No matching fragments found in this document.
An "organization" doesn't get the work done. As an orderly plan it helps
its
terminals get the work done. The staff as individuals do the work. An
organization can
help or hinder getting the work done. If it helps, it's good. If it
hinders, it should be
examined thoroughly.
An organization can work wholly at "taking in its own laundry". All the
work
that gets done is the work generated inside the shop by unreal routes and
weird
changes of particles. This is a government circa mid-20th Century. Its
highest skill is
murder which in its profundity it makes legal.
A totally democratic organization has a bad name in Dianetics and
Scientology
despite all this talk of agreement. It has been found by actual experiment
(L.A. 1950)
that groups of people called on to select a leader from among them by
nomination and
vote routinely select only those who would kill them. They select the
talkers of big
deeds and ignore the doers. They seem to select unerringly the men of
average skill.
That is never good enough in a leader and the people suffer from his lack
of
understanding. If you ever have occasion to elect a leader for your group,
don't be
"democratic" about it. Compare records as follows: Take the person who is a
good
auditor, not just says he is. Take the person who has a good, not
necessarily the
highest, profile and IQ. Take the person who can grant beingness to others.
And look at
the relative serenity and efficiency of any past command he may have had.
And even
then you're taking a chance. So always elect temporarily and reserve the
right of recall.
If his first action is to fire people, recall him at once and find another
leader. If the
organization promptly prospers, keep him and confirm the election by a
second one. If
the abundance of the organization sags in a month or so, recall and find
another.
Popularity is some criterion-but it can be created for an election only, as
in the U.S.
Select in an election or by selection as an executive the person who can
get the work
done. And once he's confirmed, obey him or keep him. He's rare. But beware
these
parliamentary procedure boys and girls who know all the legal and time
wasting
processes but who somehow never accomplish anything except chaos. A
skilled,
successful leader is worth a million impressive hayseeds. Democracies hate
brains and
skill. Don't get in that rut. In the U.S. War Between the States militia
companies
elected their officers with great lack of success in battle. They finally
learned after tens
of thousands of casualties that it was skill not popularity that counted.
Why be a
casualty-learn first. Democracy is only possible in a nation of clears-and
even they
can make mistakes. When the majority rules the minority suffers. The best
are always a
minority.
WHAT IS YOUR JOB?
Anything in an organization is your job if it lessens the confusion if
you do it.
Your being exactly on post and using your exact comm lines lessens
confusion.
But failure to wear another hat that isn't yours now and then may cause
more
confusion than being exactly on post.
The question when you see you will have to handle something not yours is
this:
"Will it cause less confusion to handle it or to slam it back onto its
proper lines?"
Example: A preclear wandering around looking for somebody to sell him a
book.
You see him. The book sales clerk isn't there. The books are. Now what's
the answer?
You'll create a little confusion if you hand him a book, take his money and
give it to
the book sales later. You'll create confusion for your own post and the
organization if
you go chasing around trying to find "book sales terminal". You'll create a
feeling of
unfriendliness if you don't help the preclear get his book. Answer it by
deciding which
is less confusing. You'll find out by experience that you can create
confusion by
handling another's particles but you will also discover that you can create
confusion by
not handling another's particles on occasion.
The only real error you can make in handling another's particles is to
fail to tell