No matching fragments found in this document.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 OCTOBER 1966
Remimeo Issue 11
All Executive
Hats
Admin Know-How Series I
EXECUTIVE AND GOVERNING BODY ERRORS AND ANSWERS
Anyone in an executive position must be in possession of information
concerning his post and the functions of the organization or unit he is
heading. Lacking it, he becomes the effect of post and organization and
begins to create unreal orders and situations which result in down
statistics all around.
In principle, anyone in charge of anything should know the workings and
functions of every unit, item or action of which he has charge. If he lacks
such, he should be careful to take advices from his juniors before issuing
any order to make certain it can be carried out, is necessary and conforms
to workable practice.
Anyone while learning an executive post and yet acting as that executive
should spend the bulk of his time in study and should issue NO orders and
approve of NO orders until he has taken up the matter with those who will
be affected by those orders before they are issued.
Eventually, as one learns his post after months or years, he or she can
begin to issue orders independent of taking advices first from those the
orders will affect.
In this way, an executive not yet well trained or experienced can keep
things going while he is studying his position and those things under him.
An executive cannot call himself fully competent or informed until he
has studied all literature, past orders and policies which affect his
position or any activity under him, and can handle any machine or operation
in any unit of which he has charge.
Until then he had better adhere closely to the rule that before he
issues any order he had better consult with all those it will affect.
However, in doing this, he must not at the same time issue only popular
orders or orders tending to break down the existing structure just to
reduce labor or hours on the job or raise pay.
A great many persons fail as executives solely because they
a. Do not proceed as above on a new job or promotion or
b. Fail to hold together and control the activities in which they
find themselves in charge or
C. Use their position solely to buy popularity or
d. Form a clique for their own self-protection against the mob.
It takes a very sensible person to succeed on a new job as an executive
without previous experience or previous study; but if a person follows this
advice as given herein, he or she can win and hold the statistics up and
even raise them.
GOVERNING BODIES
Any council or conference or board becomes bogged only for one of the
following reasons:
I
ENC7
A. It is inactive or
B. It seeks to solve the wrong problem or
C. It fails to notice and nullify arbitraries that have been introduced.
A. The inactive council or conference or board may be inactive for a
number of reasons.
It can simply be inactive.
It can be inactive as a governing body while individually very busy
issuing orders. This is quite fatal as such orders will conflict with
orders issued by other members of the body also acting individually. The
consequence is that the activity so governed will then seek orders
elsewhere to resolve the confusion of conflicting orders from members of
the governing body-this is how mutinies and revolutions occur and also why
some activities will suddenly create dictators. To use one's status as a
member of a governing body as an individual authority, and yet not see that
it is the body that governs, will surely bring about mutiny and revolt and
new leaders.
The remedy is of course to permit no orders not agreed to in the actual
conference of the governing body and to reprimand and cancel any orders
issued independently.
If the body is simply inactive and won't become active at all, despite
everything, it should be disbanded as a governing body and its powers
delivered to a single individual. A body inactive that won't act as a body
must not be permitted any power. For example, if an Ad Council is actually
inactive, it should be disbanded and its powers individually delegated to
its individual Exec Secs. However, if this is done, no powers may overlap.
Some "governing bodies" exist only to satisfy the law and have no power at
all.
B. Solving the wrong problem means also neglecting to locate the right
problem. There is nothing wilder than orders to remedy situations which are
not the real problems or the vital problems of an activity.
When a governing body is bogged, a well-schooled administrator should be
able to see if the body is working on the right problem, and if not, to
shift that body's attention to the real problem they should be solving.
An example would be a government seeking to resolve heavy spending when
they have no earning. The real problem is lack of money. Conversely, a
government can seek only to earn more money when they may have a real
problem of fantastically foolish expenditure. In either case, by working on
the wrong problem that government can fully crash a country.
A governing body can ride prejudices rather than handle existing
problems, which is another way to solve the wrong problem.
C. Arbitraries can be introduced which thereafter require constant and
changing solutions which even then do not improve things.
When this happens, one must locate the arbitrary itself that is causing
the need of solution and abolish it.
The only mistake one can make is calling any rule an arbitrary, thus
destroying form. One has to isolate a real arbitrary that is causing
needless solutions. When found, it should be removed.
However, one can be so sweeping in doing this that it simply gets unreal
and wrecks the lot. For example, one's laziness or unwillingness to
confront can condemn something as an arbitrary which, when removed, causes
one to collapse. It is not then an arbitrary but a form or necessity.
2
An arbitrary, by definition, is an interjected law or rule or decision
which does not fit or is unnecessary.
Such things can cause a governing body to box about for years and
eventually fail.
Here is an example of an arbitrary that caused endless solutions and
which when not removed destroyed a nation. "Our currency must not circulate
beyond our borders." This was kept unwittingly in force. As money depends
for its value on its scope of potential circulation, the money became
worthless and the country caved in. Literally millions of governmental and
individual solutions became necessary after that one arbitrary was
introduced.
So an "arbitrary" can be said to be something which actually violates
natural law and which becomes, when held in place, an enforced lie. This
causes endless board or governing body trouble wherever it occurs.
Here is another example. "Unions have the right to strike." This was
assumed and is not part of any law code as it says, "A body of men has the
right to injure business and property without at least civil recourse for
damages by the business." Protection racketeers assumed the same right.
This arbitrary is a lie since nobody has that right. It laid France open to
World War 11, for instance, as France through the 1930s was one long
strike. True, unions have improved pay and working conditions. But there is
no right to damage businesses which support one. By introducing this
arbitrary without seeking sensible means, the Western world was opened to
inflation, unrest and conquest by lawless political elements.
So an arbitrary must be something contrary to the general scheme of
things, and while a lie, is yet held in place by law or public ignorance.
Arbitraries are usually introduced by those who aren't quite bright
enough to achieve a result through wise measures. And otherwise wise men
thereafter can spend decades and invent whole law codes trying to handle
the problems so set up.
BOGGED ORG
When an org is bogged after a period of success, it is almost always
true that an earlier program or order has been dropped or forgotten.
1 have always been able to trace bogs to skipped orders.
An example is the Qualifications Division program order. Outer org
recovery was planned so as to improve Qual in each org, then to get staff
training in, and then to improve the Tech Division. This order was at first
executed, then was not followed up and the beginning recovery slumped
again. The remedy was to reinstitute the original program.
Ordinarily one doesn't need new programs but needs the follow-through on
programs that have not been complied with.
When 1 see a slump occur, 1 first ask what program wasn't executed or
got dropped. 1 always find it; and when reinstituted, things surge. Then I
find who dropped it and reorganize personnel with nondroppers.
In this admin failure the dropped program is seldom a little one.
Recently at Saint Hill when statistics slumped, I found the program that
was out was selling the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. It was being
taught but never mentioned. Yet it, not Power Processing, was the mainstay
of Saint Hill.
Look for the program or orders that were dropped or forgotten before you
start originating new ones. You may find the dropped one is so huge that
nothing could remedy it. In many orgs the dropped program was the original
one-to put an org there! Of course no other order will revive the place as
the org wasn't put there in the first place, and people think they are
running an org whereas they didn't finish up putting one there to be run.
It's often as simple as that,
DEV-T
An administrator (any executive) who does not know and enforce dev-t
policies is letting the org down severely. It isn't just his own basket or
office, it's the fact that Dev-Ters are annoying other staff too if they
are into an executive's hair.
A towering in-basket is always a sign of an executive not enforcing dev-
t policy. The whole org will sag if executives don't enforce these.
WHOSE HAT
Once you have dev-t in hand, your basket traffic shrinks but you may
still be overworking by reason of another factor-wearing, unknown, the hats
of others.
I always look up every month or so to see whose hats I am wearing
besides my own.
If I find I am wearing hats not mine, I begin to look around the people
and areas that should be wearing those hats.
If I find the people whose hats I am wearing have seniors below me but
above them, I then examine the work areas of the seniors.
I always find one of two things:
a. The seniors are not active at all or
b. The seniors are doing something else than their own hats.
On the staff whose hats I am wearing, I usually find they are doing
something else-not just inactive.
I then examine the statistics involved. And any finances,
I can then clean up this area by reorganization.
As the seniors are being bypassed, I have to assign a Danger condition
to them and apply the Danger Formula (ethics action vital).
I get the statistics up and things going in that area and then get the
hats worn.
In this way only an executive can wear his own hats and do his own work.
So if you are training an executive or if you are seeking to get a
governing body or council or committee to function, or trying to make an
org recover, you can use these bits of know-how.
They are vital senior data which, properly employed, can make
organizations run despite lack of training by executives and even very
strange governing bodies.
Just apply the data contained herein and magic!-all will resolve.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rd.gm Copyright 0 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: Any Admin Know-How Series issue which didn't previously have a
series number has been given a series number by the editors of this
volume.]
4
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 OCTOBER 1966
Remimeo Issue I
All Executive
Hats
Admin Know-How Series 2
ACTIONS, EXECUTIVE, FOR HANDLING DISASTROUS OCCURRENCES
There are three steps necessary on the part of a senior executive who
discovers a situation which may be disastrous to the org.
The executive's actions are as follows:
1. Issue orders of a remedying or preventive nature instantly by
directive, to remain in effect until all data is in. This is called
an urgent directive.
2. Appoint a Board of Investigation to investigate the matter, with
orders to investigate fully and couch findings in terms of a
directive or policy for issue,
3. Pass or modify the Board's findings as orders to supplant the
urgent directive issued as I above. This is called the final
directive or policy.
THE URGENT DIRECTIVE
To do 1-issue a sweeping order to handle the situation. This is vital as
there isn't time to get all the facts. The order may be fair or unfair,
correct or incorrect, but at least it does something to arrest a
deteriorating situation.
This urgent directive may, however, be in fact wide of the mark; but it
is only going to remain in force until superseded by orders based on all
the data obtained at leisure.
Dictatorships are somewhat successful as proven in the past and they run
only on urgent directives. So the system is not all bad. However, for such
a directive to remain law forever is obviously wrong as it may be wholly
arbitrary and may eventually get in somebody's hair. But not to issue it
just because one has little data is to ask for disaster.
So in the face of disaster issue an urgent directive as best you can and
hope you are right in your directed action.
THEBOARD
Convene now a Board of Investigation composed of impartial members who
will investigate thoroughly.
Order them to turn in their findings in the form of law that can be
issued exactly as they wrote it.
Trouble with such boards, they "recommend" in an often rambling way; and
as they aren't really writing law, they tend to overlook things.
Democracies have a terrible habit of only appointing committees to
investigate without issuing any urgent directive first. This leaves a
vacuum of direction and courts disaster. Such bodies may take a long time
to bring in their findings. This is a great weakness-to let an abuse go on
while one investigates.
THE FINAL DIRECTIVE
When the convening authority has the board's findings to hand, he
studies the proceedings and findings to make certain that the disaster is
fully handled by the findings and that further disasters of like nature are
inhibited by these findings from occurring.
If he is satisfied on this score (that the findings are adequate), he
must now see that they do not violate the fast flow system of management to
any great degree and that they are as adequate as the urgent directive in
arresting the disaster. If so, the executive sends the findings through
regular channels with all papers to make them into law. Until actually law,
the urgent directive is still in force.
If he is not satisfied or doubtful that the findings are adequate, he
can convene another board to do a better job. If he does convene another
board, the urgent directive remains in force.
The findings actually become law only when
a. The convening authority has passed them as they are or modified
by himself or another board
b. The findings have gone through all steps necessary to become law
C. The findings are finally the law.
Then the urgent directive is canceled. It must be canceled when the
findings become law and may not remain as a possible arbitrary.
The above is good administration.
Some governing bodies use only urgent directives.
Some use only committees or boards or senates.
To use less than all three in the face of a disastrous situation is poor
admin.
Example: Income goes down like a shot.
(1) Issue an urgent directive calculated to get income up like a shot. (2)
Convene a board to find out why it went down and to discover what was
dropped out and find how to get it back up. (3) Supplant the urgent
directive with the findings.
Where policy is concerned, the channel is longer as more people must
pass on it. But directives are also law. So one should not issue a
directive in the face of disaster and just hope. One should do all three
steps above.
By disaster is meant a circumstance or situation that is crippling and
may adversely affect a whole or a part of an org. Low income is a heavy
risk that may result in disaster. A heavy continual expenditure may result
in a disaster. Any gross divisional statistic going down and staying down
is courting disaster. And such should be handled with the three steps as
above. Then the org form and duties if bent out of shape by the urgent
directive won't stay out of shape forever.
As a comment, statistics when they change suddenly and go down mean that
something has been dropped or some arbitrary order has been given. Stats
going steeply up also mean a change has occurred and it can be very
disastrous not to find what it was that was so good. So one can also use
the three steps to handle a sudden
6
soaring statistic to maintain it rather than stay in the dark. Example:
Letters out soars to an all-time high. Issue an urgent directive, "No
person or line may be changed in the Dissem Division on peril of a Comm
Ev." Then convene a board and find why and get some law on it. Then
supplant the urgent directive with the new directive resulting.
This in no way alters the need of a directive to be passed by the LRH
Comm or a policy letter to be passed by all specified terminals before it
becomes policy.
PERSONNEL
Steps 1, 2 and 3 can also be used on personnel where the executive
thinks a staff member is the reason. Suspension from post pending
investigation would be the urgent directive in this case. However, the
staff member so suspended may not be deprived of wages and must be given an
apology if found not to be the reason. And no real action may be taken
unless there is an ethics action recommended by the board and only if the
person is found guilty in that ethics action.
In this case there are four steps:
1. Urgent directive
2. Board of Investigation
3. Ethics action or no ethics action
4. Final directive either (a) restoring the personnel and stating
the real causes in the form of a separate directive with long-range
actions to handle the situation, or (b) appointing a new personnel
and recommending in a separate directive long-range actions to
handle the situation.
The steps are four because there are two matters involved: (a) the
personnel and (b) the situation. Even if the personnel was at fault, there
must be something else wrong too if a personnel got into a post who didn't
belong there.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rd.gm Copyright C 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Admin Know-How Series 3
[Note: HCO PL 31 October 1966, Admin Know-How Series 3, JOB ENDANGERMENT
CHITS, was amended and reissued as HCO PL 5 March 1968, Issue 11, Admin
Know-How Series 19, JOB ENDANGERMENT CHITS, which is on page 68.]
7
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 NOVEMBER 1966
Remimeo
Admin Know-How Series 4
LEADERSHIP
Leadership is one of the most misunderstood subjects in Man's
dictionary. But it is based almost solely on the ability to give and
enforce orders.
An order or directive is necessary to bring about coordination of
function and activity, without which there could be disagreement and
confusion.
In an organization there is more than one person functioning. Being of
comparable rank and having different purposes (hats), they can come into
conflict and disagreement in the absence of a plan or order or directive.
So, without orders, plans, programs, one does not have an organization. One
has a group of individuals. We see in earlier policy letters that a group
composed only of individuals cannot expand and will remain small,
Oddly enough, such a group will also remain unhappy. It will have a low
affinity with the public and each other and if you know the Affinity-
Reality-Communication triangle, you will realize that all three points drop
if one does. Agreement being the basis of reality, you will find a group of
individuals will disagree with each other and have a low reality on what
they are doing or what to propose and even what to do.
Most people confuse a "taut ship" with a harshly led ship. Actually
harshness has nothing to do with it. The right word is positiveness.
If a group is led by someone whose programs and orders are very
positive, then the group has a chance of going into agreement with one
another; and so their affinity improves and so does their communication and
reality.
So if one issues no orders, a group will remain a group of individuals
out of agreement with each other. will do little, and will remain small or
at least nonexpanding.
Bill, of equal rank to Joe, cannot give an order to Joe nor vice versa.
Thus no orders exist between them. Occasional agreements do occur; but as
their jobs are different, they rather tend to disagree on what is
important.
A person with a senior standing to both Bill and Joe can give the two an
order and this becomes the basis of an agreement.
The order doesn't even have to be liked by Bill and Joe. If they follow
it, they thus 46agree" to it; and being in agreement on this, they get
reality and communication on it as well.
Even poorly thought out orders angrily given, if issued and enforced,
are better for a group than no orders at all. But such orders are the low
end of the scale.
Positive, enforced orders, given with no misernotion and toward visible
accomplishment, are the need of a group if it is to prosper and expand.
8
The group is full of "good fellows." This does not give it success.
The group is full of plans. These do not give it success.
What it needs are positive orders leading to a known accomplishment.
Many obstacles can exist to that accomplishment, but the group will
function.
We call it "leadership" and other nebulous things, this ability to
handle a group, make it prosper and expand.
All leadership is, in the final analysis, is giving the orders to
implement the program and seeing that they are followed.
One can build this up higher by obtaining general agreement on the how,
why and what of programs. But to maintain it, there have to be orders and
directives and acceptance or enforcement thereof-else the group will fall
apart, sooner or later.
Positive orders and directions on positive programs inevitably cause
expansion.
Being wise or a good fellow or being liked does not accomplish the
expansion. People in the group may be cheerful-but are they going anywhere
as a group?
So the whole thing boils down to:
Positive directions and their acceptance or enforcement on known
programs bring about prosperity and expansion.
No or weak orders bring about stagnation and collapse.
The ideal is to have programs with which the whole group or a majority
agrees fully. Then to forward these with positive orders and obtain
compliance by acceptance or enforcement.
But regardless of the enthusiasm for a program, it will eventually fail
if there is no person or governing body there to issue and enforce orders
to carry on the program.
Thus we have the indicators of a very bad executive whose group will
disintegrate and fail no matter how cheerful they are with the executive.
Bad leaders
1. Issue no or weak orders
2. Do not obtain or enforce compliance.
Bad leadership isn't "grouchy" or "sadistic" or the many other things
Man advertises it to be. It is simply a leadership that gives no or weak
orders and does not enforce compliance.
Good leadership
1. Works on not unpopular programs
2. Issues positive orders
and
3. Obtains or enforces compliance.
These facts are as true of a governing body as they are of an individual.
A typical example of a bad governing body, at the present stage of its
formation at
least, is the United Nations. It has great ideas about how better Man
should be perhaps, but
I . It issues a confused babble of orders when it issues any
and
2. It issues orders for which it can obtain little or no
compliance.
Note that it is also insolvent, at war within itself, and that it has
not made a dent in its prime program-the prevention of war.
However these things came about, they are nevertheless true. It is a
very poor governing body and far more likely to vanish than expand.
You can count completely on the fact that an executive or a governing
body that does not adhere to not unpopular programs, that does not issue
positive orders and does not obtain or enforce compliance, will have down
statistics.
And you can be sure that an executive or governing body that formulates
or adheres to not unpopular programs, that issues positive orders and that
obtains or vigorously enforces compliance, will have up statistics.
Wisdom? Popularity9 These unfortunately have little or nothing to do
with it.
The way to have up statistics, a prosperous and happy group, is far more
simple than complex Man has ever realized.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH.jp.rd.gm Copyright 0 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
10
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 NOVEMBER 1966R
Remimeo Issue I
REVISED 9 NOVEMBER 1979
(Revisions in this type style)
Admin Know-How Series 5R
STATISTIC INTERPRETATIVE
STATISTIC ANALYSIS
Ref..
HCO PL 9 Nov. 79* HOW TO CORRECTLY DETERMINE A
STAT TREND
HCO PL 3 Oct 7OR* STAT INTERPRETATION
Rev. 9.11.79
HCO PL 6 Mar. 6611 STATISTIC GRAPHS-HOW TO
FIGURE THE SCALE
HCO PL 5 May 71R 11* READING STATISTICS
Rev. 9.11.79
This policy letter has been revised to fully clarify the correct method of
reading stat trends under the sections "Backlogs" and 'The Dangerous GrapW'
and to reference the main policy letters containing data on reading stals
and stat trends.
The subject of making up statistics is probably well known. How one
draws one. But the subject of what they mean after they are drawn is
another subject and one which executives should know well.
Things are not always what they seem in statistics.
BACKLOGS
A backlog caught up gives one a high soaring statistic which promptly
slumps. To call the soar affluence and the slump emergency is an executive
error.
When you see a leaping and diving pattern on something that can be
backlogged, you can be very sure it has been.
This activity is working in fits and starts, usually only occasionally
manned.
For a long time nothing is done or counted; then suddenly a month's
worth is all counted in one week.
So when you see one of these, realize that the one surge in stats is
averaged out with the smaller peaks and the depressions. You have to
visually average the peaks and valleys and note the trend the entire stat
is taking.
CAUSATIVE STATISTICS
In any set of statistics of several kinds or activities, you can always
find one or more that are not "by luck" but can be directly caused by the
org or a part of it.
An example is the "letters out" and "completions." Gross divisional
statistics.
I I
Whatever else is happening, the org itself can improve these as they depend
only on the org, not on "fate."
So if you see the gross divisional statistics generally down or going
down for the last couple or three weeks and yet see no beginning upsurge in
the current week in "letters out" and "completions," you know that the
org's management is probably inactive and asking to be removed. For if they
saw all stats going down they should have piled in on "letters out" and
"completions" amongst other things as the least they could do. They can
push those up.
So amongst any set of statistics are those which can be pushed up
regardless of the rest, and if these aren't, then you know the worst-no
management.
ENROLLMENT VERSUS COMPLETIONS
If you see a statistic going up in "completions" and see a falling
"enrollment" statistic, you know at once the body repeat sign-up line is
out.
People who graduate are not being handed their certs and awards by a
Registrar but are being given them by Certs and Awards or in mass meetings,
or in some way repeat sign-up is not being procured,
Thus the 40% to 60% repeat sign-up business is being lost.
This also means, if continued over a long period of time, that bad
technology is present as poor word-of-mouth advertising is going around.
Look in such a case at a third statistic-Qual collections. If this is
poor or very, very high, you can be sure that lack of enrollments is caused
by bad tech.
A very high Qual collections statistic and a low enrollment statistic is
a terrible condemnation of the Tech Division. Gross income will soon after
collapse as tech service just isn't good.
COMPARING STATISTICS
Thus you get the idea. Statistics are read against each other.
A statistic is a difference between two or more periods in time so is
always comparative.
Also, two different statistics are comparative, such as in examples
above.
PREDICTION
You can predict what is going to happen far in advance of the
occurrence, using statistics.
High book sales mean eventual prosperity. Low book sales mean eventual
emergency all along the line.
High gross income and low completions mean eventual trouble as the org
isn't delivering but is "backlogging" students and pcs simply by not
getting results. Carried on long enough this means eventual civic and legal
trouble.
Low FSM commissions may only mean no FSM program. But if there is an FSM
program, then it may mean bad tech. So a low completion and low Qual will
mean an eventual collapsed FSM statistic also, as the FSM's own area is
being muddied up by failed cases.
High book sales, high letters out, high Tech and high Qual statistics
mean the gross income statistic will soon rise. If these are low, then
gross income will fall.
I
Bills owed and cash in hand are read by the distance between the two
lines. If it is narrowing, things are improving; if widening, things are
getting worse. If they are far apart and have not closed for a long while,
with the cash graph below, the management is dangerous and not at all
alert.
THE DANGEROUS GRAPH
When all statistics on one set of graphs show a sinking TREND line, it
is a dangerous situation.
TREND means an inclination or tendency toward a general course or
direction. Thus to get the trend one would look at several weeks worth of
stats.
To read the stat trend, one needs to visually average the peaks and
valleys over a specific time period on the graph, It is done with the eye,-
there is no internal system of lines that can be drawn to assist this. One
sits back and looks at the pattern as a whole and there is a definite pitch
or slant that one can determine by this. That is the stat trend.
If all of these stat trends or most of them are down, the management is
inactive.
FALSE COMBINATIONS
When a Continental Org includes its own org on its combined graphs for
area orgs, it can have a very false picture.
Its own org's stats obscure those of the area orgs which may be dying.
Thus if you include a big function with a lot of small ones on a
combined graph, you can get a very false idea.
Thus, graph big functions as themselves and keep them out of small
functions of the same kind.
