No matching fragments found in this document.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I APRIL 1970
Remimeo
THIRD DYNAMIC TECH
The material contained in HCO BULLETINS applies to the FIRST DYNAMIC
-self, the individual.
The data, material and procedures contained in POLICY LETTERS apply to
the THIRD DYNAMIC-the dynamic of groups,
In applying HCOBs as in auditing a preclear, you see that following a
certain procedure results in the remedy of a certain personal situation.
In applying HCO Policy Letters, you see that by following or
continuing certain Third Dynamic procedures you remedy, handle or continue
certain situations which relate to groups.
In both cases, SURVIVAL is the keynote of the end result.
HCOB auditing tech increases the survival of the individual as an
individual.
HCO Pol Ltr Third Dynamic Tech increases the survival of the group.
Man has always had a certain amount of know-how in both individual and
group matters of survival but he has never had any high level of result.
It is easy to see auditing improve the individual when it is exactly
and expertly applied.
Similarly one can see Third Dynamic Tech improve the group and its
survival potential.
Just as there is "squirrel" auditing (alter-ised and unworkable) so
there can be "squirrel" Third Dynamic Tech.
An executive who has no familiarity with HCO Pol Ltrs can make an
awful lot of mistakes.
It is an easy pretense that First Dynamic Tech existed. But no one got
any better when Man knew no more than the mumbo-jumbo he had before 1950.
Since then real results occur. But they only occur when the actual tech of
Dianetics and Scientology is correctly applied.
The same situation existed in the field of the Third Dynamic. The
pretense was that "business" tech was successful, to name one. But 17 out
of 19 businesses fail every year and the whole of the business world is
under threat from the ideology of communism. Strikes, legislation, banking
and other catastrophes daily remain unhandled by "business tech." So
there's only pretense that "business tech" applies to groups successfully.
It is at best a dying technology.
The failure is that previous Third Dynamic Tech did not seek out and
learn the basic laws on which it must have existed.
You have seen the First Dynamic Tech of auditing develop over the
decades to a highly precise and very workable body of knowledge. The
current search began in about 1931. By 1970 it was in full practice over
the world.
The need of organizations to serve the First Dynamic Tech beginning in
1949 forced further and further into view the absence of Third Dynamic Tech
and its vital need.
With much hard experience the data now contained in HCO Policy Letters
was won. In 1965 1 began an active search for the basic'laws of the Third
Dynamic. What has been found since then has been recorded on tapes or
published in HCO Pol Ltrs.
If auditing took 38 years to bring to a highly polished state, then
the 20 years of experience of which only 5 were devoted to an active effort
to locate the basic laws can be seen to be an incomplete study.
But incomplete or not, the data and drills contained in HCO Policy
Letters are a great advance over what Man had.
For instance, in 1950-51, using the crude organizational tech Man then
had, the first board of directors of Dianetics Foundations failed utterly.
Any and all off-on-thewrong-foot moves which became later woes to us were
laid in at that time by some of the finest legal, accounting and PR experts
one could retain.
Twenty years later our organizations, traveling on our developed Third
Dynamic Tech (and even now poorly known by staffs) have enabled us to
survive in the teeth of old vested interests and not only that to expand as
well.
This is due to the practical know-how we have dredged up and used and
which you find in HCO Policy Letters.
Naturally, we have not had time to develop Third Dynamic Drills for
every situation. We have not had time even to train all our staffs.
But the basic knowledge is there, recorded on tape and on HCO Pol Ltrs
and when known, understood and used it gives us survival, expansion and
prosperity. When it isn't known or understood or used, only then do we sag.
If a study of our Third Dynamic Tech is approached from the viewpoint
that it is for use and when known, understood and used that it will deliver
an expected result, then one has a proper framework for the study of it.
If one thinks it is a series of orders, or just some random ideas,
then one will not have the use of it.
The short span of men's lives inhibits the full development of any one
subject in one lifetime. Thus there is a lot of room for further expansion
of our Third Dynamic Tech. But the basic laws can be found in it and many
exact drills are contained in it and it has great value in any zone of
application.
What we now know and use of our Third Dynamic Tech is all that has
forwarded our survival so far.
Thus its wider understanding and use in our own organizations is the
key to prosperity and expansion.
An "old experienced Scn executive" (who has a lot of this know-how)
can go into a collapsing org and boom it. The data he is using is all in
these policy letters. He knows it is there for use and he uses it in
action.
The elements he uses are in HCO Policy Letters.
The data encompasses Third Dynamic Tech. It is applied very much like
one applies the First Dynamic Tech to the individual.
In its present state of development, like early auditing material,
Third Dynamic Tech is used to think with, and only the bright mind will
achieve its full potential in action.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dz.cden.nf Founder
Copyright 0 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
2
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 APRIL 1970R
Remimeo REVISED 15 MARCH 1975
Data Series IR
THE ANATOMY OF THOUGHT
There are many types of thought. Unless one knows these types he can
make serious errors on administrative lines.
In the unpublished work "Excalibur" (most of which has been released
in HCOBs, PLs and books) there was an important fundamental truth. This was
SANITY IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES AND
IDENTITIES.
This is also intelligence.
Two or more facts or things that are totally unlike are DIFFERENT.
They are not the same fact or same object.
Two or more facts or things that have something in common with one
another are SIMILAR.
Two or more facts or things that have all their characteristics in
common with one another are IDENTICAL.
SEMANTICS
In a subject developed by Korzybski a great deal of stress is given to
the niceties of words. In brief a word is NOT the thing. And an object
exactly like another object is different because it occupies a different
space and thus "can't be the same object."
As Alfred Korzybski studied under psychiatry and amongst the insane
(his mentor was William Alanson White at Saint Elizabeth's insane asylum in
Wash., D.C.) one can regard him mainly as the father of confusion.
This work, 'general semantics," a corruption of semantics, (meaning
really "significance" or the "meaning of words") has just enough truth in
it to invite interest and just enough curves to injure one's ability to
think or communicate. Korzybski did not know the formula of human
communication and university professors teaching semantics mainly ended up
assuring students (and proving it) that no one can communicate with anyone
because nobody really knows what anybody else means.
As this "modern" (it was known to the Greeks, was a specialty of
Sophists and was also used by Socrates) penetration into culture affects
all education in the West today, it is no wonder that current communication
is badly strained. Schools no longer teach basic logic. Due to earlier
miseducation in language and no real education in logic much broken-down
"think" can occur in high places.
A system of thinking derived from a study of psychotics is not a good
yardstick to employ in solving problems. Yet the "thinking" of heads of
states is based on illogical and irrational rules. Populations, fortunately
less "well-educated," are assaulted by the irrational (kooky) "thinking" of
governments. This "thinking" is faulty mainly because it is based on the
faulty logic shoved off on school children. "You must study geometry
because that is the way you think" is an idiocy that has been current for
the past two or three decades in schools.
I have nothing against Korzybski. But the general impact of "general
semantics"
3
has been to give us stupified schoolboys who, growing up without any
training in logic except general semantics are giving us problems.
Increasingly we are dealing with people who have never been taught to think
and whose native ability to do so has been hampered by a false "education."
ADMINISTRATIVE TROUBLE
At once this gives an administrator trouble. Outside and inside his
sphere of influence he is dealing with people who not only can't think but
have been taught carefully to reach irrational conclusions.
One can make a great deal of headway and experience a lot of relief by
realizing the way things are and not getting exasperated and outraged by
the absurdities that he sees being used as "solutions." He is dealing with
people who in school were not only not taught to think but were often
taught the impossibility of thinking or communicating.
This has a very vast influence on an administrator. Things that are
perfectly obvious to him get so muddled when passed for decision to others
that an administrator tends to go into apathy or despair.
For instance it is completely logical to him that some activity must
either cut its expenses or make more money before it goes broke. So he
passes this on as an order demanding that the activity balance up its
income-outgo ratio. He gets back a "solution" that they "get a huge sum
each week from their reserves" so they will be "solvent." The administrator
feels rattled and even betrayed. What reserves? Do they have reserves? So
he demands to know, has this activity been salting away reserves he knew
nothing about? And he receives a solemn reply-no they don't have any
reserves but they consider the administrator should just send them money!
The idiocy involved here is that the "logic" of the persons in that
activity is not up to realizing that you cannot take more out of something
than is in it.
And the activity mentioned is not alone. Today the "assets" of a
company are said by "competent economists" to be its property-good will-
cash added to its debts! In short, if you have ten pennies and owe E1000
then your assets are E1000-0-10!
Yes, you say, but that's crazy! And you're right.
For an example of modern "think" the Ford Foundation is believed to
have financially supported the arming of revolutionary groups so they will
be dependent upon the capitalistic system and won't overthrow it even
though the revolutionary group could not exist without Ford Foundation
support!
A war is fought and continued for years to defend the property rights
of landlords against peasants although the landlords are mostly dead.
Electronic computers are exported under government license and paid
for by the exporter and shipped to an enemy who could not bomb the exporter
without them in order to prevent the enemy from bombing the exporter.
Yes, one says. That's treason. Not necessarily. It is the inability to
think! It is the result of suppressing the native ability by false systems
of "logic."
PROPER DEFINITIONS
People who annoy one with such weird "solutions" do not know certain
differences.
Thoughts are infinitely divisible into classes of thought.
In other words, in thought there are certain wide differences which
are very different indeed.
A FACT is something that can be proven to exist by visible evidence.
An OPINION is something which may or may not be based on any facts.
4
Yet a sloppy mind sees no difference between a FACT and somebody's
opinion.
In courts a psychiatrist (who is an AUTHORITY) says "Joe Doakes is
crazy." Joe Doakes is promptly put away for ten years, tortured or killed.
Yet this statement is just an OPINION uttered by somebody whose sanity is
more than suspect and what's more is taken from a field "psychiatry" which
has no basis in fact since it cannot cure or even detect insanity.
A vast number of people see no difference at all in FACTS and OPINIONS
and gaily accept both or either as having equal validity.
An administrator continually gets opinions on his lines which are
masquerading as facts.
If opinion instead of facts is used in solving problems then one comes
up with insane solutions.
Here is an example: By opinion it is assumed there are 3000 pounds of
potatoes available in a crop. An order is therefore written and payment
($300 at 100 a pound) is made for the crop. One sack of potatoes is
delivered containing 100 pounds. That sack was thefact. Loss is 2900 pounds
of potatoes,
An administrator runs into this continually. He sends somebody to find
an electric potato peeler "just like the one we had." He gets back a paring
knife because it is the same.
The administrator orders a similar type of shirt and gets overcoats.
The administrator feels he is dealing with malice, sharp practice,
laziness, etc., etc. He can lose all faith in honesty and truthfulness.
The ACTUAL REASON he is getting such breakdowns is
SANITY IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES AND
IDENTITIES.
The people with whom he is dealing can't think to such a degree that
they give him insane situations. Such people are not crazy. Their thinking
is suppressed and distorted by modern "education." "You can't really
communicate to anybody because the same word means different things to
everyone who uses it." In other words, all identities are different.
A BASIC LAW is usually confused by students with an INCIDENTAL FACT.
This is conceiving a similarity when one, the law, is so far senior to the
fact that one could throw the fact away and be no poorer.
When a student or an employee cannot USE a subject he studies or
cannot seem to understand a situation his disability is that basics are
conceived by him to be merely similar to incidental remarks.
The law, "Objects fall when dropped," is just the same to him as the
casual example "a cat jumped off a chair and landed on the floor." Out of
this he fixedly keeps in mind two "things he read"-objects fall when
dropped, a cat jumped off a chair and landed on the floor. He may see these
as having identical value whereas they are similar in subject but widely
different in VALUE.
You give this person a brief write-up of company policy. "Customers
must be satisfied with our service," begins the write-up. Of course that's
a law because it has been found to be catastrophic to violate it. On down
the page is written, "A card is sent to advise the customer about the
order." The employee says he understands all this and goes off apparently
happy to carry out his duties. A few weeks later Smith and Co. write and
say they will do no more business with you. You hastily try to find out
WHY. If you're lucky enough to track it down, you find the shipping clerk
sent them a card saying, "Your order was received and we don't intend to
fill it."
You have the clerk in. You lay down the facts. He looks at you glumly
and says
5
he's sorry. He goes back and pulls another blooper. You threaten to
fire him. He's now cost the company $54,000. He is contrite.
All he understands is that life is confusing and that for some
mysterious reason you are mad at him, probably because you are naturally
grouchy.
What he doesn't know is what the administrator seldom taps. It isn't
that he doesn't know "company policy." It's that he doesn't know the
difference between a law and a comment!
A law of course is something with which one thinks. It is a thing to
which one aligns other junior facts and actions. A law lets one PREDICT
that if ALL OBJECTS FALL when not supported, then of course cats, books and
plates can be predicted in behavior if one lets go of them. As the employee
hasn't a clue that there is any difference amongst laws, facts, opinions,
orders or suggestions he of course cannot think as he doesn't have anything
to which he can align other data or with which to predict consequences.
He doesn't even know that company policy is, "Too many goofs equals
fired." So when he does get sacked he thinks "somebody got mad at him."
If you think this applies only to the "stupid employee," know that a
whole government service can go this way. Two such services only promoted
officers to high rank if they sank their own ships or got their men killed!
Social acceptability was the only datum used for promotion and it followed
that men too socially involved (or too drunk) of course lost battles.
An organization, therefore, can itself be daffy if it has a concept
that laws and facts and opinions are all the same thing and so has no
operating policies or laws.
Whole bodies of knowledge can go this route. The laws are submerged
into incidental facts. The incidental facts are held onto and the laws
never pointed up as having the special value of aligning other data or
actions.
An administrator can call a conference on a new building, accidentally
collect people who can't differentiate amongst laws, facts, opinions or
suggestions-treating them of equal value-and find himself not with a new
building but a staggering financial loss.
As the world drifts along with its generations less and less taught
and more and more suppressed in thinking, it will of course experience more
and more catastrophes in economics, politics and culture and so go boom. As
all this influences anyone in any organization it is an important point.
PERSONNEL
In despair an administrator enters the field of choosing personnel by
experience with them. He embraces a very cruel modern system that fires at
once anybody who flubs.
Actually he is trying to defend himself against some hidden menace he
has never defined but which haunts him day by day.
The majority of people with whom he deals-and especially governments-
cannot conceive of
1. differences,
2. similarities,
3. identities.
As a result they usually can't tell a FACT from an OPINION (because
all differences are probably identities and all identities are different
and all similarities are imaginary).
A=A=A
We have a broad dissertation on this in Dianetics: The Modern Science
of Mental Health as it affects insane behavior. Everything is everything
else. Mr. X looks at a
6
horse knows it's a house knows it's a school teacher. So when he sees
a horse he is respectful.
When anyone in an org is sanely trying to get things done he sometimes
feels like
he is spinning from the replies and responses he gets to orders or
requests. That's because observation was faulty or think was faulty at the
other end of the comm line. As he tries to get things done he begins to
realize (usually falsely) that he is
regarded as odd for getting impatient.
THE WAYS OUT
There are several ways out of this mess.
a. One is to issue orders that demand close observation and execution.
Issuance of
clear orders provides no faintest opportunity of error, assumption or
default.
b. Another is to demand that an order is fully understood before it is
executed.
C. A third is to be sure one totally understands any order one
receives before one
goes off to do it or order it done.
d. One is to deal only in ORDERS and leave nothing to interpretation.
e. Another is to pretest personnel on one's lines for ability to
observe and conceive
differences, similarities and identities.
f. The effective way is to get the personnel processed.
g. A useful way is to educate people with drills until they can think.
h. Another way is to defend one's areas by excluding insofar as
possible adjacent
areas where crippled think is rampant.
i. A harsh way is to plow under zones whose irrationality is
destructive (such as
psychiatry).
THOUGHT CONFUSIONS
Wherever you have thought confusions (where FACT = OPINION, where
Suggestion = Orders, where an observation is taken as a direction,
etc., etc., etc.) an administrator is at serious risk.
Misunderstoods pile up on these short circuits. Out of misunderstoods
come
hostilities. Out of these come overwork or destruction.
The need for all discipline can be traced back to the inability to
think. Even when
appearing clever, criminals are idiots; they have not ever thought the
thought through. One can conclude that anyone on management lines, high or
low, is drastically
affected by irrational think.
Individuals to whom differences are identities and identities are
differences can
muddle up an operation to a point where disaster is inevitable.
These are the third dynamic facts with which an organization lives
daily.
The fault can be very subtle so as to nearly escape close search or it
can be so very
broad so that it is obvious and ridiculous. But on all admin lines,
the point that fails has
not achieved the basic law
SANITY IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES
AND IDENTITIES.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.nf Copyright 0 1970, 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
7
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 2
LOGIC
The subject of logic has been under discussion for at least three
thousand years without any clean breakthrough of real use to those who work
with data.
LOGIC means the subject of reasoning. Some in ages past have sought to
label it a science. But that can be discarded as pretense and pompousness.
If there were such a "science" men would be able to think. And they
can't.
The term itself is utterly forbidding. If you were to read a text on
logic you would go quite mad trying to figure it out, much less learn how
to think.
Yet logic or the ability to reason is vital to an organizer or
administrator. If he cannot think clearly he will not be able to reach the
conclusions vital to make correct decisions.
Many agencies, governments, societies, groups, capitalize upon this
lack of logic and have for a very long time. For the bulk of the last 2,000
years the main western educator-the Church-worked on the theory that Man
should be kept ignorant. A population that is unable to think or reason can
be manipulated easily by falsehoods and wretched causes.
Thus logic has not been a supported subject, rather the opposite.
Even western schools today seek to convince students they should study
geometry as "that is the way they think." And of course it isn't.
The administrator, the manager, the artisan and the clerk each have a
considerable use for logic. If they cannot reason they make costly and time-
consuming errors and can send the entire organization into chaos and
oblivion.
Their stuff in trade are data and situations. Unless they can observe
and think their way through, they can reach wrong conclusions and take
incorrect actions.
Modern Man thinks mathematics can serve him for logic and most of his
situations go utterly adrift because of this touching and misplaced
confidence. The complexity of human problems and the vast number of factors
involved make mathematics utterly inadequate.
Computers are at best only servomechanisms (crutches) to the mind. Yet
the chromium-plated civilization today has a childish faith in them. It
depends on who asks the questions and who reads the computer's answers
whether they are of any use or not. And even then their answers are often
madhouse silly.
Computers can't think because the rules of live logic aren't fully
known to Man and computer builders. One false datum fed into a computer
gives one a completely wrong answer.
If people on management and work lines do not know logic the
organization can go adrift and require a fabulous amount of genius to hold
it together and keep it running.
Whole civilizations vanish because of lack of logic in its rulers,
leaders and people.
So this is a very important subject.
8
UNLOCKING LOGIC
I have found a way now to unlock this subject. This is a breakthrough
which is no small win. If by it a formidable and almost impossible subject
can be reduced to simplicity then correct answers to situations can be far
more frequent and an organization or a civilization far more effective.
The breakthrough is a simple one.
BY ESTABLISHING THE WAYS IN WHICH THINGS BECOME ILLOGICAL ONE CAN THEN
ESTABLISH WHAT IS LOGIC.
In other words, if one has a grasp of what makes things illogical or
irrational (or crazy, if you please) it is then possible to conceive of
what makes things logical.
ILLOGIC
There are 5 primary ways for a relay of information or a situation to
become illogical.
1. Omit a fact.
2. Change sequence of events.
3. Drop out time.
4. Add a falsehood.
5. Alter importance.
These are the basic things which cause one to have an incorrect idea
of a situation.
Example: "He went to see a communist and left at 3:00 A.M." The
omitted facts are that he went with 30 other people and that it was a
party. By omitting the fact one alters the importance. This omission makes
it look like "he" is closely connected to communism! When he isn't.
Example: "The ship left the dock and was loaded." Plainly made crazy
by altering sequence of events.
Example: "The whole country is torn by riots" which would discourage
visiting it in 1970 if one didn't know the report date of 1919.
Example: "He kept skunks for pets" which as an added falsehood makes a
man look odd if not crazy.
Example: "It was an order" when in fact it was only a suggestion,
which of course shifts the importance.
There are hundreds of ways these 5 mishandlings of data can then give
one a completely false picture.
When basing actions or orders on data which contains one of the above,
one then makes a mistake.
REASON DEPENDS ON DATA.
WHEN DATA IS FAULTY (as above) THE ANSWER WILL BE WRONG AND LOOKED
UPON AS UNREASONABLE.
There are a vast number of combinations of these 5 data. More than one
(or all 5) may be present in the same report.
Observation and its communication may contain one of these 5.
If so, then any effort to handle the situation will be ineffective in
correcting or handling it.
9
USE
If any body of data is given the above 5 tests, it is often exposed as
an invitation to acting illogically.
To achieve a logical answer one must have logical data.
Any body of data which contains one or more of the above faults can
lead one into illogical conclusions.
The basis of an unreasonable or unworkable order is a conclusion which
is made illogical by possessing one or more of the above faults.
LOGIC
Therefore logic must have several conditions:
1. All relevant facts must be known.
2. Events must be in actual sequence.
3 Time must be properly noted.
4. The data must be factual, which is to say true or valid.
5. Relative importances amongst the data must be recognized by
comparing the facts with what one is seeking to accomplish or solve.
NOT KNOW
One can always know something about anything.
It is a wise man who, confronted with conflicting data, realizes that
he knows at least one thing-that he doesn't know.
Grasping that, he can then take action to find out.
If he evaluates the data he does find out against the five things
above, he can clarify the situation. Then he can reach a logical
conclusion.
DRILLS
It is necessary to work out your own examples of the 5 violations of
logic.
By doing so, you will have gained skill in sorting out the data of a
situation.
When you can sort out data and become skilled in it, you will become
very difficult to fool and you will have taken the first vital step in
grasping a correct estimate of any situation.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:dz.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
10
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I MAY 1970-1
Rernimeo ADDITION OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1977
Data Series 2-1
FURTHER ILLOGICS
Data Series 2, "Logic," lists the 5 primary points of illogic. There
are 3 more points of illogic that evaluators should know well and use.
These are
ASSUMED "IDENTITIES" ARE NOT
IDENTICAL
ASSUMED "SIMILARITIES" ARE NOT
SIMILAR OR SAME CLASS OF THING
ASSUMED "DIFFERENCES" ARE NOT
DIFFERENT
Knowledge and study of Data Series I R "Anatomy of Thought" and Data
Series 2 "Logic" will give one an understanding of what these outpoints,
above, mean and how to recognize and use them in evaluation.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
Lt. Og) Suzette Hubbard
AVU Verif Officer
LRH:SH:nt.nf Copyright 0 1970, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
I I
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 3
BREAKTHROUGHS
There are two breakthroughs, actually, that have been made here in the
age-old philosophic subject of logic.
The first is FINDING A DATUM OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE TO THE SUBJECT.
A single datum or subject has to have a datum or subject with which to
compare it before it can be fully understood.
By studying and isolating the principles that make a situation
illogical one can then see what is necessary to be logical. This gives us a
subject that could be called "Illogicality Testing" or "Irrationality
Location" but which would be better described as DATA ANALYSIS. For it
subjects data and therefore SITUATIONS to tests which establish any falsity
or truth.
The other breakthrough consists of the discovery that no rules of
logic can be valid unless one also includes the data being used. The
nearest the ancients came to this was testing the premise or basis of an
argument.
Trying to study logic without also having the answers to data is like
describing everything about an engine without mentioning what fuel it runs
on; or making a sentence like "He argued about" or "She disliked" without
completing it.
Logic concerns obtaining answers. And answers depend on data. Unless
you can test and establish the truth and value of the data being used, one
cannot attain right answers no matter what Aristotle may have said or what
IBM may have built.
The road to logic begins with ways and means of determining the value
of the data to be employed in it.
Without that step no one can arrive at logic.
Two things that are equal to each other and to which a third is equal
are all equal to one another. If A equals B and B equals C, then C equals
A. Great. This is often disputed as a theorem of logic and has been ever
since Aristotle said so. There is even a modern cult of non-Aristotelian
logic.
The facts are that the ancient theorem is totally dependent on the
DATA used in it. Only if the DATA is correct does the theorem work.
Lacking emphasis on the data being used, this theorem can be proven
true or false at will. The philosophers point out the fallacy without ever
giving emphasis to data evaluation.
DATA ANALYSIS
Unless you can prove or disprove the data you use in any logic system,
the system itself will be faulty.
This is true of the IBM computer. It is true of CIA intelligence
conclusions. It is true of Plato, Kant, Hume and your own personal computer
as well.
12
DATA ANALYSIS is necessary to ANY logic system and always will be.
Ships run on oil, electric motors on electricity and logic runs on
data.
If the data being stuffed into a computer is incorrect, no matter how
well a computer is planned or built or proofed up against faults you can
get a Bay of Pigs.
In mathematics no formula will give an answer better than the data
being used in it.
VALID ANSWERS MAY ONLY BE ATTAINED IN USING VALID DATA.
Thus, if the subject of data analysis is neglected or imperfect or
unknown or unsuspected as a step, then wild answers to situations and
howling catastrophes can occur.
If data analysis becomes itself a codified subject, regardless of what
formula is going to be used, then right answers can only then be attained.
THE MIND AS A COMPUTER
The mind is a remarkable computer.
It is demonstrable that a mind which has the wrong answers removed
from it becomes brighter, IQ soars.
Therefore for our purposes we will consider the mind capable of being
logical.
As processing improves the mind's ability to reach right answers, then
we can assume for our purposes that if a person can straighten out his data
he can be logical and will be logical and can attain right answers to
situations.
The fallacy of the mind is that it can operate on wrong data.
Thus if we specialize in the subject of DATA ANALYSIS we can assume
that a person can attain right answers.
As an administrator (and anyone else) has to reach conclusions in
order to act and has to act correctly to ensure his own or his group's
continued survival, it is vital that he be able to observe and conclude
with minimal error.
Thus we will not be stressing HOW to think but how to analyze that
with which one thinks-which is DATA.
This gives us the importance and use of data analysis.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.nf Copyright ID 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
13
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 4
DATA AND SITUATION ANALYZING
The two general steps one has to take to "find out what is really
going on" are
1. Analyze the data,
2. Using the data thus analyzed, to analyze the situation.
The way to analyze data is to compare it to the 5 primary points and
see if any of those appear in the data.
The way to analyze the situation is to put in its smaller areas each
of the data analyzed as above.
Doing this gives you the locations of greatest error or
disorganization and also gives you areas of greatest effectiveness.
Example: There is trouble in the Refreshment Unit. There are 3 people
in the unit. Doing a data analysis on the whole area gives us a number of
outpoints. Then we assign these to A, B and C who work in the unit and find
B had the most outpoints. This indicates that the trouble in the
Refreshment Unit is with B. B can be handled in various ways such as his
hat, his attendance, etc. Note we analyzed the data of the main area and
assigned it to the bits in the area, then we had an analyzed situation and
we could handle.
Example: We analyze all the data we have about the Bingo Car Plant. We
assign the data thus analyzed as out (outpoints) to each function of the
Bingo Car Plant. We thus pinpoint what function is the worst off. We then
handle that function in various ways, principally by organizing it and
grooving in its executives and personnel.
There are several variations.
WE OBTAIN AN ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION BY ANALYZING ALL THE DATA WE
HAVE AND ASSIGNING THE OUTPOINT DATA TO THE AREAS OR PARTS. THE AREA HAVING
THE MOST OUTPOINTS IS THE TARGET FOR CORRECTION.
In confronting a broad situation to be handled we have of course the
problem of finding out what's wrong before we can correct it. This is done
by data analysis followed by situation analysis.
We do this by grading all the data for outpoints (5 primary illogics).
We now have a long list of outpoints. This is data analysis.
We sort the outpoints we now have into the principal areas of the
scene. The majority will appear in one area. This is situation analysis.
We now know what area to handle.
Example: Seventy data exist on the general scene. We find 21 of these
data are irrational (outpoints). We slot the 21 outpoints into the areas
they came from or apply to. Sixteen came from area G. We handle area G.
14
0007"
EXPERIENCE
The remarkable part of such an exercise is that the data analysis of
the data of a period of I day compares to 3 months operating experience.
Thus data and situation analysis is an instant result where experience
takes a lot of time.
The quality of the data analysis depends on one knowing the ideal
organization and purpose on which the activity is based. This means one has
to know what its activities are supposed to be from a rational or logical
viewpoint.
A clock is supposed to keep running and indicate time and be of
practical and pleasant design. A clock factory is supposed to make clocks.
It is supposed to produce enough clocks cheaply enough that are good enough
to be in demand and to sell for enough to keep the place solvent. It
consumes raw materials, repairs and replaces its tools and equipment. It
hires workmen and executives. It has service firms and distributors. That
is the sort of thing one means by ideal or theoretical structure of the
clock company and its organization.
Those are the rational points.
From the body of actual current today data on the clock company one
spots the outpoints for a DATA ANALYSIS.
One assigns the outpoints to the whole as a SITUATION ANALYSIS.
One uses his admin know-how and expertise to repair the most aberrated
subsection.
One gets a functioning clock factory that runs closer to the ideal.
Military, political and PR situations, etc., are handled all in the
same way.
We call these two actions
DATA ANALYSIS,
SITUATION ANALYSIS.
DEFINITIONS
SITUATION - The broad general scene on which a body of current data
exists.
DATA - Facts, graphs, statements, decisions, actions, descriptions,
which are supposedly true.
OUTPOINT - Any one datum that is offered as true that is in fact found
to be illogical when compared to the 5 primary points of illogic.
PLUSPOINT - A datum of truth when found to be true compared to the 5
points.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:dz.mrb.mes.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
15
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 MAY 1970
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 5
INFORMATION COLLECTION
It is a point of mystery how some obtain their information. One can
only guess at how they do it and looking at results wonder if it is
actually done at all.
Obtaining information is necessary for any analysis of data.
If one obtains and analyzes some information he can get a hint of what
information he should obtain in what area. By obtaining more data on that
area he can have enough to actively handle.
Thus how one obtains information becomes a very important subject.
Nations have whole mobs of reporters sent out by newspapers, radio, TV
and magazines to collect information. Politicians go jaunting around
collecting information. Whole spy networks are maintained at huge expense
to obtain information.
The Japanese in the first third of the 20th century had two maxims:
"Anyone can
spy." "Everyone must spy." The Germans picked this up. They had their
whole
populations at it. The Russian KGB numbers hundreds of thousands. CIA
spends
billions. MI-6 well you get the idea.
It is not amiss however to point out that those 2 nations that devoted
the most effort to espionage (Japan and Germany) were BOTH DEFEATED
HORRIBLY.
Thus the QUANTITY of data poured in is not any guarantee of
understanding.
Newspapers today are usually devoted to propaganda, not news.
Politicians are striving to figure out another nation's evil intentions,
not to comprehend it.
The basic treatise on data collection and handling used to found the
US intelligence data system ("strategic intelligence") would make one laugh-
or cry.
All these elaborate (and expensive) systems of collecting information
are not only useless, they are deluding. They get people in plenty of
trouble.
A copy of Time magazine (US) analyzed for outpoints runs so many
outpoints per page when analyzed that one wonders how any publication so
irrational could continue solvent. And what do you know! It is going broke!
Those countries that spend the most on espionage are in the most
trouble. They weren't in trouble and then began to spend money. They began
to spy and then got into trouble!
News media and intelligence actions are not themselves bad. But
irrational news media and illogical intelligence activity are psychotic.
So information collection can become a vice. It can be overdone.
If one had every org in a network fill out a thousand reports a week
he would not obtain much information but he sure would knock them out of
comm.
16
There is a moderate flow of information through any network so long as
it is within the capability of the comm lines and the personnel.
Thus we get a rule about collecting data in administrative structures.
NORMAL ADMIN FLOWS CONTAIN ENOUGH DATA TO DO A DATA AND SITUATION
ANALYSIS.
And
THE LESS DATA YOU HAVE THE MORE PRECISE YOUR ANALYSIS MUST BE.
And
INDICATORS MUST BE WATCHED FOR IN ORDER TO UNDERTAKE A SITUATION
ANALYSIS.
And
A SITUATION ANALYSIS ONLY INDICATES THE AREA THAT HAS TO BE CLOSELY
INSPECTED AND HANDLED.
Thus, what is an "indicator"?
An indicator is a visible manifestation which tells one a situation
analysis should be done.
An indicator is the little flag sticking out that shows there is a
possible situation underneath that needs attention.
Some indicators about orgs or its sections would be-dirty or not
reporting or going insolvent or complaint letters or any nonoptimum datum
that departs from the ideal.
This is enough to engage in a data and situation analysis of the scene
where the indicator appeared.
The correct sequence, then, is
1. Have a normal information flow available.
2. Observe.
3. When a bad indicator is seen become very alert.
4. Do a data analysis.
5. Do a situation analysis.
6. Obtain more data by direct inspection of the area indicated by the
situation analysis.
7. Handle.
An incorrect sequence, bound to get one in deep trouble is
A. See an indicator,
B. ACT to handle.
17
This even applies to emergencies IF ONE IS FAST ENOUGH TO DO THE WHOLE
CORRECT CYCLE IN A SPLIT SECOND.
Oddly enough anyone working in a familiar area CAN do it all in a
split second.
People that can do it like lightning are known to have "fast reaction
time." People who can't do it fast are often injured or dead.
Example of an emergency cycle: Engineer on duty, normal but
experienced perception. Is observing his area. Hears a hiss that shouldn't
be. Scans the area and sees nothing out of order but a small white cloud.
Combines sight and hearing. Moves forward to get a better look. Sees valve
has broken. Shuts off steam line.
Example of an incorrect action. Hears hiss. Pours water on the boiler
fires.
ADMIN CYCLE
When you slow this down to an Admin Cycle it becomes very easy. It
follows the same steps.
It is not so dramatic. It could string out over months unless one
realized that the steps I to 7 should be taken when the first signs show
up. It need not. However it sometimes does.
Sometimes it has to be done over and over, full cycle, to get a full
scene purring.
Sometimes the "handle" requires steps which the area is too broken
down to get into effect and so becomes "Handle as possible and remember to
do the whole cycle again soon."
Sometimes "handle" is a program of months or years duration; its only
liability is that it will be forgotten or thrown out before done by some
"new broom."
DATA COLLECTION
But it all begins with having a normal flow of information available
and OBSERVING. Seeing a bad indicator one becomes alert and fully or
quickly finishes off the cycle.
BAD INDICATOR
What is a "bad indicator" really?
It is merely an outpoint taken from the 5 primary outpoints.
I
It is not "bad news" or "entheta" or a rumor. The "bad news" could
easily be a falsehood and is an outpoint because it is false bad news!
"Good" news when it is a falsehood is an outpoint!
RELIABLE SOURCE
Intelligence services are always talking "reliable sources." Or about
"confirmed observation."
These are not very reliable ways of telling what is true. The master
double spy Philby as a head MI-6 adviser was a Russian spy. Yet for 30
years he determined "reliable sources" for the US and England!
If three people tell you the same thing it is not necessarily a fact
as they might all
18
have heard the same lie. Three liars don't make one fact-they make
three outpoints.
So it would seem to be very difficult to establish facts if leading
papers and intelligence services can't do it!
Yes it is tough to know the truth.
But the moment you begin to work with them, it is rather easy to
locate outpoints.
You are looking for outpoints. When they are analyzed and the
situation is analyzed by them you then find yourself looking at the truth
if you follow the cycle I to 7.
It's really rather magical.
If you know thoroughly what the 5 primary outpoints are they leap into
view from any body of data.
Oscar says he leads a happy married life. His wife is usually seen
crying. It's an outpoint-a falsehood.
The Omaha office is reported by Los Angeles to be doing great. It
fails to report. The LA datum does not include that it is 6 months old.
Three outpoints, one for time, one for falsehood, one for omitted datum.
Once you are fully familiar with the 5 primary outpoints they are very
obvious.
"We are having pie for supper" and "We have no flour" at least shows
out of sequence!
It is odd but all the "facts" you protest in life and ridicule or
growl about are all one or another of the outpoints.
When you spot them for what they are then you can actually estimate
things. And the pluspoints come into view.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
19
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 MAY 1970R
Remimeo REVISED 16 SEPTEMBER 1978
(Revisions In th1s type style)
(Revised to correct typographical
errors in paragraphs 2 and 4 under
'FAULTS" section.)
Data Series 6R
DATA SYSTEMS
Two bad systems are in current use on data.
The first is "reliable source." In this system a report is considered
true or factual only if the source is well thought of. This is a sort of
authority system. Most professionals working with data collection use this.
Who said it? If he is considered reliable or an authority the data is
considered true or factual. Sources are graded from A to D. A is highest, D
lowest. The frailty of this system is at once apparent. Philby, as a high
British intelligence official, was a Russian spy for 30 years. Any data he
gave the UK or US was "true" because he was a "reliable source." He had
every Western agent who was being sent into communist areas "fingered" and
shot. The West became convinced you could not enter or overthrow communist
held areas and stopped trying! Philby was the top authority! He fooled CIA
and MI-6 for years!
Psychiatrists are "authorities" on the mind. Yet insanity and
criminality soar. They are the "reliable sources" on the mind.
Need I say more?
The other system in use is multiple report. If a report is heard from
several areas or people it is "true." The Russian KGB has a Department D
that forges documents and plants them in several parts of the world. They
are then "true."
Propaganda spokesmen located all over the world say the same thing to
the press on every major occasion. This becomes "public opinion" in
government circles and so is "true" because it is published and comes from
so many areas.
Five informants could all have heard the same lie.
Thus we see these two systems of evaluation are both birdbrain.
TWO PROBLEMS
The two problems that information collection agencies have are
1. Data evaluation and
2. How to locate the areas they should closely investigate.
For (1), data evaluation, they use primarily reliable source and
multiple report.
EVERY ITEM RECEIVED THAT IS NOT "RELIABLE" OR "MULTIPLE" IS WASTE-
BASKETED.
They throw out all outpoints and do not report them!
Their agents are thoroughly trained to do this.
20
As for (2), areas to investigate, they cannot pinpoint where they
should investigate or even what to investigate because they do not use
their outpoints.
Using outpoints and data and situation analysis they would know
exactly where to look at, at what.
ERRORS
The above data errors are practiced by the largest data collection
agencies on the planet-the "professionals." These advise their governments!
And are the only advisers of their governments. Thus you can see how
dangerous they are to their own countries.
Naturally they have agents who have what is called "flair." These,
despite all systems, apply logic. They are so few that Eisenhower's
intelligence adviser, General Strong, said in his book that they are too
scarce so one is better off with a vast organization.
These agencies are jammed with false reports and false estimations.
An event contemporary with this writing where the US invaded Cambodia
shows several data and situation errors. Yet the Viet Cong HQ were using
computers. Yet their HQ was wiped out. The US President used CIA data which
does not include, by law, data on the US. So the info on which the US
President was acting was 50% missing! He was only told about the enemy
evidently. When he ordered the invasion the US blew up!
A rather big outpoint (omitted facts) don't you think?
FAULTS
The reason I am using intelligence examples is because these are the
biggest human data collection "professionals" in the world.
The collection and use of data to estimate situations to guide
national actions and the data collection by a housewife going shopping are
based on the same principles.
Mrs. Glutz, told by a "reliable source," Nellie Jones, that things are
cheaper at Finkleberries and told by enough TV admen she should buy KLEANO
tends to do just that. Yet Blastonsteins is really cheaper and by shaving
up laundry soap and boiling it she can have ten dollars worth of KLEANO for
about fifty cents.
Errors in national data collection give us war and high taxes and for
Mrs. Glutz gives her a busted budget and stew all week.
So at top and bottom, any operation requires a grasp of data
evaluation and situation estimation.
Those who do it will win and those who don't, go up in a cloud of
atomic particles or divorce papers!
Logic and illogic are the stuff of survive and succumb.
There are those who wish to survive.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Revision assisted by
Pat Brice
LRH Compilations Unit I/C
LRH:PB:nt.dr.nf Copyright 0 1970, 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
21
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 7
FAMILIARITY
If one has no familiarity with how a scene (area) ought to be, one
cannot easily spot outpoints (illogical data) in it.
This is what also could be called an IDEAL scene or situation. If one
doesn't know the ideal scene or situation then one is not likely to observe
non-ideal points in it.
