 Thank you for coming. We are going to be talking about the findings from the survey that was done just to make sure we're on the same page. Thanks to Peter for clarifying the initial part. Let me move on to give you a brief overview. We are going to be talking about basically findings that primarily are going to be measured against what is called a global benchmark, which means you are not going to see results indicating what you said, but compared to the rest of the 5,000 or 1,000 organizations in the database from which a normative figure was taken. The reason for this is because these days, to be the best, you have to compare with the best. And that normative database is very stable in time. It has been now within the last 5 or half, the respondents are from USA and so forth. So I just want that to be clear before we start off so that you don't have any confusion. Can I make a point? I think that should have been explained before we filled the survey. It was, but it was explained. It's also in the communication and the sphere. The thing is that we were expecting a different kind of reporting at the end of the survey. That's when we realized our expectations of that data. And that, of course, this is a product I was observing. We needed to experience, I was very much aware that we are being benchmarked, but I was not expecting that this is the way we would perceive the reports. So that's expectations are different. It's still a good way of receiving information and we can still get whatever we want to get. If I may just add, don't worry too much about a percentile figures. Look at the general trend of relative, which areas we need to improve, which areas we are strong in. So that's the idea. So the model actually helps us do two things. First is to give us an indication of where we stand so we can have some honest conversations about what needs to be done and of course to generate thoughtful action space for the findings. As I've indicated earlier, there are four things that this survey looks at. Number one, mission. Do we know where we are going? Consistency. This is our system-grade leverage. Involvement. Our people aligned. And effectively, I will be listening to the market. So these are the four traits that we look at. And as I indicated earlier, the figures that you see here, actually there are four areas which is less than 25 percentile comes on this. 25 to 50, 50 to 75, 75 to 100. So whenever a figure falls between the two ranges, that quartile is colored. And the number you see here is actually a quartile, which means where you stand relative to the rest of the database. So if you see a figure 63 means your scores are better than 63 percent of the people in the database. And that's how it's been benchmarked by Denison. All right. How we interpret is the more color you see indicating high level of clarity and alignment, mix of clarity and confusion when you have this, and there's lots of confusion and uncertainty when you get findings like this. But this again is very important to understand because you'll be seeing different colors, I'll show you a very different issue. So the key thing to remember is more color better. So what we do is when company does the survey twice, they do the first time, second time, and they find there is no color. It means they are improving relative to the benchmark that is. So that's important. So normally first time round, it may be a surprise, but this will prove it gets better. All right. Let's look at the results. The survey was done for C4 as a whole functional group comparison, employment, duty post, country. So we took the data and we rigidly working up to these categories in order to understand how these categories contributed to overall finding. I'll be showing that in a moment. All right. For the overall findings for C4, this is what we got. You can see here that these core values, customer focus, capability development, appear to be areas that are giving a lot of room for improvement. Again, just to clarify, this is how C4 looks in relation to the benchmark. Yes. This is the finding solution to benchmark. But to have a sort of... Yes, please. Just a quick question. The benchmark, other organizations or the corporations as well? Organizations primarily. Who have undertaken the survey? Total of 5,000 organizations have done the survey. 1,000 are taken up from the 5,000 who perform the venture. So the development and research types of organizations? Yes. This is a comprehensive of the professional, scientific, and technical services. So now you're comparing with companies that are similar to your type of work. They are combined, mixed. So in any case, it shows some indication of where we stand. This would be something that you should look for and try to come up to. So that's... Okay, when we look at each trade, we find that there are areas that are good. For instance, employees are highly involved, and there are areas that need a bit of focus. I'm afraid that the wordings are not too clear. So I can't really do much. There's operation, different parts of organizing, active aid marriage. This is 14, and people... Yeah, I know. Is it possible to make it better? It's already in full screen, and that's the resolution. Now, I'll just try to read out the ones that are important. So this is where people... Problems often arise because we do not have the skills to do the job. Cooperation across different parts of organizing, active aid, and marriage. Information is widely shared so that everyone can get information he or she wants. These are the areas that are a little bit low on the involvement trade. For consistency, core values, we can't see... We have trouble reaching agreement on key issues. This is an area, and there is an ethical quote