LEVEL 5 LEADERSHIP

Which is harder to cultivate within yourself: humility or will? Humility, because its a freedom
from pride or arrogance which means to become humble most of the time and that includes
being down-to-earth, modesty and lowliness wherein most of the people couldn't do.

If Level 5 is about ambition first and foremost about the cause, the company, the work—not
yourself—combined with the will to make good on that ambition, then how can each of us as
individuals learn to take actions consistent with being Level 5? If you have an ambition of what
do want to be especially if you have a desire position in your company then use it as an
inspiration for you to work hard to get what you want and be motivated by your willingness to
do your job on time. This actions will be consistent by setting your mind to your goals and
slowly loving your job.

Think of a Level 5 you have known. How did he or she become Level 5? What can we learn from
that person? I know a friend of mine and currently working in a BPO company as a Coach. He is
very focus, timid and humble. He acknowledge and appreciate everything even a small thing,
He worked hard to get his title right now and was very happy to get what he wants and I know
he deserves everything that he has now. His very commited to his job and always pushes his
limits to get the best result which means high standard. I've learned alot from this person.

Why do so few Level 5s get chosen for top spots in our organizations? What can be done to
change this? Maybe because of their characteristics itself. They are humble, meek, modest etc.
Instead of giving the credits to them well they would gladly give all the credits to somone else
and let the blame be upon them. They are unbelievable but very persistent when it comes to
work. I think this might change if the person higher than them will know everything about their
employees and acknowledge this kind of Level5 employees, well not only acknowledge them
but treasure them.

FIRST WHO

How might you tell if someone is the right person on the bus? The good-to-great leaders
understood simple truths. First, if you begin with “who,” rather than “what,” you can more
easily adapt to a changing world. If people join the bus primarily because of where it is going,
what happens if you get ten miles down the road and you need to change direction? You’ve got
a problem. But if people are on the bus because of who else is on the bus, then it’s much easier
to change direction: “Hey, I got on this bus because of who else is on it; if we need to change
direction to be more successful, fine with me.” Second, if you have the right people on the bus,
the problem of how to motivate and manage people largely goes away. The right people don’t
need to be tightly managed or fired up; they will be self-motivated by the inner drive to
produce the best results and to be part of creating something great.
How might you tell if someone is simply in the wrong seat as distinct from being the wrong
person on the bus entirely? if you have the wrong people, it doesn’t matter whether you
discover the right direction; you still won’t have a great company because they are not
motivated and doesn't care about the company at all.

Think of a case where you had doubts, but your organization hired anyway. What was the
outcome? Why did the organization hire anyway, and what do you learn from the situation? I
know a case, its when my orgabization hired a family related person without any background
with specific job that she will do. And the outcome as I expected very awful. I just learned one
thing, hire a correct person that passed all requirements and most espcially with a better
attitude.

If compensation is not the primary driver for the right people on the bus, then what are the
primary elements in getting and keeping the right people on the bus? What role does
compensation play? It’s not how you compensate your executives, it’s which executives you
have to compensate in the first place. If you have the right executives on the bus, they will do
everything within their power to build a great company, not because of what they will “get” for
it, but because they simply cannot imagine settling for anything less. Their moral code requires
building excellence for its own sake, and you’re no more likely to change that with a
compensation package than you’re likely to affect whether they breathe. The good-to-great
companies understood a simple truth: The right people will do the right things and deliver the
best results they’re capable of, regardless of the incentive system. The purpose of a
compensation system should not be to get the right behaviors from the wrong people, but to
get the right people on the bus in the first place, and to keep them there.

https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/first-who-then-what.html#:~:text=First%20Who%2C
%20Then%20What%E2%80%94get,where%20to%20drive%20the%20bus.

CONFRONT THE BRUTAL FACTS

Which side of the Stockdale Paradox is harder for you: unwavering faith or confront the brutal
facts? Why? For me, its confront the most brutal facts because its all about your current reality
and facts. I think its not easy to face the reality in its hard times whatever they might be there
still a time that you would say "i can' t anymore", but good thing I have an unwavering faith
then I still have hope that everthing happens for a reason and will carry on.

Think of two environments that you have been in. The first being an environment that did not
confront the brutal facts and where people (and the truth) were not heard. The second being
an environment that did confront the brutal facts and where people had a tremendous
opportunity to be heard. What accounts for the difference between the two environments?
What does the contrast teach about how to construct an environment where the truth is
heard? First is the BPO company where their really not confronting the brutal facts and 100%
people were not heard. Second is the working environment that I have now, where we always
confront the brutal facts and we can say the truth and we are sure that we've heard. Its very
comfortable to work with the second environment and you feel free and loving your job rather
than working to an environment where there is nk freewill and you feels that someone is
manipulating you, such a terrible work place.

Do you have any red-flag mechanisms in your life or organization? No.

What ideas do you have for new ones? Stay as you are, like stay being open to all of your
employees and give importance or credits to those who deserves it.

In leading a team, what is your questions to statements ratio? How would you compensate a
good and very productive employee? How would you know if you hired a correct and deserving
person?

HEDGEHOG CONCEPT (THE THREE CIRCLES)

How long, on average, did it take the good-to-great companies to clarify their hedgehog
concepts? What implications does this have about finding your own hedgehog concept? 1)
what you are deeply passionate about, 2) what you can be the best in the world at, and 3) what
best drives your economic or resource engine. Transformations from good to great come about
by a series of good decisions made consistently with a Hedgehog Concept, supremely well
executed, accumulating one upon another, over a long period of time.

