No matching fragments found in this document.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 DECEMBER 1973
Remimeo
Data Series 32
TARGET TROUBLES
TARGETS JUNIOR TO POLICY
A target given on an evaluation may not set aside management policy or
technical releases.
Where such a target is written or misused to supplant policy a great
deal of trouble can follow.
Example: Org policy in authorized issues states that accounts for the
week must be finalized at 2:00 P.M. Thursday. Someone writes an evaluation
and puts a target in it to end the week on Sunday. People doing the target
actions change to Sunday. This is out of phase with all other actions and
chaos results.
People tend to take orders from anyone and anything in a poorly
organized area.
When they use evaluation or project targets instead of policy the whole
structure may begin to cave in.
NO EVAL TGT IS SENIOR TO OFFICIAL ISSUES AND WHERE THESE CONFLICT THE
TARGET HAS THE JUNIOR POSITION.
The only way a target can change policy is to propose that such and such
a policy be officially reviewed on proper channels or that a new policy be
written and passed upon properly by those in actual authority.
Someone attempting to do a target who finds that it conflicts with
policy or official technical releases and yet goes on and does the target
is of course actionable.
TARGETS OUT OF CONTEXT
CONTEXT- "The interrelated conditions in which something exists or
occurs."
OUT OF CONTEXT: Something written or done without relation to the
principal meaning of a work.
Targets must be written within the meaning of the whole evaluation.
Example: The evaluation is about pie. There is a target that says to
polish shoes just because the evaluator happened to think of it and
squeezed it into the program. A program written to increase pies winds up
with the ideal scene of polished shoes. No pies get increased so the
evaluation fails.
Targets must be DONE within the context of the evaluation.
Example: An evaluation is done to increase central office collections.
It calls for another evaluation to be done on a statistic. The person doing
that target reduces the number of items collected upon and crashes central
office collections.
The person DID NOT READ OR UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE EVALUATION before he did
the target and so did it in a way that accidentally defeats the ideal
scene.
103
Example: An evaluation is done to fill up a big hotel of 450 guest
capacity. One of its targets calls for project orders sending a team to the
hotel. The person who writes the project orders does not look at the
evaluation or the hotel plans and specifies 30 guests must be gotten! The
evaluation is defeated.
FALSELY EVALUATING
A person who evaluates a situation without chasing up all the data or
even looking at the data in his files can bring about a false evaluation.
Example: A person has come back into an organization at a high level.
The place crashes. The evaluator does not examine personnel changes at the
time of the crash and comes up with "too many football games" as his Why
and the evaluation fails.
FALSE DONES
False reports that a target has been done when it has not been touched
or has been half done at best is actionable in that he is defeating not
only the evaluation but the organization.
Example: The evaluator has an ideal scene of repaired machines that will
increase production. The mechanic reports all machines repaired now when he
has not even touched them. The evaluator sees production remains low, looks
around for a new Why. But his Why is falsely reported dones on his accurate
eval!
PERSONAL CONTACT
Targets seldom get done without personal contact.
Evaluations should carry the name or post of the person who is overall
responsible for the completion of the program.
Sitting at a desk while one is trying to get people to do targets has
yet to accomplish very much. One can have messengers or communicators or
Flag Representatives getting the targets done but these in turn must depend
upon personal contact.
A person assigned responsibility for getting a whole program done is not
likely to accomplish much without personal contact being made.
This can be done on a via. Mr. A in location A remote from Mr. C in
location C can get a target done reliably only if he has a Mr. B in that
area whose sole duty it is to personally contact Mr. C and have Mr. C get
on with it despite all reasons why not. That is how targets get done. That
is also how they can be reviewed.
Target troubles are many unless the program is under direct contact
supervision. Even then targets get "bugged" (stalled). But the evaluator
can find out why if personal contact is made and the target can be pushed
through.
SUCCESS
Therefore the success of an evaluation in attaining an ideal scene
depends in no small measure on
1. Both evaluator and target executor realizing policy and technical
materials are senior to targets in programs and that targets do not set
senior policy aside. One of the best ways to prevent this is to know and
refer to policy and technical issues in targets.
2. Targets must be written in context with the evaluation and done in
context with the ideal scene. The best way to achieve this in writing an
eval's targets is to make them consistent with the Why and ideal scene.
The best way to be sure that targets will be DONE in context is to
require that anyone doing a target must first read the whole evaluation
(and be word cleared on it) before he does his target so that he does
his target in a way to improve the existing scene in the eval not some
other scene.
104
3. To prevent false evaluation one may require that the evaluator
attests that all pertinent data and statistics have been examined and to
discipline such failures whenever an evaluation fails.
4. To prevent false dones one must review the evidence of dones and
statistics after the program is complete and discipline all falsely
reporting persons and reassign the targets or in any way possible get
them actually done.
5. The way to get a whole program done, target by target, is through
personal contact. Supervise it by personal contact with those assigned
the targets. Or use a communicator or messenger. Where the people doing
the targets are remote from the evaluator one must have someone there to
do the personal contact. And be sure THAT person isn't just sitting at a
desk but is actually doing personal contact on targets. Thus all
evaluations, on the issue itself or by organizational pattern, should
have someone who can personally contact people getting the targets done
fully and completely.
If these points about evaluations and their programs are understood, one
can and only then can move things toward the ideal scene.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.ts.nf Copyright V 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
105
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 JULY 1974RB
Remimeo RE-REVISED 6 NOVEMBER 1978
RE-REVISED 29 JANUARY 1979
(Only revision is addition of items Y and Z)
(Revisions in this type style)
Data Series 33RB
EVALUATION, CRITICISM OF
There are six duties of a person who is responsible for passing
evaluations:
1. To see that the evaluation is correct and that it can accomplish
or approach the ideal scene,
2. That those doing evaluations, by the process of the criticism
itself, become trained and better evaluators,
3. That persons doing evaluations become correctly and well-trained
by the process of training, cramming and, as needed, ethics,
4. To see that evaluations do occur on existing situations,
5. To see that unevaluated situations do not exist and,
6. To make sure that the Data Series is used to its full potential.
When an evaluation is rejected, care must be taken that the criticism is
correct and not capricious.
If one gives out-tech criticisms of evaluations, no evaluator will
really ever learn evaluation. He will just become confused and desperate.
The quality of evaluations will deteriorate and the Data Series potential
will be defeated.
Therefore the only criteria that may be used in calling attention to
outnesses in an eval, a requested rewrite or correction are
A. Purity of form (all parts of an eval included).
B. Verification of stats.
C. Date coincidence correct and proven on graphs, using all graphs
that have to do with the situation.
D. GDS analysis supporting the eval (stat management P/Ls apply).
E. Exactly offered data not borne out by an inspection of files.
F. No situation.
G. Insufficiently broad situation.
H. Inconsistent - policy - situation - stats - data - Why - ideal
scene -handling - tgts, not on same subject. The inconsistency must
be precisely pointed out.
106
1. Outpoints in the eval itself-such as in bright idea or handling, etc.
The outpoint must be precisely noted and named. This does not include
outpoints in the data section which are the outpoints on which the eval
is based.
J. Not all pertinent or available data applicable or needed was examined
by the evaluator. The excluded data must be exactly stated as to what it
is and where found. Not looking at all applicable or important data
makes it a partial eval.
K. Wrong Why.
L. Weak handling.
M. Handling does not include targets to handle directly or indirectly
the more serious outnesses found in the data mentioned.
N. Absence of ethics handling on serious ethics matters found in the
data mentioned or of the ethics Why.
0. No method of implementing the evaluation or maintaining the scene and
getting its targets done. Such as a broken line between evaluator and
scene or omitted terminals or ethics Who(s) depended upon to do the
targets.
P. Sequence of handling incorrect or omitted. A production target must
come first. Errors of solid organize for many early consecutive targets
without production in them, no organizing at all are flunks.
Q. Vague generalities in postings which do not name the new person or
the person to replace the person being moved up.
R. Musical chairs-
S. No resources or ways to get them or nonutilization of known resources
or excessive use of resources for no real gain.
T. Off-policy orders or orders that set policy.
U. No target or targets to get in the policies mentioned under "Policy."
V. Unreadable or illegible presentation of the eval for criticism or
review.
W. Failure to return eval promptly with corrections.
X. Bright idea isn't bright enough.
Y No eval.
Z. No data trail, incorrect data trail.
If the reviewer, corrector or critic of evaluations does the above AND
NOTHING ELSE he will be rewarded with better and better evaluations, less
and less time spent correcting, more and more gain by use of the Data
Series and a happier and more productive scene entirely.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.dr.clb.nf Copyright Q 1974, 1978, 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
107
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 JULY 1974
Remimeo
Data Series 34
SITUATION CORRECTION
I have just reviewed a number of attempted evaluations and was struck by
the similarity of errors in them. None of these evaluations would have
reached any ideal scene or even improved the existing scene.
The real reason for this is that the majority of them had a highly
generalized situation such as "Bidawee Biscuit Company failing" or "Stats
down from last year." They then proceeded on a data trail and got a "Why."
In these cases the Why they found was actually the situation!
Each of them had failed to use the data trail to find the situation.
They were using the data trail to find a Why!
The evals then had no Why.
The handling was just a bunch of orders that were in fact unevaluated
orders since no real Why had been found,
Like in playing a game these evaluators had started 50 feet back of the
starting line and when they got to the starting line (the situation) they
assumed it was the finish.
If you look at an "evaluation" that has a generalized "situation" like
"continental products getting fewer" you will find in a lot of cases (not
always accurately) that what was put down as the "Why" was in fact the
situation. This left the "eval" without a Why. Thus the ideal scene would
be wrong and the handling ineffective.
Example: (not in form) "Situation: Gus Restaurant failing." "Data:
Customers refusing food, etc., etc." "Why: The food isn't good." "Ideal
scene: A successful Gus Restaurant." "Handling: Force Gus to serve better
food, etc., etc." That isn't an eval. That is an observation that if Gus
Restaurant is to survive it better get evaluated. It is being evaled
because it isn't surviving. Now look at this: The data trail led to "the
food isn't good." That's a situation. Why isn't it good enough? Well it
turns out the cook got 15% commission from the store for buying bad food at
high prices. And Gus didn't know this. So bang, we handle. Gus Restaurant
achieves ideal scene of "Gus Restaurant serving magnificent chow."
In this example if you used the situation for a Why the Who would
probably be Gus!
The data trail of outpoints from a highly general "situation" (that is
only an observation like failing stats) will lead one to the situation and
then a closer look (also by outpoints) will lead one to the real Why and
permit fast handling.
DATA TRAIL
People can get too fixated on the history of something. They can call
this a "data trail." Well, all right, if it's a trail of outpoints.
108
But significances of history have little to do with evaluation.
Let us say you see the machine division is failing.
Now if you simply take masses of data about it and just start turning
over 10 or 12 sheets at a time looking for outpoints only and keep a tally
of what they are and to whom they belong, you will wind up with your
situation area and probably your situation without reading any
significances at all.
Now that you have your area and situation in it You can start really
reading all about it and get that existing scene's data and its outpoints.
And your Why leaps at you.
SUBSTITUTION
You can't substitute stats for a situation or a situation for a Why.
But substitution of one part of an eval for another is a common fault.
Substituting a general hope for the ideal scene you really would and
could achieve makes a sort of failed feeling in an eval. "Gus Restaurant
being best in town" is nice but "Lots of customers very well fed so Gus
Restaurant survives" is what you are trying to achieve. That can occur and
will be reached if you find the real Why.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rhc.act.ts.nf Copyright c 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
109
000C.-M
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 JULY 1974
Rernimeo
Data Series 35
EVAL CORRECTION
An evaluation submitted for an okay is only reviewed to the first major
outness (see HCO P/L 3 July 74, Data Series 33) and is then returned for
correction.
Only when no major correction is necessary does one then verify all data
or go to an extensive review of the whole eval.
This makes the line very fast. It also saves a great deal of work by one
and all.
If the stats are incorrectly given, that's it. Reject. If the Why is
really the situation, that's it.
On the reject one gives the letter of Data Series 33 that is not correct
and any reference to the Data Series that would seem helpful.
An evaluation corrector will see how well this rejection system works
when you find that the eval, let us say, has no situation on it, but only
some stats. Why verify anything as a whole new body of data may have to be
found.
In correcting evals, if a situation is given, I usually call for the
main stats of the unit being evaluated to see if these show any reason to
handle it at all. I recently found an activity had had its chief removed
when his stats were in Power. The activity then crashed. And that was the
situation. It was made by an evaluator and an eval corrector not looking at
the stats!
If no error exists in situation or stats I read the eval down to bright
idea and look especially at the Why, ideal scene and handling to see if one
would make the others.
If that's okay, I look at the targets of handling and the resources.
If those are okay, I look at data and outpoints. If these are all okay,
I then verify the data.
But if at any of these steps I find an error, I then reject at once for
immediate correction.
Often, by using only basic things to reject, the whole eval has to be
redone as the basics are so far wrong.
If you try to correct the whole thing before rejecting or if you correct
tiny little things instead of the big ones, the whole line slows.
Eval correction should be a fast, helpful line, strictly on-policy, no
opinion.
That way the job of correction becomes easier and easier.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.ts.nf Copyright 0 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
110
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I AUGUST 1974
Remimeo
Data Series 36
ENVISIONING THE IDEAL SCENE
If one cannot envision the ideal scene, one is not likely to be able to
see a situation or get one.
A SITUATION IS THE MOST MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM THE IDEAL SCENE.
Thus:
ONE MUST BE ABLE TO ENVISION AN IDEAL SCENE TO FIND A SITUATION.
A lot of "ideal scenes" you see are just glib. An afterthought.
Some people know the proper scene so well they at once recognize that a
departure from it has occurred, which is fine. But such people do not
realize, when they are teaching evaluation or correcting evals, that others
may not know the proper scene well enough to get an idea of what the ideal
scene should be. Thus, a wrong target occurs. The teacher or corrector
keeps putting attention on the incorrectness of the situation given in the
eval instead of noticing that the ideal scene is adrift.
An ideal scene is FUTURE.
When one is stuck on the time track it may seem pretty difficult to
envision a
future.
In politics this is called "reactionary" or "conservative." These mean
any
resistance to change even when it is an improvement. The bad old days seem
to be the
good old days to such people. Yet the old days will not come again. One has
to make
the new days good. $
"Liberals," "socialists" and such make great propaganda out of this.
They inveigh against (criticize) conservatives and say the future must be
reckoned with. And they hold up some often incredible future scene and say
the way to it is by "revolution" or destroying everything that was.
Both viewpoints could be severely criticized. The conservative tries to
stick on the time track with no reality on the fact that today will be
yesterday in 24 hours. The super-liberal skips tommorrow entirely and goes
up the track 5 or 10 years to a perfect state which can never exist or is
falsely represented as possible.
In between these two viewpoints we have the attainable.
And we come to an ideal scene that is possible and will occur if the
Why is right and handling is correct and done.
Envisioning an attainable future requires some connection with reality.
There is no harm at all in dreaming wonderful dreams for the future.
It's almost the bread of life.
But how about giving oneself a crashing failure by disconnecting from
any reality?
Some laborers do this to themselves. Taking no steps to attain it, they
daydream themselves as kings or some other grand identity. Well, all right.
But that isn't an "ideal scene." That's a delusion engaged upon for self-
gratification in a dream world.
One can not only dream a possible ideal scene but he can attain it.
So an ideal scene is SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ATTAINED.
It should be quite real.
Some people setting unreal quotas are really setting some impossible
ideal scene. "Complete this work in I hour!" to someone working hard on a
job that will take 4 days is delusory. It is setting, without saying so,
the ideal scene of having a worker who is really a magician! Well, maybe if
he were audited and hatted he would be. But that's sure some ideal scene!
The here and now is a guy sweating it out and trying. And that's an ideal
scene that is missed!
And so are many ideal scenes missed. The offices neat and orderly might
not even be imagined by someone who has seen them in a mess for two years.
He may think that's the way they're supposed to be! And be quite incapable
of envisioning the offices in any other condition!
Thus, if one cannot see the offices should be clean, he does not see
that they are dirty and messy as a situation. Thus when he is told the
public won't come into the place, and even if he finds the place is full of
old dirty junk, he can't evaluate it as a clean orderly place would not be
envisioned by him. So he doesn't get "dirty place" as a valuable datum,
doesn't get "a clean orderly place that is inviting to the public" as an
ideal scene, doesn't get "office so dirty the public won't go near it" as a
situation and so cannot find a Why to lack of public! And so as he didn't
find Why it was so dirty and disorderly, it wouldn't handle. So there would
be a failed eval.
Yet the teacher or evaluation corrector would not realize the person
could not envision an ideal scene and so keep telling the person to find
the situation whereas the ideal scene was what was out.
You can get some very beautiful ideal scenes AND attain them-if you can
evaluate!
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.nf Copyright e 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
112
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 AUGUST 1974
Remimeo
Data Series 37
WHYS OPEN THE DOOR
You can really understand a real Why if you realize this:
A REAL WHY OPENS THE DOOR TO HANDLING.
If you write down a Why, ask this question of it: "Does this open the
door to handling?"
If it does not, then it is a wrong Why.
Backtracking to find how it is wrong, one examines the ideal scene and
the situation one already has.
The outpoints should be checked. The completeness of data should be
checked. One may find he is in a wrong area of the scene.
Correct that, correct the ideal scene, correct the situation and look
for more data.
With the outpoints of more data one can achieve the real Why that will
open the door to handling.
Quite often an "evaluator" "knows" the Why before he begins. This is
fatal. Why evaluate?
Some of the most workable Whys I've ever found surprised me! So usually
I also ask, did I know this? Am I surprised? The chances are, if I "knew"
it already (and the situation still exists) it is a wrong Why. And needs
proper evaluation.
When you have a right Why, handling becomes simple. The more one has to
beat his brains for a bright idea to handle, the more likely it is that he
has a wrong Why.
So if you're not a bit surprised and if the handling doesn't leap out at
you THE WHY HAS NOT OPENED THE DOOR and is probably wrong.
I have seen evaluators take weeks to do an evaluation. In such cases
they went on and on reading as they did not know how to find a real Why.
Actually they did not know what one was.
By going through the total current files of an activity looking for
outpoints just by randomly glancing at data sheets from all sources, you
can find the AREA. Outpoints lead you straight to it.
An ideal scene for that smaller AREA is fairly easy to envision.
The type of outpoint will generally give you how the departure is. One
can then get the situation.
By looking over (in detail now) the data of that smaller area and
counting the outpoints, one can find the Why.
113
nnmr~
The Why will be how come the situation is such a departure from the
ideal scene and WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO HANDLING.
If it doesn't, then review the whole thing, do the steps again. Don't
just sit and sag!
Let's say we find outpoints of added inapplicable data in all reports.
And they lead to Reception. The ideal scene of Reception is easy:
attractive pleasant atmosphere, welcoming in the public.
We find more detailed reports that the place is full of junk and filthy
and we get our situation, "public repelled by filthy messy Reception."
Now why?
So back to the real data and we find the janitor never cleans it. Or
anything else. The easy out is just sack the janitor (and leave the post
empty). But that won't handle so we have no Why.
So we dig and dig and suddenly we find that the staff refer to the
janitor in lowly and disrespectful terms: "Janitor has no status." Well,
the outpoints all say so. And it opens the door to a handling.
So we handle by transferring the janitor org board position from
treasury where it went as he "looks after assets" to the Office of the
President with the president's secretary as his direct senior.
We write up a program for clean offices.
Magic!
The offices get clean!
The public again comes in.
The ideal scene is attained.
(You may think this example is pretty unreal. But actually it once
happened and worked!)
So a right Why opens the door to handling.
If it doesn't, look harder.
THERE IS ALWAYS A REASON FOR THINGS.
And if your ideal scene and situation are correct, you can find the real
Why that opens the door.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.nf Copyright c 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
114
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 OCTOBER 1974
Rernimeo
Data SerieN 38
PLUSPOINT LIST
The following is a list of PLUSPOINTS which are used in evaluation.
Needless to say, pluspoints are very important in evaluation as they
show where LOGIC exists and where things are going right or likely to.
RELATED FACTS KNOWN. (All relevant facts known.)
EVENTS IN CORRECT SEQUENCE. (Events in actual sequence.) TIME NOTED.
(Time is properly noted.)
DATA PROVEN FACTUAL. (Data must be factual, which is to say, true and
valid.)
CORRECT RELATIVE IMPORTANCE. (The important and unimportant are
correctly sorted out.)
EXPECTED TIME PERIOD. (Events occurring or done in the time one would
reasonably expect them to be.)
ADEQUATE DATA. (No sectors of omitted data that would influence the
situation.)
APPLICABLE DATA. (The data presented or available applies to the matter
in hand and not something else.)
CORRECT SOURCE. (Not wrong source.)
CORRECT TARGET. (Not going in some direction that would be wrong for the
situation.)
DATA IN SAME CLASSIFICATION. (Data from two or more different classes of
material not introduced as the same class.)
IDENTITIES ARE IDENTICAL. (Not similar or different.)
SIMILARITIES ARE SIMILAR. (Not identical or different.)
DIFFERENCES ARE DIFFERENT. (Not made to be identical or similar.)
The use of the word "pluspoint" in an evaluation without saying what
type of pluspoint it is, is a deficiency in recognizing the different
pluspoints as above. It would be like saying each outpoint is simply an
outpoint without saying what outpoint it was. In doing evaluations to find
why things got better so they can be repeated, it is vital to use the
actual pluspoints by name as above. They can then be counted and handled as
in the case of outpoints.