that guides our behavior. That is low. These are the two areas that are concerned. And when it comes to adaptability, the primary area is custom focus. I mentioned just now, custom focus was low, but we have to understand the third customer focus here in the context of stakeholders, because that was what was written in the survey form. The areas that were relatively low compared to the others was that all team members have a deep understanding of stakeholders' needs and wants. The interests of stakeholders, internal or external, often get ignored in our decisions. So these are terms that got relatively low score, suggesting that there is an issue with regard to stakeholder understanding in terms of their needs and wants. That has brought the adaptability low. In terms of mission, very clear strategic direction is clear. Old set of objectives are all right, so is the vision. So what we can say in short, in summary, is when we look at the highest and the lowest scores compared to two, and we take all these terms together, what this is is the good part is the overall mission is well established and we intend to accomplish this done very flexible manner and employees highly involved, but the area for improving to improve our understanding of and consider what our stakeholders need when making decisions. We should encourage changes to take place and develop an ethical code that guides people. So that is a summary of the line items that will be obtained. What was the non-response rate for those questions? Because I personally have our time answering the questions about stakeholder reasons. What was the rate of response to these questions is helpful. Is that taken into account in the analysis? No, it's anonymous. Because if you can't answer the question, so 99% of the employees of C4 can answer a question of one person ranked the lowly, it can end up at the lowest score. Perhaps we should have mentioned earlier that there were 126 respondents out of the 240 in total that we were expecting. So that's roughly 50% of the respondents in the survey. But whether anyone responded left the line or left a question of the answer, I think that's wrong. Because I think there were some questions that many of us felt we weren't able to answer. So the response rate could be one or two people for some of these questions and then one outlier can have a rank high. But there was a column not applicable? Yes. What I want to know is how many people chose that. I'm sorry, I'm not in a position to answer. I don't know if it's more than 10. I don't know whether it's taking consideration, but I don't know the actual number of respondents. I think we have a problem. We have to scroll down. I think this problem is important. Maybe you're sure 100% that we can scroll it down. All right, what we did in addition to the general survey was look at three areas, engagement, trust, and commitment. Maybe you can show up. Scroll up. This is the engagement report. Now this figure here you see is actual mean of the data that you submitted. That is not percentile. So my suggestion would be let's not worry too much about this. As Peter mentioned, but you want to look at this figure. So this is 4.01 overall for engagement factor. I'll scale up. And these are the figures for the individuals. The one that appears to be relatively low compared to all my work energizes me. But as you can see, the variation is not very much. That's about 4. So look at your own findings. As well as the trust factor is concerned. I understand those numbers are high. Then they should be very high with the benchmark. Unless the benchmark group is lower, has lower expectations. This means the benchmark overall group is higher than what you have. 81% of people have more trusted organizations than we do. So I don't think it's fair. As Peter was trying to say in the beginning to ignore that, even if we have a 4.2, but 80% of organizations perform better than we do, I think we also need to pay attention to that. This is probably the reason why Dennis and I have to be doing this way. That's the whole reason for doing this. This is why they present the results. But in our management group discussions, we wanted to know what it is we needed to address within the organization. Yes, we're interested in how we compare with the other organizations, but what are our priorities? So we were concerned with the right-hand side of the table. It means that even if it's called 2.3.4, it's not good enough to go back to the end. Yes. It depends on the context. It depends on the context. You cannot really make such a sweeping conclusion, anything. Compared to the management of the organization. The management is interesting. Yes, we belong to the 25th... I'll tell you another thing. Is it really, as an organization, belong to lower than the 25th percent? Yes. The number of respondents, represent, you know... Findings, the findings that you have provided, all the figures that you have, that findings mean that you, compared to that available, is at the center. Okay. So that may be interesting. Still, I would like to contextualize it. The benchmark are professional, technical... Sorry, this is a benchmark of all organizations. Of all organizations. This is not only the technical... So this is all the employers in their database, which, to me, it's interesting, but those employers include oil and gas, industry, private companies, hospitals, I don't know what else. We're scoring in the 12th percentile, relative to oil and gas, that we're conducting 100 percent integrity. It's interesting, but you know what? It's more interesting for me to know how we are as an organization. First of all, we need to know what we need to address, you know, as a priority. It's good information, but I would