Let us send a farmer to sea. In a mild blow, with yards and booms
creaking and water hitting the hull, he is sure the ship is about to sink.
He has no familiarity with how it should sound or look so he misses any
real outpoints and may consider all pluspoints as outpoints.
Yet on a calm and pretty day he sees a freighter come within 500 feet
of the side and go full astern and thinks everything is great.
An experienced officer may attempt madly to avoid collision and all
the farmer would think was that the officer was being impolite! The farmer,
lacking any familiarity with the sea and having no ideal as to what smooth
running would be, would rarely see real outpoints unless he drowned. Yet an
experienced sailor, familiar with the scene in all its changing faces sees
an outpoint in all small illogicals.
On the other hand, the sailor on the farm would completely miss rust
in the wheat and an open gate and see no outpoints in a farm that the
farmer knew was about to go bust.
The rule is
A PERSON MUST HAVE AN IDEAL SCENE WITH WHICH TO COMPARE THE EXISTING
SCENE.
If a staff hasn't got an idea of how a real org should run, then it
misses obvious outpoints.
One sees examples of this when an experienced org man visiting the org
tries to point out to a green staff (which has no ideal or familiarity)
what is out. The green staff grudgingly fixes up what he says to do but
lets go of it the moment he departs. Lacking familiarity and an ideal of a
perfect org, the green staff just doesn't see anything wrong or anything
right either!
The consequences of this are themselves illogical. One sees an
untrained executive shooting all the producers and letting the bad hats
alone. His erroneous ideal would be a quiet org, let us say. So he shoots
anyone who is noisy or demanding. He ignores statistics. He ignores the
things he should watch merely because he has a faulty ideal and no
familiarity of a proper scene.
OBSERVATION ERRORS
When the scene is not familiar one has to look hard to become aware of
things. You've noticed tourists doing this. Yet the old resident "sees" far
more than they do while walking straight ahead down the road.
22
It is easy to confuse the novel with the "important fact." "It was a
warm day for winter" is a useful fact only when it turns out that actually
everything froze up on that day or it indicated some other outpoint.
Most errors in observation are made because one has no ideal for the
scene or no familiarity with it.
However there are other error sources.
"Being reasonable" is the chief offender. People dub-in a missing
piece of a sequence, for instance, instead of seeing that it IS missing. A
false datum is imagined to exist because a sequence is wrong or has a
missing step.
It is horrifying to behold how easily people buy dub-in. This is
because an illogical sequence is uncomfortable. To relieve the discomfort
they distort their own observation by not-ising the outpoint and concluding
something else.
I recall once seeing a Tammany Hall group (a New York political bunch
whose symbol is a tiger) stop before the tiger's cage in a zoo. The cage
was empty and they were much disappointed. I was there and said to them,
"The tiger is out to lunch." They told those on the outer edge of the
group, "The tiger is out to lunch." They all cheered up, accepted the empty
cage and went very happily on their way. Not one said "Lunch?" Or "Who are
you?" Or laughed at the joke. Even though it was sunset! I pitied the
government of New York!
ACCURATE OBSERVATION
There are certain conditions necessary for accurate observation.
First is a means of PERCEPTION whether by remote communication by
various comm lines or by direct looking, feeling, experiencing.
Second is an IDEAL of how the scene or area should be.
Third is FAMILIARITY with how such scenes are when things are going
well or poorly.
Fourth is understanding PLUSPOINTS or rightnesses when present.
Fifth is knowing OUTPOINTS (all 5 types) when they appear.
Sixth is rapid ability to ANALYZE DATA.
Seventh is the ability to ANALYZE the SITUATION.
Eighth is the willingness to INSPECT more closely the area of outness.
Then one has to have the knowledge and imagination necessary to
HANDLE.
One could call the above the CYCLE OF OBSERVATION. If one calls HANDLE
number 9 it would be the Cycle of Control.
If one is trained to conceive all variations of outpoints (illogics)
and studies up to conceive an ideal and gains familiarity with the scene or
type of area, his ability to observe and handle things would be considered
almost supernatural.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:dz.nf Founder
Copyright Q 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
23
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 8
SANITY
An observer has to be sane to sanely observe.
This has been so far out in the society that the word "sane" itself
has come to mean "conservative" or "cautious." Or something you can agree
with. The 19th century psychologist decided he could not define "normal"
and there weren't any normal people. The 14th century psychiatrist is the
20th century "authority" on sanity. Yet an examination of such shows them
to be unable to demonstrate it personally or bring it about, much less
define it.
Dictionaries say it is "health, soundness of body or mind; level-
headedness, reasonableness."
Yet sanity is vital to accurate observation.
FIXED IDEAS
The "id6e fixe" is the bug in sanity.
Whenever an observer himself has fixed ideas he tends to look at them
not at the information.
Prejudiced people are suffering mainly from an "id6e fixe."
The strange part of it is that the "id6e fixe" they think they have
isn't the one they do have.
An example of this is the social "scientist" with a favorite theory. I
have seen tons of these birds pushing a theory as though it was the last
theory in the world and valuable as a ten-pound diamond. Such throw away
any fact that does not agree with theory. That's how 19th century
psychology went off the rails. All fixed ideas and no facts.
The physical sciences in Hegel's time did the same thing. There was no
8th planet in the solar system, even when found in a telescope, because
"seven is a perfect number so there can only be seven planets."
History is full of idiocies-and idiots-with fixed ideas. They cannot
observe beyond the idea.
A fixed idea is something accepted without personal inspection or
agreement. It is the perfect "authority knows best." It is the "reliable
source." A typical one was the intelligence report accepted by the whole US
Navy right up to 7 Dec. 1941, the date of destruction of the US fleet by
Jap planes. The pre-Pearl Harbor report, from unimpeachably reliable
sources was "the Japanese cannot fly-they have no sense of balance." The
report overlooked that the Japs were the world's greatest acrobats! It
became a fixed idea that caused the neglect of all other reports.
A fixed idea is uninspected. It blocks the existence of any contrary
observation.
Most reactionaries (people resisting all progress or action) are
suffering from fixed ideas which they received from "authorities," which no
actual experience alters.
That British red-coated infantry never took cover was another one. It
took a score or two of wars and fantastic loss of life to finally break it
down. If any single fixed idea destroyed the British Empire, this one is a
candidate.
NORMAL SCENE
The reason a fixed idea can get so rooted and so overlooked is that it
appears normal or reasonable.
24
And somebody or a lot of somebodies want to believe it.
Thus a fixed idea can become an ideal. It is probably a wrong ideal.
Incapable Jap pilots would be a wish for a navy. It would be wonderful! Red-
coated infantry were supposed to be brave and unflinching.
In both cases the ideal is irrational.
A rational ideal has this law:
THE PURPOSE OF THE ACTIVITY MUST BE PART OF THE IDEAL ONE HAS FOR THAT
ACTIVITY.
A navy that has an ideal that the enemy can't fly is stupidly avoiding
its own purpose which is to fight.
British infantry had the purpose of winning wars, not just looking
brave.
Thus one can analyze for a sane ideal by simply asking, "What's the
purpose of the activity?" If the ideal is one that forwards the purpose, it
will pass for sane.
There are many factors which add up to an ideal scene. If the majority
of these forward the purpose of the activity, it can be said to be a sane
ideal.
If an ideal which does not forward the activity in any way is the
ideal being stressed then a fixed idea is present and had better be
inspected.
This could be said to be a very harsh utilitarian view of things. But
it is not. The artistic plays its role in any ideal. Morale has its part in
any ideal.
An ideal studio for an artist could be very beautiful or very ugly so
long as it served him to produce his art. If it was very beautiful yet
hindered his artistic activities it would be a very crazy ideal scene.
A handsome factory that produced would be a high ideal. But its
nearness to raw materials, transport and worker housing are the more
important factors in an ideal of a factory. And its location in a country
where the government made an atmosphere in which production could occur
could be an overriding part of an "ideal scene."
You have to look at what the area is for before you can say whether it
is ideal or not.
And if its area is too limited to produce or too expensive for it to
be solvent, then it isn't a sane scene.
URGESTOIMPROVE
Sometimes the urge to improve an activity is such that it injures or
destroys the activity.
If one is familiar with the type of activity he must also realize that
there is a law involved.
THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY OPERATING AND SOLVENT CAN OUTWEIGH
THE UNTESTED ADVANTAGES OF CHANGING IT.
In other words, an ideal scene might be vastly different but the
actual scene IS operating.
So the factor of OBSESSIVE CHANGE enters. Change can destroy with
ferocity.
Whole areas of London, jammed with small but customer-filled shops,
have been swept away to make room for chromium high-rent modern stores
which stand empty of buyers.
Birmingham, where you could get anything made, had all its tiny craft
shops swept away and replaced with high-rent huge new buildings all on some
progress-crazy psychotic break.
Possibly the new stores and the huge new shops fitted somebody's
"ideal" but they did not match an actual operating environment.
It is this difference between an ideal scene and a practical scene
which brings down many old businesses and civilizations.
Therefore, to have an ideal, familiarity with what works is desirable.
25
It is quite possible without any familiarity, to imagine a successful
ideal. BUT IT MUST NOT HAVE ANY FIXED IDEAS IN IT.
It is the fixed idea that knocks a practical operating living
environment in the head.
Do-gooders are always at this. They see in a row of old shacks, not
economic independence and a lazy life but P-0-V-E-R-T-Y. So they get a new
housing project built, shoot taxes into the sky, put total control on a lot
of people and cave in a society.
The do-gooder is pushing the 19th century fixed idea of the Comte de
SaintSimon-to gear the whole economy down to the poorest man in it. In
other words to reward only the downstat. Everyone becomes a slave of course
but it sure sounds good.
Newspapermen are probably the world's worst observers. They observe
through the fixed ideas of the publisher or the prevailing control group.
Their stories are given them before they leave the office. Yet their
observations advise the public and the government!
The outpoints to be found in any contemporary newspaper brand most
stories as false before one proceeds more than a paragraph.
Yet this is what the world public is expected to run on.
Naturally it distorts the scene toward raving insanity. This conflicts
with the native logic of people so the public thinks the world a lot madder
than it really is.
In two cities all newspapers were suspended from publication for quite
a period. In both, crime dropped to zero! And resumed again when newspapers
were again published.
The ideal scene of the citizen in his workaday world is vastly
different than the scene depicted in a newspaper.
The difference between the two can make one feel quite weird.
Thus there should not be too wide a difference between the ideal and
the represented scene. And not too wide a difference between the ideal and
the actual scene.
R (reality) consists of the is-ness of things. One can improve upon
this is-ness to bring about an ideal and lead the R up to it. This is
normal improvement and is accepted as sane.
One can also degrade the R by dropping the representation
(description) of the scene well below the actual. In the black propaganda
work traditionally carried on by many governments this latter trick of
corrupting the R is the means used to foment internal revolt and war.
Both actions of upgrade and downgrade are outpoints when reported as
facts. "We made E1000 in reserves this week" is as crazily outpoint as "the
government went broke this week" when either one is not the truth.
When the report says, "we should plan a higher income," it is leading
to a higher idea! and is not an outpoint mainly because it is not
representing any fact but a hopeful and ambitious management.
5 POINTS
When none of the outpoints are present, yet you do have reports and
the scene is functioning and fulfilling its purpose one would have what he
could call a sane scene.
If all 5 points were absent yet the scene was not functioning well
enough to live, it would be such a departure from the ideal that that
itself would be outpoint in that importance was altered. What is out here
is the whole situation! The situation analysis would be instantly visible.
But in practice this last happens only in theory, not in practice. A
collapsing situation is forecast by outpoints in its data.
Organisms and organizations tend to survive.
A decline of survival is attended also by outpoints.
26
SANITY IS SURVIVAL
Anything not only survives better when sane but it is true that the
insane doesn't survive.
Thus survival potential can be measured to a considerable degree by
the absence of outpoints.
This does not mean that sane men can't be shot or sane organizations
can't be destroyed. It means only that there is far less chance of them
being shot and destroyed.
So long as men and organizations are connected to insane men and
organizations, wild things can and do happen unexpectedly.
But usually such things can be predicted by outpoints in others.
When sane men and organizations exist in a broad scene that is
convulsed with irrationality, it takes very keen observation and a good
grip on logic and fast action to stay alive. This is known as
"environmental challenge." It can be overdone! Too much challenge can
overwhelm.
The difference between such happening to a sane man or organization
and to the insane would be that the failure did not itself become a fixed
idea.
INSANITY
The 5 primary illogics or outpoints as we call them are of course the
anatomy of insanity.
In their many variations the insanity of any scene can be sounded and
the nucleus of it located.
By locating and then closely inspecting, such a point of insanity can
then be handled.
When you know what insanity really is you can then confront it and
handle it. One is not driven into a huge generality of "everything is
insane."
By detecting and eliminating small insane areas, taking care not to
destroy the sane things around it, one can gradually lift any situation up
to sanity and survival.
By seeing what is insane in a scene and seeing why it is insane, one
has by comparison also found what is sane.
By locating and understanding outpoints one finds the pluspoints; for
any given situation.
And that is often quite a relief.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
27
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 MAY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 9
ERRORS
Many who begin to use "illogics," who have not drilled on them so they
can rattle them off, choose errors instead of outpoints.
An error may show something else. It is nothing in itself.
An error obscures or alters a datum.
Example: Asking someone to spot the outpoints in a Russian passenger
vacation cruise liner in a foreign port, the answers were, "The hammer and
sickle are upside down." "The courtesy flag is not flying right side up."
These aren't outpoints. The hammer and sickle weren't backwards so saying
it was an outpoint. The actual outpoint was passenger vacation cruise
liner. There is no Russian idle class. It was too big to be giving cruises
to winning tractor drivers. Russian and vacation cruise liner just don't go
together. Either the reports of Russian refusal to let Russians travel is
false or it wasn't a vacation cruise liner but it was. Hence it's an
outpoint. An omitted datum. Two contrary data means one is false.
Investigation disclosed it was Russian all right and a vacation cruise
liner all right. BUT IT WAS CHARTERED TO AN ITALIAN COMPANY THAT SOLD
CRUISES TO ITALIANS!
But this leads to a new outpoint. How come the workers paradise is
building huge ships for capitalist pleasures?
If anyone like a Martian was tracing down what's out on this planet,
this one outpoint would lead to others.
A situation analysis would indicate an investigation of Russia where
outpoints abound and the Martian would know a lot of what's wrong on the
planet,
In doing so he would find a lot of capitalistic outpoints which would
lead him to investigate the so-called West and he would have the basic
"cold war" of communism versus capitalism.
This would lead him into new data the two have in common (economics)
and a data analysis of economics would discover the screwiest bunch on the
planet, the international banker playing off both sides.
He would have analyzed the planet.
Given that he knew or could translate languages, it might take him a
week, starting with a Russian luxury cruise liner, to run down the
planetary bad spot.
Now if he reversed his investigation and used PLUSPOINTS he would
arrive with a situation analysis of what group would be strong enough to
handle the down spot and by investigation possibly pinpoint what could tip
over the bad spot.
If he just used "errors" he would get no place.
The ideal he would have to be working from would be a planet at peace
where individuals could go about their affairs and be happy without threats
of immediate
28
arrest or destruction. It would be a very simple ideal or it would be
based only on how planetary populations and cultures survive and that is
already laid down in an earlier rule in this series.
Ask somebody to look at a table used for meals at the end of a meal
and indicate any outpoints. Usually he'll point out a dirty plate or crumbs
or an ashtray not emptied. They are not outpoints. When people finish
eating one expects dirty plates, crumbs and full ashtrays. If none of these
things were present there might be several outpoints to note. The end of a
meal with table and plates all clean would be a reversed sequence. That
would be an outpoint. Evidentially the dinner has been omitted and that
would be quite an outpoint! Obviously no meal has been served so there's a
falsehood. So here are three outpoints.
It is best to get what outpoints are down pat. One does this first by
thinking up examples and then by observing some body of data and then by
looking at various scenes.
It will be found that outpoints are really few unless the activity is
very irrational.
Simple errors on the other hand can be found in legions in any scene.
Child's games often include, "What's wrong with this picture?" Usually
they are just errors like a road sign upside down. But if you had a brown
rabbit in winter holding down a man with its front paws and a caption,
"Japanese parasols attack ," you'd have some real outpoints.
A lot of people would try to figure it out and supply new outpoints
(being reasonable). A learned professor could point out the symbolism. Some
would laugh it off. Some would be annoyed by it. And the reason anybody
would do anything about it is that it is sort of painful to confront the
irrational so instead of seeing its is-ness of illogics an effort is made
to make it logical or to throw it away.
The reason misunderstood words or typographical errors were not
regarded as a barrier to study was that people converted them or not-ised
them. In actual fact a word one does not understand made a missing datum.
Reasonableness or nonconfront enter in and one drops the book.
Errors do not count in pluspoints either.
That a factory has a few errors is no real indicator. A factory has
pluspoints to the degree it attains its ideal and fulfills its purpose.
That some of its machinery needs repair might not even be an outpoint. If
the general machinery of the place is good for enough years to easily work
off its replacement value there is a pluspoint.
People applying fixed or wrong ideals to scene are only pointing up
errors in their own ideals, not those of the scene!
A reformer who had a strict Dutch mother looks at a primitive Indian
settlement and sees children playing in mud and adults going around
unclothed. He forces them to live cleanly and cuts off the sun by putting
them in clothes-they lose their immunities required to live and die off. He
missed the pluspoint that these Indians had survived hundreds of years in
this area that would kill a white man in a year!
Thus errors are usually a comparison to one's personal ideals.
Outpoints compare to the ideal for that particular scene.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:nt.cc.nf Founder
Copyright c 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
29
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 JUNE 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 10
THE MISSING SCENE
The biggest "omitted data" would be the whole scene.
A person who does not know how the scene should be can thereafter miss
most of the outpoints in it.
An example is the continual rewrite of the International Code
(signaling by flags between ships) by some "convention" composed of clerks
who have never gone to sea. Not knowing the scene, the International Code
of Signals now contains "How are your kidneys?" but nothing about
lifeboats.
College education became rather discredited in Europe until students
were required to work in areas of actual practice as part of their studies.
Educated far from reality students had "no scene." Thus no data they had
was related by them to an actual activity. There was even an era when the
"practical man" or "practical engineer" was held in contempt. That was when
the present culture started to go down.
On the other hand one of the most long-lived activities around is the
wine industry of Portugal. It has almost no theory trained. It is total
scene. Every job in it is by apprenticeship for years. It is very constant
and very successful.
A good blend would be theory and practical in balance. That gives one
data and activity. But it could be improved by stressing also the ideal
scene.
BODIES OF DATA
Data classifies in similar connections or similar locations.
A body of data is associated by the subject to which it is applicable
or by the geographical area to which it belongs.
A body of data can also be grouped as to time, like an historical
period.
Illogic occurs when one or more data is misplaced into the wrong body
of data for it.
An example would be "Los Angeles smog was growing worse so we fined
New York." That is pretty obviously a misplace.
"Cars were no longer in use. Bacterial warfare had taken its toll."
"I am sorry madam but you cannot travel first class on a third class
passport."
Humanoid response to such displacements is to be reasonable. A new
false datum is dreamed up and put into the body of data to explain why that
datum is included. (Reasonableness is often inserted as explanation of
other outpoints also.)
In the smog one, it could be dreamed up that New York's exports or
imports were causing LA smog.
30
In the car one, it could be imagined that bacteriological warfare had
wiped out all the people.
In the train one, it could be inserted that in that country, passports
were used instead of tickets.
The brain strains to correctly classify data into its own zones and is
very rejective or imaginative when it is not.
Intelligence tests accidentally use this one very often.
It remains that an outpoint can occur when a datum belonging to one
zone of data, location or time, is inserted into another zone where it
doesn't.
Algebra is sometimes hard to learn for some because NUMBERS are
invaded by LETTERS. 2x = 10. X is of course 5. But part of a new student's
mind says letters are letters and make words.
Primitive rejective responses to foreigners is a mental reaction to a
body of people, in this case, being invaded by a person not of that tribe.
If the scene is wholly unknown, one doesn't know what data belongs to
it. Thus a sense of confusion results. Recruits can be sent for ruddy rods
for rifles and apprentice painters can be ordered to get cans of sky blue
lampblack.
A sense of humor is in part an ability to spot outpoints that should
be rejected from a body of data. In fact a sense of humor is based on both
rejection and absurd outpoints of all types.
Reasonable people accept displacements with an amazing tranquility by
imagining connecting links or assuming they do not know the ideal scene. A
reasonable person would accept a pig in a parlor by imagining that there
was a good reason for it. And leave the pig in the parlor and revise their
own ideal scene!
Yet pigs belong to a body of data including barns, pens, farms,
animals. And parlors belong to a body of data including teacups,
knickknacks, conversation and humans.
Possibly Professor Wundt who "discovered" in 1879 that humans were
animals had seen too many pigs in parlors! And based the whole of
"psychology" on a confusion of bodies of data!
Murder in a hospital, as done by psychiatry, would be a confusion of
bodies of actions. Actions belong to their own bodies of data.
One drives a car, rides a horse. One doesn't ride a car but one can
drive a horse. But the action, the motions involved with, driving a horse
are very different than those used in driving a car. This is a language
breakdown called a "homonym." One word means two different things. Japanese
is an easy language except for its use of the same word for several
different things. Two Japanese talking commonly have to draw Chinese
characters (Japanese is written with Chinese characters) to each other to
unravel what they mean. They are in a perpetual struggle to pry apart
bodies of data.
" 1234 Red 789 P 987 Green 432 Apple" as a statement would probably
tie up CIA codebreakers for weeks as they would know it was a code. The
same statement would tie up a football coach as he would know it was a team
play. A mathematician would know it fitted into some other activity than
his. Hardly anyone would classify it as a totally meaningless series of
symbols.
So there is a reverse compulsion-to try to fit any datum found into
some body of data.
The mind operates toward logic, particularly in classes of things.
31
The sensible handling of data of course includes spotting a datum,
terminal, item, action, grouped in with a body of data wrong for it. And in
spotting that a datum does not have to belong anywhere at all.
Included in mental abilities is putting similar data into one type of
action, items, or data. Car parts, traffic rules, communications, are each
a body of data in which one can fit similar data.
When a person has some idea of the scene involved, he should be able
to separate the data in it into similar groups.
An org board is an example of this. Sections are broad classes of
action or items into which one can fit the related data. Departments are a
broader body of related data, actions, items. Divisions are even broader
but still cover related classes of data. The whole org is a very broad
class of data, determined in part by the type of product being made.
If a person has trouble relating data to its proper body of data (if
he were unaware or "reasonable") he would have an awful lot of trouble
finding his way around an org or routing despatches or getting things or
wearing his own hat.
Orders are a broad class of data. Orders from proper sources is a
narrower body of data. If a person cannot tell the difference he will
follow anyone's orders. And that will snarl him up most thoroughly.
I once knew a carpenter so obliging and so unable to classify orders
that he built knickknacks, cabinets, shelves, for any staff member who
asked and wasted all the time and materials and orders from his boss that
were to have built a house! The house materials and money and the
carpenter's time and pay were all expended without anything of value to
show for it! Not only was he unable to relate orders to their own classes
but also couldn't relate materials and plans to a house!
In most miscarriages of projects it will be found that someone on the
line cannot relate data or actions to their own classes. Along with this
goes other illogics.
So the ability to spot illogics in a known scene can directly relate
to efficiency and even to success and survival.
A switch intended for a house put into an airplane electrical system
cuts out at 30,000 feet due to the wrong metal to withstand cold and there
goes the airplane. A part from one class of parts is included wrongly in
another class of parts.
So there is an INCORRECTLY INCLUDED DATUM which is a companion to the
OMITTED DATUM as an outpoint.
This most commonly occurs when, in the mind, the scene itself is
missing and the first thing needed to classify data (scene) is not there.
An example is camera storage by someone who has no idea of types of
cameras. Instead of classifying all the needful bits of a certain view
camera in one box, one inevitably gets the lens hoods of all cameras
jumbled into one box marked "lens hoods." To assemble or use the view
camera one spends hours trying to find its parts in boxes neatly labeled
"camera backs," "lenses," "tripods," etc.
Here, when the scene of what a set up view camera looks like and
operates like, is missing, one gets a closer identification of data than
exists. Lens hoods are lens hoods. Tripods are tripods. Thus a wrong system
of classification occurs out of scene ignorance.
A traveler unable to distinguish one uniform from another "solves" it
by classifying all uniforms as "porters." Hands his bag to an arrogant
police captain and that's how he spent his vacation, in jail.
32
Lack of the scene brings about too tight an identification of one
thing with another. This can also exclude a vital bit making a
disassociation.
A newly called-up army lieutenant passes right on by an enemy spy
dressed as one of his own soldiers. An experienced sergeant right behind
him claps the spy in jail accurately because "he wasn't wearing 'is 'at the
way we do in the Fusileers!"
Times change data classification. In 1920 anyone with a camera near a
seaport was a spy. In 1960 anyone not carrying a camera couldn't be a
tourist so was watched!
So the scene for one cultural period is not the scene for another.
Thus a class of data for a given time belongs broadly or narrowly to
itself. Including a datum in it or from another time or excluding a datum
from it, or forcing a datum to have a class can in any combination produce
an illogical situation.
Some knowledge of the scene itself is vital to an accurate and logical
assembly or review of data.
The scene therefore, knowledge of, is the basic "omitted data."
The remedy of course is to get more data on what the scene itself
really should consist of. When the scene is missing one has to study what
the scene is supposed to consist of, just not more random data about it.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
33
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 JUNE 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 11
THE SITUATION
Probably the hardest meaning to get across is the definition of
"SITUATION."
One can say variously, "Isolate the actual situation" or "Work out
what the situation is" and get the most remarkable results.
To some, a despatch is a situation. A small error to others is a
situation.
Yet, if one wishes to know and use data and logic one must know
exactly what is meant in this logic series by SITUATION.
English has several meanings for the one word. In the dictionary it's
a "place," a 64state or condition of affairs," "a momentous combination of
circumstances," "a clash of passions or personalities," or "a job." One
gets the feeling that people are fumbling around for a meaning they know
must be there.
For our purposes we had better give an exact definition of what is
meant by SITUATION. If we are going to do a situation analysis by doing an
analysis of data, then WHAT is a situation?
We can therefore specifically define for our purposes in logic the
word SITUATION.
A SITUATION IS A MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM THE IDEAL SCENE.
This means a wide and significant or dangerous or potentially damaging
CIRCUMSTANCE or STATE OF AFFAIRS which means that the IDEAL SCENE has been
departed from and doesn't fully exist in that area.
THEIDEALSCENE
One has to work out or know what the ideal scene would be for an
organization or department or social strata or an activity to know that a
wide big flaw existed in it.
To be somewhat overly illustrative about it, let us take a town that
has no one living in it.
One would have to figure out what was the ideal scene of a town. Any
town. It would be a place where people lived, worked, ate, slept, survived.
It could be pretty or historical or well designed or quaint. Each of these
would possibly add purpose or color to the town.
BUT this town in question has NO people living in it.
That is a departure from the ideal scene of towns.
Therefore THE SITUATION would be NO PEOPLE LIVE IN THIS "TOWN."
Data analysis would lead us to this by noting outpoints.
34
6 P.M. - No smoke from house chimneys. (omitted item)
9 P.M. - No lights. (omitted item)
Dawn - No dogs. (omitted terminals)
1910 election poster. (wrong time)
That would be enough. We would then realize that a SITUATION existed
because data analysis is also done against the ideal scene.
We would know enough about it to look more closely.
No people! That's the SITUATION.
HANDLING
Thus if one were responsible for the area one would now know what to
handle.
How he handled it depends upon (a) the need, (b) availability of
resources. and (c) capability.
Obviously if it's supposed to have people in it and if one needs a
town there one would have to get a bright idea or a dozen and eventually
get people to live there. How fast it could be done depends on the
availability of resources-those there or what one has (even as little
resource as a voice, paper, pen, comm lines).
One's own capability to get ideas or work or the capabilities of
people are a major factor in handling.
But so far as the SITUATION is concerned, it exists whether it is
handled or not.
HOW TO FIND A SITUATION
When you are called upon to find out if there IS a situation (as an
inspector or official or soldier or cat or king, whatever) you can follow
these steps and arrive with what the situation is every time-
1. Observe.
2. Notice an oddity of any kind or none.
3. Establish what the ideal scene would be for what is observed.
4. Count the outpoints now visible.
5. Following up the outpoints observe more closely.
6. Establish even more simply what the ideal scene would be.
7. The situation will be THE MOST MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM THE IDEAL
SCENE.
HANDLING
Just as you proceed to the MOST MAJOR SITUATION-go big, when it comes
to handling it usually occurs that reverse is true-go small!
It is seldom you can handle it all at one bang. (Of course that
happens too.)
But just because the SITUATION is big is no real reason the solution
must be.
Solutions work on gradient scales. Little by more by more.
35
When you really see a SITUATION it is often so big and so appalling
one can feel incapable.
The need to handle comes first.
The resources available come next.
The capability comes third.
Estimate these and by getting a very bright workable (often very
simple) idea, one can make a start.
An activity can get so wide of the ideal scene the people in it are
just in a confusion. They do all sorts of odd irrelevant things, often hurt
the activity further.
Follow the steps given 1-7 above and you will have grasped the
SITUATION. You will then be able to do (a), (b), (c).
That begins to make things come right.
In that way most situations can be both defined and handled.
INTERFERENCE
Lots of people, often with lots of authority, get mired into
situations. They do not know they are in anything that could be defined,
isolated or stated. They bat madly at unimportant dust motes or each other
and just mire in more deeply.
Whole civilizations uniformly go the route just that way.
So do orgs, important activities and individuals.
One can handle exactly as above, if one practices up so he can really
do the drill on life.
The only danger is that the situation can be so far from any ideal
that others with fixed ideas and madness can defy the most accurate and
sensible solutions.
But that's part of the situation, isn't it?
Data analysis is done to make a more direct observation of exactly the
right area possible. One can then establish the exact SITUATION.
It's a piece of freedom to be able to do this.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.cden.gm Copyright 10 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
36
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 5 JULY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 12
HOW TO FIND AND ESTABLISH AN IDEAL SCENE
In order to detect, handle or remedy situations one has to be able to
understand and work out several things.
These are defining the ideal scene itself, detect without error or
guess any departure on it, find out WHY a departure occurred and work out a
means of reverting back to the ideal scene.
In order to resolve a situation fully one has to get the real reason
WHY a departure from the ideal scene occurred.
"What was changed?" or "What changed?" is the same question.
That "change" is the root of departures comes from a series of plant
experiments I conducted. (The type of experimentation was undertaken to
study cellular life behavior and reaction to see if it was a different type
of life-it isn't. The experiments themselves were later repeated in various
universities and were the subject of much press for them over the world.)
In setting up conditions of growth I observed that plants on various
occasions greatly declined suddenly. In each case I was able to trace the
last major CHANGE that had occurred and correct it. Changes made in
temperature, water volume, humidity, ventilation, greatly affected the
plants in terms of wilt, decreased growth rate, increase in parasites, etc.
When THE change was isolated and the condition reverted to that
occurring during the previous healthy period, a recovery would occur.
At first glance this may seem obvious. Yet in actual practice it was
not easy to do.
Gardeners' records would omit vital data or alter importance or drop
out time, etc. A gardener might seek to cover up for himself or a fellow
worker. He tended to make himself right and would enter falsehoods or
reassurance that was a falsehood into the analysis.
A new gardener would seem to affect the plants greatly and one could
build a personality influence theory on this-until one found that, being
untrained in the procedure used, he would enter even more outpoints than
usual.
At such a juncture one would of course train the gardener. BUT that
didn't locate WHAT had been changed. And one had to locate that to get the
plants to recover. The conditions in use were extreme forcing conditions
anyway and lapse of duty was very apparent. Sixteen-foot hothouse American
corn from seeds usually furnishing 5-foot stocks, 43 tomatoes to the truss
where 5 is more usual were the demands being met. So any change showed up
at once.
The fact of change itself was a vital point as well. One discovery was
that life does best in a near optimum constancy-meaning that change just as
change is usually harmful to plant life.
The fact of isolating change in the environment as the sole harmful
cause was one discovery.
37
That one had to isolate THE change in order to obtain full recovery
was another discovery.
Change itself was not bad but in this experimental series conditions
were set as optimum and the beneficial changes had already been made with
remarkable results. Thus one was observing change from the optimum.
This would be the same thing as "departures from the ideal scene."
The action was always
1. Observe the decline.
2. Locate the exact change which had been made.
3. Revert THE change.
4. A return to the near ideal scene would occur if one were
maintaining the ideal scene meanwhile.
THEIDEALSCENE
There are two scenes:
A. The ideal scene
B. The existing scene,
These of course can be wide apart.
How does one know the ideal scene?
At first thought it would be very difficult for a person not an expert
to know the idealscene.
For years certain "authoritarian" people in the field of mental
healing fought with lies and great guile to obscure the fact that the ideal
scene in mental healing can be known to anyone. Such imprisoned and
tortured and murdered human beings with the excuse that they themselves
were the only experts. "It takes 12 years to make a psychiatrist." "Expert
skill is required to kill a patient."
The existing scene these "experts" made was a slaughterhouse for
asylums and the insanity and crime statistics soaring.
They fought like maniacs to obscure the ideal scene and hired and
coerced an army of agents, "reporters," "officials," and such to smash
anyone who sought to present the ideal scene or ways to attain it. Indeed
it was a world gone mad with even the police and governments hoodwinked by
these "experts."
Yet any citizen knew the ideal scene had he not been so propaganda
frightened by the existing scene.
By constantly pounding in the "naturalness" of an existing scene
consisting of madness, crime, torture, seizure and murder, these mad
"experts" PUT THE IDEAL SCENE SO FAR FROM REACH THAT IT APPEARED
INCREDIBLE. It was so bad a situation that anyone proposing the ideal scene
was actively resisted!
Yet the ideal scene is so easy to state that any citizen could have
stated it at any time. And often believed it was occurring!
The ideal scene of an asylum would be people recovering in a calm
atmosphere, restored to any previous ability, emerging competent and
confident.
The ideal scene in the society would be, probably, a safe environment
wherein one could happily make his way through life.
38
Of course, the technology of the mind was the missing data. But the
experts in charge of that sector of life paid out hard cash to hoods to
prevent any such technology developing-a matter fully documented.
The gap between the ideal scene and the existing scene can be very
wide and in any endeavor elements exist that tend to prevent a total
closure between the two.
However, approached on a gradient with skill and determination, it can
be done.
DEPARTURE
The mental awareness that something is wrong with a scene is the point
at which one can begin reverting to the ideal scene.
Without this awareness on the part of a GROUP then an individual can
be much impeded in handling a situation.
The mental processes of the person seeking to improve things toward an
ideal scene or change them back to an ideal scene must include those who
are also parts of the scene.
Seeing something wrong without seeking to correct it degenerates into
mere faultfinding and natter. This is about as far as many people go. That
something, real or imagined, is wrong with the scene is a not uncommon
state of mind. Not knowing what's intended or being done, or the
limitations of resource or the magnitude and complexity of opposition, the
armchair critic can be dreadfully unreal. He therefore tends to be
suppressed, particularly by reactionaries (who try to keep it all as it is
regardless).
Unfortunately, the continual battle of life then is between the critic
and the reactionary. As this often blows up in pointless destruction, it
can be seen there could be something wrong with both of them.
Particularly the inactive carping critic is at fault on three counts.
A. He isn't doing anything about it.
B. He is not conceiving or broadcasting a real ideal scene.
C. He is not providing any gradient approach to actually attain an
ideal scene.
The reactionary of course simply resists any change regardless of who
is suffering providing the reactionary can retain what position and
possession he may have.
A revolutionary of course usually
I . Is doing something about it even if violent.
2. Is conceiving and broadcasting his version of the ideal scene, and
3. Is planning and acting upon some means of bringing about his own
idealscene.
History and "progress" seem to be the revolutionary making his version
of progress over the dead bodies of reactionaries.
And although it may be history and "progress" the cycle is usually
intensely destructive and ends up without attaining an ideal scene and also
destroying any scene existing.
The ancient world is filled with ruins over which one can wander in
contemplative and philosophic reverie. These attempts to make and maintain
an ideal scene certainly left enough bruised masonry around.
So it is really not enough to natter and it's rather too much to
thrust violent change down on the heads of one and all including the
objectors.
39
Violent revolution comes about when the actual ideal scene has not
been properly stated and when it excludes significant parts of the group.
It's no good having a revolution if the end product will be a FURTHER
departure from the ideal scene.
The pastoral nonsense of Jean Jacques Rousseau was about as wide from
an ideal scene as you could get, and it and other efforts, also wide,
brought on the French Revolution.
The Russian 1917 revolution had already been preceded by the
democratic Kerensky revolt. But it failed because Russia being Russia was
about a century and a half late.
Also the French Revolution was late.
And in both cases those who should have led didn't. Lesser ranks
overthrew command.
These and countless other human upheavals mark the fluttering pages of
history and history will be written in similar vein again and again to
eternity unless some sense and logic gets into the scene.
Revolt is only an expression of too long unmended departures from the
ideal scene of society.
Usually the stitches taken to mend the growing social order are too
weak and too hastily improvised to prevent the cultural fabric from being
torn to rags.
Street battles and angry infantry are the direct opposite of the ideal
political scene.
What was needed in such a case was an awareness of departure from the
ideal scene, the discovery of WHY a departure occurred and a gradient, real
and determined program to return the scene closer to the ideal.
The elements of improved mechanical arts and progress in the
humanities may be utilized to effect the recovery. In any event (which is
missed by the reactionary and his "good old days") cultures do change and
those changes are a part of any new ideal scene. So one does not achieve a
reversion to the ideal by turning back the clock. One must be bright enough
to include improvements in a new ideal scene.
IDEAL SCENE AND PURPOSE
Let us look this over, this concept of the ideal scene, and see that
it is not a very complex thing.
One doesn't have to be much of an expert to see what an ideal scene
would be.
The complex parts of the whole may not make up the whole, but they are
not really vital to conceiving an ideal scene for any activity, as small as
a family or as big as a planet.
The entire concept of an ideal scene for any activity is really a
clean statement of its PURPOSE.
All one has to ask is "What's the purpose of this?" and one will be
able to work out what the ideal scene of "this" is.
To give a pedestrian example let us take a shoe shop. Its purpose is
obviously to sell or provide people with shoes. The ideal scene is almost
as simple as "This activity sells or provides people with shoes."
Now no matter how complex may be the business or economics of shoe
sales, the fact remains that that is almost the ideal scene.
Only one factor is now missing: TIME.
40
The complete ideal scene of the shoe shop is then, "This activity is
intended to provide people with shoes for (time)." It can be always or for
its owner's lifetime or for the duration of the owner's stay in the town or
the duration of the state fair.
Now we can see departures from the ideal scene of this shoe store.
One has to work out fairly correctly what the purpose of an activity
is and how long it is to endure before one can make a statement of the
ideal scene.
From this one can work out the complexities which compose the activity
in order to establish it in the first place including the speed of the
gradient (how much shoe store how fast) and also how to spot the fact of
departure from the ideal scene.
This process would also work on any portion of the shoe store if the
main ideal is not also violated. The children's department, the cashier,
the stock clerk also have their sub-ideal scenes. And departures from their
ideal scenes can be noted.
It doesn't matter what the activity is, large or small, romantic or
humdrum, its ideal scene and its sub-ideal scenes are arrived at in the
same way.
METHODS OF AWARENESS
Statistics are the only sound measure of any production or any job or
any activity.
The moment that one goes into any dependence on opinion, he goes into
quicksand and will see too late the fatal flaw in restoring anything.
If the fact that anything can be given production statistics seems too
far out, it is visible that even a guard, who would at first glance seem to
be producing nothing but giving only security, is actually producing
minutes, hours, weeks, years, of continued production TIME.
Probably the most thoughtful exercise is not conceiving the ideal
scene but working out what the production statistic of it is. For here, the
activity or subactivity must be very correctly staticized to exactly
measure the ideal scene of any activity or the statistic will itself bring
about a departure!
Just as the purpose from which the ideal scene is taken must be
correct, so must the statistic be all the more thoughtfully correct.
