Improving Organizations

        All links on this page will open in a new window.

When people come together and create an organization - a company,
a religious group, a charity, a social club - the organization
becomes not only a physical and legal entity, but also an energy
entity within the energy matrix of the universe.   This energy
entity (organization) then takes on a life of its own, based
on the input of its participants , and automatically
self-propagates and self-reinforces along the established
energy path/trajectory.   In other words, it becomes a moving
train on fairly fixed tracks.   How fixed the tracks are
depends on the positivity/quality of the organization.
The more it is positive, the closer it is to excellence,
the more flexible the tracks are.   Conversely, the less
positive, the more mediocre (or worse) the organization is,
the more rigid the tracks are.   This is important to
understand as it has profound consequences.

The less positive (poorer quality) an organization is,
the more inflexible it is.   This becomes automatically
self-propagating, so even when the leadership is replaced,
it has little to no effect on the course/quality of
the organization.
The energy field of the organization attracts to itself
energies of similar quality (like to like), so when
an organization looks for a new leader, it automatically
looks for, and attracts, people of a similar quality.
Thus it can be observed that mediocre organizations
don't change much, if at all, regardless how many
people are replaced and in what positions.
With positive organizations there is more flexibility.
Positive organizations thrive, while the mediocre ones
eventually crumble to dust...or have to be on a life
support of endless money loans that rarely get repaid.

To break out of this self-destruct loop, the energy
of the organization has to be uplifted; this has many
contributors: priorities; intentions; quality of the
product; environment; policies; politics; attitudes;
honesty; etc.
The more positive, loving, caring, compassionate,
understanding these are, the more power is channeled
into the energy field of the organization; this positive
power is the enabler of beneficial change.
It can be observed that when people are positively
motivated, feel well cared for, and know
their work/product is for common good, they can come up
with some amazing solutions and ideas.
All integrous people subconsciously know whether their
work is for common good or not; working on something harmful,
pointless, useless, is sure to bring down contentment and energy.

The rigidly set environment of a poorer quality organization
forces newcomers to yield to its ways, to accept its status
quo, covertly or openly.   Regardless of what the members
may say (like "yes, we want change"), the established
energy environment (which is beyond the individual members) is
inflexible and even could be hostile towards changes for
the better.

The following three things need to be understood:
1 - the wide-spread negativity and toxins (alcohol, drugs,
      smoking) in this world make it easy to change for
      the worse. There is less resistance to going down
      than to going up (improving).
2 - for people it is difficult to comprehend, let alone
      accept ideas there are above their level of maturity
      Depending on their level of maturity their response to
      positive change varies: less positive people get hostile
      (even violent); more positive people shrug their shoulders
      and scratch their heads; the really positive people try
      to understand and accept the positive change.
3 - as Dr. David R. Hawkins explained, the mind is incapable
      of discerning truth from falsehood. People are not able to
      reliably tell whether the person they are hiring is
      beneficial to their organization or not.

When it comes to a positive change in an organization,
it can be met with hostility from the less positive members,
because they feel threatened by the positive change, due to
not being able to understand it.   If the person is at
level 3 and the positive change is at level 5, 3 has
a difficulty grasping 5.   Here the hidden gem is that
once the members realize that the higher level change is
not only harmless, but actually nice, they are able to
accept it. Of course, with really negative people there is
no such hidden gem, and the higher level change is resisted
no matter what, at all costs.

As a practical example:
A mediocre company automatically experiences issues with
finances, corporate politics, sustainability, employee
happiness, poor coordination of work flow, as consequences
of its mediocrity.
Let's say that on the scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is excellence
and 0 is extremely poor the company calibrates at 3.
The company talks about great ideas and plans, but nothing
really changes.   The train is moving at level 3, which shapes its
speed and course, so the company experiences consequences of
level 3 energy.   Now say a top executive position becomes
available at the company.   The company will have a tendency
to look for a candidate that fits level 3, thus reinforcing
its course.   If it manages to attract a higher level person,
the person will be under pressure to conform to the company's
level 3 - to the company's ways.   If the hired top executive
happens to be somewhat more positive than the company,
and resists that down-pull to level 3, and institues changes,
they have lukewarm success; some of them drown in the inefficient
machinery of the mediocre company, and the rest won't be enough
to turn things around - to pull the company up to a higher level.
The person is likely to resign and look elsewhere, if he/she
doesn't succumb to the company's level 3.