The Continental Org should not be part of a Continental Exec Div's
statistics. Similarly, SH stats should not be part of WW's.
A combined statistic is, of course, where you take the same stats from
several functions and add them up to one line. A very large function added
into a combined graph can therefore obscure bad situations. It can also
obscure a totally inactive senior management as the big function under its
own management may be wholly alert and competent, but the senior management
is masked from view by this one going concern, whereas all its other points
except the big one may be collapsing.
THE BIGGEST MISTAKE
The one big god-awful mistake an executive can make in reading and
managing by graph is being reasonable about graphs. This is called
JUSTIFYING A STATISTIC. This is the single biggest error in graph
interpretation by executives and the one thing that will clobber an org.
One sees a graph down and says, "Oh well, of course, that's . . . " and
at that moment you've had it.
I have seen a whole org tolerate a collapsed completions graph for
literally months because they all "knew the new type process wasn't working
well." The Tech Sec had JUSTIFIED his graph. The org bought it. None
thought to question it. When it was pointed out that with the same
processes the preceding Tech Sec had a continual high graph, and a
suppressive was looked for, it turned out to be the Tech Sec!
Never JUSTIFY why a graph continues to be down and never be reasonable
about it. A down graph is simply a down graph and somebody is goofing. The
only
13
explanation that is valid at all is, "What was changed just before it fell?
Good. Unchange it fast!" If a graph is down it can and must go up. How it
is going to go up is the only interest. "What did we do each time the last
few times just before it went up? Good. Do it!"
Justifying a graph is saying, "Well, graphs are always down in December
due to Christmas." That doesn't get it up or even really say why it's down!
And don't think you know why a graph is up or down without thorough
investigation. If it doesn't stay up or continues down then one didn't
know. It takes very close study on the ground where the work is done to
find why a graph suddenly rose or why it fell.
This pretended knowledge can be very dangerous. "The graph stays high
because we send out the XY Info Packet," as a snap judgment, may result in
changing the Dissem Sec who was the real reason with his questionnaires.
And the graphs fall suddenly even though no info packet change occurred.
GROSS REASONS
Graphs don't fall or rise for tiny, obscure, hard-to-find reasons. As in
auditing, the errors are always BIG.
Book sales fall. People design new flyers for books, appropriate display
money, go mad trying to get it up. And then at long last one discovers the
real reason. The bookstore is always shut.
A big reason graphs fall is there's nobody there. Either the executive
is doublehatted and is too busy on the other hat, or he just doesn't come
to work.
STICKY GRAPHS
Bad graphs which resist all efforts to improve them are made. They don't
just happen.
A sticky graph is one that won't rise no matter what one does.
Such a graph is made. It is not a matter of omission. It is a matter of
action.
If one is putting heavy effort into pushing a graph up and it won't go
up, then there must be a hidden counter-effort to keep it down.
You can normally find this counter-effort by locating your biggest area
of noncompliance with orders. That person is working hard to keep graphs
down.
In this case it isn't laziness that's at fault. It's counter-action.
I have never seen an org or a division or a section that had a sticky
graph that was not actively pushing the graph down.
Such areas are not idle. They are not doing their jobs. They are always
doing something else. And that something else may suddenly hit you in the
teeth.
So beware of a sticky graph. Find the area of noncompliance and
reorganize the personnel or you, as an executive, will soon be in real hot
water from that quarter-
Those things which suddenly reared up out of your in-basket, all claws,
happened after a long period of sticky graphs in that area.
Today's grief was visible months ago on your stats.
14
SUMMARY
The simple ups and downs of graphs mean little when not watched over a
period of time or compared to other graphs in the same activity.
One should know how to read stats and what they mean and why they behave
that way so that one can take action in ample time.
Never get reasonable about a graph. The only reason it or its trend is
down is that it is down. The thing to do is get it up.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH.jp.rd.gal.gm Copyright@ 1966, 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
*[Note: Three of the issues referenced at the start of HCO PL 6 Nov. 1966R,
Admin Know-How Series 5R, STATISTIC INTERPRETATIVE-STATISTIC ANALYSIS have
been revised. These revised issues are HCO PL 9 Nov. 1979R, revised 27 Aug.
1982, HOW TO CORRECTLY DETERMINE A STAT TREND; HCO PL 3 Oct. 1970RA,
revised 27 Aug. 1982, STAT INTERPRETATION; HCO PL 5 May 1971 RA, revised 27
Aug. 1982, READING STATISTICS.]
15
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 NOVEMBER 1966
Remimeo
Admin Know-How Series 6
GOOD VERSUS BAD MANAGEMENT
The difference between good management and poor management can be the
loss or gain of the entire organization,
Financial planning is a vital part of management. Good financial
estimations and the ability to figure out, without vast accounting, the way
things are in an org is an ability which is vital to good management.
The manager, given a few vital facts, who then needs an accountant to
tell him how things are, is of course incompetent.
Management is a high skill. Socialist or worker governments are flat on
their uppers because they do not comprehend the degree of insight required
in a successful manager. When they harass, mess up and sometimes shoot
their managers, they promptly begin eras of starvation as in Russia, China
and to some extent under their socialisms, in recent years, England and the
US. The amount of time any manager has to spend in the US or England
battling with government clerks who aren't skilled enough to run a
tricycle, assisted, is easily a third of the manager's time.
The essence of good management is CARING what goes on. The worker-
oriented fellow cares for the worker but not for the organization. So we
have a final extinction of the worker by the organization vanishing and no
longer able to employ. The consequence is the widespread depression just
beginning. Real help for the worker is also making sure there will be work
for him to do. When the organization is gone, there is only misery, the
dole, revolution and sudden death. The "worker-oriented" manager lacks the
insight into the skill necessary to manage. So to him an organization is
something to be bled. It is a bottomless pit of money. Such a person's
total "skill" is how to get something out of the organization. But you
can't take out more than comes in. Management is entirely beyond the
ability of such people. They don't know what it is all about. They do not
care what happens to the organization. Then suddenly the machinery all
stops and everyone starves.
Whole countries go this way when the mess begins.
The basic difference between organizations that run and those that
collapse is simply somebody caring what happens to the organization itself.
A good manager takes care of the workers. He also takes care of the
organization. A worker-oriented fellow-union leader, agitator, do-gooder-
cares only for the worker and thus does the worker in. So he is actually a
suppressive. For the whole bang shoot goes to pieces and the end product is
dismal unemployment, depression, malnutrition, starvation. You have to have
lived through such a period to learn dread of it. And that's what caring
nothing for the organization finally results in.
A worker-oriented person is deficient in pan- determinism. He or she
cannot see that the health of all demands he take into account workers and
the org. Therefore he or she is below the ability to determine both sides
of things and so makes a very poor executive, being lopsided, given to
"them and us," playing favorites and unable to see two sides of a question.
Such abilities are vital in an executive, so he isn't one.
16
A worker-oriented person is not nice to individual workers-he or she may
shoot them-but only about collective "workers."
Poor source identification goes with lack of pan-determinism so a person
cannot see or solve the real problems around. So such people can't even
operate as executives.
Thus you can know them. The org or country always fails.
So you want to watch this "poor-worker" pitch in an executive. If he
cares only for the worker and nothing for the org, if he is only interested
in what he or the workers can get out of an organization, then you are
looking at somebody who in the long run will put one and all on the street.
You see here and there bared teeth at the org or the idea of the org.
Along with it, if you look, you will find a heavy carelessness about the
org's money and property and also a heavy effort to get something for the
workers. Here you have a full-bodied case. This person won't ever succeed
and should never be an executive. Never. For he'll do the workers in.
A good manager cares what happens, what's spent, what prosperity can
occur, how the work is done, how the place looks, how the staff really
fares. He is dedicated to getting the show on the road and he takes out of
the line-up obstacles to the org's (and staff's) progress.
Caring what goes on and not caring is the basic difference. Caring for
something else while working is the mark of the laborer, not the executive.
If you have to start an economy drive, look for the people who fight it.
Quietly remove them from executive posts. You have a laborer, steeped
privately in "us-poorworkers" and "get what you can" and "spend the org out
the window."
If you care what happens to the org and the size of the paycheck as
well, you will be very careful to develop an insight into finance,
efficiency and the state of the org.
If you see bills owed soaring above cash on hand, you will also see
executives who care nothing for the org. They are worker-oriented, anti-org
people and you had better put a thumb down on continuing them as
executives. Along with that unfavorable graph you will also find demands to
borrow money, sell assets to pay bills and a near refusal to promote or
make money.
I have learned all this the hard way. I pass it on for what it is worth.
I can say these things because no man on Earth could seriously challenge me
for not caring about people or staffs. I do care. And the ultimate in
caring is to make sure there is an org there.
So please be alert to these points in conducting Ad Council meetings.
Inevitably the hardest job is financial planning. But in that sphere you
will show up the executives and the laborers. Watch and when you find you
have a worker-oriented person there, realize you don't have an executive.
Get one.
SUMMARY
Bad management is therefore detectable on these points:
1. The bills-cash ratio will be high in bills and low in cash.
2. There is an effort to borrow money rather than earn it.
3. There is a heavy effort to sell assets rather than make money.
4. There is more effort to collect debts, particularly from seniors,
than to make new income.
5. There will be an effort to be supported.
6. There will be low affinity in the org for the org and its public.
7. There will be protest and flash-back at efforts to get them solvent.
17
8. There will be noncompliance with orders of senior management.
The remedy is to
A. Find the most worker-oriented senior executive and remove him or
her.
B. Find the anti-org executives and staff and remove them.
C. Put in the senior posts those who most care what happens to the
org.
D. Enjoin and conduct careful financial planning and measures.
E. Remove from executive posts those who object to them or don't
comply (that may have been missed in A and B).
F. Resurrect neglected orders and main programs and get them
complied with.
G. Be exceedingly careful not to appoint people there in the future
who don't
care what happens to the org.
It does not much matter how one goes about this. If one wants the org
and its staff to prosper, the above measures must be done and quickly when
the bills-cash ratio of an org threatens the continuance of it and the
staff their jobs.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.rd.gm Copyright 0 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
18
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 NOVEMBER 1966
Remimeo
Admin Know-How Series 7
EXECUTIVE FACILITIES
FACILITY DIFFERENTIAL
When a senior executive has the ability to make money for the
organization or greatly raise statistics, and when this ability has been
demonstrated, that executive should have facilities.
This ability is often discoverable by the absence of the executive from
post for a period or when the executive is pulled off by emergencies. In
such a time the income of the org may sink-
The degree the income shrinks is the "facility differential" of that
executive. It is worth that much to the org in facilities to have the
executive on post. Example: With that executive on duty-income $8000 per
week. With that executive absent-$5000 per week. This is the "facility
differential" of that executive. It is, in this example, $3000 per week.
This means that the org could afford $3000 per week extreme to provide that
executive with facilities for his work to keep him from overload. For it
will lose $3000 a week if this executive is distracted or overloaded. Of
course nobody expects the org to spend $3000. It just shows the extreme
amount it could spend. One cannot afford not to spend some of it for
facilities for this executive. The moment it does spend some of it-
providing this executive does have this influence on income or production-
the differential rises as the org makes more money or as the stat goes up.
This trend can be pushed up and up.
Executives don't deserve secretaries or communicators. They earn them.
If an executive has no "facility differential," he should not have special
personal help.
The "facility differential" can also be judged from other statistics but
income is the primary one.
For instance, we have just found my "facility differential" for Saint
Hill Org only. It is, based on losses during a six months absence and gains
for the last part of the year, E244,000 per annum for just this year. Thus
the org could afford to spend E244,000 per annum to furnish me management
facilities.
In this case the computation is made by the org's increased indebtedness
for the first six months plus the lack of reserves set back and the rate of
dismissal of debt in the last six months plus the reserves set aside. The
increasing debt and reserve absence for six months is added to the debt
reduction and reserve presence for the last six months, giving the total.
Income and other personnel remained similar all through the year but began
to fail and was picked up by me at the half year.
The value is actual cash wasted in my absence and a beginning failure
set up by bad tech and the recovery in terms of cash retained and income
upsurge.
Naturally, this is a very high sum at this time (though quite accurate).
The org, however, cannot afford not to give me every facility required
to keep me on its lines.
These total only a few thousand a year for extra personnel and admin
facilities,
19
not anywhere near f 244,000. Thus, if the org (SH only) permitted me to
move off its lines and failed to provide me facilities, it would lose on
the current balance sheet, f244,000 per annum in actual cash and would in
fact go broke. It can't stand that much loss. So, the answer, nothing to do
with my wishes, is that SH must provide me facilities for its own sake. Pay
has nothing to do with it as I don't get paid. But SH staff pay would cease
entirely as they would have no jobs.
An org is very lucky to have a few persons who can make money for it,
fortunate to have one, and in a mess if it has none.
Post title may mean nothing. A Registrar who on post brings in $5000 a
week and off post the org gets only $2000 a week, is obviously such a
person. The facility differential is $3000 a week!
A Treasury Sec who on post has a cash-bills ratio equal, but off post,
the org, through lack of his financial planning, gets a gap of $20,000 for
the three months he is off, means a facility differential of $80,000 a year
for that Treas Sec.
The usual reward is promotion but the org often loses income by
promoting a good Reg to a poor Dissem Sec.
The answer is to give the person facilities as there is a "facility
differential." This may include more pay on post but must include more
facilities, beyond that of other staff members.
Just doing a normal job on post is maintaining income. It takes quite an
executive to raise it markedly beyond normal expansion.
Mary Sue, by actual data of times past, is worth to an org on any single
executive post about 50% of its regular gross income. The fall and rise of
about half the income has been demonstrated in several orgs over many
years. Had she also been subtracted from the SH Org, the facility
differential added to my subtraction would have put it out of existence
before the year was out.
It would be very foolish not to give her facilities. Yet she has never
been known to ask for any and facilities have had to be initiated for her
when they occurred. Thus top executives themselves have to notice this and
demand facilities for the person. If they do not, the person at the very
least will go off post or their services lost because of overwork.
So one doesn't have a communicator because one is an Exec Sec or senior
executive. One has one if he or she has a "facility differential" beyond
normal expectancy.
And that tells one who has communicators in an org. And who has the
facilities.
And it says who must be given communicators and facilities and who
shouldn't have them.
Granted it is sometimes hard to determine this "facility differential"
in a staff member. But long experience will establish it.
FACILITIES
Facilities normally include
a. Those that unburden lines
b. Those that speed lines
C. Those that gather data
d. Those that compile
20
e. Those that buy leisure
f. Those that defend
g. Those that extend longevity on the job.
One can think of many things that do each of these.
The bare minimum are accomplished by giving the executive a
communicator.
The communicator more or less covers all the categories above. Then, as
the facility differential rises, the communicator sheds hats by providing
other people to take over these functions as outlined above.
ANALYSIS
The org board pattern (names of divisions, departments and their code
words as per any of our org boards) is an analysis system which can be
applied to any person or job. He is light or heavy on one or more of these
and the pattern gives him or her a clue as to what is wrong.
Write them down for yourself and you will see. Which ones don't exist in
your actions, which are in Emergency, which are Normal and which are high?
This is an ultimate analysis of the state of one's post. Or of one's
life for that matter. One can progress simply by doing this now and then.
These also comprise a total pattern of facilities,
However, one needn't go so far to help an executive with a facility
differential at first. Later, such an analysis is absolutely necessary to
keep facilities in balance.
At first one only need give the person a better desk in better space and
a better phone and more ball-points.
But a real facility differential amounting to 25% or more of the org's
income (on or off job difference, proven) demands not only these but also a
communicator.
WHAT IS A COMMUNICATOR?
A communicator is one who keeps the lines (body, despatch, letter,
intercomm, phone) moving or controlled for the executive.
The communicator, when not helped by others, really assumes all of (a)
to (g) above and does nothing else for anyone else.
PRIMARY COMMUNICATOR DUTIES
The primary actions of a communicator concern despatch lines and are as
follows:
1. Receives all written comm for the executive of all kinds with no
bypass.
2. Identifies and returns to sender all dewt. The executive never
sees it. Notes the senders in a book. Attaches the appropriate Dev-T
Pol Ltr to each returned despatch. Monthly, reports the names of
offenders and the number of times to the executive. (For these
people are ruining other staff members too.)
3. Puts all directives, Pol Ltrs, HCOBs and Ethics Orders and any
statistics in a folder so marked each day.
4. Puts the org despatches in a folder so marked each day. (If
several org areas or divisions are being handled, puts the
despatches in folders by areas or divisions.)
21
5. Puts the personal despatches in a folder so marked each day.
6. Deletes from the lines anything that may be routinely answered by
letter and answers it and puts the originals and typed answers for
signature in a folder so marked each day.
7. Presents the folders named in 3 to 5 inclusive in the executive's in-
basket at the beginning of the executive's workday (and holds all the
rest that come in after, until the next day).
8. Puts the signature folder as per 6 above in the in-basket at the
latest moment of the day sufficient to get them signed for the evening
mail.
9. Lays cables and telegrams and phone messages in the center of the
blotter on the executive's desk.
10. Comes in for cable answers when called.
11. Picks up and files properly for the executive all Pol Ltrs,
directives, in the executive's own file.
12. Keeps the executive's own files for the executive's use.
13. Keeps excess paper, magazines, books, picked up and filed.
14. Leaves alone things the executive is working on but files them if not
being worked on after a while.
15. Oversees cleanliness and arrangement of desk and office.
16. Oversees ampleness of pertinent supplies, paper, pens, stapler,
clips, etc.
17. Doesn't take up the executive's time with chitchat or verbal reports
or rumors.
18. Handles by-hand rushes for the executive in and out.
19. Blocks all body traffic until its business is established, then
routes it properly (except where body traffic is the executive's
business on post, in which case the communicator smooths and regulates
it).
20. Handles phone traffic and keeps it very low, listing abusers as dev-
t.
21. Takes down names of staff body traffic that is not a routine part of
the line and reports it with the monthly dev-t report.
22. Takes the entheta off the lines but not items which, if not handled,
will endanger the org.
23. Notes staff who hand the executive problems but do no compliance with
solutions ordered, and recommends ethics action.
24. Finds out bits of data when instructed to do so by the executive.
25. Keeps alert to malfunctions of lines and reports them for handling to
appropriate persons.
26. Does not take up time of other staff or executives by unnecessary
visits and does not prolong such visits beyond a crisp minimum
transaction.
27. Blocks all lines if the executive is engrossed in a project.
28. Keeps own desk and materials neat.
22
29. Demands a communicator's secretary if differential great enough
and lines are jamming.
30. Demands other facilities as per (a) to (g) above if the facility
differential is great enough and there is overload.
COMMUNICATOR'S TITLE
A communicator's title is always his or her executive's followed by " 's
Communicator." To that, when there are more than one may be added "for . .
." being a function or division.
COMMUNICATOR'S PURPOSE
The communicator is to help the executive free his or her time for
essential income-earning actions, rest or recreation, and to prolong the
term of appointment of the executive by safeguarding against overload.
COMMUNICATOR EXEC ACTIONS
The communicator has his own executive actions. These come under the
Admin Know-How HCO Pol Ltrs of contemporary date.
If a communicator can get these and Dev-T Policies grooved in for the
executive, the communicator is invaluable.
A communicator should know the Dev-T and Admin Know-How Policies
starrated.
It should be no surprise to an executive to receive from his or her
communicator a notice that the executive is violating Admin Know-How or Dev-
T policy. "May I call to your attention that you are wearing the Dir
Clearing hat and have been for two weeks," or "You should request from Ad
Council appointment of a board after your 10 July urgent directive."
COMPLIANCE
Policing compliance for a senior executive is a vital function of a
communicator.
When an executive issues orders and they are not complied with then, as
this builds up, that executive will suddenly behold a shock situation
squarely on his plate.
Noncompliance lets entheta situations backfire right up to the
executive. The degree of noncompliance regulates the number of screaming
emergency messes the executive will have to handle.
The communicator then keeps an LRH Comm-type log and notes in it the
orders or directives issued and notes as well compliance (using Dept I & R
and time machine). At length, the communicator will have a noncompliance
list.
This usually involves only a few persons or outside firms.
The communicator should inform the executive of this by presenting
orders ready to sign nominating Ethics Hearings or Executive Ethics
Hearings (or dismissal of outside firm) on certain persons who consistently
noncomply.
If the executive has a junior post and a communicator, then for
noncompliance one substitutes "job endangerment" actions which harass the
executive and must be filed and remedied before the executive's statistic
is shattered.
Only in that way can a communicator defend his or her executive from
being hit by sudden shocks. Noncompliance (or job endangerment) lets the
barriers down on the
23
whole incoming line to a nasty situation which will then, unhandled, hit
the executive with no time lapse left. So he has to handle a deteriorated
situation in a screaming rush. He probably handled it months before but
noncompliance let it worsen. And job endangerment, let it build up, has the
same effect on a junior executive. The amount of bad news an executive gets
in is in direct proportion to the failure of compliance (or job
endangerment) and the communicator's failure to spot it at the time. The
shorter the time one has to handle a bad mess, the harder and more shocking
it is.
This is the sole reason a competent executive grows tired, wants to
quit, leaves his job.
It is basically communicator failure to warn him of noncompliance (or
job endangerment) early, so he can get people who will comply (or get those
who endanger him off his back with their ineffectiveness or suppression).
Or who will do their jobs and not leave them to the executive or let the
executive suffer from their deeds or lack of them.
The fashion of a "private secretary" for every title is of course
nonsense. As not every title by far is an income producer or statistic
raiser.
Giving facilities to titles instead of high statistics denies the real
producer what he needs by soaking up available help into corners that
cannot benefit the org with it.
A normal action of a post is the usual covered (not uncovered) post
which if replaced changes nothing. A real facility differential is a large
change.
Thus if you give facilities to those who have no more than normal
(covered post) facility differential and those who have a marked facility
differential are given no help, you will eventually wipe out by overwork
those who have the facility differential and the org will collapse.
It is not flashy new ideas so much that raise income but efficient
standard actions.
New ideas are fine, when all the old programs are also working.
An executive who is brilliantly successful is one who can get all the
formal, standard functions going and then add the garnish of bright new
angles that augment the proven track.
Facilities give a valuable executive "think time" and "consider time"
and a fresh, alert attitude toward what is going on.
If you want to raise your income as an org, then
a. Get all standard actions functioning and staff working and
b. Spot those with "facility differential" and give them
facilities.
C. Don't falsify any "facility differential" for sake of face or
status.
d. Make sure that facilities granted know their business or work.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH.jp.ne.gm Copyright C 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
24
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 NOVEMBER 1966
Remimeo
Admin Know-How Series 8
INTERVENTION
The Urgent Directive System (see HCO Policy Letter of 31 October 1966,
"Administrative Know-How 11") is the one most commonly used, when they have
to intervene, by senior executives such as the following:
Founder
Guardian
A senior Ad Council
Asst Guardian
Exec Sec
LRH Comm
The routine in this case is more or less as follows:
1. The senior, on discovery of a bad situation or noncompliance, issues
an urgent directive. (If more than one is issued at the same time by
different seniors, the list above is the precedence list of what order to
follow.)
2. The senior directs investigation. Senior Ad Council usually appoints
a Board of Investigation-sometimes directly orders a Comm Ev. The Founder
might only require an ED from his LRH Comm in that area. The Guardian might
require only an ED from an Asst Guardian. An Exec Sec might require only an
ED from his or her communicator if he or she has one. Or any on the list
may order a Board.
3. The ordering senior, on receipt of the requested directive in draft
form, then returns it to the Ad Council of the org or orgs to which it will
apply. Until the Ad Council acts or some directive to handle the situation
is passed, the original, most senior urgent directive remains in force.
The above would be the most common admin action, most calculated to
bring things right in the long run.
It is important that until some form of ED is formally passed by the Ad
Council of the org or orgs concerned, the urgent directive must be followed
by those to whom it is addressed.
This keeps arbitraries from entering into admin.