Pluspoints are, after all, what make things go right.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.nf Copyright c 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
115
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 OCTOBER 1974
Remimeo
Data Series 39
WHO-WHERE FINDING
You may now and then see an eval that winds up with a Who. Very rarely
you also find one that winds up in a Where. Sometimes you find an
"evaluator" who only finds Whos or Wheres.
If this puzzles you when you see such "evals" or if you land in that
situation yourself while evaluating, remember this:
AN "EVA12'THAT ONLY HAS A WHO OR A WHERE AS ITS WHY IS
INCOMPLETE.
What has happened is this: The "evaluator" does an outpoint count only
for Who or Where. He does not then really investigate or dig up the real
data on that Who or Where but lets it go at that. He says-WHY: Dept I not
functioning. WHO: Director of Personnel. IDEAL SCENE: A functioning Dept 1.
HANDLING: Shoot the Dir Personnel.
Such evals do NOT raise statistics. They do not work. Because they are
not complete!
In any eval you have to do an outpoint count to find where or who to
investigate. This prior outpoint count does not appear, always, on the eval
form. It's just where to look.
Having gotten the Who or Where you NOW do a full read out, lift the
rocks, pry into the cracks and find the Why.
It can even get worse. Having seen something wrong, one puts down a
situation. He does a preliminary outpoint count for a Where or Who and then
discovers a more basic or even worse situation. In other words his
situation can change!
Example: No personnel being hired leads one to Dept 1, Personnel. So one
writes the situation: "No one being hired." Then one can easily dash off,
"Why: Dept I inactive. Ideal scene: An active Dept I hiring personnel." And
write up a handling: "Hire people."
Great, easy as pie. But somehow six months later there are still no
personnel! The reason is simple: The "evaluator" never went beyond the Who-
Where. He put down a Who-Where as his Why.
Real evaluation would go this way: First observed situation, "no
personnel being hired." The Who-Where comes up as Dept 1. Now and only now
do we have something to evaluate. So our situation has changed. It becomes,
"Dept I inactive." And we investigate and lo and behold there is no one in
that whole division! Again we could go off too early. It is tempting to
say, "Why: No one in it!" And say, "Handling: Put somebody in it!"
But actually "no one in it" is just data! Certainly the execs who should
be screaming for personnel know there is no one in Dept 1. After all, they
get cobwebs on their faces every time they pass the door! So it is just an
outpoint, not a Why as it does
116
not securely lead to solution. So we look further. We find seven previous
orders to put on a Director of Personnel! The writers of these orders are
not the Whos but who they were given to are elected. That's seven
noncompliances by the executive in charge of organizing! And this turns out
to be Joe Schmoe. Now we have a Who. So what's with this Joe Schmoe? So we
go to anything connected with Schmoe and we locate board of directors
minutes of meetings and herein he has been stating for 2 years repeatedly
that "The organization only makes so much money anyway so if we hire
anybody to deliver service we might go broke." As the organization has been
going broke for those two years and the last Dir Personnel was fired two
years ago we now also have our DATE COINCIDENCE. But this is still just an
outpoint-contrary facts, as one has to deliver to stay solvent. So we look
up Joe Schmoe even further and we find he is also the chief stockholder in
a rival company! So here is our Why: "Organization being suppressed by the
chief stockholder in the company's rival." "Who: Joe Schmoe. Ideal scene:
Organization hiring personnel needed to deliver." Now for the handling.
Well, Joe Schmoe could mess things up further if wejust fired him. So we
better know what we're doing. We have found our organization controls the
tin Joe Schmoe's company needs for its cans. So we shut off the tin supply
and when Schmoe's stock falls we buy it up, merge the companies and fire
Joe. Or so a businessman would do. THAT handles it!
Shallow evals that stop with a Who-Where on the first inspection don't
succeed. Outpoints are usually aberrated and the people there around them
usually handle things unless they have depth of mystery.
You have to have a Who-Where to begin your investigation. Once you find
your Who or your area, now the outpoints begin to count.
Very few situations in actual fact are caused by active Whos. Usually it
is inactive Whos, confronted with situations they have not grasped and
don't see any way through.
A classic case was a situation that did not resolve for over a year
until very close investigation discovered a statistic was wrongly worked
out and which targeted an area in the wrong direction. One could have shot
"Whos" by the dozen without ever solving it!
So when you see a Who-Where as a Why, you know one thing: The eval is
incomplete.
You can cure someone doing this chronically by making him first list the
outpoints that show Who-Where to look. And then make him go on with the
evaluation outpoints that lead to a Why, giving two counts of outpoints.
The light will dawn.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.nf Copyright c 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 MARCH 1975
Rernimeo Issue 11
Evaluators
DSEC Students Data Series 40
Execs
Flag Bureaux THE IDEAL ORG
FOLOs
(First appeared as LRH ED 102 INT,
20 May 70, referring to evaluation.)
The ideal org would be an activity where people came to achieve freedom
and where they had confidence they would attain it.
It would have enough space in which to train, process and administrate
without crowding.
It would be located where the public could identify and find it.
It would be busy looking, with staff in motion, not standing about.
It would be clean and attractive enough not to repel its public.
Its files and papers, baskets and lines would be in good order.
The org board would be up-to-date and where the public could see who and
what was where and which the staff would use for routing and action.
A heavy outflow of letters and mailings would be pouring out.
Answers would be pouring in.
Auditors would be auditing in Div IV HGC and Qual would be rather empty.
Supervisors would be training students interestedly and 2-way comming
all slows.
The HCO Area Sec would have hats for everyone. And checked out on
everyone.
There would be a pool of people in training to take over new admin and
tech posts.
The staff would be well-paid because they were productive.
The Public Divisions would be buzzing with effective action and new
people and furnishing a torrent of new names to CE
The pcs would be getting full grades to ability attained for each, not 8
minutes from 0 to IV, but more like 30 processes. And they would be leaving
with high praises.
The students would be graduating all on fire to audit.
One could look at this ideal org and know that this was the place a new
civilization was being established for this planet.
The thousand or more actions that made it up would dovetail smoothly one
with another.
And the PR Area Control would be such that no one would dream of
threatening it.
Such an ideal org would be built by taking what one has and step by step
building and smoothing, grooving in and handling each of its functions,
with each of its divisions doing more and more of its full job better and
better.
The business is always there-the skill with which it is handled and the
results on pcs and students is the single important line which makes it
possible to build the rest.
The ideal org is the image one builds toward. It is the product of the
causative actions of many. Anything which is short of an ideal org is an
outpoint that can be put right. The end product is not just an ideal org
but a new civilization already on its way.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.nf Copyright 0 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED
118
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 MARCH 1977R
Remimeo REVISED 17 SEPTEMBER 1977
Data Series 41R
EVALUATION:
THE SITUATION
(Later developments on situations are contained in Data Series 28R, 28R-1,
34 and 39. However the data following, compiled from an LRH taped
conference in 1972, is of sufficient importance to include as part of the
Data Series.)
There are bad situations, good situations and no situations. A situation
is something that applies to survival and if you evaluate the word
"situation" against survival, you've got it. A good situation is a high
level of survival; a bad situation is a threatened survival and a no
situation is something that won't affect survival.
We've gone ahead of the whole show of intelligence with the Data Series.
NOTE: We are using intelligence as an example solely and only because it
is the most inclusive system Man has developed for collection and
evaluation of data.
We have greatly refined this system. Espionage and other intelligence
activities and skills have no part in our application. We are using
intelligence as an example of data usage systems, that is all.
You are out in an area of greater simplification and far more use. This
doesn't necessarily make anyone an intelligence officer, but a general or a
head of something or a general manager or an executive who does not know
how to evaluate a situation will make nothing but mistakes. The mistakes of
history are made by people who can not evaluate, by which we mean determine
the situation-which even more simplified would be find out the situation.
From this given body of data, from that indicator we can find a good
situation, or a bad situation or a no situation. And this is what one is
trying to determine. The more skilled one becomes in doing it, the less
work it is. It is a matter of skill.
To give you an idea: If you tried to play every note of a concerto
separately by having to look up each note in the chord and then strike it
on the piano, you wouldn't have much of a tune, right? But the longer you
did that, the more likely you were to begin to approximate some sort of
something that sounds like music. But it would take a lot of practice.
Now you can get so all-fired-good at evaluation that you can take an
isolated indicator and know immediately where it fits into because you know
it fits into the plan of things and because you know it is or isn't part of
an ideal scene. It's better than the existing scene or it is too far from
an ideal scene. You can pick up an indicator in this way-and it sometimes
probably looks magical to you how I will suddenly pick up an isolated
instance and look down the line and we find a roaring hot situation at the
other end of it.
Now that is done out of an economy of data. It is done because one has
not the time to investigate or read all of the data which might exist on
this particular subject being investigated. So one learns to do something
that looks absolutely intuitive and when you're terrifically hot at this it
is called "flair."
Prediction from data is an essential part of evaluation. "This datum is
an outpoint-it shouldn't be, peculiar." Now it will predict more data.
119
You have to be so hot that you will notice something is an outpoint-it's
a wild outpoint of some kind or another-accept its magnitude, size of
datum, how important is this datum. The evaluation of importance is one of
the more difficult things people have to do. They have a tendency to
consider things a monotone importance. You have to train yourself out of
that.
What do we get here then as a qualification for an evaluator? You have
to know all the outpoints in sight. You have to know what outpoints are.
But that's rather thinking backwards because you should know that something
shouldn't be. And as soon as you get a "shouldn't be" you can do a
prediction. And that leads you into an investigation-by viewing other data.
In other words you find this terrific outpoint or these outpoints and you
find out where they exist, it leads you into, very directly, the point that
you should be investigating.
DEFINITION OF EVALUATION
This is as close as the dictionary comes to the definition of
evaluation: "to examine and judge concerning the worth, quality,
significance, amount, degree or condition of." (The Third Webster's
International Dictionary.) Now to edit that down, it's "to examine and
judge the significance and condition of."
An evaluation: "the act or result of evaluating, judgement, appraisal,
rating, interpretation." And an evaluator is "one that evaluates. An
intelligence officer is supposed to be a professional evaluator." (The
Third Webster's International Dictionary.)
This word is a technical word which isn't given in these dictionaries.
It is an action which is basically an intelligence action.
The actual meaning which is supposed to be embraced in the word is "to
examine the evidence in order to determine the situation" and that is the
intelligence meaning and then it could have, further: "so as to formulate
policy or planning related thereto. In other words 'What is the enemy going
to doT So the general can say 'Therefore we should. . . .' "
WHAT IS EVALUATION
Here is an example of what evaluation is, the type of thing expected of
an evaluator.
I was looking at an org's graphs, all of a sudden I see a drift down of
reserves and a level of bills. The bills are level, level, level-drift down
of reserves, until all of a sudden it's about to cross and this was an org
where we just changed the CO, so I say "Hey whoa! Wait a minute, wait a
minute! This organization is spending more than its income obviously by the
looks of this graph. So let's look into this just a bit further." I looked
further and got more data and I found out that the org was running
insolvent. The Data Bureau already had a report on this; I picked it up on
another line. I just picked it up off graphs.
Further investigation found out that the new CO had taken over from the
old CO and had inherited an extremely backlogged org-included backlogged
bills. And the new CO had been sent in there on a set of Garrison Mission
Orders-and they just contained standard COing actions when they should have
been MOs designed to handle the insolvency scene-forcing the org to promote
and make income; then making an announcement that no POs will be signed
except promotion, wages and utilities; then get in the date-line paying and
forcing Accounts to dig it up out of all their mouseholes and all those
bills that have been in there for a year or two and the stuff they didn't
file and get a date-line paying system in. Then you start surveying like
mad to find out what the organization can sell and then you start
delivering, beef up your delivery lines and so on.
It wasn't any surprise to me to learn that that graph was a false
report, of course. But this is no explanation. It doesn't mean the
situation doesn't exist but the graph is a
120
false report. That is an outpoint all in itself. It's actually backed up by
other data but you could have taken it this way: You could have seen the
graph declining-that is reserves going down, bills staying the same and you
find out it's a false report. At that moment, by Data Series, you charge in
and investigate the heck out of it. Here's an indicator, then another
indicator that's a false report.
Where did I count outpoints? I was counting them all the time. One is
enough-a declining reserves graph and a holding debts graph-well that was
enough. So the counting was "one," and as I looked a little further I got
"two" and then as I looked a little further I got a "three" and a "four"
and a "five" and a "six." We did a handling and more outpoints showed up.
Right as you are handling the thing more and more outpoints show up so
there is a point where you neglect any more outpoints, you can go on as a
lifetime profession finding outpoints in one of these areas. It's enough. '
We have actually done something with the Data Series which has never
before been done. Other data evaluation systems have to do with the
reliability of the observer, which determines if the reported fact is a
"proper datum." But all of their work is done on computers and those
computers are built against logic systems developed by the Greeks. But it
is data, data validity of, which monitors logic.
A black propaganda operation is almost totally concerned with feeding
wrong data into the population and therefore the population cannot come to
correct conclusions and their actions will be peculiar. There are experts
in black propaganda and they're fully trained in it and they do it all the
time.
Back of wrong data you will normally find an impure intent. So that
somebody is giving you false reports is an evaluation in itself.
An evaluation first requires data. The absence of data you should have
would give you an evaluation. We knew something was wrong with an area
because all of a sudden somebody found out they weren't sending in their
reports. The absence of data is an adequate evaluation that there is
something wrong. And in one such case it actually took weeks to find out
what was wrong.
If you find the outpoint, you're into evaluating a situation. You're
just looking at data-you find an outpoint, you investigate that. You find
more outpoints, you go along and say, "It's the thing that we're looking at
now, what the heck. . . " because you're obviously traveling away from the
ideal scene or you've found something that went much closer to the ideal
scene or something that didn't change it. You then look it over and say,
"It's this point," and at that moment you can figure out why this is
occurring. "Now why is this occurring?" And that requires quite a bit of
data. "Why is this occurring?" Therefore when you can say "Why," now you
can handle.
What you want is the outpoint and an outpoint is a departure from the
ideal scene. That tells you that there is an area to investigate and you
can investigate it simply by going and finding more data and more outpoints
and then as your data accumulates you can get why it's a departure. The
accuracy of your Why then gives you the point which you will have to handle
which is all very neat and there comes in your recommendation.
This is the trick on evaluation: You have to learn what is an outpoint,
what is this outrageous thing and then that cones you down. Now you could
find all kinds of little points.
REVIEW
Having handled the thing or having done something about it, don't be too
surprised to now and then find a lot more data suddenly emerge. In fact it
is almost usual now that you've started to handle something for more data
to emerge. But you have to look it over. You have to say, "Well, have I
handled it? Does this data confirm our Why or doesn't it confirm our Why?"
And that's all you do with that data-it's confirmatory.
Sometimes you get data after the fact, after you've taken action. That
is a review
121
of your evaluation. When the data comes in after the fact, there's another
step involved here.
You review the situation and all of a sudden you find out you were
looking at a heck of a wrong Why. One of the first things that will tell
you you operated on a wrong Why is that the stats went down-because it
departed further from the ideal scene.
You get injustices and that sort of thing coming out of wrong
evaluations, so this is one of the reasons why you watch an evaluation in
your line of country-you watch an evaluation after the fact. Was it true?
So there's a confirmatory step which isn't mentioned in the Data Series-
"Was that the right Why?" The Data Series does mention it's whether or not
the stat goes up. But it's worse than that: "Did you have the right Why?"
or "Did you shoot down the wrong man?"
FAMILIARITY
We have a considerable amount of technology which is administrative
technology, which gives us an ideal scene, and with which we must be
familiar in order to evaluate and handle. We would have to be as practiced
in this as in the building of armament factories or running navies or
building toy balloons or trying to get housing furnished to the great
unhoused if that's what we were doing-you have to have some familiarity
with the type of scene which you're handling.
If you're good at this you don't go on wasting your time and energy. You
find the right Why, you set it up, you make sure that it does get set up-
but there's nothing more you have to do with it and then that's that.
Sometimes that takes quite a while but note that if you're immediately
pressing down this Why all the rest of the way and you go on past the point
where you corrected it-the thing is corrected-now you're handling a no-
situation.
If you didn't have evaluation you would find yourself handling no-
situations and neglecting tough situations and not taking advantage of good
situations.
CLOUDING UP A SITUATION
Occasionally you'll find a scene wherein a person's or area's PR is
greater to him than his production-PR, personal PR, means more than
production. And that is a characteristic of a suppressive. He'll fog the
situation up with big PR about how good it is so it can't be handled.
THE WHY
You have to know when you don't have a Why. It is very, very important
to know you don't have a Why.
The end product of your evaluation could be said to be "What do we do
about this?" In other words, your recommendation could be said to be the
end product. Actually that's a short circuit. As far as your investigation
and your data analysis is concerned your first target, the Why, if skipped
will defeat the end product of your evaluation. If that Why is found then
you can handle.
A Why is just this: It is the reason there has been a departure or
closer approach to or an exceeding of the ideal scene.
What will defeat you continuously is trying to find Whys in no-
situations. You won't find a Why. If you can't find a Why readily then you
can possibly suspect that you have a no-situation.
A Why, by essence, is something you can do something about. You have to
have a recommended action on top of the Why.
The Why is something which departed from, the reason it departed from or
the reason why it bettered the ideal scene or got closer to it. It is a Why
you can use and which will bring you a better scene.
122
Therefore the definition of a Why is: It must be something which will
permit you to bring about a better scene-not necessarily bring about the
ideal scene.
You might actually have a better scene than the ideal scene. We've
described the ideal scene as so and so and all of a sudden a Why suddenly
emerges which actually makes the ideal scene look pale. Taking the ideal
scene of a moderately affluent org-we might all of a sudden move into a
situation where the ideal scene was quite something else and we found out---
Howcome all of a sudden Keokuk has made 8 million dollars in the last 13
days?" How come? We don't have an ideal scene anymore.
IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A WHY
We have a system of data handling which is superior to that of other
data collection and evaluation organizations of today. 1 can say that
because 1 know their systems. Systems? And they don't hold good. Imagine
somebody saying "Well, we shouldn't pay any attention to Agent 622's
reports from Kobongo because they're false." Oh? That'd mean one had a
turned agent or an agent that wasn't working. In other words, it isn't
meaningless, it's not something you discard into the wastebasket. Now a
good data collection and evaluation officer doesn't always discard this. He
says, "Well, it's false data so therefore it's probably been taken over by
the enemy" and he does make some sort of hit at it.
But there are other outpoints that they would never have noticed. "A
datum is OK. . . " this is the general think-not just of the generals but
this is general intelligence think. "Of the data we receive, a great deal
of it is not useful because it doesn't come from reliable observers." Well
that's a hell of an outpoint in itself. If an enemy battleship was seen on
the coast it wouldn't matter who saw it-intelligence organizations would
not pick it up unless it had been observed by a trained officer. ---Thetown
could not have been shelled because no reliable observer put a report in-
there was no artilleryman to tell us whether or not. . . ."
So our system doesn't begin with "The Slobovians are building 85,000
Panzer tanks, and that's by a reliable observer because Agent 462 has given
us factual reports in the past and it's confirmed by aerial observation and
satellite pictures. . . ." So what! The intelligence would be " Why are the
Slobovians building this many Panzer tanks? Now, is this a lot more Panzer
tanks than Slobovians normally build?" because maybe Slobovians go in for a
lot of building Panzer tanks so they can call them T-something-or-other and
say they were invented in Slobograv. Why? And we right away have a new
brand of intelligence-Why? Why are they building these Panzer tanks? One is
the fact that they're building these Panzer tanks, is that an outpoint?
Well, is it a lot more Panzer tanks than they have built before? Is it a
lot less? Did they build a million a year and are only building 200,000 a
year now?
Now the officer evaluating this hasn't any Why, he hasn't anything so he
makes the supposition that the Slobovians are now easing off. "Yeah, well
general, the Slobovians are now easing off." "Yes, Mr. President, the
Slobovians are now easing off and everything is going to be fine." The
fool! What's the Why? Where's the Why? He assumed something-he didn't
investigate further. He didn't look all over the place and find a whole lot
of political or such ramifications and add it all up and so forth. Now, had
he known about it he would have looked from that data to more outpoints and
he would have found something or other-building the tanks for Bongoland so
that they could knock out their neighboring country. Why9 Why~9 Because
they have a contract with Bongoland to furnish them with tanks. He could've
found something like that.
You get these unwarranted conclusions because they don't have the
mechanism of asking "Why?" and they don't investigate it until they have an
adequate Why that explains it. When you've got a Why you can handle.
THECHANGE
One more tip on this whole scene. If you can't find the Why, you revert.
1 learned this about life out of plant research. 1 found out that you went
back to the point of major change in a greenhouse or a garden and corrected
it the second you saw the
123
plants dying. You required, then, a logging of everything that was done. If
you had a log of everything that was done you could get the date and the
change. You knew the date they started to wilt so what change was around
the vicinity of that date. And you inevitably and invariably found a huge
change had taken place. Not a small one, and the tip is that if all else
fails, why just go back to your major change and you can do that by stats,
go to major change, and so on.
You won't always be right but you're operating on a general Why-there
was a change. Every once in a while you'll be scattering around trying to
find this.
