimentation and collective learning.

Action, Not Analysis Paralysis: I believe intelligence is only as valuable as the action it inspires. My work involves creating routines and dashboards that transform insights into tangible outcomes.

If you’re a senior executive ready to move from information overload to decisive, insight-driven leadership, let’s connect. My mission is to help you lead with foresight, act with confidence, and deliver results that matter.

Chief Operating Officer

High-performing leaders don't stall in Asia because they lack skills.
They stall because culture rewrites the rules, and no one gives you the playbook.

If you're leading in Vietnam, China, or across Asia, you've felt this:
• You adapt fast, but trust stays thin.
• You deliver, but early missteps cost momentum.
• You sense the codes, but playing them feels like shrinking.
• You need traction now, but trial-and-error is too expensive.

You don’t need to become someone else to lead here.
You need your leadership to translate.

I coach global leaders across Vietnam and Asia, helping you build credibility early, earn trust fast, and accelerate execution in complex cultural environments.


What we work on
• Decoding cultural cues without losing yourself
• Leading with presence that lands locally
• Creating alignment, ownership, and delivery from Day 1
• Performing under pressure with clarity and resilience

Because when your leadership lands,
➝ Teams move faster
➝ Decisions stick
➝ Trust compounds
➝ Impact becomes visible


Who I work with
• Expats leading in Vietnam (or relocating soon)
• Regional leaders managing multicultural Asia teams
• Global Vietnamese navigating cross-border authority
• HR & Talent Leaders building culture that holds


Why clients trust me
• Former AB InBev Partner, Asia
• 20+ years leading teams across France, China & Vietnam
• Executive coaching grounded in business reality, not theory
• Strategic clarity + operational traction under pressure


If you’re stepping into Vietnam or Asia and want to land stronger, faster:
Start with the Vietnam Credibility Hub: Decoder • Masterclass • Call (link in bio & featured section)


Keystoners - Julie Sivan 

P.S. French-Vietnamese. I’ve been the outsider, the bridge, and the decision-maker. No superpowers: just hard-earned cross-cultural clarity.

Julie Sivanthaphanith

“𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘱 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦.”
That's what many foreign leaders think,
while the team is figuring out what the boss wants.

You notice your team whispering.
Conversations stop when you walk in.
It feels like gossip.

Until you hear someone say:
“𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴.”

In Vietnamese offices, those side conversations are often the team running its own intelligence operation.
Not against you. About you.

Because they can't read you.

When a leader is hard to read, asking directly feels risky.

So people piece the picture together sideways.
𝘞𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬?
𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨?
𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺?

The whispers aren't disloyalty.
They're how teams reduce uncertainty.
And that uncertainty often starts with the leader.

Then this question hits you:
Why didn’t they just ask me?

In Vietnam, two forces shape this dynamic.
• 𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵-𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: meaning isn't always stated directly.
• 𝗛𝗶𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝘆: questioning the boss can feel risky.
👇 see graph

When expectations aren’t crystal clear, teams don't clarify upward.
They clarify 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀.
They compare notes. Test interpretations.

What sounds like gossip is often a team trying to predict the boss.

And when signals are unpredictable, interpretation spreads. Alignment drifts. Execution slows down.

The leadership lever here is 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.

You become more predictable by giving a 𝗺𝗮𝗽:

→ Share your decision logic out loud
"𝘐 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦..."
"𝘐 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳..."

→ React consistently to similar situations
so they learn what matters.

→ State expectations explicitly
“𝘏𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦.”

→ Signal how and when you want questions to happen.
"𝘐𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳, 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦’𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘪𝘵."

When your team has a map, they stop drawing one themselves.

And the whispers disappear.

Most leaders never realize this is happening.

If your team had to explain what you expect tomorrow,
𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵?

Julie Nguyen Sivanthaphanith

The Leadership Coach for Expats in Vietnam • Trust, alignment & fast execution • Executive coaching & leadership programs

No alternative text description for this image

"𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘐 𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯.
𝘐𝘧 𝘐 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬, 𝘐 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦.
𝘚𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘮 𝘐 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦?"