As an example, if the ideal scene of the shoe store is given the total
statistic of its income then three things can happen:
1. It may cease to provide people with shoes that persuade them to
come back for more.
2. It may sell shoes without enough profit to cover overhead and cease
to exist.
3. It may conduct itself with more interest in the cashier than the
customer and lose its trade.
Probably its statistic is "percentage of citizens in the area
profitably shod by this store."
Working out how long it takes to wear out an average pair of shoes,
any ex-customer would be retired from the percentage after that time span
had elapsed from buying his last pair.
Given a fairly accurate and realistically updated census figure, that
statistic would probably tell the tale of the ideal scene, which has its
element of continuance.
The sole fixation on making money can depart from the scene.
Abandonment of making any money would certainly cause a departure of the
shoe store.
A commando battalion would have just as serious an examination for its
ideal scene and statistic as a shoe store! And it would give a very, very
effective activity if
41
Mmlr~
fully worked out. You'd really have to work out, probably better than
the generals who think they have, the real purpose of a commando battalion
(which is probably "to disperse enemy preparations by unexpected actions
and overinvolve enemy manpower in expensive guarding"). The statistic could
be something like "our individual soldiers freed from opponents" and/or
"casualties not occurring by reason of interrupted enemy preparations."
In effect the commando battalion would be "producing." The results
would be an effective increase in men under arms for their own side.
WHY
Knowing, then, the ideal scene and its statistic, one, by keeping the
statistic, can notice without "reasonableness" or somebody's report or some
fifth column propaganda, an immediate departure from the ideal scene.
Remember, violent change only becomes seemingly vital when the
departure from the ideal scene is noticed too late .
Opinion, reports, subject to outpoints as they almost always are,
seldom tell one more than somebody else's prejudices or his efforts to
cover or failures to observe.
Now that a departure is seen (because the statistic drops) one can
quickly go about noticing when and so get at WHY.
When he has the WHY of the departure he can proceed to handle it.
The statistic, guarded against false reports, and verified, is a clean
statement not as subject to outpoints as other types of statements.
Whole activities have been smashed by not having a statistic of
success but taking an opinion of trouble, and reversely, by having a
statistic indicating disaster but a broadcast opinion of "great success."
Probably the latter is the more frequent.
It is not possible to locate WHY the departure soon enough to remedy
unless one takes the most reliable datum available-which is the datum most
easily kept clean of outpoints-which is a statistic.
You don't really even know there is a Why unless there has been a
departure. And the departure may be very hard to spot without a statistic.
I have seen a group producing like mad, doing totally great, but which
had no statistic, become the subject of wild outpoints and even contempt
within itself.
If an activity lacks an ideal scene and a correct statistic for it, it
has no stable datum with which to rebuff opinion and outpoints. To that
extent the group goes a bit mad.
Group sanity depends. then. upon an ideal scene. correct sub-ideal
scenes and statistics to match.
One of the calmest safest groups around had a bad reputation with
fellow groups because it did not have or make known its ideal scene and did
not have or release its statistics.
And it had a hard time of it for quite a while, meantime working
exhaustedly but dedicatedly.
Planet, nation, social groups, businesses, all their parts and the
individual have their ideal scene and their statistic, their departures and
successes and failures. And none fall outside these data.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.cden.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL. RIGHTS RESERVED
42
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 JULY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 13
IRRATIONALITY
Any and all irrationality is connected to departures from an ideal
scene.
Therefore outpoints indicate departures.
It must follow then that rationality is connected to an ideal scene.
These three assumptions should be studied, observed and fully grasped.
They are very adventurous assumptions at first glance for if they are
true then one has not only the definition of sanity in an organization or
individual but also of neurosis and psychosis. One also sees that
organizations or social groups or companies or any third dynamic (the urge
to survival as a group) activity can be neurotic or psychotic.
It therefore would follow that the technology of the ideal scene,
existing scene, departures, outpoints and statistics would contain or
indicate the means of establishing sane groups or individuals or measuring
their relative sanity or re-establishing relative sanity in them.
THE PLAGUE OF MAN
Man has been harassed by irrationality in individual and group conduct
since there has been Man.
The existing scene of Man's activities is so immersed in departures
and outpoints that at first survey there would seem to be no possible
handling of the situation.
Most people have accepted the existing conditions as "inevitable" and
toss them off with a "that's life."
This is of course an overwhelmed attitude.
And it is true that the departure from any ideal is so distant as to
obscure any feeling of reality about possibly achieving an ideal scene even
in a limited area.
Philosophies exist to "prove" that chaos is needful to furnish
challenge. That is like saying "Be glad you're crazy" (as 19th century
psychologists did say). Or "Suffering refines one," as the playwrights of
the early 20th century so fondly used in their plots.
One whole religious order preached the necessity to accept Man as he
is.
Thus Man is plagued with defeatism, has lacked technology, and
civilization after civilization has succumbed, either in a flash of flame
and war or in the slow erosion of grinding distress.
Most men, it has been said, live lives of quiet desperation.
One doesn't have to live through several wars to learn that Man and
his leaders are something less than sane.
Every sword-waving conqueror has exploited Man's seeming inability to
avoid brotherly slaughter and no conqueror or army seems to have noticed
that wars only rarely shift boundaries no matter how many are killed.
Europe for centuries has
43
excelled in the development of marble orchards and failed remarkably
to establish any lasting political scene at all.
In other lands government leaders, who should have at least a partial
duty of preserving their citizenry have sat raptly listening to the advice
of madmen for some centuries now. US leaders lately have taken to acting on
the mental health guidance of many civilian committees, each one of which
contains at least one member of an organization directly connected to
Russia! The country most interested in fomenting US civil commotion! A
former head of CIA once cracked for a joke, "What if there were a Russian
KGB agent inside CIAT' The shudder of horror that went through US
politicians was interesting to see. Yet every new employee of CIA was
"vetted" before employment by members of two organizations connected to
Russia! The "American" Psychological Association and the "American"
Psychiatric Association are directed by the World Federation of Mental
Health founded by Brock Chisholm, the companion of Alger Hiss and Whittaker
Chambers, the famous US communist traitors. And the US government pays the
WFMH to hold congresses which are attended by Russian KGB delegates. And
all intelligence given the President on Vietnam, where the US was "fighting
communism" was passed through the hands of a man whose parents are both
Russian born communists. And the US Defense Department intelligence on the
same war was led and "coordinated" by another communist-connected employee.
With that many outpoints showing up in their social welfare and
intelligence scene, the US government seems something less than bright in
wondering, "What riots?" "Why drugs?" "Why defeats?"
The statistics of the US welfare and social scene under the domination
of the World Federation of Mental Health are soaring insanity, crime and
riot graphs. It is so bad that Russia will never have to fight an atomic
war. The US economic, political and social scene will deteriorate and is
deteriorating so rapidly that the US will have lost any will to fight or
any economic or social power to resist Russia.
(In case you wonder as to the factualness of data given above, it is
all documented.)
I have given this existing scene so that you can see the outpoints.
The deteriorated state of public safety in the US is well known. The
fantastic sums it spends are well known.
I have given visible outpoints.
One glance at psychiatric and psychological statistics (which are all
negative) would tell any sane person that they must be doing something else
as they were given all the money, political power and authority ever needed
to handle the scene. But it got worse! So, checking the scene for
outpoints, one finds them directly connected to the No. I US enemy. Their
data is marvellous for outpoints. Paid to serve the US, their literature
discusses mainly abolishing boundaries and the Constitution.
The US official, so drowned in the chatter and confusion of double-
talk and false intelligence and situation reports, apparently cannot see
any solution. And heaps money on his traitors and finances their avid
destruction of the country.
Yet, outpoints are so many and so visible that even the citizen sees
them while the official remains apparently numb and inactive.
Very well, Man can and does get drowned in his own irrationality. And
his civilizations rise and fall.
Man's primary plague is irrationality. He is not in the grip of a
"death wish," nor is he having a love affair with destruction. He has just
lacked any road out or the technology to put him on it.
RESOLVING THE SCENE
All the US would have to do is count up the outpoints, look at the
statistics, drop their passionate affair with Russian psychiatry, conceive
an ideal scene of a productive America, re-channel welfare monies into
decent public works to give people jobs and
44
improve productivity per capita, knock off foreign funds and wars,
give the money to increasing the value of American resources and even now
the US would become all right. National production would catch up with
destructive inflation, money would return to value and an ideal national
scene would be approached. Even the militaryindustrial clique would be
happy making bulldozers instead of tanks and youth would have a future in
sight instead of a foreign-made grave. The odd part of it is, even the
Senate and House would vote for such a program as their own statistic today
is how much federal money can they bring home to their own states.
The only ones that would resist are the people who are the ones
causing the above outpoints and who knowingly or unknowingly serve other
masters than the US. And that's a simple security problem after all.
I have put the example on a large canvas just to show that the steps
of handling departures are the same for all situations large or great.
When done this way, by the steps mentioned in the Data Series, big
situations can be analyzed as well as little ones.
Available resources and all that play a part in getting the solution
into effect. But the cost in time and action of the original effort to
introduce the cycle of revertment to an ideal scene is not anywhere near as
costly as letting the departure continue.
The EASIER thing to do in all cases is to work out the ideal scene,
survey the existing scene for outpoints, work out statistics that should
exist, find out WHY the departure, program a gradient solution back to the
ideal, settle the practical aspects of it and go about it.
LOSING ONE'S WAY
One's direction is lost to the degree one fails to work out the ideal
scene.
It is so easy to toss off an "ideal scene" that is not the ideal scene
that one can begin with a false premise.
As he tries to work with an incorrect "ideal scene" for an activity he
may fail and grow discouraged without recognizing that he is already
working with an omitted datum-the real ideal scene for that activity.
This is a major reason one can lose one's way in handling a situation.
Also in trying to find a WHY of departure one may refuse to admit that
something he himself did was the reason for the departure-or why the ideal
scene never took place. It requires quite a bit of character to recognize
one's own errors; it is much easier to find them in a neighbor. Thus one
may choose the wrong WHY, for this and other reasons.
Failures to examine the scene, reasonableness which causes blindness
to the obvious, errors of penetration and defensive reasons not to admit it
all impede a proper analysis.
The existing scene may be missing in one's view because one doesn't
really look at it or because one has no correct ideal scene for it.
Many would rather blame or justify than be honest. Others would rather
criticize than work.
But this all adds up to outpoints in the examination itself.
If one keeps at it one will however arrive at the right answers with
regard to any scene.
BUILDING THE IDEAL SCENE
To suppose one can instantly hit upon an ideal scene for any activity
without further test is to be very fond of one's own prejudices.
45
There is however a test of whether you have the ideal scene or not.
Can you staticize it?
Strangely, but inevitably, since we live in the physical universe
where there is both time and association of beings with beings and the
physical universe and the physical universe with itself, there is a
production-consumption factor in all living.
There seems to be a ratio between producing and consuming, and
establishing it would probably resolve that strange subject, economics, as
well as social welfare and other things.
It seems to be fatal to consume without producing. Many social
observations teach us this.
Evidently one cannot, at the physical universe level, produce without
consuming. And it seems that it is destructive to produce only and consume
too little. One can produce far more than one consumes. apparently, but
cannot consume far more than one produces.
This seems to be true of groups.
Some dreamers puffing on a hash pipe of unreality believe one can
really be happy producing nothing and consuming everything. The idyllic
ideal of a paradise where no one produces has been tried.
In interviewing secretaries in New York I found the larger percentage
had the personal ideal scene of "marrying a millionaire." Aside from there
not being that many millionaires, the dream of idle luxury forever was so
far from any possible ideal scene that it was busy ruining their lives and
giving their current male escorts a life of critical hell. One, having
married a boy who was fast on the road to becoming a millionaire, was so
dissatisfied with him not being one right now that she ruined his life and
hers.
In short, it sounds nice, but having met a few who did marry
millionaires, I can attest that they were either not producing and failing
as beings or were working themselves half to death.
These no-production dreams, like the harp in heaven, lead at best to
suicidal boredom. Yet Madison Avenue's ads would have one believe that one
and all should own all manner of cloth, wood and metal just to be alive.
A whole civilization can break down, flop, on propaganda of no-
production, total consumption. The sweat that flies off a "workers'
paradise" would rival the Mississippi!
There is some sort of balanced ratio and it favors apparently, for
pride and life and happiness, higher production of something than
consumption. When it gets too unbalanced in values, something seems to
happen.
The unhappiness and tumult in current society is oddly current with
the Keynesian economic theory of creating want. It's a silly theory and has
lately become to be abandoned. But it was in vogue forty years or more, as
I recall. It produced the "welfare era" of the psychiatrist and the total
slavery of the taxpayer!
So, whatever the economics of it, an ideal scene apparently has to
have a statistic or the whole thing caves in, either from lack of
continuity in time, from disinterest, or from plain lack of supply.
Death is possibly, could be in part, a cessation of interested
production.
Hard pressed, a living being dreams of some free time. Give him too
much and he begins to crave action and will go into production and if
blocked from doing so will tend to cave in. Loss of a job depresses people
way out of proportion and subsequent declines often trace back to it.
Destructive activities carry their own self-death. The state of
veterans after wars is not always traced to wounds or privation.
Destructive acts put a brand on a man.
46
Some of this is answered by the absence of production.
IDEAL SCENE AND STAT
Whatever the facts and economic rules may be about production and the
ideal scene, it would seem to be the case, sufficient at least for our
purposes, that this rule holds good:
THE CORRECTLY STATED IDEAL SCENE WILL HAVE A PRODUCTION STATISTIC.
The way one defines "production" in this is not necessarily so many
things made on an assembly line. That's an easy one.
It isn't just pairs of shoes. Production can be defined as the
regulation or safeguarding of it, the planning or the designing of it, a
lot, lot, lot of things.
A stat is a positive numerical thing that can be accurately counted
and graphed on a two-dimensional thing.
To test the correctness of an ideal scene, one should be able to
assign it a correct statistic.
If one can't figure out a statistic for it, then it probably is an
incorrectly stated ideal scene and will suffer from departures.
Wrong stats assigned the ideal scene will wreck it. A wrongly
conceived ideal scene will derail the activity quickly.
To understand something it is necessary to have a datum of comparable
magnitude. To understand logic one needs to be able to establish what is
illogic. One then has two things for comparison.
The ideal scene can be compared to an existing scene. This is one way
to establish the ideal scene. But both need a factor to keep them in
reality.
To test the ideal scene for correctness one needs to be able to
formulate its statistic.
The exercise of testing the statement of the ideal scene, to keep it
real and not airy-fairy and unattainable, is to work out a realistic stat
for it.
One can go back and forth between the statistic and the stated ideal
scene, adjusting one, then the other until one gets an attainable statistic
that really does measure the validity of the stated ideal scene.
A statistic is a tight reality, a stable point. which is to measure
any departure from the ideal scene.
In setting a statistic one has to outguess all efforts to falsify it
(predict possible outpoints in collecting it) and has to see if following
the statistic would mislead anyone from the ideal scene.
So let's walk back to the shoe store.
Test statement of ideal scene: to make money.
Test statistic: pairs of shoes sold.
Now if you tried to marry up those two you'd get a prompt catastrophe.
The potential departure would be immediate.
We sell shoes at no profit to raise the stat, we make no money. We try
only to make money, we sell cheap shoes at high cost and our customers
don't come back and we don't make money.
So those two are both no good.
47
Departure would occur, indeed it already exists right in the badly
worked out ideal scene and the stat.
Test ideal scene: Cobblers are entitled to the shoes they make.
Test statistic: how many shoes cobbler makes.
So that's loopy!
Test ideal scene: all citizens furnished with shoes.
Test statistic: number of shoes given away.
Well, that's bonkers for a shoe store in any economic set-up. The
citizens for sure would have no shoes once the shoe store was empty, for if
everything is given away, who'd raise cows for hides or drive nails in
soles unless he had a gun held on him so what workers' paradise is this?
Slave state for sure. So that's no ideal scene for a shoe store no matter
how "ideal" it looks to a do-gooder. Too airy-fairy. Since no shoes would
exist to be given away.
Test ideal scene: shoes for any worker who has coupons.
Test statistic: number of coupons collected.
Well, maybe. In some society. But can the shoe store get shoes for the
coupons? Maybe if there's enough economic police.
But then this would have to be a monopoly shoe store and the quality
would not be a factor,
So this must be an army quartermaster depot or a state monopoly. If no
incentive were needed it would work. Sure would be hard on the corns but it
would barely work. Rather insecure though.
But this is a shoe store where people buy.
Test ideal scene: to provide workers with good shoes that can be
replaced from suppliers.
Test statistic: ??? Number of shoes from suppliers given to workers .
. . . Happy workers. . . ??? Amount of control that can be exerted on
suppliers . . . ??? Ah. Number of shoes supplied well-shod workers.
Okay, that's a QM depot. Now what's a shoe store?
And we probably get what was given in an earlier example:
Ideal scene: to provide people with shoes and continue in business for
owner's lifetime.
Statistic: percentage of citizens in area profitably shod by this
store.
But even this would need to be played back and forth. And if this shoe
store was in a socialist country both might require amendment. And if it
was in a beach resort thronged with tourists who were also mostly
foreigners the ideal scene and statistic would suffer an immediate
departure and the store would fail, crash if the ideal scene were not
correctly stated and the statistic real. The class of tourist would have a
bearing on it.
Maybe the state has currency control demands on shopkeepers and
requires them to get in foreign currency or no new stock!
Thus You could get:
Ideal scene: engendering acquisitiveness for novelty footwear made in
this country.
Statistic: pairs of gift shoes bought by foreigners.
48
That sure would shift the whole atmosphere of the store!
Thus one plays the ideal scene against the statistic.
Maybe one can't find any ideal scene for the activity and no statistic
of any significance to anyone. Could be that the activity is totally
worthless even to oneself as a hobby. Although this opens the door to
cynicism or a lazy way of not doing anything about anything, it just could
be. Even a "reporter" who writes nothing could have an ideal scene and
statistic. But it would have to be really real even then. Like,
Ideal scene: unsuspected as a spy while accepted as a "reporter."
Statistic: cash collected for reports undetectedly delivered to my
government.
If that seems unreal as a scene the staff of TIME magazine recently
held a mass meeting protesting the use of TIME credentials for government
spying. "Nobody will talk to us anymore," the staff of that dying WFMH
mouthpiece wept.
So anything could have an ideal scene, even a police state.
Idealism has nothing to do with it.
VIABLE
The word "viable" means capable of living, able to live in a
particular climate or atmosphere.
Life over a period of time requires VIABILITY, or the ability to
survive.
Any organism or any group or any part of a group must have a potential
of survival. It must be viable-life-able.
This is true of any ideal scene. The statistic measures directly the
relative survival potential of the organism or its part.
This tells you the plain fact that life contains the essential purpose
of living, no matter how many misguided philosophers or generals may decree
otherwise.
The planetary population is now not fully viable since weapons exist
capable of making it a billiard ball at the whim of some madman.
The potential survival of the whole is of course an influence and
limitation on its parts.
Men who live "only for self" don't live.
An organism or group can live a dangerous life in that it risks its
survival. But is more of a threat than its enemies if it does not know or
adjust its ideal scene.
A military company, told on posters the ideal scene is all brag in the
bar with girls on each arm, who find in fact that their actual scene is
military police outside every bar with clubs and a real short life under
the orders of sadistically disinterested and inexpert government, is
presented with an instantly visible departure.
The government believed such posters were needful to get recruits and
did not realize that a truthfully stated scene and an effort to promote
survival to commanders would also have recruited and conscription needn't
be resorted to as the end product of lies.
Men will become part of the most onerous and dangerous groups
imaginable providing the purpose is there and stated and they have a chance
of survival.
The ideal scene of a nation worshipping death is that of a nation that
will not survive anyway. At least not as that nation.
A group or an organism must be viable. The state is relative to the
time the group needs to live to accomplish its purpose.
49
Each part of a group, in any ideal scene, should contribute viability
to the whole group.
Production of something is mandatory on any part of a group if the
group is to be fully viable.
Painting, writing, music, all have positive roles in a society. So
productivity, as is viability, can be seen as a very broad inclusive term.
The sub purposes of any group make up the sub-ideal scene of its
various parts.
In other words each part of a broad group has its own ideal scene and
its own statistic.
These combined bring about the broad group's ideal scene.
The statistics each lead to viability of the part and then the whole
group.
In reverse, with so many parts of a planet desirous of extinguishing
so many other parts, the viability of the planet becomes questionable.
In an organization each part has its own ideal scene and its own
statistic on up to the main ideal scene and the main statistic.
In practice one works back from the ideal scene of the group into its
smallest part, so that all lesser ideal scenes and lesser statistics mount
up to and bring about the main ideal scene and statistic.
Examining the lesser ideal scenes and statistics, one can find
outpoints first in how the whole thing is organized and then the main ideal
scene and the statistics and how the lesser ones bring it about.
Dominant is the viability of the whole. Where any part does not
support total viability it is an outpoint. Contributive is the viability of
each part and cohesive is the scheme in which the lesser ideal scenes and
the lesser statistics bring about the BIG ideal scene and the BIG
statistic. If this does not occur the nonsupportive lesser ideal scene or
statistic is an outpoint.
Groups that falter have to have all this restudied. As departures did
occur, the organization itself, as part of any action, must be reexamined
against experience and new greater and lesser ideal scenes and statistics
must be worked out for it and put into use.
Agreement of the group is a necessary ingredient as many reformers
have learned, often too late, and as many groups have seen, also generally
too late.
The trick is to correct the ideal scene and statistic and all lesser
ones of the group while it is still alive.
After that one can have better dependence upon them and keep the
statistics up and the purpose going forward.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
50
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 JULY 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 14
WORKING AND MANAGING
By actual experience in working and managing in many activities I can
state flatly that the most dangerous worker-manager thing to do is to work
or manage from something else than statistics.
Interpersonal relations with many strata of many societies in many
lands with many activities demonstrates plainly that Man's largest and most
unjust fault consists wholly of acting on opinion.
Opinions can be as varied as the weather in Washington, all on the
same subject. When one says "opinion" one is dealing with that morass of
false reports and prejudices which make up the chaos of current social
orders.
Some seek an answer in status. "If one has STATUS one is safe" is
about as frail as a house of cards. Ask some recently deposed dictator or
yesterday's idol what his status was worth. Yet many work exclusively for
status. In Spain it is enough to have an executive degree. One doesn't have
to do any executiving. Work at it? Caramba no!
In capitalisms it is enough to be an heir and in communisms it is only
necessary to be the son of a commissar. Work? Nyet.
Revolts are protests against idle status. Where are the kings of
yesteryear?
Riding along on the last generation's statistics is as fatal as a diet
of thin air.
Undeserved status is a false statistic. Nothing is more bitterly
resented, unless it is a statistic earned without status by those who live
by status alone!
William Stieber, the most skilled intelligence chief of the 19th
century, who won the Franco-Prussian war for Bismarck, was hated by German
officers because he was not a proper officer but a civilian!
When German officers took over German intelligence they lost two wars
in a row and the caste is very unlamentedly dead.
So long as "character" can be reviled, so long as "opinion" is used,
so long as governments run on rumors and false reports, the social scene
will continue to be a mess.
You will not believe it but governments think newspaper stories are
"public opinion." One US President was astounded to be given a wildly
enthusiastic public reception at an airport. The press had been hammering
him for a year and the poor fellow thought it was "public opinion." Texts
on public relations remark this strange governmental fixation on believing
the press.
That means all a nation's enemies have to do is bribe or hire some
underpaid reporters or sernibankrupt publishers, and voila! it can steer
the government any way it wishes!
Do a survey on any personality or subject and the conflicts in opinion
are revealed as fantastic.
Seven witnesses to one street accident will even give seven
conflicting accounts.
Thus this whole field of "opinion" and "reports" is a quicksand
endangering both personal repute and management skill.
It is so bad that wars and revolutions stem directly from the use of
opinion and the neglect of statistics.
In a chaos it is necessary to set up one point or terminal which is
stable before one can really decide anything much less get anything done.
51
A statistic is such a stable point. One can proceed from it and use it
to the degree that it is a correct statistic.
One can detect then, when things start to go wrong well before they
crash.
Using opinion or random rumors or reports one can go very wrong
indeed. In fact, using these without knowing the statistics one can smash a
life or crash a group.
The US Navy operates on the social attainments and civilized behavior
of their people.
. naval officer is promoted on the basis of his amiability and the
social skill of his wife!
. clerk is promoted because he marries the boss's daughter.
. governor is elected because he could play a guitar!
This is a whirlwind of chaos because of the falseness of the
statistics used.
So the stat used is itself an outpoint in each case. PREDICTION
Outpoints are more than useful in prediction.
The whole reason one does a data analysis and a situation analysis is
to predict.
The biggest outpoint would be a missing ideal scene, the next biggest
would be a correct statistic for it.
If these are missing then prediction can become a matter of telling
fortunes with bamboo sticks.
One predicts in order to continue the viability of an organism, an
individual, a group, an organization, a state or nation or planet, or to
estimate the future of anything.
The more outpoints the less future.
A disaster could be said to be a totality of outpoints in final and
sudden culmination.
This gives one a return to chaos.
The closer one approaches a disaster the more outpoints will turn up.
Thus the more outpoints that turn up the closer one is approaching a
disaster.
When the outpoints are overwhelming a condition of death is
approached.
By being able to predict, the organism or individual or group can
correct the outpoints before disaster occurs.
Each sphere of activity has its own prediction.
A group of different activities with a common goal can be predicted by
the outpoints turning up in parts of the general activity.
In theory if all parts of a main group or organization had an ideal
scene for each, a statistic and an intense interest in maintaining the
ideal scene and statistic of each part, the survival would be infinite.
Any group or organism or individual is somewhat interdependent upon
its neighbors, on other groups and individuals. It cannot however put them
right unless it itself has reached some acceptable level of approach to its
ideal scenes.
The conflict amongst organisms, individuals and groups does not
necessarily add up to "the survival of the fittest," whatever that meant.
It does however mean that in such conflict the best chance of survival goes
to the individual, organism or group that best approaches and maintains its
ideal scene, lesser ideal scenes, statistic and lesser statistics.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.ntm.nf Copyright @ 1970,1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
52
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 AUGUST 1970
Rernimeo
Data Series 15
WRONG TARGET
There is an additional specific outpoint.
It is WRONG TARGET.
This means in effect AN INCORRECT SELECTION OF AN OBJECTIVE TO ATTEMPT
OR ATTACK.
Example: Josie Ann has been sitting in the house reading. Her brother
Oscar has been playing ball in the yard. A window breaks. Josie Ann's
mother rushes into the room, sees Josie Ann and the ball on the floor,
spanks Josie Ann.
This outpoint contains the element, amongst other things of injustice.
There is another version of this:
Example: A firm has its premises flooded. The manager promptly insists
on buying fire insurance.
Example: The people of Yangville are starving due to food scarcity in
the land. The premier borrows 65 million pounds to build a new capital and
palace.
Example: The government is under attack and riot and civil disorder
spreads. The government officials campaign to put down all "rightists" for
trying to establish law and order.
Example: A man is beaten and robbed on the main street of a town. The
police demand to know why he was there and put him in jail for a long
period of investigation.
Example: The multibillion dollar drug cartels push out 65 tons of
habit-forming hard drugs. A government campaigns against cigarettes.
Example: A boy wants to be an accountant. His family forces him to
join the army as a career.
It is noted that the very insane often attack anyone who seeks to help
them.
This outpoint is very fundamental as an illogic and is very useful.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rr.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
53
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1970
Issue I
Remimeo
Executive Hats
Ethics Hats
Data Series 16
INVESTIGATORY PROCEDURE
Correction of things which are not wrong and neglecting things which
are not right puts the tombstone on any org or civilization.
In auditing when one reviews or "corrects" a case that is running
well, one has trouble. It is made trouble.
Similarly on the third dynamic, correcting situations which do not
exist and neglecting situations which do exist can destroy a group.
All this boils down to CORRECT INVESTIGATION. It is not a slight
skill. It is THE basic skill behind any intelligent action.
SUPPRESSIVE JUSTICE
When justice goes astray (as it usually does) the things that have
occurred are
1. Use of justice for some other purpose than public safety (such as
maintaining a privileged group or indulging a fixed idea) or
2. Investigatory procedure.
All suppressive use of the forces of justice can be traced back to one
or the other of these.
Aberrations and hate very often find outlet by calling them "justice"
or "law and order." This is why it can be said that Man cannot be trusted
with justice.
This or just plain stupidity brings about a neglect of intelligent
investigatory procedures. Yet all third dynamic sanity depends upon correct
and unaberrated investigatory procedures. Only in that way can one
establish causes of things. And only by establishing causes can one cease
to be the effect of unwanted situations.
It is one thing to be able to observe. It is quite another to utilize
observations so that one can get to the basis of things.
SEQUENCES
Investigations become necessary in the face of outpoints or
pluspoints.
Investigations can occur out of idle curiosity or particular interest.
They can also occur to locate the cause of pluspoints.
Whatever the motive for investigation the action itself is conducted
by sequences.
If one is incapable mentallv of tracing a series of events or actions,
one cannot investigate.
Altered sequence is a primary block to investigation.
54
At first glance, omitted data would seem to be the block. On the
contrary, it is the end product of an investigation and is what pulls an
investigation along-one is looking for omitted data.
An altered sequence of actions defeats any investigation. Examples: We
will hang him and then conduct a trial. We will assume who did it and then
find evidence to prove it. A crime should be provoked to find who commits
them.
Any time an investigation gets back to front, it will not succeed.
Thus if an investigator himself has any trouble with seeing or
visualizing sequences of actions he will inevitably come up with the wrong
answer.
Reversely, when one sees that someone has come up with a wrong or
incomplete answer one can assume that the investigator has trouble with
sequences of events or, of course, did not really investigate.
One can't really credit that Sherlock Holmes would say "I have here
the fingerprint of Mr. Murgatroyd on the murder weapon. Have the police
arrest him. Now, Watson, hand me a magnifying glass and ask Sgt. Doherty to
let us look over his fingerprint files."
If one cannot visualize a series of actions, like a ball bouncing down
a flight of stairs or if one cannot relate in proper order several
different actions with one object into a proper sequence, he will not be
able to investigate.
If one can, that's fine.
But any drilling with attention-shifting drills will improve one's
ability to visualize sequences. Why? Stuck attention or attention that
cannot confront alike will have trouble in visualizing sequences.
INVESTIGATIONS
In HCO Policy Letter I I May 1965 Ethics Officer Hat, HCO Policy
Letter I Sept 1965 Issue VII, HCO Policy Letter I Feb 1966 Issue 11 and
pages 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Manual of Justice, the subject of investigation
as applied to justice is given.
It will be noted that these are sequences of actions.
Neglect of these items or a failure to know and follow them led here
and there to suppressive uses of justice or to permitting orgs to be
suppressed by special interest groups in the society.
Indeed, had these been in and followed we would have had a great deal
less trouble than we did.
But investigation is not monopolized by law and order.
All betterment of life depends on finding out pluspoints and why and
reenforcing them, locating outpoints and why and eradicating them.
This is the successful survival pattern of living. A primitive who is
going to survive does just that and a scientist who is worth anything does
just that.
The fisherman sees seagulls clustering over a point on the sea. That's
the beginning of a short sequence, point No. 1. He predicts a school of
fish, point No. 2. He sails over as sequence point No. 3. He looks down as
sequence point No. 4. He sees fish as point No. 5. He gets out a net as
point No. 6. He circles the school with the net, No. 7. He draws in the
net, No. 8. He brings the fish on board, No. 9. He goes to port, No. 10.
55
He sells the fish, No. 11. That's following a pluspoint-cluster of
seagulls.
A sequence from an outpoint might be: Housewife serves dinner. Nobody
eats the cake, No. 1, she tastes it, No. 2, she recognizes soap in it, No.
3. She goes to kitchen, No. 4. She looks into cupboard, No. 5. She finds
the soap box upset, No. 6. She sees the flour below it, No. 7. She sees
cookie jar empty, No. 8. She grabs young son, No. 9. She shows him the set-
up, No. 10. She gets a confession, No. 11. And No. 12 is too painful to
describe.
Unsuccessful investigators think good fish catches are sent by God and
that when cake tastes like soap it is fate. They live in unsuccessful
worlds of deep mystery.
They also hang the wrong people
DISCOVERY
All discoveries are the end product of a sequence of investigatory
actions that begin with either a pluspoint or an outpoint.
Thus all knowledge proceeds from pluspoints or outpoints observed.
And all knowledge depends on an ability to investigate.
And all investigation is done in correct sequence.
And all successes depend upon the ability to do these things.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
56
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1970
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 17
NARROWING THE TARGET
When you look at a broad field or area it is quite overwhelming to
have to find a small sector that might be out.
The lazy and popular way is to generalize "They're all coniused." "The
organization is rickety." "They're doing great."
That's all very well but it doesn't get you much of anywhere.
The way to observe so as to find out what to observe is by discarding
areas.
This in fact was the system I used to make the discoveries which
became Dianetics and Scientology.
It was obvious to me that it would take a few million years to examine
all of life to find out what made it what it was.
The first step was the tough one. I looked for a common denominator
that was true for all life forms. I found they were attempting to survive.
With this datum I outlined all areas of wisdom or knowledge and
discarded those which had not much assisted Man to survive.
This threw away all but scientific methodology, so I used that for
investigatory procedure.
Then, working with that, found mental image pictures. And working with
them, found the human spirit as different from them.
By following up the workable one arrived at the processing actions
which, if applied, work, resulting in the increase of ability and freedom.
By following up the causes of destruction one arrived at the points
which had to be eradicated.
This is of course short-handing the whole cycle enormously. But that
is the general outline.
Survival has been isolated as a common denominator to successful
actions and succumb has been found as the common denominator of
unsuccessful actions. So one does not have to reestablish these.
From there, to discover anything bad or good, all one has to do is
discard sterile areas to get a target necessary for investigation.
One looks broadly at the whole scene. Then discards sections of it
that would seem unrewarding. He will then find himself left with the area
that contains the key to it.
This is almost easier done than described.
Example: One has the statistics of a nine division org. Eight are
normal. One isn't. So he investigates the area of that one. In
investigating the one he discards all normal bits. He is left with the
abnormal one that is the key.
This is true of something bad or something good.
A wise boy who wanted to get on in life would discard all the men who
weren't getting on and study the one who was. He would come up with
something he could use as a key.
57
A farmer who wanted to handle a crop menace would disregard all the
plants doing all right and study the one that wasn't. Then, looking
carefully he would disregard all the should be's in that plant and wind up
with the shouldn't be. He'd have the key.
Sometimes in the final look one finds the key not right there but way
over somewhere else.
The boy, studying the successful man, finds he owed his success to
having worked in a certain bank seven states away from there.
The farmer may well find his hired man let the pigs out into the crop.
But both got the reason why by the same process of discarding wider
zones.
Pluspoints or outpoints alike take one along a sequence of
discoveries.
Once in a purple moon they mix or cross.
Example: Gross income is up. One discards all normal stats. Aside from
gross income being up only one other stat is down-new names. Investigation
shows that the public executives were off post all week on a tour and that
was what raked in the money. Conclusion-send out tours as well as man the
public divisions.
Example: Upset is coming from the camp kitchen. Obvious outpoints.
Investigation discloses a 15-year-old cook holding the job solo for 39
field hands! Boy is he pluspoint. Get him some help!
DRAWN ATTENTION
Having attention dragged into an area is about the way most people
"investigate." This puts them at effect throughout.
When a man is not predicting he is often subjected to outpoints that
leap up at him. Conversely when outpoints leap up at one unexpectedly he
knows he better do more than gape at them. He is already behindhand in
investigating. Other signs earlier existed which were disregarded.
ERRORS
The usual error in viewing situations is not to view them widely
enough to begin with.
One gets a despatch which says Central Files don't exist.
By now keeping one's attention narrowly on that, one can miss the
whole scene.
To just order Central Files put back in may fail miserably. One has
been given a single observation. It is merely an outpoint: Central Files
omitted.
There is no WHY.
You follow up "no CF" and you may find the Registrar is in the Public
Division and Letter Registrars never go near a file and the category of
everyone in CF is just ---beentested." You really investigate and you find
there's no HCO Exec Sec or Dissem Sec and there hasn't been one for a year.
The cycle of "outpoint, correct, outpoint, correct, outpoint, correct"
will drown one rapidly and improve nothing! But it sure makes a lot of
useless work and worry.
WISDOM
Wisdom is not a fixed idea.
It is knowing how to use your wits.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright v 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
58
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1970
Issue III
Remimeo
Data Series 18
SUMMARY OF OUTPOINTS
OMITTED DATA
An omitted anything is an outpoint.
This can be an omitted person, terminal, object, energy, space, time,
form, sequence, or even an omitted scene. Anything that can be omitted that
should be there is an outpoint.
This is easily the most overlooked outpoint as it isn't there to
directly attract attention.
On several occasions I have found situation analyses done which
arrived at no WHY that would have made handling possible but which gave a
false Why that would have upset things if used. In each case the outpoint
that held the real clue was this one of an omitted something. In a dozen
cases it was omitted personnel each time. One area to which orders were
being issued had no one in it at all. Others were undermanned, meaning
people were missing. In yet another case there were no study materials at
all. In two other cases the whole of a subject was missing in the area. Yet
no one in any of these cases had spotted the fact that it was an omitted
something that had caused a whole activity to decay. People were working
frantically to remedy the general situation. None of them noticed the
omissions that were the true cause of the decay.
In crime it is as bad to omit as it is to commit. Yet no one seems to
notice the omissions as actual crimes.
Man, trained up in the last century to be a stimulus-response animal,
responds to the therenesses and doesn't respond as uniformly to not-
therenesses.
This opens the door to a habit of deletion or shortening which can
become quite compulsive.
In any analysis which fails to discover a WHY one can safely conclude
the Why is an omission and look for things that should be there and aren't.
ALTERED SEQUENCE
Any things, events, objects, sizes, in a wrong sequence is an
outpoint.
The number series 3, 7, 1, 2, 4, 6, 5 is an altered sequence, or an
incorrect sequence.
Doing step two of a sequence of actions before doing step one can be
counted on to tangle any sequence of actions.
The basic outness is no sequence at all. This leads into FIXED IDEAS.
It also shows up in what is called disassociation, an insanity. Things
connected to or similar to each other are not seen as consecutive. Such
people also jump about subjectwise without relation to an obvious sequence.
Disassociation is the extreme case where things that are related are not
seen to be and things that have no relation are conceived to have.
Sequence means linear (in a line) travel either through space or time
or both.
59
A sequence that should be one and isn't is an outpoint.
A "sequence" that isn't but is thought to be one is an outpoint.
A cart-before-the-horse out of sequence is an outpoint.
One's hardest task sometimes is indicating an inevitable sequence into
the future that is invisible to another. This is a consequence. "If you saw
off the limb you are sitting on you will of course fall." Police try to
bring this home often to people who have no concept of sequence; so the
threat of punishment works well on well-behaved citizens and not at all on
criminals since they often are criminals because they can't think in
sequence-they are simply fixated. "If you kill a man you will be hanged,"
is an indicated sequence. A murderer fixated on revenge cannot think in
sequence. One has to think in sequences to have correct sequences.
Therefore it is far more common than one would at first imagine to see
altered sequences since persons who do not think in sequence de not see
altered sequences in their own actions or areas.
Visualizing sequences and drills in shifting attention can clean this
up and restore it as a faculty.
Motion pictures and TV were spotted by a recent writer as fixating
attention and not permitting it to travel. Where one had TV raised
children, it would follow, one possibly would have people with a tendency
to altered sequences or no sequences at all.
DROPPED TIME
Time that should be noted and isn't would be an outpoint of "dropped
time."
It is a special case of an omitted datum.
Dropped time has a peculiarly ferocious effect that adds up to utter
lunacy.
A news bulletin from 1814 and one from 1922 read consecutively without
time assigned produces otherwise undetectable madness.
A summary report of a situation containing events strung over half a
year without saying so can provoke a reaction not in keeping with the
current scene.
In madmen the present is the dropped time, leaving them in the haunted
past. Just telling a group of madmen to "come up to present time" will
produce a few miraculous "cures." And getting the date of an ache or pain
will often cause it to vanish.