This works in almost all situations to some degree, what change was
there. It has a liability. It tends to wipe out improvements. If you go
back to the point of high stuff all the time, all the time, all the time,
you're pegging yourself into a pattern where, as a matter of fact, there
might have been better patterns. There might have been a better Why in
there than just a change of pattern.
NEW WHY
Once in a while you'll have found a Why and handled that, but find it
keeps slipping out again. For example, an org having to be told to keep in
its FP No. 1. FP No. I resulted from an evaluation of financial
difficulties. That was a Why at one time and has since become a standard
action-but where you keep having to say to an area "Get your FP No. I in"-
now WHY do you have to keep getting in FP No. P The Why is not that FP No.
I is out-we have gotten that in as a practiced action. Why does it keep
sliding out in this area? There could be several things actually.
If you have to keep saying "Get in C/S Series 25 so that you do have a D
of P so that people do come in and are invoiced and so forth," you are
obviously running into a Why of why something keeps sliding out.
WHAT IS A RECOMMENDATION
What is a recommendation? Actually-usually-it would be recommended if
somebody else were going to execute it. You have a recommended program and
then from a recommended program you have an executed program, so at that
moment you shifted your hat. You're no longer an evaluator, you're an
executor or an executive.
If your evaluations, that wind up in Whys that wind up in
recommendations, are going to autonomously function-that is to say, singly
and by itself function-without regard to any other entity or activity, the
next thing you know you're going to have fourteen or fifteen programs which
are in direct collision which will produce sufficient confusion to reduce
the stats. Then you, yourself, will wonder if you've found the right Why
because it didn't work. Whereas the reason could be entirely different. The
reason is your recommendation was in collision with other Whys and
recommendations and so operated to block other actions which were vital to
the continuous operation of an activity. You can kill your own
recommendation.
If you were in a position where you were going to independently of other
evaluators execute all your actions, you might wind up with a mess-you've
got your neck out as an evaluator.
The essence of a recommendation is "agreed-upon" and after there is a
recommendation, there is an "agreed-upon" before there is execution.
An agreed-upon action means that you'd have to agree with other bodies
of data which people had-not their personality-other bodies of data. If you
have data which is contrary to an action which is being proposed, you could
be put in a position of canceling or trying to cancel or recommending a
cancellation of a senior's order. Therefore one has to have "agreed-upon"
before execution.
When you are collecting data you have a torrent of data coming in. You
are collecting data, collecting data, collecting data, collecting data. If
that data is not evaluated, it is useless. It is just a useless expense.
The only way that data is of any value at all is if evaluations are done on
it.
124
Any independent order given without the benefit of the other evaluations
would be a risk. It isn't agreed upon person to person, it's agreed upon
data to data. The only agreement would be on whether there is a situation
or a no-situation, a good situation or a bad situation or a no-situation.
There'd have to be agreement on that point and there would have to be an
agreement on the Why. Only then could you get a coordinated recommendation.
EVALUATE
You've got to do evaluations. If you don't do evaluations you'll be
insufficiently informed to be a competent agreer or disagreer. You'll be
insufficently informed to be sufficiently efficient to get the show on the
road.
Take advantage of the tremendous volumes of data which come in and, by
doing evaluation, provide a sufficient running record of any and all
existing situations in your line of country so that there is a general view
of what is going on so that the data can be looked at, looked up and one is
sufficiently informed so that he can make efficient judgments-and that will
decrease the amount of work done on this and that, that doesn't really
handle anything.
And it amounts to fewer orders which can then be enforced. It amounts to
prosperity because one of the Whys we find on occasion is that there are
too many orders drifting around which haven't been executed. One winds up
operating on somewhat of a jammed communication line just jammed by volume.
The guy that's reading all this stuff is out there and he's got noise and
he's got this and they've got bill collectors and he's got something else
and so on. He never has time to read it. He doesn't know what the situation
is and so forth.
One could also, without proper evaluation, easily issue an order into an
area with a hidden Why-which could destroy it.
And the speed of action determines the degree of loss-and that is a
rule. The speed of action also determines the degree of gain. And speed has
a price. An organization which is not doing well, its Why not accurately
found for eight months is a loss for eight months each succeeding week. If
an organization should be making fifteen thousand dollars and is only
making two thousand dollars you're losing thirteen thousand a week every
week that you don't handle it. It's speed of gain or loss.
Compiled from
LRH taped conference to
Staff Aides, "Evaluation"
720ITC02 SO
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
Louise Kelly
FMO 1710 I/C
Revised and reissued by
AVU Aide
AVU Verif and
AVU Evals Chief
LRH: LK: M H:SH: M W:ifpat.nf Copyright 0 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
125
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 MARCH 1977R
Remimeo REVISED AND REISSUED 15 JULY 1977
Data Series 42R
DATE COINCIDENCE
STATS AS THE FIRST INDICATOR
The first indicator is usually stats. You can take a stat book of an org
and look over its GDSes and know their interrelationship and find the
outpoint, and then from that outpoint you will know what part of the org's
folder to read. If you are doing evaluations by reading the whole folder,
you're being silly. You're not interested in that. You're interested in
this outpoint, because that's your first outpoint. Your first outpoint
usually occurs in stats.
One outpoint, from stats, was tremendous quantities of bulk mail being
mailed at vast cost after the stats had been brought up by regging, and
then the stats collapse. That was the first oddity that was noticed from
some Dissem stats. So it was a stat oddity. They were busy regging and they
made a lot of money, and then they spent it on bulk mail and went broke.
Because there was a stat oddity here. It meant the GI did not match the
bulk mail. So it's an outpoint. It's inconsistent. Contradictory.
Something's false. So right there, you're looking at a great big cracking
outpoint. One or the other of those facts is a lie, or something's wrong.
And we find out the real outpoint underlying it is wrong target. It's just
number of pieces being sent out. They were mailing out fliers several times
a week-sending scraps and calling it bulk mail.
Now just the fact that an org's stats are down is an outpoint.
Having found a downstat you look to see if the org ever did make money?
If it was ever affluent. Just taking it from the standpoint of GI, was this
org ever affluent? If the org was ever affluent, it must have been doing
something right so you've got something that approximates its ideal scene.
You haven't approached data files yet. That's why stats are separate
from the data files.
LOCATING A COMPARATIVE
So here's two conditions: (1) the stats are down, and (2) you can't
evaluate one thing, as you learn in the Data Series, unless you have a
comparative thing. You have to compare it with something. So you can find a
period when their stats were up.
You find out that in July of 1969 Kokomo was really booming. It had nice
climbing stats and they went up and up and up and up and up. And that rise
started on the 6th of June. What did they do? In May and June of 69? Those
are the two folders you want. Anything you can find out about that org of
May/June 69. That gives you something dimly resembling an ideal scene. It
isn't the ideal scene, but it is certainly an upstat scene. That gives you
a comparative.
If you were hot you would use your telex lines to fill in the missing
holes. For instance, if you don't understand something, or if it looked
like they moved in 1970 and you can't find out locally, and you don't seem
to know whether or not they didlocation seems to be something important
here-you could send a telex to somebody who might know and say, "Where were
you located in June of 69? Where was this org located? Can you find out
from anybody?" It might be important you see. This is just a
126
collection of a little bit more data. You know that the org was doing
something, at that time, that it isn't doing now.
I did just this when I wrote the PL "Selling and Delivering Auditing." I
looked back when HGCs were really making the money and wrote that PL. This
PL is in use in one org and they're really going to town. They're using the
same system. A guy comes in to sign up, they say, "No you can't sign up for
one intensive, thank you, you'll have to buy seven," or something. So he
does, he pays the money on the barrelhead. That PL comes out of a
comparative-a comparative of HGCs not selling much auditing and having a
hard time doing so, and what they were doing in an earlier period.
So, when doing an evaluation (1) look at your stats, (2) find your
outpoint in the stats, (3) find some comparative-find some period of
affluence for the org, if you can, to give you some ideal scene for that
org. That requires something of a pluspoint evaluation. Now you can do your
outpoint evaluation. Because you've already got the outpoint, you don't
have to read 8,752 folders.
ETHICS SITUATION
A while back, I asked the Data Bureau for the folders of a particular
downstat org. The first folder came up, that wasn't even a complete month's
folder. I looked through the folder, read scraps of what I was reading,
picked out the reports I wanted. Scanned them. Pulled the outpoints out of
them. Counted up the outpoints as to where they were going. And the thing
just fell apart. The CO was unaware of the fact that Personnel was letting
him down. That was their admin Why. And obviously the CO had to take that
person in there off. And obviously there was something wrong with this CO.
Now every eval done on that org since is grooving on straight down that
same Why. We've tried to make orders, and we've tried to do this and we've
tried to do that. But now an ethics situation has developed out of the
thing. We got the admin Why all right. But an ethics situation developed as
we tried to get this in. And notice that THE ETHICS SITUATION DEVELOPS WHEN
YOU TRY TO GET IN THE ADMIN OR TECH WHY.
In another area the ethics situation developed to such a degree that it
then emerged-after an observation mission, after a handling was done and
orders were issued-that they did not execute a single one of them. They
were told to revert. They did not. Therefore an ethics Why was looked for.
Now I've just found out why people can't put in ethics. They don't know
investigatory tech, and possibly in some cases their own ethics are out. If
you put their own ethics in, they will get in ethics further. The reason
they assign broad conditions and the reason there are so many Comm Evs is
they don't know how to investigate.
WHO WHEN
Someone was given an evaluation to do and had been on that for five
days. I kept asking all this time-where's this evaluation? People must
think I'm rushing them. Evaluators are slow because the evaluation is not
being done in this sequence: (1) stats, (2) who was on where.
I gave an order to an evaluator to find out exactly when did a CO of an
org come to Flag, and when did this person go back, because that would give
you a stat comparison. That was how I found this person was the man-of-all-
work and the scooting genius of that org. Now you're talking about ethics.
It's the police action called date coincidence. It's how you locate
geniuses and murderers. Body found in swamp. Her cousin arrived in town on
Tuesday. Body found on Wednesday. Guy departed on Thursday. That's all the
police need. That's called date coincidence. That's old time investigatory
tech. It's still with us.
So, when were they gone out of the org, and when did they arrive back in
the org, and'what happened during that period of time? Important!
127
In the case of this particular CO, I found out that two other execs
could leave the org and return and nothing happened-but when the CO left,
the roof fell in, the front steps collapsed under everybody, and the staff
went on vacation. I traced this down and I found out that this CO would run
around the org wearing hats in rotation. She dived into Tech and wore the
Tech Sec hat for a while, and then she dived into another area, and she
wore that hat for a while, and the stats would go up. In other words, she
supported that area by punching one area at a time. That was the way she
was operating. So if she was all over the org like that, her obvious post
was D/CO. We put her on that post, and the org has done well ever since.
Now that's a sort of ethics action in reverse. That's looking for who
really pushes it. You don't just keep on looking for tigers. Tigers are
probably more numerous than geniuses. But you could find that certain
people have a vast effect on stats. This is how you evaluate a personnel
scene. In another org, a guy took over and the place has been crashed ever
since and it was right square on the stats. There is your most obvious
ethics investigation by stats.
When you don't know, you've got to send an investigatory mission and
it's got to be run well. Otherwise they just wind up shooting all the
people that the staff complain about.
If you don't operate on a comparison every time-comparison admin Why,
comparison on the stats, ethics comparisons-if you're trying to operate on
a single datum, that single datum won't buy you any pie. Because it has
nothing to compare with.
SUMMARY
What the Data Bureau gives us is experience. And that is huge files full
of experience, but you've got to recognize what you're reading. You don't
read everything! If you do you're omitting an analysis of the GDSes and an
analysis of who went on where. At a good time and a bad time.
What are you looking for? You're looking for the stat-look at your GDSes
(this is for your admin Whys), tells you the big outpoint, tells you what
information you're looking for in the files-and you're only interested in
that information. You start counting up that type of information and see
where it lands, and the Why will practically jump out at you out of the
folder. It is so easy! It just leaps right out. But you have to know what
you're looking at.
In writing up one eval, an evaluator verbally gave me more valuable data
than she had put into the eval. She was quoting reports. All you want to do
is quote the steps of your investigation.
The Why has got to be specific. If a Why is insufficiently specific, it
just can't be operated.
There's an admin Why, which is the normal one that you're trying to
handle. There'll be an admin or tech Why and below that there'll be an
ethics Why and above that there'll be a bright idea.
You have a criterion when you've got your evaluation all done, your
handling has got to be bright-it's got to be a bright idea, that will
actually drive those stats up-and something which can be operated. And if
you do an evaluation that cannot be operated at this stage of the game,
you're just wasting your time. Look at your resources. What can you do with
what you've got? While you improve what you've got. It will all have to be
done by a gradient. So the worse off things are the brighter you have to
be.
When you do evaluations, you've got to be able to operate the resulting
actions. If you write something that can't be operated nothing will happen.
That at once tells you whether you have a good evaluation or a bad
evaluation.
128
Do your evaluations in such a way that they are dead on-bang! bang!
bang!and then, that being the case, they have got to be something that can
be operated. And the next thing you know your stats will go up.
Compiled from LRH taped conference to Staff Aides "Current and Future
Operations Actions" 7205TC 18SO
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
Louise Kelly
Flag Mission 1710 I/C
Revision assisted by
AVU Aide,
AVU Evals Chief,
AVU Verif
LRH:LK:MH:MW:SH:lf.pt.nf Copyright 0 1972, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED
129
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 MARCH 1977R
Remimeo REVISED 8 OCTOBER 1977
Data Series 43R
EVALUATION AND PROGRAMS
CAUSING STATS
I've learned this over the years: The entirety of our stats are
internally caused. WE CAN CAUSE STATS AT WILL. External actions don't
affect them.
A newspaper can write reams of entheta and it doesn't affect our stats
at all. We get good publicity-it doesn't affect our stats. It's totally
internal.
The public demand is apparently exactly as great as we put the
wherewithal in their hands with which to demand-apparently exactly
proportional. You get as great a response as you require.
Therefore, the more efficient your org is, the greater response you will
get. It's that elementary.
The test of an evaluator or executive is: "Can you get your org to do a
constructive thing at once without any flashback or any nonsense, and will
it occur in such a way as to increase stats promptly? If so, you're a good
administrator. If you can't do that, we have all kinds of paint to scrape."
It's just that: The guy can produce an effect or he can't.
And if you run a managing body that way, all of a sudden the staff will
get happy and cheerful producing effects; everything will be fine-because
they'll become at cause.
That is the essence of hatting. The person can then come up to cause and
he'll get sane, productive and cheerful.
Actually, it takes a very able guy to do an administrative line. A
ditchdigger has to have a solid line of his arm and a shovel, and that's as
far as he can produce an effect. That's why he's a ditchdigger.
Now for a guy to produce an effect at 7,000 miles without any solid beam-
he has to be right on the ball. He has to know his business.
SPEED OF EVALUATION
There was once a situation in an org which was very interesting.
Apparently the ED was stopping the reports of the LRH Comm and Flag Rep, so
no one was about to find out what was going on in that org. But if the
manager had been on the ball, all he would have had to do was to look at
that data file and find those reports missing and know that there was
something wrong-and it would have been detected a long time before.
What you're up against is that most of your evaluation is on omission,
and the toughest outpoint for anybody who is not familiar with the scene to
recognize is an omission.
130
THE SPEED OF RECOGNIZING OUTPOINTS DETERMINES THE SPEED WITH WHICH ONE
CAN EVALUATE.
You wonder why it takes people so long to evaluate. It is simply that
they are too slow in recognizing an outpoint.
THE INABILITY TO RECOGNIZE AN OUTPOINT IS REASONABLENESS.
It's that thing, reasonableness. We've been talking about it for years.
That's just the inability to recognize an outpoint.
There was a fellow out in the field saying "I think we have done all
right in the past"-meaning "without the Data Series"-"in our thinking and
planning." He didn't think he had to take a Data Series course or
something. Whereas I was literally getting rivers of outpoints from him and
his area. He didn't recognize them as such.
Well, what he didn't appreciate is that this is a brand new way of
thinking. Man prides himself on being logical so that he has never based
any system on illogic-except humor. You have to learn to think backwards-
you learn to think backwards, and boy can you think forwards. It's like a
dichotomy, positive-negative. If everybody omits the negative all the time,
they never get to the positive.
A lot of people are on a stuck flow of being sensible and sane-and that
winds up in stupidity. So they get reasonable. Their confront of evil isn't
up to it-basically, their confront of outpoints.
THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE OUTPOINTS WILL EXACTLY MONITOR THE SPEED OF
EVALUATION AND THE ABILITY TO HANDLE THE SCENE.
An evaluator cannot say, when he hasn't received any reports for 21/2
months, that he doesn't know what to do because he hasn't received any
reports . . . he'd better be able to recognize an omitted report when he
sees one and that there is a situation and he had better take action to
remedy that situation NOW.
INACTIVITY
Now, nobody ever does nothing. They never do nothing. You have to look
around to find out what he IS doing.
If it's an exec who can't get juniors to produce, he could probably be
putting a stop on production lines. A Why is findable to such a situation.
That's probably an ethics scene. But you still will find a Why. You always
find a Why for the situation. In other words, he's in a personal situation
of some kind or another. He might be able to function, himself, as a junior
or he might not-but for a guy to sit there with completely idle staff
members and not notice it, with their areas wrapped around a telegraph pole-
quite reprehensible.
In investigating one inactive Esto, I found out she was operating under
an order that she was not to Bait and Badger until she was trained on it-
and there were probably many other things she "was not permitted to do."
She accepted an illegal order not to do certain Esto actions. Found out
one, probably if we had investigated further, why we would find more. In
the first place, if anybody has read the Esto Series, he'd find out that
you are an Esto (it says it right in the beginning) and that's it. It
doesn't matter if the guy has studied it or not studied it, he's an Esto
and he's supposed to do the job. So it was a violent policy violation as
well as keeping someone from doing her job.
EXPANSION PROGRAM
An expansion program is for getting an org built. It's based on an
evaluation for that org. There is a way you could go about this. Suppose
you wrote Kokomo and said,
"What should be done about Kokomo?" You get a bunch of answers from the
whole staff-compulsory answer, not a couple of guys. Evaluate from that
what their level and tone and that sort of thing is. And you could then
form up, based squarely on policy and forming the org, an expansion
program.
The expansion program is actually a very basic org rudiment function,
but which would be adapted to that org, and within the reality of that org.
Highly specialized-and it's terminable. The person executing it, when he
gets through with the thing-that's the end of that one. Now let's get
another entirely new program.
You could actually do it on a blanket basis where each org was treated
as an individual org. Then you'd know what policies to get in in this org.
You just ask them, "What should be done about Kokomo?" "What should be done
about Keokuk?"they'll tell you. Then you could go down to your Data Files
and do an evaluation for the expansion program.
You can thus use knowledge of the org's troubles and the staff
interviews as the basis for an evaluation.
There has to be an immediate organization for production, according to
the Prod-Org system. However, long-range, long-term organization actions
have got to be done by somebody because the Prod-Org system tears an org to
ribbons. There's got to be somebody putting an org there who's not directly
involved in that immediate scene. He's got to put it there adroitly enough
so that what he puts there expands its production so as to pay for the
additional organization.
It's quite neat, that type of program. As they get executed along the
line, they wind up with an increased production. Every three or four
targets that are done, why all of a sudden you've got more production.
There could be some good long-range targets like "Get 30 auditors"
-probably could take a year or more to exhaust such a target.
But note-such an expansion program wouldn't go on your production
program execution lines at all. Your long-term organizational actions go on
another line than your immediate production actions.
PRODUCTION PROGRAM
Such a program is something concerned with handling an immediate
situation which had to do with immediate production. Right now. Such as:
WHY.- Division 6 doing all the sign-ups for Division 2.
HA NDLING: 1. Get a Registrar on post in Division 2, right now.
2. Then get an Advanced Scheduling Registrar on post
immediately.
3. Then get three letter writing Registrars on post at
once.
4. Get them functioning, production, immediately.
It's a "right now" scene.
A short-term production program ought to expire within 30 days-it
becomes staledated within 30 days. Some of them become staledated within 10
or 15 days. So you need a very hot, very fast line of very quick
compliance.
It already takes quite a while for the reports to get to the files
through the mail so that you know what the situation is. You're already 10
days behind the gun-10 days, 2 weeks late. And then it's going to take
maybe another week to get it assembled-to know that there is a situation
and evaluate it and get it through and ready. So you're operating on about
a 3-week average comm lag. You have to make up for it at the other
132
end of the line-get this thing done now-now-now.
And you've got to have someone there to get it done.
The eval probably will not save the bacon of an org for the next two
years. It will be lucky if it keeps the stats bolstered for six weeks-then
something else will go out. By that time, why Div 6 will have become
completely confused because it is not now being permitted to do all the
registration of the org, so therefore it would have gone out of existence,
and the Registrar would have left, so now we would have to evaluate and
handle Division 6.
It goes tick-tock. From one situation to another.
There are different types of evaluation. There'd be a divisional
evaluation. There could even be a departmental evaluation. There could be
an org evaluation. An executive stratum evaluation. And so on.
You could have several evaluations going at the same time, but they
would have to be different divisions or areas, otherwise you'd cross up
like mad. Normally speaking and in theory, that would be possible. But in
fact a competent evaluation would find the imbalance between divisions.