And here is the kicker: visionaries.
Visionaries are people who channel a great talent and intuition,
at least as far as leading an organization is concerned.
They intuitively know how to motivate and reorganize, and, critically,
they are able to foresee trends and even set trends.
Visionaries are proactive; administrators are mostly reactive.
A great business visionary was Steve Jobs of Apple.
He was able to pull Apple out of a bad slump and lead it
into a trend-setting, very successful, company.
Unfortunately, visionaries seem to be extremely rare.
As rare as they are, what's the chance of a mediocre
company attracting one?   It is possible.   It requires
that the company's leadership/shareholders admit and accept
they the company is in trouble and are unconditionally willing
to change for the better.   Unconditionally.   Visionaries
are not really attracted by huge salaries and bonuses,
though an appropriate pay is a given.   They are attracted
by the challenge - they get joy from channeling their talents,
and from seeing the positive fruits of their efforts.
How to tell whether the candidate is a visionary or just
another administrator?   Please read on.

A good example of an administrator-led vs a visionary-led
company is a certain postal service.   Some years ago
the lettermail sorting machines were replaced with
brand new more sophisticated ones, along with the conveyor
systems; all that at a huge cost.   Almost right after
the whole project was completed, the lettermail volumes
started sharply declining and now they are around half
of what they used to be.
The same postal service built a brand new mail processing
plant and very soon after the plant was built it was running
over its capacity, overwhelmed.
Still the same postal service amalgamated delivery depots
into megadepots that were almost instantly bursting in seams,
overwhelmed with parcels.
New delivery vans were purchased and fairly soon after
became too small to carry the increased volume of parcels.
All these examples are consequences of administrator-led
company of a mediocre quality.
A visionary leader would foresee the lettermain declining
volumes, the parcel increasing volumes, and would steer
the company appropriately.

Organizations benefit from being careful when hiring new
people, especially top leaders.   In this world negative
energies try to bring down positive people and organizations.
Even a positive organization can be presented with a negative
job applicant.   The person's seeming charisma and shining
resume are not reliable indicators of the person's positivity
and capabilities, and the mind is unable to tell truth from
falshood (whether the candidate is really beneficial to the
organization or not).
Fortunately, there is a reliable way to tell, when it is done
properly: muscle-strength (kinesiology) testing, as taught by
David R. Hawkins.   The how-to guide is mentioned in his books,
such as "Power vs Force".   How can such a seemingly
simple test be so powerful and revealing?   Because it is based
on an impersonal response to the presence of truth by consciousness,
and it bypasses the tester's mind/ego (beliefs and conditioning).
When done properly, as David Hawkins explains, the muscle-strength
test is reliable.   The test can quickly determine whether
the candidate is suitable for the intended position, whether
he/she is a visionary or just an administrator with bold dead-end
To add to Dr.Hawkins' muscle-strength testing how-to guide,
when it comes to vital decisions, it is beneficial to have
several independent groups testing; provided the statement
they are testing is identical, the answers given by the test
should be identical, too.   As well, right after testing
the main statement for truth (for example, "This candidate
has the practical capabilities to lead our company to more
positive level - to help our company positively flourish"),
it is important to follow up immediately with a control statement,
to which the answer is known and obvious.   An excellent control
statement is "the Self is".   The answer to it has to
be "true" (strong arm).   If the answer to it is
"false" (weak arm), something is "wrong" and
the whole test should be discarded.
Sometimes the tester's energy system can be blocked or switched,
resulting in wrong answers (false instead of true and vice versa).
The control statement can help reveal that (as well as multiple
people testing the same statement).

Note: regarding the "the Self is" control statement.
"The Self" means the Creator, the Presence which
manifests Existence.   The correct answer to it is "true" (yes).

< back to main menu     go to the next page " Perfect Imperfect "