Time aberrations are so strong that dropped time well qualifies as an
outpoint.
FALSEHOOD
When you hear two facts that are contrary, one is a falsehood or both
are.
Propaganda and other activities specialize in falsehoods and provoke
great disturbance.
Willful or unintentional a falsehood is an outpoint. It may be a
mistake or a calculated or defensive falsehood and it is still an outpoint.
A false anything qualifies for this outpoint. A false being, terminal,
act, intention, anything that seeks to be what it isn't is a falsehood and
an outpoint.
Fiction that does not pretend to be anything else is of course not a
falsehood.
So the falsehood means "other than it appears" or "other than
represented."
One does not have to concern oneself to define philosophic truth or
reality to see that something stated or modeled to be one thing is in
actual fact something else and therefore an outpoint.
60
ALTERED IMPORTANCE
An importance shifted from its actual relative importance, up or down,
is an outpoint.
Something can be assigned an importance greater than it has.
Something can be assigned an importance less than it has.
A number of things of different importances can be assigned a monotone
of importance.
These are all outpoints, three versions of the same thing.
All importances are relative to their actuality.
WRONG TARGET
Mistaken objective wherein one believes he is or should be reaching
toward A and finds he is or should be reaching toward B is an outpoint.
This is commonly mistaken identity. It is also mistaken purposes or
goals.
If we tear down X we will be okay often results in disclosure that it
should have been Y.
" Removing the slums" to make way for modern shops kills the tourist
industry. Killing the king to be free from taxation leaves the tax
collector alive for the next regime.
Injustice is usually a wrong target outpoint.
Arrest the drug consumer, award the drug company would be an example.
Military tactics and strategy are almost always an effort to coax the
selection of a wrong target by the enemy.
And most dislikes and spontaneous hates in human relations are based
on mistaken associations of Bill for Pete.
A large sum of aberration is based on wrong targets, wrong sources,
wrong causes.
Incorrectly tell a patient he has ulcers when he hasn't and he's hung
with an outpoint which impedes recovery.
The industry spent on wrong objectives would light the world for a
millennium.
SUMMARY
These are the fundamental outpoints required in data analysis and
situation analysis.
They have one infinity of variation. They should be very well known to
anyone seeking third dynamic sanity.
They are the basic illogics.
And while there may be others, these will serve.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
61
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 OCTOBER 1970
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 19
THE REAL WHY
"WHY" as used in logic is subject to noncomprehension.
WHY = that basic outness found which will lead to a recovery of stats.
WRONG WHY = the incorrectly identified outness which when applied does
not lead to recovery.
A MERE EXPLANATION = a "Why" given as THE Why that does not open the
door to any recovery.
Example: A mere explanation: "The stats went down because of rainy
weather that week." So? So do we now turn off rain? Another mere
explanation: "The staff became overwhelmed that week." An order saying
"Don't overwhelm staff" would be the possible "solution" of some manager.
BUT THE STATS WOULDN'T RECOVER.
The real WHY when found and corrected leads straight back to improved
stats.
. wrong Why, corrected, will further depress stats.
. mere explanation does nothing at all and decay continues.
Here is a situation as it is followed up:
The stats of an area were down. Investigation disclosed there had been
sickness 2 weeks before. The report came in: "The stats were down because
people were sick." This was a mere explanation. Very reasonable. But it
solved nothing. What do we do now? Maybe we accept this as the correct Why.
And give an order, "All people in the area must get a medical exam and
unhealthy workers will not be accepted and unhealthy ones will be fired."
As it's a correction to a wrong Why, the stats really crash. So that's not
it. Looking further we find the real WHY. In the area there is no trained-
in org bd and a boss there gives orders to the wrong people which, when
executed, then hurt their individual stats. We org board the place and
groove in the boss and we get a stat recovery and even an improvement.
The correct WHY led to a stat recovery.
Here is another one. Stats are down in a school. An investigation
comes up with a mere explanation: "The students were all busy with sports."
So management says "No sports!" Stats go down again. A new investigation
comes up with a wrong Why: "The students are being taught wrongly."
Management sacks the dean. Stats really crash now. A further more competent
investigation occurs. It turns out that there were 140 students and only
the dean and one instructor! And the dean had other duties! We put the dean
back on post and hire two more instructors making three. Stats soar.
Because we got the right Why.
Management and organizational catastrophes and successes are ALL
explained by these three types of Why. An arbitrary is probably just a
wrong Why held in by law. And if so held in, it will crash the place.
62
One really has to understand logic to get to the correct WHY and must
really be on his toes not to use and correct a wrong WHY.
In world banking, where inflation occurs, finance regulations or laws
are probably just one long parade of wrong Whys. The value of the money and
its usefulness to the citizen deteriorate to such an extent that a whole
ideology can be built up (as in Sparta by Lycurgus who invented iron money
nobody could lift in order to rid Sparta of money evils) that knocks money
out entirely and puts nothing but nonsense in its place
Organizational troubles are greatly worsened by using mere
explanations (which lead to no remedies) or wrong Whys (which further
depress stats). Organizational recoveries come from finding the real WHY
and correcting it.
The test of the real WHY is "When it is corrected, do stats recover?"
If they do that was it. And any other remedial order given but based on a
wrong Why would have to be cancelled quickly.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
63
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 NOVEMBER 1970
Remimeo
Data Series 20
MORE OUTPOINTS
While there could be many many oddities classifiable as outpoints,
those selected and named as such are major in importance whereas others are
minor.
WRONG SOURCE
"Wrong Source" is the other side of the coin of wrong target.
Information taken from wrong source, orders taken from the wrong
source, gifts or materiel taken from wrong source all add up to eventual
confusion and possible trouble.
Unwittingly receiving from a wrong source can be very embarrassing or
confusing, so much so that it is a favorite intelligence trick. Dept D in
East Germany, the Dept of Disinformation, has very intricate methods of
planting false information and disguising its source.
Technology can come from wrong source. For instance Leipzig
University's school of psychology and psychiatry opened the door to death
camps in Hitler's Germany. Using drugs these men apparently gave Hitler to
the world as their puppet. They tortured, maimed and slaughtered over
12,000,000 Germans in death camps. At the end of World War 11 these
extremists formed the "World Federation of Mental Health," which enlisted
the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association
and established "National Associations for Mental Health" over the world,
cowed news media, smashed any new technology and became the sole advisors
to the US government on "mental health, education and welfare" and the
appointers of all health ministers through the civilized world and through
their graduate Pavlov dominated Russian communist "mental health." This
source is so wrong that it is destroying Man, having already destroyed
scores of millions. (All statements given here are documented.)
Not only taking data from wrong source but officialdom from it can
therefore be sufficiently aberrated as to result in planetary insanity.
In a lesser level, taking a report from a known bad hat and acting
upon it is the usual reason for errors made in management.
CONTRARY FACTS
When two statements are made on one subject which are contrary to each
other, we have "contrary facts."
Previously we classified this illogic as a falsehood, since one of
them must be false.
But in doing data analysis one cannot offhand distinguish which is the
false faQt. Thus it becomes a special outpoint.
"They made a high of $12,000 that week" and "They couldn't pay staff"
occurring in the same time period gives us one or both as false. We may not
know which is true but we do know they are contrary and can so label it.
64
In interrogation this point is so important that anyone giving two
contrary facts becomes a prime suspect for further investigation. "I am a
Swiss citizen" as a statement from someone who has had a German passport
found in his baggage would be an example.
When two "facts" are contrary or contradictory we may not know which
is true but we do know they can't both be true.
Issued by the same org, even from two different people in that org,
two contradictory "facts" qualifies as an outpoint.
These two will be found useful in analysis.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.nf Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iw
65
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 MARCH 197 IRA
Remimeo Issue 11
Admin RE-REVISED 21 SEPTEMBER 1981
Students
Tech
Qual (Re-revised to return to original issue due
C/Ses to reinstatement of HCOB 28 Aug 70RB
HGCs HC OUTPOINT PLUSPOINT LISTS RB.
Cramming HCOB 24 July 70 DATA SERIES remains
Officerscancelled.)
(Revisions not in a different type style)
Data Series 21RA
DATA SERIES AUDITING
References:
HCOB 28 Aug 70RB HC OUTPOINT PLUSPOINT
Rev. & Reins. LISTS RB
27 Jan 81
HCO PL 30 Nov 76R ONLY SSO CAN TIP
Rev. 25 Apr 79
Whenever a student cannot grasp or retain the data of the DATA SERIES
policy letters, he must be audited on the HC OUTPOINT PLUSPOINT LISTS.
The reason for this is that he himself has OUTPOINTS and it is
necessary to audit him on this subject.
When the student has outpoints, it has been found that he has a
terrible time grasping or retaining the Data Series material.
This does not mean the student is in any way crazy. It just means he
is illogical and has outpoints in his thinking.
This will reflect as well in his other studies.
At the discretion of the SSO and C/S, the student may also be
programmed for Method One Word Clearing, the PRD, the Study Green Form or
any of the various student repairs, New Era Dianetics, etc. He can also be
given Super Power when released.
An individual program is worked out for the student using the
available tech so that he can master the Data Series material.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Updated by
Mission Issues Revision
Accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:JM:bk.gm Copyright@ 1971, 1981 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
66
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 JANUARY 1972
Remimeo
Data Series 22
THE WHY IS GOD
When beings operate mainly on illogics, they are unable to conceive of
valid reasons for things or to see that effects are directly caused by
things they themselves can control.
The inability to observe and find an actual useable WHY is the
downfall of beings and activities. This is factually the WHY of people not
finding WHYs and using them.
The prevalence of historical Man's use of "fate," "kismet" (fatalism),
superstition, fortune telling, astrology and mysticism confirms this.
Having forgotten to keep seed grain for the spring, the farmer starves
the following year and when asked WHY he is starving says it is the Gods,
that he has sinned or that he failed to make sacrifice. In short, unable to
think, he says "The Why is God."
This condition does not just affect primitives or backward people.
All through the most modern organizations you can find "The WHY is
God" in other forms.
By believing that it is the fault of other divisions or departments, a
staff member does not look into his own scene. "The reason 1 cannot load
the lumber is because the Personnel Section will not find and hire people."
It does not seem to occur to this fellow that he is using a WHY which he
can't control so it is not a WHY for his area. It does not move the
existing to the ideal scene. Thus it is not a WHY for him. Yet he will use
it and go on nattering about, it. And the lumber never gets loaded. The
real WHY for him more likely would be, "I have no right to hire day
laborers. 1 must obtain this right before my area breaks down totally," or
"My department posts are too specialized. 1 need to operate on all-hands
actions on peak loads."
A Course Supervisor who says, "I haven't got any students because
Ethics keeps them for weeks and Cramming for months" is using a "The WHY is
God." As he cannot control Ethics or Cramming from his post his WHY is
illogical. The real WHY is probably "I am not mustering all my students
daily and keeping them on course. If they are ordered to Ethics or Cramming
they must be right here studying except for the actual minutes spent in
Ethics and Cramming."
But this does not just apply on small activities. It applies to whole
nations. "The reason we Germans cannot advance is because England is
against us." This wrong WHY has killed many tens of millions in two world
wars.
Intelligence organizations are often almost dedicated to "the Why is
over there." It seldom is.
Most staffs of orgs, when pay is poor, are completely addicted to over-
thereness. In one org, the Finance Banking Officer was continuously
hammered to "give more money" by the people who were responsible for making
the money and yet who were not raising a finger to do so. An actual survey
of four org staffs showed that only 2% were aware that their pay depended
upon the org gross income!
67
Thus survival is very closely tied to logic. If one finds he is
sinking into apathy over his inability to get his job done, it is certain
that he is operating on self-conceived wrong WHYs in areas that he cannot
ever hope to control.
And in living any life, most major points of decline can be traced to
the person's operating on Whys that do not allow him to improve his own
scene.
The Greek cut open the guts of birds to find the WHY. He called this
"divination" or "augury." Don't look now. but that civilization has long
been dead!
Just as anyone will be whose illogic leads him to over-thereness to
find his Whys.
Strength and power in the individual consists of being logical enough
to find WHYs he can use to advance his existing scene toward the ideal
scene.
The Why is NOT God. It lies with YOU and your ability to be logical.
God helps those who help themselves.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.rd.nf Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
68
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 FEBRUARY 1972
Remimeo
Data Series 23
PROPER FORMAT AND CORRECT ACTION
When doing an evaluation, one can become far too fixated on outpoints
and miss the real reason one is doing an evaluation in the first place.
To handle this, it is proper form to write up an evaluation so as to
keep in view the reason one is doing one.
This is accomplished by using this form SITUATION:
DATA:
STATS: WHY: IDEAL SCENE:
HANDLING:
CONSISTENCY
The whole of it should concern itself with the same general scene, the
same subject matter. This is known as CONSISTENCY. One does not have a
situation about books, data about bicycles, stats of another person, a WHY
about another area, a different subject for ideal scene and handling for
another activity.
The situation, whether good or bad, must be about a certain subject,
person or area, the data must be about the same, the stats are of that same
thing, the WHY relates to that same thing, the ideal scene is about the
scene of that same thing and the handling handles that thing and especially
is regulated by that Why.
A proper evaluation is all of a piece.
SITUATION
First, to do an evaluation, some situation must have come to notice.
There is a report or observation that is out of the ordinary.
This "coming to notice" occurs on any line. Usually it is fairly
major, affecting a large portion of the area, but it can be minor.
So OBSERVATION in general must be continuous for situations to be
noted.
To just note a situation and act on it is out of sequence as it omits
evaluation. You can be elated or shocked uselessly by noting a situation
and then not doing any evaluation,
It is the hallmark of a rank amateur or idiot to act on reports
without any evaluation.
So, the first step is noting, from general alertness, a situation
exists.
A situation is defined as a not expected state of affairs. It is
either very good or it is very bad.
69
If it is very good it must be evaluated and a Why found so one can
even upgrade an ideal scene.
If it is very bad, it must be evaluated and a Why found so that it can
be handled to more closely approach the ideal scene.
DATA
Data is the information one has received that alerts one to the
situation.
Intelligence systems use various (mainly faulty) methods of
"evaluating" data so as to "confirm it." They do this uniformly from
reports. No matter how many reports one may see there is always a question
as to their truth. Intelligence chiefs have started most wars (US vs.
Germany 1917) or failed to start them in time (US vs. Japan 1936) by
depending on "authoritative sources," "skilled observers," "valid
documents" and other confetti they class as "reports" or "documents."
As noted above, the "raw document" or "raw materials" as they are
called have led, when accepted, to the most terrifying catastrophes.
British Admiral Hall, without permission of the British government, leaked
the famous "Zimmerman telegram" to US President Wilson and stampeded the US
into World War 1. The alleged German "instructions" to their US Ambassador
"intercepted" by Hall were passed on with confidence tricks and President
Wilson, elected to keep the US out of the war, being no great evaluator,
dived overboard on one flimsy questionable report and carried America into
the disaster of two world wars and a communist supremacy.
The US was lulled by false Japanese assurances and false data on the
smallness of Japanese armaments and considered the country no danger. The
true situation would have led to a US declaration of war in 1936! Before
Japan could sink the whole Pacific fleet in one raid and cause 41/2 years
of war and open all of China to communist supremacy.
These are just a couple of the thousands of disasters in international
affairs brought about by a pathetic reliance on reports or documents.
If you knew the game well, with a half a dozen agents and a document
factory, you could have half the countries of the planet in turmoil.
Because they rely on reports and "authoritative sources" and "expert
opinion" instead of data as viewed in this Data Series.
If one does not court disaster and failures one does NOT rely on
reports, but an absence of reports or a volume of reports carefully
surveyed for outpoints and counted.
To do this one must be VERY skilled at spotting outpoints. Most people
confuse simple errors with actual outpoints.
You can get so good at this you can recognize outpoints and pluspoints
at a fast glance over reports.
Essentially, "data" regarded from the angle of outpoints is a lack of
consistency. "Our Div 2 is doing very well" doesn't go with gross income
$2.
This gives you a guideline, the "string to pull" (see investigation
checksheet on following down things you just don't understand, the first
emergence of the Data Series).
So the DATA you give is not a lot of reports. It is a brief summary of
the "strings pulled" on the outpoint or pluspoint route to finally get the
Why.
Example: (from a situation where an org was going broke) "The sign-ups
reported for service and new names to Central Files were both high yet
gross income was down. An investigation of the service area showed no
backlogs and no new customers with the staff idle. Tech Services was fully
staffed. Examining complement showed no one in the Department of Income.
People were signed up but there was no one to receive the money." The WHY
of course was a wrong complement particularly NO CASHIER and an Executive
Director neglecting his duties.
Example: (on a situation of a stat soaring) "The Promo Dept had very
down stats with no promo going out. Bulk mail was low. Div 6 was idle, yet
the GI was soaring. Nothing in the org could be found to account for it.
Investigation of what promo incoming public had, showed that the promo was
coming from a lower level org promoting itself as a route to upper level
services." The WHY of course was an effective promo campaign being run
OUTSIDE the org. And one could bolster that up and get the org active too.
70
DATA, then, is the Sherlock Holming of the trail that gave the WHY. It
at once reflects the command the evaluator has of the DATA SERIES. And his
own cleverness.
Sometimes they come in a sudden blue flash a yard long, a piece of
insight into what MUST be going on if these outpoints add up this way.
Rapid investigation of further data on this trail proves or disproves the
flash of insight. One does NOT run on insight alone (or crystal balls).
To one not trained and practiced in evaluation the finding of a REAL
WHY may look as mysterious as an airplane to an aborigine.
It is a fact that people who do not understand evaluation can get the
idea that management acts on personalities or whims or that management has
spies everywhere to know that the Distribution Secretary never came to
work.
To the expert it is easy. To the ignorant it looks very supernatural.
It is the TRAIL followed that counts.
This is what is required under "DATA."
STATS
Situations and DATA trails are supported by statistics.
Where statistics are not in numeral form this may be harder. Where
they are outright lies, this is an outpoint itself.
A person or nation without any statistic may be a puzzle at first but
statistical approximations can exist and be valid.
Statistics of CIA would be very hard to dig up. They don't even let
the US Congress in on it. But the deteriorating overseas influence of the
US would show that CIA was not batting any high average and that its data
fed to policy-makers (its avowed purpose) might well be false or misleading
causing policy errors that cause a deteriorating scene.
So statistics can be estimated by the scene itself even when absent in
numerical form.
England has lost its whole empire in a quarter of a century, without a
single defeat in war. This gives an adequate statistic for the government's
good sense or lack of it. It is at this writing losing even parts of the
homeland and is itself joining what might be called the Fourth Reich and so
will soon cease to exist as a political sovereignty. This statistic can
even be drawn as a dive-bombing down curve.
A deckhand's statistic may not exist on a chart but the areas he tends
do exist for view.
One either has a numerical statistic or a direct observation. One can
use both.
I once answered the question, "Why are paid completions high and gross
income low?" by finding that the "paid" completions stats were false.
So one statistic can be compared to another.
Three or more stats can be compared to each other and often lead
directly to a WHY.
The main point is DON'T ACT WITHOUT STATISTICAL DATA.
After a fine data analysis, one may well find the stats are quite
normal and there is NO situation.
One may have a great PR PR PR data analysis and collide with
statistics you'd need a submarine to read.
And one may have data that says the whole staff of Keokuk should be
shot without waiting for dawn and then discover that, by stats, they're
doing great.
And one can also do a data analysis that shows somebody should be
commended and prove it by stats and then discover belatedly the stats are
false and the guy should have been shot.
However, if one looks at all available stats after doing a data
analysis one may find they look good at a glance but are sour as green
apples. One could see a high lot of stats, GI, etc., and then see a cost
stat that shows someone is making $2 million at a cost of $4 million and
that the place is going straight into the garbage can.
71
DO NOT give a Why or recommend handling without inspecting the actual
stats. And DO NOT be thrown off a situation you are sure exists without
looking at ALL the stats. (Example: High hour interns' stats throw one off
interfering until one sees NO interns graduating and NO programs completed
by them.)
THE WHY
This is the jewel in the crown, the main dish at dinner, the gold mine
in the towering mountains of mystery.
A real WHY must lead to a bettering of the existing scene or (in the
case of a wonderful new scene) maintaining it as a new ideal scene.
Therefore the WHY must be something you can do something about. (See
THE WHY IS GOD policy letter.)
Thus the Why is limited by what you can control. It is NEVER that
other division or top management or the bumps on the moon.
Even if all this were true, the WHY must be something which
YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOURSELF FROM YOUR LEVEL OF AUTHORITY OR
INITIATIVE that will lead to
THE IMPROVEMENT OF A POOR EXISTING SCENE TOWARD THE IDEAL SCENE.
The WHY is a special thing then. It is a key that opens the door to
effective improvement.
It is not a prejudice or a good idea. It is where all the analysis
led.
And a REAL Why when used and handled and acted upon is like a magic
carpet. The scene at once becomes potentially better or gets maintained.
"Acting on a wrong Why" is the stuff of which coffins are made.
No matter how brilliant the program that follows, there it is, the
same old mud.
Wrong Whys work people half to death handling a program which will lay
ostrich eggs and rotten ones at that.
It will cost money and time that can't be afforded easily.
It will distract from the real tiger in the woods and let him roar and
eat up the goats while everyone is off chasing the ghosts which "really
were the cause of it all."
Wrong Whys are the tombstones of all great civilizations and unless
someone gears up the think will be the mausoleum of this one.
Do not think you won't get them. It takes 28,000 casualties in battle,
they say, to make a major general. Well it may take a few wrong Whys to
make an evaluator.
The evaluator who has done the evaluation is of course responsible for
it being correctly done and leading to the right conclusion and verified by
stats to give the correct real WHY.
And the real ones are often too incredible to have been arrived at in
any other way. Or they are so obvious no one noticed.
In one instance Whys were found by experts for six months on a certain
course without improving the flagrantly bad situation but actually messing
it up more until a huge real Why jumped out (the students had never been
trained on earlier levels) and the situation began to improve.
Using one Why for all situations can also occur and fads of Whys are
common. True, a Why often applies elsewhere. That's what gives us
technology including policy. But in any area of operation where a situation
is very abnormal the Why is likely to be very peculiar and too off the
ordinary to be grasped at once.
There can be an infinity of wrongnesses around just one rightness.
Thus there can be an infinity of wrong Whys possible with just one real Why
that will open the door.
For the real Why does open the door. With it on a good situation one
can maintain it and with a bad situation one can improve it.
Thus the REAL WHY is the vital arrival point to which evaluation
leads.
72
THEIDEALSCENE
If a bad situation is a departure from the ideal scene and if a good
situation is attaining it or exceeding it, then the crux of any evaluation
is THE IDEAL SCENE for the area one is evaluating.
Viewpoint has a lot to do with the ideal scene.
To Russia a collapsed America is the ideal scene. To America a
collapsed Russia is an ideal scene.
To some have-not nations both Russia and the US competing at vast
expense for the favor of a coy petty ruler is the ideal scene to that
ruler.
To most other parts of the world both these major countries interested
only in their own affairs would be an ideal scene.
So, with viewpoint the ideal scene can be "bad" or "good."
The ideal scene is not necessarily big and broad. An intelligence
evaluator that gave the ideal scene as "a defeated enemy" on every
evaluation would be very inexpert.
By CONSISTENCY the ideal scene must be one for that portion of an
activity for which one is trying to find the Why.
Example: (Situation: renewed activity on a front held by one platoon.
Evaluation: No other points along the lines are active and a tank road
leads toward the front where the activity is. WHY: area being prepared for
a tank breakout.) IDEAL SCENE: an uninhabitable area in front of the
platoon. (Which could be done with napalm as there is a wood there and a
heavy crossfire maintained and a renewed supply of bazookas for the platoon
if the napalm didn't work.)
Example: (Situation: a lot of silence from Plant 22. Evaluation: no
trucks arriving with materials, no raw materials being sent by outside
suppliers, suppliers irate. WHY: The accounting office forgot to pay the
raw materials bill and the suppliers held up all further supplies.) THE
IDEAL SCENE: high credit rating and good accounts PR established with all
creditors. (And handling would include a recommendation for an evaluation
of the accounting office as to why it forgot and why there is no high
credit PR with a new ideal scene for that accounting office, which might be
a wholly different thing: IDEAL SCENE: an accounting office that enforces
income greater than outgo.)
By giving the IDEAL SCENE for every situation, the evaluator is not
led into a fatal contempt for the competence of all work actually being
done.
The ideal scene clarifies for one and all whither we are going.
But even more important, the evaluation that includes an ideal scene
postulates a win from the viewpoint of those for whom it is being done or
for one's activities.
Sometimes when one gets to the ideal scene and writes it down he finds
his Why won't really lead to it, in which case he must get another Why or
familiarize himself with the scene in general to find out what he is trying
to send where.
In the case of an abnormally good situation one finds he has exceeded
what was formerly thought to be the ideal scene and must state a new one
entirely with the WHY concerned with how to maintain it.
Anyone reading a full evaluation in proper form can better estimate
whether the WHY and handling are workable if the IDEAL SCENE is there. And
sometimes it will be found that the evaluator is trying to do something
else entirely than what everyone else thinks is a correct attainment.
Thus it is a very healthy thing to include the ideal scene. It serves
as a discipline and incentive for the evaluator and those executing the
program.
HANDLING
Handling must be CONSISTENT with the situation, the evaluation, the
Why and the ideal scene.
Handling must be WITHIN THE CAPABILITIES of those who will do the
actions.
Handling must be WITHIN THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE.
Handling quite often but not always requires a BRIGHT IDEA. It is
peculiarly true that the less the resources available the brighter the idea
required to attain effective handling.
73
Handling must be SUPERVISED by one person who acts as a coordinator of
the program and a checker-offer and debug expert.
And last but most important handling must be EFFECTIVE AND FINAL.
The steps of handling are in program form. They are numbered 1-2-3,
etc. Or A-B-C, etc.
They can be in the sequence they will be done but this is mostly
important when one person or one team is going to do the whole thing step
by step.
These steps are called TARGETS.
Each part of the program (each TARGET) is assigned to someone to do or
to get done.
Care must be taken not to overload persons already loaded and where
this occurs
one appoints a special personnel or mission for that specific target.
t
The supervision must see that each target gets fully done and no
targets not-done and no targets half-done.
It is up to supervision to keep track of all completions on a MASTER
sheet.
Supervision debugs those targets that bog or lag by finding in them a
Why, which may mean a rapid evaluation of that target to rephrase it or get
it clarified without altering its intended accomplishment.
Supervision can reassign a target.
PROJECTS
It is expected that any complex or extensive target will have a
PROJECT written for it by the person to whom it is assigned if not by the
originator.
By completing this project the target is DONE.
Often these projects have to be passed upon by a senior before being
begun.
COMPLIANCE
When the MASTER sheet shows all targets DONE (not not-done and not
half-done and not falsely reported) full situation handling can be
expected.
REVIEW
When the supervisor reports all targets done, it is in the hands of
fate whether the situation will now be progressed toward or attain the
ideal scene.
The accuracy of the data, the skill of the evaluator, the correctness
of the WHY, the competence of the supervisor and the skill of those
executing the targets and the willingness of those receiving the effects of
all this activity (their human emotion and reaction) determine whether this
evaluation approaches or attains the ideal scene.
All such evaluations should be REVIEWED as soon as the actions have
had time to take effect.
An idiot optimism can suppose all is well and that it is needless to
review.
But if this WHY was wrong then the situation will deteriorate and a
worsening situation will be apparent.
Thus a sharp watch has to be set. No thirst for "always being right"
or arrogance about never being wrong must prevent an honest review.
WAS the ideal scene approached or attained?
Or was it a wrong Why and now is all Hades breaking loose?
Now we don't have just renewed insistence that the WHY was right and
that the program must go in in spite of all.
We have a wrong Why.
MAGIC
IT WILL BE FOUND THAT WHERE YOU HAVE A REAL WHY PEOPLE WILL COOPERATE
ALL OVER THE SCENE.
74
The only exception is where there are traitors around. But this is an
easy explanation, too often bought to excuse wrong Whys.
The Germans, when they found in World War II, how ineffective the
Italian intelligence service was, couldn't believe it, tried to improve it,
became convinced they were traitors, probably shot them in scores and took
the service over themselves. And lost Italy even more rapidly. Whatever the
right Why was, the Germans had the wrong one. And so does any executive who
has to shoot everybody-he just can't find the right Whys.
It is NO disgrace to find a wrong Why. It is only a disgrace not to
keep trying on and on until one does find it. Then the clouds open, the sun
shines, the birds pour out their souls in purest melody and the ideal scene
is approached or reached.
So REVIEW is damnably important.
Situations have to be handled very fast.
And reviews have to be as quick as possible after effect can occur.
WHOLE VIEW
So here you have the whole view.
The keynotes are OBSERVE, EVALUATE, PROGRAM, SUPERVISE and REVIEW.
The heart of Observe is accuracy.
The heart of Evaluate is a cool, cold knowledge of the Data Series.
The heart of Program is knowing the scene.
The heart of Supervise is getting it FULLY done.
The heart of Review is HUMILITY.
SUMMARY
If you cannot roll all this off rapidly then misunderstood words in
this series are in the way. Or one is battling with some outpoint in his
own life.
The Data Series is for USE.
It works because it has unlocked logic.
In management one is very fortunate since he can program and handle.
In intelligence one is less fortunate as his handling can only be
suggested and many an intelligence officer has watched a useless Battle of
the Bulge after he told them all about it and "they" had other ideas. But
the Data Series works in intelligence as well.
Data analysis was not developed in a professorial out of a lost-to-the-
world tower. It was evolved by attempting to explain logic, then was
developed on one of the hottest cross-fire but successful evaluation posts
on the planet against a background of blood, sweat and tears war
intelligence experience.
So it is itself REAL.
The key to it is handling DATA.
So here it is.
I do sincerely hope it serves you in helping to attain your ideal
scene.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.rd.nf Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
75
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 FEBRUARY 1972R
Issue 11
Remimeo REVISED 4 JULY 1977
(Revisions in this type style)
Data Series 24R
HANDLING
POLICY, PLANS, PROGRAMS
PROJECTS AND ORDERS DEFINED
The words "policy," 66plans," "programs," "projects" and "orders" are
often used interchangeably one for the other, incorrectly.
To handle any confusions on the words and substance of "policy,"
"plans," 44programs," "projects" and "orders" the following DESCRIPTIVE
DEFINITIONS (see Scn Logic No. 5) are laid down for our use.
POLICY.- By this is meant long-range truths or facts which are not
subject to change expressed as operational rules or guides.
PLANS: Short-range broad intentions as to the contemplated actions
envisaged for the handling of a broad area to remedy it or expand it or to
obstruct or impede an opposition to expansion. A plan is usually based on
observation of potentials (or resources) and expresses a bright idea of how
to use them. It always proceeds from a REAL WHY if it is to be successful.
PROGRAM: A series of steps in sequence to carry out a plan. One
usually sees a program following the discovery of a Why. But in actual fact
a plan had to exist in the person's mind, whether written or not, before a
program could be written. A program, thus, carries out the plan conceived
to handle a found WHY. A plan and its program require authorization (or
okay) from the central or coordinating authority of the general activities
of a group before they can be invested in, activated or executed.
PROJECTS: The sequence of steps written to carry out ONE step of a
program. Project orders often have to be written to execute a program step.
These should be written but usually do not require any approval and often
are not generally issued but go to the person or persons who will
accomplish that step of a program. Under the category of PROJECT would come
orders, work projects, etc. These are a series of GUIDING STEPS which if
followed will result in a full and successful accomplishment of the program
target.
ORDERS: The verbal or written direction from a lower or designated
authority to carry out a program step or apply the general policy.
In short:
POLICY = the rules of the game, the facts of life, the discovered
truths and the invariable procedures.
PLANS = the general bright idea one has to remedy the WHY found and
get things up to the ideal scene or improve even that. (Approval.)
PROGRAM = the sequence of major actions needed to do the plan.
(Approval.)
PROJECT = the sequence of steps necessary to carry out one step in a
program. (No approval.)
ORDERS = some program steps are so simple that they are themselves an
order or an order can simply be a roughly written project.
76
Thus, by these definitions a data analysis would look like this:
POLICK (What brings the evaluation into existence in the first place.)
SITUATION: (Departure from or improvement of the ideal scene expressed
in policy.)
DATA: (Observations leading to INVESTIGATION.)
STATISTICS: (The independent continuing survey of production or lack
of it.)
WHY- (The real reason found by the investigation.)
IDEAL SCENE: (The state of affairs envisioned by policy or the
improvement of even that.)
HANDLING:
A PLAN whether written in full or not based on the WHY to use the
resources available to move the existing scene toward the ideal scene.
A PROGRAM: A sequence of broad steps to get the plan executed.
PROJECTS: Any sequence of steps ordered or written to get a program
step completed.
ORDERS: The program step itself or the verbal or written project to
get the program step fully done.
Thus a handling could look like this:
HANDLING:
Plan: To use Bob Bartlett to replace the incompetent exec found in the
WHY.
1. Find a replacement for Bartlett. PERSONNEL.
2. Program Bob Bartlett to get his incomplete cycles caught up. DIR OF
PERSONNEL ENHANCEMENT.
3. Train Bob Bartlett. DIR OF TRAINING.
4. Write Garrison Mission Orders for Bartlett. ACTION MISSION WRITER.
5. Write recall orders for G. Zonk (the incompetent found in the WHY).
PERSONNEL.
6. Send Bartlett to relieve Zonk. ACTION.
7. On Zonk's return assign to bilge cleaner. PERSONNEL.
This of course is a very simple plan and simple program.
The orders are seen as "PERSONNEL," "DIR OF PERSONNEL ENHANCEMENT,"
"ACTION MISSION WRITER," etc., at the paragraph ends. The program step
itself is an ORDER to the person or unit named at program step end. But IT
ALSO AUTHORIZES THAT PERSON OR UNIT TO DO THE STEP OR ISSUE ORDERS TO DO
THE STEP OR EVEN WRITE A PROJECT AND GET IT DONE.
77
Emorm",
That final end word on the program step is an AUTHORITY as well as
being an order to the person or unit named.
ROUND-UP
A copy of a full program marked MASTER is placed in a folder. The
folder is marked on the edge with the program name and number. The program
itself is stapled along its left edge to the inside left cover of the
folder.
A "Flag Rep" is responsible for "LRH programs." A Deputy Executive
Director or Deputy Commanding Officer is responsible for an ED's or C/O's
programs.
The responsibility lies in seeing that each step is FULLY effectively
DONE.
All related papers, copies of projects' orders, etc., are collected in
that folder and as each done is reported and investigated as DONE it is
marked off on the MASTER program sheet.
When all those projects or orders bred by the program steps are DONE
then the PROGRAM is considered DONE.
One does not "report progress" but only DONES and when something is
NOT done yet it is chased up by the 'Flag Rep" or Deputy ED or C/0 and
"debugged."
DEBUGGING
The word "bugged" is slang for snarled up or halted.
DEBUG is to get the snarls or stops out of it.
This itself requires an evaluation. The evaluation may be done at a
glance or it may take a full formal evaluation by form.
The ideal scene here is the program step DONE or even improved.
So the WHY here would be the REAL reason it was not being done or
couldn't be done and that may require hours to locate and sometimes days to
remedy.
When "debugging" one usually finds the persons assigned the target
already have a "WHY" and it is usually a false Why for if it was the right
one the program step would get done.
Thus debugging usually begins with finding "their Whys"-which is to
say reasons, excuses, apologies, etc. Getting these into view is a main
part of the program step evaluation.
A project, often written, comes out of this DEBUG EVALUATION.
In extreme cases it will be found that the whole program is based on a
wrong WHY and rapidly needs redoing by the original authority. Example: The
WHY found was that the JINX OFFICE WAS NOT MAKING MONEY. In doing one step
of the program: "3. Survey past invoices to find where money is coming from
and why they don't get it now. MISSION," the mission sent finds Jinx Office
was making money by the ton but it was being wasted by their having bought
a huge building whose rent is three times normal rental "in the hopes new
subtenants would pay the rent but nobody wants the place." Rapid debug is
needed because the target can't really be done. They ARE making money and
they do get it now.
In such a case doing the program unearthed a new REAL WHY and scrubbed
that program.
A super-frantic hysterical communication would be sent to the
authority of the
78
program, "New WHY found by Pgm 891 target 3 observation. Jinx Office
paying $80,000 a quarter for skyscraper. Obvious real Why ED has delusions
of grandeur, is a bad business head. Suggest Pgm 891 redone on new Why and
suggest plan of mission here for instant offload of this skyscraper and
office into proper quarters and replacement of ED." At which the 'Flag Rep"
or Deputy ED or Deputy C/O will approach the authority for the pgm to get
immediate cancellation of 891 and all program targets and a new Program
891R based on the REAL REAL WHY.
Debug, however, is not always so dramatic. "We don't have anyone to
put on it" is the usual excuse as they sit lazily chatting amongst their
piled up dev-t.
So one evaluates the area against the program target and finds a WHY
that, executed as a project will get that target done.
The PERFECT DEBUG EVALUATION (a) gets the target done (b) improves the
area (c) leaves no dregs of human emotion and reaction behind it.
Just plain screaming often works. But if one has to, there is a real
WHY there someplace that should be found, a project handed out and done.
HANDLING SUMMARY
You can find out all the SITUATIONS and WHYS in the world but if there
isn't a PLAN and PROGRAM and if these are not DONE fully, then nothing
beneficial will happen. Indeed the not-dones, half-dones and backlogs will
mount up (per HCO P/L 26 Jan 72, Admin Know-How 29, Executive Series 5) and
set the whole thing a step backwards.
Bad programs and clumsy projects develop useless traffic (dev-t) and
tie people up all over the place, pull them off normal needful actions and
send the existing scene even further from the ideal scene. They make people
very busy but nothing beneficial is gained and as the useless actions
distract from normal duties, the whole place is at risk.
Staffs subjected to programs that are not based on sound observation
evaluation, a REAL WHY and the points in Data Series 23, become apathetic
as they see no result.
So programs that are bad and programs that are right but don't get
fully done are alike deadly. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR CORRECTLY DONE DATA
ANALYSIS.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT GETTING CORRECT PROGRAMS DONE.
In this way and only in this way can one raise the existing scene
toward an ideal scene.
Data analysis is a powerful tool. YOU CAN USE IT.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Revision assisted by
Gelda Mithoff
LRH Comm Policy
Revision Project I/C
LRH:GM:ne.If/nt.nf Copyright 0 1972, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
79
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 MARCH 1972
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 25
LEARNING TO USE DATA ANALYSIS
After one has studied data analysis he is expected to be able to use
its principles easily and swiftly,
The barriers to being able to use data analysis are, in the order of
frequency:
I . Misunderstood words. One has not gotten the definitions of the
words used. This does not mean "new words." It is usually old common words.
It is not just long words, it is more usually little ones. To handle this
one takes each policy letter (or chapter) in turn and looks it over
carefully to see what words he cannot rapidly define. To help in this one
uses an E-Meter and "Method 4" Word Clearing which is the method of using a
meter to see if-"Are there any words in this policy misunderstood?" Any
upset or antagonism or boredom felt comes only from a misunderstood word or
misunderstood words.
2. The person has himself an outpoint in his routine thinking. This is
found and handled by what is called an "HC (Hubbard Consultant) List." This
list assessed on a meter detects and handles this.
3. Lack of knowledge of an existing or an ideal scene. This is handled
by observing the existing scene directly or indirectly by reports and for
the ideal, study of the basic policy of the scene which gives one its
ideal, its expected products and form of organization.
4. Not having studied the Data Series. Handled by studying it
properly.
5. Not having studied data analysis from the viewpoint of needing to
apply it.
6. Thinking one already knows all about analyzing and data. Handled by
looking over some past failures and realizing they could have been
prevented by a proper collection of data and analyzing it.
7. Tossing off "reasons" personally on one's own personal area which
are usually just excuses or justifications and not Whys. "I was too tired,"
"I should have been tougher," "They were just bums anyway," which loads up
one's own life with wrong Whys. Handled by being more alert to and more
honest about the causes and motives of one's life and the scene, and doing
a better analysis.
8. Confusing errors with outpoints. Handled by practice.
9. Confusing outpoints with Whys. Handled by learning to observe and
better study of data analysis.