give more attention to the right-hand side of this kid, because I don't know what the authority is. Sorry, so the mean... The maximum value in the mean column can be five. So we... So all these organizations are reporting fours or fives, the benchmark group. Next time on this five-study, I probably... So why would they even ask you to do a survey for everybody so happy? I find it extraordinary that the benchmark numbers are so high for these kind of questions. I don't know. No, but I mean, even if they're... That means they're scoring higher than three in any organization. No, I'm sorry. It doesn't matter. I'm just saying the actual numbers. You're referring to the... Like, I'm saying that from these results, it implies that a lot of these organizations are scoring higher than four or five as the mean value in the benchmark group. Right? Yes, yes, yes. Which I find amazing for... Because they are at the lower... No, it doesn't matter. I don't care about where we're see for it, but it's wondering in general it seems strange that all these organizations are scoring that high and then they would be asking to do surveys or whatever else. Okay, we are asking questions and this is the reason why we have these meetings so we can understand the results. If we are actually... If our mean is over three, which is, you know, a good mean, why is it that we belong to the lower person? Because the database they have is much higher. Right. So the mean would be... So if it's five, if it's that low with a three, then it must be higher for everyone else. I mean, 100% of people are reporting five because if you report four, then the mean is going to try to be three for four or five. Okay, that's true. Isn't that interesting information? Yes, that's very interesting. You have the mean or the whatever... Yes, that was raised during the meeting and it has never been asked before but I'll make a special request to see if it's... The valid end that's listed there that's for all people who responded, even if they responded now. And the valid end is for all those who responded very... Even if they responded then there wasn't a problem. I suppose so. I'm not sure that I suppose so. Yes. Is it possible for us to find out this 1000, I mean, an idea of this 1000 companies that we're being wrenched on against? This is more than 1000. No, hang on. This is more... This is their friend... So they'll make some 1000... Yeah, that would be very fine. But then this is after this way back in the 19th century until now they have had 5,000, more than 5,000 companies and this they used to take a benchmark for the certain place that you saw. This is a relatively new probably three years, four years ago so it's not 1000, it's very much less. That is why whenever we show this crowd we will highlight don't worry too much about it. The percentile can look at it but this is not 1000. If it's 1000, it's more reflective. That is why we're very comfortable talking about the culture survey using the percentile. This is less. I can find out how many for this if you want to but it's definitely not 1000 because the number of companies that took this survey is much less than those that took this. So that could be why as you said just now it may not be reflective of the average number of consumers. Probably you'd like to tell them we got two survey, one is on the trust coming with an engagement. Yes, they are two different surveys. They are not combined. This is an added-on module. If you wanted to you could take it but the normative database is not the same as the purchasing. Can you do with the raw data can you do a histogram of all the scores? Because the mean is also kind of meaningless because there are a few people reporting fives and 100 people reporting zeroes and you can get 2.5 easily that way. Everything looks the same. That's the problem with these kind of surveys is that everything averages about it and on average everybody's fine. Okay, but I just what I would like to inform everybody is that the management group asked for the raw data and I'd like probably for the reason people also would like to try other things. I would like whoever to assure everybody that brought this out to the management group that of course there was a concern for anonymity and when we do ask for the raw data we will make sure that all identification where the individuals are going. I have to confirm whether that's possible to begin but to be honest I don't know if it's never been asked before by any company because it's a question of ownership of the data. Can we suggest what you can do about the raw data? Of course everything is possible we can ask Davidson for all kinds of reports that we want. That is possible. In fact you have already asked I've checked with Davidson. They're sitting in radio lines further to get into to determine another problem. The only thing is that it costs. Alright, so then we have the trust factor 3.42 and commitment 3.44 on the average. Alright, there was a question then I think this was a question on whether there is equal but this opportunity is provided and it was equally split roughly 50, 50, say 50, say yes 50, say no. The other question was whether there is sufficient worldwide balance about 67% agree and 37% say there is no performance This is just the additional questions that are asked Let me look at the functional group comparison what we did was we compared the survey results from research and non-research group. I suggest we focus on the pattern and we find that from the pattern the non-research group had a slightly lower in terms of inconsistency and the rest looks like we say but if we look at this study we can see clearly that the non-research group this side of the chart this side of the chart is the