And the thought you don't say out loud:
"𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘮𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘴𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘢𝘮 𝘐 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦?"

You weren’t sent to Vietnam to "understand culture".
You were sent to deliver.

HQ won’t see harmony. They’ll see numbers.

If nothing moves, no one will blame culture.
They’ll look at you.

So you adjust.
Push harder: the room gets quieter.
Soften: nothing accelerates.

You walk out of meetings unsure whether you helped or hurt.

Not because your standards dropped.
Because what used to move performance doesn't move it here.

That's when patterns take over.

• The Oscillator:
You push, pull back, push again.
Each correction heavier than the last.

• The Lone Wolf.
You stop correcting. You fix it yourself.
You carry the standard alone.

• The Repeater.
You repeat expectations. They agree.
Deadlines slide anyway.

• The Divide.
Half of you thinks: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱.”
The other half thinks: “𝘐’𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵.”
That split drains more energy than the workload.

I remember my first major Vietnam meeting.
New role: still not up-to-date on all topics.
Big agency. My boss in the room.

I listened to the full campaign presentation, and asked one question: "𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯?”

Silence.
No resistance. No argument. Just silence.

The question wasn’t wrong. The exposure was.

And in that moment, I couldn’t tell whether I had strengthened my authority or fractured it. That moment changed how I lead here.

In high-context environments like Vietnam:
• Direct correction can trigger withdrawal.
• Silence doesn’t mean alignment.
• Agreement doesn’t guarantee action.

Feedforward restores control.
It defines what must happen next, explicitly.

"𝘕𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘭𝘦𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩.”
“Next week, these are the two non-negotiables.”
“𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦.”

Same standard. Different landing.

No public loss of face.
No diluted standards.
No ambiguity.

Trust intact. Performance visible.

The leaders I work with don’t lower expectations.
They give their team future-defined clarity.

When you walk out of a meeting here,
are you certain your correction impacted performance, 
or just preserved harmony?

Want to break trust with your team in Vietnam?


Here's a good start.

"𝘓𝘦𝘵'𝘴 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦?"
You're asking them to lose face in front of peers. In Vietnam, truth travels privately, never publicly. People become careful. You just closed the door on honesty.

"𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬. 𝘋𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬."
Hierarchy is real here. Criticizing upward feels dangerous, not empowering. They'll smile and say everything is fine. And mean none of it.

"𝘓𝘦𝘵'𝘴 𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦."
You just put everyone on the spot in front of their manager. In Vietnam, this isn't democratic. It's deeply unsafe.

"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘶𝘱 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴."
Silence in meetings often signals respect, not disengagement. You're not empowering them. You're telling them their natural way of communicating is a problem.

"𝘞𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬."
You just told them their history doesn't matter. In Vietnam, relationships are built on shared memory. When you erase the past, you don't sound efficient. You sound like someone who can't be trusted to remember what matters. And trust doesn't survive that.

"Let's skip the formalities and get to the point."
Tea, small talk, shared meals. These aren't formalities. Skip them and you've already sent the signal: the outcome matters, the relationship doesn't.

"𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘺𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰."
Indirect communication isn't evasion. It's precision. A forced "yes" means nothing. A slow "maybe" means everything. You just lost the signal.

Your team isn't disengaged.
They're deciding:
𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁?

And moments like these answer that question faster than any speech ever will.

If someone speaks English with an accent,
do you trust them less?

Be honest.

In meetings, the most fluent voice often sounds the most strategic. Fast answers feel like sharp thinking.

But fluency speed is not thinking depth.

You know when you're on Zoom and the audio lags? You don't assume the person is not intelligent. You assume there's buffering.

In meetings, we forget that.
When someone pauses to translate, to structure their thoughts, to choose the right word, we downgrade their credibility.

You read the pause as hesitation, the accent as a lack of sophistication.

When it's actually processing, contextual judgment, calibration.

And when you mistake buffering as incompetence, three things happen:
• You interrupt too quickly.
• You over-control decisions.
• You underestimate local capability.

So what do you do instead?
Don't train accents. Design contribution.