10. Too narrow a situation. Handled by getting more data and observing
the scene more broadly.
11. Missing "omitted data" or particles or people as a frequent
outpoint. Handled by knowing the ideal scene better. What should be there
and isn't.
THE BEGINNER
When one begins to apply data analysis he is often still trying to
grasp the data
80
about data analysis rather than the outpoints in the data. Just become
more familiar with the Data Series.
Further one may not realize the ease with which one can acquire the
knowledge of an ideal scene. An outpoint is simply an illogical departure
from the ideal scene. By comparing the existing scene with the ideal scene
one easily sees the outpoints.
To know the ideal scene one has only to work out the correct products
for it. If these aren't getting out, then there is a departure. One can
then find the outpoints of the various types and then locate a WHY and in
that way open the door to handling. And by handling one is simply trying to
get the scene to get out its products.
Unless one proceeds in this fashion (from product back to
establishment), one can't analyze much of anything. One merely comes up
with errors.
The definition and nature of products is covered in several P/Ls and
especially in HCO P/L 13 Mar 72 Establishment Officer Series No. 5.
An existing scene is as good as it gets out its products, not as good
as it is painted or carpeted or given public relations boosts.
So for ANY scene, manufacturing or fighting a war or being a hostess
at a party, there are PRODUCTS.
People who lead pointless lives are very unhappy people. Even the
idler or dilettante is happy only when he has a product!
There is always a product for any scene.
The analyst when he begins may get the wrong product. He may get a
doingness instead of something one can have. And he may look upon a half
completion or half-done thing as a completed product.
All this makes his data analysis faulty. As he can't figure out an
ideal scene, he then has nothing to compare the existing scene to. It is
simply a matter of the cost and time involved in not or half getting a
product compared to the ideal scene of a really valuable product with
exchange value and what it takes to get it. These two things can be worlds
apart. The trail that leads to a WHY that will close the gap is plainly
marked with one kind or another of outpoints. Where the most and biggest
are, there is the WHY. Found, the real WHY and actual handling will move
the existing toward ideal.
Hideously enough, what I say about products is true. Even a government
could have a product. Like "a prosperous happy country." An intelligence
agency often muffs its product such as, "a properly briefed head of state."
But to do it the head of state would have to have a product concerning
other nations like, "friendly, cooperative allies which are a help and no
threat," or some other product. Otherwise the agency would wind up going
straight out of the intelligence business and being required to conduct its
business by assassination of foreign notables or other actions to do
handlings based on wrong Whys.
As there would be no product, there could not really be an ideal
scene. If there is no ideal scene then there is no way to compare the
existing scene. Thus, outpoints would expose situations but no WHY would
really be possible as there's no ideal scene to approach. One has often
heard some agency or activity say, "Where the hell are we going anyway?"
Translated this would be, "We haven't had any ideal scene set up for us."
And translated further, "The policy-makers have no product in view." So
they aren't going any place really and lack of an objective would cause
them to go down and lack of a product would cause them to be miserable.
That's the way life has been running.
Parents and others often ask children, "What will you do when you grow
up?" Or "What are you going to be?" This is not baffling for a 5-year-old,
perhaps, but it is a confuser for a child of 12. There are BE, DO and HAVE
as three major conditions of
81
existence. One must BE in order to DO and DO in order to HAVE. A
product is the Have. It is not the DO. Most people give "Do" as "product."
A product is a completed thing that has exchange value within or outside
the activity.
If one asked a 12-year-old, "What product are you going to make when
you grow up?" he'd likely give you the exchange reward as the answer, like
"money." He has omitted a step. He has to have a product to exchange for
money.
To "make money" directly he'd have to be the Secretary of the
Treasury, superintendent of the mint or a counterfeiter!
Only if you cleared up product and exchange with him could he begin to
answer the question about what's what with growing up.
Let's say this is done and he says he is set on making photographs of
buildings. The DO now falls into line-he'd have to photograph things well.
The BE is obviousarchitectural photographer. The exchange of architectural
photographs for salary or fee is feasible if he is good.
So now we find he is a poor boy and no chance of schooling or even a
box camera. That's the existing scene.
The ideal scene is a successful architectural photographer making
pictures of buildings.
You see the gap between the existing scene and the ideal scene.
Now you can follow back the outpoints and get a WHY.
It isn't just that he's poor. That's no WHY as it opens no doors to
get from existing scene to ideal scene.
We investigate and find his "father" is very religious but an
alcoholic and that the boy is illegitimate and his "father" hates his guts.
So we find a WHY that his "father," much less helping him, is not
about to let him amount to anything whatever ever.
This opens a door.
Handling often requires a bright idea. And we find the local parson
has often shown interest in the boy so an obvious handling is to get the
parson to persuade the "father" to let the boy apprentice in the local
photo store and tell the boy what he has to do to make good there.
Situations cannot be handled well unless a real WHY is found.
And a real WHY cannot be found unless the product is named and an
ideal scene then stated. This compared to the existing scene gives us,
really the first outpoint.
In going the other direction, to find a WHY of sudden improvement, one
has to locate poor existing scenes that suddenly leap up toward ideal
scenes. This is done by locating a high product period (by stats or other
signs of production) and comparing IT as an ideal scene to the existing
scenes before it (and just after if there was a slump) and looking into
that for a WHY. But one is looking for pluspoints. And these lead to a real
WHY for the prosperity or improvement.
A "Who" will often be found. Like "James Johnny was shop foreman
then." Well, he's dead. So it's not a Why as it leads nowhere. What did
James Johnny DO that was different? "He got out products" leads nowhere. We
keep looking and we find he had a scheduling board and really kept it up-to-
date and used it as a single difference. Aha "The WHY is a kept up
scheduling board!" The handling is to put a clerk on doingjust that and
hatting the current foreman to use it or catch it. Result, up go the stats
and morale. People can look at it and see what they're producing today and
where they're at!
82
So not all WHYs are found by outpoints. The good situations are traced
by pluspoints.
If the high peak is current, one has to find a Why, in the same way,
to maintain it.
STANDARD ACTION
A beginner can juggle around and go badly adrift if he doesn't follow
the pattern:
1. Work out exactly what the (person, unit, activity) should be
producing.
2. Work out the ideal scene.
3. Investigate the existing scene.
4. Follow outpoints back from ideal to existing,
5. Locate the real WHY that will move the existing toward ideal.
6. Look over existing resources.
7. Get a bright idea of how to handle,
8 Handle or recommend handling so that it stays handled.
This is a very sure-fire approach.
If one just notes errors in a scene, with no product or ideal with
which to compare the existing scene, he will not be doing data analysis and
situations will deteriorate badly because he is finding wrong Whys.
THINKING
One has to be able to think with outpoints. A crude way of saying this
is "learn to think like an idiot." One could also add "without abandoning
any ability to think like a genius."
If one can't tolerate outpoints at all or confront them one can't see
them.
A madman can't tolerate pluspoints and he doesn't see them either.
But there can be a lot of pluspoints around and no production. Thus
one can be told how great it all is while the place edges over to the point
of collapse.
An evaluator who listens to people on the scene and takes their WHYs
runs a grave risk. If these were the Whys then things would be better.
A far safer way is to talk only insofar as finding what the product is
concerned and investigating.
One should observe the existing scene through data or through
observers or through direct observation.
An evaluator often has to guess what the WHY might be. It is doing
that which brings up the phrase "Learn to think like an idiot." The WHY
will be found at the end of a trail of outpoints. Each one is an aberration
when compared to the ideal scene. The biggest idiocy which then explains
all the rest and which opens the door to improvement toward the ideal scene
is the WHY.
One also has to learn to think like a genius with pluspoints.
Get the big peak period of production (now or in the past). Compare it
to the existing scene just before.
Now find the pluspoints that were entered in. Trace these and you
arrive at the WHY as the biggest pluspoint that opened the door to
improvement.
83
But once more one considers resources available and has to get a
bright idea.
So it is the same series of steps as above but with pluspoints.
VETERAN
A veteran evaluator can toss off evaluations in an hour or two, mainly
based on how long it takes him to dig up data.
A big tough situation may require days and days.
Sometimes luck plays a role in it. The data that was the key to it was
being sat on by someone not skilled in the subject and who had no idea of
relative importances. Sometimes the datum pops up like toast from an
electric toaster. Sometimes one has it all wrapped up and then suddenly a
new outpoint or pluspoint appears that changes the whole view of the
evaluator.
Example: A firm's blacklist has just been published in a newspaper or
as a scandal. Evaluator: "They do what?" in a voice of incredulity. "They
ship their security files to Memphis in open crates? Because they are
saving on postage?" Wrath could dangerously shoot a wrong somebody. The
idiocy is not believable. But a new datum leads to personnel who hired a
reporter in disguise because it no longer requires or looks up references.
Example: Situation where stats soared. "They used schoolchildren to
pass out literature?" That's just a point but a strange one. Turns out they
also hired a cashier and had NEVER HAD ONE ON POST BEFORE! Why? Nobody to
take money.
Man gets dedicated to his own pet theories very easily. A true
scientist doesn't fixate on one idea. He keeps looking until he finds it,
not until his pet theory is proven. That's the test of an evaluator.
STATISTICS
One always runs by statistics where these are valid.
Statistics must reflect actual desired PRODUCT. If they do not they
are not valid. If they do they give an idea of ideal scene.
From a statistic reflecting the desired products one can work out the
departure from the ideal scene.
A backlog of product production must reflect in a stat. As a backlog
is negative production.
From such tools an evaluator can work.
The use of data analysis is relatively easy compared to learning a
musical instrument.
You have the hang of how it is done.
So why not just be a veteran right now and DO IT.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.mes.rd.nf Copyright @ 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
84
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 JUNE 1972
Remimeo
Data Series 26
Establishment Officer Series 18
LENGTH OF TIME TO EVALUATE
It will be found that long times required to do an evaluation can be
traced each time to AN INDIVIDUAL WHY FOR EACH EVALUATOR.
These, however, can be summarized into the following classes of Whys:
This list is assessed by a Scientology auditor on a meter. The
handling directions given in each case are designations for auditing
actions as done by a Scientology auditor and are given in the symbols he
would use.
1. Misunderstood words.
(Handled with Word Clearing [Method I and Method 4 of the Word
Clearing Series].)
2. Inability to study and an inability to learn the materials.
(Handled by a Study Correction List HCOB 4 Feb 72.)
3. Outpoints in own thinking.
(Handled by what is called an HC [Hubbard Consultant] List HCOB 28
August 70.)
4. Personal out-ethics.
(Use P/L 3 May 72 by an auditor. Has two listing and nulling type
lists.)
5. Doing something else.
(2-way communication on P/L 3 May 72 or reorganization.)
6. Impatient or bored with reading.
(Achieve Super-Literacy. LRH Executive Directive 178 International.)
7. Doesn't know how to read statistics so doesn't know where to begin.
(Learn to read stats from Management by Stat P/Ls.)
8. Doesn't know the scene.
(Achieve familiarity by direct observation.)
9. Reads on and on as doesn't know how to handle and is stalling.
(Get drilled on actual handling and become Super- Literate.)
85
10. Afraid to take responsibility for the consequences if wrong.
(HCOB 10 May 72 Robotism. Apply it.)
11. Falsely reporting.
(Pull all withholds and harmful acts on the subject.)
12. Assumes the Why before starting.
(Level IV service facsimile triple auditing.)
13. Feels stupid about it.
(Get IQ raised by general processing.)
14. Has other intentions.
(Audit on L9S or Expanded Dianetics.)
15. Has other reasons not covered in above.
(Listing and nulling to blowdown F/N item on the list.)
16. Has withholds about it.
(Get them off.)
17. Has had wrong reasons found.
(C/S Series 78.)
18. Not interested in success.
(P/L 3 May 72 and follow as in 14 above.)
19. Some other reason.
(Find it by 2-way comm.)
20. No trouble in the first place.
(Indicate it to person.)
When this list is assessed one can easily spot why the person is
having trouble with the Data Series or applying it. When these reasons are
handled, one can then get the series restudied and word cleared and
restudied and it will be found that evaluations are much easier to do and
much more rapidly done.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.rd.nf Copyright V 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
86
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 MAY 1973
Remimeo
Data Series 27
SUPPLEMENTARY EVALUATIONS
(Starrate all evaluators)
If one knows how to evaluate an existing scene correctly (which means
by the purest and most exacting application of the Data Series) and still
does not achieve an improvement toward the ideal scene, several things may
be the reason.
First amongst these is of course poor evaluation. Second would be a
considerable disagreement in the evaluated scene with the WHY, especially
if it is interpreted as condemnatory. Third would be a failure to obtain
actual compliance with the targets in the evaluation. Fourth would be
interference points or areas which, although affecting the scene being
evaluated, are not looked at in relationship to it.
In any scene being evaluated, there are two areas which are not likely
to get much attention from the evaluator as they may not be remarked on in
any of the reports or data being used in his evaluation. These two types of
area are (1) LOCAL ENVIRONMENT and (2) RELAY POINTS AND LINES BETWEEN
POLICY AND ORDER SOURCE AND THE SCENE ITSELF.
These two areas may be looked at as (1) the plane upon which the scene
exists and (2) the upper stages of authority under which the scene reacts.
THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
The surrounding area to the scene being evaluated in the matter or a
person would be the general third dynamic or other dynamic in which he or
she lives his day-to-day life and which influences the person and therefore
influences his hat or post. The search for the WHY which exactly causes Joe
or Joanna to fail to hold post or wear a hat and which when handled will
greatly better Joe or Joanna may well be their reactions to environments at
their level and which may be or may not be there with them. Family or
distant friends, not visible to an evaluator, or the work environment or on-
the-job friends of Joe or Joanna may greatly influence Joe or Joanna.
This might prove too inviting for the evaluator to blame environment
for the state of the existing scene and a caution'would have to be
introduced: that any WHY must lead to a bettered scene and must not just
explain it.
EVAL BY RELAY PTs.
Thus, in such a problem it should be understood that one has TWO
existing scenes, one, the person and two, his environment; that they
interrelate does not make them just one scene. Thus two evaluations about
Joe or Joanna are possible, each with its program. To go about it otherwise
is likely to prove as unsuccessful as the original evaluation of the
person. Life and orders are reaching Joe or Joanna through relay points
which are not ordinarily taken into consideration. Thus those areas should
be separately evaluated. Usually, in the case of a person, something would
have to be done to those areas, on the same plane as the person, by the
person himself. So the program might include what the person himself could
do about them.
The local environment of a material object, such as a machine or an
office or a vehicle, may also be evaluated as well as the machine or the
office or vehicle itself.
In short, there are relay points of difficulties that produce
situations, on the same plane as the person or thing being evaluated. And
these make ADDITIONAL evaluations possible and often profitable to the
evaluator in terms of bettered ideal scenes. Yet at first glance, or using
only the usual reports, it may seem that there is only one situation such
as the person himself.
87
Completely in the interests of justice, it is unfair to put down a
target in some greater area situation like "Remove Joe." It may well be
that stats did go down when Joe was appointed to a post. Well, that may be
perfectly true. But by only then evaluating Joe and not the greater zone of
Joe's personal scenes, one may very well come up with a very wrong and
abrupt and unjust target. WHO in other words, when found, may not solve the
scene at all even when one only targets it as "specially train" or "audit"
without removal. There may be another scene that is having an effect on Joe
which, if not evaluated properly with a proper program of its own, will
make nonsense out of any program about Joe himself related only to his post
or position. Another scene may be relaying fatality to Joe which if
unhandled will unsuit him to any other post of any other kind.
Thus Joe and Joanna would have, each of them, TWO or more full
evaluations possible. What the person is failing at or not doing on the job
may have a plain enough WHY that can be corrected by programming and moved
to an ideal scene or at least toward it. What is hitting the person at an
environmental or familial or social level might be an entirely different
situation, requiring its own evaluation, with a proper WHY and program for
Joe or Joanna to carry out themselves or even with some help from others.
In a broader case, we have, let us say, an organization or division
that is in a situation. One, of course, can evaluate it as itself, finding
a proper WHY and a nice bright idea and a program'. And one can also do a
second evaluation of the local environment. This might be the society or an
adjacent division or even another organization. And this will require the
location of a situation and finding its WHY and working out a program to
handle that can be done by the org or the division itself or with help from
outside.
The local environment outside the scene being evaluated is then a
proper subject for another evaluation.
It is a serious error to only evaluate the local environment as all
too often the person or org or division will insist that that is the ONLY
situation and also that it is totally beyond any remedy by their own
actions. Thus, if the evaluator is going to evaluate the local environment
of a subject that is in a situation, he does it AFTER he has evaluated the
subject on its own ground totally.
EVALUATION OF ECHELONS
On any command or communication channel there are always a certain
number of points extending from source through relay points down to the
final receipt or action point. These may be very numerous. Some may be
beyond the authority of any evaluator. But each is capable of having ITS
OWN SITUATION that will cause an evaluation of the receipt or action point
to fail.
These can be called "echelons" or step-like formations. The receipt or
action point that is to comply finally with the program may be the subject
of hidden sources of effect in the relay points of any program or order.
Thus, as in the case of a dangerous decline of some activity
somewhere, an evaluator has several evaluations possible and probably
necessary.
It would be, by experience, a severe error to try to evaluate all
these different scenes (such as many echelons each in a different area) in
one evaluation and find a WHY for the lot as one is attempting to find a
single WHY for several different scenes in different places which violates
the strict purity of evaluation procedure.
One may find the exact and correct WHY for the point of action and do
a splendid program only to find that somehow it didn't come off or didn't
last. Yet it was the right WHY for that scene. Hidden from view is the
influence on that scene from one or more upper echelons which have,
themselves, an individual situation and need their own WHY and their own
program. Only then can the influence on the action point be beneficial in
its entirety.
There is a system by which this is done.
1. One recognizes that there is a situation in an area which has not
responded well to previous evaluation or has not maintained any benefit
received very long.
88
2. One realizes that there are several,echelons above the point being
evaluated.
3. One draws these points without omission. This makes a sort of graph
or command chart. It includes every command or comm relay point above the
level of the point being evaluated.
4. The points, if any, BELOW the point under consideration as in I
above are then added to the chart below it.
5. One now undertakes a brief study of EACH of these points above and
below to see if any have a situation of its own that could influence the
success or failure of the original point evaluated as in I above.
6. One does a full separate evaluation of each of these echelon points
where any situation seems to exist. Each of the evaluations done must have
its own local situation, WHY and program. Care is taken not to evaluate "n
o- situations." Care is also taken to keep this SERIES of evaluations
consistent with the main idea of remedying I above.
7. The evaluations are released as a series and executed as feasible.
In doing such a series, brand new data may leap out as to the
interrelationship of all these relay points and this may bring about a
recommendation for a change of organization requiring new policy. But this
would be another evaluation entirely as it is in effect an evaluation of
basic organizational policy and may even require that tech be issued or
withdrawn.
Take a case where the area which has not bettered or sustained a
betterment has in actual fact two echelons below it and six above. The
area, let us say, is a continental management office of an international
hotel chain. Below it are its state offices and below that the hotels on
that continent. Above it is the international comm relay center, the
international headquarters executive at international headquarters for that
continent, above that the international management organization, above that
the chief executive of the international management organization, above
that the advisors to the board and above that the board itself.
By drawing these out as a series of echelons one sees that there is
potentially a series of eight evaluations in addition to the main
evaluation of that continental office which is where the situation
originally was. By scanning over all these eight other influencing areas,
one may find one or more of them which have situations of real influence on
the original evaluation subject.
One then evaluates separately and handles separately WHILE STILL GOING
ON HANDLING THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT.
One can then also do the local environment evaluation of the original
subject if there seems to be a situation there.
No evaluation is done where there is no situation. But one should
assert in a covering note to the series that there are no known situations
in the remaining points.
Doing a series of evaluations and local environment evaluations can be
extremely fruitful only so long as one realizes that they comprise separate
situations which only by their influence are preventing an ideal scene from
being achieved in the original area where betterment cannot be attained or
maintained.
Supplementary evaluations, when necessary and when done, can rescue a
long series of apparently fruitless evaluations of a subject and move the
evaluator himself toward a more ideal and happier scene of success.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sr.rd.nf Copyright 0 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
89
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1973
Issue IR
Remimeo REVISED 22 JUNE 1975
Data Series 28R
(Data Series 28 is cancelled because it could be misinterpreted and I
did not authorize its release. The data contained in it would have been
written by me as a P/L had I considered them vital to evaluation.)
CHECKING EVALS
In checking over the evaluations of others, there is no substitute for
following the hard and fast rule of insisting upon
a. Purity of evaluation
b. Consistency
C. Workability
d. Authenticity of the data.
There are no small rules. To quote one of these, "The situation is the
direct opposite of the ideal scene." This is not necessarily true and is
not a precise definition. A situation is the most major departure from the
ideal scene. That's purity by definition.
A Why is not necessarily opposite to an ideal scene. But it is of the
same order of thing.
Example: Stat of Income Divided by Staff sunk to 150.
Ideal scene: Staff producing under competent management.
Sit: Execs not coming to work.
Why: The ED has forbidden any exec to be paid.
If you look this over it is consistent. But it is not reversals or
opposites.
The stat found the area, the ideal scene was easy. Search of data
found the sit as the biggest departure. Further search found the Why.
Further search and knowledge of the existing scene would get a bright idea
(which would not be sacking the ED who is probably the only one coming to
work, but more likely getting the ED and execs into a hello-okay session
and resolve their hates and ordering execs be paid at once).
THE COMMON BUG
(Orders of Day Item 24 Feb 75)
"I found that getting the sit was a common bug. Evidently people don't
do a real stat analysis and get an ideal scene, look for its furthest
departure and get the sit and then look for data and find the Why.
"There are many ways to go about it but the above is easy, simple and
foolproof.
"It would look like this on a worksheet:
90
"GDS analysis to find the area and a conditional guess.
"Ideal scene for that area.
"Biggest depart from it for the SITUATION.
"Stats Data Outpoint counts Why Ethics Why WHO Idealscene Handling
Bright idea.
"If you're very good your GDS analysis will get confirmed by data.
"The real Why opens the door to handling.
"And you can handle.
"This doesn't change eval form. It's just a working model.
"All good evals are very consistent-all on same railroad track. Not
pies, sea lions, space ships. But pies, apples, flour, sugar, stoves.
"I think evaluators get dispersed and Q and A with data, lacking any
guideline. And so take a near forever.
"Last one I did, the GDS analysis gave the whole scene and then it got
confirmed, all on the same outline as above. That org is still booming!
"It took 61/2 hours, including doing the majority of the targets!
"It doesn't take days or weeks, much less months!
"It takes hours."
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.nf Copyright ID 1973, 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
91
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1973-1
Rernimeo ADDITION OF 20 MARCH 1977
Data Series 28R-1
CHECKING EVALUATIONS
ADDITION
(In January 1976 LRH began work on sorting out the fact that
evaluators were not evaluating situations. What follows is taken from LRH
notes.)
MULTIPLE SITUATIONS
"Somebody has evaluators on a 'whole org' kick where the evaluation
must handle the whole org. Evidence of this is 'the Why' lately was defined
as something that handled all outpoints. The initial step of the stat
analysis to find the area and then find its situation and its Why is not
being done. Hence individual org situations do not get spotted or evaluated
and evaluations take forever."
(One of the org evaluations submitted to LRH was returned with the
following note.) "This evaluation has almost no outpoints in it. Almost
every paragraph is a situation requiring evaluation.
"A situation is something that affects stats or survival of the org.
"An outpoint is something that contributes to a situation and should
not be in the situation area.
"A Why is the real basic reason for the situation which, being found,
opens the door to handling.
"Evaluators who are trying to embrace the whole org of world in one
evaluation are missing all the real situations or landing only in Division
Seven."
(The following is a despatch written by LRH in May 1976 regarding an
earlier evaluation done on an org which LRH was evaluating at the time.)
"That evaluation, that was to pull in the CO, had one of these
'philosophical Whys,' 'The CO and HCO have prevented execs from being made
by omitting actions that would accomplish this (i.e. choosing suitable
ones, hatting, training and apprenticing them) which has led to blows and
19th century solution of transfers and removals and eventually no execs at
all.' That's all fine but you can ask of it, 'How come they're doing thatT
so it couldn't be a bottom level Why. Anytime you can ask a 'How comeT you
haven't got a Why, you have a situation.
"Just an off-the-cuff Why better than that would be 'Day and
Foundation staff are the same, allowing no time to hat and train' or
another, 'There is no HCO staff' or another 'Only a handful make the GI and
the rest of the org is considered superfluous'-yet none of these are the
Why either as you can also again ask 'How comeT And the org is delivering.
"So this is what I am working on now. The new type of evaluation would
use telex
92
lines and FRs to ask a lot of questions AFTER one had found the real
situation. It would go: Find the situation area from stats, find the
situation from data files, get some sort of a Why (that will now become the
situation) and burn the telex lines or send a mission from the FOLO to find
out how come that situation. You would then get the real Why and could do a
program. This would make evaluations pretty real!"
Compiled from LRH notes of January 1976 and May 1976
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
Louise Kelly
Flag Mission 1710 I/C
LRH:LK:lf.nf Copyright 10 1973, 1976, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED
93
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1973-2
Remimeo ADDITION OF 2 OCTOBER 1977
Data Series 28R-2
MULTIPLE SIT EVAL FORMAT
For multiple situation evaluations, the following is the correct
format to use in the final evaluation write-up:
SITUATION ONE
POLICY.
SITUATION.
S TA TS:
DATA:
OUTPOINT COUNT.
PLUSPOINT COUNT. (As applicable)
WHE.
ETHICS WHY. (As applicable)
WHO: (As applicable)
IDEAL SCENE:
HANDLING: (For a multiple sit eval, the plan is written here,
e.g."HANDLING: Find and train executives...." etc.)
SITUATION TWO
POLICK
(And so on, as per above)
The above format is repeated for as many situations as were evaluated.
Then:
PROGRAM
1. (First target)
2. (Second target)
And so on.
The program targets to specifically handle the Whys of each situation
should be divided up as follows:
94
SITUATION ONE TARGETS
4. (Or whatever number, in sequence, after any beginning general
targets) Make up a list....
5. Go through the org....
6. Go and see. .
(Etc.)
SITUATION TWO TARGETS
19. (Or whatever number, in sequence, following the Sit One targets)
See that....
20. Call on ....
21. Get the ....
(Etc.)
One does this for as many situations as were evaluated.
When writing and issuing a set of program orders or mission orders
separate to the eval itself, the usual program or mission order format is
used, except the operating targets get divided up as shown above.
Compiled from AO 536-10 and FMO 1672 as the proper format per
direction from LRH as given in ED 270 FB
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
S. Hubbard
AVU Verifications Chief
LRH:SH:pat.nf Copyright 0 1973, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
95
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1973
Issue I
Remimeo
Data Series 29
OUTPOINTS, MORE
1 recently surveyed a number of possible new outpoints. Almost all of
them were simply the basic outpoints in a different guise and needed no
special category.
However, two new outpoints did emerge that are in addition to the
basic number.
The new outpoints are
ADDED TIME. In this outpoint we have the reverse of dropped time. In
added time we have, as the most common example, something taking longer
than it possibly could. To this degree it is a version of conflicting data
= something takes three weeks to do but it is reported as taking six
months. But added time must be called to attention as an outpoint in its
own right for there is a tendency to be reasonable about it and not see
that it IS an outpoint in itself.
In its most severe sense, added time becomes a very serious outpoint
when, for example, two or more events occur at the same moment involving,
let us say, the same person who could not have experienced both. Time had
to be ADDED to the physical universe for the data to be true. Like this: "I
left for Saigon at midnight on April 2 1 st, 1962, by ship from San
Francisco." "I took over my duties at San Francisco on April 30th, 1962."
Here we have to add time to the physical universe for both events to occur
as a ship would take two or three weeks to get from San Francisco to
"Saigon."
Another instance, a true occurrence and better example of added time
happened when 1 once sent a checklist of actions it would take a month to
complete to a junior executive and received compliance in full in the next
return mail. The checklist was in her hands only one day! She would have
had to add 29 days to the physical universe for the compliance report to be
true. This is also dropped time on her part.
ADDED INAPPLICABLE DATA. Just plain added data does not necessarily
constitute an outpoint. It may be someone being thorough. But when the data
is in no way applicable to the scene or situation and is added it is a
definite outpoint.
Example: Long, long reams of data on an eval write-up, none of which
is giving any clue to the outpoints on the scene. By actual survey it was
found that the person doing it did not know any Why (not having used
outpoints to find it) and was just stalling.
Often added data is put there to cover up neglect of duty or mask a
real situation. It certainly means the person is obscuring something.
Usually added data also contains other types of outpoints like wrong
target or added time.
In using this outpoint be very sure you also understand the word
inapplicable and see that it is only an outpoint if the. data itself does
not apply to the subject at hand.
There is more about another already named outpoint:
WRONG SOURCE. This is the opposite direction from wrong target.
96
An example would be a president of the United States in 1973 using the
opinions and congratulations of Soviet leaders to make his point with
American voters.
A more common version of this, not unknown in intelligence report
grading for probability, would be a farmer in Iowa reporting a Mexican
battleship on Mud Creek. The farmer would be a wrong source for accurate
naval reports.
A private taking an order from a sergeant that countermands an order
he had from a lieutenant would be an example of wrong source.
What is sometimes called a "Hey You" "organization" is one that takes
orders from anyone = a repeating outpoint of wrong source.
There are many examples of this outpoint. It must be included as a
very important outpoint on its own. It produces a chaos of illogical ideas
and actions when present.
PLUSPOINTS
CORRECT TIME or the expected time period is a pluspoint.
ADEQUATE DATA is a pluspoint.
APPLICABLE DATA is a pluspoint.
CORRECT SOURCE is a pluspoint.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.jh.nf Copyright c 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
97
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1973
Issue 11
Remimeo
Data Series 30
SITUATION FINDING
There is an ironbound rule in handling things:
WHERE YOU FIND OUTPOINTS YOU WILL
THERE ALSO FIND A SITUATION.
If several outpoints come to view in any scene (or even one), if you
look further you will find a situation.
There is not any real art to finding situations if you can see
outpoints.
The sequence is simple. (1) You see some outpoints in a scene, (2) you
investigate and "pull a few strings" (meaning follow down a chain of
outpoints) and (3) you will find a situation, and (4) then you can
evaluate.
Statistics are leaders in pointing the way. They should be X, they are
not X. That is conflicting data. Behind that you will find a situation.
If anyone has any trouble finding situations then one of three things
is true (a) he cannot recognize outpoints when he sees them, (b) he does
not have any concept of the ideal scene or want it, or (c) he does not know
how to pull strings, which is to say ask for or look for data.
On the positive side, to find situations one has to (A) be able to
recognize outpoints, (B) has to have some idea of an ideal scene and want
it, and (C) has to be able to "pull strings."
Evaluation is very much simpler when you realize that the art lies in
finding situations. To then find a Why is of course only a matter of
counting outpoints and recognizing what (that can be handled) is retarding
the achievement of a more ideal scene.
REASONABLENESS
One often wonders why people are so "reasonable" about intolerable and
illogical situations.
The answer is very simple: they cannot recognize outpoints when they
see them and so try to make everything seem logical.
The ability to actually see an outpoint for what it is, in itself is
an ability to attain some peace of mind. For one can realize it is what it
is, an outpoint. It is not a matter for human emotion and reaction. It is a
pointer toward a situation.
The moment you can see this you will be able to handle life a lot
better.
The human reaction is to REACT! to an outpoint. And then get
"reasonable" and adopt some explanation for it, usually untrue.
You can safely say that "being reasonable" is a symptom of being
unable to recognize outpoints for what they are and use them to discover
actual situations.
NATIVE THINK
It may come as a surprise or no surprise at all that the ability to
evaluate as given in this Data Series is not necessarily native to a being.
98
In a native state a being detests illogic and rejects it. He seldom
uses it for any other purposes than humor or showing up a rival in debate
as a fool or using it in justice or a court of law to prove the other side
wrong or guilty.
A being is dedicated to being logical and he does, usually, a
wonderful job of it.
But when he encounters illogic he often feels angry or frustrated or
helpless.
He has not, so far as I know, ever used illogic as a systematic tool
for thinking.
Certain obsolete efforts to describe Man's thinking processes stressed
"associative thought" and various other mechanisms to prove Man a fully
logical "animal." The moment they tried to deal with illogic they assigned
it to aberration and sought drugs, tortures or executions that would "cure
it." None of them ever thought of using illogic as a tool of rational
thinking! Thus they did not advance anyone's intelligence and conceived
intelligence as unchangeable and fixed.
The only Greek school of philosophy that dealt with illogic was the
Sophist school. But even they had no real idea of the illogic. They were
employed by politicians to make their political acts seem reasonable!
Even humorists have no real idea of illogic. Reading their ideas of
the theory of humor shows them to be off the mark. They don't really know
what is "funny."
Laughter is rejection, actually.
And humor you will find usually deals with one or another outpoint put
in such a way that the reader or audience can reject it.
The groan of most humorists is that too often their hearers go
reasonable on them. PAT. "Who was that hobo I saw you with last night?"
MIKE: "That wasn't no oboe, that was my fife." LISTENER (puzzled): "But
maybe it was a very slender hobo."
The tendency of a being is to try to keep it reasonable, logical,
rational. And that is of course a very praiseworthy impulse or all life's
endeavors might unhinge.
The fear of being illogical is a secret fear of being crazy or insane.
(Not an idle fear when psychiatry was roaming around loose.) Or at the
least being thought a fool or dullard or at the very very least, unworldly
and uneducated.
To evaluate and be a fine evaluator is to be able to prevent a slump
toward a painful collapse. And to be able to steer the way from the non-
ideal present to the ideal future.
A person who feels queasy about his sanity really doesn't dare look at
outpoints or confront and use illogic. Yet it is the way to full sanity
itself.
The ability to evaluate puts one at cause over both the mad and ideal.
It places a being at a height it is unlikely he has ever before enjoyed in
the realm of commanding the situations of life.
Evaluation is a new way to think.
It is very worthwhile to acquire such an ability as it is doubtful if
it ever before has been achieved.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ntjh.nf Copyright 0 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
99
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 NOVEMBER 1973
Issue I
Remimeo CORRECTED AND REISSUED 17 MAY 1974
Data Series 31
FINAL TARGETS
The first, foremost and most usual reason evaluations fail is because
the programs to handle are not done.
The evaluator, with all the study for an ideal scene, the exhaustive
search for data and the collection and count of outpoints and pluspoints,
with the discovery thereafter of the right Why and the brightest of ideas
to handle may yet be totally defeated by the simple fact that no one ever
chases up the target execution and gets the program really and honestly
DONE.
He can even have someone who is responsible for getting his program
executed only to find they are themselves issuing additional or even
contrary orders. Or even issuing whole new programs which have no relation
to evaluation at all.
Circumstances have been found where a person with the duty of getting
targets done was so deficient in the ability to confront that he accepted
any excuse at all and was even pushed over into other subjects. The remedy
for this of course is HCOB 21 Nov 73, "The Cure of Q & A, Man's Deadliest
Disease."
It can be so bad that persons entrusted with target execution did not
even speak to or approach any person who had a target to do while not
reporting at all or reporting marvelous progress with the program!
So, sad to have to relate, it is not enough to be a fantastic and able
evaluator. If the program is never truly done, the evaluation is merely a
mental exercise.
The ability to supervise and obtain cooperation and execution is
mandatory for the skill of any evaluator.
HCO P/L I Sept 73, "Admin Know-How No. 30" and HCO P/L 15 Oct 73,
Admin Know-How Series 31, "Administrative Skill," give the evaluator some
of the additional data he needs to obtain execution of his programs.
One can say right here that the thought, "Oh well, I'm just a sort of
technician here and it's really not up to me to RUN things. I just evaluate
and it's up to 'them' to see that they carry it out," is very likely to
occur.
But if one's repute as an evaluator is to be established, it will come
about because
THE EXISTING SCENE MOVED UP MARKEDLY TOWARD OR BECAME THE IDEAL SCENE.
If that does not occur, then seniors or workers don't blame the
supervisors or communicators. They blame the evaluator. "Oh him! He
evaluated the building situation and look, the whole situation went to
hell."
No justice at all. The data and Why and all the rest were quite right.
The on-paper evaluation was perfect. It would have "handled the hell" out
of it. But lamentably the program just was never done. Altered or falsely
reported or untouched, the targets just weren't done.
So the test of an evaluation is
DID IT MOVE THE EXISTING SCENE TOWARD OR ATTAIN THE IDEAL SCENE?
100
mnlr~
And that cannot occur without the program being fully and totally and
correctly done.
See also HCO P/L 26 Jan 72, "Not-dones, Half-dones and Backlogs" for
more data on this.
Thus it is VITAL that four final targets exist on every evaluation,
These are
(Fourth from last number of the evaluation program.) Verify from
personal inspection of the existing evidence or the scene itself that every
target has been fully done without omission, alteration, falsehood or
exaggerated reports. EVALUATOR.
(Third from last number of the evaluation program.) Look at current
statistics and the results of the above inspection and the SITUATION of
this evaluation as written above AND SEE IF THE SITUATION IS NO LONGER A
THREAT. EVALUATOR.
(Second from last number of the evaluation program.) Look again at the
IDEAL SCENE as written above. Then look at the above two targets and
further investigate and SEE IF THE IDEAL SCENE HAS NOW BEEN APPROACHED MORE
CLOSELY OR ATTAINED. EVALUATOR.
(Last numbered target of the evaluation program.) (A) If the above
three targets do not show a favorable approach toward or attainment of the
IDEAL SCENE, gather new data, investigate further and RE-EVALUATE or (B) If
the IDEAL SCENE has been more closely approached or attained the following
commendations or awards are assigned:
EVALUATOR.
This signifies the conclusion of the evaluation.
(Note: The last four targets may be made available on a mimeograph
sheet for the use of an evaluator in ending off his evaluation.)
By using this program ending, it is abundantly clear to all those
concerned with the evaluation including the evaluator that
THE PROGRAM AND ITS SUCCESSFUL EXECUTION ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF AN
EVALUATION.
Unless the program is fully, truthfully and successfully done, an
evaluation alone cannot remedy any situation and the ideal scene will not
be attained.
The reason for and the final objective of any evaluation is the
approach toward or attainment of the IDEAL SCENE.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:clb.jh.nf Copyright 19 1973, 1974 by L. Ron
Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The 17 May 1974 reissue corrected a typographical error in the
original mirneo.]
101
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 NOVEMBER 1973-1
Issue I
Rernimeo CORRECTED AND REISSUED 17 MAY 1974
Data Series 31 Addition
FINAL TARGET ATTACHMENT
To save the evaluator writing the final targets longhand this sheet is
provided. It can be filled in with the proper numbers and data,
inapplicable lines crossed out and this sheet stapled to the end of any
eval.
(Fourth from last number of the evaluation program.) Verify from
personal inspection of the existing evidence or the scene itself that every
target has been fully done without omission, alteration, falsehood or
exaggerated reports. EVALUATOR.
(Third from last number of the evaluation program.) Look at current
statistics and the results of the above inspection and the SITUATION of
this evaluation as written above AND SEE IF THE SITUATION IS NO LONGER A
THREAT. EVALUATOR.
(Second from last number of the evaluation program.) Look again at the
IDEAL SCENE as written above. Then look at the above two targets and
further investigate and SEE IF THE IDEAL SCENE HAS NOW BEEN APPROACHED MORE
CLOSELY OR ATTAINED. EVALUATOR.
(Last numbered target of the evaluation program.) (A) If the above
three targets do not show a favorable approach toward or attainment of the
IDEAL SCENE, gather new data, investigate further and RE-EVALUATE, or (B)
If the IDEAL SCENE has been more closely approached or attained the
following commendations or awards are assigned:
EVALUATOR.
LRH:ntmjh.nf
Copyright v 1973, 1974 L. RON HUBBARD
by L. Ron Hubbard Founder
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The 17 May 1974 reissue corrected a typographical error in the
original mirneo.]
102
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+
in
(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
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 APRIL 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 13
DOING WORK
The basic Esto problem is getting somebody to do his job.
This is not just executives nor "bad staff." It tends to be rather
prevalent in our modern culture.