non-research of the research so when you see a graph coming out this side means it's higher in the research so research group had a higher perception of involvement being better in consistency with the non-research group from C4 so if you look at the overall research group perception the C4 is more performance based compared to non-research talking in a very general sense this is what some areas there were big variations but things like team orientation both research and non-research group and this one capability development the skills to do the job this is a common finding even every survey that I present we do know that the skill lets you do the job somehow gets down to the low finding I think it's because people are spending more and more effort developing skills so probably that percent of it is going on so this is something not to be worried about but it's a very general kind of finding consistency also when we talk about this part here there is an ethical quote that determines our behavior, determines what is right and wrong very low both research and non-research so that has affected a lot of it yeah customer focus both research and non-research well then stakeholder expectations are not very organizational learning we see learning as an opportunity for improvement the non-research has a higher perception that the case is supposed to be listed can you just go back to customer focus who are the customers? stakeholders internal and external stakeholders so they are not people working on it but they could be internal stakeholders like job management suppliers vendors, whoever have an interest in what you do or in a position to influence the decisions that you make or will be influenced by decisions that you make so my boss would be myself but isn't it possible that the learning of that question because we didn't understand C4 respondents in general didn't understand what stakeholders were we weren't able to respond that we knew what their priorities were and I think in this organization stakeholders are people on the side the institute that we're working not the boss that's what I thought yeah that's right it could be internal but then if that's the general term then I could have led to this conception actually the word is not stakeholder then customer is meant to be internal external when we reviewed the survey with the team we felt what customer is not so good you stay modern that's what you say I just bring up the issue of customer and stakeholder I think my interest actually is whether this was fully understood because we believe that people may not understand questions but it's okay we're still getting an impression we're still getting perceptions so don't worry about it with other problems we will still take into account whatever information we get from the results if it says that the stakeholders are interested in not taking into account that so mission is generally alright both sides if you notice the lowest cost just like variation as far as this group of research groups adaptability whereas on this side more consistency so consistency need things like processes the way we do things how we get things done that kind of thing so that in the opinion perception of non-research group the research group says we're not really adaptable to the changing requirements for research what people need we're not getting in we still have to work other things like that so that could be very loosely interpreted in that context can you just get back to that that's very concerned there's an ethical code that tells us right from the wrong both in the research and non-research group identify that as a major problem that's a big issue and I feel this giving this away with your friends we have to how are you going to engage with these kind of issues what do you mean perceptions right so perception may be right or may be wrong it's up to us to clarify perceptions it's important to answer the question in the first place I'm sorry no more amidst of the question in the first place perception survey if the previous surveys also that Seaford had a perception survey the only difference is that this is really more focused on organizational culture there was no focus in the past on the perception surveys that Seafords had nor there were no follow-ups on the results or whether we discuss with the staff so I think this is already an improvement but I agree with you there are some probably some things that we really need to pay attention more seriously because it's interesting I'm not saying that I don't think it's interesting I think the fact that the Seaford perception whether we operate in a mythical way is a fundamental problem yes and we have ethics in our mission so I agree we have to discuss this at the management but but ok don't make quite the way I'm not going to say it's important it is so this is the engagement factor research and non-research the research is I think higher trust research just about the engagement thing so just the fact that half of the people did not respond to the survey I think it speaks a lot about engagement not just the numbers if it's possible to see some breakdown like about international staff whether it's men, women did not respond and maybe what the physicians are in the organization and senior staff that's not responding do you mean that's the most interesting in some sense the most interesting telling part yeah if this is the engagement that's not really the true engagement it's much lower than that again no even not for whatever our score is is actually there's lots of zeros there that should be averaged in I think we can't tell if it's trust or engagement that's public people to not respond I don't quite agree with this that's trust alright let's look at gender this