The operative word is current evaluation. You could push a current
evaluation. How wide is present time? Well, that's a matter of judgment,
but a year-old evaluation would be pretty much not current.
FIRST TARGET
Your first program target must always be a production target-but you
can't, in actual fact, write a pure production target. It would be
impossible to write a pure production target because somebody would have to
do it, and the moment that you have somebody there to do it you have
organization. So there is a certain amount of organization that comes into
it.
If I were evaluating an org right now, say its Dept 7, 1 would have to
include in it as its second target, beefing up Dept 7. First target would
be for Dept 7 to do anything it could to handle its collections. And the
second target would be to beef up that department forthwith, bang bang!
Otherwise the production would not continue. It would break.
So, as mentioned earlier, there has to be immediate organization for
production.
TERMINABLE TARGETS
Now how do you like a target like this: "Maintain friendly relations
with the environment." How do you like that target? It is utterly
completely not a doingness target. It isn't a target at all!
Now if it said: "Call on so and so, and so and so and make them aware of
your presence . . ." and so forth, it could have a DONE on it.
Targets should be term inable-doable, finishable, completable.
REPEATING TARGETS
There is such a thing as a repeating target. You can accomplish it many
times-it's like when you do org rudiments. Every time they do one of those
targets a compliance is added to the compliance stat.
This is especially true of some targets in expansion programs.
FOUR-PRONGED ACTION
In operating orgs, you've got a four-pronged action. A division of
duties.
133
- Somebody gunning these orgs up to expand. You have to get in certain
structural functional actions for an org to expand. You have to have
somebody working on founding and expanding the org against production, for
real. You could do an evaluation for an expansion program, and have this
person beat it in. This is your long-term organization.
- Somebody driving in the production programs that remedy the current
situation and production actions. Those programs are based on evaluations
of the current status of an org from the viewpoint of production. Not from
a viewpoint of its organization. You do have to do a certain amount of
organization to get any production, but it's short-term organization.
- You've got the general org being run on its day-to-day basis by what
was once known as the Assoc Sec and is now the ED.
- You've got the Guardian Office handling the public and
indispensibility of Scientology. Handling the public, handling legal and
handling other things. They're outward facing.
There you have your four-pin structure of your org drive. Those lines go
very sleek.
Compiled from
LRH taped conference
"Programs Bureau and
FB Lines and Functions"
7309TC27 SO
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by S. Hubbard
AVU Verifications Chief
LRH:SH:dr.nf Copyright 0 1973, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
134
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIGNS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 MARCH 1977-IR
ADDITION OF 20 MARCH 1977
Remimeo REVISED 14 JUNE 1977
Data Series 43-IR
EVALUATION SUCCESS
To show that evals on individual orgs and getting programs done DOES
raise stats the following brief review is published:
Around mid-July I got on the eval approval lines for about a week and
had orgs of one continent evaluated by some Flag evaluators.
We got several evals through, severely according to the Data Series
rules.
Here are the results of 7 of them.
I . Program was reported fully done. Stats went up.
2. 18 July eval. Pgm was almost fully done. Finance got bugged. Org
crashed 22 August 74.
3. 22 July eval. By 15 Aug stats had gone UP.
4. 21 July 74 eval but not started on until 26 Sept 74 as Study
Manuals were
delayed on which eval depended. Org stats after eval began to be
done went
UP and by the end of Oct hit highest ever almost across the boards.
5. 20 July 74 eval. Started on 10 Aug 74. Half-done. By 24 Oct
stats went UP.
6. 23 July 74 issue. Bugged. Not completed. Stats went up first
couple weeks. Org crashed 24 Oct 74. (Eval was also cross-ordered by
removal of CO.)
7. 23 July 74. Three-quarters done. Stats went UP.
Thus 5 out of 7 of the above evals were successful.
The two that failed were obviously insufficiently broad as other matters
got in the way of them. The evaluator could not have had the real
situation. Means not enough preliminary work to find the area that should
have been evaluated.
VERBAL TECH
Verbal tech on a DSEC should be severely handled if found.
Note that the evals as above were very purely supervised referring only
to departures from the Data Series P/Ls.
Pure eval per Data Series 33R was the push on getting the evals done. I
was simply demanding full Data Series P/L application.
The reason for verbal tech is Mis-U words!
135
FAILING EVALS
-It is pretty easy to tell if an eval is getting done or if it is
failing. The two poor evals in the 7 just weren't watched fast enough by
the evaluators. You cancel a failing eval fast and do a better one.
Failing to cancel or redo a failing eval on an org would be the real
reason for that org continuing to go down.
SUMMARY
If you got 5/7ths of all our orgs purely evaluated, no nonsense with
verbal tech, you would have booming Int stats!
Just like pcs-unprogrammed pcs fail-and pcs audited with hearsay tech
fail! Orgs without evaluated, pushed programs for that org tend to fail.
And evaluations done on hearsay tech are a waste of paper.
How about it?
A boom or crash?
It's up to YOU.
Compiled from
ED 552 Flag, by LRH
4 November 1974
EVALUATION SUCCESS
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
As assisted by
AVU Flag
LRH:MH:MW:SH:lf.nf Copyright c 1974, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
136
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 MARCH 1977R
Remimeo REVISED 15 JUNE 1977
(Taken from LRH OODs item
of 15 October 1973)
(Revisions in this type style)
Data Series 44R
SUPER EVALUATION
I have examined four evaluations recently and have found in each case
that the evaluator had not gone to the trouble of looking in obvious places
for data.
In each of these cases, personnel whose personnel folders had not been
looked into and whose ethics files had not been examined were concerned. In
the last one, a person was being proposed for promotion to a high executive
position in an org while the stats for the past week demonstrated that his
area was seriously downstat, the matter even being mentioned on the current
battle plans.
It is not how much you read, it is where you look. In the Data Files, if
one is examining the statistics of a division, one does not read all manner
of reports from other divisons and other personnel. One has to be selective
and right target to get his data.
Statistics (as fully outlined in statistical management PLs) are the
dominant factors in an evaluation, and most evaluations begin on the basis
of statistics which are either sufficiently high to merit examination so as
to be reinforced, or are too low to be viable. These read in conjunction
with other statistics usually give you an org situation.
When one discovers a series of outpoints, there is generally a situation
underlying them.
From the statistical trail, or the gross outpoint trail, one can locate
a situation, The situation is then evaluated by looking for and finding the
exact data which applies to that situation. From this one can find his Why,
and once this is found he can get a bright idea.
A program can then ensue which terminatedly handles that situation.
Evaluations cannot be done in any other way. The moment that you apply
humanoid think to the subject of evaluation, you lose.
In the last evaluation I looked over, the evaluator obviously had not
gone to personnel files, data files or any other files but had simply read
some PR despatches written by the guy himself and had taken single-source
data and decided to promote the person to the control of an area.
Statistics demonstrated at once that the person's stats were down, that
practice evaluations done on that very org existed, and that the ethics and
personnel files of that person would never have suggested any promotion and
on the contrary would have suggested demotion. This would have made a very
dangerous situation in the area, would have victimized a great many good
people, and would have played hell with Flag statistics.
Persons "evaluating" without having looked at the vital data concerned
137
with their evaluation, are subject to a Court of Ethics on the charge of
FALSE EVALUATION.
While this might be looked on some as a deterrent to evaluating at a//
when evaluations are vital, remember that it is better to handle one
person, the evaluator, than to tie up and maul a thousand people with a
program based on a false Why
Evaluations not only can be done but are quite magical in handling
things when the evaluator knows what he is doing and when he looks for the
information he needs to evaluate in the places where that information
exists.
It is out of correct and brilliant evaluation that high stats are made.
We have superlative tools, we must use them right.
Compiled from
LRH OODs item
15 October 1973
"Super Evaluation"
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by AVU Aide, Evals Officer and AVU Verif Off, Flag
LRH:MH:MW:SH:lf.dr.nf Copyright 0 1973, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
138
EEWMM40
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1978
Rernimeo
Data Series 45
EXAMINING RESOURCES
One of the reasons evaluations fail is because the evaluator does not
take stock of resources.
It is vital that you examine resources when evaluating before you plunge
into any handling, and resources belongs just above handling on the
evaluation form.
Resources sometimes turn out not what they seemed, so when I say
"examine resources" I mean look into them searchingly. Were you ever sure
that you had $50.00 in the bank and $20.00 in a teapot only to find on
closer examination that you were overdrawn at the bank and the teapot
contained an IOU whose signature you couldn't read?
Sometimes you think you have resources you don't have even when there is
total agreement on every hand that you have resources. Take for instance
clerk X. It is "common knowledge" that he has been around "Department 5"
for years and is a "good clerk." So you make him head of the department
without going down and inspecting his area. What will happen to your
evaluation and "Department 511 if that undone inspection would have
revealed unfiled backlogs 10 feet high, lost supplies and equipment and an
office mainly used for plotting mutinies. This may be an extreme case but
some shadow of it lies behind most failed evaluations. The evaluator just
didn't examine his resources and thought he had what he didn't have.
There is one type of program you can always predict will fail, it begins
"Hire a
11 or "Recruit a " When sending a mission out on such orders
you know you won't hear from them for 6 months because the program has
said, in
effect, "acquire nonexisting resources."
If you do an evaluation on almost any subject and omit an examination of
resources and the resources section, your evaluation may lay an ostrich
egg. "Appoint Joe Blow, who is a trained Personnel Officer," may trip over
the fact that he left the company 5 months ago and has not been heard from
since. The eval will bug at this point. That is because the evaluator
didn't examine resources.
You sometimes have to gear down your bright idea and handling from "Buy
Wall Street" to "Set up a peanut vender stand on Bleaker Street." But the
point is your evaluation will succeed where otherwise it will fail.
Almost all evaluations actually have the overall goal of preserving or
acquiring resources. So don't omit an examination of the resources you do
have to work with and their accurate and exact character from your evals.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mf.nf Copyright c 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
139
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 JANUARY 1979
Remimeo
Data Series 46
THE IDEAL IDEAL SCENE
Have you realized that if you have an incorrect ideal scene, your
program will be wrong?
In using the Data Series, some evaluators tend to toss off the ideal
scene as a sort of afterthought-possibly because it is part of the form of
evals. To do so can be quite fatal to the success of the eval-and it can
result in the wrong ideal scene!
So always work out the ideal scene with care. THAT is what you are
trying to achieve with your eval.
HOMEWORK ON THE IDEAL SCENE
We know that homework may be necessary for the data section. But have
you ever thought that the ideal scene may also require homework?
I recall a ship's galley once that couldn't get itself unscrambled. So
the cooks and stewards were sent over on a tour of a posh cruise liner.
They were amazed at what a real ship's galley could look like. They had
seen an ideal scene. Until then they didn't know why they were being
harrassed by the officers. They got it.
If you can imagine Sitting Bull, the famous Indian war chief, trying to
evaluate "Queen Victoria's last grand ball failed" as a situation, you
would see that his eval was likely to be rejected. For he wouldn't have had
a clue what the ball SHOULD have looked like. But, as Sitting Bull was a
pretty smart Indian, if he had done his homework on the ideal scene of a
Queen's grand ball, I am sure the eval would not only have passed but the
NEXT grand ball would have been a howling success!
So homework is often quite vital on the ideal scene.
Not only can a person establish what an ideal scene SHOULD be, he can
also establish what it COULD be and that may be a long way ahead of old
accepted ideal scenes.
EVALING FROM THE IDEAL SCENE
It is possible (and often very necessary) to "evaluate backwards"; that
is to say, to START with the ideal scene.
If you have something you want to bring about-some ideal scene you
desireand simply shuffle off toward it, don't be surprised if you never get
there or achieve it. The realities and conflicts of life have a habit of
intervening. What they call the "vanishing illusions of youth" occur simply
because youth, thirsting to be a movie star or a great lover or a fireman,
seldom sits down and does a thorough eval first that finds the barriers
that will permit a program that will work.
If one sets up an ideal scene as an ambition-such as the org booming-it
may just stay an ambition one remembers in his old age instead of a
concrete occurrence UNLESS one does a backwards eval on it.
One does one of these "backwards evals" without any situation in mind.
In other words, one does not have to have a sit in order to start the eval.
(And you are aware of
140
course that most evals begin because a sit leaps up and has to be handled.)
So, without a sit, one simply puts down the ideal scene one is hopeful of
achieving. Then he finds the most glaring departure from the ideal scene.
That is his sit. And he also may find as he works that he gets several sits
and several versions of the principal ideal scene which in turn become THE
ideal scene he had in mind in the first place.
There is a simple view of it: Just set the ideal scene, find the
furthest departure from it, use that as the sit and then, gathering data
and doing a regular eval, he will find WHY that ideal scene hasn't occurred
or won't occur, then he can realistically program it to handle and the
ideal scene WILL occur if the program is done.
One can take the more complex view of it: One sets the ideal scene,
finds the furthest departure from it, follows a data trail, discovers there
is more than one sit and so has a multiple-sit eval, each one with a
different version of the ideal scene but these ideal scenes adding up to
his original concept of the ideal scene.
Let us take a simple example. The major purpose of a directive to a
salesman is "Sell the ballpark." Now if we simply told him to do that, we
would be relying on his charm and luck and while these might be quite good
we are likely to get a failed salesman. A more sensible approach would be
to convert that major purpose to the ideal scene of "The ballpark sold at a
profit." Then find and take the widest departure from that ideal scene
which possibly is "We have been trying to sell the ballpark for two years
with no takers." Then we employ the standard steps of the Data Series and
find the real Why, which could be "Nobody ever compiled a list of the
people who buy ballparks or approached them." And we do a program based on
the Why and ideal scene and THEN we can give the salesman that program and
that major target and BANG, we sell the ballpark at a profit. As it could
have been any one of a thousand Whys we could have gotten a thousand
different programs, all of which would probably have failed BECAUSE no
evaluation was done.
So do not send to find why missions fail or projects collapse. Just
notice that one didn't take what was desired and make it into an ideal
scene and evaluate it backwards.
To always need a catastrophic sit in order to evaluate is to ask for
more and more sits to occur as it is sort of an outpoint-correct but by
evaluation. Of course, when sits exist, it is vital to evaluate them. But
realize also that when you don't see what you consider an ideal scene, you
can simply set it and evaluate back from it as above.
And realize, too, that this is a great way to make dreams come true.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:clb.nf Copyright 10 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 JANUARY 1979
Issue 11
Rernimeo
Data Series 47
CANCELLATION
BTB 2 Sept 72R Issue II, WHY FINDING DRILL-TWO, is CANCELLED.
The Personal Office of Evaluation and Execution, Cramming Officers, AVC
and any other evaluating activity are not permitted to use this BTB.
This BTB contains false tech and invites verbal tech by the coach who
may or may not already have MUs on the subject of evaluation.
Any entry of this BTB on a checksheet is to be deleted and students
informed of such.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:clb.nf Copyright 0 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
142
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
1 10
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 JUNE 1979R
Issue I
Rernimeo REVISED 14 JUNE 1979
(Revisions in this type style)
Data Series 48
DATA SERIES PLs, USE OF
It is hereby illegal to randomly place Data Series PLs on a checksheet of
any kind.
The Data Series PLs must be studied in sequence.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
LRH Pers Comm
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:JM:dr.kim.nf Copyright 0 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
143
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 DECEMBER 1979
Rernimeo DSEC Evaluators
Data Series 49
EXECUTION OF EVALUATIONS
It is hereafter mandatory that every eval must carry in the policy
section the following statement:
NOTHING IN THIS EVAL MAY BE INTERPRETED TO VIOLATE OR ALTER OR CHANGE
HCO PLs OR HCOBs. ANYONE EXECUTING A TARGET IN THIS EVAL IN SUCH A WAY
AS TO VIOLATE OR ALTER ANY HCO PL OR HCOB WILL BE ACTIONABLE BY COMM EV.
ANY RECOMMENDATION IN THIS EVAL OR CHANGE OF POLICY OR TECH MUST BE
CLEARED BY THE WATCHDOG COMMITTEE (WDC) BEFORE BEING PLACED IN THE EVAL
AS A TARGET AND RESULTING PL OR BULLETIN MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE FOUNDER
PERSONALLY. ALL DATA OR HANDLINGS WHERE THEY REFER TO POLICY OR
BULLETINS MUST GIVE THE POLICY OR BULLETIN NUMBER AND ITS LOCATION AND
TEXT VERBATIM.
Any violation of this policy will be actionable by Comm Ev. This policy
is retroactive to all published evals whether they are remimeoed or not.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:dr.nf Copyright 0 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
144
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue I
Remitneo
(The contents of this policy have been taken from an LRH
OODs item of 15 May 71 and are now being issued in policy
form to bring forth the wealth of data formerly issued in the
Flag "Orders of the Day.")
Admin Know-How Series 38
Data Series 50
Esto Series 42
Org Series 42
OUT OF SEQUENCE
Out of sequence is the most common outpoint according to a survey of
despatches and projects a couple months ago.
The thing which gets most commonly out of sequence is the pattern of the
Key Ingredients as covered in HCO PL 14 Sept 69.
The correct sequence for a piece of work would be to plan, obtain
materials, and then work.
If this is made into work-plan-materials, everyone works hard but no
product will result.
As production is what morale depends upon, a smash of morale would occur
if the Key Ingredients were thrown out of sequence.
Omitted data runs a close second to out of sequence as the most common
outpoint.
When the sequence of a work project is thrown out and then data like
technology of how to do it is omitted, a group could work itself half to
death and have down morale as well from no product.
The right way to go about it is to have the tech of a job, plan it, get
the materials, and then do it. This we call organizing.
When this sequence is not followed, we have what we call cope. Too much
cope will eventually break morale. One copes while he organizes. If he
copes too long without organizing he will get a dwindling or no product. If
he organizes only he will get no product.
Coping while organizing will bit by bit get the line and action
straighter and straighter and with less work you get more product.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
ofthe CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY BDCS:LRH:SA:bk.nf Copyright c 1971, 1980 by
L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The original mitneo copies of this policy letter incorrectly labeled
it as "Admin Know-How 36" which has been corrected above.]
145
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 SEPTEMBER 1980
Rernitneo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 6 June 1970)
Data Series 51
PERPETUATING AN ORDER
Several recent instances of abuse of orders or misuse have appeared
lately.
Giving an order for a given TIME does not make a perpetual order of it.
Example: "Put the box on the deck." Interpretation, "This box can't be
stowed away because it was ordered to be put on the deck last year. So we
always put boxes on the deck and that's why you can't walk across the
deck."
An order given to fit one situation that is extended to all situations
is an outpoint of magnitude and is the source of arbitraries.
Judgment is actually the ability to reach a conclusion without entering
outpoints
into it.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
BDCS:LRH:SA:bk.nf for the
Copyright 0 1970, 1980 BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
by L. Ron Hubbard of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue 11
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 30 October 1973)
Data Series 52
FACTS
There is a world of difference between hopeful opinions and facts.
One can only operate on facts.
It is better to have real situations in clear view and being handled
than hidden and left to blow one's head off unexpectedly. One can confront
real facts and real situations far better than imaginary fantasies. In
facts and real situations there is at least something to confront, not a
vague unease of blind hope.
Things only go sane when facts and situations are in view.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.nf Accepted and approved by the
Copyright Q 1973, 1980 BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
by L. Ron Hubbard of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
146
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 OCTOBER 1980
Issue IV
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 4 December 1971)
Data Series 53
OUTNESSES
How far off policy can a course get?
Why, not to gather up the students at all! Just let them be all over the
place and no classroom.
When you try to find the WHY of some situations that won't resolve,
remember the outness is usually so HUGE that it isn't easily imagined.
Like: I wonder why Division 6 in that org doesn't function. So you order
checksheets and projects and almost everything else you can think of with
no improvement. And then you find out there is not a single person in the
division!
Like: A big org was having income and delivery trouble a couple years
back and after all sorts of work on it, it was found there was only I
person in the whole Tech Division! But 89 on staff!
The outnesses that won't resolve are usually big ones and are omissions.
And not being there they aren't seen as there's nothing to see.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Approved and accepted by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.nf Copyright c 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
147
CANCELLED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE See footnote
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 DECEMBER 1981
Remimeo
Data Series 54
EVALUATION
(LRH OODs item from 27 June 1974)
Evaluation is a solid brand new technology. It is contained in the Data
Series. It is a high skill. An evaluator takes very hard training and lots
of practice and a purity of view that has not previously existed.
At this writing it is doubtful if there are half a dozen truly skilled
evaluators on the planet. There are a few hundred who know of the system
and can use it to some degree. There are a few thousand who know the title
of it and use some of its words loosely. More are being made. For the
direct observed results in using the system are incredibly improved over
and above any past effort to resolve organizational, social or any other
type of problem.
A good evaluation gives the magic key to open the road to betterment in
any endeavor. From it alone comes the diamond-valued program which, done
step by step, will take one forward to certain result.
While evaluation is as yet so little known that it can be looked on by
the uninitiated as just another program, or something you write up because
"you know the Why" of the situation, respect is growing as evidence of its
magic increases and awe has begun to appear here and there where black
night was turned to broadest day.
So where there were half a dozen, there will be many dozen. And any
planner, command or policy-making personnel who cannot use the Data Series
are very likely to fail in this organization.