The basic question really is "Why can't you do what you are supposed
to be doing?"
An Esto will find many people "busy," but really not doing their post
hat.
As the Esto's own stat depends on people actually doing their jobs,
and as the pay and well-being of those people also depend on it, it amounts
to quite a problem.
You can do a Product Rundown to cognitions. But then in some cases
nothing happens.
You hat and still nothing happens.
ABERRATION
To understand this you have to understand "aberration."
Get the idea of a being doing wholly what he is doing. You get this:
e
A.
I I I I Task
It is a straight line of attention.
Now get the idea of somebody "doing a job that is not doing what he is
doing."
We get
e Being 'v
B. '\.X
, 111 Tas
This is aberration. Which means "not in a straight line."
199
So in example A, the person does what he is doing.
In example B, he is doing but he is not doing what he is doing
MENTALLY. Mentally he is doing something else while he is doing what he
seems to be doing.
SCHIZOPHRENIA
The most prevalent "mental disorder" is supposed to be schizophrenia.
This means "SCISSORS" or 2 plus "head." A two-head in other words. And in
this case two heads are not better than one (joke).
You see this in institutions. A person is changing valences
(personalities) clickclick-click, one to the next.
But the condition is a gradient one that worsens between sanity and
the bottom of the scale.
Midway, the condition is common but almost never noticed. It is so
common today that it passes as normal humanoid.
The person is not doing what he is doing.
Examples of this are-people who do not like a job with responsibility
because
they "like to do mechanical things so they can dream of something
else while working";
persons who "have to do something else before they can 59; persons
who are out of area; persons who continually make dev-t.
There is also the person who rams sideways into the work of others
with "mistakes," "demands," and prevents them from doing what they are
doing while himself not doing what he is doing.
One can't say these people are crazy. Not today. But one can say they
make problems which are very difficult unless you know how to unlock the
riddle.
BARRIERS
Study Series No. 2 HCOB 2 June 1971 Issue I "Confronting" and the
drills given in the Esto tape series can push their way through an
astonishing mass of barriers.
For this is what the condition is-an effort to get through barriers.
The reason example B above occurs is that the person's attention is
misdirected by mental barriers each time he tries to do A above.
Yet only if he can do A will he have any self-determinism and power.
It does not mean he is crazy. It means he is incapable of directing
his attention straight. Each time he does, he hits something that deflects
it (sends it off at an angle).
All this will seem very reasonable to him because it is the way it has
always been. And like the little girl who never knew she had had a headache
from the time of birth, and only knew it when it quit suddenly, such a
person does not realize he cannot control his attention.
Such think about lots of other things while apparently thinking about
what they are doing. And they do lots of other things.
MISUNDERSTOODS
Misunderstood words prevent them being in communication with materials
or others. Thus they do not read or listen. They maunder (which means
wander about mentally).
200
This is the inflow side of it.
The outflow side are barriers of odd fears and peculiar ideas.
Such people appear rather weak and dispersed. Or too heavy and
stubborn to make up for it.
They have fixed ideas and other outpoints because their thoughts
detour instead of running along a highway.
HAPPINESS
To get someone to actually do what he is doing when he is doing it
will sound cruel to some people. That's because they find it painful to
confront and would rather withdraw and maunder, sort of self-audit
themselves through life.
They are not happy.
Happiness comes from self-determinism, production, and pride.
Happiness is power and power is being able to do what one is doing
when one is doing it.
COMPETENCE
When a person is competent, nothing can shake his pride. The world can
yell. But it doesn't shake him.
Competence is not a question of one being being more clever than
another. It is one being being more able to do what he is doing than
another is.
Example A is competence.
Example B is incompetence.
MORE THERE
You could say a competent person was "more there." But this is really
"more able to put his attention on what he has his attention on."
WHY
Anyone who is not a fireball on his post could be described by this
WHY:
Unable to do his post for an individual WHY for each person.
Thus there are two ready remedies an Esto can use.
1. He can find the WHY a person cannot do his post and then handle it.
2. He can do Esto drills on the person.
In finding the WHY the observation itself that his stats are low may
find the person a bit defensive.
It just could be that he does do what he is doing. But if so his stats
would be high and he would be moving fast.
Thus one has to find his personal WHY. If it is the right one he
should have very good indicators and speed up and do his job. If it is not
quite the right one he may feel degraded or ashamed.
201
The test of any right WHY is does it raise the existing scene toward
the ideal with existing resources.
Thus you can get a WHY that is not wholly acceptable until handled.
But if you really are spot on it should blow a lot of the barriers.
Thus a real WHY blows a lot of the barriers, when handled, between the
being and his job.
The drills then push it on through.
The drills sometimes blow through the WHY. The WHY sometimes blows
right through any need of drills.
So these two actions interact.
If you see someone feeling very guilty after the WHY "is found,"
better check it over. It could be a wrong WHY and in this case, just find a
new one.
THIRD ACTION
The Primary Rundown, HCOB 30 Mar 72, should be done on a staff member
thoroughly.
Otherwise he will remain to some degree out of comm. He will not be
able to take in data quickly if he cannot communicate with words.
PROCESSING
Of course processing removes all the barriers eventually. But it is
not necessarily aimed at doing a job.
Ability potential is enormously increased by processing.
But traditionally we do not rely on processing to handle staff.
We handle people and we handle cases.
But auditors and staff members, simply because we do handle people and
cases, must not have cases on post. We do not admit that they have cases.
This raises necessity level.
And it is quite amazing how high that necessity level can be raised
and how a person can function despite his case.
If we admitted that staff had cases we couldn't handle public cases.
It's that simple.
So an Esto does not advise or use auditing on staff members as a post
remedy nor accept case as a WHY.
Of course "case" is a WHY. But when you accept it you retreat from
example A above and at once get a B.
You will be amazed how a person can begin to do what he is doing by
finding his WHY and doing drills.
And of course you also have to handle the fellows who jam in from the
side at every turn and disperse the staff member's attention. He too (and
especially) isn't doing what he is doing.
The same procedure (WHY and drills) handles him as well.
202
In sum, if a staff member isn't doing what he is doing he is doing
something else. They never do nothing.
Ask "What is the reason you do not fully do your post?" or any such
version. Find the real WHY. And handle the person.
That's the major part of an Esto's job.
And don't be surprised if you get a cheerful "but I am!" And find he
is.
But his stats and speed tell the whole story.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.bh.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
203
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 APRIL 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 14
ETHICS
The normal level of an unhatted dev-t nonproducing org is out-ethics.
The reason you see so many heavy ethics actions occurring-or
situations where heavy ethics actions should occur if they aren't-in such
an org is that it has its EXCHANGE flows messed up.
It is important to know this fact as this factor alone can sometimes
be employed to handle persons in the area whose ethics are out.
CRIMINALITY
Unless we want to go on living in a far nowhere some of the facts of
scenes have to be confronted.
An inability to confront evil leads people into disregarding it or
discounting it or not seeing it at all.
Reversely, there can be a type of person who, like an old-time
preacher, sees nothing but evil in everything and, possibly looking into
his own heart for a model, believes all men are evil.
Man, however, (as you can read in HCOB 28 Nov 70 C/S Series 22
Psychosis) is basically good. When going upon some evil course he attempts
to restrain himself and caves himself in.
The Chart of Human Evaluation in Science of Survival was right enough.
And such people also can be found by the Oxford Capacity Analysis where the
graph is low and well below a center line on the right.
This sort of thing can be handled of course by auditing but the Esto
does not depend on that to handle his staff's problems.
Criminal actions proceed from such people unless checked by more
duress from without not to do an evil act than they themselves have
pressure from within to do it.
Criminality is in most instances restrained by just such an imbalance
of pressures.
If you have no ethics presence in an org, then criminality shows its
head.
Such people lie rather than be made to confront. They false report-
they even use "PR" which means public relations to cover up-and in our
slang talk "PR" means putting up a lot of false reports to serve as a smoke
screen for idleness or bad actions.
Unless you get ethics'in, you will never get tech in. If you can't get
tech in you won't get admin in.
So the lack of ethics permits the criminal impulse to go unchecked.
Yes, it could be handled with tech. But to get money you have to have
admin in.
204
Unless there is ethics and ways to get it in, no matter how
distasteful it may seem. you will never get tech and admin in.
Of course there is always the element of possible injustice. But this
is provided against. (See HCO PL 24 Feb 72 Injustice.)
When ethics is being applied by criminal hands (as happens in some
governments) it can get pretty grim.
But even then ethics serves as a restraint to just outright slaughter.
Omitting to handle criminality can make one as guilty of the resulting
crimes as if one committed them!
So criminality as a factor has to be handled.
It is standardly handled by the basic ethics P/Ls and the Ethics
Officer system.
EXCHANGE
The unhatted unproducing staff member, who is not really a criminal or
psychotic, can be made to go criminal.
This joins him to the criminal ranks.
The ethics system also applies to him.
However there is something an Esto can do about it that is truly Esto
tech.
This lies in the field of EXCHANGE.
If you recall your Product Clearing, you will see that exchange is
something for something.
Criminal exchange is nothing from the criminal for something from
another.
Whether theft or threat or fraud is used, the criminal think is to get
something without putting out anything. That is obvious.
A staff member can be coaxed into this kind of thinking by
PERMITTING HIM TO RECEIVE WITHOUT HIS CONTRIBUTING.
This unlocks, by the way, an age-old riddle of the philosophers as to
"what is right or wrong."
HONESTY is the road to SANITY. You can prove that and do prove it
every time you make somebody well by "pulling his withholds." The insane
are just one seething mass of overt acts and withholds. And they are very
physically sick people.
When you let somebody be dishonest you are setting him up to become
physically ill and unhappy.
Traditional Sea Org ethics labeled noncompliance as Liability and a
false report as Doubt.
And it's true enough.
When you let a person give nothing for something you are factually
encouraging crime.
Don't be surprised that welfare districts are full of robbery and
murder. People there give nothing for something.
205
When exchange is out the whole social balance goes out.
Every full scholarship ever given by an org wound up in a messy scene.
When you hire a professional pc who just sits around making do-less
motilons while people audit him and contribute to him DO NOT BE SURPRISED
IF HE GETS SICKER AND SICKER.
He is contributing nothing in return and winds up in overwhelm!
Similarly if you actively prevented someone from contributing in
return you could also make him ARC broken and sick.
It is EXCHANGE which maintains the inflow and outflow that gives a
person space around him and keeps the bank off of him.
There are numbers of ways these flows of exchange can be unbalanced.
It does not go same out as comes in. Equal amounts are no factor. Who
can measure good will or friendship? Who can actually calculate the value
of saving a being from death in each lifetime? Who can measure the reward
of pride in doing a job well or praise?
For all these things are of different values to different people.
In the material world the person whose exchange factor is out may
think he "makes money." Only a government or a counterfeiter "makes money."
One has to produce something to exchange for money.
Right there the exchange factor is out.
If he gives nothing in return for what he gets the money does not
belong to him.
In Product Clearing many people it was found that some considered
their food, clothing, bed and allowance were not theirs because they
produced. They were theirs "just by being there." This funny "logic"
covered up the fact that these people produced little or nothing on post.
Yet they were the first to howl when not getting expensive (to the org)
auditing or courses or tech!
Thus such a person, not hatted or made to produce, will get ill.
It is interesting that when a person becomes productive his morale
improves.
Reversely it should be rather plain to you that a person who doesn't
produce becomes mentally or physically ill. For his exchange factor is out.
So when you reward a downstat you not only deprive upstats, you also
cave the downstat in!
I don't think welfare states have anything else in mind!
The riots of the ancient city of Rome were caused by these factors.
There they gave away corn and games to a populace that eventually became so
savage it could only enjoy torture and gruesome death in the arena!
A lot of this exchange imbalance comes from child psychology where the
child is not contributing anything and is not permitted to contribute.
It is this which first overwhelms him with feelings of obligation to
his parents and then bursts out as total revolt in his teens.
Children who are permitted to contribute (not as a cute thing to do
but actually)
206
make noncontributing children of the same age look like raving
maniacs! It is the cruel sadism of modern times to destroy the next
generation this way. Don't think it isn't intended. I have examined the
OCAs of parents who do it!
So if a person is brought up this life with the exchange all awry, the
Esto has his hands full sometimes!
He is dealing with trained-in criminality!
WHAT HE CAN DO
The remedy is rather simple.
First one has to know all about EXCHANGE as covered in the Product
Clearing policy letters.
Then he has to specially clear this up with people who do not produce.
He should get them to work on it as it relates to ALL THEIR DYNAMICS
IN RELATIONSHIP TO EVERY OTHER DYNAMIC.
That means he has to clear up the definitions of dynamics with care
and then have the person draw a big chart (of his own) and say what he
gives the first dynamic and what it gives him. Then what he gives the
second dynamic and what it gives him. And so on up the dynamics.
Now, have him consider "his own second dynamic." What does his second
dynamic give his first dynamic? What does his second dynamic give the
second dynamic and what does it give him?
And so on until you have a network of these exchange arrows, each both
ways.
Somewhere along the way, if your TRs are good and you have his
attention and he is willing to talk to you he will have quite a cognition!
That, if it's a big one, is the end phenomena of it.
And don't be surprised if you see a person now and then change his
physical face shape!
CONDITIONS BY DYNAMICS
An Ethics type "action" can be done by giving the person the
conditions formulas (pages 189, 237, 245, 247, 249 of Vol 0, Basic Staff
Hat. HCO PL 14 Mar 68-page 247-gives one the table.)
Method 4 the person on the table of conditions and pick up any other
misunderstoods.
Have the person study theformula of each of these conditions in the
table so that he knows what they are and what the formulas are.
When he has all this now with no misunderstood words, you must clear
up the words related to his dynamics I to 8 and what they are.
Now you're ready for the billion dollar question,
Ask him what is his condition on the first dynamic. Have him study the
formulas. Don't buy any glib PR.
Don't evaluate or invalidate. When he's completely sure of what his
condition really is on the first dynamic he will cognite.
207
Now take up the second dynamic by its parts-sex, family, children. Get
a condition for each.
Similarly go on up each one of the dynamics until you have a condition
for each one.
Now begin with the first dynamic again.
Continue to work this way.
You will be amazed to find he will come out of false high down to low
and back up again on each dynamic.
Somewhere along the line he will start to change markedly.
When you have a person in continual heavy ethics or who is out-ethics
(ethics bait, we say) and who is floundering around, you can do an S & D on
him and quite often save his future for him.
When you have such a person you do this one first before you do the
Exchange by Dynamics.
In other words, you use this on "ethics bait" and then when he's come
out of such, you do Exchange by Dynamics on him.
SUMMARY
When all looks black, and you are getting false reports, and the
things said done were not done and what was really being done were overt
products and despite all your work, the stats just won't go up, you still
have three answers:
1. GET IN ETHICS ON THE ORG.
2. GET EXCHANGE DONE ON INDIVIDUALS.
3. GET IN CONDITIONS BY DYNAMICS ON THE ETHICS BAIT,
And after that keep a strong, just Division I Dept 3.
You'll be amazed!
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
208
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 APRIL 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 15
PRODUCT CORRECTION
If you find the wrong product for a post, you knock the staff member's
hat off.
Example: Get the janitor a product of "a well established business"
and he's the Exec Esto!
When all the "products" have been "found" you can have bits of trouble
here and there. This would be very mysterious unless you realize that a
certain percentage of products found will be
(a) Incorrect
(b) Too few
(c) Incompletely worded
(d) Are doingnesses not havingnesses
(e) Can't be worked into a stat.
There will also be a certain small number who were upset by a poor
Product Rundown and will have to have auditing to handle (usually the
bypassed charge list L I C on the Product Rundown or what is called a Green
Form or even a Word Clearing Correction List).
The majority probably will be all right so that's a pluspoint.
But these flubbed rundowns become themselves a WHY.
So let's see how to correct one.
1. Did the product add up to a havingness?
2. Was it exchangeable?
3. Did it match the actual hat?
4. Were there more for the same post?
5. Is the person really wearing several hats, each of which has a
product?
6. If more than one found did they go together with each other?
7. Does it give the person a different hat?
8. Did it give the person somebody else's hat?
9. Were there misunderstood words in the rundown?
10. Does the person have contrary orders from some other person?
11. Was it just an exercise to the person?
12. Did doing the rundown make the person ARC broken or otherwise put
ruds out?
209
13. Didn't the person agree with it?
14. Was the person really trying to do some other job?
15. Was the person about to leave present post or wanted to?
16. Was the Product Rundown really not done?
17. Is the person unhappy on post?
18. Is the person taking illegal orders?
19. Is the person connected to antagonistic people (PTS)?
20. Wrong post for the product?
21. Wrong org bd?
22. Crossed over into another department?
23. Crossed over into another division?
The questions, assessed on a meter, should be handled if they read.
And when that is done (assessed and handled), the door is open to
finding the WHY called for in Esto Series 13. The above questions could be
the Why or part of it but usually that's just a symptom of the real Why
called for in Esto No. 13.
But in any event the questions correct the Product Rundown and it's
vital to do that.
HATS AND ORG BD
EXISTING ORG BD
The routine action with a post is to get the person to list on
separate cards WITH CORRECT EXACT WORDING each hat the person wears or has
been wearing no matter how small. This is NOT copied from a P/L. It's an
honest "What hats do you really wear?"
The list may be as long as 35 or 40. The higher you go on the command
channel, the more of these hats.
Having done that for every member in a division you wind up with
either
(1) Completely expressed division hats or
(2) Woefully missing functions or
(3) Badly adjusted work loads.
(4) A totally cross-hatted scramble.
You put these cards (identified as whose by the writing) onto a blank
org board. You now have AN EXISTING ORG BD.
NEXT ACTION
The following is an entirely separate action.
Now you take the 1965 org bd or FEBC org board or whatever org board
is a model and see if the "hats" you have go under the functions listed on
the board.
You adjust the hats around to cover the actual functions of the
division.
You write up cards to cover the missing functions.
You put these new cards on the org board.
210
FUNCTION BOARD
You write up the functions of the org board of the division by
departments on a separate model and add the valuable final products per HCO
PI, 4 Mar 72.
This gives you the functions to get out the VFPs expected.
These functions will or won't get out the VFPs.
What functions are needed to get them out?
By blocking in these you have now a FUNCTION ORG BOARD.
TITLE ORG BD
From this function org board you can now make up a TITLES ORG BD.
Each title has some of these functions. The functions must be of the
same general type for the title.
When you have done this (with divisional secretary, divisional Org
Officer and divisional Esto and department heads), you now have a TITLES
ORG BD.
POSTING
The main failure in putting names on an org bd is that people take the
easy way out and try to put a different person's name on each title. This
gives you a 100 person division "absolutely vital" while the production is
about 5 man!
You take the names you have NOW in the division and post those to
cover all the functions and titles.
You post from the top down. YOU NEVER POST FROM BOTTOM UP. And you
NEVER LEAVE A GAP BETWEEN PERSONS ON LOWER POSTS AND HIGH POSTS. Either of
these faults will raise hell in the division's functioning and are grave
faults.
Having done this you now have a POSTED ORG BOARD.
MATCHING
Now the hat lists you have are probably wildly different than your
posted org bd.
Take the cards of hats they were wearing and try to fit these onto
your POSTED ORG BD.
You now at once "before your very eyes" will see what's wrong with
your product and what might be right with it.
You will have one of these:
(1) Completely expressed division hats
(2) Woefully missing functions
(3) Badly adjusted work loads, OR
(4) A function not on the POSTED BD but done by someone that is
getting the product!
You will see that the board made from the hat cards they wrote,
doesn't usually compare with your posted org bd!
AND THAT'S A POSSIBLE WHY YOU COULDN'T GET PRODUCT RUNDOWNSDONE!
211
Hats don't add up to product. Or the actions really being done are
totally unproductive.
You now have it before your eyes.
CAUTION
By an excess of purity you can crash a division or an org by removing
a key function someone is doing that's NOT on the posted org bd but IS
getting the product!
We had a Phone Reg recently removed because he wasn't allowed for on
the org bd and "had to be Dir Reg but wouldn't." When he was forced into
line, the stats promptly crashed!
The stats recovered promptly when his removal was spotted and he was
ordered back on post.
You don't juggle an org board lightly. You can destroy a division or
unit by juggling hats.
The rule is DON'T DISMANTLE A WORKING INSTALLATION. NEVER!
You can build around it, support it, put in another one like it. But
don't touch it!
It is heartbreaking to build a successful upstat division-takes months-
and have somebody crash it by musical chairs, musical functions.
So always look at stats. And look at the PAST points of high stats of
that div in past years and see what was its organization when it was really
upstat.
You could do no better than to rebuild that old structure.
But if your div or activity was a working installation that was really
getting out the product don't monkey with it. Study it instead.
RECLEARING PRODUCT
If Product Clearing wasn't good, and the unit isn't doing well, then
do the above org bd exercises to see what gave.
And you probably will now see that you didn't have the right products.
Try to get your division or dept standard if its stats are low.
Standard is your 1965 SH org bd for a big org. That org really ran! Most
policy is built on it.
But a little org builds up from "Org Program No. I" LRH ED 49 INT 9
Dec 1969. And can go through the 6 dept stage of London, LA and DC in their
glory ('56-'62). They had an HCO, a Registration, Accounts, Training,
Processing and a Department of Personnel Efficiency (public). These did all
the functions. There was an HCO Sec and an Association Sec. But Org Pgm No.
I phases into it with a person in full charge of public.
Or a little org can build a big org from Org Pgm Number I right on
into the '65 org bd.
The approximate products of HCO PL 4 Mar 72 are being worked for. I
say approximate as there may be more and the wording may be better
adjusted.
When you have the hats getting out the subproducts (those necessary to
make the VFPs of the org) you will get the VFPs.
CORRECTED ORG BD
You may find it necessary to correct your posted org board to get the
VFPs.
212
Remember, it has the staff it has, plus any new ones it manages to get
plus any field technical persons it can get in to go on staff.
YOU HAVE TO SET IT UP TO GET OUT THE VFPs NOW NOW NOW.
An org can't stand idle to be organized. It can die if it is hatted
just to establish.
So you post the people you have to do the functions that must be done.
Then you Product Clear.
You clear from the top down.
You HAT to produce.
There isn't anything more important than this step.
EASY WAYS
The easy way to do this is to do 2 of the short form steps quickly on
EACH staff member from the top down.
Then take the next two on ALL the staff, each one.
If a Product RD has been done already but it isn't running well,
correct it, with above list.
And do it with two steps and go on to the next staff member.
NEGLECTING TO CLEAR PRODUCTS
The biggest omission is not clearing products at all.
The next biggest omission is failing to clear from the top down.
The next is not clearing them all through the div two at a time.
The next is not clearing products on the new people coming into the
div promptly.
CRISSCROSSING PRODUCTS
A div can be tangled by having the wrong products for the hats.
So product is always suspect when stats are down or lines tangle.
BIGGEST WHY
The biggest Why of products not getting cleared is an Esto I/C in a
small org or an Exec Esto who does not run and train his Estos. If an Exec
Esto listens to "but I can't use a meter," "my TRs are out," "she won't let
me hat her," "I have Mis-Us on the P/Ls so don't read them" and does not
handle his Estos the way a coach handles a hot football team, products
won't get cleared.
Naturally if products are not cleared on an Esto I/C or an Exec Esto
or if they aren't cleared on the Estos they will flounder.
Once again it's a two-step- at-a-time action round and round while
getting other things done between each two steps.
EXAMPLE OF PRODUCTS
An example of Product Clearing that throws things out is crossing the
hats of the Esto MAAs.
The Exec Esto's MAA is responsible for the schedule and getting to
work and exercise and activities of STAFF MEMBERS.
213
The Assistant Esto MAA is responsible for Estos.
If their products are incorrectly cleared they will flounder around
and their posts may look of little value.
The Exec Esto's MAA probably has a product like "effective post hours
of each staff member." Each staff member on post one hour is a product. He
also therefore has a welfare sort of function that leads to a lesser
product that leads to the main one. Like, "a staff member in good physical
condition for the day." And this gives another lesser product, "a secure
staff member for that day." And so it goes. This is not a list nor an exact
wording of his products. But do you see that they all fit? They are ethics
type stats so they have time in them because they preserve and measure
survival. They could not be graphed without time in them. They would not
vary.
The Esto's MAA has "an Esto on post with ethics in that day." He has
lesser products of "a defended or secure Esto that day" and "an Esto
assisted with liaison with HCO." Do you see that the products mesh? If an
Esto has out-ethics he can't be defended because he can be hit from above.
Also the Exec Esto's MAA has the staff and the Esto's MAA has the
Estos so "both sides" are supported.
Now if you product cleared the Exec Esto's MAA as having "a working
Esto" as his product he would be at once the Exec Esto! While called
"Esto's MAA." He wouldn't be able to make head nor tail of his post.
If the org's HCO Ethics Officer had the same products as the Esto MANs
(or, lord help us, all three had wrong products) whole zones of ethics
would be missing in the org and out-ethics would occur. The Ethics Officer
has several products but as HCO is a production division, he has "an out-
ethics person whose ethic level has been made acceptable." It would not be
"Ethics Orders issued" as that isn't the whole product of the E/O nor would
"people hit by ethics" be a product because it isn't a product. The product
would have to include public and if it didn't the whole public zone would
be out. Students would get into an E/O section jammed with staff backlog
and would be kept off course and maybe blow. Decent investigations couldn't
be made. So ethics would go out in the area.
But an Esto having trouble with a staff member would know, if products
were right and published, to send him to the Exec Esto's MAA!
And what of files? It's useless to duplicate files so HCO Ethics Files
has all Ethics files and the Exec Esto MANs files and the Esto MANs files,
So, just with this example, you can see that products can be very
neatly coordinated. AND MUST BE FROM STAFF MEMBER TO STAFF MEMBER in a
section, a department, a division, an org. Then it all FLOWS. Somebody is
in charge of each internal product in the org that it takes to make a VFP
and in charge as well of that VFP loosely (incorrectly called) the GI (GI
is really the valuable FINAL REWARD for which the VFPs are exchanged).
Thus, an org properly product cleared RUNS, PRODUCES VFPs in high
volume and quality and is rewarded with GI and other things for which VFPs
exchange.
And that's the org you want!
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.mes.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
214
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 APRIL 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 16
HATTING THE PRODUCT OFFICER
OF THE DIVISION
Estos have been told "hat from the top down."
Why? Because the head of a div or org or the Product Officer of the
org is the one who gets other people to work.
If the Product Officer is not hatted to get people to work there will
be no products, the stats will be very low and that Esto could be very
mystified and look bad as an Esto.
For if he does not do this one thing first then whatever else he does
will be wasted.
An Esto who gets drawn in and given orders by a div head or who cannot
confront the div head will wind up withdrawing from the div or just being
inactive.
The first major failure of an Esto would be a failure to hat the
Product Officer of the org or div.
FIRST SITUATION: There is no head of div (or org). Correct action: Get
a head of div (or org) fast and rapidly org board the div. The number of
people in the div (or org) does not matter at this stage. First things
first. Get a head of div (or org). And rapidly org bd the place.
SECOND SITUATION: You have a head of div (or org). Correct action: Hat
him with HCO P/L 28 July 71 Admin Know-How No. 26. Tell him you will attend
to the hatting IF he will get them producing. He is responsible for their
production. Get him to know this P/L. (Method 4 WC.) Tell him he is in
Phase 1. So let's see some production.
THIRD SITUATION.- The head of div or org flies about, looks busy or
just sits
there. He is not getting out production. He will tell you all about
"not being hatted,"
"doesn't know the tech" on and on, excuses excuses. But no production
from him or
staff. Correct action: He has to be made to understand that he isn't
doing his job no
matter how busy he looks or how many reasons he has. He probably has
not noticed
and does not know that he is faking work. People with low confront
don't see. If he is
really doing his job and getting out his products and forcing any
staff to get out theirs,
you have a pearl. Cherish him, and don't consider doing this third
action on him. But
one is easily fooled. Only real products tell the tale. A busy exec
or division is not
necessarily a producing exec or div. So if no products from him or
staff for whatever
reason, he's below Danger. You don't have a head of div or org if you
don't have
products coming off and exchange occurring. Only these, not excuses
or motions, tell
the tale. You can get "PR" and glowing (but false) reports. You can
get all sorts of
things. But where are the products? So you bait (tease) and badger
(nag) the head of div
(or org) to IMPINGE ON HIM (draw his attention) until he snarls or
cries or screams
AND SPITS OUT AN OUTPOINT. You don't ask him like repetitive commands
"Why aren't you working?" You ask in many ways "Where are the
products?" And
he'll eventually tell you an outpoint. Like "But I can't get out any
products because
they aren't products until they are back home telling people how good
we are so how
can 1 .19 Or "I just keep running around here and nothing happens." Or
some other nonsense that is nonsense. That's his Why. So you tell
him,"Look,
215
you don't get out products because you don't think you can!" Or "You
are just trying to look busy so you won't be thought idle." And if you're
smart and on the ball, that will be it. The exec will cognite and go into
smooth 2WC at once and you got him out of the Esto P/L Series 13 state into
a confront. This is "Bait and Badger" to get him broken out of
nonconfronting. That's all that's wrong with him really. He doesn't look.
SITUATION FOUR: The exec won't let an Esto near him. Snaps, snarls.
Don't avoid him. Correct action: Bait and Badger. He's already halfway
through Situation Three above. Finish it up.
SITUATION FIVE: The exec goes into shock. This is a symptom of no
confront. He won't fight back. He will propitiate. But he won't do anything
either. Correct action: Get a new exec. Tame execs who won't fight and
can't work will never get a staff to work. After getting a new exec,
salvage the old one with processing. Do Steps One to Four on the new one.
SITUATION SIX: Having gotten the original or a new exec this far, you
will find he is usually outpointy in his actions even if producing. Correct
action: Run Confront in his area. Run Reach and Withdraw in his area. Then
product clear him on every section and department he has as though he's the
head of it.
SITUATION SEVEN: Gets out volume but quality suffers. This is a
general nonconfront. Correct action: Bring him personally up through each
dynamic, through the conditions per Esto Series No. 14. Get him in normal
or higher on each dynamic. Now do Dynamic Exchange, Esto Series No. 14.
SITUATION EIGHT- He is active, producing but isn't forcing staff to
produce. Correct action: Recheck him on HCO P/L 28 July 71 Admin Know-How
26 and look for a Why that he can't pull himself out of Phase I into Phase
11. Get this VGled. Tell him, "Preach to them that dones come from
effective doingness. If they don't do things that are effective they will
not get a done. Demand DONES."
SITUATION NINE: He really doesn't know his job. Correct action: Begin
to hat him. Don't start hatting him further than an instant hat before you
have worked it up to Situation Eight. His confront will not be good enough
to apply the material even if he knows it. So only at this stage do you
start to really hat. And at this stage you hat by observing what he doesn't
know that he needs to know and you look up and select P/Ls that fit his
current state of unhattedness and check him out on only these. You keep a
log of what he's checked out on so he gets credit for it.
SITUATION TEN: The executive skids back. He roller-coasters or gets
ill. Correct action: Recognize this as a PTS situation. Get him interviewed
by the D of P. Get the PTS situation HANDLED and don't buy "It's just the
flu" or whatever. He's PTS and that's trouble. (See HCOB 17 Apr 72 C/S
Series 76.)
SITUATION ELEVEN: The exec does not seem to remember what he's been
checked out on or apply what he knows. He is glib or he is foggy. Correct
action: Get him word cleared Method 1. Then word clear him Method 4 on the
materials he has covered. (See Word Clearing Series HCOBs.)
HOW MUCH TIME
How much time do you spend with an exec?
Well, effective or not his time is valuable.
Do not use peak load post time or he'll be going mad with the PTP of
unhandled actions needing to be done. So you won't get anywhere.
Try to do these actions on an exec during his study time.
Observe him on post to know what to do in his study time.
216
If he has no study time, you must get the Study Correction List (HCOB
14 Jan 72 Study Series 7) done on him and handled as in Situation Thirteen.
An exec who can't study can't see either.
If this conflicts with your own study time, make other arrangements
for that portion of yours. But get yours IN too.
SITUATION TWELVE: Has study time in addition to working hours but does
not study. Correct action: See that study time is run per "What Is a
Course?" HCO P/L 16 Mar 71 and "What Is a Course-High Crime" HCO P/L 16 Mar
72 and LRH ED 174 INT 72.
SITUATION THIRTEEN: Even though staff course exists does not study.
Correct action: Have a Study Corr List HCOB 14 Jan 72 Study Series 7 done
and properly handled.
REST OF STAFF
What do you do with the rest of staff?
These thirteen situations cover as well any staff member.
You could do no worse than do these things on each one as beginning
actions.
There are many Esto actions that can be done but if you don't get
these done you won't get far.
But on staff below dept head, Situations One, Two and Eight do not
apply.
SITUATION ONE STAFF: Major post not posted. Correct action: Force a
Dept One into existence via the Exec Esto and get it producing staff and
get the post posted. (Don't do an incorrect action and use other parts of
the org as personnel pools and dismantle working installations or rob
tech.) Get the org bd up and the person on it.
SITUATION TWO STAFF: You have a person on the post. Correct action:
Instant hat him. Get him programmed for training for post. Unbug his study
time. See that he studies per pgm.
SITUATION EIGHT STAFF: He is active and producing but isn't moving his
products or is backlogging and/or gets in jams. Correct action: Volume 0 of
OEC Course, get in its comm sections, drill him on org bd and show him the
other terminals he is supposed to be in comm with. Make him follow his
product physically through lines and then make him follow the routes of
things that should come to him. While doing this you will find bugs in the
lines or in his own lines. Smooth them out. Drill the person further.
THIS P/L AS A CHECKLIST
You can use this P/L as a checklist.
Get a cardboard folder. Put the person's name on it.
Write the person's name in at the top of this P/L.
When each action is done, mark the dates it is being worked on in the
margin beside the situation with your initial.
When fully done mark it DONE with date. Beware of NOT-DONES or
HALFDONES or BACKLOGS. (See Admin Know-How 29, Executive Series 5, both are
HCO P/L 26 Jan 72 Issue 1.)
Don't skip about on this one.
217
THE GENERAL WHY OF INACTIVITY OR NONPRODUCTION IS: LOW CONDITION ON
ONE OR MORE DYNAMICS MAKING A NONALIGNMENT WITH OTHER DYNAMICS CAUSING AN
INABILITY TO CONFRONT.
Most beings are not there as a being as they are below existence. As a
being plus body they have social responses and can do orders or will do at
something when attention is called to it. Otherwise they are blind with
their eyes wide open. They are not malicious. They just don't SEE.
If they are not there they won't have to be responsible for what they
do, will they? They do not think they have lived before or will live again,
which is why the population is fixed on a one life idea.
As a result the above situations do occur. And the handling has been
tested and works.
Do not say, "Why haven't you seen - - " this or that outness. Say, "Do
you see this -" outness. And they will look in that direction. But
sometimes have to be shown further evidence. Then they see it. Until the
above situations are handled, you are working with social machinery.
When you have handled these situations as above correctly as noted,
you will get toward full application of HCO P/L 5 May 1959 "Policy on Sec
EDs and Hats" page 64, Vol 0 of OEC. Call the above "correct actions" the
modern processes plus many other Esto actions and you can bring the exec to
CAUSE so that he CREATES his post.
Until you have handled, using his social machinery as per the
situation handlings above, he is not being bad, he just can't see.
This is how you get an exec functioning.
It is no overt act to get him functioning as only until you do will he
have any morale at all.
SITUATION FOURTEEN.- An exec or staff member may try to use the Esto
as an Org Officer or to get the Esto to get involved in the division's
products. BOTH are fatal Esto errors. Correct action: Explain Esto
functions to them briefly so they know the Esto's product is THEM.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.gm Copyright Q 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note.- The following data is taken from a Founder advice of April
1972.
"The Org Officer gets the CO's programs logged and done. This is in
addition to his FEBC Org Officer duties, less interviewing staff.
The first product of a Product Officer is an Org Officer but the first
product of an Org Officer was the HAS and is now the Exec Esto.
The first product of an Exec Esto is a divisional Esto working on
Products I and 3 in the division."-LRH
Further data on the above is given in the FEBC Tapes and Esto Tapes.]
218
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 MAY 1972
Remimeo
Study Series 4
Establishment Officer Series 17
Language Series 4
CHINESE SCHOOL
As very few westerners have ever seen a Chinese or Arab school in
progress, it is very easy for them to miss the scene when one says "Chinese
school."
The term has been used to designate an action where an instructor or
officer, with a pointer, stands up before an assembled class and taps a
chart or org board and says each part of it.
It is very funny to one who knows or has heard a real Chinese school
to see the class sitting there silently. This is strictly a Western
pattern. This is how teacher does it in Omaha or Cornell. But never in
Shanghai!
A Chinese class sings out in unison (all together) in response to the
teacher. They participate!
The only Western near equivalent is a German beer hall where the
audience choruses items sung out by the song leader.
Chinese school, then, is an action of class vocal participation. It is
a very lively loud affair. It sounds like chanting.
In a real Chinese school the response is so timed that although spoken
by many voices it is quite easy to tell what answer is being chorused.
It is essentially a system that establishes instant thought responses
so that the student, given "2x2" thinks instantly "4."
For example, the instructor, tapping a big multiplication chart cries,
"Two times two." The class in one voice cries, "Four." Instructor: "Five
times two." Class: "Ten." And so on and on and on by the hour.
This gets more complex when, let us say, the maxims of good conduct or
the Koran are being taught. In such cases the tablets or scrolls are on the
wall. The teacher calls chapter and verse and the students chant it.
You could teach the laws of listing and nulling, The Auditor's Code,
axioms and so on in this way.
The tools are the same-an instructor, a pointer, a chart or set of
pictures or big scrolls, a class.
There are two steps in such teaching.
A. The instructor taps and says what it is. Then asks the class what
it is and they chant the answer.
B. When the class has learned by being told and repeating, the
instructor now taps with the pointer and asks and the class chants the
correct answer.
DRILL
The instructor himself has to grasp the drill.
Here is how it would go on an org bd.
219
A.
Instructor taps Div 1. "This is Division I HCO Division."
Class chants, "Division I HCO Division."
Instructor taps Div 6. "This is Division 6 Distribution Division."
Class: "Division 6 Distribution Division."
And so on until all divisions have been named a few times.
B.
Instructor taps Div 1. "What is this?"
Class: "Division I HCO Division."
Instructor taps Div 4. "What is this?"
Class: "Division 4 Tech Division."
And so on and on. The divisions are then considered trained-in on the
class.
Next one would go to departments. Then to philosophic names of
departments. Then to sections. Then one would go to the titles of each
division head. Then to dept heads, etc., etc.
If one had a function org board of what each div and department and
post did one would go on with the same thing.
A Chinese school drill run for a short period each day will eventually
cover an enormous amount of org bd.
Newcomers to the drill have to be schooled-in to catch up or join a
new class.
Anything can be taught by Chinese school that is to be learned by
rote. The parts and actions are always the same.
There is also a version that uses a text, preferably with a copy of it
in each student's hands. It sounds the same.
One is limited only by what he can put on a chart or even in a text
where each student has a copy of the text open before him.
Crude charts are easy to draw up with a felt (heavy ink) pen. The size
of a chart is determined by the ability of the students furthest away to
see it easily.
Cloud types, pictures to be named in a foreign language, even slides
of airplane types, anything can be Chinese schooled that is to be learned
verbatim. And you'd be surprised how many things should be. And if they
aren't the person has a shaky foundation under the subject.
Care should be taken to define strange words. But it is not really a
problem or exercise in Word Clearing. It is verbatim rote teaching.
And it works.
And is lots of fun.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright Q 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
220
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 JUNE 1972
Remimeo
Data Series 26
Establishment Officer Series 18
LENGTH OF TIME TO EVALUATE
It will be found that long times required to do an evaluation can be
traced each time to AN INDIVIDUAL WHY FOR EACH EVALUATOR.
These, however, can be summarized into the following classes of Whys:
This list is assessed by a Scientology auditor on a meter. The
handling directions given in each case are designations for auditing
actions as done by a Scientology auditor and are given in the symbols he
would use.
I . Misunderstood words.
(Handled with Word Clearing [Method I and Method 4 of the Word
Clearing Series].)