Nothing, of course, prevents a senior executive, as listed above, from
simply issuing straight orders with no follow-through of an ED. In such
case, the directive is not called an urgent directive, but is simply an
order in ED form.
DIRECT ORDER
Example: The Guardian discovers that a high unreasonable rental compared
to income is being contemplated. By any means or ED, she forbids it and
demands other quarters be looked for quickly. This requires no follow-
through beyond the Guardian making sure other quarters ARE found and the
order is complied with.
25
URGENT DIRECTIVE
Example: The Founder finds a long string of people are being labeled
suppressive because they won't separate from Joe Blow. He writes an urgent
directive to stop labeling people this way and convenes a Board on the
whole subject in that org, gets their findings in the form of an ED, sends
it to that Ad Council. They pass it after some, none or many changes. The
urgent order ceases to be in force at that moment. He could also have
simply issued a direct order.
Example: An HCO Exec Sec finds Central Files is not increasing. She
issues an urgent directive to round up all CF names lying around the org.
Then investigates personally, writes an ED and puts it before the Ad
Council. They work on it, modify it or expand it and pass it. The urgent
directive ceases to be valid. Remember, she could as easily simply have
issued a direct order as above. It could even have been in Executive
Directive form.
Example: An impending lawsuit is heard of by the Guardian, the senior Ad
Council and the local Ad Council where it will occur. The Guardian and
senior Ad Council both issue urgent directives and the local Ad Council
passes a directive on it. The Guardian's urgent directive wipes out the
orders junior to it and it is followed. On the Guardian getting an ED from
the Assistant Guardian of that org, the Guardian sends the ED before that
org's Ad Council for passage or change. The Guardian's urgent directive is
superseded by the Ad Council's directive based on it. But remember, the
Guardian can comm-ev the lot if the situation is not finally handled,
regardless of the Ad Council directive having been passed, if things goofed
up.
PETITION
A direct order or a straight directive can be petitioned against after
compliance. The Ad Council simply passes a petition and gives any data
required or an ED to substitute.
It is usually wise to give a better remedy in the form of an ED and get
that ED conditionally passed with the approval of the original issuer of
the direct order or straight directive.
THEORY
Those who do the work sometimes know best and those nearest the scene
are sometimes better armed with data.
A senior executive sometimes has to act without all the data and a wise
senior often so acts when the situation is bad.
But the senior is only trying to remedy the situation in the final
analysis. After his ordered fast action is taken, he is ordinarily quite
happy to have help improving the remedy.
DIRECT SUBMISSION
An urgent directive or direct order may also be handled as follows by a
senior:
1. Issue it.
2. Send it to the Ad Council of the org to which it applies with the
note: "After you've done this, pass a directive to handle this sort of
thing."
DEMANDED DIRECTIVE
A senior can simply demand an Ad Council pass a directive to remedy a
situation
26
and let them sort it out. This is only done when one has almost no data.
In this case the Ad Council passes one, puts it in force and sends a
copy to the senior via channels stating, "Compliance herewith."
LABELING DIRECTIVES
When an Executive Directive is passed by an Ad Council, if it wipes out
an urgent directive or a direct submission or a demanded directive, the
resulting ED must bear the fact under its title: Executive Directive after
Board of Investigation-"Cancels Urgent Directive PE96 Get Income Up"; or
direct submission after urgent directive"As requested by HCO Exec Sec
W./U.S. to augment her direct order Get Income Up"; or by demand for a
directive-"As demanded by Ad Council WW in their cable 239 WW Pass a
directive increasing income."
DANGER FORMULA
The Danger Formula applies when such orders bypass those responsible,
meaning at least an ethics investigation must occur to find who was asleep
if any.
However, the Founder or Guardian can issue an urgent directive or direct
order to any org and order the Ad Council of any org, as they are in fact
seniors of that immediate org, without having to take ethics action on the
Ad Council WW or the senior Ad Council to that org. However in such cases
Ad Council WW and the senior Ad Council are informed.
If, however, the Founder or Guardian have to do too much too often, they
step back upstairs and investigate the senior Ad Councils. This has been
the usual practice.
The Founder usually uses his LRH Comm, and the Guardian her Assistant
Guardian or the LRH Comm in that area to effect orders, get data and submit
to Ad Council.
A senior Ad Council uses its area representative in its own group or the
LRH Comm in the junior Ad Council to do the same thing.
In practice, one issues urgent directives when the situation is rough
and simply demands a directive when things look like they will get rough.
Intervention by seniors is hard for juniors to cope with. The best
defense is don't develop bad situations that then require intervention and
keep all stats up and the org expanding.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.dk.gm Copyright 0 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The paragraph under "Labeling Directives," which contained a
typographical error in the original issue, has been corrected per HCO PL 21
December 1966, CORRECTION TO HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 NOVEMBER 1966,'ADMIN
KNOW-HOW, INTERVENTION.']
27
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 DECEMBER 1966
Remimeo
Admin Know-How Series 9
EXPANSION
THEORY OF POLICY
It is not very hard to grasp the basic principle underlying all policy
letters and organization.
It is an empirical (observed and proven by observation) fact that
nothing remains exactly the same forever. This condition is foreign to this
universe. Things grow or they lessen. They cannot apparently maintain the
same equilibrium or stability.
Thus things either expand or they contract. They do not remain level in
this universe. Further, when something seeks to remain level and unchanged,
it contracts.
Thus we have three actions and only three. First is expansion, second is
the effort to remain level or unchanged and third is contraction or
lessening.
As nothing in this universe can remain exactly the same, then the second
action (level) above will become the third action (lessen) if undisturbed
or not acted on by an outside force. Thus actions two and three above
(level and lessen) are similar in potential and both will lessen.
This leaves expansion as the only positive action which tends to
guarantee survival,
The point of assumption in all policy letters is that we intend to
survive and intend so on all dynamics.
To survive, then, one must expand as the only safe condition of
operation.
If one remains level, one tends to contract. If one contracts, one's
chances of survival diminish.
Therefore there is only one chance left and that, for an organization,
is expansion.
PRODUCT
To expand, any company needs a demanded product and will and skill to
produce and deliver it. It can be a service or an item.
If a company has a demanded product and will and skill to produce and
deliver it, it must organize to expand. If it does, it will survive. If it
organizes to stay level or seeks to grow smaller, it will perish.
This is easily observed in nations. Whenever one seeks to remain the
same or to lessen itself, it usually perishes. It need not seek only to
expand its borders. It can also expand its influence and service. Indeed,
the effort to expand borders in a nation without increasing a demand for
its influence and products is a primary cause of war. If a nation expanded
the demand for its influence and products, it would expand without war.
When a nation seeks to merely expand by force of arms and does not expand
the demand for its products, one gets a dark age or at least a social
catastrophe.
28
Rome, early on, was in great demand for its social technology and
manufacturing skill and only a cruel streak in her made her wage war to
expand. Britain, for instance, was ready to welcome Roman baskets and
pottery and art and had been demanding them for nearly a century when
Caesar's vicious ambitions actually wrecked the smooth progress of Rome by
enforced expansion by arms in excess of the demand for Roman products. This
was one Roman product nobody wanted-Caesar and his legions.
Psychiatry's product of further insanity was not in demand by the people
but by the state which sought to crush people or at least hold them down.
So psychiatry expanded by government regulation, not by popular demand, and
so at this writing stands in danger of complete extinction, for its
influence depends utterly on "expanding" into the legislatures and
government treasuries and no expansion whatever of any demand from the
public and no product except slaughter.
The Roman Catholic Church once had a healing product, by actual
treatment and by relics and miracles, and was in great demand by the public
and eventually even the barbarians. But she began to fight progress in
science and knowledge, and her product turned into exported ignorance
backed by autos-da-f6 (burning heretics) and thus ceased to expand and
today is rapidly shrinking.
Buddhism, earlier than that, expanded continuously as it never sought
new extension of territory other than that of learning. Buddhism failed in
India alone because its monks became licentious, ceased to deliver true
teachings and were swept up, most likely, in India alone, by the Muslim
conquest of that unhappy country sometime around the seventh century.
Britain of the 20th century actively sought to contract her empire and
did so to the tune of internal economic catastrophe.
SINGLE PRINCIPLE
Thus it should be obvious that contraction leads to death and expansion
to life, providing that one maintains a demand for itself and the will and
skill to produce and deliver a product.
If, as ours is, the product is very beneficial and if we continue to
produce and deliver, the demand is assured. In this we are fortunate. And
we are also fortunate that, try as they will, no squirrel is ever able to
duplicate our product since one variation (that of changed brand) leads to
others; and they promptly have neither product nor demand-that observation
is itself empirical. No squirrel has lasted more than 2 or 3 years in the
past sixteen years. And there have been many. That they squirrel shows
enough bad faith to drive away the public the moment the public hears of
the original.
Thus, providing we maintain the will and skill to produce and deliver,
we can expand, and proper expansion that will continue is possible.
All our policy then is built on EXPANSION.
It assumes we wish to survive.
And it stresses the production and delivery of a straight nonsquirrel
product.
It is calculated to ensure a continued and widening demand by ensuring
that product remains good and beneficial.
The technology itself is complete, but it expands also by experience of
administration of it and simplifying its presentation.
But to alter the basics of the technology will stop expansion because it
is what we are producing, not what we are building.
We are building a better universe. It has not been a good universe to
live in so far but it can be.
29
Our punitive force is our ethics system, and it exists to ensure the
quality of the product and to prevent the blunting of demand for the
product.
INTERPRETATION OF POLICY
The organization then has all its policy rigged to expand.
It takes many things to ensure expansion.
Thus, when you are interpreting policy, it should be interpreted only
against EXPANSION as the single factor governing it.
This can serve to clarify questions about policy. The correct
interpretation always leads to expansion, not holding a level or
contraction.
For example, policy bars the entrance of the healing field. This is
solely because there is too much trouble with the occupiers of that field
and only outright war (with no demand) could solve them. This seems to be a
brake on expansion. It is only a brake on expanding by war in the absence
of demand. Therefore the right way to expand is to gradually build up
general public demand, let experience by the public see that we heal and
when the demand is there and howling for us, reinterpret the policy or
abolish it as a brake to expansion. As one can only expand by external
demand for the product, if one seeks to expand in the absence of a specific
demand for the product, one has war; and war doesn't lead to expansion any
more than burning heretics and other brutalities expanded the Catholic
movement.
So one interprets policy against proper expansion that is proper.
CORRECT EXPANSION
Expansion which when expanded can hold its territory without effort is
proper and correct expansion.
Hitler (like Caesar) did not "consolidate his conquered territory." It
was not possible to do so, not because he did not have troops but because
he didn't have a real demand for German technology and social philosophy
before conquering. Thus Hitler lost his war and fascist Germany died. It is
almost impossible to consolidate territory where one was not invited in, in
the first place, and force had to be used in order to expand.
One can remove a real suppressive by force to ensure demand will then
build, providing he does not seek to force the product on the suppressive
and all those around the suppressive.
The suppressive, as an individual, can be removed by force because he is
an anti-demand factor using falsehood and lies to prevent demand from
occurring. But one, in removing the suppressive, has to be sure one's own
product and delivery are still correct and straight and in no way
suppressive of anything but suppressives.
Further, one must leave at least a crack in the door and never close it
with a crash on anyone because a demand still may develop there.
The only way to start a full scale revolution is totally and thoroughly
slam the door. One must always leave a crack open. The suppressive can
recant and apologize. The pauper can by certain actions, no matter how
improbable, secure service. Etc.
In short, use force only to shut down false anti-demand factors. Yet
leave the door at least a crack open in case demand without duress
develops. Never finally shut off a possible demand.
You can stimulate demand. You can create it. But you may only
comfortably and properly expand into demand.
30
Removal of a suppressive only brings a potential appearance of demand
from the area he dominated. That potential, by some means, the best of
which are good dissemination and service examples, must become demand
before one can truly occupy territory.
Thus areas taken purely by force of arms can never be held by force of
arms in the absence of demand for product and thus demand by the area for
occupation and consolidation.
As we have a product that frees in an ultimate sense and de-aberrates,
there is of course an end to the game. But it is so far ahead, embracing a
whole universe, that it requires minimal consideration.
Expansion requires area to expand into. And we are in no danger of
running out of that.
If we were dependent as nations often think they are on boundary
expansion on one planet, or into one planet's populations as companies
think they are, we would have brakes on expansion due to territorial or
population limitations alone. But we are not likely to encounter such
barriers for a period of time so long, we can consider our expansion
potential as infinite-and are the only organization that honestly can so
consider. We are not conquering land in the government sense anyway.
OVEREXPANSION
All factors, then, in policy are rigged for expansion.
And this brings about a possibility one can be asked about, that of
overexpansion.
One can "overexpand" by acquiring too much territory too fast without
knowing how to handle it. One can conquer new territory as fast as one
wants IF he knows how to handle the situation.
There are several ways one can "overexpand." They all boil down to
overextended administration lines in a single administrative unit.
In this, one must know the principle on which the org board was
originally conceived. It is that of Thetan- Mind- Body- Product.
If there is a thetan, a mind (organization potential, not a harmful
mass) can be set up-a mind which will organize a body which will produce a
product.
If any one of these elements (Thetan- Mind- Body-Product) are missing,
then an organization will fail.
Man is so aberrated all mental actions seem to him to be reactive mind
actions. But there has to be in organizations a data and problem-solution
coordination unit in order to set up a body. (A thetan can do this without
a lot of mass, having his memory and perception and intelligence.) We have
then an Advisory Council to coordinate acquired data, recognize and resolve
problems. Above it, there has to be a thetan somewhat detached from it.
This may be a higher mind (Ad Council) operating as a director to the lower
Ad Council.
The mind must operate to form a body. This body is the mest (matter
energy space and time) and staff of the organization.
This body must produce a product. This in the HGC, for instance, is
resolved cases.
Any smaller part of the whole organization is also a Thetan-Mind-Body-
Product. Often the executive is both thetan and mind, but as soon as
traffic gets too heavy, he must form a separate mind such as an
administrative committee or a personal staff to
31
compose the mind. In such a smaller unit than the whole org there is yet a
body (the staff and mest of the unit). And there must be a specific
product. The product sometimes is absent and sometimes incorrectly
assigned, but if so the unit won't function.
Overexpansion occurs only when one tries to handle the larger volume
with the same Thetan-M ind- Body- Product numbers one had before.
This tells you why single practitioners can't expand their practices
without overwork.
It also tells you why some executives are upset at the idea of expansion
as they (lacking organizational insight) see it solely as overwork. They
don't see that when you expand volume and traffic you must expand the
organization.
There is a wrong way and a right way to expand an organization.
The wrong way is to add staff and facilities endlessly (like governments
tend to do) without adding to the organization itself.
If you had huge affluences occurring steadily, you would soon go into
collapse if you did not expand also by organizational units or branches.
In taking over a new field or area of operation, for instance, one errs
when he adds that traffic to the basic organization's traffic.
In the presence of huge escalating affluences, one must analyze what is
causing them and reinforce them. BUT one must also see what new KIND of
traffic is being added.
If one finds a new KIND of traffic, then one sets up a suborganization
unit to handle it which is complete in itself.
If we are now getting "businessmen" in quantity, we set up, under the
control of the original organization
1. A thetan to supervise it
2. A mind to coordinate it
3. A body to handle it, and
4. A new product called "released /cleared businessmen."
If we then were to find the new unit (struggling to form itself into 7
divisions on its own by now) gets a lot of demand and statistics on an Org
Exec Course, it must cease to gratuitously coach it and set up its
"Business Academy" teaching the Org Exec Course as Dept 10, appointing a
thetan, mind, body and achieving a product "trained businessmen" and see
that units to support it occur in other divisions and an ethics unit to
prevent blunting of demand and re-aberration.
This can even go backwards. One sets up in Dissem a unit called
"Business Course Project Promotion Section" and stimulates the demand and
then when it is there puts in its Department 10.
Soon all seven divisions have extra units to care for this new action,
each unit with a Thetan-Mind-Body-Product. The products are different but
they all add up to "trained businessmen," whether they are creating demand,
financing or servicing.
So overexpansion is only underorganization in the main.
One can of course "overexpand" by attempted servicing in the absence of
demand causing, thus, losses in finance. In such a case only concentrate on
creating new demand, not on servicing old demands. This, by the way, is the
most common error in
32
organizations of ours. They shrink because they are not creating new demand
and concentrate only on creating demand in those already demanding (which
is lazy-easy).
New demand is expensive to develop. Thus you often see finance units
frowning on "new demand" expenses and cutting down magazines in number of
issue, not buying new mail lists, etc.
To start a new suborganization, one sets up on the basis of potential
demand, sets up ethics to prevent demand-blunting or bad internal service
or performance, works on increasing the demand, introduces service, sets up
external ethics to prevent blunted demand, increases the demand by
dissemination to new and old areas of demand, increases service, ensures
product, increases the organization (not just staff), increases demand in
new and old areas, stiffens up ethics, improves service facilities, etc.,
etc.
It's continuous expansion of volume, continuous expansion of
organization, continuous expansion of demand. Where one lags behind the
others, one gets trouble.
It is almost impossible to run a nonexpanding organization with ease.
One gets into financial crises, staff troubles and overwork. Decay has set
in. And fighting it is sure to overwork an executive. The easiest course is
to expand. Then one has the help.
Summary: In understanding policy one must understand its key and that is
expansion.
Only a Scientology organization has an unlimited horizon. But any
organization must expand to survive.
The only ways you can "overexpand" are to fail to expand with new demand
and keep pace with it evenly with organizational expansion as well as
numbers.
It is easier to expand than to "remain level."
Organizations and units which do not expand cannot stay level and so
contract.
Org executives and personnel are overworked only when they cannot afford
to expand and thus cannot get the help they need to do the work-quite in
addition to there being more problems made by contraction than by
expansion.
Scientology organizations are designed for expansion.
Expansion requires an expansion of all factors involved; and when
something expands out of pace with the rest which is not expanding at the
same rate, trouble is caused.
Uniform expansion of demand, ethics and service into new fields and
areas as well as old areas of operation, are needful to trouble-free
activities.
Each member and unit of an organization has a product which, if
different, contributes to the whole product of an organization,
The ultimate product of Scientology is a universe that is decent and
happy to live in, not degenerated and made miserable by suppressives as it
has been. This is accomplished by the de-aberration of individuals and the
prevention of blunted demand and re-aberration by suppressives, and this is
the method of expansion.
If in these early days of Scientology we have any troubles, they
occurred by an earlier imbalance of expansion.
33
Demand was created without handling suppressives, which unequal
expansion gave us a backlog of unhandled ethics in the society. All we need
do is catch up our backlog in those organizational functions which were not
expanded when they should have been and all will go smoothly.
Any time you do not expand uniformly with all functions, you get an
appearance of overexpansion by some functions. The best answer is not to
cancel the expanded functions which overreached, but to catch them up by
expanding the ones one neglected in support. You will have trouble wherever
you cut back an expansion as that is contraction. The answer, within
reason, is to advance all else to catch up to the expanded portion while
still, more calmly, expanding it.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.rd.gm Copyright 0 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
34
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 DECEMBER 1966
General Non-
Rernimeo Execs SH Org Exec
Course
Admin Know-How Series 10
HOW TO PROGRAM AN ORG
SAINT HILL PROGRAMS
In past years we have had many problems resulting in programs as
follows:
The sequence of major programs at Saint Hill:
To provide a home for LRH and family in Commonwealth area so
Commonwealth area could be organized and made self-supporting.
To provide admin facilities for LRH in Commonwealth area.
To make Commonwealth area self-supporting regardless of US funds or
customers. (Not yet resolved.)
To train technical and admin staffs for Commonwealth orgs.
To make Commonwealth outer orgs run on their income without their using
all the bills sums owed SH or Ron as part of their operating funds.
To find financial support for SH activities resulting in the SHSBC which
also accomplished the next above.
To handle Commonwealth activities and organizations and also handle US
activities. (Solved by telex and OIC and later the Exec Div WW.)
To establish SH general broad promotion. (Solved by The Auditor.)
To provide facilities for administering critical high-level tech such as
Power Processes. (Solved by SH HGC.)
To organize SH so it could be administered (made needful by '63-'64
collapse of multiple corporative setup). (Solved by 7 div system completed
by end of 1965.)
To refine the Qual Div to prevent all "failed cases," train staff and
improve tech.
To get reports of tax, etc., off continual crash programs. (Solved by
Treasurer but incomplete of any guarantee of chartered accountant
compliance.)
To get field auditors to cooperate and stop conflicts with orgs. (FSM
program.)
To refine the Tech Div. (Finished about August 1966.)
To get in smooth operation an ethics system.
To operate the Clearing Course and to assembly line Clears. (Still under
refinement but more or less complete.)
To establish and operate OT Course. (Just now under development.)
35
To beat back continuous attacks by suppressives in the 3rd and 4th
dynamics. (Solved by establishing Intelligence Branch.)
To train up staffs at SH and in outer orgs by Staff Status and Org Exec
Course.
To improve the cash-bills ratios of orgs.
To safeguard income once earned by better financial planning.
To reform Ad Councils into representative bodies (now complete with the
formation of an Executive Council).
To assemble all Scientology materials. (Flopped by reason of
noncompliance but lately reinstituted.)
Dictionary Project to prevent misunderstood words. (In sporadic and
jerky action to this day.)
To handle legal situations which built up by noncompliance by attorneys
internal and external in org. (Under solution by forming Guardian Legal
Branch.)
To improve and maintain affluences. (Just begun.)
To help Scientology dissemination and attack more broadly to prevent
such quantities of legal defense. (OT activities program just begun.)
To safeguard, continue and expand all Scientology orgs. (Worked on a
bit, not really concentrated on except for cash-bills and staff status.)
General improvement of finances. (OT activites.)
Buildings for Scientology orgs. (OT activities.)
To establish better audio-visio educational facilities. (Barely begun.)
These have been and are the major program steps which have been
implemented or are under development at Saint Hill since 1959 and forward
to the end of 1966.
Some of the years covered acquired names such as
1965 - The Year of Organization. 1966 - The Year of the Clears. 1967 -
will probably be the Year of the OTs.
It will be noted that each of these programs solved a self-evident
problem.
It must be realized then that these problems did exist.
If the problems exist again, remember there was already a solution
program and usually it has only been dropped and the problem reappeared
because it had been dropped. The proper directive action is to reimplement
and improve the solution which is to say, in the case of SH, the carrying
out of the successful programs noted above.
Ad Councils are always advancing new programs and often it is only an
old program dropped out that needs reinstituting, not a new solution.
Certainly an old problem has cropped up again.
36
There have been other programs of course. Many solutions to old
problems, and of major importance, are found in policy letters. Some
programs, although necessary, have never been successfully implemented.
There was the motion picture program but it is dogged by technical bugs and
became part of the audio-visio program now being attempted. There has been
the rewrite of all books program but I've been too overworked to attempt
it.
Other future, self-evident programs will come into being. They will only
fail if earlier programs, dropped out or not given reorganization when
needed, bring old problems into view by exposing them. All the problems
underlying the program solutions above still potentially exist, held in
abeyance only by the programs.
The best way to form programs is to isolate actual problems at any level
of operation and solve them either by removing elements that make them or
by instituting a program. Sensible planning tends toward both actions.
An unsuccessful program usually will be found to be solving the wrong
problem or is itself an improper solution to an actual problem.
If you want to establish the validity of a new program offered by
someone, ask him what problem it is seeking to solve. You can then see if
you already have a solution to the problem, but most often you will see
that no clarified idea of the problem existed and so the solution is poor
or inadequate.
The common problem of an org is not the development of programs but
failure to execute existing ones.
Another difficulty with orgs is that they often alter the existing
program so that it no longer resolves the problem the program was set up to
handle. A current example is magazines. Magazines exist to solve the
problem of public unawareness of an org. An org has no space unless it is
sending out anchor points to make it. And it is in nonexistence for its
Scientology public unless it mails magazines regularly. Magazines do not
develop much new public-that is another, largely unsolved, problem.