Based on the works of
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Accepted and issued by
WATCHDOG COMMITTEE
for the
BDCSI:LRH:WDC:bk.gm BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Copyright 0 1974, 1981 of the
by L. Ron Hubbard CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONAL
[Note: This policy letter has been cancelled by HCO PL 7 Dec. 1981, DATA
SERIES 54 EVALUATION CANCELLED which reads as follows:
"HCO PL 7 December 1981, Data Series 54, EVALUATION, is hereby cancelled
as it was erroneously issued as the wrong issue type per HCO PL 24 Sept. 70
RA, ISSUES, TYPES OF and HCO PL 5 Mar. 65, Iss II, POLICY, SOURCE OF.
It is being reissued as a C130, C130 731 INT, EVALUATION."]
148
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 MARCH 1972
Rernimeo (Revised 13 Apr 72)
(Cancels HCO P/L 8 Feb 72 of same
title which was only an ASHO pilot
and original HCO PIL 7 Mar 72).
Establishment 0 er Series IR
Vic
THE ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER
PURPOSE
The Establishment Officer system evolved from the Product-Org system
where it was found the HAS alone could not establish the org. The Product-
Org Officer system is entirely valid and is not changed, Tapes up to and
including No. 7 of the Prod-Org system (also ca//ed the FEBC tapes) are
correct From No. 8 onward, the Prod-Org tapes are replaced by the Esto
Series tapes. It is important to know that when the Org Officer is removed
from a unit "because it now has an Esto" it will practically destroy the
unit and crash its stats. Taking the Org Officer out of a division or org
and making him the Esto is a guarantee of a crash. The Esto is an extension
of the original HCO system as an Esto performs a// the functions of HCO for
the activity to which he is assigned PLUS his own tech of being an Esto.
The purpose of Establishment Officers is to ESTABLISH and MAINTAIN the
establishment of the org and each division therein.
The term "Esto" is used for abbreviation as "EO" means Ethics Officer.
It has been found that the whole reason for any lack of prosperity of an
org is INTERNAL. The surrounding area of the public has very little to do
with whether stats are up or down. An org, by "delivering" out-tech and its
own conduct, upsets its area but it can also straighten it out PROVIDING IT
DOES ITS JOB. So this too is an internal cause.
Thus if an org is well established so that each staff member is doing
his exact function, stats will go up and the org will prosper because it
has been handled internally
All booms and depressions of an org are due to its being expertly built
up and then, having a peak period, is not maintained in that well-
established condition and disintegrates.
In the vital flurry of getting the product and expanding, the org
becomes disestablished.
In the Product-Org Officer system of 1971 it was found uniformly that as
soon as the org began to boom, the HAS was wholly unable to establish
rapidly enough and the boom collapsed. HCO was too few to keep an org
established even when the HCO was manned because THEY WERE NOT WORKING
INSIDE EACH DIVISION.
The answer to these shortcomings is the Establishment Officer system.
This preserves the best in the Product-Org system and keeps pace with
product and expansion.
A well-trained, hard-working Esto in a division has proven to be the
miracle of org prosperity.
The system has already been tested and is in successful operation.
Establishment consists of quarters, personnel, training, hatting, files,
lines, supplies and materiel and all things necessary to establishment.
149
Commanding Officer or Executive Director (coordinates)
Product Officer (operates org)
Org Officer (organizes for Prod Off) 0
OQ
Executive Establishment Officer (operates Estos) Cr
C1.
Exec Esto Org Officer combined 2)
Esto Establishment Officer M
hat w
(Esto Course Supervisor) 1+
i
n
(Div Secs are in charge of Div and are Product
Officers)
El
CD
7 2 3 4 5 6
Dissem Treas Tech Qual Dist 0
LRH Comm HAS Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec - R - 0
DIV 7 ESTO HCO ESTO DEO Tr EO TEO QEO PEO 0
0
CIO or ED Foundation
Org Off Fnd
Dissem Treas Tech Qual Dist
LRH Comm HAS Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec
Fnd Fnd Fnd Fnd Fnd Fnd Fnd
Fnd Div Fnd HCO Fnd Fnd Fnd Fnd Fnd
7 Dissem Treas Tech Qual Dist
(Same Esto covers same Div Day & Fnd.)
PRODUCTS
To understand what the Esto system is, you have to understand first and
foremost the meaning of the word "PRODUCT " (The whole system breaks down
where this one word is not understood and not understanding this one word
and failing to get it understood has been found to be the barrier in most
cases.)
PRODUCE (verb) = To bring into existence, make; to bring about; cause.
PRODUCT (noun) = Someone or something that HAS BEEN brought into
existence,, the end result of a creation; something or someone who has been
brought into existence.
If you really know that definition you can then look over HCO PIL 29 Oct
1970 Org Series 10. In this we have (1) establishing something that
produces (Product 1), (2) operating that which produces in order to get a
product (Product 2), (3) repairing or correcting that which produces
(Product 3), (4) repairing or correcting that which is produced (Product
4).
Now in order to get an org there and make money and eat and get paid and
things like that, these things like products have to be understood and the
knowledge USED.
If we try to operate an org that isn't there, or repair it, nothing
happens. No stats. No money The Product Officer and Org Officer have
nothing to run. They're like a pilot and copilot with no airplane. They
don't fly.
So an Establishment Officer is there to put the airplane there AND get
the pilot and copilot to fly it well, without wrecking it, to everyone~3
benefit
So, the Establishment Officers put the org there to be run and put the
people there to run it so they run it well, without wrecking it, to
everyone's benefit
POSTS AND TITLES
The org is commanded by the Commanding Officer (SO orgs) or the
Executive Director (non-SO orgs). In the triangular system of the Flag
Executive Briefing Course (FEBC) (Product-Org Officer system) the C/O or ED
COORDINATES the work of the Product Officer, Org Officer and Executive
Esto.
In most orgs the C/O or ED is also the PRODUCT OFFICER of the org which
is a double hat with C/O.
The Product Officer controls and operates the org and its staff to get
production. Production is represented by the gross divisional statistics
and valuable final products of the org.
The ORG OFFICER assists the Product Officer. He gets production lined
up, grooves in staff on what they should be getting out and makes sure the
Product Officer~3 plans are executed.
(The duties of C/O or ED, Product Officer and Org Officer are covered in
the FEBC tapes 1 to 7.)
THE EXECUTIVE ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER is the one who puts the org there to
be run. He does this by having Establishment Officers establishing the
divisions, org staff and the materiel of the division. He is like a coach
using athletes to win games. He sends them in and they put their divisions
there and maintain them. They also put there somebody to WORK them.
The EXECUTIVE ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER ORG OFFICER (Esto Org Officer) is
the E Esto~3 deputy and handles his programs and the personal side of
Estos.
The ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER'S ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER (the Estot Esto) is
the one who trains and hats and checks out Estos and establishes the Esto
151
system. He also runs the Esto course that makes Estos and is the Esto's
Course Supervisor. In practice, the hats of Esto Org Officer (above) and
Estot Est Officer are held as one hat until an org is very large. The
person who holds this post has to be a very good Course Supervisor who uses
study tech like a master as his flubs would carry through the whole Esto
system.
An ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER IN-CHARGE is an Esto who has Establishment
Officers under him in an activity that has 5 or less Estos and does duties
comparable to an Executive Esto for that activity.
A CHIEF ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER + DIVISION is an Esto who, in a division,
has Establishment Officers under him due to the numerousness of the
division.
A LEADING ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER + DEPARTMENT is a departmental
Establishment Officer who has Section Estos under him due to the
numerousness of the section.
An ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER + SECTION is an Establishment Officer of a
section where there is a departmental and divisional Esto.
The divisional Establishment Officers are as follows. If they have other
Estos under them in the division the title CHIEF is put in front of the
title.
THE DIV 7 ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER (Div 7 Esto) for Division 7, the
Executive Division. He is not "The Executive Esto." He carries out all the
Esto duties for this division.
THE HCO ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER (HCO Esto) establishes and maintains HCO.
THE DISSEMINATION ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER (DEO) establishes and maintains
the Dissem Division.
THE TREASURY ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER (Tr EO) establishes and maintains the
Treasury Division.
THE TECHNICAL DIVISION ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER (TEO) establishes and
maintains the Tech Division. This division amongst all the rest is most
likely to have other Estos in the division.
THE QUALIFICATIONS ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER (QEO) establishes and maintains
the Qual Division.
THE DISTRIBUTION ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER (PEO for Public Division)
establishes and maintains the Distribution Division.
The Exec Esto and Esto Org Officer and the Estols Esto and Esto course
are org boarded as in Dept 2 1.
The Estos themselves are in their own assigned divisions.
The C/O or ED, Product and Org Officer are org boarded in Dept 19.
HEAD OF ORG
The head of the org is the Commanding Officer or Executive Director. He
is usually also the PRODUCT OFFICER. He is senior to the Exec Esto.
DEPUTY C/O OR ED
The C/0's or ED's DEPUTY handles the program functions of the C/O or ED
and is the orgt Org Officer.
He ranks with the Exec Esto.
152
HEAD OF DIVISION
The head of a division is the DIVISIONAL SECRETARY. He is the PRODUCT
OFFICER of his division. His boss is the C/O or ED.
He is senior to the divisional Esto or Chief Esto.
He is NOT the divisional Esto~3 boss. The E Esto is.
DEPUTY DIVISION HEAD
The DEPUTY SECRETARY of a division is the Org Officer of that division.
He handles the programs of the division for the secretary.
He ranks with the divisional Esto or Chief Esto.
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
He is the PRODUCT OFFICER OF HIS DEPARTMENT.
The divisional Esto is senior to him.
The departmental director is senior to an Esto posted to his specific
department.
SECTION OFFICER
The officer in charge of a section is the PRODUCT OFFICER of that
section.
He is junior to all Estos except an Esto posted directly to his specific
department.
STAFF
Staff members other than those who are Estos are all considered PRODUCT
2 and 4 PERSONNEL from the viewpoint of the Esto whose products are 1 and 3
(see above or Org Series 10 HCO PIL 29 Oct 70).
TEST
The test of the successful Esto is whether he increases QUANTITY and
QUALITY of PRODUCT TWO PER STAFF MEMBER AND AN ABSENCE OF DEV-T (developed
or unnecessary traffic).
SMALL ORGS
An Esto In-Charge in a small org (2 to 5 staff not counting Estos) would
be one of two Estos. He would handle the Esto system for that org and
Divisions 7, 1 and 2 and the other Esto Divisions 3, 4, 5 and 6. He would
also run the Esto course as well as work the Estos.
With trained Estos actually functioning the production of this small org
would increase and one would have an evolution leading to an Esto I/C, one
Esto for 7, 1 and 2 and another for 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Further evolving there would be an Esto I/C, one for 7, 1 and 2, one for
3, 4 and 5 and another Esto for Div 6.
With additional expansion there would be an Esto I/C, one for 7, 1 and
2, one for 3 and 5, one for 4 and one for 6.
Additional expansion would have an Esto I/C, one for 7 and 1, one for 2,
one for 3 and 5, one for 4 and one for 6. This reaches the stage of five
Estos for one Esto I/C.
We now upgrade the system to an Exec Esto and a deputy and one Esto per
division.
153
Almost at once Tech will need a Chief TEO and a TEO. Then a Chief TEO
and three Leading Estos for 4.
The system goes on evolving. One Esto to ten staff is the maximum
allowed at this stage.
BUREAUX
Where bureaux are combined with the service org the divisional Esto also
has the duties of the bureau establishment.
In such a case there is an OPERATIONS ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER in charge of
the four operations bureaux which combined make up the Operations Bureau.
He, as expansion occurs, will shortly become a Chief Esto for Operations
(or Chief Operations Esto) with an Esto in each bureau-the Action Leading
Esto; the Data Leading Esto; the Management Leading Esto; and the Ext Comm
Leading Esto.
RULE OF EXPANSION
The Esto system may not be expanded nor may the org be expanded without
comparable expansion of GI, delivery, completions and success statistics.
The quality and skill of Estos in acquiring personnel, training,
hatting, supplying, FP conduct and other duties is directly reflected in
statistical increase of GI, delivery, success and VIABILITY.
ESTO TRAINING
The EXEC ESTO (or Esto I/C) is responsible for the quantity of
establishment done and the quality and performance of all his Estos. EXEC
ESTOs or ESTO I/Cs are trained on Flag or as designated by Flag.
Exec Estos or Esto I/Cs are usually granted the right to train Estos.
For this they must have the packs and equipment. The actual training is
done by their Esto Org Officer or when one exists, the Esto~3 Esto.
The actual hatting and training of Estos comes under the Esto~3 Esto,
the Esto Org Officer generally wearing this hat
In a crush emergency in any one of the mentioned divisions the EXEC ESTO
goes in on Divs 7, 1 or 2 and the Deputy Exec Esto goes in on Divisions 3,
4, 5 and 6.
An Esto usually works the full day less conference time and studies an
additional 5 hours minimum.
Where there is a Foundation, the same Estos as the Day org cover the
Foundation as well until both Day and Foundation are too large to be so
handled, at which time a Foundation begins a separate Esto function under
its own Esto //C. When a// Foundation divs are separately covered, the
Foundation has its own Exec Esto.
TRAINING OUTLINE
A full training outline of the skills required in an Esto follows:
An Exec Esto should be ideally a full FEBC. This covers the OEC and the
Product-Org Officer system.
An Esto //C would have to know the OEC.
In addition to the above would be added these specific requirements:
Primary CORRECTION Rundown (HCOB 30 Mar 72).
Word Clearer-able to handle a meter and do Method 2 and Method 4,
assess prepared lists and do good TRs.
Vol 0 OEC (if not done on the OEC).
154
Vol 1 OEC (if not done on the OEC). Org Series PlLs Personnel Series
PlLs Data Series PlLs PR Becomes a Subject (FEBC tapes) Mini Course
Super Hat. (Full HPCSC for the Esto~s Esto.) ARC triangle materials
Dianetics 55! FP policy (finance pack) PTS phenomena HCOBs DB and SP
HCOBs and PlLs Psychosis HCOBs HCO investigatory tech Establishment
Officer Tape Series Establishment Officer Series PlLs LRH ED 174 INT
(1972) HCO PIL 9 April 72
There is a difference in what the Esto himself has to know to be hatted
and what he must teach in his division. These are TWO different bodies of
knowledge.
The Esto must know all the hats and valuable final products of any
division he is hatting.
He should know the Product-Org Series tapes.
He should know quarters and housing materials.
He should know the operating manuals and how to operate any machine in
the division he is establishing.
On ships he should know the FOs.
Any FOs, FSOs and CBOs that may apply in a bureau.
The Esto becomes totally proficient in his own hat and makes others
proficient in theirs. He has to be able to read and pick up data on
another~s hat very rapidly.
CASE REQUIREMENTS
(Not necessarily in pgm order)
TRs the Hard Way
Admin TRs
OCA not below center line
Physically well
Case gain
C/S 53 to F/N on list
If drugs full Drug RD
GF 40RR to F/N on list
The HAS Rundown
F/N on White Form
Study Corr List
WC No. I
HATTING CYCLE
The cycle of hatting of Estos and of staff members is HAT some and get
production, hat more and get production, hat more and get production. Hat
to total specialization, get production. Hat to more generalized skill and
get production. Hat an activity until it can do own and everyone else's hat
in the activity and get production.
Quarters, supply, equipment, space all follow this same gradient. Get it
in, get it producing, get more in, get it producing.
155
ESTO TRAINING
An Esto has 2 hats: (A) his own hat as an Esto in which he must be
expert, (B) the hats and skills he is grooving in on others.
The most skilled Esto learns his own job and that of the other fellow
rapidly and thoroughly.
These two hats are separate and must be kept separate.
INVOLVEMENT
The Esto may not involve himself in the production cycles of a post or
division except to learn it himself so he can hat expertly or get the HCO
P/Ls or tech applied to it understood by himself so he can hat and debug
the post.
The Esto must be an expert on Word Clearing Method 3 tapes and then WC
Method 4ing them.
He, in Europe, MUST KNOW FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATED TAPE HCOBs, P/Ls
AND EXPERTISE.
HCO
HCO performs its normal duties per policy. It is not called on to
establish the whole org, however, but is to back up Estos.
Personnel is obtained through Department I by Estos but these do not
have to depend only on that but must clear personnel and changes through
it.
EXEC ESTO's MAA
The Executive Esto has a MASTER-AT-ARMS in a large org.
The MAA musters the crew, conducts any exercises, does ethics
investigations as needful especially by the Exec Esto and helps hat the
Ethics Officers of the org. He does not replace these. He does other duties
assigned.
PRODUCT CONFERENCE
The PRODUCT CONFERENCE is conducted by the C/O or ED (or his deputy). It
consists of the divisional heads of the org as each of these is a PRODUCT
OFFICER.
It sets and reports on targets.
As the C/O or ED as PRODUCT OFFICER investigates and does evaluations
and writes programs, some of the actions of the Product Conference are
furnishing data to debug. The Data Series and the OEC and FOs are the tech
used. (The primary reason for failures of such a conference will be found
to be [A] operating on wrong WHYs, [B] lack of knowledge of conference tech
which is mainly do homework for the conference [CSW1 before it begins, not
during it and do not monopolize conference time.)
Therefore Product Conference success depends upon
I . Finding and operating on correct WHYs.
2. Getting targets for valuable final products of each div or department
that exchange with the society around them in return for income.
3. Ensuring adequate preparation (intelligent programs).
156
4. Debugging production programs.
5. Getting DONES, not not-dones or half-dones as they will become hidden
backlogs in the org.
6. Coming to conference prepared.
7. Not monopolizing conference.
8. Actually punctually holding them.
ITIS UP TO THE EXEC ESTO TO HATAND GET THE PRODUCT CONFERENCE OPERATING
AND COMPETENT
ESTO CONFERENCE
The ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER CONFERENCE is held by the Exec Esto (or his
deputy).
This conference handles Esto matters, debugs Esto targets worked out by
the C/O-ED or Esto's projects, gets in reports of divisions and their
personnel, hatting, supply, spaces, quarters, etc.
The Esto Conference handles financial planning using FP policy in which
the Esto must be proficient. (FP must be approved by the Treasury Sec,
Finance Banking Officer and Assistant Guardian. The org has to be run on
FBO-A/G allocations and these are the check signers of the org.)
This conference is governed by similar guide rules as a conference to
the Product Conference,
The PRODUCT Conference is senior to the Esto Conference but cannot
overrule its FP.
PROGRAMS
Estos as well as PRODUCT OFFICERS run on programs.
These are in accordance always with Data Series 23 and 24.
AIDES COUNCIL
An Aides Council or A/Aides (or International Secretary or Assistant
International Secretary) Council is held as
1. A Product Conference or
2. A Program Conference or
3. An Establishment Conference
but never 2 or 3 of these at the same time.
SUMMARY
The Esto system has already proven a success.
It will be successful in direct ratio to its
1. Staying on policy
2. Setting no independent policy
157
3. Operating only toward production
4. Its Estos continuing to train and be well trained
5. Consistently staying in the division and actively working in it to
establish and maintain, better establish and maintain
6. Setting an excellent example to staff as competent helpful executives
and staff members.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.nt.rnes.rd.grn Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
158
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 MARCH 1972
Issue 11
Rernimeo
Establishment Officer Series 2
HATTING THE ESTO
It will be found that hatting rules and procedures apply to the Esto
himself.
In orgs while under training he himself is hatted and produces
alternately, doing better and better.
He must NOT be let off hatting until he is fully hatted.
And he shouldn't, especially when being trained in an org by an Esto
I/C, be let off establishing on the excuse he is not yet fully hatted.
IMPORTANCE OF ESTO HAT
It will be found that some Estos back off from an area because "they do
not know all the tech lines and hats in that area."
The reason they give for this back-off is the wrong Why. They back off
or fumble when they are not hatted as Estos! Not because they are not
hatted on the area's hats.
Just like the housewife who criticizes her neighbor for a cluttered back
yard while standing in a more cluttered one of her own, hatting begins at
home.
If an Esto knows his business he could straighten up a huge corporation
using the Esto system with never a whisper of their business!
It would be tough. But it shows where the importance lies.
There is Esto tech. When it is not known or used, then an Esto can just
sink down into a division puzzled and apathetic, thinking its tech is what
is bogging him.
He daily sees and talks to people swamped in dev-t, unsure, nervous and
wide-eyed with problems and questions.
If an Esto does not at all times KNOW HE IS AN ESTO and ACT LIKE AN ESTO
he can easily slide into these confusions and try to handle
productionperformance problems that are outside the Esto's line of duty.
FIRST, LAST AND ALWAYS IT IS THE ESTO HAT THAT MUST BE WORN IN ANY GIVEN
SITUATION.
Thus the A (own hat) and B (div tech and hats) differences of hats is
important to know.
It's great to know and one should know a division's tech and hats. But
this is something one learns as he goes along.
It's a matter of THE MOST VITAL IMPORTANCE that the Esto wears his Esto
hat.
That's the hat he has to have down cold.
Then he will find that org and division confusion is nothing to him.
HE HANDLES THINGS LIKE THAT!
HE IS AN ESTO!
LRH:ne.rd.gm L. RON HUBBARD
Copyright 0 1972 Founder
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
159
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 MARCH 1972
Issue III
Remimeo
Estabfishment Officer Series 3
DEV-T AND UNHATTEDNESS
The first thing an Esto runs into in an area that is not hatted is DEV-T
(developed unnecessary traffic).
People in an org can be working frantically, totally exhausted and yet
produce nothing of value. The reason is that their actions are almost
totally dev-t.
