No matching fragments found in this document.
MAXIM SEVEN: The best programme is the one that will reach the greatest
number of dynamics and will do the greatest good on the greatest number of
dynamics. And that, my people who want to become victims by going broke,
includes dynamic one as well as dynamic four.
MAXIM EIGHT: Programmes must support themselves financially.
MAXIM NINE: Programmes must ACCUMULATE interest and bring in other
assistance by virtue of the programme interest alone or they will never
grow.
MAXIM TEN: A programme is a bad programme if it detracts from programmes
which are already moving successfully or distracts staff people or
associates from work they are already doing. Doing that is adding up to
successful execution of other programmes.
Let us now take a squint at this all in one piece. Wrong example: We
decide to run an ad in the Hatmakers' Weekly to attract people into the PE
Course. We place the ad. We forget the time this special course is to
start. We have nobody there to answer the phone on inquiries on the Course.
We have nobody there to greet the people and make them feel at home when
they arrive. We have nobody to instruct the Course. We get a bill for
monies three weeks later that we can't pay.
Right example: We decide to hit the hatmaker trade as a source of PE. We
rule out seven other programmes in favour of this one. We have a staff
meeting on it and gen everybody in on the existence of this programme. We
see that we have made a lot of money from Co-Audit enrolments and we
earmark this to pay for the advert, for the salary of the person who will
run the programme. We appoint a special person to administer this
programme. When the advert has been placed and appears, our person
appointed to it goes on to it full time. Reception is genned again to send
all hatmaker calls to this person and to refer to this person all hatmaker
bodies. All persons who may also be acting as Reception are genned with
this data. The person appointed doesn't sit back to wait for the business
to come in. This person reaches for hatmakers with letters and phone calls.
This same person that has been contacted by the hatmakers is then on deck
the zero hour evening to greet them all and get them into their seats and
make sure the instructor is there and to instruct it himself if no
instructor appears. If the programme is sweepingly successful in terms of
new enrollees, then we make sure we leave the person appointed for it in
the first place right on duty pushing hatmakers into the PE. And we have a
programme. And it was successful. And we got somewhere.
A pitiful wrong example of the above was when I was running the first Am
College PE as the experimental set-up some years ago. We started to get in
longshoremen by the squad. And they brought in other longshoremen. The
person in charge thought longshoremen were low cast and tried to get
intellectuals instead, thus switching off the programme. You never saw a
programme dwindle quite so fast as the longshoremen did. The correct action
would have been to notice that longshoremen were responding heavily and to
put somebody maybe even out of their ranks onto the payroll to pressure
away at longshoremen. A million pound programme was let go up in a puff of
nowhere.
A wonderfully right example is the Director of Processing staff auditor
set-up of a Central Organization. That was once just a programme. It
prospered. It's still with us. Every field auditor looks at it with envy
and snarls and tries to copy it. But he doesn't programme. He is doing
everything else in the shop. He can't programme a special clinic drill with
his attention everywhere at once. It's now thoroughly against the law in a
Central Organization to let a Director of Processing take preclears. That's
how far it goes. And we get wonderful results and all is well and the only
squawks you hear about HGCs are from pure green-eyed jealousy or maybe an
occasional real goof that the Central Organization jumped on days before
anybody else did.
Programming requires execution. It requires carry-through. It requires
judgement enough to know a good programme and carry it on and on and to
recognize a bad one and drop it like hot bricks.
There's nothing wrong with the will to do amongst Scientologists. Now
let's see if we can't up dissemination by adherence to good, steady
programming that wins.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH: rs.rd
Copyright � 1959,1969
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
{Note: This Policy Letter was also earlier issued as HCO P/L 20 August
1969 with abbreviation of the words Director of Processing to D of P,
Organization to Org, Preclears to PCs, and Department to Dept. The above
issue eliminated these abbreviations.]