→ Send pre-reads with 2 reflective questions so thinking happens before airtime pressure.
→ Pause deliberately before moving on: "𝘐'𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 10 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯."
→ Invite the voices who haven't spoken yet: "𝘓𝘦𝘵'𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯'𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘦𝘵."

If fluency is slower than capability, change how you surface thinking.

Leaders don't evaluate fluency. They surface capability.

Reasons not to hire me.

Don't hire me if you think your Vietnamese team just isn't strategic enough.

Don't hire me if you're fine promoting whoever speaks up first in meetings while your local talent stays quiet.

When advancement rewards volume over judgement, your Vietnamese team learns fast what actually moves careers forward here.

Not merit. Not insight.
Performing like a foreigner.

And they can't. Or won't.

So they stop putting judgment on the table.

Your meetings look smooth.
Everyone nods. No pushback.

You think: this is alignment.

They think: the decision is already made, why risk disagreeing?

Then decisions slow.
Need one more round. Then another.

Issues you thought were solved resurface after approval.

Speed drops.
Not suddenly. Structurally.

You blame execution. But it's trust.

They're not withholding strategy. They're protecting themselves in a system that doesn't see them.

If you're comfortable keeping it this way, we're not a fit: don't hire me.

Same leadership system. Same results.

I don't help teams try harder.
I help you build promotion criteria that don't punish local communication styles, and lead in ways that earn trust instead of waiting for it.

Different systems. Different results.

graphical user interface, text, application

𝘚𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘺, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵?
In Vietnam, how many times can you ask that before your authority feels smaller?

I still feel it.
New meeting. New accent. Fast discussion.
Every week.
I catch most of it.

I ask once.
Fine.

I ask twice.
A pause. A few eyes lower.
The room doesn’t visibly change.
But something in me does.

And now I’m calculating:
𝘈𝘮 𝘐 𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯?
𝘈𝘮 𝘐 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵?
𝘈𝘮 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨?

And that’s the moment:
Not the language gap. The status gap.

So the instinct is simple: I stop asking.

I smooth it over. I move forward.
I tell myself I understood enough.
I’ll fill in the blanks later.

The room feels more efficient now.
More agreeable. Smoother.
Less demanding. Less honest.

I’m now making decisions on what I think was said,
not what was fully meant.

And when a team senses you prefer smoothness,
they give you smoothness.

In Vietnam, authority isn’t built by appearing fluent.
It’s built by setting the standard for how your room handles clarity.

If you rush to protect your image,
the room will prioritize harmony.

If you normalize slowing down for precision,
the room will trust you with complexity.

That’s the shift.

My clients don't get traction here by understanding every single word. They get it by making clarity the excellence standard they reach together.

Authority here is not about never feeling smaller.

It’s about refusing to lead on partial understanding.

Have you ever chosen smooth over clear?
And if you have, what else are they smoothing out for you?

graphical user interface, text, application, chat or text message

"𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰?"
If you lead a team in Vietnam, you’ve probably asked yourself this question.

Your team is capable. Experienced.
Yet decisions keep coming back to you.

You call it dependency.

So you push harder, you delegate more, you ask more questions. You step back even further.
And still… they ask.

At some point the frustration appears:
“𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨?”

You are trying to build capability through 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆.
That’s how you were taught to lead.

Give ownership early.
Push decisions down.
Let people figure it out.

The intention is good:
If people own the problem early, they grow faster.

But in many Confucian-influenced environments, like Vietnam, the sequence of leadership looks different.

Before acting independently, people look for a signal.
Not a speech.
Not a pep talk.

A signal that capability is being transferred.

It often happens through small moments:
• You show how something is done.
• You explain the thinking behind it.
• They practice.
• Confidence grows.
→ Then independence appears.

The leader doesn’t just assign responsibility.
The leader 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.

When that transfer signal hasn’t landed yet, hesitation appears.
You believe you are empowering.

Your team may still be trying to understand:
What good actually looks like.
Where authority really sits.
How far they can go without overstepping.

So decisions travel upward again.

