Mind Mastery

A light haired, fit looking young man in his 30’s stood up.

“If I may”?

“Yes go ahead, just please keep your elevator pitch to under a minute before we get everyone’s feedback via a vote” said Rebecca.

“Of course. Hi everyone, Mark here.

The current system uses words like hierarchy, authority, boss, sir, commander then on the flip side, cattle, sheep, slaves, employees, workers and drones to explain those who are better than others and those who are lesser.

From my perspective, I see this as totally the wrong attitude to a healthy society.

My idea I would like to share is about project specific leadership and team work, if you would like to hear more, I’d be honoured to explain.”

Mark finished with a slight dip of his head and forward inclination of his torso, performing a perfectly appropriate and modest bow of respect to his peers.

“Please raise your hand if you would like to hear Mark share more about his idea”? Rebecca asked everyone.

Close to 90% of the audience raised their hands.

“Step up to the stage Mark” Invited Rebecca.

As Mark walked up to the stage, he was supported by a reassuring clap from the crowd.

Mark felt nervous on the inside, but didn't let it show on the outside.

"The first and foremost problem & solution is a simple one.

It's a change of attitude.

Instead of working for a boss, we need to start thinking differently.

We need to work with leaders.

This simple mind shift can have huge impacts.

One puts you beneath others in a hierarchy.

One puts you beside others in a team.

For some reason, we all vote for one person to take control and manage all of our affairs, whether that be for the town, state or country.

This seems very inefficient and unintelligent, as we all know, that no one is good at everything, but we are all good at something.

Having a centralised ruler who dictates what must and must not happen, without the vote of the people, isn’t democracy.

It’s not fair and it’s an extremely poor example of team work and collaboration.

What happens more often than not is the centralised leader will make decisions that the majority of people disagree with, but only comply because of fear of punishment.

This is no way to operate a healthy and free society.

Yes, of course, we must have rules and we must have Lore. If people changed what side of the road they wanted to drive on everyday, we would have chaos.

But if it’s not the people and the majority who are deciding these things, then what good is it?

Why do the majority believe that voting for a minority to rule the majority is sound reasoning?

Because it’s not. The majority should be working for the majority, not the minority working against the majority.

If it’s not good for everyone, it’s not good for anyone.

What seems apparent is that power can corrupt.

And corruption destroys.

That’s not what any of us want.

We want systems that can help speed up decision making.

We want the responsibility of leadership shared amongst those who prove themselves to be most fit to handle it.

We want the ability to reelect new leaders the moment they fail to achieve results or someone thinks they can do better.

Decentralised systems are more effective, cost less, work much faster and are far more honest and ethical.

I’ll give you an example of project specific leadership and teamwork so you can see what I mean.

But first, I just want to get your feedback, please raise your hand if this is making sense so far and you’d like to hear an example?”

Just about everyone raised their hand.

“Perfect. Let’s say someone” Mark pointed to Fiona who spoke earlier, who he didn't know was a project manager and her husband was a construction engineer, “like Fiona here, presents the idea of building a new bridge.”

Fiona smiled and nudged Gerald in the ribs.

“First, we get enough votes in support of building the bridge to get started.

Because if the majority of the townspeople don't want a bridge, for whatever reason, then why would be build something the people have expressed they don’t want?

This goes for any new projects, rules or ideas.

Then, we see who offers to help. Whether they are getting paid in national currency, freedom credits or simply volunteering doesn't matter, we start with volunteers who want and who can help.

We can’t build a new bridge without the people to do it, same for any new project that requires man power.

Then out of those volunteers, some will volunteer to lead the project.

Without leadership and direction for a project, it’s very difficult and almost impossible to get it done.

Those who volunteer to lead the project, in this case building a bridge, have the opportunity to present their plan to the others who are part of the project.

It’s not necessary to have everyone in the town vote on a specific projects leadership, unless it is necessary, though most the time it’s not.

This is because a projects specific leadership is just that, specific only to that particular project, it doesn't extend to other projects or areas, unless someone is multi-talented and the people vote for their leadership across multiple projects.

To be clear, a project is anything from building a bridge, organising community protection, keeping the streets clean, fixing up potholes etc...

Actually, fixing potholes doesn't require a team and leadership, it can simply be done by anyone who has the materials, equipment and expertise as it’s a very small thing to do.

In today’s societies, it takes far too long for potholes to be repaired when it is only authorised council workers who can fix it.

By allowing anyone with initiative and who can fix potholes to fix them, we can speed up the repair process astronomically.

Although of course we need to build better roads which don’t get potholes in the first place, but moving on.

The team who has volunteered to be part of the project, in this case, building a bridge, then votes on who has the best plan and who they would like to lead the project.