The WHY of this is UNHATTEDNESS.
The people on the posts do not know their own hats or even if some do
they are dealing in the "NOISE" of other people who don't know their own
hats.
Few if any of these people know the other hats or duties of the org and
so don't know where to go for service or who to approach or despatch for
what.
So it's not an org or a division. It's a nonproductive chaos.
The answers are three:
1. Get dev-t understood and
2. Get the staff at least instant hatted at once.
3. Chinese school (staff or div staff all together in front of a big org
board chanting together the hats, duties and products of the org as visible
on the org board).
In order to get anything done at all or even begin this an Esto Ethics
Officer function has to be in.
A schedule has to be posted including exercise, post time and study and
staff has to be mustered and handled at these periods. This gets some
awareness of the org group as a team of people with similar purposes.
DEV-T
Dev-t packs are made up. These consist of
HCO P/L 2 Jul 59 "Dev-t-The Delirium Tremens of
Issue 11 Central Orgs"
HCO P/L 29 May 63 "How to Handle Work"
HCO P/L 21 Nov 62 "Completed Staff Work"
HCO P/L 17 Nov 64 "Off-line and Off-policy, Your Full In-basket"
HCO P/L 31 Jan 65 "Dev-t"
HCO P/L 8 Feb 65 "Dev-t Analysis"
160
HCO P/L 13 Oct 65 "Dev-t Data"
HCO P/L 5 Jan 68 "Dev-t Series, Part of-Overfilled In-basket"
HCO P/L 27 Jan 69 "Dev-t Summary List"
HCO P/L 30 Jan 69 "Dev-t Summary List Additions"
Issue 11
HCO P/L 27 Oct 69 "Admin Know-How No. 23-Dev-t"
HCO P/L 4 Nov 69 "Dev-t Graphed"
HCO P/L 23 Jul 71 "Telex Comm Clarity-Dev-t Series"
HCO P/L 25 Oct 71 "Comm Routing"
Issue I
HCO P/L 27 Feb 72 "Exec Series 9-Routing"
HCO P/L 29 Feb 72 "Exec Series 10-Correct Comm"
These packs are issued to staff members and they are required to check
out on them.
Each staff member keeps a dev-t log and writes down the name of anyone
he is getting dev-t from and also issues dev-t chits.
HATTING
The staff at the least are instant hatted at once-place on the org
board, work space, supplies, what his title is and what it means, org comm
system, what he is supposed to produce on his post.
He is gotten producing what he is supposed to produce in some volume at
once.
Hat checklists and packs are verified as there or are gotten ready.
A full hat checkout can then begin.
Courses he needs are done in staff study time.
Actually hat study and checkout is done on the post a bit each day.
This is in fact "on-the-job training" as he is expected to go on
producing while he is being hatted.
ORG BD
Org bds are rapidly gotten up or up-to-date in the org (in HCO) and
(full org bd) in each division.
Each division is Chinese schooled first on its own org bd, then on the
org as a whole, in such a way that they know the duties of divisions,
departments and posts and the flow lines of the org.
Wherever an org or even a division falls apart or slows up, this
campaign is repeated.
161
SAMPLE ORG ED
This is a sample Executive Directive (ED) giving a program written for
an actual
org where the above was done to cure dev-t and get the org hatted and
producing:
ED- Date-
TOP PRIORITY
Takes priority over all other EDs
(as they can then be gotten done!).
CORRECT COMM PGM
SITUATION:
It has been very difficult to handle the org.
DATA:
A long and intensive collection of data has finally culminated in
discovering, through reports on comm and inspections by showing why the org
appears fantastically busy and overworked while producing very little even
when it was found the org was insolvent.
Ethics has been very heavy for some time and has not led to any
spectacular recovery.
But the comm line reviews and analysis reveal
INVESTIGATION:
The org and all its units are drowning in DEV-T. HCO is even generating
it. This makes an appearance of frantic action and overload while little is
produced.
And an analysis has produced a
WHY:
The org is almost totally unhatted and untrained.
DEV-T comes only from AN UNHATTED UNTRAINED ORG.
S TA TS:
Out the bottom and below the briny bedrock of the sea so far as finished
products per man-hours and as far as GI by reason of the org are concerned.
IDEAL SCENE:
A whole staff and the org fully hatted and producing only correct comm
without dev-t and at work actually producing things of real value which
will exchange for value.
HANDLING:
THE ESTO SYSTEM AND DEV-T P/Ls HANDLE THIS.
I . Admin Cramming and each ESTO to be furnished with packs of dev-t
policies at once including last Exec Series P/L Routing and new dev-t
P/L Correct Comm. ALL HANDS DISSEM.
162
2. FULL Esto setup to be gotten on post at once. They go on duty and
part-time train. HAS.
3. Existing Estos and those to be put on at once to hammer, hammer,
hammer all posts on off-line, off-origin and other points of dev-t so
they are UNDERSTOOD. EXEC ESTO.
4. Big paper org bd with new complement to be gotten up at once in HCO.
HCO ESTO.
5. Big paper org bds from it to be gotten up in each div and the div
Chinese schooled on it. Specializing in the div but also covering the
whole org so people know where they are and what each handles and where
other terminals in the org are so they can properly route to or go to
them for the exact service of that exact post. DIV ESTOs under EXEC
ESTO.
6. Straighten out the comm lines of each post. EXEC ESTO. DIV ESTOs.
7. Report to his div Esto (see org bd) or Ethics Officer any person
originating off-line, off-origin traffic or failing to originate from
his post paper or body or remark. Report by "Dev-t Chit." EVERYONE IN
THE ORG.
8. Send flagrant offenders to Admin Cramming. EXECUTIVES.
9. Put in
1. Instruct, and if no improvement,
2. Cram, and if no improvement,
3. Retrain and if no improvement,
4. Offload
where hatting continues to fail to produce rapid comprehension of dev-t
and/or persistent inability to actually DO his hat. Court of Ethics or
Comm Ev on request to remedy any injustice. ESTOs.
10. Excuses concerning hatting and arbitraries like "only study hat in
hatting college" to be wiped out and any barriers to getting on-policy,
on-FO-FSO wiped out by ethics action or cramming. ESTOs.
11. Instant hat every staff member. DIV ESTOs.
12. Chinese school every division. DIV ESTOs.
LETS MAKE THIS A CRACK ORG WE CAN BE PROUD OF!
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
The above program can be completed in a few days.
It is followed by further programs to get in lines of the org, full
hatting, and proper comm setups for each staff member, etc.
If the program falls out or dev-t flares again, (A) REHAT Estos, and (B)
do the program once more.
The org will come right and begin producing PRODUCTS WHICH EXCHANGE FOR
VALUABLES.
163
The org will become solvent.
Only the Esto system makes such a program possible.
We have long had the tech as you can see by the P/L dates. Dev-t tech
has existed since the mid-1950s. But it could not be gotten in swiftly
enough to make a startling change in the org morale or stats until ESTOs
were on post in an org.
If it does not go in rapidly even with Estos then some of the Estos are
not well enough or firmly enough hatted as ESTOs and the answer of an EXEC
ESTO or Esto I/C is to very rapidly cram his Estos or following the (1)
instruct, (2) cram, (3) retread, (4) offload pattern, improve his Esto
team.
Fully done the program works like a beautiful breeze bringing peace and
a cheerful staff.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.gm Copyright cl 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
164
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 10 MARCH 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 4
EXEC ESTO HATTING DUTIES
An Esto I/C or Exec Esto has as his primary duty the hatting and
handling of ESTOs.
It will be found that an Esto tends to get pulled into operating the
division when (a) he is too new at it and (b) he fails to establish.
Such hatting actions usually require a repeat checkout or harder
assertion of the P/Ls relating to HCO such as "musical chairs ... .. don't
unmock a working installation." Such P/Ls cover the host of errors that
HCOs and HASes have made.
Usually the Esto In-Training just doesn't know the material or even
believes it's all "old" because it came before the Esto system. The prime
cause of alter-is is just not knowing or understanding the material.
The system of (1) instruct, (2) cram, (3) retread, applies to Estos In-
Training.
WHYs
Like in auditing the situation may look so desperate that unusual
remedies are thought to be needed.
The skill of an Esto in rapidly finding a WHY (as in investigation tech
and the Data Series) and quickly handling is what makes a real Esto.
Dreaming up new solutions not in policy usually comes from not really
investigating and finding a WHY.
Finding WHYs is like seeing real gold for the first time. Until a person
really finds a REAL Why that promptly unravels the whole knot he is like
the tourist in the gold field who can be sold any yellow glitter as being
gold. But when he sees real GOLD for the first time he never after can be
fooled-
Usually first WHYs an Esto I/T finds about a post or a class or a line
are usually so shallow and so narrow that they are just dev-t. They would
resolve nothing.
The Exec Esto will have to keep an Esto I/T at it, looking again,
looking again, looking again.
An Esto I/T will first think of removals. Then he will think of doing
musical chairs. Then he will think of having only the BEST people. He's
going along the old worn ruts of human prejudice and impatience. He is not
really looking for a WHY there in front of him but at his or another's
dreams.
An Esto I/T usually buys whatever WHY the person on the post gives him.
He mistakenly believes "but he has more experience with the scene" and "I
am so green on this scene that. . . ."
This piece of tech applies IF THE WHY THE PERSON OR AREA HAS WERE THE
RIGHT WHY THERE WOULD BE NO TROUBLE THERE.
165
This comes from "the problem a pc thinks he has isn't the problem he
has. If it were it would as-is and he wouldn't have it."
WHYs are obtained by observing the obvious (obnosis) closely enough to
find the biggest OUTPOINT that explains all the nearby outpoints (always a
lack of production or low production per high man-hours).
WHYs are traced back from the PRODUCT, its absence or lack of volume or
quality.
So an Esto I/T has to be sent in again and again and again until he
finds THE Why. And then the post unsnarls rapidly.
Example: TR Course product horrible, slow and upsetting the inflow of
new people. Esto I/T was ordered to hat the TR Supervisor. After much
blowoff, apathy, TR Super in tears, the Esto I/T said HE would take over
the course. Wrong answer. It couldn't be more wrong. Esto I/T bypassed, an
experienced Esto investigated students, Super and area and within about 3
hours found it. The Super was so unhatted that What Is a Course? P/L was
wholly out. The TR students had no packs of their own, could not read those
and weren't being supervised either and just struggled on with the unhatted
Super falsely reporting how great the students were doing (while they
didn't finish and wanted to blow).
Now what did this Esto I/T do wrong?
He didn't work out the product: successfully completed exultant
students.
He didn't then start hatting the Super with just standard HCOBs about
TRs and supervising.
He didn't check the course as a COURSE against What Is a Course? P/L to
know what was missing on it.
Had he just done his job as an Esto he would have found the WHY.
The course, of course, resolved at once and got the product.
BEWARE
A person training to be an Esto himself can be very guilty of dev-t to
his senior Esto.
By bringing a problem to a senior without having resolved it, HE CAN GET
HIS SENIOR UPSET, ALARMED, DESPERATE AND PULLED INTO THE DIVISION!
These solutions of "transfer this one or that," "Comm Ev this one or
that," "this situation is so ghastly that" (and there follows some wild
solution that sounds like "stand the pc on his head") are simply
abandonment of standard actions.
As the observation is bad, the Why is not found. Then the situation
looks unusual. So unusual remedies are urged.
And a senior can be dragged right in!
CORRECT ACTION
Anyone handling Estos In-Training has to use the standard action of
1. Get the packs of that post! (or area or div) he's trying to handle or
proposes the unusual solution for.
2. Look over the policy materials! (May include discard of "former
occupant hat
166
write-ups" and looking into P/L or FO or files for the real materials about
it. May include Word Clearing 4 or a clay demo or a WHY as to why the Esto
can't dig them.)
3. Work out the product of that post! (or course or section or dept or
div or even the org). (May require getting the word PRODUCT understood or
Wd Clearing Method 4 on the Esto I/T, or even the "Management Power
Rundown" or cram on products or any other standard action such as even
finding WHY he can't dig products.) (And it may require "detective" work on
the materials of the post to find out what is continually talked ABOUT so
one can figure out from that what the product would have to be.)
4. Be sure it is the major EXCHANGE product of that post! (or dept or
div or area). (May require reviewing the Esto I/T on EXCHANGE, its P/Ls and
the Esto tapes.)
5. Check it with the Product Officer! (the head of the dept or div or
org). (And don't be startled if he has a cognition on it or if he violently
disagrees with it while having his own product wildly nonexchangeable!
which opens up a whole new situation! Or he may simply suggest a revision
of the wording. BUT THIS POINT HAS TO BE CLEARED or the Estos will find
themselves going east while the Product Officers go west!)
6. Go to your area! (This may include making the Esto I/T do TR 0 on the
area or running him on bodily reaching and withdrawing from it and other
drills or even a 3rd party investigation.)
7. Observe the scene! (which may mean having to wait until it has
traffic or action in progress). (It may mean a microphone plant as on an
auditor or a tape of an interview with a voice start-stop operated recorder
to catch the traffic, but it generally means just looking and comparing
what one sees to the key P/L about it or an ideal scene as would have to be
in order for a product to occur in it.)
8. Find the WHY! (And that means investigation tech and the Data Series.
It can be formally written up or just there it is!)
9. Get it accepted! (which can mean argument or H, E and R or violence
or blows off post if it isn't the right WHY or the person is just plain
SP). (The right Why brings in GIs almost always. It's usually as obvious as
a bass drum in the middle of the floor once seen.)
10. Have (him, her or them) GET IT IN! (which can mean a project written
per Data Series 23 & 24 or it can be just "do it").
11. Straighten up the (spaces, lines, materiel, personnel) indicated by
the WHY.
12. Hat the person (personnel) to get production! (Could mean begin to
hat, wholly hat, could mean train further, could mean find the WHY that
stops him or them from being hatted, but it means get better hatting DONE.)
13. Review to find if production increased! (Means look it over again to
be sure it was the right Why found as a Why must lead to a nearer approach
to ideal scene. Usually means INCREASED STATS for the area.)
14. Train the Esto I/T better.
DOGGEDNESS
The protection of an Esto I/C or Exec Esto is his own insistence along
the lines of the above.
The moment he comes off of holding this line of hatting his Estos and
keeping them at it, the less successful he will be.
167
If he doesn't do this, the next thing he knows he will be in total
exasperation with the org and will be pulled right into it himself.
AUDITORS
We've been through all this before training auditors in '55-'58-Ds of P
and 1.
They often had unusual solutions. They also would say they had "already
done that" so we had a trick-" What did you do?" And we'd hear some other
thing than what was ordered.
We know all about that.
And today when we apprentice them in orgs, boy they really come out as
real auditors!
So we know all about getting standard actions really done.
And there IS a thing called standard tech.
And there is a thing called STANDARD ADMIN.
Above is the I to 14 of making a real Esto and thereby a real org. This
is really 3rd dynamic auditing for production.
RULE
The EXEC ESTO or his deputy must okay every major action any Esto means
to take to be sure it is ON-POLICY, ON-LINES.
HOLD THE FORM
The one thing an Esto I/C or Exec Esto ALWAYS DOES is hold the form and
lines of the org.
EQUIPMENT
An Esto I/C or Exec Esto should have a 1-14 checklist with a blank at
the top for the Esto's name and date and time.
When a solution is brought in he enters the Esto's name and date and a
note of it.
Then he or his deputy keeps tabs on it by checking off the dones.
Such an action as 1-14 takes little time, actually. Twenty-four hours is
an AGE.
He will find that some of his Esto I/Ts can't complete them rapidly, a
rare one can't complete at all. This needs a Why itself. And maybe a
retread or, that failing, a replacement.
A policy and HCOB library like the Qual library is a necessity. You
can't hold the form of an org with no record of the form.
FAITH
Faith in the system comes first, then faith in the Esto I /Ts and then
faith in the org will prevent a lot of shooting.
But a few right WHYs then show that it usually isn't evil. It's just
outpoints. AND THAT THESE CAN BE HANDLED. The real gold of REAL WHYS.
This restores one's faith. Rapidly.
168
SIGN
And on his desk, facing outward, the Exec Esto should have a sign:
THE ANSWER TO YOUR
OFF-POLICY SOLUTION IS "NO!"
FIND THE WHY.
HAT HAT HAT
An Esto is busy hatting staff, handling lines. He is being hit with
weird solutions. Product Officers talk to them about how it should really
be established (while not themselves producing or getting anything
produced).
Someone has to hold the Esto stable as an Esto.
That's the senior Esto of the org.
He hats Estos while they establish. He demands establishment.
And he gets it if he hats, hats, hats Estos and keeps them establishing.
He IS the real holder and expander of the form of the org. Via his Estos.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
169
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 MARCH 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 5
PRODUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT
ORDERS AND PRODUCTS
The situation one often finds in an org, after one has, to some degree,
conquered dev-t, is that PEOPLE REQUIRE ORDERS.
For years 1 wondered why this was so. Well, 1 found it.
WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT CLEARLY KNOW WHAT THEIR PRODUCTS ARE THEY REQUIRE
CONSTANT ORDERS.
To the Establishment Officer, this reflects most visibly in trying to
get program targets DONE.
Some people have to be ordered and ordered and ordered and threatened
and howled at. Then, in a bewildered way, they do a target, sometimes half,
sometimes nearly all.
Behind this apparent blankness lies an omitted datum. When they're like
that they don't know what their product is or what it adds up to. Or they
think it's something else or should be.
That blankness can invite overts.
It is very seldom that malice or resentment or refusal to work lies
behind the inaction. People are seldom that way.
They usually just don't understand what's wanted or why.
Because they don't know what a PRODUCT is!
A whole Ad Council of a downstat org was unable even to define the word.
They had required orders, orders, orders and even then didn't carry them
out.
HAT SURVEY FOR ORDERS
A staff member who requires orders may also think that any order is a
policy and lasts forever. If you look into hats you will even find casual
"close the door" type of orders, given on one occasion to fit one
circumstance are converted over into STANDING (continual) ORDERS that
forever keep a certain door closed.
An Esto surveying the hats of a unit may very well find all manner of
such oddities.
It is a standard Esto action to survey hats.
In hats you will find despatches giving specific orders or quoted
remarks preserved instead of notes on what one has to know to produce a
product.
In auditors' hats, directions for 1 specific pc in 1960, never
published and from no
170
tape or correct source, held onto like death like it was to be applied to
every pc in the world!
A dishwashing hat may have orders in it but not how to wash dishes
rapidly and well.
This is all a symptom of a unit or activity that does not know what its
products are.
DISESTABLISHMENT
Where you find lots of orders kicking around, you will also find
disestablishment by bypass, command channels not held and staff members
like to take their orders from anyone but those in authority-any passerby
could give them orders.
This is rampant where an executive has not been well on post.
By counting such orders up and seeing who they are from one can
determine the unhattedness of staff, their org bd weaknesses and
principally their lack of knowledge of their products.
HATTING FOR PRODUCT
If an Esto is to hat so as to get the staff member to get his product
out, then the Esto has to know how to clear up "products."
Now an Esto is an Establishment Officer? There are Product Officers. The
product of an Esto is the establishment. Then what is he doing with
products?
Well, if he doesn't hat so staff members get out products then the org
will be a turmoil, unhappy and downstat.
Production is the basis of morale.
Hattedness is a basic of 3rd dynamic sanity.
But if you don't HAT SO AS TO GET THE STAFF MEMBER YOU ARE HATTING
PRODUCING YOU WILL HAT AND HAT AND IT WILL ALL BE IN VAIN. The person won't
stay hatted unless he is hatted so as to be able to produce.
The Product Officer should be working to get the products out.
So if you don't hat for the product then the staff member will be torn
between two sets of orders, the Esto's and the Product Officer's.
Only when you hat to get product will you get agreement with Product
Officers.
If you are in disagreement with Product Officers, then the Esto is not
hatting to get production.
RIGHT WAY TO
There is a right direction to hat. All others are incorrect.
1. CLEAR UP WHAT THE PRODUCT IS FOR THE POST AND HAT FROM THERE.
2. HAT FROM THE TOP OF THE DIVISION (OR ORG) DOWN.
These are the two right directions.
All other directions are wrong.
171
These two data are so important that the failure of an Esto can often be
traced to violation of them.
You can have a senior exec going almost livid, resisting being hatted
unless you hat by first establishing what the product is. If PRODUCT is
first addressed and cleaned up then you can also hat from the top down.
If this is not done, the staff will not know where they are going or why
and you will get silly unusual situations like, "All right. So you're the
Establishment Officer. Well, I give up. The division can have 21/2 hours a
day establishment time and then get the hell out of here so some work can
be done! . . ." "Man, you got these people all tied up, stats are down!
Can't you understand. . . ."
Well, if you don't do one and two above you'll run into the most unusual
messes and "solutions" you ever heard of, go sailing off policy and as an
Esto wind up at your desk doing admin instead of getting your job done in
the division. And an Esto who is not on his feet working in the division is
worth very little to anyone.
So see where the basic errors lead and
Hat on product before doing anything else and
Hat from the top down.
STEPS TO CLEAR "PRODUCT"
This is a general rundown of the sequence by which product is cleared
and recleared and recleared again.
This can be checklisted for any exec or staff member and should be with
name and date and kept in the person's "Esto file folder" for eventual
handing to his new Esto when the person is transferred out of the division
or in personnel files if he goes elsewhere.