2. Inability to study and an inability to learn the materials.
(Handled by a Study Correction List HCOB 4 Feb 72.)
3. Outpoints in own thinking.
(Handled by what is called an HC [Hubbard Consultant] List HCOB 28
August 70.)
4. Personal out-ethics.
(Use P/L 3 May 72 by an auditor. Has two listing and nulling type
lists.)
5. Doing something else,
(2-way communication on P/L 3 May 72 or reorganization.)
6. Impatient or bored with reading.
(Achieve Super-Literacy. LRH Executive Directive 178 International.)
7. Doesn't know how to read statistics so doesn't know where to begin.
(Learn to read stats from Management by Stat P/Ls.)
8. Doesn't know the scene.
(Achieve familiarity by direct observation.)
9. Reads on and on as doesn't know how to handle and is stalling.
(Get drilled on actual handling and become Super- Literate.)
221
10. Afraid to take responsibility for the consequences if wrong.
(HCOB 10 May 72 Robotism. Apply it.)
11. Falsely reporting.
(Pull all withholds and harmful acts on the subject.)
12. Assumes the Why before starting.
(Level IV service facsimile triple auditing.)
13. Feels stupid about it.
(Get IQ raised by general processing.)
14. Has other intentions.
(Audit on L9S or Expanded Dianetics.)
15. Has other reasons not covered in above.
(Listing and nulling to blowdown F/N item on the list.)
16. Has withholds about it.
(Get them off.)
17. Has had wrong reasons found,
(C/S Series 78.)
18. Not interested in success.
(P/L 3 May 72 and follow as in 14 above.)
19. Some other reason.
(Find it by 2-way comm.)
20. No trouble in the first place.
(Indicate it to person.)
When this list is assessed one can easily spot why the person is
having trouble with the Data Series or applying it. When these reasons are
handled, one can then get the series restudied and word cleared and
restudied and it will be found that evaluations are much easier to do and
much more rapidly done.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ne.rd.nf Copyright c 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
222
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 JUNE 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 19
PROGRAM DRILL
A majority of people cannot follow a written program. Yet all legal
projects are in
program form.
The reasons are various. But when programs are not understood they can
be
cross-ordered, abandoned, left half done and the next thing you know
you have a backlog (HCO P/L 26 Jan 72, Issue 1, Not-Dones, Half-Dones &
Backlogs).
There can be (and usually are) other situations that prevent the doing
of a
program. Out-ethics (P/L 3 May 72), PTS or SP (P/L 5 Apr 72), lack of
understanding of a product or exchange, an unmanned or undermanned area are
the commonest reasons. But when all these have been handled, there can be
two other reasons-the written project itself is bugged so it can't be done
(needs special equipment or finance or is outpointy or doesn't apply) or
THE PERSONS CONCERNED JUST CAN'T DO A PROJECT. The former of these reasons
is seized upon all too often to excuse the latter WHICH USUALLY IS THE
CASE. They can't execute a project and prefer cross orders because the
orderliness of a project or what it is. is not understood. Therefore, to
handle this we have the following project drills.
The person is just to do these, honestly, each one, from targets I on.
DUMMY PROJECT I
PURPOSE: To learn to do a project.
MAJOR TARGET. To get it done.
PRIMARY TARGETS:
1. Read this P/L down to "Dummy Project L"
2. Check off each one when done.
VITAL TARGETS:
1. Be honest about doing this.
2. Do all of it.
OPERATING TARGETS:
1. Take off your right shoe. Look at the sole. Note what's on it. Put
it back on.
2. Go get a drink of water.
3. Take a sheet of paper. Draw three concentric circles on it. Turn it
over face down.
Write your name on the back. Tear it up and put the scraps in a book.
4. Take off your left shoe. Look at the sole. Note what is on it. Put
it back on.
5. Go find someone and say hello. Return and write a despatch to your
post from
yourself as to how they received it.
6. Write a despatch from your post to yourself in proper despatch form
Volume 0
OEC correcting how you wrote the despatch in 5 above. File it in your
hat.
7. Take off both shoes and bang the heels together three times and put
them back on.
8. Write a list of projects in your life you have left incomplete or
not done.
9. Write why this was.
10. Check this project carefully to make sure you have honestly done
it all.
223
11. List your cognitions if any while doing this project.
12. Decide whether you have honestly done this project.
13. Hand all written papers including the scraps in the book over to
your Esto or senior with a proper despatch on top Dummy Project No. I
Completion.
END OF PROJECT
DUMMY PROJECT 2
PURPOSE: To learn about production.
MAJOR TARGET- To actually produce something.
PRIMARY TARGETS:
1. Get a pencil and 5 sheets of paper.
2. Situate yourself so you can do this project.
VITAL TARGETS:
1. Read an operating target and be sure to do it all before going on.
2. Actually produce what's called for.
OPERATING TARGETS:
1. Look very busy without actually doing anything.
2. Do it again but this time be very convincing.
3. Work out the valuable final product of your post. Get help from
your Esto or senior as needed.
4. Straighten up the papers in your in-basket.
5. Take sheet I as per primary targets above. Write whether or not No.
4 was production.
6. Pick over your in-basket and find a paper or despatch that doesn't
contribute in any way to your getting out your own product.
7. Answer it.
8. Take the second sheet called for in the primary target. Write on it
why the action in 7 is perfectly reasonable.
9. Take the third sheet of paper and draw the correct comin lines of
your post.
10. Get out I correct product for your post, complete of high quality.
11. Deliver it.
12. Review the operating targets and see which one made you feel best.
13. Take the 4th sheet of paper and write down whether or not
production is the basis of morale.
14. Take the 5th sheet of paper, use it for a cover sheet and write a
summary of the project.
15. Realize you have completed a project.
16. Deliver the whole project with papers to your Esto or senior.
END OF PROJECT
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright c 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
224
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 JUNE 1972
Rernimeo
Establishment Officer Series 20
SUPERVISOR TECH
(Reference: HCO P/L 25 June 72, Recovering
Students and Pcs.
LRH ED 174 INT 29 Mar 72.
LRH ED 178 INT 30 May 72.)
It should be very plain to an Esto that if the materials of Dianetics
and Scientology are not available and not taught, all his work will be in
vain.
The TRAINING and HATTING of Course Supervisors is not a Product
Officer function. It belongs to HCO Dept I or the E Esto or his TEO.
A failure on course supervision (and Cramming Officer functions) will
throw out the whole tech delivery of an org and staff and defeat everything
an Esto is trying to do.
Public and staff courses are both of vital importance. After these
come auditing. But where training fails, auditing won't occur as the
auditors won't be able to audit.
Further an Esto often trains and he should have these points down as
well. And he should get them in on Supers NO MATTER WHAT DIVISION HE IS
ESTOing.
If he doesn't, a training breakdown will defeat all his best laid
plans. Bad Supers? So who gets trained?
MATERIALS
First and foremost is materials. If you don't have these on the course
for that course, what course?
Always check the available materials and then move mountains to get
them remedied where out or missing or too few.
SCHEDULES
Next is schedules.
These must be real and KEPT BY THE SUPER AS WELL.
PRESENCE
Next is the existence or presence of the Super.
There may be none, he may be there part-time, he may be there but
doing something else.
Get the Super on the course supervising the course, not doing admin or
folders. (With a course co-auditing the D of T whose job it is, dumps it on
the Super or fails to get a C/S and then there's no Super.)
So get a Super supervising the course properly as his hat and duty.
225
SUPER ASSISTANCE
Two extremes can happen in course supervision:
1. No attention to the student.
2. Bothering the student and stopping his progress.
The point one has to grasp is "OBNOSIS." This is a coined (invented)
word meaning OBSERVING THE OBVIOUS. There is no English or any other
language precise equivalent for it.
Man just does not seem to observe the obvious. The reason for it is
misunderstood words. Not understanding the symbol (word) the actual thing
can become somewhat less visible.
The real job of the Course Supervisor is to get the puzzled or doping
or bogged student going. And to protect the student who is flying from
interference including the Super's own.
To do this the Course Supervisor has to observe the obvious.
Is the student going okay?
Is the student bogged?
What is an F/Ning student? Is he chortling and gurgling and slapping
his knee? No. He is just calmly going right along.
What is a bogged student? Is he stretched out on the floor snoring?
No, he is groggy or puzzled or frowning or even emotionally upset by his
Mis-U words. When not caught and handled he will go to sleep or just stare
into space.
Should a student's fingers be wiggling? No. He should do demos fully
and with full attention only when he has something to demo in order to
grasp it.
Should two students be chattering about a date they had? No. They are
not F/Ning students even if they are F/Ning gossipers.
When the Super does not know the key words of his post, his power of
observation is low. To remedy this one does Word Clearing Method 6 on him
(HCOB 21 June 72 Issue 11).
And one gets him to look.
To keep from looking a Super can develop systems like, "Every 36
minutes I'll check up on every class member for it takes just 36 minutes to
go around them all."
When an F/Ning student is interrupted by the Super he can be given a
"withhold of nothingness." The student may say, "No, I've just been checked
up" and the Super goes away. But the student now wonders, "Am I trying to
hide something?" "Am I really doing all right?" etc. A W/H of nothingness.
To keep students from blowing, BOTH these points have to be looked
into.
OBNOSIS is the drill required on the Super.
And a Method 6 on the key words of his post.
And Product Clearing and his own study Why.
Study tech does work but must be applied!
226
A Supervisor must be a Super-Literate to be of real use.
Apply LRH ED 174 INT of 29 Mar 72 and LRH ED 178 INT of 30 May 72.
BLOWN STUDENTS
See HCO P/L of 25 June 72, Recovering Students and Pcs, for check
items of how to get students back on course.
SUMMARY
An Esto backed up by good courses and course supervision will
eventually bring it all straight.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
227
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 JUNE 1972
Rernimeo
Establishment Officer Series 21
FILES ACCURACY
As files are the vital operational line it is of the GREATEST
IMPORTANCE that
A LL FILING IS A CC URA TE.
. misfiled particle can be lost forever.
. missing item can throw out a whole evaluation or a sale.
Items get misfiled for four reasons:
1. Ignorance of the alphabet
2. Ignorance of geography
3. Ignorance of the vital role of the files
4. Personal out-ethics.
The remedies therefore are
1. ALL FILES PERSONNEL (a) MUST BE ABLE TO RATTLE OFF THE ALPHABET
FORWARDS AND BACKWARDS. (b) They must be drilled then to be able to give
the letter ahead of and behind each letter in the alphabet.
2. GEOGRAPHY must be known to files personnel, particularly the
locations of orgs, cities, states and continents. This is done by drilling
them on a map that has key locations related to files.
3. Method 6 WCing should be done on words connected with the post and
action of filing. Then the value and purpose of the files they handle
should be done by them,
4. Persons with out-ethics or on an ethics cycle should not be given
filing as an amends as they are not drilled and are out of PT to say the
least.
ETHICS ACTION
Anyone finding a misfiled particle should report it to the Ethics
Officer or Master-at-Arms.
He must then quickly make every effort to locate who is misfiling and
take rapid action.
The first action is to hat them as above.
Any repeat is an ethics offense handled by a Court.
If the E/0 cannot find the person or does not act he himself must comb
all files and straighten up the particles.
SUMMARY
It is of vital interest both in ease of work and financially that all
files are straight.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright c 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
228
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 JULY 1972
Issue 11
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 22
Executive Series 14
Org Series 30
ESTO FAILURES
For several months I have been studying the Esto system in operation
and have finally isolated the exact points of any failures so they can be
turned to successes.
PUTTING IN THE SYSTEM
An Esto returning to an org can crash it.
The exact reasons for this are
A. The execs who heretofore did organizational work say, "Ah, here's
the Esto system at last," and promptly drop their organizational and
personnel actions.
Yet here is this lone E Esto, no divisional Estos, no one trained to
support him.
The right answer is when an E Esto goes into an org where there are no
Estos or only a TEO or QEO, he must gather up the execs and tell them it
will take him weeks to recruit and train Estos and that THEY MUST CONTINUE
ANY ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIONS THEY ARE DOING and that the HAS IS STILL
ESTABLISHING THE ORG.
Otherwise they let go their lines.
B. The new E Esto takes key production personnel from the divisions to
be Estos and they crash.
The answer to this is to RECRUIT the new Estos.
This is easier than it looks if you recruit idle area auditors to be
Estos.
If you do this remember that they went idle as auditors because they
had out-ethics, were PTS, had misunderstoods and out TR 0. To get them you
do a 3 May 72 P/L, a 5 April 72 P/L, Method 4 on their courses and make
them do real TRs, especially Zero. And they'll be ready.
You get a list of area auditors and contact them and do the above on
them and you'll have Estos who are half-trained already.
Failing this or in addition to it just plain recruit.
C. The first post a new E Esto should take is Dept 1.
He does NOT "hat the HAS" or "just do programs." He rolls up his
sleeves and WORKS as director of Dept 1.
He recruits, he posts up Dept 1. He hats the hell out of Dept 1.
He makes a Department I that really really flows in personnel, puts up
org bds and hats.
WHEN he has a Department I FUNCTIONING he can begin to recruit Estos
as well as other org staff.
If he can't get a Dept I whizzing he has no business being an Esto,
does he?
229
00mr-
He does NOT put in Dept 2 or act as Dept 3. He makes the HAS handle
these.
With a strong, working Dept 1, an Esto system can then go in.
D. Musical chairs is the commonest reason any org collapses.
A "new broom sweeps clean" complex will wreck any org.
An E Esto on arrival, taking over Dept 1, FREEZES ALL PERSONNEL
TRANSFERS. He does not permit even one transfer.
The only exception would be where a musical chair insanity has just
occurred. If this was followed by a stat crash then one REVERTS THE ORG TO
THE UPSTAT PERIOD and then FREEZES PERSONNEL TRANSFERS.
But before one reverts one must evaluate the earlier period by stats
to be sure it WAS the upstat period.
By freezing personnel one protects what he is building.
Almost all musical chairing is the work of a suppressive except when
it is the work of an idiot.
E. Anyone trying to hold Dept I in a perso nnel- starved org is
holding a hot seat as any HAS or Personnel Director can tell you.
Body traffic to this dept in any medium-sized org defies belief.
It looks like Grand Central Station at the rush hour.
9916
"I have to have Where is my Course Super etc.,
etc., etc., is the constant chant.
You can spend the whole day interviewing staff execs and get nothing
done.
There is a right way to do all these things and a billion wrong ways.
Obviously the answer to all their problems is to get and train new
people. Yet how can one in all the commotion?
Ninety percent of these requests are from people who are not hatting
and using the people they already have.
The right way is on any new personnel demanded one gets Dept 3 to do
an Inspection and Report Form for people in the area of the exec doing the
demanding. You will find very often unhatted, untrained and wasted
personnel and many outnesses.
You hold the line on personnel by saying: "Handle these unutilized or
halfworking staff or these outnesses. You are here on my procurement board
as entitled to the (give priority, 3rd, 8th) person we hire or recruit."
And get industrious in recruiting, using all standard actions for that
is the only way things can be solved.
Most orgs would run better on less people because the personnel are
not hatted or trained. One org, two years before this writing, made four
times as much money on half the personnel it now has.
Unhatted, the staff is slow and uncertain. Unproducing, the div heads
demand little.
But they sure can scream for more personnel!
No org ever believes it is overmanned.
F. Some divisions (like the usual Treasury or Dissem) can be
undermanned. Key income posts most often are empty.
When one mans up an org one sets priorities of who gets personnel.
This is done by PRODUCTION paralleling. One mans up against
production.
230
New people come in through Div VI. They are signed up by Div 11.
Delivery is done by Div IV. Money is collected by Div 111. That gives you a
sequence of manning up.
You man income and delivery posts with new hirings.
The E Esto is trying to get in a Dept I so of course he gives this .1
priority as well.
Until the income is really rolling in and the delivery rolling out,
one does very little about other areas.
Having gained VOLUME, one now begins to man up for quality. This means
a Cramming and a WC Section in Qual. It means more HCO.
One now hits for future quantity by getting auditors in training, more
upper execs in training.
When the org is so built and running and viable it is time the whole
Esto system got manned up.
G. Every 5th person hired on an average should be put in Dept I as a
Dept I extra personnel who does Dept I duties and trains part-time as an
Esto.
This gives the E Esto additional personnel in Dept 1.
It also begins an Esto right.
His most essential duties as an Esto are Dept I type duties.
You eventually have a bulging Dept 1. You have a basic Dept I that
functions well and will continue so. You have the Esto trainees who are
working in Dept I as Dept I personnel. And you have of course some new
people who are HCO Expeditors until they get in enough basics for real
regular posting.
This makes a fat Dept I and proves one can Esto!
SUCCESS
If an E Esto introduces the Esto system exactly as above and in no
other way, he will be a success.
Like an auditor varying processes or altering HCOBs, a new E Esto who
varies the above will bring about disaster.
Where E Estos have gone into orgs other ways or where the system has
been varied, stats have crashed.
By going in this way, as above, it can be a wild success.
How fast can you put in an Esto system? It takes months of hard work.
It depends really on how good the E Esto is at recruiting, org bding and
hatting.
If he's good at these things the time does not stretch out to forever.
For comparison, it took half a year each to build DC, Johannesburg and
SH to their highest peaks. They were all built from a Dept I viewpoint of
recruiting, org bding and hatting hard enough to get production.
So this is the oldest pattern we have-Dept I evolves the org.
When the org gets too big Dept I loses touch. You extend it into each
div and you have the Esto system. And you have Estos.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.gm Copyright c 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
231
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 JULY 1972R
Remimeo REVISED 20 DECEMBER 1978
(Revisions in this type style)
Establishment Officer Series 23R
Executive Series 15R
Org Series 31R
THE VITAL NECESSITY OF HATTING
On a graph analysis of past stats, my campaign on hatting where a hat
was a checksheet and pack apparently introduced a steady rise of the
international gross income.
Studying this further I discovered a new basic, simple fact:
HATTING = CONTROL
A person who is hatted can control his post.
If he can control his post he can hold his position in space-in short,
his location. And this is power.
When a person is uncertain, he cannot control his post. he cannot
control his position. He feels weak. He goes slow.
If he can control his post and its actions he feels confident. He can
work effectively and rapidly.
The key is CONTROL.
Control is the ability to START, CHANGE and STOP.
When he is hatted he knows the tech of HANDLING things. Thus he can
control them. He is at CAUSE over his area.
If you have an org composed only of weak wobbly posts, they tend to
collapse in on each other. There is no POWER.
The org then cannot be CAUSE over its environment because it is
composed of parts which are not cause. The whole is only the sum of its
parts.
If all the parts are each one at cause, then the whole will be at
CAUSE over its environment.
Only an org at CAUSE can reach and CONTROL.
Thus a fully hatted org can be at cause over its environment. can
reach and control its fates and fortunes.
THUS THE PRIMARY TARGETS OF AN ESTO ARE
A. ESTABLISHED ORG FORM and
B. FULLY HATTED PERSONNEL.
BASIC SEQUENCE OF HATTING
1. Recruited or hired. Signs contract
232
2. Posted in HCO Expeditor pool or division if divisional recruit (per
HCO PL 2 Sept 74R RECRUITING AND HIRING).
3. In SO new recruit goes directly onto Product Zero in the Estates
Project Force and upon graduation from EPF goes to HCO Exoeditor pool (Ref:
FO 3727 PRODUCT TRAINING LINE-UP).
4. Staff Status Zero.
5. Eligible for student auditing but must have a stat and demonstrated
he has produced on post.
6. Staff Status I.
7. Staff Status //.
8. Posting as other than an HCO Expeditor.
9. Full hatting with a checksheet and pack with Word Clearing M6, M7
and M4.
10. Method 1 Word Clearing, Primary Rundown or Primary Correction
Rundown.
11. Administrative or tech training (OEC or auditing).
No one should have any other training much less full-time training
before Step 10 in the above. Flag Orders in the Sea Org may change this
line-up slightly but it is basically the same.
There are time limits placed on how long it takes to do SSI and SSII.
A person who can't make it is routed to Qual where he is offloaded with
advice on how to get more employable. (In the SO it is Fitness Board.)
TIME-TESTED
The above is the route that has been tested by time and found good.
Other approaches have NOT worked.
Granting full-time training at once is folly. The person may get
trained but he'll never be a staff member. This is the biggest failure with
auditors-they don't know the org. Admin training with no org experience to
relate it to is a waste of time.
This was how we built every great org. And when it dropped out the org
became far less powerful.
Old-timers talk of these great orgs in their great days. And they will
tell you all about the org boarding and hatting that went on. How the
Hatting Officer in HCO and the Staff Training Officer in Qual worked as a
team. And how fast the lines flew.
The above steps have stood the test of time and are proven by stats.
RECRUITING AND HIRING
You never recruit with a promise of free courses or free auditing. Not
even HASes or HQSes. You recruit or hire somebody to be part of the team.
OPEN GATE
If any opinion or selection is permitted as to who is going to be let
on staff, all recruitment and hiring will fail.
By actual stats when you let anyone say "No! Not him! Not her!" the
gate shuts, the flow stops. And you've had it.
Requirements and eligibility fail. The proof is that when they have
existed in orgs, the org wound up with only PTSes and no-case-gains!
233
The right answer is FAST FLOW hiring. Then you have so many that those
who can't make it drift low on the org board or off. You aren't trying to
hold posts with unqualified people "who can't be spared."
In a short-staffed org "looking only for the best people" the guy
nobody will have gets put on an empty "unimportant" department. He's now a
director!
It only happened because you didn't have dozens.
The answer is NOT lock the gate or have requirements. The answer is
HAT.
An org that isn't hatted goes weak and criminal.
Don't be selective in hiring or recruiting. Open the gates and HAT!
Follow the steps given above and you have it.
Don't spend coins like training or auditing (or travel) on people
until they have proven their worth. No bonuses or high pay for anyone until
they have reached and attained Step 8 (a good stat). The cost of such fast
flow hiring is not then a big factor.
The only trouble I ever had with this was getting div heads to UTILIZE
their staff. A FIRST JOB FOR AN EXECUTIVE IS TO GET THINGS FOR HIS PEOPLE
TO DO. AND KEEP THEM BUSY AT PRODUCTIVE THINGS.
So I used to have to go through the org that did FAST FLOW HIRING
regularly and get people to use their new people. And to move off those who
could not work.
This was ALL the trouble I had with the system.
And until I enforced FAST FLOW HIRING there was always some effort by
someone to close the gate.
ALL the great executives in Scientology came up in such orgs.
With a flow of people the best move on up. The worst, if any, drop
off.
Only orgs with restricted hiring or recruiting give trouble.
IN A FAST FLOW HIRING ORG THE HAS AND ESTOs MUST BE ON THE BALL. THE
BREAKDOWN OCCURS WHEN THEY DO NOT HAT AND KEEP ON TOP OF THE PERSONNEL
SCENE.
Fast flow hiring only breaks down and gets protested where HCO and
Estos are not doing a top job. They have to really handle the personnel,
post them, hat them, keep the form of the org.
A fully formed org in a heavily populated location would need hundreds
of staff. It would make hundreds of thousands.
But only if it is fast flow hiring, hatting, holding the form of the
org, and only then could it produce.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Revision as assisted by
Arden Hansen
FMO 2025 I/C
LRH:AH:nt.jk.gm Copyright 0 1972, 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
234
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 JULY 1972
Remimeo
EstabUshment Officer Series 24
THE FORM OF THE ORG
You often hear that one should "hold the form of the org."
What is it?
Some people think it is making sure the command channel Ounior to
senior to senior's senior or on down) is held. This is only a small part of
an org form.
In any new group of a few people, each and every one wears all the
hats. This is not an org form.
An org form is that arrangement of specialized terminals which control
and change the production and organization particles andflow lines of an
activity.
A terminal for this purpose is something that has mass and meaning
which originates, receives, relays and changes particles on a flow line.
SPACE
To have any form at all, an org must have space.
The space must be located where it can have particles and flows or
where the particles and flows with which it deals can easily be gotten to
it and sent out from it and where it can conduct its activity without undue
disturbance and at a velocity and volume with exchange that makes it
viable.
There are a number of factors involved as noted in the above
requirement: located, can have particles and flows, can get them in and
out, no undue disturbance, velocity and volume, exchange and viability.
Although this looks complex, it is actually very simple as it involves
just those elements and others are relatively unimportant. When you add
aesthetics of building and grounds, and carpets and desks you can get too
far off the definition of space requirement when these are given first
priority. These are something you build up to. Clean and neat are closer to
importance after the basic definition is met.
So one has a space. It has to be big enough for the traffic volume it
has to handle to be viable. This is usually smaller than people think. The
space is a building or other structure.
So we have a space as an essential of org form.
Potential Departing
Traffic Traffic
Inflow
235
TRAFFIC GUIDE
Traffic, particles, flows, have to be guided. They have to be pulled
in (as per Div 6, Div 2 Reg, Div 2 Letter Reg, ASR, D of Tech Services,
etc.). These are reaches out into the potential traffic that pulls it up to
the space entrance point. In essence these posts work on the potential
traffic and get it up to the door. So org form can start way out with a
general approach, a magazine book ad, word-of-mouth, PR, an FSM, a ticket
distributor, a book, etc. A specialized approach to specific names as per
the tour, the Letter Reg working CF, the Phone Reg, etc. One generally
directs the whole "general public" toward the space and also specifically
directs specific people in it toward the space.
This is the org form at work that functions outside the org space. If
it doesn't function the org space itself gets no inflow.
Departing traffic must also be guided-and is too often neglected. An
org without its CF up-to-date and used is neglecting its departing traffic.
England, for instance, loses a huge percent of its car sales business
because it has no decent spare parts stockpiles (government taxes spare
parts on the shelf). The customer who purchases often gets no follow-
through.
Orgs that neglect departed traffic wind up with ARC broken fields.
So org form must include its own space and the spaces of its potential
traffic and its departed traffic as they relate to the org's activity.
ROUTING
When particles arrive at the org space proper they must be routed AND
MUST CONTINUE TO BE ROUTED FROM THE MOMENT THEY ENTER UNTIL THEY LEAVE THE
ORG SPACE.
Thus there must be a Reception for bodies, for mail, for phone, for
telexes and for messages in general.
There must also be an exit point for all these things and someone to
send them on their way out of the org space.
Lack of a Reception that can and does route can break an org of any
type or kind and has done so.
When bodies can't contact the org they assume the org is dead. And so
it dies. The org can be so mislocated for its type of traffic that it can't
get anyone in or out. Then too the org will seem dead.
No matter the INTERNAL form of the org, its external form can be so
remote that success is impossible to maintain. Thus org form does not begin
with reception and routing. This is an action that occurs after the
external requirements are met.
But once the particle (body, despatch, raw materials, whatever) is at
the door RECEPTION must establish the routing.
This is done usually with an each-step-signed-off ROUTING FORM that
gives the full road map of the particle.
Without this, particles don't enter, jam up, get lost, go astray and
DESTROY THE INTERNAL ORG FORM by making confusions.
Thus Reception has to have a very good idea of particle types and
orgform even to be able to issue the right routing form.
INTERNAL LINES
Routing forms often carry a particle into the org but not out.
This becomes a serious problem in getting anything completed. The
start is on the form and not the exit. Thus the particle doesn't exit but
piles up some place.
When you see a mass of paper (in-baskets, pending, etc.) or a jam of
bodies (Reg waiting room, D of Ts, etc.) or piles of unused pamphlets or
unsold books you know two things at once:
A. Routing is unknown or not done or incomplete but in any event is
faulty.
236
B. The internal org form is bad.
TERMINALS
To say internal lines are out, one must also be saying internal
terminals are faulty.
Ideally, the internal org form is designed for flows with the target
of production.
The internal space has to be so allotted and arranged that the lines
flow.
The lines flow to terminals in the sequence of change required in each
particle.
The principal particle, meaning the most important one for that org
has the total priority for design of space and terminals.
If wheat were being processed, then the whole space and terminal
allocation of the plant or org, to have orgform would have to deal with
wheat.
In a Scientology org it is public bodies. Thus the whole design of
space and flows must deal with public bodies.
This is easily violated and when it is it makes a terrible confusion.
You have to trace such a flow with what is called a DUMMY RUN. This
means going through the place pretending to be the principal particle.
When you first try this in most plants or orgs you really begin to
wonder how anything happens ever.
The answer is correction of location, either of the whole space or the
terminals in the space.
One can dummy run as anything. First dummy run the principal particle
and lay that out by what has to be done to adjust the space and terminals
to it. Then as a telex, then a despatch, then as a piece of money, then as
an invoice, etc.
When you've done all these you'll really know what you're doing in
terms of space and terminals. Until then it's all guess work.
You will find you can't get in, you can't get handled, you can't stay
in and you can't get out!
So you adjust space and terminals for the main particle and then for
the lesser particles.
You will achieve a near optimum compromise.
Then you arrange it and drill it in on the terminals.
After that things will speed up and stats will go up.
HOLDING THE FORM
You now and only now have the FORM OF THE ORG.
It must be drawn up as org boards and flow plans and terminal location
plans (3 quite separate things). These three plans give you the form of the
org.
Then you have to drill-in EACH OF THE THREE PLANS usually with Chinese
school.
You do the routing forms.
Now by HATTING you give each terminal control over his portion of the
line.
The terminals will thereafter interact to bring about the needful
flows.
And if your product is good and desired, the place will boom.
And that's what's really meant by the FORM OF THE ORG.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
237
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 JULY 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 25
FORM OF THE ORG
AND SCHEDULES
Those parts of the org engaged upon similar functions must be on the
same schedule.
In essence, you can't play a ball game with different members of the
team appearing at different times. It would look pretty silly to have a
goal keeper show up in the last third of the game. By that time it would be
lost.
If over a 24-hour period people on public lines showed up, each one,
at different hours, there would be no public line. Thus there would be no
org form. For there could be no flow of the major particle.
If an activity is open for business at 0900, let us say, the persons
on key posts would have to be there at 0830 or at least 0845 in order to
"open for business" (which means open for flow) at 0900.
Precision of schedule is determined by the type of particle the org
form is set up to handle.
A service org handles bodies. A management org handles messages as the
principal flow particle. A refinery would handle crude oil. A flour mill
wheat, etc.
Of all particle types bodies tend to be the most random and are most
likely to erode or knock out org form.
Thus a service org handling bodies has to be established and hatted
about a dozen times more than one which handles inert particles.
This is one of the reasons "standard business practices" do not work
in setting up an org. They are not strong enough or fast enough,
Schedules become very important in orgs which handle bodies. The lines
rapidly jam up and make considerable confusion wherever the line goes
faulty.
As almost every part of an org requires internal cooperation from
almost every other part of an org, lack of schedules, unreal schedules or
failure to keep a schedule are, after hatting and line establishing, the
most likely causes of confusion or nondelivery.
It is important to start as a team and it is also important to stop as
one if there is a "next shift" as in a Foundation. As the staffs collide,
the students collide and the space tangles.
Operating a number of schedules at the same time for different parts
of the org can get complicated. Governments do this to ease off automobile
and commuter traffic but then they (governments) do not produce much and it
doesn't matter. Half a dozen daily schedules running at the same time for
one org can cause a considerable confusion.
The best schedules are very simple ones. You can have a schedule that
has so many times in it, so many musters, that it is a full day's work just
to keep the schedule!
238
A grave fault in schedules is not allowing any slack between two time
points. Example: Class ends 1600, next class, three blocks away, begins at
1600! Either one class has to let out early or everyone is late to the next
class!
Schedules commonly omit any time spaces to take care of things.
Example: 0900 on post. 0900 public lines open. Well, it's going to take 15
minutes or more to get a post set up, so the schedule gets violated. Thus
we have it saying 0900 when it can only be 0915! This makes schedules look
unreal to people, so they drop out. A correct version would be 0840 on
post. 0850 open for business checklist collected. 0900 public lines open.
CLOSING LINES
Closing of lines costs a great deal. An extreme example is closing an
org for 2 weeks "so everyone can have a vacation." African orgs used to do
this and would often lose their higher stats for months.
Closing orgs "during a congress" can cost. During one national
congress, several franchises closed for a week and had to fight crashed
stats for months.
Closing an org at noon or for supper can ball up lines and can have a
heavy effect on stats.
All this "closing" is simply saying "we're dead."
Lines have a tendency to keep flowing when flowing and remain stopped
when they are stopped.
If an org began at 0900 and, with a Foundation or second and weekend
shifts, ran continuously until 2300 seven days their general stats would
improve out of proportion to the additional time open.
Management orgs run very raggedly on schedules as their traffic loads
vary so greatly.
It takes good observation and skill to write a good schedule for an
org. If an unreal schedule exists or if one is too complex, it will not be
kept. Peak loads have to be taken into account and their approximate times
have to be established. There are also no-load times and to cover these
with a full org is to fail to have an adequate org there for the peak
loads.
Careful, real study, on the ground, watching traffic flows, has to be
done to make a real schedule that will be kept and which boosts production.
A schedule which does not boost production or a schedule just to have
one, are a waste of everyone's time.
So select the principal particle the org handles. Use it to determine
the times of peaks and no-loads, study what goes on in actual fact. And
then write the schedule. And see that it is kept.
This will greatly improve org form.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.sb.bh.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
239
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 JULY 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 26
Executive Series 16
Org Series 32
ESTABLISHING
HOLDING THE FORM OF THE ORG
If a person who could not play a piano sat down at a piano and hit
random keys, he would not get any harmony. He would get noise.
If the head of a division gave orders to his staff without any regard
to their assigned posts or duties, the result would be confusion and noise.
That's why we say a division head "doesn't know how to play the piano"
when he knows so little about org form that he continually violates it by
giving his various staff members duties that do not match their hats or
posts.
But even if one could play the piano, one would have to have a piano
to play.
SPECIALISTS
Each org staff member is a specialist in one or more similar
functions. These are his specialties.
If he is fully trained to do these he is said to be HATTED.
The combined specialties properly placed and being done add up to the
full production of an org.
The org form is then the lines and actions and spaces and flows worked
out and controlled by specialists in each individual function.
These specialists are grouped in departments which have certain
actions in common.
The departments having similar functions are grouped into divisions.
The divisions combine into the whole org form.
It is far less complex than it looks. It would be very complicated and
confusing if there weren't divisions and departments and specialized
actions. Without these you would get noise and very limited production and
income, and at great strain.
Take a theater as an example. There are people who advertise it; these
are the public relations people; they are hatted to get publicity and make
people want to come to the play; call them the PR Division. There are the
producers and directors; they are hatted to present a performance and make
it occur; call them the Production Division. There are the actors and
musicians; call them the Artists Division. There are the property men; they
are hatted to get costumes and items needed; call them the Property
Division. There are the stage hands and electricians and curtain and set
men; call them the Stage Division. There are the ticket sellers and money
handlers and payroll and bills payers; they are hatted on money and
selling; call them the Finance Division.
240
There are the people who clean the theater and show people to seats
and handle the crowds; call them the House Division. And there are the
managers and playwrights and score writers and angels (financiers); call
them loosely the Executive Division.
Now as long as they know their org board, have their flows plotted
out, are hatted for their jobs and do a good job, even a half-good play can
be viable.
But throw away the org board, skip the flows, don't hat them and even
a brilliant script and marvelous music will play to an empty house and go
broke.
Why? Because an org form is not held. Possibly an untrained unhatted
producer will try to make the stage hands sell tickets, the actors write
the music, the financiers show people to their seats. If he didn't know who
the people were or what their hats were he might do just that.
And there would be noise and confusion even where there was no
protest. People would get in one another's road. And the general
presentation would look so ragged to the public they'd stay away in droves.
ESTO ACTION
Now what would an Esto (or an Executive Director) have to do with, let
us say, an amateur, dilettante theatrical company that was about to bog.
Probably half the people had quit already. And even if there were
people in the company they would probably need more.
The very first action would be to Esto Series 16 the top men to make
money quick.
The first organizing action would be to kick open the hiring door.
This would begin with getting out hiring PR and putting someone there to
sign people up who came to be hired (not to test and audition and look at
references, but just to sign people up).
The next action would be to do a flow plan of public bodies and money.
So one sees where the org form reaches. Then a schedule.
The next action would be to do an org board. Not a 3-week job. (It
takes me a couple hours to sketch one with a sign pen for posting.) AND GET
IT POSTED.
One then takes the head of each of these divisions and hats him on
what his division is supposed to do and tell him to do it. NOW.
You make and post the flow plan, org bd and terminal location plan
where the whole company can see them.
Chinese drill on a flow plan to show them what they're doing and what
has to be done.
Chinese drill on the org board including introducing each person named
on it and getting it drilled, what he does and who he is.
You Chinese drill the terminal locations where each of these persons
(and functions) is to be found.
You get agreement on schedules.
You now have a group that knows who specializes in what and what's
expected of each.
You get the head of the whole company to work with and hat the heads
of his divisions.
241
Now you get the heads of divisions to hat their own staffs while you
help.
And you get them busy.
You then put the polishing touches on your own Dept I (personnel PR,
personnel hiring, personnel placement, org bds, hat compilations, hat
library and hatting hatting hatting).
And by hatting and insisting on each doing his specialized job and
getting seniors to HOLD THE FORM OF THE ORG by ordering the right orders to
the right specialists and targeting their production and MAGIC! This
amateur theatrical company gets solvent and good enough to wind up on
Broadway. It's gone professional!
You say, yes, but what about artistic quality? What about the tech of
writing music and acting. . . .
Hey, you overlooked the first action. You kicked the door open on
hiring and you hatted and trained. And you let go those who couldn't get a
stat.
Eventually you would meet human reaction and emotion and would put in
a full HCO and a full Qual particularly Cramming. But you'd still do that
just to be sure it kept going.
Yessir, it can't help but become a professional group IF you, the
Esto, established and made them HOLD THE FORM OF THE ORG and produce while
they did it.
An Executive Director can do all this and produce too. The great ones
do things like this. But here it is in full view.
A Scientology org goes together just like that. Which could be why,
when we want to get something started, we say:
"Get the show on the road!"
But there is no show until it is established and the FORM OF THE ORG
is held.
You are luckier than the amateur theatrical company's Esto. You have
policy for every post and a book of it for every division and all the tech
besides.
So there is no valid reason under the sun you cannot establish and
then hold the form of the org.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.bh.ts.gm Copyright Q 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
242
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 AUGUST 1972
Rernimeo Hatting Officer Hats
Establishment Vficer Series 27
EFFECTIVE HATTING
Here is a report from the Ship Programs Chief on Flag of the results
obtained from following my orders on how to get Estos to hat people.
It should be noted that the procedure laid down by my despatch on the
second half of this PL was exactly how I operated to develop the data used
for Esto Series No. 16. (HCO PL 24 April 72 HATTING THE PRODUCT OFFICER OF
THE DIVISION.)
THE REPORT
"Dear Sir,
"We have been having trouble getting Hatting Officers in Dept I to
actually produce. They don't complete cycles of action to a result, they
don't hat from the top down or hat for production. They don't seem to
understand why they are hatting and what are the results they should
achieve in hatting.
"This was the same problem we had back in May of this year in getting
Estos to do effective hatting.
"At that time you sent me the attached despatch addressed to the Exec
Esto. I used it faithfully and, with it, actually got hatting to occur.
"The results are still evident on the ship. With the DEO hatting per
this despatch the then Dissem Division came right up in production and is
still producing very well as the PR and Consumption Bureau.
"The Treasury Division improved markedly. Some improvement was
attained in the Steward's Dept, Electronics and Qual Div where all Estos
hatted per this despatch.
"All of these Estos had big wins hatting because I used the data on
this despatch and forced them to persist with a hatting action to a RESULT.
"I kept a big log book with each hatting cycle noted down. I insisted
the Esto kept at that cycle until it was complete.
"Each division had its own program for hatting from the top down.
"Each exec and staff member had his or her own personal hatting
program kept by the Esto. These were followed and checked off as they were
done.
"A number of the blue chip FSO crew now so valuable for Flag stability
were made by heavy hatting last spring.
"I know the data on your despatch works if it is done.
"The Estos under me at the time first had to be forced to hat and to
continue hatting to a result. Apparently their lack of confront had to be
overcome by a hard driving senior.
243
"Generally, once they started getting results, they no longer had to
be forced. They knew that Esto tech worked and willingly went ahead and
applied it with vigor.