Magazines exist to continue the awareness of the existing Scientology
public. Now as these people are already aware of Scientology, the awareness
one is trying to develop is that of the org and its services. Recently,
continental magazines began to issue only Scientology data. The ads making
the Scientology public aware of the org were toned down and omitted and the
cash-bills ratio worsened in orgs. The orgs started toward nonexistence.
Significantly, the trend was begun by a someone who did not like orgs but
was in favor of Scientology. Issue Authority erred in not looking at old
magazines and comparing them to the current layout. There was a vast
difference. No ads in current ones. The program had been altered.
Artists are taught to be "original" and to alter. Yet successful artists
painted the same picture their whole lives under different names. These
just seemed new.
To change, alter or drop a program one must know what the program was
there to solve. Just change for change's sake is mere aberration (making
the lines crooked).
It's a good exercise for a senior executive to list the problems the org
really does have. To know the programs of an org that are in is to see what
problems an org would have if they were dropped.
It's healthy to revert a program now and then by meticulously examining
how it was originally when it was very successful and then put it back the
way it was originally. This is done not by adjusting lines but by looking
up old magazines, old policy, old despatches and issue pieces, even old
tapes. What did it used to consist of? If it is no longer successful
a. The program was altered or dropped and
b. The org will have a problem it once had long ago, or
37
C. (Rare) the causes of the problem have been removed and the
problem no longer exists.
There's lots of trial and error in developing a program. That's why any
new program should only be a "special project" for a while, off the org
main lines really, under special management. If a "special project" starts
to show up well in finance (and only in finance), then one should include
it "in" with its new staff as an org standard project.
To run new programs in on existing lines is to disturb (by distraction
and staff overload) existing programs, and even if good, the new program
will fail and damage as well existing programs.
Provide, then, staff and money to pioneer a new program as a "special
project." If you don't have money or staff to do this, you would do far,
far better simply looking over the problems the org faces and get in the
old programs that handled them. These are known winners and don't forget,
they cost a lot to find and prove as the thing to do. And they took a long
time.
Take the Central Files-Letter Reg setup in orgs. That's a standard
program. Developed in London and D.C. in the mid 50s. If you dropped it
out, an org would fail. The problem is "how to achieve special individual
contact with existing clientele and maintain existing already developed
business." One large firm, I was told the other day, that has put in our 7
division system was stunned to find they had never contacted their existing
business clientele. They only had done business with new clientele. This
cost them perhaps 200,000 sales a year! They promptly put in our CF-Letter
Registrar system with a vengeance.
In their case (as in a forming or reorganized org) they weren't even
aware of the problem and so had no program for it.
It is often the case that one can develop a program that removes the
need of some other program. If one removes the factors that make the
problem, one can dispense with the program that solves it. But this is so
rare it is nonhuman in most instances.
For instance, doctors are a public solution to the problem of human body
illness. If one removed this problem, one could remove the "doctor program"
safely. That's why doctors sometimes fight us. We are thought to be working
to remove the problem to which they are a program. One would have to have
more than a better cure. One would have to remove in the 4th dynamic
(mankind) the causes of illness. These would not be what people think they
are as the problem persists and so does the "doctor program" in the
society. It can't be the right problem. Only enough is known of the causes
of illness to make the problem appear to be handled. Actually the bad
statistic of ill people is rising. We have entered the field in research
only far enough to know that suppressives make people ill but that's a
sufficient departure to make it an ethics problem, not one in treatment! By
extension of this theory, one might find this problem not caused by
Pasteur's germs but by suppressive groups. In that case one would increase
ethics programs. Eventually, if this solved it, the "doctor program" would
be diminished as no longer the only solution.
The above is not a statement of intention or a plan. It is an example of
how an old standard program can become less important. Note that one would
have to (a) state the problem better than it had been stated, (b) isolate
causes of the real problem, (c) institute a "special project" to handle
those causes, (d) see if the problem was now better handled, (e) abandon it
if it didn't handle the problem, or (f) make it a standard program if it
did prove effective, (g) diminish the old program.
So just dropping a proven program (without going at it as above [a] to
[f 1) can be a catastrophe as it can let in an old problem when one already
has quite enough problems already.
Abandoned programs that were successful are currently the main cause of
orgs being in any difficulty.
38
You can always make an org run better by studying old successful
programs and getting them back in.
If you were to take the above list at Saint Hill, the major SH programs
since 1959, and simply revert them (make them more like the original) and
reinforce them, income would probably double.
If we abandoned as few as five of these, the SH org would undoubtedly
collapse.
If we added six new programs directly into the org without seeing the
problem to be solved, we could distract staff to a point where the old
standard programs would suffer and the org would collapse.
Sometimes, even in our orgs, we enter new arbitraries which make new
problems we don't need. Those are the sources we can do without. If we
didn't routinely abolish such org-generated problems, we would fade away in
a year.
Therefore we cherish and forward the existing programs we have and study
them continually to be sure they don't "go out."
This is not a list of the problems faced at Saint Hill; it is a list of
solutions. For these programs may accidentally be solving problems we
cannot yet clearly state.
This is not a list of all major programs in Scientology. These are found
in the policy letters of past years and particularly 1965.
This is a list of the major SH programs for use by SH executives and as
an illustration to others on how to program and to show them that, as
Scientologists, we use our knowledge of the mechanics of life, problems and
solutions to govern programs.
If all the problems we faced were only ours, we could of course simply
audit them out. But we exist in a 3rd and 4th dynamic which is not merely
aberrated but quite batty. This thrusts problems on us (finance,
international ignorance and intolerance, religious and psychiatric cults,
suppressive governments, retarded or misused scientific technology, lack of
human dignity and a host of other factors).
We exist, therefore, in a rather madly tossing sea, beset by numerous
countercurrents.
As we grow, we can remove vicious causes that make our problems
problems. Only then can we begin to drop certain programs as the problems
will cease to exist. But at this writing those problems do exist and
holding them in check are numerous solutions we call programs.
Where one of our standard programs fails through lack of recognition, we
then see a problem charging in on us demanding crash programing by higher
executives.
When we let uninformed or worse people put in new arbitraries or
solutions that solve no problem, we disturb old programs and soon have
heavy trouble through unnecessary programing. (Watching a new inexperienced
Ad Council propose "programs" is a painful experience to a trained and
effective executive. These proposed measures look silly because they
confront no real problems of the org and are dangerous because they will
distract the org from correct existing programs of which the new Ad Council
seems blissfully unaware.)
When an org doesn't know its programs, it can get pretty silly and
deeply in trouble. If it also knows its problems, it is fortunate.
But any Scientology org is rich in programs already proven and tested
and in exact drill. If it just keeps these going, it will win even if it
doesn't see the problems.
39
As it wins, the org expands, can afford more assistance, is less under
duress. Then it can begin to examine the problems themselves (still keeping
the solution as a program) and possibly remove some of the causes of the
actual problem. Only when the problem is gone can one drop a program.
A Scientology org is best fitted to do this as its staff is going up
tone by processing and is more and more able to confront and see source.
Therefore it eventually can remove the causes of its problems since it can
(a) see the problem and (b) see the bad sources which make the problem,
Until it can see, it is not safe to drop any of the solutions. And as
orgs are a channel or a way in themselves, they always will have a bottom
strata of people who cannot yet see the problems and so need explicit
programs to follow. As the lower strata moves up, a new lower strata, by
expansion, takes its place so there is no real end to programs until the
day comes when the universe is sane.
And that's not tomorrow or even the day after.
But we are making steady, relentless progress in that direction. Mainly
because of our programs, well applied.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.rd.gm Copyright C 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
40
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
14CO POLICY LETTER OF 24 DECEMBER 1966
General Issue 11
Non-Rernimeo CORRECTION AND ADDITION
Execs SH
Org Exec Course
Admin Know-How Series 11
HOW TO PROGRAM AN ORG
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITION
SEQUENCE OF PROGRAMS CORRECTION
The sixth SH program from the top on page one states, "To find financial
support for SH activities resulting in the SHSBC which also accomplished
the next above." This does not refer to "next above" but to two above, "To
train technical and admin staffs for Commonwealth orgs." The Saint Hill
Special Briefing Course was founded (a) to train tech and admin staffs for
Commonwealth orgs and (b) was found to be the solvency factor of Saint Hill
which was being looked for.
"Next above," "To make Commonwealth orgs run on their income without
using all the bills sums owed SH or Ron as part of their operating funds"
has only partially been solved and the SHSBC was not founded to solve it
although it helped. The 7 div system began to solve it (financial
independence of outer orgs) but only where a good Qual Div was put in first
and all area failed or overrun cases were picked up. It is notable that
Sydney and Adelaide, reported by Auckland to have put in no Qual Div even
after 2 years of urging, were low orgs on the totem pole. Others that did
get in a Qual Div and pick up their failed cases and overruns improved very
markedly. So the solution to solvent outer orgs that could run without
using SH or Ron's income lay in (a) establishing a fine Qual Div, (b)
picking up their area's "failed cases" and also repairing all overruns, (c)
training their staffs on tech and admin in the new Qual and (d) putting in
a fine Tech Div. Those that really did that are going very well. Sydney,
which butchered cases once by overrun R2-12, evidently completely neglected
the program and remains insolvent.
ADDITION
To make a simpler statement of what is a program, the following is offered:
1. The org has a problem relating to its function and survival.
2. Unless the problem is solved, the org will not do well and may even
go under.
3. The solution is actually an org activity or drill. We call this a
PROGRAM.
4. To find and establish a program, one conceives of a solution and sets
it up independent of org lines with its own staff and finance as a
SPECIAL PROJECT.
5. When a special project is seen to be effective or, especially,
profitable, it is then put into the org lines as worked out in the
"special project," bringing its own staff with it.
6. The usual place to carry a special project is under the Office of LRH
or the Office of the HCO Exec Sec or Office of the Org Exec Sec.
Programs go in their appropriate departments and divisions, one to six,
not seven.
41
OVERHAULING A PROJECT
When a program goes bad, gets altered to a point of unworkability or
carelessly conducted or is dropped without orders to do so, two things may
happen.
1. The Exec Sec (or LRH, Guardian or Asst Guardian or LRH Comm)
over that division puts the executives which should have seen to the
program in DANGER condition and personally pushes to get the program
back in as a program.
2. If this fails, the Exec Sec (or LRH, the Guardian or Asst
Guardian or the LRH Comm) hauls the whole program into his own
office as though it were a new special project, gets it personnel
and finance and sets it all up and then gives it over to its correct
dept and division.
The second step comes about when one finds any noncompliance in doing
(1) above. As a Danger condition was already set up and the Exec Sec (or
other senior) is handling it on a bypass already, if one still can't get
the program restarted, there is no other action one can take than pulling
the whole thing into one's own office. For sure somebody has a foot on it.
Although we can try to find WHO has, this is no reason to continue to stall
the program. After a Danger condition on a program has existed for a while
with no change of activity, one is wasting one's time to keep pushing on a
via. The easier course is simply to say, "As Address has been in Danger for
some time and still continues to goof, 1, the HCO Exec Sec, hereby take
Address into my office in Division 7 where I will personally straighten it
out and meanwhile the Ad Council is to nominate for the Exec Council a new
HCO Area Sec."
In actual operation-I often do (1) above-call a Danger condition on a
program that is not functioning, handle it personally and use ethics action
on those bypassed.
Sometimes when (1) doesn't work, I realize there is interference still
and haul the whole section into my office as a function of my office. It
may stay there quite a while. Then I will put it elsewhere as a complete
section transfer. Sometimes after the transfer I again have to haul it
back. Usually that's because it went into the wrong place in the org. If
you put a section in the wrong dept or division, it just won't function.
The exception is the Exec Div and anything can be put in there for a while.
The common error in (2) is to forget one has it and forget to transfer
it when formed up properly. If one looks over what hats he is wearing, one
usually finds a program or two he has been handling and which he ought to
finish up in final form and put into the org proper.
In theory, any exec or even an in-charge can do (1) and (2) above.
If (1) doesn't work then do (2). The main mistake is to forget to
complete the action of (2) by putting the program back in place in the org.
To prevent that from happening, when you do (2), change it also on the org
board. Then it stays in view. Otherwise, one forgets and soon begins to
feel overworked.
Almost any executive is holding on to a special project or two or even a
program. So one should routinely look over one's own hats and refind these
and complete cycle on them.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.rd.gm Copyright C 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
42
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 DECEMBER 1966
Remimeo
Admin Know-How Series 12
PTS SECTIONS, PERSONNEL AND EXECS
An org has certain sections, units, personnel and executives who go PTS
to suppressive elements in the society.
If one knows this, one becomes less puzzled by noncompliances and
trouble in those quarters. One can also do something effective if one
realizes why.
Legal, accounts and construction and lesser units tend to go PTS very
easily.
A "P.T.S." is a Potential Trouble Source by reason of contact with a
suppressive person or group.
Suppression is "a harmful intention or action against which one cannot
fight back." Thus when one can do anything about it, it is less
suppressive.
Thus Legal goes PTS being in contact with SP courts and with SP or PTS
attorney firms as well as confronting suppressives who are seeking to
injure the org through various suppressive actions.
Accounts goes PTS through various tax and government supervision
suppressions.
An Estate Branch listening to Town and Country Planning or zoning
suppressives tends to go PTS.
In a standard issue corporation the labor relations contact point,
continually messed up by labor agitators who could do the company in and
regulations protecting such, tends to go PTS.
An Ethics Officer may become PTS.
The Dead File Unit may go PTS on all the entheta letters.
As such PTS personnel impinge on top executives, these can also go PTS
and the org gets harmed to say the least.
HANDLING
As one cannot easily disconnect from suppressive society points without
leaving the society, it remains that an executive must handle, if not the
SP social groups, at least the situation developing from them and into the
org.
Ideally one removes the SPs in the social groups. But where that is not
possible one can do several things:
a. Limit the number of org personnel such groups contact.
b. Give such org personnel as do contact such suppressive elements
S & Ds occasionally.
C. Change such personnel frequently.
43
d. Develop a system to restrain the SP from easily influencing such
org personnel as may remain in contact.
e. Work gradually but steadily into a position to be able to remove
suppressives from the social groups in question, such as becoming
more influential as an org, suing, exposing, public education and
other means.
INDICATORS
The first indicator an org executive has of a unit or staff member going
PTS is noncompliance. Such personnel are being overwhelmed in various ways
by the SP social groups and have no energy left to undertake their duties
or forward org programs.
Another indicator is the amount of illness and lack of case progress on
the part of such PTS staff members.
A third indicator is an executive getting the hat of such a personnel on
his own plate.
An executive who doesn't notice such indicators and act is being in turn
PTS, or simply isn't of executive caliber.
METHODS OF BALKING
There are several methods by which a staff member acting as an org
contact point in connection with suppressives can balk the agents of SP
groups.
One is to always tape-record visibly whatever the agent from such a
suppressive group says. "Ah. Mr. Figuretwist of the Tax Division? Good. Now
wait a moment so I can record whatever you say. Good. It's now recording.
Go ahead." We used to handle the Internal "Revenue" Service of the US this
way quite successfully. The org contact point always stopping the IRS
inspector they sent around, turning on a portable recorder and then, and
not until then, letting the man speak. Quite effective. That org only got
into tax trouble when it stopped doing this. After the recording was
dropped out as drill the SP utterances of IRS agents were in full cry at
the staff and they went PTS and began to make crazy errors and ignore org
orders re tax.
Any time such agents come around, they try to get as many staff into it
as possible. And yap and yap and threaten and enturbulate. One must put
them in Coventry (silence treatment) from staff other than the contact
point. Staff members of a unit that could go PTS must be ordered to walk
off without a word whenever such an agent shows up. No "bull sessions" or
arguments with such a person. The staff personnel who handles should point
at the agent if other staff is about and say some key word like "This is a
government man" at which all other staff in the unit turns its back or
pointedly walks off. If you do this, such agents can't take offense but
they get very uneasy, transact quickly, forget their mission to be
enturbulative and go away soon. Don't ever think politeness will help you.
Tipping one's hat to snakes never stopped a person getting bitten. Walking
off has.
Staffs are so "reasonable" they think these SP group representatives are
there for necessary purposes or serve some purpose, or can be reasoned with-
all of which is nonsense.
There are no good reporters. There are no good government or SP group
agents. The longer you try to be nice, the worse off you will be. And the
sooner one learns this, the happier he will be.
Some staff member in such contact points in the org should be the only
one who handles and all other staff should be given chits for talking to
such a person.
This limits the area of enturbulation. The handling staff member can
become
44
expert. But even so, watch for bad indicators in that staff member, and the
moment they show up, change the contact point.
Never give such persons access to persons high up in the org-or unit.
Turn such over to special personnel who can get the business over with at
once and get the agent off the premises soon.
If you see a manager snapping terminals with such agents, transfer him
to another post in the org. Unless you do so, he'll soon cease complying
with policy and will soon have the place falling apart.
When such agents act or sound very suppressive, get them investigated,
find the scandal and attack. It is a fortunate truth that such people also
have crimes in their background that can be found. Find and expose them.
SPs are at war. Pleasant conduct, mean conduct, any conduct at all is
simply more war. So wage the back action as a battle.
In all the history of Scientology no interviewing reporter ever helped.
They all meant the worst when they acted their best and we are always sorry
ever to have spoken. Even if the reporter is all right, his newspaper isn't
and will twist his story. We have done best when we have blocked off
reporters and worst when we've been nice. So the moral is, a person from an
SP group will eventually make an org or some part of it PTS regardless of
the agent's conduct.
These words may seem harsh and unreasonable, yet truth is truth and only
when we ignore it do we get fouled up. Agents from SP groups lead to PTS
staff, units or sections, leads to noncompliance, leads to a mess.
It isn't just imagination that SPs attack Scientology. The evidence has
been around in plenty for 16 years.
We began to prosper the day we cut public SPs' correspondence off the
org lines and sent it to dead file. Our executives began to function,
policy began to be followed, and we began to grow.
So we'll attain new expansion just by applying what is in this policy
letter.
I personally find such agents rather pitiful in their attempts to make
trouble. I think the contemporary attempts to upset us and accusations of
things we never do, quite prove the fact such mean us no good. But many
staff and executives try desperately to be nice to them.
Handle the business they present as effectively as possible on special
channels. Don't be nice. Limit their reach. And have less noncompliance and
a far more effective and happier org. After all, real suppressives only
constitute about 21/2 percent of the total population. Why spend more than
21/2 percent of your time on them?
The whole stunt is realizing that certain groups are SP and recognizing
them and then handling them.
Be alert and stay alive. It won't always be this way.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.rd.gm Copyright 0 1966 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
45
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 FEBRUARY 1967
Org Exec
Course
Admin Know-How Series 13
THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF LEADERS
A few comments on POWER, being or working close to or under a power,
which is to say a leader or one who exerts wide primary influence on the
affairs of men.
I have written it this way, using two actual people to give an example
of magnitude enough to interest and to furnish some pleasant reading. And I
used a military sphere so it could be seen clearly without restimulation of
admin problems.
The book referenced is a fantastically able book by the way.
THE MISTAKES OF SIMON BOLIVAR
AND MANUELA SAENZ
Reference: The book entitled:
The Four Seasons of Manuela by
Victor W. von Hagen, a biography-
A Mayflower Dell Paperback. Oct. 1966. 6/-
Simon Bolivar was the liberator of South America from the yoke of Spain.
Manuela Saenz was the liberatress and consort.
Their acts and fates are well recorded in this moving biography.
But aside from any purely dramatic value, the book lays bare and
motivates various actions of great interest to those who lead, who support
or are near leaders.
Simon Bolivar was a very strong character. He was one of the richest men
in South America. He had real personal ability given to only a handful on
the planet. He was a military commander without peer in history. Why he
would fail and die an exile to be later deified is thus of great interest.
What mistakes did he make?
Manuela Saenz was a brilliant, beautiful and able woman. She was loyal,
devoted, quite comparable to Bolivar, far above the cut of average
humanoids. Why then did she live a vilified outcast, receive such violent
social rejection and die of poverty and remain unknown to history? What
mistakes did she make?
BOLIVAR'S ERRORS
The freeing of things is the reverse, unstated dramatization (the
opposite side of the coin) to the slavery enjoined by the mechanisms of the
mind.
Unless there is something to free men into, the act of freeing is simply
a protest of slavery. And as no humanoid is free while aberrated in the
body cycle, it is of course a gesture to free him politically as it frees
him only into the anarchy of dramatizing his aberrations with NO control
whatever and without something to fight exterior; and with no
exteriorization of his interest, he simply goes mad noisily or quietly,
46
Once as great a wrong as depraving beings has been done, there is, of
course, no freedom short of freeing one from the depravity itself or at
least from its most obvious influences in the society. In short, one would
have to de-aberrate a man before his whole social structure could be de-
aberrated.
If one lacked the whole ability to free Man wholly from his reactive
patterns, then one could free Man from their restimulators in the society
at least. If one had the whole of the data (but lacked the Scientology
tech), one would simply use reactive patterns to blow the old society apart
and then pick up the pieces neatly in a new pattern. If one had no inkling
of how reactive one can get (and Bolivar, of course, had no knowledge
whatever in that field), there yet remained a workable formula used
"instinctively" by most successful practical political leaders:
If you free a society from those things you see wrong with it and use
force to demand it do what is right, and if you carry forward with decision
and thoroughness, and without continual temporizing, you can, in the
applications of your charm and gifts, bring about a great political reform
or improve a failing country.
So Bolivar's first error, most consistent it was, too, was contained in
the vital words "you see" in the above paragraph. He didn't look and he
didn't even listen to sound intelligence reports. He was so sure he could
glow things right or fight things right or charm things right that he never
looked for anything wrong to correct until it was too late. This is the ne-
plus-ultra of personal confidence, amounting to supreme vanity. "When he
appeared it would all come right" was not only his belief but his basic
philosophy. So the first time it didn't work, he collapsed. All his skills
and charm were channeled into this one test. Only that could he observe.
Not to compare with Bolivar but to show my understanding of this:
I once had a similar one. "I would keep going as long as I could and
when I was stopped I would then die." This was a solution mild enough to
state and really hard to understand until you had an inkling of what I
meant by keeping going. Meteors keep going-very, very fast. And so did 1.
Then one day ages back, I finally was stopped after countless little
stoppings by social contacts and family to prepare me culminating in a navy
more devoted to braid than dead enemies and literally I quit. For a while I
couldn't get a clue of what was wrong with me. Life went completely
unlivable until I found a new solution. So I know the frailty of these
single solutions. Not to compare myself but just to show it happens to us
all, not just Bolivars.
Bolivar had no personal insight at all. He could only "outsight" and
even then he did not look or listen. He glowed things right. Pitifully, it
was his undoing that he could. Until he no longer could. When he couldn't
glow he roared, and when he couldn't roar he fought a battle. Then civic
enemies were not military enemies so he had no solution left at all.
It never occurred to him to do more than personally magnetize things
into being right and victorious.
His downfall was that he made far too heavy use of a skill simply
because it was easy. He was too good at this one thing. So he never looked
to any other skill and he never even dreamed there was any other way.
He had no view of any situation and no idea of the organizational or
preparatory steps necessary to political and personal victory. He only knew
military organization which is where his organizational insight ceased.
He was taught on the high wine of French revolt, notorious in its
organizational inability to form cultures, and that fatally by a childhood
teacher who was intensely impractical in his own private life (Simon
Rodriguez, an unfrocked priest turned tutor).
Bolivar had no personal financial skill. He started wealthy and wound up
a pauper, a statistic descending from one of the if not the richest man in
South America
47
down to a borrowed nightshirt to be buried in as an exile. And this while
the property of Royalists was wide open, the greatest land and mine
valuables of South America wide open to his hand and that's not believable!
But true. He never collected his own debt of loans to governments even when
the head of those governments.