would be really interesting hold your breath this is for the female the other woman the other woman the other woman it says that it says that the female respondents perceive differently how performance focused we are compared to the male respondents they are more critical that's what this suggests especially on areas relating to processes and consistency degree of involvement this is not to do with you it has to do with how the respondents sees the organization as a whole it's how you perceive the organization so if you look at it in that light that is very interesting we bring down it's about the same that the report is quite critical when we look at each and every all the traits we find that the findings the size of the male is higher wow wow so we find that so we find that so we find that we find that we find that males reported higher direction of that females higher or lower and the question is when you compare between male and female there are a number of things first, c4 I suppose is terminated by female no no first response is quite critical and second it's also a distribution of male and female with Asians research research because it's not necessarily gender so one of the things we are thinking about is asking for other reports that correlate gender with other factors like gender and years of service gender country is very important sorry this and why there's no bars on the female side because that means that of all the organization c4 at the lower square this is primarily a comparative analysis within c4 so within c4 and this bar represents what this represents the percentile we concur in c4 and bar is 24 we look at bar 1 here is 16 16 so it's the difference so if this is higher by 24 if this is higher then there's so much influence so this 50 50 benchmark benchmark we do not have but this this figures they will put up world benchmark against your overall findings but when we did this analysis we are not looking at the benchmark we're just comparing the findings in terms of percentile so if you find this is higher means for c4 that is the difference in the percentile scores between the two this is so this is like this is 33 that's 40 that's 28, that's 43 63, that's 37 but I guess more female in one result group we allow our content I mean there's female mostly at c4 outside possible this is nothing to do with whether the work research it's always be general but when we compare not result is a similar to this this is not because of gender because of the nature of the work yeah so it's not necessarily about gender so actually it's already 15 so 56 and 63 means like 119 out of 126 respondents that means what there are those who did not care any gender possible it was optional yeah I agree it's reasonable it's reasonable so that's sorry capability development there is a very high response coming from better female it's one year that's different the rest on this side all values what to say talking about ethical code of conduct ignoring code values this what is it for okay customer focus again I think your point about probably the misunderstanding where the terms that should I think that's a very valid point so we can take that when we analyze these five things as well and the word customer also but perhaps you shouldn't define the word stakeholder as well we better get an understanding of what people identify as stakeholder like survey so strategic direction and intent and goals and objectives considerable difference between male and female vision is about nothing much really this is the most can you read them alright which one the lowest okay there is a ethical code that guides our behavior that's right and wrong there is a clear and consistent set of values that drive what we do attempts to provide change sorry attempts to create change usually maybe resistance information is widely shared so that anyone can get information he or she needs when he is needed the last is our approach to doing business is very consistent and predictable we often have trouble reaching agreement on key issues there is an ethical code that guides our behavior and let's reach it from right and wrong the interest of the stakeholders is often ignored in our decisions alright sorry problems often arise because we do not have skills and the last one is cooperation across different parts of the organization is actively attached I will read off from here okay that's the engagement factor sorry those responses are from a single question so do you have an aggregated this? so engagement factor we find 46 against 10 46 percent but if you look at the mean values about the same 4.16 again 3.86 you notice this one? I'm passionate about my work the interest cost of 4.39 versus 3.9 it's not really very different trust again you can see the ones that are really low on this too let me read up to you what they are the organization conducts business with integrity we are getting 3.95 male 3.52 that's me people who work here are honest 3 3.79 male 3.57 that's about out of 5 people in this organization have good motives and intentions 7 against 41 that's 3.5 3.8 let's look at this one here I continue to work here move out of choice necessity 3.39 male 3.62 this one is it would be difficult for me to leave this organization the security 4 percent down of everybody says that but what's interesting I think Lisa pointed out this one and then what the one at job says I would recommend working for this organization to others that's this then the other one says it would be difficult for me to leave the organization sorry the last one the last one is I rarely think about looking for a job this one and the the man's this one 46 percent down but actually it's 3.5 3.06 what is it true babies who are dreaming that's not potential