Are you engaged in work that fits your own three circles: what you are passionate about, what
you are genetically encoded for, what you can get paid for? Do you need to change? Which
circle is hardest to get right? Why? For me, Yes. I'm currently engage in a work that fits my
circles. I don't really need to change my self but I think I need to upgrade or level up my skills
and knowledge, we all need that. The hardest circle for me is the number 2 circle, because I
think its hard for me to say that this is the best that I can be in the world, because we may not
know it by now or maybe its so early for me to say that I can be the best in word at this.

Which is more important for an organization: the goal to be the best at something, or realistic
understanding of what you can (and cannot) be the best at? A Hedgehog Concept is not a goal
to be the best, a strategy to be the best, an intention to be the best, a plan to be the best. It is
an understanding of what you can be the best at. The distinction is absolutely crucial.

Can each sub-unit and each person have a hedgehog concept? Yes, especially if they know
about this, they could better understand.

How is the hedgehog concept different for a nonprofit organization? The book ‘Good to great’
has been a bestseller and widely used by companies in the private sector. Although the focus of
his book is on profit making companies, the insights and tools presented are very well
applicable for non-profit organizations. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-used-
hedgehog-principle-our-non-profit-matthijs-nederveen

https://www.jimcollins.com/concepts/the-hedgehog-concept.html

CULTURE OF DISCIPLINE

If "rinsing your cottage cheese" is important, how do you tell *which* cottage cheese is worth
rinsing? In other words, if diligent attention to detail is essential, how do we decide which
details are important, and which are trivial? It all starts with disciplined people. The transition
begins not by trying to discipline the wrong people into the right behaviors, but by getting self-
disciplined people on the bus in the first place.

Think of two people: One being someone who only sees his or her job as a "job" and the other
who understands that he or she has a responsibility. How does this difference play itself out in
their work? What should we look for in locating such people? Disciplined people who engage in
disciplined thought and who take disciplined action—operating with freedom within a
framework of responsibilities—this is the cornerstone of a culture that creates greatness and
these are the people who understand their responsibilities in the company. Unlike to those
people who only sees their jobs not knowing their responsibilities ang role in the company they
are the ones who are incompetence and lack of discipline. They have a big difference when it
comes to work ang output. You will know the right people or person by their attitude and take
discipline action including critical thinking and won't settle for less.

If class distinctions are deeply divisive, then why do organizations persist in creating an
executive class that separates itself from those who do the real work? If you ran the whole
show, what would you remove to reduce these class distinctions? For them to know the
outcome or output of those people whho needs this kind of class distinction. Maybe I will
remove the wrong people in the company and will be open to all of the employees.

Do you have a "stop doing" list? What do you put on your "stop doing" list? Yes, I want to stop
any attitude that is not good not only in my work but also in my life.

TECHNOLOGY ACCELERATORS

If technology cannot make or break a company's level of greatness, but only serves as an
accelerator of greatness or demise already in progress, then why did everyone fall in love with
technology for technology's sake during the 1990s?Consequently, the focused on the
fundamentals of business: people, process, finance and strategy; however, they used
technology to enable each of these fundamentals to work better, faster, cheaper and over
much larger markets and geography.

Why is there so much hype and fear about new technologies, and what can you do to view new
technologies with objective equanimity? Because technology drives the peolpe, instead of the
people driving the technology it turns the other way around and thats the fear of many people
nowadays. Build a solid business and great business processes that are focused on customer
delight and employee simplicity—then “technologize it!” Don’t build the technology and expect
processes to adapt. Do it the other way around and watch what happens.

FLYWHEEL

Think of two organizations you've observed: one that followed the flywheel principle, and the
other that fell into the Doom Loop. What caused the difference between the two? What does
your contrast teach about why so many organizations fall into the Doom Loop, rather than
building momentum over the long term in the flywheel? The difference is very obvious, the
other one lacks patience and couldn't handle much longer and the other one stayed and
succeeded. Many organizations fall because they can't wait and want an easy job and easy
money.

How do you know when it is time to change the direction of the flywheel? The good-to-great
executives simply could not pinpoint a single key event or moment in time that exemplified the
transition.

If big change programs with lots of hoopla, tag lines, launch events, motivational meetings—
and so forth—do not lead to greatness, then why are such programs so common? What should
be done instead of these programs? Because they are trying their luck, meaning they think they
can find a way to make thing right and be better but they don't really see what's ahead of them
is a Doom Loop. They should stay in the flywheel and work harder and stay on track.

How can the flywheel concept apply to your own life and career? It will be my inspiration to be
motivated and push harder with patience and stay focus.

PRESERVE THE CORE/STIMULATE PROGRESS

What are your core values? Teamwork, Quality, Reliability, Innovation and Integrity.

What is your core purpose, beyond just making money? To be productive, being a helping hand
and support all my family needs.

What is your BHAG—Big Hairy Audacious Goal? To be the best in everything I do.

What is your first five-year base camp on the way to achieving the BHAG? Keep my goal in mind
and continue to persevere.

What practices and strategies does your organization have that are dysfunctional and should be
open for change? Looking to the bad side of others instead of lifting them up. That's really need
a change.