So it is no wonder we find two more very real errors leading to his
downfall: He did not get his troops or officers rewarded and he did not aim
for any solvency of the states he controlled. It was all right if there
were long years of battle ahead for them to be unpaid as no real riches
were yet won, but not to reward them when the whole place was at his
disposal! Well!
The limit of his ability consisted of demanding a bit of cash for
current pay from churches-which were not actively against him at first but
which annoyed them no end-and a few household expenses.
He could have (and should have) set aside all Royalist property and
estates for division amongst his officers, their men and his supporters. It
had no owners now. And this failure cost the economy of the country the tax
loss of all those productive estates (the whole wealth of the land). So it
is no wonder his government, its taxable estates now inoperative or at best
lorded by a profiteer or looted by Indians, was insolvent. Also, by failing
to do such an obvious act, he delivered property into the hands of more
provident enemies and left his officers and men penniless to finance any
support for their own stability in the new society and so for his own.
As for state finance, the great mines of South America, suddenly
ownerless, were overlooked and were then grabbed and worked by foreign
adventurers who simply came in and took them without payment.
Spain had run the country on the finance of mine tithes and general
taxes. Bolivar not only didn't collect the tithes, he let the land become
so worthless as to be untaxable. He should have gotten the estates going by
any shifts and should have state operated all Royalist mines once he had
them. To not do these things was complete, but typically humanoid, folly.
In doing this property division he should have left it all up to
officers' committees operating as courts of claim without staining his own
hands in the natural corruption. He was left doubly open as he not only did
not attend to it, he also got the name of corruption when anybody did grab
something.
He failed as well to recognize the distant widespread nature of his
countries despite all his riding and fighting over them and so sought
tightly centralized government, not only centralizing states, but also
centralizing the various nations into a federal state. And this over a huge
landmass full of insurmountable ranges, impassable jungles and deserts and
without mail, telegraph, relay stages, roads, railroads, river vessels or
even footbridges repaired after a war of attrition.
A step echelon from a pueblo (village) to a state, from a state to a
country and a country to a federal state was only possible (in such huge
spaces of country where candidates could never be known personally over any
wide area and whose opinions could not even be circulated more than a few
miles of burro trail) where only the pueblo was democratic and the rest all
appointive from pueblo on up, himself the ratifier of titles if he even
needed that. With his own officers and armies controlling the land as
owners of all wrested from Royalists and the crown of Spain, he would have
had no revolts. There would have been little civil wars of course but a
court to settle their final claims could have existed at federal level and
kept them traveling so much over those vast distances it would have
crippled their enthusiasm for litigation on the one hand and on the other,
by dog-eat-dog settlements, would have given him the strongest rulers-if he
took neither side.
He did not step out and abdicate a dictatorial position. He mistook
military acclaim and ability for the tool of peace. War only brings
anarchy, so he had anarchy. Peace is more than a "command for unity," his
favorite phrase. A productive peace is
48
getting men busy and giving them something to make something of that they
want to make something of and telling them to get on with it.
He never began to recognize a suppressive and never considered anyone
needed killing except on a battlefield. There it was glorious. But somebody
destroying his very name and soul, and the security of every supporter and
friend, the SP Santander, his vice president, who could have been arrested
and executed by a corporal's guard on one one-hundredth of available
evidence, who could suborn the whole treasury and population against him,
without Bolivar, continually warned, loaded with evidence, ever even
reprimanding him. And this brought about his loss of popularity and his
eventual exile.
He also failed in the same way to protect his military family or Manuela
Saenz from other enemies. So he weakened his friends and ignored his
enemies just by oversight.
His greatest error lay in that while dismissing Spain he did not dismiss
that nation's most powerful minion, the Church, and did not even localize
it or reward a South American separate branch to loyalty or do anything at
all (except extort money from it) to an organization which continually
worked for Spain as only it could work-on every person in the land in a
direct anti-Bolivar reign of terror behind the scenes. You either suborn
such a group or you take them out when they cease to be universal and
become or are an enemy's partner.
As the Church held huge properties and as Bolivar's troops and
supporters went unpaid even of the penny soldiers' pay, if one was going to
overlook the Royalist estates, one could at least have seized the Church
property and given it to the soldiers. General Vallejo did this in 1835 in
California, a nearly contemporary act, with no catastrophe from Rome. Or
the penniless countries could have taken them over. You don't leave an
enemy financed and solvent while you let your friends starve in a game like
South American politics. Oh no.
He wasted his enemies. He exported the "godos" or defeated Royalist
soldiers. They mostly had no homes but South America. He issued no
amnesties they could count on. They were shipped off or left to die in the
"ditch"-the best artisans in the country among them.
When one (General Rodil) would not surrender Calloa fortress after Peru
was won, Bolivar, after great gestures of amnesty, failed to obtain
surrender and then fought the fort. Four thousand political refugees and
four thousand Royalist troops died over many months in full sight of Lima-
fought heavily by Bolivar only because thefort was fighting. But Bolivar
had to straighten up Peru urgently, not fight a defeated enemy. The right
answer to such a foolish commander as Rodil, as Bolivar did have the troops
to do it, was to cover the roads with cannon enfilade potential to
discourage any sortie from the fort, put a larger number of his own troops
in a distant position of offense but ease and comfort and say, "We're not
going to fight. The war's over, silly man. Look at the silly fellows in
there, living on rats when they can just walk out and sleep home nights or
go to Spain or enlist with me or just go camping," and let anybody walk in
and out who pleased, making the fort Commander (Rodil) the prey of every
pleading wife and mother without and would-be deserter or mutineer within
until he did indeed sheepishly give up the pretense-a man cannot fight
alone. But battle was glory to Bolivar. And he became intensely disliked
because the incessant cannonade, which got nowhere, was annoying.
Honors meant a great deal to Bolivar. To be liked was his life. And it
probably meant more to him than to see things really right. He never
compromised his principles but he lived on admiration, a rather sickening
diet since it demands in turn continuous "theater." One is what one is, not
what one is admired or hated for. To judge oneself by one's successes is
simply to observe that one's postulates worked and breeds confidence in
one's ability. To have to be told it worked only criticizes one's own
eyesight and hands a spear to the enemy to make his wound of vanity at his
will. Applause is nice. It's great to be thanked and admired. But to work
only for that? And his craving for that, his addiction to the most unstable
drug in history-fame-killed Bolivar. That
49
self-offered spear. He told the world continually how to kill him-reduce
its esteem. So as money and land can buy any quantity of cabals, he could
be killed by curdling the esteem, the easiest thing you can get a mob to
do.
He had all the power. He did not use it for good or evil. One cannot
hold power and not use it. It violates the Power Formula. For it then
prevents others from doing things if they had some of the power, so they
then see as their only solution the destruction of the holder of the power
as he, not using power or delegating it, is the unwitting block to all
their plans. So even many of his friends and armies finally agreed he had
to go. They were not able men. They were in a mess. But bad or good, they
had to do something. Things were desperate, broken-down and starving after
14 years of civil war. Therefore they either had to have some of that
absolute power or else nothing could be done at all. They were not great
minds. He did not need any "great minds," he thought, even though he
invited them verbally. He saw their petty, often murderous solutions and he
rebuked them. And so held the power and didn't use it.
He could not stand another personality threat.
The trouble in Peru came when he bested its real conqueror (from the
Argentine), La Mar, in a petty triumph over adding Guayaquil to Colombia.
Bolivar wished to look triumphant again and didn't notice it really cost
him the support and Peru the support of La Mar-who understandably resigned
and went home, leaving Bolivar Peru to conquer. Unfortunately, it had
already been in his hands. La Mar needed some troops to clean up a small
Royalist army-that was all. La Mar didn't need Peru's loss of Guayaquil-
which never did anybody any real good anyway!
Bolivar would become inactive when faced with two areas' worth of
problems-he did not know which way to go. So he did nothing.
Brave beyond any general in history on the battlefield, the Andes or in
torrential rivers, he did not really have the bravery needed to trust
inferior minds and stand by their often shocking blunders. He feared their
blunders. So he did not dare unleash his many willing hounds.
He could lead men, make men feel wonderful, make men fight and lay down
their lives after hardships no army elsewhere in the world has ever faced
before or since. But he could not use men even when they were begging to be
used.
It is a frightening level of bravery to use men you know can be cruel,
vicious, and incompetent. He had no fear of their turning on him ever. When
they finally did, only then he was shocked. But he protected "the people"
from authority given to questionably competent men. So he really never used
but three or four generals of mild disposition and enormously outstanding
ability. And to the rest he denied power. Very thoughtful of the nebulous
"people" but very bad indeed for the general good. And it really caused his
death.
No. Bolivar was theater. It was all theater. One cannot make such errors
and still pretend that one thinks of life as life, red-blooded and factual.
Real men and real life are full of dangerous, violent, live situations; and
wounds hurt and starvation is desperation itself, especially when you see
it in one you love.
This mighty actor, backed up with fantastic personal potential, made the
mistake of thinking the theme of liberty and his own great role upon the
stage was enough to interest all the working, suffering hours of men, buy
their bread, pay their whores, shoot their wives' lovers and bind their
wounds or even put enough drama into very hard-pressed lives to make them
want to live it.
No, Bolivar was unfortunately the only actor on the stage and no other
man in the world was real to him.
And so he died. They loved him. But they were also on the stage too,
where they were dying in his script or Rousseau's script for liberty but no
script for living their very real lives.
50
He was the greatest military general in any history measured against his
obstacles, the people and the land across which he fought.
And he was a complete failure to himself and his friends.
While being one of the greatest men alive at that. So we see how truly
shabby others in leaders' boots amongst men must be.
MANUELA SAENZ
The tragedy of Manuela Saenz as Bolivar's mistress was that she was
never used, never really had a share and was neither protected nor honored
by Bolivar.
Here was a clever, spectacular woman of fantastic fidelity and skill,
with an enormous "flair," capable of giving great satisfaction and service.
And only her satisfaction ability was taken and that not consistently nor
even honestly.
In the first place, Bolivar never married her. He never married anybody.
This opened up a fantastic breach in any defense she could ever make
against hers or his enemies who were legion. So her first mistake was in
not in some way contriving a marriage.
That she had an estranged husband she had been more or less sold to was
permitted by her to wreck her life obliquely.
She was too selfless to be real in all her very able plotting,
For this marriage problem she could have engineered any number of
actions.
She had the solid friendship of all his trusted advisers, even his old
tutor. Yet she arranged nothing for herself.
She was utterly devoted, completely brilliant and utterly incapable of
really bringing off an action of any final kind.
She violated the Power Formula in not realizing that she had power.
Manuela was up against a hard man to handle. But she did not know enough
to make her own court effective. She organized one. She did not know what
to do with it.
Her most fatal mistake was in not bringing down Santander, Bolivar's
chief enemy. That cost her everything she had before the end and after
Bolivar died. She knew for years Santander had to be killed. She said it or
wrote it every few days. Yet never did she promise some young officer a
nice night or a handful of gold to do it in a day when dueling was in
fashion. It's like standing around discussing how the plainly visible wolf
in the garden that's eating the chickens must be shot, even holding a gun,
and never even lifting it while all one's chickens vanish for years.
In a land overridden with priests, she never got herself a tame priest
to bring about her ends.
She was a fantastic intelligence officer. But she fed her data to a man
who could not act to protect himself or friends, who could only fight
armies dramatically.
She did not see this and also quietly take on the portfolio of secret
police chief. Her mistake was waiting to be asked-to be asked to come to
him, to act. She voluntarily was his best political intelligence agent.
Therefore she should have also assumed further roles.
She guarded his correspondence, was intimate with his secretaries. And
yet she never collected or forged or stole any document to bring down
enemies, either through
51
representations to Bolivar or a court circle of her own. And in an area
with that low an ethic, that's fatal.
She openly pamphleteered and fought violently as in a battle against her
rabble.
She had a great deal of money at her disposal. In a land of for-sale
Indians, she never used a penny to buy a quick knife or even a solid piece
of evidence.
When merely opening her lips she could have had any sequestrated
Royalist estate, she went to litigation for a legitimate legacy never won
and another won but never paid.
They lived on the edge of quicksand. She never bought a plank or a rope.
Carried away by the glory of it all, devoted completely, potentially
able and a formidable enemy, she did not act.
She waited to be told to come to him even when he lay dying and exiled.
His command over her who never obeyed any other was too absolute for his
own or her survival.
Her assigned mistakes (pointed out at the time as her caprice and
playacting) were not her errors. They only made her interesting. They were
far from fatal.
She was not ruthless enough to make up for his lack of ruthlessness and
not provident enough to make up for his lack of providence.
The ways open to her for finance, for action, were completely doorless.
The avenue stretched out to the horizon.
She fought bravely but she just didn't take action.
She was an actress for the theater alone.
And she died of it. And she let Bolivar die because of it.
Never once did Manuela look about and say, "See here, things mustn't go
this wrong. My lover holds half a continent and even I hold the loyalty of
battalions. Yet that woman threw a fish!"
Never did Manuela tell Bolivar's doctor, a rumored lover, "Tell that man
he will not live without my becoming a constant part of his entourage, and
tell him until he believes it or we'll have a new physician around here."
The world was open. Where Theodora, the wife of Emperor Justinian I of
Constantinople, a mere circus girl and a whore, ruled harder than her
husband but for her husband behind his back-and made him marry her as well-
Manuela never had any bushel basket of gold brought in to give Bolivar for
his unpaid troops with a "Just found it, dear" to his "Where on Earth ...
T' after the Royalist captives had been carefully ransomed for jail escapes
by her enterprising own entourage and officer friends. She never handed
over any daughter of a family clamoring against her to Negro troops and
then said, "Which oververbal family is next?"
She even held a colonel's rank but only used it because she wore man's
clothing afternoons. It was a brutal, violent, ruthless land, not a game of
musical chairs.
And so Manuela, penniless, improvident, died badly and in poverty,
exiled by enemies and deserted by her friends.
But why not deserted by her friends? They had all been poverty-stricken
to a point quite incapable of helping her even though they wanted to-for
she once had the power
52
to make them solvent. And didn't use it. They were in poverty before they
won but they did eventually control the land. After that why make it a bad
habit?
And so we see two pathetic, truly dear, but tinsel figures, both on a
stage, bothfar removed from the reality of it all.
And one can say, "But if they had not been such idealists they never
would have fought so hard and freed half a continent," or "If she had
stooped to such intrigue or he had been known for violent political actions
they would never have had the strength and never would have been loved."
All very idealistic itself. They died "in the ditch" unloved, hated and
despised. two decent brave people, almost too good for this world.
A true hero, a true heroine. But on a stage and not in life. Impractical
and improvident and with no faintest gift either one to use the power they
could assemble.
This story of Bolivar and Manuela is a tragedy of the most piteous kind.
They fought a hidden enemy, the Church; they were killed by their
friends.
But don't overlook how impractical it is not to give your friends power
enough when you have it to give. You can always give some of it to another
if the first one collapses through inability. And one can always be brought
down like a hare at a hunt who seeks to use the delegated power to kill you-
if you have the other friends.
Life is not a stage for posturing and "Look at me!" "Look at me." "Look
at me." If one is to lead a life of command or a life near to command one
must handle it as life. Life bleeds. It suffers. It hungers. And it has to
have the right to shoot its enemies until such time as comes a golden age.
Aberrated man is not capable of supporting, in his present state, a
golden declared age for three minutes, given all the tools and wealth in
the world.
If one would live a life of command or one near to a command, one must
then accumulate power as fast as possible and delegate it as quickly as
feasible and use every humanoid in long reach to the best and beyond his
talents if one is to live at all.
If one does not choose to live such a life, then go on the stage and be
a real actor. Don't kill men while pretending it isn't real. Or one can
become a recluse or a student or a clerk. Or study butterflies or take up
tennis.
For one is committed to certain irrevocable natural laws the moment one
starts out upon a conquest, either as the man in charge or a person near to
him or on his staff or in his army. And the foremost law, if one's ambition
is to win, is of course to win.
But also to keep on providing things to win and enemies to conquer.
Bolivar let his cycle run to "freedom" and end there. He never had
another plan beyond that point. He ran out of territory to free. Then he
didn't know what to do with it and didn't know enough, either, to find
somewhere else to free. But of course all limited games come to end. And
when they do, their players fall over on the field and become rag dolls
unless somebody at least tells them the game has ended and they have no
more game nor any dressing room or houses but just that field.
And they lie upon the field, not noticing there can be no more game
since the other team has fled and after a bit they have to do something;
and if the leader and his consort are sitting over on the grass being rag
dolls too, of course there isn't any game. And so the players start
fighting amongst themselves just to have a game. And if the leader then
says, "No, no" and his consort doesn't say, "Honey, you better phone
53
the Baltimore Orioles for Saturday," then of course the poor players, bored
stiff, say, "He's out." "She's out." "Now we're going to split the team in
half and have a game."
And that's what happened to Bolivar and Manuela. They had to be gotten
rid of for there was no game and they didn't develop one to play while
forbidding the only available game-minor civil wars.
A whole continent containing the then major mines of the world, whole
populations were left sitting there, "freed." But none owned any of it
though the former owners had left. They weren't given it. Nor were they
made to manage it. No game.
And if Bolivar had not been smart enough for that, he could at least
have said, "Well! You monkeys are going to have quite a time getting the
wheels going but that's not my job. You decide on your type of government
and what it's to be. Soldiers are my line. Now I'm taking over those old
estates of mine and the Royalist ones nearby and the emerald mines just as
souvenirs and me and Manuela we're going home." And he should have said
that 5 minutes after the last Royalist army was defeated in Peru.
And his official family with him, and a thousand troops to which he was
giving land would have moved right off smartly with him. And the people
after a few screams of horror at being deserted would have fallen on each
other, sabered a state together here and a town there and gotten busy out
of sheer self-protection in a vital new game, "Who's going to be Bolivar
now?"
Then when home he should have said, "Say those nice woods look awfully
Royalist to me, and also those 1,000,000 hectares of grazing land, Manuela.
Its owner once threw a Royalist fish, remember? So that's yours."
And the rest of the country would have done the same and gotten on with
the new game of "You was a Royalist."
And Bolivar and Manuela would have had statues built to them by the TON
at once as soon as agents could get to Paris with orders from an adoring
populace.
"Bolivar, come rule us!" should have gotten an "I don't see any unfree
South America. When you see a French or Spanish army coming, come back and
tell me."
That would have worked. And this poor couple would have died suitably
adored in the sanctity of glory and (perhaps more importantly) in their own
beds, not "in a ditch."
And if they had had to go on ruling they could have declared a new game
of "pay the soldiers and officers with Royalist land." And when that was a
gone game, "Oust the Church and give its land to the poor friendly
Indians."
You can't stand bowing back of the footlights forever with no show even
if you are quite an actor. Somebody else can make better use of any stage
than even the handsomest actor who will not use it.
Man is too aberrated to understand at least 7 things about power:
I Life is lived by lots of people. And if you lead you must either let
them get on with it or lead them on with it actively.
2. When the game or the show is over, there must be a new game or a new
show. And if there isn't, somebody else is jolly well going to start
one, and if you won't let anyone do it, the game will become "getting
you."
3. If you have power, use it or delegate it or you sure won't have it
long.
4. When you have people, use them or they will soon become most unhappy
and you won't have them anymore.
54
5. When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the
nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets
full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival,
unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced
assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police. And even then
you may not live long if you have retained one scrap of domination in
any camp you do not now control or if you even say, "I favor politician
Jiggs." Abandoning power utterly is dangerous indeed.
But we can't all be leaders or figures strutting in the limelight and so
there's more to know about this:
6. When you're close to power, get some delegated to you-enough to do
your job and protect yourself and your interests-for you can be shot,
fellow, shot, as the position near power is delicious but dangerous,
dangerous always, open to the taunts of any enemy of the power who dare
not really boot the power but can boot you. So to live at all in the
shadow or employ of a power, you must yourself gather and USE enough
power to hold your own-without just nattering to the power to "kill
Pete," in straightforward or more suppressive veiled ways to him as
these wreck the power that supports yours. He doesn't have to know all
the bad news and if he's a power really he won't ask all the time, "What
are all those dead bodies doing at the door?" And if you are clever, you
never let it be thought HE killed themthat weakens you and also hurts
the power source. "Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at
all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking
out, didn't like me." "Well," he'll say if he really is a power, "why
are you bothering me with it if it's done and you did it. Where's my
blue ink?" Or "Skipper, three shore patrolmen will be along soon with
your cook, Dober, and they'll want to tell you he beat up Simson."
"Who's Simson?" "He's a clerk in the enemy office downtown." "Good, when
they've done it, take Dober down to the dispensary for any treatment he
needs. Oh yes. Raise his pay." Or "Sir, could I have the power to sign
divisional orders?" "Sure."
7. And lastly and most important, for we all aren't on the stage with
our names in lights, always push power in the direction of anyone on
whose power you depend. It may be more money for the power, or more
ease, or a snarling defense of the power to a critic, or even the dull
thud of one of his enemies in the dark, or the glorious blaze of the
whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise.
If you work like that and the power you are near or depend upon is a
power that has at least some inkling about how to be one, and if you
make others work like that, then the power-factor expands and expands
and expands and you too acquire a sphere of power bigger than you would
have if you worked alone. Real powers are developed by tight
conspiracies of this kind pushing someone up in whose leadership they
have faith. And if they are right and also manage their man and keep him
from collapsing through overwork, bad temper or bad data, a kind of
Juggernaut builds up. Don't ever feel weaker because you work for
somebody stronger. The only failure lies in taxing or pulling down the
strength on which you depend. All failures to remain a power's power are
failures to contribute to the strength and longevity of the work, health
and power of that power. Devotion requires active contribution outwards
from the power as well as in.
If Bolivar and Manuela had known these things, they would have lived an
epic, not a tragedy. They would not have "died in the ditch," he bereft of
really earned praise for his real accomplishments even to this day. And
Manuela would not be unknown even in the archives of her country as the
heroine she was.
5 5
Brave, brave figures. But if this can happen to such stellar
personalities gifted with ability tenfold over the greatest of other
mortals, to people who could take a rabble in a vast impossible land and
defeat one of Earth's then foremost powers, with no money or arms, on
personality alone, what then must be the ignorance and confusion of human
leaders in general, much less little men stumbling through their lives of
boredom and suffering?
Let us wise them up, huh? You can't live in a world where even the great
leaders can't lead.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.rd.gm Copyright 0 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
56
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 JANUARY 1981
Rernimeo Issue V
HCO Hats
(Originally issued as an HCO Bulletin,
22 March 67, same title.)
IMPORTANT
Admin Know-How Series 14
ALTER-IS AND DEGRADED BEINGS
Alteration of orders and tech is worse than noncompliance.
Alter-is is a covert avoidance of an order. Although it is apparently
often brought about by noncomprehension, the noncomprehension itself and
failure to mention it is an avoidance of orders.
Very degraded beings alter-is. Degraded ones refuse to comply without
mentioning it. Beings in fair condition try to comply but remark their
troubles to get help when needed. Competent higher-toned beings understand
orders and comply if possible but mainly do their jobs without needing lots
of special orders.
Degraded beings find any instruction painful as they have been painfully
indoctrinated with violent measures in the past. They therefore alter-is
any order or don't comply.
Thus in auditing pcs or in org, where you find alter-is (covert
noncompliance) and noncompliance, given sensible and correct tech or
instructions, you are dealing with a degraded, low-level being and should
act accordingly.
One uses very simple, low-level processes on a degraded being, gently.
In admin, orgs and especially the Tech Div where a staff member alter-
ises, or fails to comply, you are also dealing with a degraded being but
one who is too much a pc to be a staff member. He cannot be at cause and
staff members must be at cause. So he or she should not be on staff.
This is a primary senior datum regulating all handling of pcs and staff
members.
A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he
is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. He is sort of a super-
continual PTS beyond the reach really of a simple S & D and handled only at
Section 3 OT Course.