Not because people lack capability.
Because autonomy arrived before the leadership signal was clear.

Two leadership logics chasing the same goal.
Some build capability through 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆.
Others through 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁.
Same destination. Different sequence logic.

When my clients adjust the sequence, something interesting happens.
Your team stops pulling you into every decision. Initiative appears earlier. And execution moves without waiting for you.

So before you diagnose your team’s initiative, pause for a moment. Look at your own leadership sequence.

Did you actually transfer capability,
or only responsibility?

M&A value doesn't materialize automatically.
In Vietnam, it depends on legitimacy.
Without it, your value assumptions break.

Legitimacy isn't about titles.

In Vietnam, it's whether local leaders accept your authority inside existing power networks, including loyalty, face, and informal influence.

I’ve just completed a post-merger integration with a cross-border client entering Vietnam.

On paper, it was textbook: clear strategy, clean governance, realistic timelines, capable leaders.

Meetings were calm.
Too calm.

No real disagreement.
No pushback on aggressive targets.
No challenge to timeline compression.

Everyone aligned.

Or so it seemed.

3 months in, the drag began.
Escalations increased 35%.
Integration costs rose before anyone formally revised the model.
Decision cycles extended by weeks.

Execution felt heavier than the business case assumed.

Local leaders stopped surfacing risks early.
HQ responded with tighter oversight.
Middle managers disengaged.
Two key leaders exited within the first quarter.

No one "failed".
But accountability became political.
Ownership diluted.
Rework multiplied after decisions were locked.

The deal value wasn't compounding: it was leaking.

Because after a deal closes,
→ Reporting lines change overnight. Influence doesn’t.
→ Escalation paths reset. Protection doesn’t.
→ KPIs change. Loyalty doesn’t.

When legitimacy is not designed into integration:
• Silence replaces open disagreement
• Compliance replaces conviction
• Risk is filtered before HQ sees it
• Costs rise before causes are visible

That’s how your synergy assumptions break.
And in Vietnam, this pattern is structural, predictable.

6 recurring integration design failures weaken legitimacy early.
→ in the carousel

Most foreign executives track synergies and timelines.
My clients capture full deal value by architecting legitimacy into integration.

If legitimacy isn’t designed into your integration,
how confident are you that the deal value will materialize?

260227_Carousel_M&A_integration_failures.pdf

When your team in Vietnam says “𝘺𝘦𝘴,”
it sounds like agreement.
But the real question is execution readiness.

The meeting ends. The room feels aligned.
The deadline is approaching. Progress is limited.

Many international leaders assume a simple sequence:
Agreement → Execution.
If the room said "𝘺𝘦𝘴", the plan moves forward.

In many Vietnamese teams, however, “𝘺𝘦𝘴” often signals 𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀.

It can mean:
• I understand the direction.
• I hear your expectation.
• I respect your role.
• I will try.

None of those automatically mean:
“𝘐’𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘦.”

Experienced leaders treat that “𝘺𝘦𝘴” as the start of alignment, not the proof of it.
Before closing the discussion, they run a quick 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸:

1. “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴?”
→ reveals ownership & execution clarity.

2. “𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘤𝘬?”
→ surfaces operational constraints.

3. “𝘞𝘩𝘰 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩?”
→ reveals hierarchical or cross-team alignment.

4. “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳?”
→ surfaces hesitation without forcing disagreement.

5. “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘦𝘳?”
→ signals leadership accountability and invites honest requests.

These questions don't challenge respect.
They create space for honesty without anyone losing face.

And that’s often where real alignment begins.

Because the risk isn’t hearing “𝘺𝘦𝘴.”
It’s 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 “𝘆𝗲𝘀” 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Leaders who check execution readiness avoid surprises. Alignment happens much faster.

After someone says “yes,” what do you ask before moving ahead?

taplio

The Battle

Glenn Daniels II

Julie Sivanthaphanith

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreJulie Sivanthaphanith's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Glenn Daniels II

Julie Sivanthaphanith

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Julie Sivanthaphanith's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreJulie Sivanthaphanith's LinkedIn Performance