1. Clear the word PRODUCT.
2. Get what the product or products of the post should be. Get it or any
number of products he has fully fully stated, not brushed off.
3. Clear up the subject of exchange. (See HCO PL 27 Nov 71 Exec Series 3
and HCO PL 3 Dec 71 Exec Series 4.)
4. Exchange of the product internal in the org. For what valuable?
5. Exchange external of the valuable with another group or public. For
what valuable? (Person must come to F/N VGIs on these above actions
before proceeding or he goes to an auditor to get his Mis-Us and out-
ruds very fully handled.)
6. Does he want the product? Clean this up fully to F/N VGIs or yourself
get E/S to F/N or get an auditor to unsnarl this.
7. Can he get the products (in 2 above) out? How will he? What's he need
to know? Get him fully settled on this point.
8. Will it be in volume? What volume? Is that enough to bother with or
will it have to be a greater volume? Or is he being optimistic? What's
real? What's viable?
9. What quality is necessary9 What would he have to do to attain that?
To attain it in volume?
172
10. Can he get others to want the product or products (as in 2 above)?
What would he have to do to do this?
11. How do his products fit into the unit or section or department or
division or the org? Get this all traced.
12. Now trace the blocks or barriers he may believe are on this line. Get
what HE can do about these.
13. What does he have to have to get his product out? (Alert for
unreasonable "have to have before he can do" blocks.)
14. Now does he feel he can get his product or products out?
Signature of Esto or Clearer
NOW he really can be hatted.
BRUSH-OFF
Quickie handling is a very very bad fault. "Quickie" means a brush-off
"lick and a promise" like wiping the windshield on the driver's side when
really one would have to work at it to get a whole clean car.
So don't "quickie" product. If this is poorly done on them there goes
the old balloon. Hatting won't be possible.
Orders will have to be poured in on this terminal. Dev-t will generate.
Overt products will occur, not good ones. And it won't be worthwhile.
DISAGREEMENT
There can be a lot of disagreement amongst Product Officers and Estos on
what products are to be hammered out.
In such a case, or in any case, one can get a Disagreements Check done
in Dept of Personnel Enhancement (who should look up how to do one).
This is a somewhat extreme way to settle an argument and should only be
a "when all else fails."
It is best to take the whole product pattern of the org apart with the
person, STARTING FROM THE BIGGEST PRODUCT OF THE ORG AND WORKING BACK TO
THE PERSON'S PRODUCT.
Almost always there will be an outpoint in reasoning.
An exec who only wants GI can be a trial as he is violating EXCHANGE. As
an org is paid usually before it delivers, it is easy to get the org in
trouble by backlogs or bad repute for nondelivery. An org that has credit
payments due it that aren't paid maybe didn't deliver. But Div III may
soften up collections for some reason like that and then where would the
org be?
Vol 0 of the OEC Course gives an excellent background of how a basic org
works. As one goes to higher orgs, lower orgs are depended upon to continue
to flow upward to them. (See HCO PL 9 Mar 72 Issue I Finance Series No. I I
"Income Flows and Pools.")
173
A study of Vol 0 OEC and a full understanding of its basic flows and
adapting these to higher orgs will unsnarl a lot of odd ideas about
product.
The Esto has to be very clear on these points or he could mis-hat a
person.
Usually however this is very obvious.
PRODUCT OFFICERS
Heads of orgs and divisions have had to organize so long they get stuck
in it.
They will try to order the Esto.
This comes about because they do not know their products or the Esto is
not following 1 and 2 above and does not know his own product.
The Product Officer may try to treat the Esto as a sort of "organizing
officer" or a "program officer" if
A. The Esto is not hatting to get production.
B. The Product Officer is not cleared on product.
So it comes back to the 1 and 2 first mentioned.
You can look over it now and see that if one is not doing these two
things, dev-t, nonviability and orders will occur.
So where you have dev-t, down stats and orders flying around you know
one thing that will resolve it:
SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO BE IRONED OUT ABOUT PRODUCT.
When it all looks impossible, go to this point and get to work on I and
2.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.rd.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
174
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 MARCH 1972
Issue I
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 6
SEQUENCE OF HATTING
I. The Executive Establishment Officer or Establishment Officer In-
Charge hats and keeps Estos working in their areas.
2. The Estos work in their areas hatting and establishing.
3. The Product Officers get production.
In that way the org is built or expands stably. In that way the org is
prosperous, the staff is happy.
If some other sequence is being tried or other things are happening then
the org is likely to be slow, upset or nonviable.
When an org has both an Exec Esto and an Esto I/C or Chief Estos or
Leading Estos the Exec Esto shall hat (a) all the Estos and the I/C or
Chief or Leading Estos especially until they can safely be trusted to
become a IA relay point in the above where I would be "The Exec Esto hats
all Estos I/C, Chief and Leading Estos until they in turn can hat and
handle their Estos as per 2."
SPEED
Power is proportional to the speed of particle flow. This applies to
despatches, bodies, materiel and anything else that can be called a
particle.
What then slows things down?
UNCERTAINTY.
Many things can cause uncertainty. Threats, transfers, rumors.
People want their posts. Leave one without one awhile and see what
happens!
Firm establishment, unchanging orders, give certainty.
Nothing however causes more uncertainty than what one's product is.
Or if he can get someone to get out a product.
As certainty becomes firm on the product of a post or org, the ability
to get it out, then all else falls into place and establishment has
occurred.
BYPASS
It is easy for an Exec Esto or Esto I/C or any Esto to imagine he could
make it all right by just bypassing and doing the product job. If he does
that he fails as an Esto and the staff becomes uncertain as they feel they
can't get out the product
SPEED UP
If you want to speed up an org just do the usual 1, 2, 3 as given above.
The org will become certain.
It will speed up.
175
ESTO DESKS
Estos who do lots of admin are not being Estos. They belong on their
feet or at best sitting with a staff member hatting him.
When an Esto has given up he begins to do admin.
Of course one has to do org boards and CSWs for posting, lines and
materials. And one does have despatches. But if these require more than a
couple hours a day something is very wrong.
The Esto is the only one who MUST bring a body.
ASSISTANT MASTER-AT-ARMS
In a very large org there are at least two Esto Masters-at-Arms.
Both have crew mustering, exercises, etc. Their functions can
interchange.
But the senior is the Exec Esto's MAA for investigation and finding
Whys.
The Assistant MAA is the one who helps handle the Estos and crosschecks
on them and helps them and acts as liaison between them and the Ethics
Officer or HCO terminals of the org.
Estos do NOT go to the HCO Esto for HCO PRODUCTS. They go to the HCO
terminals involved or, far better, put it via the Asst Exec Esto's MAA-"the
Esto's MAA." And he does not go to the HCO Esto either but to the proper
terminals in HCO.
The Assistant MAA should know at any given moment where to find any Esto
in the org. This is so he can get them for the Exec Esto or locate them due
to emergencies.
He is their personal troubles terminal.
He verifies their presence at any muster.
He is in fact keeping the lines in. between the Exec Esto and the Estos.
It is all done by body traffic, not by any despatch.
In an exact division of duties the Senior Exec Esto MAA is responsible
for the whole staff as people. And how they influence org form.
The Assistant Esto MAA is responsible for the Estos as Estos on post and
as people. And how they infuence the Esto pattern of operations 1, 2 and 3
above.
SUMMARY
Thus the pattern can be held.
If it is, the wins are fantastic.
It is an easy pattern to hold.
It can be done.
ORGS ARE BUILT OF PEOPLE.
ESTOs WORK DIRECTLY WITH PEOPLE.
And the pattern of the work is 1, 2 and 3 above.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.rd.gm Copyright 10 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
176
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 MARCH 1972
Issue Il
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 7
FOLLOW POLICY AND LINES
About the fastest way Estos can unmock an org is pursue the fatal course
of Org Officers in the first Product Officer-Org Officer system.
These Org Officers bypassed all normal lines for personnel, materiel,
spaces and supplies and by disestablishing in that fashion tore more org
apart than they built. This made it almost impossible for the lonely HAS to
establish anything.
An Exec Esto especially and any Esto must
1. Get personnel on usual channels.
2. Get materiel only by proper procurement.
3. Get and use spaces only according to standard CSW to the authorities
involvedusually the C/O or ED.
4. Get supplies only by the exact Purchase Order and supply channels.
5. Follow the exact admin lines designed to achieve establishment.
For, after all, those lines ARE a major part of establishment.
If these lines are not in they must be put in.
If the Exec Esto and Estos cannot or do not follow the exact procedure
required in policy or routing forms or admin patterns THEY WILL TEAR THINGS
UP FASTER THAN THEY CAN BE GOTTEN IN.
Estos must be drilled on these lines until they are truly in and
effective.
It is up to them to set the example to others.
LINES
Lines that cross from one division to another such as public lines are
under the control of Dept 2 HCO.
They are dummy run by the Dir Comm under the guidance of the HCO Esto
and with the cooperation of the Esto Conference.
These lines are vital to an org.
This is also true of personnel lines, supply lines and routing forms for
new staff or transfers or any other action that may involve 2 or more
divisions.
Lines within a division are the business of the Estos of that division.
Where departmental Estos exist, the lines linking up departments are
handled by the Esto Conference of that division.
177
INVISIBLE
Lines are invisible to many people. They disregard them and chaos
results.
Thus Estos of all people must see that edges are put on those lines,
usually in the form of HCO routing forms and ethics actions for violations.
AN ORG WHOSE ADMIN OR BODY LINES ARE BEING VIOLATED WILL DISESTABLISH.
What is gained in sudden action is lost in disestablishment. The seized
desk without permission, the grabbed space without proper allocation, the
ripped off supplies for lack of chits and supply lines, the suddenly
transferred personnel all end up with a headache for somebody else and an
unmocked area.
WORKING INSTALLATION
DO NOT DISESTABLISH A WORKING INSTALLATION!
Example: An exec spends months building up a producing Qual Div. The
Qual Sec is suddenly ripped off without replacement and apprenticing the
replacement. The div collapses. There went months of work. It was far more
economical to have a Qual Sec In-Training under that Qual Sec for a month
or two before the transfer.
Using the wrong personnel pools for want of proper recruiting and
training is the downfall of most orgs.
Because it wrecks working installations.
This applies as well to org machinery. Don't wreck one machine to get a
part for another. And don't ever take one apart that is running well.
OPERATIONAL
The definition of OPERATIONAL is running without further care or
attention.
Anything that needs constant fiddling or working at to make it run is
nonoperational! It must be repaired fully or replaced.
Man-hours and time waste easily eat up any value of the inoperational
machine.
Further, a machine that is forced to run that does not run well may then
break down utterly and expensively. The time to repair is soon, the moment
it cannot be run without great care or attention.
OPERATIONAL is a key definition that answers many problems.
It is also true of people. Those who need continual pushing around or
rounding up cannot be considered operational. They can absorb time totally
out of proportion to worth.
This is no license to shoot staff down. But it is a warning that where
too much time is absorbed trying to make a staff member functional he
cannot be considered OPERATIONAL.
If an Esto spent 100% of his time for weeks on just one staff member and
let the rest go hang, he'd soon find he was rewarding a downstat as well as
violating the definition of operational.
RIGHT TARGET
A working unit that is getting on well, has an already established activity
even to
178
internal training, is not the right target for an Esto to reorganize.
His whole activity should be to get it support and new trainees for it.
His internal functions should be minimal so long as it runs well.
He helps it without hindering it.
Putting a unit there that is already there is a bit foolish
The right thing to do is get it help and support!
Example: An exec who really turns out the production. Seven Esto should
groove in his communicator and support lines and hat hell out of them.
Example: A Mimeo Section that runs like a bomb. The Esto recruits new in-
trainings for it, eases its supply problems and better establishes the
outside lines into it.
You keep what's established going.
New brooms may sweep clean. New Estos know their scene. And then
establish what isn't established, or its support lines. To do otherwise can
hurt a working unit or activity.
SUMMARY
Know what disestablishes.
Then you won't accidentally tear down faster than you build up.
The hallmark of the good Esto is
ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN.
Sometimes he is unlucky and has disestablishing going on.
Sometimes he is very lucky and only has to maintain!
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.rd.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
179
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saini Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 MARCH 1972
Issue I
Remimeo
Establishment Of
.J
.Ticer Series 8
LOOK DON'T LISTEN
An Establishment Officer who stands around or sits around just talking
to people or seniors is dev-t.
If these people knew what was wrong the stats would be in Power. So if
they aren't, why gab?
Questions, sharp and pointed, as in an investigation, yes.
But an Esto who just talks, no.
A GOOD ESTO LOOKS.
The scene is in the hats or lack of them. The scene is on the org bd or
lack of it.
THE SCENE IS RIGHT BEFORE ONE'S EYES.
It is moving or it is not
Its graphs are rising or they are level or falling or they are false or
don't reflect the product or they aren't kept or they aren't posted.
Products are appearing or they are not.
Overt products are occurring or good products.
The lines are followed or they aren't.
The mest is okay or it isn't.
It is a SCENE. It is in three dimensions. It's composed of spaces and
objects and people.
They are on a right pattern or they aren't.
A person is on post or he is moving onto one or moving off or isn't
there at all or he is dashing in and out.
None of these things are verbal.
Few are in despatches. Quantities of despatches, types of despatches,
yes. Content? Only good for investigation, not for adjusting the lines,
types and volumes.
Example: Overloaded exec. Examine his traffic. Don't talk to him.
Examine his traffic. Look to see if he has an in-basket for each hat he
wears, a folder for each type or area. Find a WHY. It can be as blunt as he
doesn't know the meaning of the word "despatch." Use the WHY. Handle. Hat
his communicator on comm procedures. Hat him on comm procedures. Examine
his org bd. Find where it's wrong. Adjust it. Get his agreement. And the
load comes off and product goes up.
180
Now there are moments in that example when one talks. But they are
concerned with ACHIEVING THE PRODUCT OF AN ESTABLISHED PRODUCING EXECUTIVE.
If the Esto doesn't himself know, name, want and get and get wanted his
Product I (an established thing) or Product 3 (a corrected establishment)
he, will talk, not look. (See P/L 29 Oct 70 Org Series 10 for Products 1,
2, 3, 4.)
You can't know what's happening in a kitchen by talking to a cook.
Because he's not cooking just then. You can't know how good the food is
without tasting it. You don't know really how clean a floor is without
wiping at it. You don't know how clean an ice box is without smelling it.
You don't know what a tech page is really doing without watching him.
You don't know how an auditor is auditing without listening to him,
looking at the pc, the exam reports, the worksheets, the date and progress
of the program. If you listened to him, wow, one sometimes hears the
greatest sessions that you ever could conceive.
To adjust a scene you have to LOOK AT IT.
ADMIN
An Esto or Esto I/C or Exec Esto who tries to do it with admin will
fail.
Admin is S-L-O-W.
A Product Officer acts very fast if he is producing. The flurry to get a
product can tear the establishment apart.
You don't halt the flurry. That's exactly counter to the purpose of an
Esto.
The right answer is to ESTABLISH FASTER AND MORE FIRMLY.
It takes quickly found RIGHT Whys to really build something up.
And it isn't done by admin!
"Dear TEO. I have heard that you are in trouble with the D of P. Would
you please give me a report so I can bring it up at a meeting we are
holding at the Hilton next week to see if we can get people to cooperate in
sending us Whys about the insolvency of the org. My wife said to say hello
and I hope your kids are all right. Drop around some time for a game of
poker. Seeing you some time. Don't forget about the report. Best. Joe, Esto
I/C."
Right there you'd have a Why of org insolvency. Not any meeting. But
that it's on a despatch line. TOO DAMNED SLOW.
Already establishment is slower than production. It always is. And
always will be. It takes two days to make a car on an assembly line and two
years to build a plant.
BUT when you make establishing even slower, you lose.
Esto admin is a spendid way to slow down establishment.
Let me give you some actual times.
1. SITUATION: Overloaded exec. Three periods of looking, each 15 to 20
minutes. Time to inspect and find WHY, and handle Mis-U word 32 minutes.
Time to write cramming orders on a communicator 17 minutes. Total time to
totally Esto handle: I hr and 49 minutes over a period of three days.
181
2. SITUATION: Investigation of lack of personnel. Collection of past
records I hour. Location of peak recruitment period by record study 7
minutes. Location of EDs and hats of that period 35 minutes. Study of what
they did. 20 minutes. Location of Why (dropped out unit) 10 minutes. Orders
written as an ED to reestablish unit. Approval 9 minutes. Total Esto time 2
hours and 21 minutes. Plus time to form unit by HAS, I day. Unit
functioning in 36 hours and got first 3 products in 2 days.
3. SITUATION: Backlog on an auditor. Inspection of lines one half hour.
Of folders of all auditors and their times in session 2 hours. Finding WHY
and verifying 25 minutes (other HGC auditors dumping their pcs on one
auditor because he had a slightly higher class and "they couldn't do those
actions"), investigation of D of T 32 minutes (not on post, doing admin,
Supers doing admin). Writing pgrn 35 minutes. Locating P/Ls on course
supervision, one hour. Writing cramming chits on 6 auditors, Supers and D
of T I hour 15 minutes. Total time 6 hours and 17 minutes. Check of Why
five days later found HGC stats up and auditor not backlogged.
4. SITUATION: Stats I/C goofing, making errors. Meter action Method 4,
18 minutes. Found word "statistic" not understood. Total time 18 minutes.
Check back in 3 days, Stats I/C doing well, taking on all the duties of the
hat.
5. SITUATION: Pc Admin only instant hatted. Getting her mini-hatted. M4,
demos, clay demos, 4 days at I hour per day and 15 minute check in late day
to see if she is applying it to produce what it says, 5 hours.
6. SITUATION: Exec believes all his products are overt. Three hours and
15 minutes completing 14 Steps of Esto Series 5 on him, locating only one
product was overt. Twenty minutes cleaning up how to unbug it. Three hrs
and 35 minutes.
These are typical Esto situations. They are not all the types of actions
Estos do. They would be typical total required time involved if the Esto
were right on his toes.
I do such Esto actions. They are very rapid and effective. So what I am
writing is not just theory.
Not all actions are at once successfully resolved. I have been involved
in efforts to find a WHY in a very broad situation for months before all
was suddenly revealed.
But where in all this was writing despatches about it?
F/N VGIs
One knows he is right when he looks and when he finds the right WHY.
It's always F/N VGIs. Gung ho! ("Pull together.")
So one isn't only looking. He is looking to see the scene and find the
WHY and establish.
If the Esto has spotted, and named the product he wants, then he has a
comparison with the existing scene.
He cannot compare unless he looks!
Product named and wanted. Is it here in this scene? One can only see by
looking.
You start listening and you get PR, problems, distractions, 3rd
partying, etc., etc. An Esto gets into a cycle of
Outpoint, handle, outpoint, handle, outpoint, handle.
He hasn't looked and hasn't found a Why. So the scene will get worse.
You have then a busy, frantic Esto with the walls of Jericho falling
down all over him because he listens to people blowing their own horns.
182
When you see an Esto standing and listening. Okay. If you see it again
elsewhere. What? What? This Esto is not doing his job.
If you see an Esto standing and watching, okay. If you see him pawing
through old files, okay. If you see him sitting doing a checkout, okay. If
you see him working with a meter on somebody, okay. If you see him with a
pile full of hats gazing into space tapping his teeth, okay. If you see him
running, okay. If you see him reading policy, okay.
If you see him sitting at a desk doing admin, no, unless it's "today's
chits." As a habit all day, No No No No No No.
If you see him standing talking, standing talking, give him a dev-t
chit. He's not being an Esto.
The real tale is told when a division or an org is established so that
its stats RISE and RISE.
When the staff looks happier and happier.
When the public being served is bigger and bigger and more and more
thrilled.
And the Esto achieves all that by LOOKING.
A good Esto has the eye of a hawk and can see an outpoint a hundred feet
away while going at a dead run.
A good Esto can find and know a real WHY in the time it takes a human
being to wonder what he'll have for dinner.
A good Esto LOOKS. And he only listens so he can look.
And like Alice he knows he has to run just to keep up and run like
everything to get anywhere.
And so a good Esto arrives.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.rd.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
183
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 MARCH 1972
Issue II
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 9
STUCK IN
An Esto, as well as being mobile, must not get "stuck in" on one point
of a division or org.
Spending days hatting only one staff member and letting whole
departments go is an example of what is meant by "getting stuck in."
This is why one "short cycles" an area. By that is meant doing a short
start-change- stop that COMPLETES that action.
This is why one (a) instant hats, (b) gets production, (c) does a mini
hat P/L on the person, (d) gets production, (e) does another P/L, (f) gets
production.
The Produce is a test to the Esto of whether or not he is winning on a
post.
You cover your whole area as an Esto with short cycles you can complete
on each person individually.
You do group drills of the whole group, little by little.
Gradient scales are at work here. (Look it up if you don't know it.)
Like, found one basic product for each in the div. Then handled other
things. Then got product moved to Exchange on each one. Then did other
things. Etc., etc.
The other things are find a Why for a jam area or handle a blow or any
other Esto duty.
But don't spend 82 hours hatting Joe who then doesn't make it while the
rest go hang.
Dev-t drops little by little and production rises IF you short cycle
your actions.
Don't get "stuck in." "I've been working on Dept I and it is better now.
Next month I go to Dept 2" is a wrong look.
Short cycles. Each staff member getting attention individually as well
as a group.
If one man was totally hatted and all the rest not, they'd just knock
his hat off anyway.