Degraded beings, taking a cue from SP associates, instinctively resent,
hate and seek to obstruct any person in charge of anything or any Big
Being.
Anyone issuing sensible orders is the first one resented by a degraded
being.
A degraded being lies to his seniors, avoids orders covertly by alter-
is, fails to comply, supplies only complex ideas that can't ever work
(obstructive) and is a general area of enturbulence, often mild seeming or
even "cooperative," often even flattering, sometimes merely dull but
consistently alter-ising or noncomplying.
57
This datum appeared during higher level research and is highly
revelatory of earlier unexplained phenomena-the pc who changes commands or
doesn't do them, the worker who can't get it straight or who is always on a
tea break.
In an area where suppression has been very heavy for long periods,
people become degraded beings. However, they must have been so before
already due to track incidents.
Some thetans are bigger than others. None are truly equal. But the
degraded being is not necessarily a natively bad thetan. He is simply so
PTS, and has been for so long, that it requires our highest level tech to
finally undo it after he has scaled up all our grades.
Degraded beings are about 18 to I over Big Beings in the human race
(minimum ratio). So those who keep things going are few. And those who will
make it without the steam of the few in our orgs behind them are zero. At
the same time, we can't have a world full of them and still make it. So we
have no choice.
And we can handle them even when they cannot serve at higher levels.
This is really OT data but we need it at lower levels to get the job
done.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH.-jp.rd.nc.gm Copyright 0 1967, 1981 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
58
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I OCTOBER 1967
Rernimeo
Admin Know-How Series 15
USES OF ORGS
There are two uses (violently opposed to each other) to which
Scientology orgs can be put. They are
I - To forward the advance of self and all dynamics toward total survival.
2. To use the great power and control of an org over others to defend
oneself.
When a decent being goes to work in an org he uses 1.
When a suppressive goes to work in an org he uses 2.
When you get in ethics, the decent one raises his necessity level and
measures up. The suppressive type blows (leaves).
It is of vital interest to all of us that we have orgs that serve to
increase survival on all dynamics. And that we prevent orgs being used as
means to oppress others.
The answer, oddly enough, is to GET IN ETHICS exactly on-policy and
correctly. And we will advance.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH.jp.rd.gm Copyright 0 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
59
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 OCTOBER 1967
Remimeo
ETHICS
Admin Know-How Series 16
SUPPRESSIVES AND THE ADMINISTRATOR
HOW TO DETECT SPs AS AN ADMINISTRATOR
There are three areas of detection which an administrator can utilize in
the detection of a suppressive person.
These are
1. No ethics change
2. No case change
3. No admin change.
An SP (suppressive person) is unable to change because he cannot,
himself, confront. He is badly "out of valence." Therefore, not being able
to look at things directly, he is unable to erase them or even see what
they are. Such people often have a curtain of pictures they look at instead
of the universe around them. They do not see a building. They see a picture
of a building in front of the building. They are not at the point from
which they view things.
Thus they are peculiar in that they can't change.
The three principal zones in a Scientology org are
I . Ethics
2. Tech
3. Admin.
We have the natural laws of these subjects, each one.
If you can get in ethics, you can get in Scientology technology. If you
can get in Scientology technology, you can get in admin. If you can get all
three in, you have an org and have expansion.
If you can't get in tech, ethics is out. If you can't get in admin, both
tech and ethics are out.
The sequence that things have to be "gotten in" to make an org is I st
ethics, 2nd tech, 3rd admin.
Where one of these goes out, the org contracts.
We have these three sciences. To really handle things, one has to be a
master of all three, even to live a good personal life.
By "get in," we mean get it applied and effective.
60
We live in a very woggy world at this time. The wog is so out-ethics he
is living in what amounts to a criminal society.
When we try to get tech in on the planet, we run into the out-ethics
areas and this is the real source of our troubles where we have any. We are
getting in tech before we get in ethics. It can be done (obviously, since
we are doing it). But it is a heavy strain at best.
Just because we do not at once get ethics in on the planet does not mean
we can't get any tech in.
By handling small sectors, beginning with self and Scientology groups
and orgs, we can continue to repeat the cycles of three-ethics, tech,
admin. Gradually we enlarge the numbers we have and gradually our sphere of
ethics-tech-admin expands. And we one day have ethics in on the planet,
tech in on the planet, admin in on the planet.
The only stumbling block is the SP. This person (about 10 percent of the
population) is unable to change. We can process them if we can get them to
sit still.
But these are the hidden booby-traps which make one's life, one's
family, one's org, one's nation, one's planet a rough-rough proposition.
Ninety percent of the people say, "Ethics great, tech great, admin
great." And away we go.
Ten percent say,"Horrible, horrible, horrible." And cannot either see or
change. They are the true psychotics no matter how "sane" they sound. The
people in institutions are generally only their victims.
This 10 percent, one must be able to detect and weed out so they don't
contaminate areas we are bringing up in ethics, tech and admin.
Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to betray
90 percent of the population. So we set them aside for another day.
We get them off lines, out of orgs and to one side.
The true character of these people is usually masked in many ways. They
are expert only in deception and can take on any guise.
To listen to them one would suppose he was talking to his best friend
sometimes. Except the knife in one's back is also driven in by them.
We have much tech to describe them.
But one does not have to be an auditor with a meter to find these
people.
An administrator only needs to know the three things about them.
1. No change in ethics
2. No change in case
3. No change in admin.
These people have
1. Thick ethics files
2. Thick (or no) case files
3. Thick full (or no) comm baskets.
61
If you just dismissed anyone who had all three, you would have gotten
rid of an SP.
It works this way. When you start to get in ethics, most people "learn
the ropes" fast. They may have a few down conditions and chits or even
courts or Comm Evs but you see the frequency dwindles and eventually
vanishes or nearly so.
When you start to get in tech on a person, it may be a hard haul for a
while and then it begins to level out and get easier.
When you start to get in admin, the confusion around some person may be
great but after a while the lines and policies straighten out.
None are good little angels. But 90 percent make progress in these 3
fields of ethics, tech and admin.
The SP does NOT make any consistent progress at all and lapses every
time.
As only 10 percent of the people then are making nearly all the tough
work in ethics, tech and admin, the thing to do then is to get them off the
lines rather than betray 90 percent.
And the SP is detectable in ALL THREE AREAS. It needs no microscope to
find out who on a staff has the seniors working so hard for so little gain.
Their ethics file is huge, their case file either doesn't exist at all
or is very fat, their comm lines are jammed, their policy is out and their
stats are on the bottom eternally.
So as an administrator you can detect SPs. You better had. YOUR OWN
STATS WILL BE DOWN TO THE DEGREE YOU FAIL TO DETECT THEM.
Just go to your files and look at the desks and sack whoever satisfies
all three conditions above and you can't miss and WILL be able to breathe.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH.jp.cden.gm Copyright 0 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
62
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 OCTOBER 1967
Remimeo
Admin Know-How Series 17
CONDITIONS, HOW TO ASSIGN
Every post and part of an org must have a statistic which measures the
volume of product of that post. The head of a part has the statistic of
that part.
Every post or part of an org has a product. If it has no product, it is
useless and supernumerary.
An Exec Sec has the products of his or her portion of the org. The first
product of an Exec Sec is, of course, his or her portion of the org's
divisions. If the portion itself does not exist, then of course the Exec
Sec has no stat at all as an Exec Sec even if very busy-so he or she is not
an Exec Sec despite the title. This is true of a department head, a section
head and a unit head. One can't really be the one in charge if the thing
one is in charge of doesn't exist. Also, things that don't exist themselves
can have no product.
The whole rationale (basic idea) of the pattern of an org is a unit of
3. These are
THETAN
I
MIND - BODY - PRODUCT.
In Division One the HCO Sec is the thetan, Department One the MIND,
Department Two the BODY and Department Three the PRODUCT. The same pattern
holds for every division.
It also should hold for every department and lower section and unit.
And above these, it holds for a portion of an org.
In the HCO portion of the org we have the HCO Exec Sec as the thetan,
the Exec
Div (7) as the MIND, Division One as the BODY and Division Two as the
PRODUCT.
And so with other parts of an org. They always go
THETAN
I
MIND - BODY - PRODUCT.
Now if you know and understand and can apply this, you can not only plan
or correct an org or one of its parts, you can also assign conditions
correctly. You need data gained from inventories or counts of items or the
statistic assigned and drawn.
It is not enough to only follow graphs. That is a lazy, lazy, lazy, no-
confront method when used alone. Graphs can be falsified, can be too fixed
on one thing and can ignore others unless you read all the graphs of the
part you are interested in.
Graphs are a good indicator and should be used wherever possible. BUT
you must also keep in mind that it requires ALL the graphs to be wholly
accurate in a conditions assignment and the most accurate conditions
assignment possible and that the graphs must be based on ACTUAL figures.
So, to begin, you look at the graphs. You look for recent ups and downs.
Then
63
you look for trends (long-range drifts up or down). Then you look for
discrepancies. Like high enrollment-low income, high letters out-low
enrollment weeks later.
It is safe enough at first to simply assign moderate conditions
(Emergency, Normal, Affluence) by the current ups and downs of the graphs.
This should result in expansion.
EXPANSION (product increase) is THE WHOLE REASON you are assigning
conditions in the first place, so you expect, reasonably, that if you
assign conditions by graph you will get expansion.
Now, after a while (weeks or months) you see you are getting expansion
so you go on assigning conditions by graph. An Exec Sec would also inspect
the physical areas of Dangers and Affluences as a matter of course.
BUT let us take the reverse case. You assign conditions by graph (and
inspections of Danger and Affluence) and what you are assigning conditions
to DOESN'T expand!
Well, now we get to work. There is something wrong.
The first thing that can be wrong is that what you are assigning
conditions to really doesn't exist. The Director of Comm does not have a
Department of Comm. He has only a messenger-telex operator, no way to
handle his other departmental functions and answers the phone himself.
So, finding no department, REGARDLESS OF OTHER REASONS ("can't get
staff" "income too low" "no quarters"), you bang him with a condition of
NonExistence. Because he obviously doesn't exist as a Dir Comm, having no
Comm Dept. (Non-Existence is also assigned for NO USE and NO FUNCTION.)
Now, if this assignment to the Dir Comm of Non-Existence-with no further
help from you, mind-does not result in a Comm Dept in a reasonable time,
you assume he doesn't want one to be there and you assign a condition of
Liability.
You don't explain it all away. That's what he's doing so why imitate
him?
You don't say, "He's just overwhelmed-new-needs a review-natter, natter,
figure, figure." You simply ASSIGN!
He STILL doesn't get a Comm Dept there.
You inspect. You find the Ethics Officer isn't enforcing the Liability
penalty ("Pete is my pal and I . . ."). So you assign the Ethics Officer a
condition of Liability as he gets, naturally, what he failed to enforce.
Now they mutiny and you assign a condition of Treason, shoot both of
them from guns and fill the posts.
The new incumbents you tell, "The boys before you aren't here now and
aren't likely to be trained or processed until we get around to the last
dregs so we hope you do better. You begin in Non-Existence. I trust you
will work your way out of it at least into Danger before the week is out.
As you are just on post, the penalties do not apply for Non-Existence. But
they will after 30 days. So let's get a Dept of Comm and an Ethics
Section."
Now of course, if the E/O had to be shot from guns, Dir I & R is at once
assigned a DANGER CONDITION complete with penalties as that section was in
his/her dept.
If there's no HCO (Div 7, 1, 2) part of the org, the LRH Comm of that
org yells for the next senior org to act. And if there's no LRH Comm, the
next senior org should see that it's gone by lack of stats or reports or
expansion and act anyway.
Now you say, "But that's ruthless! No staff would. . . ."
Well, such a statement reasoning is contrary to the facts.
64
The only time (by actual experience and data) you lose staff and have an
unstaffed org is when you let low stat people in. Low stat personnel gets
rid of good staff members. An org that can't be staffed has an SP in it!
Orgs where ethics is tight and savage grow in numbers!
Man thrives, oddly enough, only in the presence of a challenging
environment. That isn't my theory. That's fact.
If the org environment is not challenging, there will be no org.
We help beyond any help ever available anywhere. We are a near ultimate
in helping. At once this loads us up with SPs who would commit suicide to
prevent anyone from being helped and it lays us wide open as "softees" to
any degraded being that comes along. They are sure we won't bite so they do
anything they please. Conditions correctly assigned alone can detect and
eject SPs and DBs.
So if we help so greatly, we must also in the same proportion be able to
discipline. Near ultimate help can only be given with near ultimate
discipline.
Tech can only stay itself where ethics is correctly and ruthlessly
administered. Admin like ours has to be high because our orgs handle the
highest commodity-life itself.
So our admin only works where tech is IN. And our tech works only where
ethics is in.
Our target is not a few psychiatric patients but a cleared universe. So
what does THAT take?
The lowest confront there is, is the confront of evil. When a living
being is out of his own valence and in the valence of a thoroughly bad,
even if imaginary, image, you get an SP. An SP is a no-confront case
because, not being in his own valence, he has no viewpoint from which to
erase anything. That is all an SP is.
BUT the amount of knowing havoc an SP can cause is seen easily if only
in this planet's savage, cruel wars.
An executive who cannot confront evil is already en route to becoming
suppressive.
Next door to the "theetie-weetie" case is the totally overwhelmed
condition we call SP (suppressive person).
It is so easy to live in a fairyland where nothing evil is ever done.
One gets the image of a sweet old lady standing in the middle of a gangster
battle with bodies and blood spattering the walls saying, "It's so nice,
it's only a boy's game with toy guns."
The low statistic staff member who never gets his stats up is making low
stats. He isn't idle. It's a goodie-goodie attitude to say, "He just isn't
working hard." The chronic low-stat person is working VERY HARD to keep the
stat DOWN. When you learn that, you can assign conditions and make an org
expand.
When stats WON'T come up, you drop the condition down. Sooner or later
you will hit the REAL condition that applies.
Conversely, as you upgrade conditions you will also reach the condition
that applies. Some staff members are in chronic Power. Who ever assigns it?
They take over a post-its stats soar. Well, to measure just stats of the
post taken over as his condition is false since his personal condition is
and has been Power. And if it is Power, then that personal condition should
be assigned.
That is very easy to see.
65
BUT what if you have a personnel who whenever he or she takes over a
post the stat collapses?
Well you better assign that one too. For just as the one in Power works
to maintain up stats, the one in the lower condition, whether one cares to
confront it or not, works too and is just as industriously collapsing not
only his own post stats but also the stats of posts adjacent to his! So he
is at least a condition of Liability as the post if vacant would only be in
Non-Existence! And as somebody next to it might do a little bit for it, it
might even get up to Danger condition, completely unmanned!
DISCREPANCIES
When there are discrepancies amongst statistic graphs, SOME graph is
false.
When you find a false graph, you assign anyone who falsified it
intentionally and knowingly a condition of Liability, for that action is
far worse than a noncompliance.
And you had better be alert to the actual area where the false graph
originated as it has a tiger in it. Only physical inspection of a most
searching kind (or a board if it is distant) will reveal the OTHER crimes
going on there. There are always other crimes when you get a false report.
Experience will teach one that if he really looks.
RECIPROCITY
It is more than policy that one gets the condition he fails to correctly
and promptly assign and enforce.
It's a sort of natural law. If you let your executives goof off and stay
in, let us say, a Danger condition, yet you don't assign and enforce one,
they will surely put YOU in a Danger condition whether it gets assigned or
not.
Remember that when your finger falters "on the trigger."
That natural law stems from this appalling fact.
We didn't, a long, long time ago, get in ethics. We goofed. And the
whole race went into the soup where it remains to this day.
And if we are to live in this universe at all, at all, we are going to
have to get in ethics and clean it up.
Whether that's easy to confront or not is beside the point. The horrid
truth is that our fate is FAR more unconfrontable!
Now we have to have highly skilled tech to bail us out. And I assure you
that that tech will never get in or be used beneficially at all unless
1. We get ethics in, and
2. Unless Scientology orgs expand at a regular rate.
Only then can we be free.
So that's how and WHY you assign and enforce conditions. It's the only
way everyone finally will win.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.rd.gm Copyright C 1967 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
66
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 FEBRUARY 1968
Rernimeo
Admin Know-How Series 18
STATISTIC RATIONALIZATION
"Rationalizing a statistic" is a derogatory term meaning finding excuses
for down statistics.
Finding excuses or reasons why a stat is down does NOT bring it up and
at best is a scathing comment on the lack of foresight or initiative of the
executive in charge of the area.
What is wanted is (1) prevention of stats going down and (2) quick
action to bring them up.
Being reasonable about their being down should be regarded as AGREEMENT
WITH THEIR BEING DOWN. Which is, of course, suppressive.
"Well, the letters out stat is down because we were paying a girl so
much per letter and 'policy' stated we could not hire anyone so we fired
her and that's why letters out is down."
That was an actual rationalization given in Washington, D.C., for the
collapse of the org last year.
To begin, there is no such "policy" and surely no policy exists to have
down stats. So, here the felony is compounded by seeking to blame policy
for a down stat which for sure revealed the action as a suppressive effort
to rationalize (and get away with) a down stat.
The only reason stats are down, ever, is because somebody didn't push
them up, All other reasons are false.
IDtE FIXE
Some people have a METHOD of handling a down stat which is a fixed idea
or clich6 they use to handle all down stat situations in their lives.
These people are so at effect they have some idea sitting there "that
handles" a down statistic.
"Life is like that." "I always try my best." "People are mean." "It will
get better." "It was worse last year."
They KNOW it isn't any use trying to do anything about anything and that
it is best just to try to get by and not be noticed-a sure route to
suicide.
Instead of seeking to prevent or raise a declining stat in life, such
people use some fixed idea to explain it.
This is a confession of being in apathy.
One can always make stats go up. Hard work. Foresight. Initiative. One
can always make stats go up. That's the truth of it, and it needs no
explanations.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:jp.rd.gm Founder
Copyright Q 1968
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
67
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 MARCH 1968
Remimeo
Staff Status I (HCO Policy Letter of 31 October 1966, Issue 11,
Checksheet Amended and Reissued)
(The one modified paragraph is in caps.)
Admin Know-How Series 19
GENERAL FOR ALL STAFF
JOB ENDANGERMENT CHITS
If you are given orders or directions or preventions or denied materials
which make it hard or impossible for you to raise your statistics or do
your job at all, you MUST file a Job Endangerment Chit on your next highest
superior.
If you are admonished or ordered to a hearing for NOT doing your job and
having low statistics and have NOT previously filed a Job Endangerment Chit
at the time it occurred, you have no defense.
You should not come to a hearing as a defendant and say you were
prevented or inhibited from doing your job. Unless you have filed a Job
Endangerment Chit previously when your job was endangered, the statement
MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED by the Hearing Officer or the Comm Ev.
POLICY
Most people who have trouble with policy or admin do so simply because
they don't know it or can't or don't use it.
Such a person can be told anything and tends to take it as fact.
Policy exists to speed the wheels and make a job doable.
But sometimes one has a senior who continually says this or that is
"against policy."
Always respectfully ask for the date of the policy letter and to see a
copy of it.
Then you will know that what you propose is or is not against policy. If
no policy letter can be produced or if what you proposed is NOT against
policy and is still refused, you must file a Job Endangerment Chit.
WHERE TO FILE
FORMERLY ONLY ONE COPY WAS WRITTEN. THIS IS NOW MODIFIED.
USING CARBON PAPER, MAKE AN ORIGINAL AND TWO COPIES.
SEND ONE COPY TO THE PERSON BEING FILED ON.
SEND TWO COPIES TO THE ETHICS OFFICER.
THE ETHICS OFFICER WILL FILE ONE IN THE FILE OF THE PERSON NAMED AND ONE
IN THE FILE OF THE PERSON WRITING THE CHIT.
68
THESE COPIES MUST BE CAREFULLY PRESERVED IN EVENT OF A COMM EV OR
HEARING AS THEY ARE NECESSARY DEFENSE PAPERS.
WHAT TO FILE
Full details, without rancor or discourtesy, must be given in the
report, including time, places and any witnesses.
VEXATIONS FILING
Anyone filing Job Endangerment Chits on superiors or equals or juniors
must be able to back them up.
One cannot be given an Ethics Hearing or Comm Ev for a false Job
Endangerment Chit unless it contains a willful and knowing false report
which endangers somebody else's job. But even so, no Ethics Hearing may be
ordered for the fact of filing, only for a willful and knowing false
report.
So if your facts are straight, there is no slightest risk in filing a
Job Endangerment Chit. On the contrary, it is dangerous NOT to file one.
For then one has NO defense.
PERSONAL MATTERS
Sometimes a staff member is imposed on in such a way as to prejudice his
job such as having to do off-line favors.
This is an occasion for a Job Endangerment Chit.
If one is threatened with punishment if one files a Job Endangerment
Chit, one must then file a second chit based on the threat.
If an org as a whole seems to refuse Job Endangerment Chits or ignore
them, one can be filed with Worldwide simply by sending it direct to "HCO
Ethics Worldwide, Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex."
WRONGFUL DISMISSAL
Dismissal without following proper procedure of a Hearing may be sued in
the Chaplain's Court, Division 6. If no Chaplain's Court exists in the
local org, then one surely does in the Continental Org and one can file
such a suit there or at Saint Hill.
CHITS BY SENIORS
Seniors let down by juniors had better file Job Endangerment Chits
before calling a lot of ethics actions. Staff members are seldom willful,
they are just unknowing. Senior chits on juniors should carry a copy to the
junior on channels as well as Ethics.
FALSE REPORTS
When one finds he has been falsely reported upon he should file a Job
Endangerment Chit.
HEARINGS ON CHITS
Ethics action is not necessarily taken because a chit has been filed on
one. But if too many chits occur in a staff member's file, an investigation
should be ordered and only if the board so recommends does ethics action
then occur.
69
STATE OF MIND
Don't sit around muttering because you are being kept from doing your
job.
And don't be timid about filing a Job Endangerment Chit.
Don't accept orders you know are against policy or at least unworkable.
File a Job Endangerment Chit,
There is no vast THEY weighing you down. There is only ignorance of
policy or misinterpretation or arbitrary interference.
If you are willing to do your job, then know your job and do it. And if
you are being shoved off so you can't do it, you MUST file a Job
Endangerment Chit.
You have a right to do your job, you know.
L. RO
Found
LRH:jc.rd.gm Copyright 0 1966, 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The reissue expanded the section under "Where to File."]
70
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 MAY 1968
(Issued from Flag Order 805)
Remirneo
Admin Know-How Series 20
ADMINISTRATION
When admin is OUT, tech is OUT, and ethics has long ceased to exist.
You can never send administrative orders into an out-admin area; you can
only get ethics in. To do other than to get ethics in is to only invite
further noncompliance and dev-t.
In reality, ANY administration is a symptom of out-ethics. Any order is
really a criticism. If a post was really being worn, orders would be
unnecessary.
If someone started giving me orders, then I would wonder about my post.
DO YOUR JOB WITH A PLUS AND A PREDICT. Wear your hat so well, you never
need an order.
Remember: NEVER ISSUE AN ORDER TO GET AN ORDER YOU HAVE ALREADY ISSUED
COMPLIED WITH. Ethics has gone out. When ethics has to be put in,
responsibility is out.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sbjs.rd.gm Copyright C) 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
71
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, S
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 OCTO
All Execs
Rernimeo
Org Exec Course
Introductory Admin Know-How Series 21
IMPORTANT
ADMIN KNOW-HOW
When trying to get stats up, you must realize that what GOT stats up
will GET stats up.
Using new, unusual experiments can crash your full intention.
In new programs the BUGS have not been worked out. It's like a newly
designed piece of machinery. The clutch slips or the h.p. is sour.
New programs are undertaken on a small scale as PILOT PROJECTS. If they
work out, good. Spot the bugs, streamline them and prove them. Only then is
it all right to give them out as broad orders.
So it isn't good for an EC to hand out strings of orders. Or for an
executive to start a lot of new projects.
