More On Molecular Leadership

2009-8-22 04:22:00

Quoting JJ from a previous message, Dan wrote:

"Even though the Molecular Relationship excites my readers more than any other it seems that most still do not understand how leadership works within it."

Dan then responded to the above quote with:

"I think I have identified the problem and it can be cleared up by one simple question. "At this point I think I understand, for the most part, how you say a molecule and it's leader should and/or will work. But all there is is your book (and additional teachings) stating that the leader will do this, in this situation the leader should ... and so on and so forth. So, at some point will there be an actual formal document of some sort that specifically states the rules, limitations, guidelines and powers under which the Molecule, it's leader and members operates?"

JJ:

Unless there is some specific question or project that needs to be defined I think what is written makes the process fairly clear if the student studies it well.

As questions come up we can clarify details but for now I think I have covered the essentials.

The Keys is not exactly molecular but when I introduce things where group participation is helpful I try and treat it as if it were.

For instance, I am going to attempt to initiate an organization that will create change in Congress and our country and would like to have the group's support and cooperation. I came up with the best acronym I could think of but threw the idea out to the group for input. Members of the group came up with a better name than I did and we are now down to "AID" (submitted by Larry Kennon) and "POP" (submitted by Susan Carter). I thought they both had a lot of value so I threw the two names out to the group to vote on the one they liked best.

The majority voted for POP but the molecular leader does not have to go with the majority vote unless he first tells the group he is going to do so. I still have the right to pick any name I want.

The light that is in me tells me that it makes sense to pick the name with the broadest appeal so I am going with the majority on POP for two reasons:

  1. Since POP received the majority vote this indicates it will have the most solid appeal.
  2. As I whole I think it is the best acronym and I'll tell you why. While I like AID better than POP I think "Power of the People" is a catchier phrase than "Americans Initiating Democracy."

As we have went through this process I think the average participant felt he was a part of the process because his opinion had an influence on the outcome.

Now I believe one of Dan's main concerns is that the Molecular leader will just start dictating things and setting himself up as a little bureaucrat. If he does this he will not be able to draw people to him to begin with or keep them. Members are always free to move to another molecule or withdraw and attempt to create one of their own if they are repelled by leadership.

After the first molecule is initiated the rest will be created and sustained from the bottom up, and the power of election will prevent leaders from getting too pushy.

On the other hand, the tremendous advantage of molecular leadership is you have the best leaders gravitate to the top and their autonomy allows them to make quick decisions (when necessary) and move the group forward.

  

"Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add [...] artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges [...] the humble members of society [...] have a right to complain of the injustice of their government."
  -- President Andrew Jackson, July 10, 1832