it's such a contradiction if you look at it in this organization's albums and you see the rest of the responses it doesn't make sense we're dealing with perception probably that's why sometimes one perception but it's relative it's probably that's why there's about 3 that means the mean answer for is it's a slightly disagree it's just the average I think I have a good story I have a good story like people are saying yes that's true about looking for a job somewhere else all the time but it's just relative to other organizations I have two people I have two people I have two people I have a little bit a duty post this is HQ this is where 93 of people are so it's about the same as overall this continues by a bit in overall findings Africa looks like old mother but the numbers are less but still they have a better perception so that's better probability but it's more clarity in terms of direction I think for very close for customer that's it that's it that's it that's it that's it that's it that's it that's it that's it so so this is the comparative of the three so you find that this is less seniority senior and middle management senior management middle management sorry what is the middle how do you define this you would be with the senior management and the other the middle management so you think the basic guarantee of mission is that the middle management is not the same as the middle management just the same both I mean please don't take this as this is your finding this is relative to the evidence but it's good to have a feel of the relative traits if you were to analyse compared to June this is the the average business you only have five senior management for the year yeah there is the same senior management senior management senior management senior management so there are five of them so they could be affected based on the findings C.Boys' performance makes very few models senior management team showing their data. Other funding seem to be better than others. Are you going to say this? It's about the same. So the same actually, the same statements? Same statements actually. So they keep repeating. Do you want to read the lowest cost and highest cost? Okay, I'll read. Senior management. It's not going to be senior management, lowest cost. Problems often arise because we do not have the skills necessary to do the job. They didn't say that. But this is again percentile with all the data base. So let's look at it in that context. It could have been higher. Second one, it is easy to reach consensus even on difficult issues. There is an ethical code that guides our behavior and tells us right from wrong. We view failures as an opportunity for learning and improvement. Teamwork is used to get work done rather than hierarchy. This lowest cost. There is a characteristic management style and distinct set of management practices. All team members have a deep understanding of stakeholders once and needs. Information is widely shared so that everyone can get the information he or she needs when it's needed. Ignoring core values will get you in trouble. Our approach to doing business is very consistent and predictable. So this is the engagement factor difference. The light color is middle management and dark is senior management. We just look at this 3.84, 4.160. That may not be good. So it's roughly about the same in all except this one enthusiastic 3.6, 4.05. So trust factor. So roughly about the same 3.5, 3.4. I mean honestly. Wow. So that's the thing. He has a senior management, senior management. Of course you're going to say that decisions are likely the employee's best interest. I'm not going to say otherwise. But can you first, like they're saying that we know of your organization. You're not going to say that. Yeah. Yeah. That's the problem. But let's look at this one. I don't want this to influence your perception of this. Because it's a perception study anyway. But this is relative to the benchmark. I know. But what it says is what the difference in the percentile says tells us. What's the normal distribution if the normal distribution is large. Or if the normal distribution for the benchmark is small. And then if it's a very small difference in the normal distribution of the benchmark. That's going to see these big gaps. Despite the fact that our means is very small. That's true. That's true. What is the lowest number you see? For the means. You know? It seems to be around. 3. I see a 3. 2.80. There are a few secretities organizations. I think you should do the medium or something. You know? Because the mean is, you just need a few people to get 5s and the whole numbers. So report the mean and the mediums. And the percent of people that didn't answer the question. But to get the responses. Then you know that the medium 50% of the people said below this number. And 50% of the people said above the number. The mean can be extremely skewed. You can have hundreds of people saying 0. And then 6 or 7 people are reporting 5. And then it comes out to an average of 2.5 or something like that. So I think because... Why don't we speak later? But what we need to know is whether we can get the raw data. Well you don't need the raw data. You need to report the summary statistics in a different way. Is that possible? I'll check. Maybe just write it and send it. Can we make a specific request? How we want a class and a different presentation? I would certainly forward that request. Can you work with me on the way you want the statistics to be requested? So these seniority are the distance between the middlemen. Apart from middle management and senior management. That's the findings. Well this is the others. But we're not comparing others to management. Why not? That's how we were talking. So the