The criteria for electing a project specific leader would be based on the quality of their plan, their experience, their skill and most importantly their attitude and ability to work as a team with others.

If someone has previous results building bridges, but doesn't play well with others, then it’s hard to see anyone electing them as the leader.

They would be better suited as a professional consultant or guide to the project, but for someone to lead a project, they need to be respected and respectful.

Being the leader doesn't mean you get to be the boss and order others around because of your authority.

It means you are the one to direct and lead your team.

You are not in charge of your team, your team is in the charge of you.

Authority is the idea that you have the right to rule and that if people disobey your commands, you have the legitimate right to punish them, more often than not, with robbery or violence.

Leadership is the idea of guiding the direction of a team in a respectful manner.

If you have authority, it doesn't matter how you treat your team, because they are beneath you.

When you’re a leader, it all depends on how you treat your team, because they are beside you.

If someone doesn't like the leader and wants to quit, they can, without repercussions or punishment.

If the leader is not performing for whatever reason, then any member of the team can call for a re-vote at any time.

This is best done in a respectful way with the aim of not causing conflict.

Although if a leader can’t handle the idea of a re-vote or giving up their position, they are not fit to be the leader.

A true leader is able to step down and hand over their position at anytime.

Who here has ever built a bridge?”

Gerald raised his hand.

“Ok, thanks for that, what’s your name please?’

“Hi everyone, I’m Gerald, been a construction engineer for 20 years, I’ve led a couple projects where yes, we did build bridges.” Gerald smiled.

Mark continued.

“Let’s say the team of volunteers for the bridge building project vote Gerald to lead.

Let’s also say that Gerald is a fantastic leader and is multi-talented.

He is so good, that people ask him to also lead another project of building a new natural health facility.

Gerald is very busy leading the bridge building team so at first declines the offer.

But the people still feel he is the best man for the job, since he has the experience and is the kind of bloke who is kind and easy to respect.

They keep trying to persuade Gerald to help.

So Gerald thinks about it and figures that yes, the town does really need a new natural health facility so people don’t have to continue relying upon allopathic doctors and getting hurt by their drugs.

He knows he will have to work overtime, but wants to help the community get a great head start.

So he accepts the offer and begins leading two projects simultaneously.

Now, let’s say Gerald is getting a reputation and the people ask him to lead another project, this time redesigning our sewerage systems.

Gerald has to explain to the people that just because he is really good at building bridges and facilities, doesn't mean he knows how to redesign a sewer system.

So he declines the offer.

The people then ask him to lead the construction of a new town hall, which will be triple the size of our current one.

Gerald informs them that he is already leading the bridge project and the natural health facility project.

He can’t possibly take on another big project, he doesn't have the time.

Even though he may be the best man, one person just can’t do it all.

It’s not humanly possible.

So he recommends inviting one of his friends and colleagues from across the country to come help.

I share this example to show you a few things.

The first being that no one is good at everything.

The second is one man can only do so much.

The third is that when you are really good at what you do, people ask you to lead them.

Look at our current system of town, state and national ministers.

How can one minister make the best decisions about everything and override the experts because he has supposed ‘authority’? It’s not logical.

How can one minister possibly be in charge of everything, with only the same amount of time in each day as the rest of us? Again, it’s not logical or realistic.

How many people actually ask the minister for their input in projects? I dare say, none do. Because ministers haven't proven themselves to be good at anything in particular.

They don’t know how to build a bridge or create a new farm or plan a towns infrastructure.

They’re only good at making mistakes.

Are they even mistakes, or deliberately bad choices?

I mean after all, the politicians are not stupid, they just pretend to be stupid.

They are quite intelligent people, it’s just that their plans don’t align with ours and they have to act like they do.

The best leaders aren’t afraid of losing their leadership positions and they aim to bring out the leader in you.

True leaders inspire everyone else to be a leader in their own respective right.

A true leader will nurture the best quality's in you and pull you up to become better.

They aren't afraid of losing their position.

They are actively trying to replace themselves by educating others everything they know in the hopes they can pass the baton of leadership to someone more skilled and talented then they.

This is because a true leader doesn't have any power over you.

They only have the power to influence and inspire you.

Is that what we have today, or is that what we would like to see tomorrow?”

The crowd clapped and cheered enthusiastically.

“I hope my short presentation has highlighted some of the reasons why the current system is ineffective and performs sub-optimally and how a better system does exist.

Please raise you hand if you would like to join me at a meeting next Wednesday to further discuss these ideas?”

About 40 people raised their hands with eager looks on their faces.

“Fantastic, I’ll post the details in the community Facebook group and I cant wait to see you all there.

I thank you all very much for your attention.”