There is a thing called STANDARD ADMIN. It comes from the policy
letters.
When we produced the wild, soaring tech stats with the Sea Org Class
VIII Auditor program, IT WAS BY PUTTING IN THE EXACT PROCESSES AND GRADES.
By going super standard, we got 100% case gain.
It is the same with policy. If you get an org in with super standard
policypromotion, form and admin-the stats SOAR.
TELEX ORDERS
Instead of sending out a mad avalanche of orders on telex, an exec
should only send the number and date of the Pol Ltr he wants in AND THEN
SHOULD RIDE THAT ONE ORDER until it is in.
To choose WHAT policy letter is of course the trick. One has to know
something about the conditions of the org before sending the order.
TRYING TO GET ALL POL LTRS IN at once can also swamp an org. "Get on
policy" is a meaningless remark. Get on such and such a policy, if it is
obviously out, is a very valuable action.
GENERAL EXEC ACTIONS
EDs are there to say WHAT policy should be concentrated on, not to give
new orders.
An executive who is wise, gets in policy on a gradient (little by
little, building it up higher and higher. keeping the old in while adding
in the new).
To understand how to do this, one must be able to conceive of basic
outnesses. It requires real genius to discover how gross and how basic an
outness can be.
72
An exec pounds away with a high-level policy on how to do accounting. Is
his face red when he finds the reason for the muddle is that there isn't
anyone in the division!!!
Once we almost "did our nut" trying to find what outness had unmocked an
org. All sorts of involved conclusions were reached. All manner of orders
given without any improvement. And then "murder outed." EVERY Registrar in
the org had been removed and no new ones appointed. The public couldn't
find anyone to sign them up.
I once sent a continent into Power simply by discovering that it had not
appointed people to the posts of Exec Sec in any org! How "out" can it get?
As soon as Exec Secs were appointed, the whole continent went into Power.
I once read an ED which (a) removed all executives but one and then (b)
gave 20 complex orders "to be done at once." The one remaining personnel
could not have executed any of them. I at once canceled ALL EDs not issued
by myself and shortly up went the stats.
Wondering why no mail is ever mailed does not call for a complex policy.
It calls for a policy about the form of the org, how it must have Exec
Secs, divisional secs. For there to be no mail going out can only mean
there's nobody on post!
A divisional sec trying to get in his division's policy must look first
for GROSS outnesses. They are never small. And then he must get them in by
policy. Then they'll stay in.
There IS a standard admin. It deals in simplicities. People are on post.
Particles flow. Promotion is done. Tech is delivered. The org board is up
and is followed.
If policy isn't in at that level of largeness, it will never go in on
higher points.
Knowing an org inside out is also knowing who to tell to do what and
what policy to get in when. It's like knowing how to drive a car. It won't
go if you don't know where the ignition switch is located. Policy outnesses
occur and unusual ideas are put forth only by those who don't know what is
usual in the first place.
Like standard tech, in standard policy the results come from getting in
the basics and doing them well.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:jp.ei.rd.gm Copyright C) 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
73
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1969
Rernimeo
Senior OEC
Admin Know-How Series 22
THE KEY INGREDIENTS
When we look at organization in its most simple form, when we seek
certain key actions or circumstances that make organization work, when we
need a very simple, very vital rundown to teach people that will produce
results, we find only a few points we need to stress.
The purpose of organization is TO MAKE PLANNING BECOME ACTUALITY.
Organization is not just a fancy, complex system, done for its own sake.
That is bureaucracy at its worst. Org boards for the sake of org boards,
graphs for the sake of graphs, rules for the sake of rules only add up to
failures.
The only virtue (not always a bad one) of a complex, unwieldy,
meaningless bureaucratic structure is that it provides jobs for the friends
of those in control. If it does not also bring about burdensome taxation
and threatened bankruptcy by reason of the expense of maintaining it, and
if it does not saddle a people or production employees with militant
inspections and needless control, organization for the sake of providing
employment is not evil but beyond providing employment is useless, and only
when given too much authority is it destructive.
The kings of France and other lands used to invent titles and duties to
give activity to the hordes of noble hangers-on to keep them at court,
under surveillance, and out of mischief out in the provinces where they
might stir up their own people. "Keeper of the Footstools," "Holder of the
Royal Nightgown" and other such titles were fought for, bought, sold and
held with ferocity.
Status-seeking, the effort to become more important and have a personal
reason for being and for being respected, gets in the road of honest
efforts to effectively organize in order to get something done, in order to
make something economically sound.
Organization for its own sake, in actual practice, usually erects a
monster that becomes so hard to live with that it becomes overthrown.
Production losses, high taxes, irritating or fearsome interference with the
people or actual producers invites and accomplishes bankruptcy or revolt,
usually both even in commercial companies.
Therefore to be meaningful, useful and lasting, an organization has to
fit into the definition above:
TO MAKE PLANNING BECOME ACTUALITY.
In companies and countries there is no real lack of dreaming. All but
the most depraved heads of companies or states wish to see specific or
general improvement. This is also true of their executives and, as it forms
the basis of nearly all revolts, it is certainly true of workers. From top
to bottom, then, there is, in the large majority, a desire for improvement.
More food, more profit, more pay, more facilities, and, in general, more
and better of whatever they believe is good or beneficial. This also
includes less of what they generally consider to be bad.
74
Programs which obtain general support consist of more of what is
beneficial and less of what is detrimental. "More food, less disease,"
"more beautiful buildings, less hovels," "more leisure, less work," "more
activity, less unemployment," are typical of valuable and acceptable
programs.
But only to have a program is to have only a dream. In companies, in
political parties, useful programs are very numerous. They suffer only from
a lack of execution.
All sorts of variations of program failure occur. The program is too
big. It is not generally considered desirable. It is not needed at all. It
would benefit only a few. Such are surface reasons. The basic reason is
lack of organization know-how.
Any program, too ambitious, partially acceptable, needed or not needed,
could be put into effect if properly organized.
The five-year plans of some nations which are currently in vogue are
almost all very valuable and almost all fall short of their objectives. The
reason is not that they are unreal, too ambitious or generally
unacceptable. The reason for any such failure is lack of organization.
It is not Man's dreams that fail him. It is the lack of know-how
required to bring those dreams into actuality.
Good administration has two distinct targets:
1. To perpetuate an existing company, culture, or society
2. To make planning become actuality.
Given a base on which to operate-which is to say land, people, equipment
and a culture-one needs a good administrative pattern of some sort just to
maintain it.
Thus I and 2 above become 2 only. The plan is "to continue the existing
entity." No company or country continues unless one continues to put it
there. Thus an administrative system of some sort, no matter how crude, is
necessary to perpetuate any group or any subdivision of a group. Even a
king or headman or manager who has no other supporting system to whom one
can bring disputes about land or water or pay is an administrative system.
The foreman of a labor gang that only loads trucks has an astonishingly
complex administrative system at work.
Companies and countries do not work just because they are there or
because they are traditional. They are continuously put there by one or
another form of administration.
When a whole system of admin moves out or gets lost or forgotten,
collapse occurs unless a new or substitute system is at once moved into
place.
Changing the head of a department, much less a general manager and much,
much less a ruler, can destroy a portion or the whole since the old system,
unknown, disregarded or forgotten, may cease and no new system which is
understood is put in its place. Frequent transfers within a company or
country can keep the entire group small, disordered and confused, since
such transfers destroy what little administration there might have been.
Thus, if administrative shifts or errors or lack can collapse any type
of group, it is vital to know the basic subject of organization.
Even if the group is at effect-which is to say originates nothing but
only defends in the face of threatened disaster, it still must plan. And if
it plans, somehow it must get the plan executed or done. Even a simple
situation of an attacked fortress has to be defended by planning and doing
the plan, no matter how crude. The order, "Repel the invader who is
storming the south wall," is the result of observation and planning no
75
matter how brief or unthorough. Getting the south wall defended occurs by
some system of administration even if it only consists of sergeants hearing
the order and pushing their men to the south wall.
A company with heavy debts has to plan even if it is just to stall off
creditors. And some administrative system has to exist even to do only
that.
The terrible dismay of a young leader who plans a great and powerful new
era only to find himself dealing with old and weak faults, is attributable
not to his "foolish ambition" or "lack of reality" but to his lack of
organizational know-how.
Even elected presidents or prime ministers of democracies are victims of
such terrible dismay. They do not, as is routinely asserted, "go back on
their campaign promises" or "betray the people." They, as well as their
members of parliament, simply lack the rudiments of organizational know-
how. They cannot put their campaign promises into effect not because they
are too high-flown but because they are politicians not administrators.
To some men it seems enough to dream a wonderful dream. Just because
they dreamed it they feel it should now take place. They become very
provoked when it does not occur.
Whole nations, to say nothing of commercial firms or societies or
groups, have spent decades in floundering turmoil because the basic dreams
and plans were never brought to fruition.
Whether one is planning for the affluence of the Appalachian Mountains
or a new loading shed closer to the highway, the gap between the plan and
the actuality will be found to be lack of administrative know-how.
Technical ignorance, finance, even lack of authority and unreal planning
itself are none of them true barriers between planning and actuality.
Thus, we come to the exact most basic steps that comprise
administration.
First is OBSERVATION. From beginning to end, observation must serve both
those in charge and any others who plan. When observation is lacking, then
planning itself as well as any and all progress can become unreal and
orders faulty and destructive. Observation, in essence, must be TRUE.
Nothing must muddy it or color it as this can lead to gross errors in
action and training.
Next is PLANNING itself. Planning is based on dreams but it must be
fitted to what is needed and wanted and what men can do, even with
stretched imaginations or misgivings. Planning has to be targeted and
scheduled and laid out in steps and gradients or one will be laying
railroad tracks that pass through oceans or boring tunnels in mountains
that do not exist or building penthouses without putting any building under
them to hold them up.
The essence of planning is COMMUNICATION and the communication must be
such that it can be understood and will not be misunderstood. For unless
those who oversee and those who do, know what their part of the plan is,
they cannot execute their share and very well may oversee and do quite some
other action, leaving a monstrous gap and even a structure that ate up
their time and funds but now has to be torn down.
The next is SUPERVISION and supervision is dually needful. It serves as
a relay point to which plans can be communicated and from which
observations as reports can be received; and it serves as the terminal
which communicates the plans as orders and sees that they are actually
done. This gives one the genus of the org board as a central ordering point
which has other relay ordering points taking care of their part of the
76
whole plan or program. These points are often also the points which care
for local occurrences which must be handled, and their frailty is that they
become so involved with local occurrences, oddities and purely local
concerns that they do not or can not give any attention to receiving,
relaying and overseeing their part of the main plan.
Then there are the PRODUCERS who produce the service or the structure or
the product required by the plan. Many plans are marvelous in all respects
but putting somebody there to actually DO the required actions that make
the plan real. The primary fault is to use persons who already have
projects and duties to which they are committed and, with their local
knowledge, see must be continued at any cost but who are forced to abandon
existing programs or duties to start on this new activity, solely because
the new activity has the stress given it in orders and the old activities
are seemingly ordered left alone. Old companies and old countries could be
said to be "that collection of incomplete and abandoned projects which is
confused and failing."
Finally there is the USER, those who will use or benefit from the
program when it is realized and completed. When planning fails to take this
element into account, only then can the whole program fail utterly, for it,
regardless of dreams, labor and expense, is finally seen to be of no value
anyway. Thus all great programs begin with an understanding or a survey of
what is needed and wanted; and a nose and value count of those who will use
it; and a costing action in time, labor, materials and finance, compared to
the value of it, even if only aesthetic, of those who will use it in any
way if only to know they have it or to be proud of it or to feel better or
stronger because they have done it.
Thus one gets the points which are the true administrative points:
1. OBSERVATION even down to discovering the users and what is needed and
wanted.
2. PLANNING which includes imaginative conception and intelligent
timing, targeting and drafting of the plans so they can be communicated
and assigned.
3. COMMUNICATING which includes receiving and understanding plans and
their portion and relaying them to others so that they can be
understood.
4- SUPERVISION which sees that that which is communicated is done in
actuality.
5. PRODUCTION which does the actions or services which are planned,
communicated and supervised.
6. USERS by which the product or service or completed plan is used.
Administrative systems or organizations which lack at least the
rudiments of the above system will not bring off the dream and will
accumulate an enormous lot of uncompleted actions. Not a few failures,
bankruptcies, overthrows and revolutions have occurred because one or all
of the above points were awry in an existing organization.
The amount of heroic executive overwork which comes from the omission of
one or more of these vital essential points accounts for the ulcers which
are the occupational disease of those in charge.
When some or all these points are awry or gone, an executive or ruler or
his minister is reduced to an anxiety which can only watch for the symptoms
of bankruptcy or attack or revolt.
77
Even if so reduced, an executive who fends off disaster while getting in
a system which satisfies the above points has an enormously bettered chance
of winning at long last.
The dual nature of an administrative system or an organization now becomes
plain.
Let us pry apart I and 2 above. The effort to hold an existing
organization together is really different than trying to get a plan into
actuality. In practice, one has an organization of some sort. It has
functions and it has local concerns and problems. And it has programs and
actions from past control centrals or which were locally generated.
To push in upon this plans which, no matter how well conceived or
intentioned, are additional to its load will cause a great deal of
confusion, incomplete projects left dangling and general upset.
To place new programs into action, two prior actions are necessary:
A. Put in a whole new system paralleling the old existing system.
B. Survey the old system and its existing programs to preserve
them, eradicate them or combine them with the new plans.
To leave A and B undone is to court disaster. Whether one is aware of
the old programs or the old organization or not, THEY REMAIN AND WILL
CONTINUE-even if only as a pile of undone, unsorted papers nobody knows
where to file or as a pile of odd unfinished masonry some future generation
can't identify or will identify with scorn of administrations in general.
New leaders are sometimes looked upon as a worse scourge than a foreign
enemy and new patterns of rule are often subjected to overthrow simply
because they did not, out of ignorance or laziness, do A and B above.
One sometimes finds a company unit or a military officer left in some
unheard of place for years, at continuing expense, guarding or nibbling at
some project in a bewildered or philosophic fashion.
The activity remained unremembered, unhandled when a new broom and new
planners entered the scene.
This can get so bad that a company or a nation's resources can be broken
to bits. The old plans, disorganized, not known, discredited, are
superseded by new plans and new ambitions. The old plans are in the road of
the new plans and the new plans prevent old plans from completing. The
result is an impasse. And the men in charge, even at the level of junior
executives, become even more puzzled and bewildered than the workers and
begin to believe no new plans can ever be done, blame the ignorance of the
populace and the cruelty of fate and give up.
All they had to do was put in a complete new parallel system as in the I
to 6 outline above for their new plans and to meanwhile preserve and
continue the old system while they surveyed for preservation, eradication
or combination of it. It is sometimes even good sense to continue old
projects to completion currently with new projects just to maintain
stability in the company or country and somehow find new finance and new
people for the new plans. It is often far less costly than to simply
confuse everything.
Furthermore, all NEW and untried plans should have PILOT PROJECTS which
by test and use must be successful before one incorporates them and their
new workers into the old system as a parallel dependable activity.
78
A "chicken in every pot" as a campaign promise could easily succeed if
organized as in I to 6 above.
There is a lot to organization. It requires trained administrators who
can forward the programs. But a "trained" administrator who does not grasp
the principles of organization itself is only a clerk.
At this current writing Man has not had administrative training centers
where actual organization was taught. It was learned by "experience" or by
working in an organization that was already functioning. But as the
principles were not the same company to company and nation to nation, the
differences of background experiences of any set of administrators differed
to such a degree that no new corps could be assembled as a team.
Thus it was said to require a quarter to a half a century to make a
company. But the number of ineffective bureaucracies and national failures
which existed stated clearly that there were too few skilled administrators
and too few training activities.
Man's happiness and the longevity of companies and states apparently
depend upon organizational know-how. Hiring specialized experts to get one
out of trouble is a poor substitute for knowing what it is all about in the
first place.
Organization is actually a simple subject, based on a few basic patterns
which, if applied, produce success.
If one would dream and see his dreams an actuality, one must also be
able to organize and to train organizational men who will make those dreams
come true.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rs.ei.rd.gm Copyright Q 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
79
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 OCTOBER 1969
Remimeo
Admin Know-How Series 23
DEV-T
The entire, complete and only major source of dev-t is ignorance or
failure to grasp CONFUSION AND THE STABLE DATUM as covered fully in
Problems of Work (and LRH tapes of 1956).
Unless an executive or staff member fully grasps the basic principles of
confusion and a stable datum then the org board is completely over his
head, the reason for posts is not understood and dev-t becomes routine.
A post on the org board is the STABLE POINT. If it is not held by
someone, it will generate confusion. If the person that is holding it isn't
really holding it, the confusion inherent in that area on the org board
zooms all over the place near and far.
Any executive getting dev-t knows at once what posts are not held
because dev-t is the confusion that should have been handled in that area
by someone on post. With that stable terminal not stable, dev-t shoots
about.
Excessive transfers in an org promote fantastic dev-t as the posts do
not really get held as people are on them too briefly. "Musical chairs"
(excessive transfers) can destroy an org or area.
The remedy is to get people trained up (OEQ to handle their posts, to
get people on post who do handle their posts.
An essential part of such training is a study of Problems of Work and a
full grasp of how a stable terminal handles and prevents confusion. If the
person cannot fully grasp this principle, he is below the ability to
conceive of terminals and barely able to perceive lines. He cannot
communicate since there are no terminals to him.
REMOTE AREAS
If an area remote from an executive does not contain a stable point to
which he can send his comm and get it handled, then his comm only enters
dev-t into the area and he gets back floods of despatches and problems but
no real handling. The area is not organized and does not have people in it
who have grasped Problems of Work or how it applies to an org board or even
why there is an org board.
Communicating into a disorganized area without first organizing it to
have at least one stable terminal is foolishness.
An org board is that arrangement of persons, lines and actions which
classifies types of confusions and gives a stable terminal to each type. It
is as effective as its people can conceive of terminals and understand the
basic principle of confusions and stable data.
A good executive arranges personnel and organization to handle types of
actions and confusions. He does not broadly comm into disorganized areas
except to organize them.
Any area which gives an executive excessively developed traffic (dev-t)
is an area
80
where the persons supposed to be the stable terminals in that area are not
holding their posts and do NOT understand what they are or why and do not
know what an org board is and have never understood the Scientology
fundamental known as confusion and the stable datum. They are NOT doing
their post or organizing their areas.
An executive's evidence of this is the receipt from there of dev-t.
The executive's action is to get somebody THERE, get him to understand
confusion and the stable datum and how it applies to posts as stable
terminals, get him trained up and use that now stable point to handle
further confusions.
If an executive goes on handling dev-t of people who are not stable
terminals that handle their areas, HE WILL BE FORCED TO WORK HARDER THAN IF
THE POST WERE EMPTY. At least if it were empty, he would get only the
confusion of that area. As it is, if the post is improperly held and
wobbly, he gets not only the area confusion but also the enturbulation of
the wobbly incumbent.
Volumes could be written about this subject. But there is no reason
whatever not to be able to grasp the fundamentals concerning confusion and
stable data, confusion and stable terminals, apply it to org boards, to
areas and to expansion.
Chaos is the basic situation in this universe. To handle it you put in
order.
Order goes in by being and making stable terminals arranged to handle
types of action and confusion.
In organizing units, sections, divs, depts, orgs or areas of orgs, you
build by stable terminals.
You solve areas by reinforcing stable terminals.
Executives who do not grasp this live lives of total harassment and
confusion.
The whole secret of organization, the whole problem of dev-t, the basic
ingredient of all expansion is contained in this.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rs.ldm.ei.rd.gm Copyright C 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
81
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Admin Know-How Series 24
DISTRACTION AND NOISE
Noise is a technical term used in the field of public relations to
describe the medley of messages hitting a member of a public besides one's
own message.
The clamoring for attention of many different people, firms, situations
brings about a condition where another voice or despatch is just ONE MORE
DISTRACTION.
We can profitably use NOISE to describe the demands for attention put
upon a staff member, executive, office or org that is being distracted off
a main line of action.
A law evolves-THOSE INDIVIDUALS OR AREAS THAT ARE THE LEAST WELL-
ORGANIZED ARE AFFECTED THE MOST BY DISTRACTIONS.
Let us take an office in Gus Falls, South Alabama. The Public Exec Sec
chooses personnel and audits, the HCO ES lectures, the OES mows the lawn.
The rest of the staff are assigned to no divisions particularly, they try
to cope but the org makes little money, naturally, so they "moonlight"
(have other jobs).
The place is a mess, of course. Public, bills collectors, salesmen, all
clamor endlessly for the org's attention. The more disorganized the place
is, the more messages each distractor has to originate to get anyone there
to listen. Routine actions, having no lines on which to travel and no one
to handle them, become frantic oft repeated emergencies each one with
multiples of messages.
SO, you are an executive in a remote city. This Gus Falls Office is in
your area.
SO, you write them despatches.
You get no answers.
You write more despatches.
And they go unanswered.
Gus Falls just isn't reporting up.
WHY? You are just one more noise in a screaming chaos.
The office manifests mainly DEFENSE. It is being hit so hard with random
voices and despatches that it develops a ridge against all voices, all
despatches.
Anything from you, if it gets read at all, is resented as it's "just one
more awful impossible."
So there are only three conditions wherein you get no answers or
compliance-
1. There is no one there.
2. Your terminal there isn't wearing his or her hat.
82
3. The place is a howling disorganized madhouse.
The remotely located executive who keeps writing despatches into an area
and gets no action or answers has these situations:
A. His orders are unreal in that they are not based on good
observation.
B. His orders are contrary to policy and would produce upsets or
disorganization.
C. There is no one there at the receipt point.
D. The terminal addressed isn't wearing his/her hat.
E. The place is a howling disorganized madhouse.
In any of these cases we get this law:
WHEN YOUR DESPATCHES OR ORDERS AREN'T GETTING ANSWERED OR ACTIONED,
DON'T EVER KEEP ISSUING MORE OF THE SAME.
In the special case of E you haven't got a chance of attracting
attention.
There are many things you can do in the case of E.
Whatever you do, if observation and real data to hand (not rumor or
opinion) shows E to be the case, there is one basic rule:
WHEN A PERSONNEL OR PLACE IS DISTRACTED, GET IN ONLY EASY BASICS ONE AT
A TIME.
Problems of Work data applies. Stable datum and confusion.
Whatever you do, you have to get correct factual observation that is
actual data, not propaganda or opinion.
It could be somebody there is suppressive and is tearing the place
apart.
It could be they just don't know what organization is, that it means
that specialized personnel are assigned to different posts with specific
duties and that command and flow lines are established throughout the
organization. Maybe they don't know that.
It could be only the top strata is in a mess with the staff working well
out of sight from a remote observer. That has happened.
A remote executive or one on the ground confronting this sort of thing
gets his first inkling of it from no-reports or noncompliance or slow
compliance.
His next action is to collect factual data on actual conditions.
His next action is to find out WHO if anyone is disorganizing the place,
and handle that one. But this is with care as such action if remotely taken
can be wrong and the place will just disintegrate.
His next action is to get in simple basics like an org board, then hats,
then a comm center, then recruitment, then decent promotion and decent
service.
Often such a group as in E has generated howling financial or even
public emergencies and these are what are screaming for attention. The
thing to do is to put a special section IN CHARGE OF THAT EMERGENCY and
route anything related to it to that special section for full orderly
handling. Get the rest of the place properly organized and conducting
business as usual.
83
It takes a while for an organized activity such as an office to become a
shattered wreck. However, an SP put into it as an exec can speed this
process up greatly.
Therefore, anyone seeking to handle the confused area must detect the
symptoms early and handle early.
THE LATER THE SITUATION IS NOTICED, THE HARDER IT WILL BE, AND THE
LONGER IT WILL TAKE TO BUILD IT BACK UP AGAIN.