Don't get stuck in on a dev-t terminal. Instruct, cram, retread, dismiss
is the sequence.
Short cycles work. They show up the good as well as the bad. This gives
upstats a reward.
Never have a situation where a Product Officer can say to you, "I
appreciate all the trouble you're taking getting Oscar hatted. Let me know
some day when you've
184
finished so I can stop holding the div together and get on with my
product."
Little by little a whole group makes it. Drilled as a group as on org
bds. Hatted on one product or a P/L as an individual.
In between you work like mad to get up an org bd and groove in the new
staff member or find the WHY the Exec Esto is so anxious to get.
If 2 days pass and a staff member has not had any individual attention,
no matter how brief, from an Esto, that Esto has gotten "stuck in."
Stay unstuck!
Flow. Be mobile.
You can, you know. And be very effective too.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
185
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 MARCH 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 10
FILES
The lowly and neglected item called FILES is the cause of more company
downfalls than desks and quarters and sometimes even personnel.
Because files are looked upon as routine clerical work they seldom are
given enough attention by executives. Yet the downfall of most executives
is lack of information and FILES.
Files are often considered an area of overwork on the shoulders of one
person or a part-time action. This is the most expensive "saving" an org
can get itself into.
Example: One org (Jbg early '60's) did not have file cabinets or proper
respect for files and kept losing their 6500 Central Files of clients. The
org remained in income trouble.
Example: Another org (SH '60) would not file into its bills files or
keep them up and routinely overpaid creditors. In '64 for lack of these
proper accounts files, it thought it owed E1000 when it actually owed
f22,000! And don't think that didn't cause management overwork!
Example: An org didn't have its CF straight and its Address was
therefore incorrect and not tabbed for publics. (AOLA 1971-72.) This cost
thousands of dollars a week in (a) promo wasted to wrong addresses, (b) low
returns, (c) insolvent cash-bills.
I could go on and on with these examples. FSM pgms broken down as Dept
18s had no proper FSM file or any real selection slip file. Inability to
promote to correct publics because of no tabbed address plates. Inability
to locate suppliers due to no purchaser files. No personnel obtained as
personnel files nonexistent. And so on.
There are LOTS of files in an org. HCO P/L 23 Feb 1970 "The LRH Comm
Weekly Report" lists the majority of these.
ORGANIZING FILES
The Establishment Officer will find all too often that in the flurry to
get products, the file forming and maintenance function is bypassed. He
will find files are being pawed through and destroyed by frantic staffs.
He will seldom find similar attention being given to files. He will even
find local (and illegal) orders like, "They are spending too much time
organizing and too little time producing. So just produce, don't organize."
Such people are getting this week's stats at the expense of all next
year's income!
They even order files destroyed as "old" instead of setting up archives.
Half to two-thirds of an org's income comes from having a well kept
Central Files and Address and FSM files and a lot of credit rating and
correct payment comes from bills files. P/L and HCOB files almost totally
monitor training and processing and admin quality.
So files are FINANCIALLY VITAL TO AN ORG.
186
Efforts to block or cheapen files supplies and personnel must be
countered. This is the first step of organizing files.
The next step is using a simple system that lets one recover things once
they are filed.
The next step is collecting everything to be filed whilefiling it.
The next step is completing the files (usually by extra hands).
The final step is MAINTAINING the files by keeping people there to do it
and having exact lines.
Independent files all over a division are liable to file out-of-date or
lost. Therefore it is best to have DIVISIONAL FILES. These usually go in
the last dept and section of the division. Usually every type of file in
the div is kept there.
In this way you can keep a files person on the division's files.
A big deep FILES BASKET exists in the div comm center.
A log-out log-in book exists to locate where files have gone. This can
be a large colored card that takes the place of the file.
A pre-file set of boxes A-Z sits above the files and is used, so one
isn't opening and closing file cabinets every time one files in one scrap
of paper.
Files personnel HAVE TO KNOW THEIR ALPHABET FORWARDS AND BACKWARDS LIKE
LIGHTNING. This is the biggest cause of slow or misfiling,
All hands of the division actions can be taken for an hour or two a day
to catch a sudden inflow or backlog.
There are no "miscellaneous files" or catch all "that we put things in
when we don't have another place for them."
Clerks must be able to get things out of files rapidly as well as file
in.
The files location must not be so distant from the users (like Letter
Reges or accountants) that use of them is discouraged by the delay or the
time lost. When this is true they start keeping their own independent
files.
MEMORY
A person without memory is psychotic.
An org without files has no memory.
ESTOs
The Esto is responsible for organizing, establishing and maintaining
files even when there is a files I/C. The div head and dept heads are in
command of files and their use and over files people. But this does not
excuse an Esto from having the div's files established.
If an Esto only did this file action well, the increased income of an
org and the decreased cost would cover his and the file clerk's pay several
times over!
FILES ARE VALUABLE TO AN ORG.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.gm Copyright v 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
187
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 MARCH 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 11
FULL PRODUCT CLEARING
LONG FORM
(Reference HCO P/L 13 Mar 72
Esto Series No. 5)
MUST BE DONE ON AN ESTO
BEFORE HE DOES IT ON STAFF
If you ask some people what their product is, you usually get a DOINGNESS.
There are three conditions of existence. They are BE. DO and HAVE.
All products fall under HAVE.
The oddities you will get instead of a proper product are many.
Thus it is possible to "clear products" without any real result.
PRODUCT CLEARING FORM
Org Person's Name
Date
Post
The 14 Points of Esto Series 5 are done in this fashion, with a meter used
to check
words.
STEP ONE
DO NOT TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT THE PERSON KNOWS WHAT "PRODUCT" MEANS. GET
IT AND EVERY WORD IN THE DEFINITION LOOKED UP.
(a) Clear the word PRODUCT. Dictionaries give a variety of definitions.
Make sure you get a useable definition that the person understands AND
WHICH HE UNDERSTANDS ALL THE WORDS IN. He can be hung up on "that" or
"is" in the definition itself believe it or not.
(b) Have the person USE the word PRODUCT 10 times in sentences of his own
invention and use it correctly each time.
(c) Now clear up BE, DO, HAVE, the conditions of existence. People often
think a BE is a product or a DO. It is always something someone can
HAVE.
Clear the words BE, DO, HAVE by dictionary, especially HAVE.
188
(d) Write these on a sheet of paper
BE
DO
HAVE.
Tell the person to name a product out in the world (a car, a book, a
cured dog, etc.).
Put an arrow into the word DO if he gives you a "do," into BE if he
gives you a "be" instead of a HAVE.
Mark HAVE with an arrow each time he gives a right HAVE product.
When he can rapidly name a product that is something that one can HAVE,
without a comm lag, go on to next step.
(e) Clear up this question on a meter Method 4 (see HCOB 22 Feb 72, Word
Clearing Series 32, "Word Clearing Method 4"):
"Have 1 used any word so far you did not understand?"
Get it clean.
(f) Now give the person a copy of HCO P/L 29 October 70 Org Series 10.
Have him read the policy letter.
(g) Clear by Method 4 Word Clearing this question:
"Are there any words in the policy letter you did not understand?"
Get it cleaned up. If there were any, have him reread the policy letter
until he says he has it.
(h) Drill the pc on Products 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Write:
Product 1 Product 2
Product 3 Product 4
on a sheet of paper.
Let him retain and consult the HCO P/L 29 Oct 70 Org Series 10.
Put the point of your pen on one of the products (Product 1 or 2 or 3 or
4) and say, "Name a Product U' "Name a Product 3." "Name a Product 4."
"Name a Product 2." Do this until pc has it.
Now take the P/L away from him and repeat the drill.
When your Product 1, etc., is all blacked up with ballpoint spots and
the person is quick at it, thank him. Tell him he has it and go on to
next step.
STEP TWO
(a) Look up the hat and org board of the post of the person being product
cleared and get some idea of what the post's product would have to be to
fit in with the rest of the scene. It won't necessarily be in
189
former hat write-ups. What the post produces must be worked out. Write
down what it possibly may be.
(b) Get the person to tell you what his post produces. Have him work the
wording around until it is totally satisfactory to him and is not
incorrect by Step 2 (a).
Be very careful indeed that you don't get a wrong product or you could
throw the whole line-up of the org out,
Beware of "a high stat" or "a bonus" or "GF' as these are items received
in exchange, not the person's produced product.
Once more resort to BE
DO
HAVE
to be sure he is not giving a doingness. And point this out until he
actually has a HAVE.
Write down the product on the worksheet.
(c) Ask if there are any more products to the post. If the person is
wearing several hats, he would have a product for each hat.
List each hat and get the product of each hat written after it.
(d) Now take the principal product of the post and see if it is really
three products of different degrees or kinds. (Example: an auditor has
[A] a well pc [one who has been gotten over a psychosomatic illness],
[B] a person who is physically active and well and will continue to be
well, and [C] a being with greatly increased abilities. A Super has [A]
a trained student, [B] a course graduate, [C] a person who successfully
applies the skills taught.) (Note: The above are rough wordings.)
The A, B, C you will notice fit roughly into (A) BE, (B) DO, (C) HAVE.
If the person has trouble with this, write BE, DO, HAVE on the
worksheet.
(e) Find out if the person has had these confused one with another or if
he is trying for A when his product was C, or any other mix-up.
See if he has to first get a BE, then a DO to finally achieve a HAVE.
When he has all this straight he should cognite on what product he is
going for on his post, with VG1s.
(f) Tell the person that's it for the step and verify the products with a
Product Officer. (Be sure it's a Product Officer who has had his Product
Clearing. If this is THE Product Officer of the org, see if it compares
to the valuable final products of an org [see HCO P/L 8 Nov 73RA,
revised 9 Mar 74, 7he VFPs and GDSs of the Divisions of an Org"].)
If the products are not all right check the person on a meter for Mis-Us
and do Steps 1 and 2 again. If okay, proceed to Step 3.
STEP THREE
(a) Give the person HCO P/L 27 Nov 71, Executive Series No. 3 and
HCO P/L 3 Dec 71 Executive Series 4. Have him read them.
190
(b) Return and do Method 4 on the P/Ls and clean up any misunderstood
word. If these are found and looked up and used, then have the person
read the P/Ls again.
(c) Now that the person has it, exchange objects with him.
Have him now explain exchange until he sees clearly what it is.
STEP FOUR
(a) Now write his product on the left-hand side of your worksheet and
draw an arrow from it to the right:
His product
And one to the left below it
Have him tell you what, internally in the org, he could get in exchange
for producing his product and getting it out.
Have him clear up why he might not get that.
(b) Have him look at a worksheet picture:
Overt Act Injury
Injury * Overt Act
SELF No Product OTHERS
Nothing o Nothing
as a cycle. Be sure he grasps that.
(c) Have him look at a worksheet picture:
Overt Product Upset
Upset * Overt
And have him grasp that cycle,
(d) Now have him draw various such cycles having to do with the products
he has been getting out. Such as:
Bad Product Dissatisfied
Bad Feelings Ethics
But using various versions of products.
Do this until he has it untangled and feels good.
(e) Have him write down his product on the left, arrow to the right, what
comes back on the right and what occurs on the left.
If he has this now, tell him that's fine.
STEP FIVE
(All in Big Clay Demos)
(a) Have him work out what theft is in terms of exchange, and arrows.
191
(b) Have him show how his product contributes to the org's product.
(c) Have him work out how the org's product as relates to his division is
then exchanged with society outside the org and Scri and what society
exchanges back to the org.
(d) Have him work out how his product contributes to org's product
outward and outside the org and Scri and then from the society outside
back to the org and org back to him.
This may have more than two vias each way.
(e) Have him work out the combined staff products into an org product and
then out into the society and then the exchange back into the org and to
CLOs and upper management and to org staff.
(f) When the demos are all okay and BIG, tell him that's fine and go on
to next step.
STEP SIX
(Metered)
(a) Find out if person wants his product? (not the exchange).
If not find out who might suppress it? and E/S times.
Who might invalidate it? and earlier times.
Two-way comm it to F/N Cog VGIs.
(b) Establish now if the person wants his product.
(If bogs turn over to a C/S and auditor for ruds and completion.)
STEPSEVEN
(Metered)
(a) Can the person get his product out?
(b) Handle by 2wc E/S to F/N.
STEP EIGHT
(Metered)
(a) What will his product be in volume?
Is that enough to bother about or will it have to be in greater volume?
What would be viable as to volume?
Clean up RUSHED or failures.
To F/N Cog VGIs.
STEP NINE
(Metered)
(a) What quality would be necessary?
Get various degrees of quality stated.
What would he have to do to attain that quality?
What volume could he attain?
192
What would he have to do to attain that?
To F/N Cog VGIs.
STEP TEN
(Metered)
(a) Can he get others to want the products he put out?
What would he have to do to attain this?
STEP ELEVEN
(In BIG Clay)
(This is a progressive clay demo
added to at each step.)
(a) How does his product or products fit into the framework of his
section? Requires he work out the section product if his is not it. Then
fit his to it.
(b) How does his product fit into the department? Requires he work out
the department's product and fit his to it if his is not the dept's
product.
(c) How does his product fit into the division's products? He will have
to work out the div's product or consult HCO P/L 8 Nov 73RA, Revised 9
Mar 74, 7he VFPs and G DSs of the Divisions of an Org. "
(d) How does the division's product exchange with the public? And for
what?
(e) What happens to the org on this exchange?
STEP TWELVE
(In Big Clay)
(a) What blocks might he encounter in getting out his product?
(b) What can HE do about these?
STEP THIRTEEN
(Two-way Comm)
(a) What does he have to have to get his product out? (Beware of too much
have before he can do. Get him to cut it back so he is more causative.)
STEP FOURTEEN
(Written by Pc)
(a) What is his product on the Ist dynamic-self?
How does it fit in with what he is doing?
(b) What is his product on the 2nd dynamic-family and sex?
How does it fit in with what he is doing?
(c) What is his product on the 3rd dynamic-groups?
How does it fit in with what he is doing?
193
(d) What is his product on the 4th dynamic-m an kind?
How does it fit in with what he is doing?
(e) What is his product on the 5th dynamic-animal and vegetable kingdom?
How does it fit in with what he is doing?
(f) What is his product on the 6th dynamic-the universe of matter,
energy, space and time?
How does it fit in with what he is doing?
(g) What is his product on the 7th dynamic-beings as spirits-thetans?
How does it fit in with what he is doing?
(h) What is his product on the 8th dynamic-God or the infinite or
religion?
How does it fit in with what he is doing?
(i) What is his post product?
0) Can he get it out now?
Esto or Product Clearer
Note this long form has to be run on leading executives and eventually
on all staff. The short form in Esto Series 5, 14 Points, serves as a rapid
action. Where there is any hang-up on the short form, send the person to an
auditor. Where there is a hang-up on the long form, send the person to an
auditor. The auditing action is to fly ruds on the RD and assess any key
words the pc is upset about and do an 18 button prepcheck carrying each
prepcheck button to F/N.
Where the TA is already high do not attempt the short or long form.
Where the person turns on a rock slam check for rings on the hands. If
so, remove rings. Note if R/S continues.
In either case the person should be programmed for TA trouble with C/S
53RRR and handled, and then given a GF40RR Method 3 (F/Ning each question
that reads) and then running the engrains with drugs run first.
Product Clearing is best done after Word Clearing No. 1 is successfully
done.
An Esto who can use a meter and Method 4 WCing and knows clay demoing
can do it.
HCO Bulletins are planned to be issued on this RD to handle it on rough
ones or repair it as needed in the hands of an expert auditor.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:mes.rd.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The original issue of the above Policy Letter contained a reference
to HCO PL 24 Mar 72, The VFPs of an Org, in paragraph (f) on page 190 and
part (c) of Step Eleven on page 193. This PL was never issued. The correct
reference is as given in this edition in a different type style.]
194
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I APRIL 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 12
Executive Series 11
MAKING AN EXECUTIVE
FLOW LINES
If an executive has his flow lines wrong he will NEVER be a Product
Officer but only a comm clerk.
For some poor reason executives get themselves onto all comm lines in
their area. Probably it is an individual Why for each one. But the fact
remains that they do do it!
And they promptly cease to be useful to anyone. While they "work" like
mad!
Basically they have confused a comm line with a command line. These are
two different things. A comm line is the line on which particles flow, it
is horizontal. A command line is a line on which authority flows. It is
vertical.
Here is an example of a divisional secretary who can get nothing
accomplished while sweating blood over her "work."
Secretary being a relay messenger clerk
ALL org traffic to Div In
and Out
6ept Dept lie~t
Wrong
Now quite obviously this secretary is suffering from "fear of juniors'
actions" or "having to know all." Exactly nothing will happen because the
person is plowed under with paper. No real actions are taken. Just relays.
One such secretary of a division even acted as the relay point on all
out and in BODY traffic. In short, just a divisional receptionist.
No product. Nothing happening at vast expense.
195
Here is another example. The correct one.
Div Secretary as Product Officer
Right
.4
10,
No
This is known as horizontal flow.
It is a fast flow system.
The correct terminals in each department are addressed by terminals
outside the dept, directly. And are so answered.
Now we have a divisional secretary who is a PRODUCT OFFICER and whose
duty is to get each department and section and unit producing what it is
supposed to produce.
MISROUTE
So long as a command line is confused with the comm line an org will not
produce much of anything but paper.
INFORMATION
It is vital that an executive keep himself informed.
The joker is, the despatch line does NOT keep him informed. It only
absorbs his time and energy.
The data is not in those despatches.
The data an executive wants is in STATISTICS and REPORTS and briefings.
Statistics get posted and are kept up-to-date for anyone to look at,
especially but not only the executive. They must ACCURATELY reflect
production, volume, quality and viability.
Reports are summaries of areas or people or situations or conditions.
The sequence is (a) statistic goes unusually high, (b) an inspection or
reports are required in order to evaluate it and reinforce it.
196
Or (a) the statistic dives a bit and (b) an inspection or reports are
needed to evaluate and correct it.
Thus an executive is NOT dealing with the despatches or bodies of the
division's inflow and outflow lines but the facts of the division's
production in each section.
An executive makes sure he has comm lines, yes. But these are so he can
make sure stats get collected and posted, so reports can be ordered or
received and so he can receive or issue orders about these situations.
Despatch-wise that is all an executive handles.
INSPECTIONS
Personally or by representative, an executive INSPECTS continually.
His main duties are
OBSERVATION
EVALUATIONS (which includes
handling orders)
and SUPERVISION.
All this adds up to the production of what the division is supposed to
produce. Not an editing of its despatches.
A good executive is all over the place getting production done.
On a product he names it, wants it, gets it, gets it wanted, gets in the
exchange for it.
He cannot do this without doing OBSERVATION by (1) stats, (2) reports,
(3) inspections.
And he can't get at what's got it bugged without evaluation. And he
can't evaluate without an idea of stats and reports and inspections.
Otherwise he won't know what to order in order to SUPERVISE. And once
again he supervises on the basis of what he names, wants, gets, gets wanted
and gets the exchange for.
THESCENE
This is the scene of an executive.
If he is doing something else he will be a failure.
The scene is an active PRODUCTION SCENE where the executive is getting
what's wanted and working out what will next be wanted.
ABILITY
An actual executive can work.
A real fireball can do any job he has getting done under him better than
anyone he has working for him or under him.
He can't be kidded or lied to.
He knows.
197
Thus a wobble of a stat has him actively looking in the exact right
place. And evaluating knowingly on reports. And getting the exact right
WHY. And issuing the exact right orders. And seeing them get done. And
knowing it's done right because he knows it can be done and how to do it.
Now that's an ideal scene for an exec.
But any exec can work up to it.
If he does a little bit on a lower job each day, "gets his hands dirty"
as the saying goes, and masters the skill, he soon will know the whole
area. If he schedules this as his 1400 to 1500 stint or some such time
daily, he'll know them all soon. And if he burns the midnight oil catching
up on his study.
And he knows he must watch stats and then rapidly get or do
observations, so he can evaluate and find real WHYs quickly and get the
correction in and by supervision get the job done.
That's the ideal scene for the exec himself where he's head of the whole
firm or a small part of it.
If he can't do it he will very likely hide himself on a relay despatch
line and appear busy while it all crashes unattended.
An exec of course has his own admin to do but they don't spend hours at
it or consider it their job for it surely isn't. Possibly an hour a day at
the most handles despatches unless of course one doesn't police the dev-t
in them.
Most of their evaluations are not written. They don't "go for approval"
when they concern somebody's post jam. They are done by investigation on
the spot and the handling is actual, not verbal.
A desk is used (a) to work out plans, (b) catch up the in-basket, (c)
interview someone, (d) write up orders. Two-thirds of their time is devoted
to production. Even if a thousand miles away they still only spend 1/3rd of
their time on despatches.
An executive has to be able to produce the real products and to get
production. That defines even an Esto whose product has to do with an
established person or thing.
Any department, any division, any org, any area responds the same
wayfavorably-to such competence.
ANALYSIS
To attain this ideal scene with an executive, one can find out WHY he
isn't, by getting him to study this P/L and then find WHY he can't really
do it and then by programming him to remedy lack of know-how and other
actions increase his ability until he is a fireball.
If you are lucky you will have a fireball to begin with. But only the
stats and the truth of them tell that!
Esto action: Can you do all this and these things? If the answer is no
or doubtful or if the executive isn't doing them, find the Why and remedy.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.mes.bh.ts.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
198