demographics actually senior management, senior management and then others. Others meaning you know you may not be supervising people. It's in it rather than comparing senior management to middle management. Would it be more useful to compare management to others? Comparing senior management with the same size of 5 to anything doesn't make sense. There is still a good scale of difference between behavior, beliefs and assumptions and perceptions of legal management and senior management. So what's more important I think is the difference between management and non-management. Because that's even what we were saying. That could be the driving factor between the differences in change. So we probably need an additional report. We've started almost 7 months only senior management and others. So maybe we can have the middle management and others. Because in any case senior management we know some of the aid and everybody knows. There are many reports you can get. It's a question of what you want and why. Do you have any reasons for new management? This is a trust factor that's coming in. Okay company, develop versus developing. Developing countries perception is much higher compared to developing countries. This is the breakdown. Do you have any reasons for this information? What's the best way to respond? Sorry, this is not about where you work. Whether you work in a development center. Whether your nationality is. Whether you come from the development center. About your nationality. Customers focus again both. Do you want me to read this? Yes? Yeah, I want you to type something. Yeah, I'm running out of time. Engagement and trust. All right. This is interesting. This is 2 years or less. That's the findings. 3 years or 6 years? 3 years. 6 years. 6 years. 9 years. 9 years or 6 years. So you can see here the variation. Apparently this is a bit more variation. The longer you are, the less you perceive. Why this is the case? All right. Globally recruited stuff. Regionally recruited stuff. It's like this. This is stuff recruited in Indonesia. Yeah, the lowest actually. Compared to globally and regionally. Outside Indonesia. Wow. That's 9. That's a 7, that's not even 9. It doesn't drop some, that's not even 9. So if I'm in the ground. So that's why we're the same team. We should get all the parts of this piece. We don't really share more than 9. We have 10 as the basis. So let's move from data to action. What is recommended? Actually, the way this exercise is undertaken is a very step by step exercise. We start off with assessment. And then there's creating an understanding, common understanding of the data. Where you confront the data and you try to reconcile with the figures and see whether or not there's something else you need. More data, clarification. And then we choose to shift the culture. So we are here now. Once you choose to shift the culture, you need to center and line up our need for culture action. And then there's action planning and planning evaluation. That's 10 for 5. So that's the stages of this point in time. So what we do is after the debrief, there's a lot of issues that you need to do to prioritize the action plan. Coming from interaction, conversation, discussions, review, further reports and debates. And then you implement money check progress. So what we recommend is from the big picture, you find out, sorry, from high scores, you find out which are the strongest, how important those are to the job, the important to career, whether it's classed in one trade. Those that are low scores again, which are the lowest are the important to the organizing effectiveness. We look at things like bottom five, most important class there. Top five, most important. Because if it's a bottom and it's not really relevant or not important, it's not applied to the business that you do, it's not something that warrants immediate action. But if it's something essential like ethics in research, it better warrants something, action. So we really got to sit down and grapple with this after more clarity comes out, perhaps from re-analysis of data or getting more reports, and I'm certainly going to help you to do that. Because unless we come to terms with the numbers, okay, there is something we have to look at, we go for it. We don't do everything. We just focus one or two. I've seen companies only focus on one issue. And by focusing on that issue, the others improve. That's very interesting. And the next time you do the same, when things improve, then you know you're on the right track. So that's how it goes. So these are some of the recommendations we can have culture conversations, talk to people about why they said this, what was the basis for that perception. As is it, perception can be right or wrong. If it's wrong, we're going to clarify the perception. If it's right and it's not so good, then we're going to make a change. So it's either this way or that. So it's conversations, not conservations. After the conversations, we will have focus group discussions and practical changes made. And then we really want to refine the overall spectrum. So basically these are some of the preliminary things to do. And maybe look at overall development plans and stuff. So that, in a sense, concludes this presentation. I must say that you have controlled very interesting questions at me and I will try my very level best, the best of questions, the best I can. I'm sorry, I'm not in a position to answer all these questions because I don't have the raw data with me. This and that isn't that in the US. I'm coordinating the differences here, but I'll work with it. These are together. Whatever more you want, I'll try my best to get it from there. But then you maybe have a better understanding of the situation.