The next time you get a DEFENSIVE ANSWER, A SLOW COMPLIANCE or a NO-
REPORT, realize that you have on your hands right there, whether in one
person or an org, the symptoms of a situation you must handle. It is any
one of from A to E above.
Honestly and dispassionately figure out which one it is. And realize if
it is D (not wearing a hat) it could be a symptom of an SP so watch it
until you know his (a) case status, (b) ethics record and (c) production
record or you could make a mistake.
If it's any one of these, A to E, you can find out by dispassionate
analysis based on facts.
But in any event the situation MUST be handled. What is wrong must be
remedied.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:kjm.rd.gm Copyright C 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
84
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 JULY 1971
Remirneo
All Bureaux
Hats
OEC
Admin Know-How Series 25
CLOs, OTLs AND FLAG
(References: HCO Policy Letter of 14 September 1969, Admin Know-How Series
22, "THE KEY INGREDIENTS," HCO Policy Letter of 8 May 1970, "DISTRACTION
AND NOISE" and the P/Ls of THE DATA SERIES.)
PURPOSE OF CLOs
TO MAKE PLANNING BECOME AN ACTUALITY is the key message of the key
ingredients.
This also unlocks the door to an understanding of Continental Liaison
Offices and Operation and Transport Liaison Offices.
Unless the staff of a CLO or OTL knows the purpose of its existence, it
ceases to exist as it will be of no real use.
A CLO or OTL must be of USE to FLAG and ORGS and franchises and the
public. If it is not, then it will become valueless and a burden.
If it does know and if every staff member in it knows its purpose, then
it will prosper and its staff will prosper. If not, it will become unmocked
and confused.
THE MAJOR PURPOSE OF A CLO OR OTL IS TO MAKE FLAG PLANNING BECOME AN
ACTUALITY IN ORGS, FRANCHISES AND THEREBY THE VARIOUS PUBLICS.
STEPS
In THE KEY INGREDIENTS you find a cycle of management as follows:
1. Observation
2. Planning
3. Communicating
4. Supervision
5. Production
6. Users.
Plans in this P/L include Programs and Projects and are the duty of
FLAG.
CLOs and OTLs fit exactly at No. I Observation and No. 4 Supervision.
Orgs fit at No. 5 Production and the publics at No. 6 Users.
No. 3 Communication occurs internally at Flag; between Flag and CLOs;
internally at CLOs; between CLOs and orgs and franchises; and between orgs
and franchises and the publics. There is also internal communication
amongst the publics
85
and within each public, known as "word-of-mouth advertising" and
"goodwill." Laying out this network of communication is an interesting
exercise, for you will see that it is becoming global-over the whole world.
In addition to increasing understanding, this will give one a concept of
the true size of the operation. "Publics" is a public relations term
meaning a type of "users."
OTLs are an extension of CLOs for the CLO.
If you can conceive of this network of communication, you can then work
out the remaining KEY INGREDIENTS.
OBSERVATION
Orgs observe for CLOs. OTLs observe for CLOs.
The Stats In-Charge of an org, the Finance Banking Officer of an org,
the Bureaux Liaison Officer in an org, the owners of a franchise and
individuals of the publics are all Observers (No. I of Key Ingredients).
They send their observations to OTLs and to CLOs.
In the Data Bureau of a CLO, these observations are duplicated and CIC
processed for local CLO use but are at once also sent swiftly on to Flag.
In the Data Bureau at Flag, all these observations are assembled by
continent and org and evaluated.
From this Flag evaluation (see Data Series on how it is done exactly),
No. 2 of the key ingredients, PLANNING can occur. This step, for our
purposes, includes finding the major international successes and outnesses
and the big WHYs or reasons for them. Flag puts these into programs and
projects and sends them out via CLOs to orgs and sometimes franchises.
CLOs and their OTLs now come into their own. They SUPERVISE getting
these programs and projects in and done. This is the bureaux system's
PRODUCTION.
The organization and its production results are of course expressed with
the publics which are thereby served and increased as USERS.
Thus all the KEY INGREDIENTS line up.
FLAG PLANNING
On Flag the basic overall effort is designed and planned. The big broad
situations are spotted and the WHYs (reasons for them) found,
The plans, programs and projects turned out by Flag are designed to
press on with the major international designs and to spot major falterings
or outnesses.
The results are policy, tech, programs and projects.
In general, Flag does not work on things that fit only an individual
org.
What Flag plans and makes projects for fits a type of org or all orgs
and are for the applications of orgs to the various publics.
By proven statistics, what Flag plans will improve or boom an area if it
is applied.
Where Flag planning, represented by programs or projects, is actually
gotten into full action in an org, that org will boom.
Also, by long historical proof, where an org or area neglects or doesn't
execute
86
Flag planning and its programs and projects, there is a collapse.
This isn't PR. This is the story of the years.
If Flag planning got into full activity in every area, we would have the
planet.
For instance, the GI boom is the old Flag tours orders suddenly
reactivated and carried brilliantly into effect in the Pac area. Flag was
putting tours data and tours training together for a year before the
present GI boom. This was then beautifully carried out by splendid
initiative in the Pac area and spread.
The resulting production of GI came about because Sea Org Officers
brilliantly did it with a spark and spirit beautiful to behold. And it was
successful because orgs were now being headed by Flag trained Flag
Executive Briefing Course grads. Policy was now going in. And the only
falter was where policy was departed from or was not asked for.
So Flag planning if executed has a long historical background of huge
success.
CLO ACTIONS
This brings us straight to the real duties of a Continental Liaison
Office and its branches called OTLs.
A CLO is in charge of its continental areas. It has direct comm with
orgs. Has or will have Finance Banking Officers and Bureaux Liaison
Officers in each org.
The first duty of a CLO is to observe and get those observations into
its own Continental Information Center (CIC) and observations and reports
and lists of its own activities to Flag.
What are these activities? They are
A. To observe.
B. To send observations by users, orgs and the publics to Flag.
C. To push in Flag programs and projects.
D. To FIND the WHY (reasons) that any Flag program or project is
not going in, in an org or franchise or public and REMEDY THAT WHY
so the Flag program or project DOES go in.
E. Keep itself set up and operating on the pattern planned for its
establishment by Flag.
F. Handle sudden emergencies.
Those are the TOTAL duties of a CLO.
They are also the duties of an OTL in respect to its CLO.
ORGS
Orgs and franchises push in Flag programs and projects by department and
division and also by individual staff members.
At org level and the level of its publics, the org is doing A to F
above.
A Bureaux Liaison Officer or an FBO in an org is doing A to F and
answering to an OTL or CLO.
87
The OTL handles one or more orgs as an expanded arm of the CLO and it is
doing A to F.
The CLO is working at the level of individual orgs and franchises and
their publics through them.
Flag works through CLOs, then to OTLs or orgs to the publics.
It would be highly informative to lay all this out in clay. For it IS
the winning pattern. Where it is not understood, an area breaks down and
needs emergency actions.
SIMPLICITY
The floods of information pouring through these lines make them appear
far more complex than they are.
That a CLO runs its own service org does not violate this in any way.
That's just another org to run.
Let us take an actual example.
Data coming in to Flag over a long period indicated few auditors being
made and slow (unbelievably slow) courses over the whole world. Several
observations were ordered by Flag at one time and another.
The situation was very serious. Slow courses meant no real delivery. It
meant an org had to work too long for too low a payment. It meant no
auditors available. It meant no students would enroll because they couldn't
spare that much time. Orgs couldn't get Class VIs home from SHSBCs.
Observations piled up and up and up. A three-week course on Flag would
become a six-month course in orgs. It defied belief.
After a long, long study of all this and first-hand experience at Flag,
some Whys began to show up. The HCO P/L 15 Mar 71 "What Is a Course?" was
one answer. The Flag Course Supervisors Course designed to be taught in the
service org of a CLO. TRs the Hard Way came out of this.
Each one of these, and projects based on them, went out from Flag to
CLOs and thus to orgs.
Then the big outness exploded into view. The June-Sept 1964 Study Tapes
were NOT in use in courses!!!! That was the major WHY.
At once the Word Clearing Tech was repiloted on Flag. Simplified
versions were worked out. HCOBs were written.
Projects to get them in were written.
A whole series of drills, one for every possible Supervisor action, were
swiftly put into form by an on-Flag mission and piloted.
These, as programs and projects, are pouring out to CLOs to orgs by
rapid communication as fast as packaged from Training and Service Bu Flag.
Assistant Training and Service Aides in CLO Training and Service Bureaux
should see that they get into each org and franchise, using CLO's LRH Comm
and External Comm Bureaux.
In orgs, LRH Comms or Bureaux Liaison Officers should get them checked
out and in.
88
And EVERY ORG WHICH DOES NOT AT ONCE GET THEM IN AND IN FULL USE is of
immediate interest to the CLO Data Bureau. The Tr and Serv Assistant Aide
should be working to get his org contacts to give him data to find out WHY
they are not IN. And Action should be alerted so it can send a CLO Mission
to find out WHY or remedy the already found WHY.
OTHER DUTIES
"Noise" (HCO P/L 8 May 1970, Distraction and Noise) is the main reason
this does not happen.
The org is in a flap of unworn hats, no personnel and the milk bill.
The CLO Tr and Serv Bu is trying to handle a sick exec.
Noise! Every bit of noise being generated is because the main situations
are not being handled, only the dev-t around them.
Like an HAS who has no time to hire because he is so busy with internal
personnel demands, an org or CLO can be so knocked around by nonsense
generated on the fringes of an unhandled situation that the real reasons do
not get handled.
So "other duties" seem to be so important in an org or a CLO that they
do not carry the line through. Why are they so distracted by so many
outnesses? Because the main line is not in!
There are NO other duties more important than remedying the reason one
has so many other duties!
FLAG REMEDIES
The remedies come from Flag. They are based on area observations from
many sources.
CLO DUTY EXAMPLE
To construct an example of a real CLO in action.
The Asst Management Aide of a CLO finds her project board blank for
Bongville. CIC of the CLO states no reports are coming in from Bongville
org. The last stats sent were poor. There is natter in Bongville's field.
On A/Mgmt Aide request, CLO's Action Bureau writes the MOs for, briefs
and fires a single observer missionaire.
In Bongville, the CLO's missionaire manages to find the "Exec Director"
Bongville (who is not the ED supposed to be there according to CLO
personnel records).
The following conversation takes place:
The org's ED says, "Your CLO has no reality on what's going on here in
this org." Question: (from CLO missionaire) Do you ever send any data or
reports or stats? "No, we haven't time for that. We keep going broke."
Question: Do you know Flag policy relating to pricing and financial
planning? "No, we're too busy. All this questioning is just too
distracting. The landlord is threatening eviction." Question: How much
money have you invoiced in the last month? "Oh, very little." Question: But
I see you have a full classroom of students. Have they all paid? "Oh,
they've been here a year. They paid long ago ... I think." Question: Have
you put the Flag Word Clearing Project into effect so they'll finish their
courses? "The what?" Question: Have you sent anyone to the CLO Tours
Course? "Please, I've got to go now. The HAS just transferred the
89
Course Super to the Estate Section and our only auditor to Ethics Officer
and I've got to tell our afternoon pcs to come back tomorrow. . . ."
TELEGRAM: TO C/O CLO. ADVISE YOU SEND A MISSION WITH A HAS AND AN
AUDITOR AND FBO TO BONGVILLE FAST TO HOLD IT. SUGGEST TWO BONGVILLE STAFF
MEMBERS TO CLO TOURS COURSE AND TWO OF THESE EXECS TO FEBC. NO FLAG
PROJECTS IN. CURRENT ED JOQUIM SOKUM DISTRACTED DISCOURTEOUS TO SO. CHECK
OF INVOICES REVEALS $18,000 UNCOLLECTED FROM STUDENTS NOW ON COURSE NEEDS
FBO AND FINANCE INSPECTOR TO SET UP TREAS AND COLLECT. ADVISE GDN OFFICE RE
LANDLORD EVICTING ORG. NO A/G HERE. BEST = MISSION BONGVILLE OBSERVER.
Now the observation mission went out because the CLO Data Bureau found
Bongville was not reporting.
This telegram meets up in CLO's Data Bureau CIC with a ton of public
complaints in the Bongville area.
A rapid evaluation is done by the CLO CIC Evaluator using any current
data -on Bongville.
The WHY taken from CLO CIC evaluation turns out to be an illegal
promotion to Bongville ED of a blown PTS staff member from Chongton Org who
put the whole staff in treason and blew them.
The CLO Product Officer goes into action for the product of a
functioning org.
CLO ACTION Mission Orders for a new SO temporary ED and HAS for
Bongville are quickly written, the mission briefed and 24 hours later they
are in Bongville handling. The GO is put in touch with the landlord. The
CLO Finance Office sends an FBO. A/Dissem Aide reroutes a tour to include
Bongville.
The new FBO forces $7,000 in collections by Friday, and gets a Treasury
Sec on post and hatted and the Flag Invoice Pack goes in.
The HAS phones the fired Bongville auditors, gets three back. Auditing
resumes. Six students are word cleared and completed on course and the Flag
Intern Pgm goes in and they begin to work in the HGC making nine auditors
now delivering.
The tech member gets the Mini Super Hat on the Course Super. The Flag
Word Clearing Pack goes in.
Two tours students and two execs get routed via the CLO for training on
the Flag checksheet courses.
The ex-ED and the ex-HAS are put on as "HCO Expeditors" pending further
handling.
The HAS reverts the org to cancel out the mad musical chairs, begins to
recruit, form an expeditor pool, train and hat by Flag project orders and
checksheets.
The temporary SO ED produces by coping.
The scene begins to untangle to the degree that policy and Flag projects
begin to go in.
The Flag ARC Brk program begins to go in and begins to straighten out
ARC Brks in Central Files.
One month later, the tours students are back from CLO. The org is
rebuilt enough to deliver. Money begins to roll in.
90
Two months later the first FEBC comes back, is genned in as Exec Dir.
The second one returns. Is genned in as HAS.
They are told to get two more people to the FEBC fast and an A/G is sent
to the GO for training at GO request.
Flag projects are well in.
The CLO mission pulls out.
The org remains stable but is carefully watched by the Asst Management
Aide at the CLO via her project board.
Meanwhile, all reports and data have been flowing to the CLO and to
Flag.
Flag compares its data, evaluates this and other orgs. Finds ex-staff
members who have blown from an org are uniformly PTS. A local Flag project
to develop more data and tech on PTS begins....
And the cycle repeats,
The CLO gets in the PTS project.
When an org doesn't get it in according to a CLO Management Bu project
board, data is looked for in the files and an evaluation is done on the
orgs that didn't get it in. If no data, an observer is sent....
And that's the cycle.
The Flag WHY for the Bongville incident would be a CLO in that area not
manned up and operating fully and not getting Flag projects in.
The CLO basic WHY that let Bongville go to pieces would be that the CLO
did not watch its Flag project board and did not notice Bongyille was not
getting in any projects and was not reporting.
The basic WHY in Bongville was the promotion of unqualified persons to
ED and HAS who did not know or try to get in Flag projects and instead went
ethics mad when they began to fail.
SUMMARY
A CLO is there to observe and to get Flag programs and projects in.
When a CLO doesn't report or backlogs, it gets Bongvilles.
It handles Bongvilles. It must have its Assistant Aides, its bureaux,
especially a Data Bu, and a Mgmt project board, a Missionaire Unit, and an
Action Bureau to handle Bongvilles.
But every Bongville it has to handle will be because Flag programs and
projects weren't going in, in Bongville and the CLO didn't find WHY they
weren't going in soon enough.
Flag level-international WHYs applying to all orgs.
CLO level-continental WHYs to remedy to get Flag pgms and projects in.
Org level-divisional and departmental and individual WHYs that prevent
Flag programs and projects from going in.
91
So that's the reason for a CLO:
To observe and to send all data to Flag and to continentally find out
WHY Flag projects and programs are not going in, in an org and remedy that
WHY and get the programs and projects in.
That's a CLO.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.bh.gm Copyright 0 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
92
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER6F 28 JULY 1971
Remitneo
Exec Hats
ADMIN KNOW-HOW No. 26
(Cancels HCO PL 19 December 69 Executive Duties
which canceled HCO PL 19 July 63)
Note: HCO PL 19 July 63 stated that an executive should "get people to
get the work done." HCO PL 19 Dec 69 canceled it and stated other duties.
This cancellation probably robbed some people of a stable datum that
they got people to get the work done.
When an executive was no longer told he should get people to get the
work done, hatting tended to go out and a great deal of overload began to
occur on executive posts.
From an executive not doing "work" the viewpoint swung to the other
extreme that executives only do all the work.
Both policy letters (HCO PL 19 Dec 69 and 19 July 63) were correct in
their way.
Therefore they are restated as follows.
PHA SE I - BEGINNING A NE W A CTI VIT Y
AN EXECUTIVE SINGLE-HANDS WHILE HE TRAINS HIS STAFF.
When he has people producing, functioning well and hatted, he then
enters the next phase-
PHASE II - RUNNING AN ESTABLISHED ACTIVITY
AN EXECUTIVE GETS PEOPLE TO GET THE WORK DONE.
SINGLE-HANDING
By "single-handing" one means do it himself, being the one responsible
for actually handling things.
This phase occurs when an executive is forming up his personnel.
PHASE I IN FULL
(HCO PL 19 Dec 69 Executive Duties, is therefore requoted for this phase
of the activity-he is on the post, most of the rest are new and flubby.)
An executive handles the whole area while he gets people to help.
An executive in charge of an org would "single-hand" (handle it all)
while getting others to handle their jobs in turn.
This gives a practical and workable approximation of what top-stat
executives actually do do.
The executive who sits back and waits for others to act when a situation
is grave can crash an entire activity.
93
Essentially an executive is a working individual who can competently
handle any post or machine or plan under him.
He is a training officer as well. He designates who is to do what and
sees that a training action is done by himself or others to be sure the
post will be competently held. An executive who accepts the idea that if a
person has a school degree in "waffing wogglies" or sewing on buttons he
can at once be trusted to waff wogglies or sew buttons is taking a
personnel by recommendation, not by his experience with the personnel whose
work-organization potential has never been tested under that executive. A
camouflaged hole (undetected neglect area) may very well develop in such a
circumstance, which can suddenly confront the executive with a time-
consuming disaster.
Thus an executive accepts help conditionally until it is demonstrated to
be help, and meanwhile does not relax his control of a sector below him
until he is sure it is functioning.
In this way an executive is one who does and backs off spots
continually. He could be said to always be doing himself out of a job by
getting the job competently done. However, in actual practice, as post
personnel does shift, he has to be prepared at any time to wade back in and
put it right.
The Supreme Test of an Executive (as in the HCOB Supreme Test of a
Thetan) is to MAKE THINGS GO RIGHT.
To the degree he can maintain his observation, communicate and get
supervision done (see HCO PL on the Key Ingredients), he can achieve
production or service and satisfy users.
As observation is often faulty, especially over long distances, as
communication is not always received or studied and as supervision is often
absent, the executive must develop a sensitivity to indicators of outnesses
and systems to correct them.
A very good executive knows how to "play the org board" under him. He
has to know every function in it. He has to know who to call on to do what
or he disorganizes things badly.
An executive also has to know neighboring org board arrangements in the
same org, the org board of allies and of enemies.
An executive has to know what users need and want and furnish it. When
normal and routine posts fail under him, the executive is of course forced
into Non-Existence as an executive, has to find what is needed and wanted
and produce it. He applies the whole Non-Existence Formula to the
situation.
Only if he does not handle fully once he does see an outness does an
executive go into Liability.
An executive deals with the frailty of human variations and
distractions. When these engulf his area and he is confronted with the
fruits of alteration and noncompliance, of posts not held and duties
suddenly found left undone, it is up to the executive to get them done any
way he can. Having handled, he applies the Danger Formula (or lower as it
appears) to the neglected area.
An executive has to be somebody who cares about his job and wants to get
things done. If he only wishes the title for status, he is of course
heading himself and his area for disaster and it could be said that such an
executive, not meaning to do the job but only wanting the title, is in
Doubt or lower on the third dynamic.
The executive thinks of the area and organization first and repairs.
Then he thinks of the individual and straightens him out.
94
An executive who is worker-oriented winds up hurting all the workers.
The workers depend on the organization. When that is gone they have
nothing.
An organization cannot have more taken out of it than is being put into
it. Efforts to bleed an organization of more blood than it has, destroys
it.
The preservation of his organization is a first consideration of an
executive.
In an executive's hands an organization or one of its areas must be
"VIABLE." That is, it must be capable of supporting itself and thus staying
alive. When his area is parasitic, dependent on others outside it, without
producing more than it consumes, the area and its workers are at severe
risk and in the natural course of events will be dispensed with, if not at
once. eventually.
Thus an executive is someone whose own sweat and energy keeps an
organization or an area of it functioning. In this he earns and uses help
and they in turn take over executive roles in their subordinate areas and
keep them alive and producing.
An executive is in the business of SURVIVAL of his area and its people
and providing with service or production an abundance which makes the area,
his own services and that of his subordinates valuable.
If an executive so functions his own survival and increase is guaranteed
even by natural law. If an executive functions for other reasons it is
certain the ground will vanish from under him eventually again by natural
law.
An executive is in fact a worker who can do all and any of the work in
the area he supervises and who can note and work rapidly to repair any
outnesses observed in the functioning of those actions in his charge.
The best liked executive who is most valued by his workers as someone
they need is an executive who functions as described above. One who seeks
to survive on favors given and does not otherwise measure up is not in fact
regarded highly by anyone.
Whatever ideology one finds himself in, the above still applies. The way
to the top may well be marrying the boss's daughter, but the way to stay
there still requires the elements described herein. As bosses' daughters
are few, a sounder way is to learn all the jobs well and study this policy
and just become an executive.
PHASE H IN FULL
Now we come to PHASE 11. The executive has inherited from a competent
former executive or has himself built (and has prevented transfers and lack
of apprenticeship from destroying) his unit, department, division, org or
orgs.
Now to continue to single-hand will destroy anything that has been
built.
The other policy letter (HCO PL 19 July 1963) now applies and is so
reissued.
When an executive in charge of a working activity continues to retain
the idea "Do all I can," chaos then results. An already formed activity
will collapse.
The only possible datum on which an executive could work effectively in
a formed activity is "Get people to get the work done."
Otherwise the executive does as much as he can and leaves the willing
personnel standing around unhelped and unguided. If we all did this,
Scientology would go nowhere. One auditor can't audit the world. One
personnel cannot do all the work of a Scientology organization.
95
If each person in the organization wears all the hats or one wears all
and the rest wear none, you will have
1. Bad morale
2. Overburdened personnel
3. Underburdened personnel
4. Rapid staff turnover
5. Bad dissemination, processing and instruction
6. Low income
7. Even lower income
8. Public flaps
9. Chaos.
An executive in a formed org has only two jobs:
1. Policy, promotion and planning
2. Getting people to get the job done.
A post or terminal is an assigned area of responsibility and action
which is supervised in part by an executive. Supervision means helping
people to understand their jobs. Supervision means giving them the
responsibility and wherewithal to do their jobs. Supervision includes the
granting of beingness. Supervision does not mean doing the job supervised.
Thus you have two phases and shades of grey in between.
At a slight sag or a mess-up or failure to hire and hat and apprentice
properly, a PHASE 11 situation can drop back into a single-handing PHASE 1.
An executive who again doesn't see that he has dropped out of comfortable
Phase 11 and gotten into a PHASE I must at once again single-hand, if only
for a day.
But now the executive MUST get in ethics, hire, hat and apprentice
people and build once more to PHASE 11.
In short, an executive has to know how to change gears!
To BOOM dissemination and income and hold the boom, study this well and
be able to shift not only from comfortable 11 to hectic overworked I but
also to push back to Phase 11.
This is the reality of it.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.bh.gm Copyright 0 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: Due to an error in series numbering, there are no issues for Admin
Know-How Series 27 and 28. Issues in the series from Admin Know-How Series
29 forward retain their original series numbers.]
96