"Their confront was improved as well by doing Esto No. 16 drills on
each other and running TRs 6-9 on each other every evening for at least an
hour.
"Only by applying the principles laid out by you on the attached
despatch was I able to get real hatting done by others,
"As we are having the same problem now with Hatting Officers in Dept
1, 1 feel that if this data were released as policy I could force it into
use and get the ship hatted up faster."
GETTING HATTING DONE
Here is the despatch I wrote to the Exec Esto on Flag back in May of
this year:
Inspections do not show Estos being industrious in their divs. They
are more active than they were.
They are not hatting from the top down and not hatting to get
production.
Basically they do not parallel the current push. They do little cycles
down the org board.
A general grasp of what's needed and wanted is missing. Thus Estos are
actually in or below Non-Existence and have not achieved upgrade from a new
post or new system condition.
They are getting individual results in some cases. They are not
integrated into the scene with what they are doing.
They would have to upgrade their handlings about 500% in order to
actually effect a marked change in the org.
Inspections show only a small % of Estos do Esto actions for a small
period of time each day. They have other fish frying or are acting a bit
confused.
If you had that many auditors and found them auditing pcs as seldom as
Estos are found doing Esto actions the HGC stat would be nearly zero WDAH.
I know what I'm talking about here because I am piloting the system to
find out why it isn't producing marked changes. I find that, with 2
messengers a watch of 6 hours, working myself part-time on it, I have been
able to get areas working. They were NOT producing under the attention of
existing Estos.
The difference is, I force those I find not working at the top to
actually produce and demand production from their staffs.
In doing this I have never crossed or found an Esto working on it. I
have found 2 div heads who were refusing to be gotten going. Both of these
I later got going.
Thus from my viewpoint
(a) It can be done with untrained Esto Commodore's messengers.
(b) I find messengers who know little of a meter can use one without
coaching or training-
(c) Production can be achieved by getting people to work.
(d) That Estos have to be run and exactly ordered to do exactly so and
so.
244
(e) That in running Estos one has to keep track of what one is doing
with them so one doesn't get a lot of half-dones. One has to make up for a
lack of persistence.
Therefore 1 conclude
A. One has to know what he is trying to build.
B. One has to target and direct its building.
C. One has to force in a persistence.
1 also conclude that training of Estos is secondary to getting them to
DO and that 1ack of training" is an excuse not to do.
This is what 1 am learning about the system from actually working it.
The current on-board application of the system lacks planning,
direction and persistence, does not hat from the top down and does not hat
toward production. It MUST BEGIN.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:FH:nt.gm Copyright c 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
245
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 JULY 1981
Remirneo Issue 11
CANCELS
BPL 4 Oct 72R Esto Ser 28R
Rev. & Reiss. 9 Jul 74
CANCELS AND REPLACES
BPL 4 Oct 72R CANCELLED 22 Jan 77
Esto Ser 28RA, Same Title
Establishment Officer Series 28RB
HANDLING PTS AND OUT-ETHICS
PERSONNEL CANCELLED
REFERENCES:
HCOB 10 Aug 73 PTS HANDLING
HCOB 24 Apr 72 1 PTS INTERVIEWS
HCO PL 3 May 72R ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES
HCOB 20 Apr 72 11 PRODUCT PURPOSE AND WHY AND WC
ERROR CORRECTION
HCO PL 16 May 80 1 ETHICS-PTS TYPE A POLICY ON HANDLING
ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES
BPL 4 October 72R, Esto Series 28R, HANDLING PTS AND OUT-ETHICS
PERSONNEL is hereby CANCELLED.
This BPL stated that before doing a 3 May PL or PTS handling on a
staff member one should verify that a situation does exist by STATISTICS.
This brought about the false idea that a PTS staff member had to have down
stats before he could receive any PTS handling.
In an effort to do away with this false idea, BPL 4 Oct 72R CANCELLED
22 Jan 77, Esto Series 28RA, HANDLING PTS AND OUT-ETHICS PERSONNEL, was
written to cancel Esto Series 28R. In doing so, however, no explanation was
given as to why this issue was being cancelled. Therefore BPL 4 Oct 72R
CANCELLED 22 Jan 77, Esto Series 28RA, HANDLING PTS AND OUT-ETHICS
PERSONNEL, is CANCELLED and REPLACED by this policy letter.
PTS tech has helped salvage many staff members. Its full use is to be
encouraged.
The correct policies and bulletins for handling PTS and out-ethics
personnel are given in the reference section above.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted by
Bill Morey
Mission Issues Revision 2nd
Flag Compilations Bureau
As accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:BM:dr.gm Copyright 0 1981 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
246
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 JUNE 1973R
Remimeo REVISED 23 OCTOBER 1975
(The revision is the signature.)
Establishment Officer Series 29R
Personnel Series 27R
The concept of what is a "complement" is probably generally
misunderstood. This means the officially allowed number of persons and the
officially designated posts for an activity, whether an org or a ship.
Without these basic complements orgs get misposted. Instead of ten
auditors they have one auditor and nine admin personnel somewhere else.
This general concept of complement is generally missing and underlies
the reason why org boards are, to some degree, in disuse.
In any org which is not doing well you may find not enough personnel
and too many personnel. You may also find that the personnel there are not
posted onto the post necessary to be held.
Designating the post necessary to be held is what is meant by
"assigning a complement."
I never realized the concept was hard to get across until recently. In
the dictionary it says that a complement is simply a full list of the
officers and men of a ship. This falls so far short of the actual
definition that it generates confusion.
A complement is the full list of posts and where they belong on the
org board, which must be held. This gives you a slightly different idea of
what is meant by 66complement."
One org, for instance, didn't have a standard complement. It simply
had all possible posts which could be held in the org. This does not tell
you what posts should be held in the org.
Therefore, personnel control is not possible.
In the case of another org there was a maximum allowed complement but
it was never filled up.
There is a complement for every separate and individual org.
Until the complement of an org is laid out, known and filled, there
will be continual trouble with personnel and difficulties in handling it.
The sooner this is straightened out, the easier time there will be for
all.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mg.gm Copyright c 1973, 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
247
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 NOVEMBER 1973
Rernimeo
Esto Series 30
All persons doing Esto work may only use the title "Esto I/T" (In-
Training) until he has successfully and honestly completed:
1. HCOB 21 Nov 73 "The Cure of Q and A."
2. The PRD (Primary Rundown).
3. The OEC.
4. The Esto Series.
5. Has shown on post the ability to see situations and handle them
terminatedly.
6. Gets staff members actually producing by increased stats.
Any reasons for failure of the Esto system anywhere have derived from
(a) a dishonest "completion" of the PRD and (b) Qing and Aing instead of
seeing and handling situations terminatedly.
An Esto must be at CAUSE.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright 0 1973 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
248
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 MAY 1974
Remimeo
PROD-ORG, ESTO AND OLDER
SYSTEMS RECONCILED
In the last three years there have been two new organization systems
developed. These were THE PRODUCT-ORG OFFICER SYSTEM and the ESTABLISHMENT
OFFICER SYSTEM.
Reviewing these I find that these systems not only reconcile with each
other but also with the HCO Exec Sec and Org Exec Sec system and the
Supercargo, Chief Officer system of the Sea Org.
TOP DOWN
In '67 1 found that an organization must always be posted from the top
down.
This means it cannot be posted with gaps between the top or lower
levels on the org board.
The org, of course, must always have a top.
And there must not be a gap between the top and the next lower post.
Or any gaps on the way down.
Example: Orgs run by a committee but without a head of org seldom
succeed.
Example: An org with a CO or ED, no HAS but only a Master-at-Arms or
Ethics Officer in the HCO Division will not function but disintegrate.
Example: A musical group with an I/C and all the rest just musicians
will deteriorate.
Example: A small vessel with three men aboard will not function with
one the Captain, another the cook and another the deckhand.
In the first example, there has to be someone responsible for the
whole organization whether above or below the committee.
In the second example, an org without an HAS or HCO Exec Sec or
Supercargo, there is no one to take all those lower functions and they
settle on an overloaded top.
In the musical group the I/C finds himself with many juniors and no
specialized organizational handling of anything.
In the small vessel all the functions of the first three divisions are
mainly abandoned and the last four as well.
All these and many more are lessons learned the hard way.
249
The seven division org board is present even in organizations that
know nothing of it! And not knowing it or using it can bring chaos.
EARLIEST SYSTEM
In early days there was an HCO Sec in charge of the functions of the
first 3 divisions (Exec, HCO, Dissem) and an Assoc Sec in charge of the
functions of the last four divisions. These functions were not fully known
as the seven division board had not been developed.
The org board evolved further and the HCO Exec Sec became the person
in charge of the functions of the first three divisions and the Org Exec
Sec, the last four.
In the Sea Org these titles became Supercargo and Chief Officer but
the functions were similar.
PROD-ORG SYSTEM
Then, within the last four years, the Product Officer/Org Officer
system was developed.
The Executive Director or Commanding Officer had (or was) a Product
Officer. The Product Officer was supported by an Org Officer to keep the
place organized.
THE ESTO SYSTEM
The Establishment Officer system or "Esto tech" was developed in the
same time period as the Prod-Org system.
The Esto kept the place established and organized for production and
despite heavy production demands.
RE-EXAMINATION
Looking over these systems, I find they fall into place naturally one
with the other.
The realization is that an org with only one Product Officer and Org
Officer has a gap-the HCO Exec Sec!
Actually an org needs TWO senior Product Officers-one to get the
products of Divisions 7, 1 and 2 and one to get the products of 3, 4, 5 and
6!
When this gap exists, no one in real practice is functioning over Divs
7, 1 and 2 and so there is an imbalance of the org board. The org tends to
fall apart. It does not rapidly expand as it has no Product Officer for
expansion or dissemination.
ESTO SYSTEM
The Esto system with its powerful tech is really the Org Officer
system.
The duties of the Org Officer in the Prod-Org system were not as fully
laid out as they might have been.
The tech of the Org Officer is really the Esto tech!
250
LRH
Board of Directors
0 0
.C
Flag Representative Executive Director (Commanding Officer)
0
0. c
HCO Exec Sec (Supercargo, Org Exec Sec (Chief Officer,
Product Officer Divs 7, 1, 2) Product Officer Divs 3, 4, 5, 6)
0 9) et
.1.m
HCO Exec Sec's Org Officer Org Exe, Sec's Org Officer
0.4
(HCO Exec Esto) (Org Esto)
0
U 0
0 $.
-54 1 1 ---1 1 1 1 1
ed z LRH Comm HCO Sec Dissem Sec Treasury Sec Tech See Qual Sec
Public Exec
E !~
4. Div 7 Div 1 Div 2 Div 3 Div 4 Div 5 Sec
0
Div 6
0
1 1
Usual Usual Usual Usual Usual Usual Usual
Depts Depts Depts Depts Depts Depts Depts
0
0 U
So where you have a Product Officer and Org Officer to the org, you
are missing two posts and so are not posted from the top down!
You should have TWO Product Officers, one who is also the HCO Exec Sec
(or Supercargo) and one who is the Org Exec Sec (or Chief Officer).
And each of these has an Org Officer who is also an Esto and who uses
Esto tech.
This gives the ED (or CO) FOUR terminals he is directly operating
with, even though the O/Os are also junior to and under their Product
Officers.
SUMMARY
This ties together all existing systems.
It finds and fills an unnoticed gap in posting from the top down.
It prevents Estos from working independently from the side into the
org off command chain.
In posting Product Officers use the old titles: HCO Exec Sec
(Supercargo) and Org Exec Sec (Chief Officer), remembering that these are
now Product Officers operating on the Prod-Org system into their own
divisions.
Post any Esto as an Org Officer under one or the other of these
executives, one the "HES Org Officer" the other the "OES Org Officer." And
insist they use Esto tech and consider themselves Estos.
Size of org has little to do with it. A one-man org would simply have
all these titles and functions. A ten-man org would be posted from the top
and all other functions directly below them not posted or held by them
would also be performed by them.
IMPORTANCE
Failing to post the top and from the top down is the main failure
point in ANY organization (not just ours).
Finding this gap is important and filling it will raise stats.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ntm/ams.gm Copyright 0 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
252
CANCELLED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE See page 255
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 NOVEMBER 1974
Remimeo (Suspends HCO P/L 9 May 74)
IMPORTANT
PROD-ORG REINSTATED
As very few orgs have been able to effectively institute HCO P/L 9 May
74 which posted Org Officers as Estos under the HES and OES, mainly due to
a scarcity of actual trained Establishment Officers and executives, HCO P/L
9 May 74 is suspended.
Orgs should revert to an ED or CO-Product Officer-Org Officer posting.
The Product Officer may retain the title of Chief Officer or Org Exec
Sec and the Org Officer may retain the title of Supercargo or HCO Exec Sec
but their functions are exclusively that of the Product Officer and Org
Officer of the org respectively, covering all divisions.
The CO or ED, Product and Org Officers form the Executive Council.
Anyone holding the post of HES 0/0 or OES 0/0 should take posts in HCO
or revert to their last successful posts.
In a very small org the CO or ED is double-hatted as the Product
Officer.
At this time it is FAR more important to cover HCO and make HCO do all
its functions in each HCO department.
The head of every division is a Product Officer for that division.
Such division heads can have an Org Officer who has essentially the
duties of an Esto as well as an Org Officer for that division. A divisional
Org Officer also has, today, recruiting and hatting functions for that
division.
The Prod-Org system was very workable and attention must be directed
back to it as it has tended to drop out.
The following materials and tapes give the data for the Prod-Org
system:
FEBC Tape 2, 18 Jan 71. 710IC18SO Side 2
PR Becomes a Subject
FEBC Tape 3, 18 Jan 71, 710IC18SO Side I
The Org Off-Prod Off System, Part I
FEBC Tape 4, 18 Jan 71, 710IC18SO Side 2
The Org and Prod Off System, Part 2
FEBC Tape 5, 23 Jan 71, 7 10IC23SO Side I
How to Post an Org
FEBC Tape 6, 23 Jan 71, 7 10 1 C23SO Side 2
The Org Off and His Resources, Part I
FEBC Tape 7, 23 Jan 71, 710IC23SO Side I
The Org Off and His Resources, Part 2
FEBC Tape 8, 24 Jan 71, 7 10 1 C24SO Side 2
Viability and the Role of the HAS
253
FEBC Tape 9, 24 Jan 71, 7 10 1 C24SO Side I Prediction and the
Resources of the HAS
FEBC Tape 10, 24 Jan 71, 710IC24SO Side 2 The HAS and the Coins of the
Organization
These can be obtained from FLAG.
HCO
A VERY STRONG FUNCTIONING HCO IS VITAL TO BACK UP THE PRODORG SYSTEM.
When there is no HCO recruiting people who will stay, hatting them and
apprenticing them and keeping their ethics in, there is a lot of commotion
generated in an org as fast production requires not only an Org Officer but
an HAS (and HCO Cope Officer) who put the org there rapidly and thoroughly.
Full use of the Prod-Org system, combined with a strong HCO that does
its recruiting and hatting job brings about high stats.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright 'a, 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
254
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 DECEMBER 1974
Rernimeo
HCO P/L 9 MAY 74 RE-ESTABLISHED
CANCELLATION OF HCO P/L 12 NOV 74
"PROD-ORG REINSTATED"
PROD-ORG, ESTO AND OTHER SYSTEMS
RECONCILED REINSTATED
HCO P/L of 12 Nov 74 suspended HCO P/L 9 May 74 which put an Executive
Council back into an org.
The suspension was temporary.
What happened was that, at least in some orgs, the Product Officer
immediately began to product officer GI only. Delivery stats crashed in
those orgs.
Obviously the OES is vital as a Product Officer of Divisions 3, 4, 5
and 6.
Thus any org that reverted to having only a Product and Org Officer
and no HES or OES must reinstate the HES and OES and, as available, their
Org Officers.
Delivery alone provides the exchange for GI and GI which is not at
once earned is a liability.
There obviously must be an OES to ensure volume and quality delivery
and, through Div 6, new people into the org.
Orgs must become exchange oriented.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright c 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
255
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 AUGUST 1976
Remimeo Issue I
All Execs
All Purchasers
Admin Know-How Series 33
Esto Series 31
PRODUCT/ORG OFFICER SYSTEM
NAME YOUR PRODUCT
The Product/Org Officer system, covered fully in Flag Executive
Briefing Course tapes, contains the key phrase for any Product Officer.
This is
NAME, WANT AND GET YOUR PRODUCT.
Breaking this down into its parts we find that the most common failure
of any Product Officer or staff member or Purchaser lies in the first item,
NAME YOUR PRODUCT!
On org boards and even for sections, one has products listed.
Departments have valuable final products. Every staff member has one or
more products.
IF PRODUCTION IS NOT OCCURRING, THE ABILITY TO NAME THE PRODUCT IS
PROBABLY MISSING.
Misunderstood post titles were collected once on a wide survey.
Whenever it was found a staff member did not seem to be able to do his job,
it was checked whether he knew the definition of the word-or words-that
made up his post title. It was found, one for one, that he could not define
it even though no unusual or special definition was being requested. In
other words, the first thing about the post could not be defined-the post
title. This may seem incredible, but only until you yourself check it out
on staff that habitually goof.
The ability to NAME the product required goes further than a mere,
glib definition. Some engineers once drove a Purchaser halfway up the wall
by glibly requesting "one dozen bolts." The Purchaser kept bringing back
all different thicknesses and lengths and types of bolts. The Purchaser was
going daffy and so were the engineers. Until the engineers were forced to
exactly name what they were seeking by giving it ALL its name. The
Purchaser trying to purchase could not possibly obtain his product without
being able to FULLY name it. Once this was done, nothing was easier.
A Product Officer can ask, beg, plead, yell for his product. But maybe
he isn't naming it! Maybe he isn't naming it fully. And maybe even he
doesn't know the name of it. A Product Officer should spend some time
exactly and accurately naming the exact product he wants before asking for
it. Otherwise he and his staff may be struggling around over many
misunderstood words!
When you see a staff whirling around and dashing into walls and each
other and not producing a thing, calmly try to find out if any of them or
their Product Off icer can NAME what products they are trying to produce.
Chances are, few of them can and maybe the Product Officer as well.
Handle and it will all smooth out and products will occur.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright 0 1976 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
256
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 AUGUST 1976
Rernimeo Issue 11
All Execs
All Purchasers
Admin Know-How Series 34
Esto Series 32
PRODUCT/ORG OFFICER SYSTEM
WANT YOUR PRODUCT
A Product Officer has to name, WANT and get his product.
Where no real or valuable production is occurring, one has to ask the
question, does the Product Officer really WANT the product he is demanding?
And does the staff member or members he is dealing with WANT the product?
The reason that a psychotic or otherwise evilly intentioned person
cannot achieve anything as a Product Officer or staff member is that he
does NOT want the product to occur. The intentions of psychos are aimed at
destruction and not at creation.
Such persons may SAY they want the product but this is just "PR" and a
cover for their real activities.
People who are PTS (potential trouble sources by reason of connections
with people antagonistic to what they are doing in life) are all too likely
to slide into the valence of the antagonistic person who definitely would
NOT want the product.
Thus, in an org run by or overloaded with destructive persons or PTS
persons, you see a very low level of production if you see any at all. And
the production is likely to be what is called "an overt product," meaning a
bad one that will not be accepted or cannot be traded or exchanged and has
more waste and liability connected with it than it has value.
One has to actually WANT the product he is asking for or is trying to
produce. There may be many reasons he does not, none of which are
necessarily connected with being psycho. But if it is a creative and
valuable product and assists his and the survival of others and he still
does not want it, then one should look for PTSness or maybe even a bit of
psychosis. And at the least, some withholds.
One does not have to be in a passionate mystic daze about wanting the
product. But one shouldn't be moving mountains in the road of a guy trying
to carry some lumber to the house site either.
The question of WANT the product has to be included in any examination
of reasons why a person or an org isn't producing.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright 0 1976 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
257
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 AUGUST 1976
Remimeo Issue III
ALL EXECS
Admin Know-How Series 35
Esto Series 33
PRODUCT/ORG OFFICER SYSTEM
TO GET YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO ORGANIZE
A Product Officer and ESPECIALLY an Org Officer has to know how to GET
a product.
All science and technology is built around this single point in the
key phrase "Name, want and get your product." Managers and scientists
specialize in the HOW TO GET part of it and very often neglect the rest.
There are many Product Officers who do NOT know enough about
organization to organize things so they actually GET their product. These,
all too often, cover up their ignorance on how to organize or their
inability to do so by saying to one and all "Don't organize, just produce!"
When you hear this you can suspect that the person saying it actually does
not know the tech or know-how of organizing or how to put an organization
together. He may not even know enough about organizing to shove aside other
paper on his desk when he is trying to spread out and read a large chart-
yet that is simple organization.
A bricklayer would look awfully silly trying to lay no-bricks. He
hasn't got any bricks. Yet there he is going through the motions of laying
bricks. It takes a certain economic and purchasing and transport tech to
get the bricks delivered-only then can you lay bricks.
A manager looks pretty silly trying to order a brick wall built when
he doesn't have any bricks or bricklayer and provides no means at all of
obtaining either one.
A Product Officer may be great at single-handing the show. How come?
He doesn't realize that building a show comes before one runs it. And even
though economics demand at least a small show before one builds a large
show, a very bad Product Officer who can't really organize either, will,
instead of making the small show bigger, make the small show smaller by
trying to run a no-show.
There is a HOW of organization. It is covered pretty well in the Org
Series and elsewhere. Like you can't put in comm lines unless you put in
terminals for them to connect with. Like you can't get particles flowing in
a profitable way unless they have something for them to run on. That's
simply the way things go in the universe in which you are operating. Now of
course you could build a new universe with different laws but the fact is,
that would require a knowledge of organization as well, wouldn't it?
The tech of how to produce something can be pretty vast. One doesn't
have to be a total expert on it to be able to manage the people doing it,
but one has to have a pretty good idea of how it goes and how enough NOT to
stop the guys who do know how to make bricks when one wants bricks.
If the product is to get somebody to come in to see you, then you have
to have some means of communication and some tech of persuasion to make him
want to come in to see you. Brute force may seem okay to cops but in
organization it seldom works. There is more tech to it than that.
258
If a Product Officer does not know there is tech involved in GETTING
the product, then he will never make his staff study it or teach anybody to
do it. And he will wind up with no product. So beware the Product Officer
who won't give time off for hatting! He doesn't know one has to know the
tech of getting his product. What do you think the OEC (Org Exec Course)
Volumes and the technical bulletins are all about?
One has to spend some time organizing in many different ways-the
organization itself, the hatting, the technical skill staff members would
have to have, to get anywhere in GETTING a product.
Sure, if you only organize and never produce you never get a product
either. But if you only produce and never organize, the only brick wall
you'll ever see is the one you run into.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gal.gm Copyright 0 1976, 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
[Note: There is no Esto Series 34.]
259
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 MARCH 1979RB
Rernitneo REVISED 2 SEPTEMBER 1979
(Also issued as an HCO Bulletin
of same date, same title.)
(Revisions in this type style)
Esto Series 35RB
Word Clearing Series 6ORB
Product Debug Series 7R
MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS AND CYCLES OF ACTION
MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS AND NO PRODUCT
A misunderstood word can prevent a person from understanding the
remainder of what is heard or written.
I have now discovered that: A MISUNDERSTOOD on any given subject CAN
PREVENT THE COMPLETION OF A CYCLE OF ACTION related to that subject.
Therefore those people who don't complete cycles of action on certain
subjects have a misunderstood word on them.
This then results in no-product situations,
Therefore when you are getting no product, look for the misunderstood
word on the subject no matter how long and arduous it is. It's there. And
when it's found the person can go on and complete a cycle of action and get
a product.
CA UTION.- Make sure the person actually does have an inability to
complete a cycle of action before you get into handling him. You don't
handle somebody who is completing cycles of action that result in
production.
MISUNDERSTOODS AND PERCEPTION
Misunderstoods can also act as perception shut-offs. They can actually
interrupt a person's perception.
It is quite astonishing that perceptions such as sight, sound and even
touch can be shut off by Mis-U words.
This opens the door to the fact that people apparently do not see,
hear, notice or handle outnesses when they have Mis-Us on them.
This also may open the door to people who have perceptic shut-offs,
such as poor eyesight, deafness or other perception difficulties.
MISUNDERSTOODS AND COMPLEXITY
Misunderstoods lead to complexity. People who have Mis-Us in an area
are inclined to develop vast complexities. They can generate confusions and
complexities beyond belief.
260
People do this because, having misunderstoods, they do not confront
and duplicate in the area and so get into a lot of think-think and
unnecessary significance. Their ability to get things done in that area
dwindles as a result. And at the bottom of all this is simply misunderstood
words.
MISUNDERSTOODS AND TOTAL ORGANIZE
When you see an area that is organizing only, you know that area is
loaded with misunderstoods.
When people have incomplete cycles due to Mis-Us they get bogged down
into organization,
You can tell when people have Mis-Us-they are totally involved in
organize. organize, organize. They don't know what they are doing.
There is a level below this-they have overts and withholds which
prevent even organizing.
Below that level people are PTS.
Lacking a sense of organization actually lies below this. It is below
the level of Mis-Us, overts and withholds and PTSness-and you'd have to go
north through PTSness and overts and withholds to even get to the Mis-Us.
MISUNDERSTOODS AND NO ORGANIZE
There can also exist a condition where someone does not organize any
corner of his area or work or organizations or lines. This manifests itself
by irrational demands to only produce and to prevent any organization so
that production can occur. At the bottom of this you are very likely to
find misunderstood words, particularly on the purpose of the production or
why one is producing. It is in this sector that you get overt products most
frequently.
HANDLING
The exact procedure for handling these Mis-Us is given in HCOB 17 June
79 CRASHING MIS-Us: THE KEY TO COMPLETED CYCLES OF ACTION AND PRODUCTS.
Crashing Mis-U finding is done as part of HCO PL 23 Aug 79 / DEBUG TECH.
Additional data on the location of Crashing Mis-Us is found in HCOB 14 Aug
79 CRASHING MIS-Us, BLOCKS TO FINDING THEM and HCOB 16 Jul 79 THE "ELUSIVE"
MIS-U OR CRASHING MIS-U.
With this knowledge we can now handle all the factors that prevent the
completion of cycles of action and products.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:gal.dr.gm Copyright 0 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
261
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 AUGUST 1979
Remimeo
Sups (Also issued as
Tech HCOB 7 Aug 79
Qual
Execs FALSE DATA STRIPPING)
ALL STAFF
Product Debug Series 8
Esto Series 36
FALSE DATA STRIPPING
(Ref. The Study Tapes
Dianetic Auditor's Bulletin Vol I Numbers 1-2
STANDARD PROCEDURE
Tech Vol 1, pgs. 15-20
Dianetic Auditor's Bulletin Vol I Number 3
HOW TO RELEASE A CHRONIC
SOMATIC
Tech Vol 1, pgs. 24-26
NOTES ON THE
LECTURES Pgs. 52-66,112-113)
When a person is not functioning well on his post, on his job or in
life, at the bottom of his difficulties will often be found unknown basic
definitions and laws orfalse definitions, false data and false laws,
resulting in an inability to think with the words and rules of that
activity and an inability to perform the simplest required functions. The
person will remain unfamiliar with the fundamentals of his activity, at
times appearing idiotic, because of these not-defined and falsely defined
words.
Verbal hatting is the main source of false definitions and false data.
Someone who "knows" tells someone else a definition or a datum. The person
now thinks he knows the definition (even though nothing in the field makes
any sense to him). The word may not even read on the meter during
misunderstood checks because the person "thinks he knows."
A politician is told by an advisor, "It doesn't matter how much money
the government spends. It is good for the society." The politician uses
this "rule" and, the next thing you know, inflation is driving everybody to
starvation and the government to bankruptcy. The politician, knowing he was
told this on the very best authority, does not spot it as false data, but
continues to use it right up to the point where the angry mobs stand him up
in front of a firing squad and shoot him down. And the pity of it is that
the politician never once suspected that there was anything false about the
data, even though he couldn't work with it.
There is no field in all the society where false data is not rampant.
"Experts," "advisors," "friends," "families," seldom go and look at the
basic texts on subjects, even when these are known to exist, but indulge in
all manner of interpretations and even outright lies to seem wise or
expert. The cost, in terms of lost production and damaged equipment is
enormous. You will see it in all sectors of society. People cannot think
with the fundamentals of their work. They goof. They ruin things. They have
to redo what they have already done.
You'll find people whose estimate of the environment is totally
perverted to the point they're walking around literally in a fog. The guy
looks at a tree and the reality of the tree is blurred by the "fact" that
"trees are made by God" so he won't take care of the tree because he is
convinced.
262
What we're trying to cure in people is the inability to think with
data. This was traced by me to false data as a phenomenon additional to
misunderstood words, although the misunderstood word plays a role in it and
will have to be allowed for.
When a person is having difficulty in an area or on a post, when he
can't seem to apply what he has "learned" or what he is studying or when he
can't get through a specific drill or exercise in his training materials,
you will suspect he has false data in that area or on those materials. If
he is to use it at all effectively he must first sort out the true facts
regarding it from the conflicting bits and pieces of information or opinion
he has acquired. This eliminates the false data and lets him get on with
it.
INABILITY TO HAT
We are looking here at a brand new discovery I have made which is that
it can be nearly impossible to hat anyone who is sitting on false data on
the subject you are trying to hat him on. This is the primary reason people
cannot be hatted and False Data Stripping therefore enables a person to be
hatted even though other approaches have failed. This is a very valuable
discovery-it solves the problem of inability to hat or train.
SOURCES
False data on a subject can come from any number of sources. In the
process of day-to-day living people encounter and often accept without
inspection all sorts of ideas which may seem to make sense but don't.
Advertising, newspapers, TV and other media are packed with such material.
The most profound false data can come out of texts such as Stanislavsky (a
Russian actor and director); and even mothers have a hand in it, such as
"children should be seen and not heard."
Where a subject, such as art, contains innumerable authorities and
voluminous opinions you may find that any and all textbooks under that
heading reek with false data. Those who have studied study tech will recall
that the validity of texts is an important factor in study. Therefore it is
important that any supervisor or teacher seeking to use False Data
Stripping must utilize basic workable texts. These are most often found to
have been written by the original discoverer of the subject and when in
doubt avoid texts which are interpretations of somebody else's work. In
short, choose only textual material which is closest to the basic facts of
the subject and avoid those which embroider upon them.
It can happen, if you do False Data Stripping well and expertly
without enforcing your own data on the person, that he can find a whole
textbook false-much to his amazement. In such a case, locate a more
fundamental text on the subject. (Examples of false texts: Eastman Kodak;
Lord Keynes treatises on economics; John Dewey's texts on education;
Sigmund Freud's texts on the mind; the texts derived from the "work" of
Wundt (Leipzig 1879-Father of Modern Psychology); and (joke) a textbook on
"Proper Conduct for Sheep" written by A. Wolf.)
USE OF FALSE DATA STRIPPING
False Data Stripping should be used extensively in all hatting and
training activities. Current society is riddled with false data and these
must be cleared away so that we can hat and train people. Then they will be
able to learn useful data which will enable them to understand things and
produce valuable products in life.
False Data Stripping can be done on or off the meter. It can be done
by an auditor in session, by a Supervisor, Cramming Officer or Word Clearer
or by an exec, Esto or any administrator. Students and staff can be trained
to do it on each other.
Not a lot of training is required to deliver this procedure but anyone
administering it must have checked out on this HCOB/PL and have demoed and
drilled the procedure. If it is going to be done on the meter (which is
preferable) the person doing it must have an OK to operate an E-Meter.
263
GRADIENTS
It will be found that false data actually comes off in gradients.
For example, a student handled initially on false data on a particular
drill will appear to be complete on it. He goes on with his studies and
makes progress for a while and then sometimes he will hit a bog or slow in
his progress. This is usually an indication that more false data has been
flushed up (restimulated or remembered as a result of actually doing
studies or drills). At that point more basic false data will come off when
asked for. The reason for this is: when you first give a student false data
handling he doesn't know enough about the subject to know false data from
the true. When he has learned a bit more about the subject he then collides
with more false data hitherto buried. This can happen several times, as he
is getting more and more expert on the subject.
Thus the action of stripping off false data can and must be checked
for and used in any training and hatting. The rundown has to be given again
and again at later and later periods, as a student or staff member may come
up against additional faulty data that has been not-ised. It can be
repeated as often as necessary in any specific area of training until the
person is finally duplicating and is able to use the correct tech and only
the correct tech exactly.
THEORY
There is a philosophic background as to why getting off false data on
a subject works and why trying to teach a correct datum over a false datum
on the subject does not work. It is based on the Socratic thesis-antithesis-
synthesis philosophical equation.
Socrates: 470 B.C.-399 B.C. A great Greek philosopher.
A thesis is a statement or assertion.
Antithesis: opposing statement or assertion.
The Socratic equation is mainly used in debate where one debater
asserts one thing and the other debater asserts the opposite. It was the
contention of Socrates and others that when two forces came into collision
a new idea was born. This was the use of the equation in logic and debate.
However, had they looked further they would have seen that other effects
were brought into play. It has very disasterous effects when it appears in
the field of training.
Where the person has acquired a false thesis (or datum), the true
datum you are trying to teach him becomes an antithesis. The true datum
comes smack up against the false datum he is hanging on to, as it is
counter to it.
In other words, these two things collide, and neither one will then
make sense to him. At this point he can try to make sense out of the
collision and form what is called a synthesis, or his wits simply don't
function. (Synthesis: a unified whole in which opposites, thesis and
antithesis, are reconciled.)
So you wind up with the person either
(a) attempting to use a false, unworkable synthesis he has formed, or
(b) his thinkingness locks up on the subject.
In either case you get an impossible-to-train, impossible-to-hat
scene.
GLIBNESS
Probably we have here the basic anatomy of the "glib student" who can
parrot off whole chapters on an examination paper and yet in practice uses
his tools as a door stop. This student has been a mystery to the world of
education for eons. What he has probably done in order to get by, is set up
a circuit which is purely memory.
264
The truth of it is his understanding or participation is barred off by
considerations such as "nothing works anyway but one has to please the
professor somehow."
The less a person can confront, the more false data he has accumulated
and will accumulate. These syntheses are simply additives and complexities
and make the person complicate the subject beyond belief Or the collision
of false data and true data, without the person knowing which is which,
makes him look like a meathead.
Therefore, in order to cure him of his additives, complexities, apathy
and apparent stupidity on a subject, in addition to cleaning up
misunderstood words, it is necessary to strip the false data off the
subject. Most of the time this is prior to the true data and so is basic on
the chain. Where this is the case, when that basic false data is located
and stripped, the whole subject clears up more easily.
FALSE DATA PRONE
Some people are prone to accepting false data. This stems from overts
committed prior to the false data being accepted. The false data then acts
as a justifier for the overt.
An example of this would be a student studying past Mis-Us on a
subject, cheating in the exam and eventually dropping the subject entirely.
Then someone comes along and tells him that the subject is useless and
destructive. Well, he will immediately grab hold of this datum and believe
it as he needs something to justify his earlier overts.
This actually gets into service facsimiles as the person will use the
false data to make the subject or other people wrong.
So if you see someone who is very prone to accepting false data on a
particular subject or in general, the answer is to get the prior overts
pulled. Then the person will not need to justify his overts by accepting
any false data that comes his way.
PROCEDURE
You may not easily be able to detect a false datum because the person
believes it to be true. When False Data Stripping is done on a meter the
false datum won't necessarily read for the same reason.
You therefore ask the person if there is anything he has run across on
the subject under discussion which he couldn't think with, which didn't
seem to add up or seems to be in conflict with the material one is trying
to teach him.
The false datum buries itself and the procedure itself handles this
phenomenon.
When the false datum is located it is handled with elementary recall
based on 1950 Straightwire. Straight memory technique or Straightwire (so
called because one is stringing a line between present time and some
incident in the past, and stringing that line directly and without any
detours) was developed originally in 1950 as a lighter process than engram
running. Cleverly used, Straightwire removed locks and released illnesses
without the pc ever having run an engram.
Once one had determined whatever it was that was going to be run with
Straightwire, one would have the pc recall where and when it happened, who
was involved, what were they doing, what was the pc doing, etc., until the
lock blew or the illness keyed out.
Straightwire works at a lock level. When overdone it can key in
underlying engrams. When properly done it can be quite miraculous.
STEPS
A. Determine whether or not the person needs this procedure by
checking the following:
265
1. The person cannot be hatted on a subject.
2. No Crashing Mis-Us can be found on a subject yet it is obvious they
exist.
3. The person is not duplicating the material he has studied as he is
incorrectly applying it or only applying part of it, despite Word Clearing.
4. He is rejecting the material he is reading or the definition of the
word he is clearing.
5. You suspect or the person originates earlier data he has
encountered on the materials that could contain false data.
6. The person talks about or quotes other sources or obviously
incorrect sources.
7. He is glib.
8. The person is backing off from actually applying the data he is
studying despite standard Word Clearing.
9. He is bogged.
10. He cannot think with the data and it does not seem to apply.
B. Establish the difficulty the person is having-i.e. what are the
materials he can't duplicate or apply? These materials must be to hand and
the person must be familiar with the basic true data on the subject being
addressed.
C. If the action is being done metered, put the person on the meter
and properly adjust the sensitivity with a proper can squeeze.
D. Thoroughly clear the concept of false data with the person. Have
him give you examples to show he gets it. (This would be done if the person
was receiving False Data Stripping for the first time.)
E. The following questions are used to detect and uncover the false
data. These questions are cleared before they are used for the first time
on anyone. They do not have to read on a meter and may not do so as the
person will not necessarily read on something that he believes to be true.
1. "Is there anything you have run across in (subject under
discussion) which you couldn't think with?"
2. "Is there anything you have encountered in (subject under
discussion) which didn't seem to add up?"
3. "Is there something you have come across in (subject under
discussion) that seems to be in conflict with the material you are trying
to learn?"
4. "Is there something in (subject under discussion) which never made
any sense to you?"
5. "Did you come across any data in (subject under discussion) that
you had no use for?"
6. "Was there any data you came across in (subject under discussion)
that never seemed to fit in?"
7. "Do you know of any datum that makes it unnecessary for you to do a
good job on this subjectT'
8. "Do you know of any reason why an overt product is all right?"
266
9. "Would you be made wrong if you really learned this subject?"
10. "Did anyone ever explain this subject to you verbally?"
11. "Do you know of any datum that conflicts with standard texts on
this subject?"
12. "Do you consider you really know best about this subject?"
13. "Would it make somebody else wrong not to learn this subject?"
14. "Is this subject not worth learningT'
The questions are asked in the above sequence. When an area of false
data is uncovered by one of these questions one goes straight on to Step F-
handling.
E When the person comes up with an answer to one of the above
questions locate the false datum as follows:
1. Ask "Have you been given any false data regarding this?" and help
him locate the false datum. If this is being done on the meter, one can use
any meter reads one does get to steer the person. This may require a bit of
work as the person may believe the false data he has to be true. Keep at it
until you get the false datum.
If the person has given you the false datum in Step E then this step
will not be needed: just go straight on to Step G.
G. When the false datum has been located, handle as follows:
1. Ask "Where did this datum come from?" (This could be a person, a
book, TV, etc.)
2. "When was this?"
3. "Where exactly were you at the time?"
4. "Where was (the person, book, etc.) at the time?"
5. "What were you doing at the time?"
6. If the false datum came from a person ask: "What was (the person)
doing at the time?"
7. "How did (the person, book, etc.) look at the time?"
8. If the datum has not blown with the above questions ask: "Is there
an earlier similar false datum or incident on (the subject under
discussion)?" and handle per Steps 1-7.
Continue as above until the false datum has blown. On the meter you
will have a floating needle and very good indicators.
DO NOT CONTINUE PAST A POINT WHERE THE FALSE DATUM HAS
BLOWN.
If you suspect the datum may have blown but the person has not
originated then ask: "How does that datum seem to you now?" and either
continue if it hasn't blown or end off on that datum if it has blown.
H. When you have handled a particular false datum to a blow, going
earlier similar as necessary, you would then go back and repeat the
question from E (the detection
267
step) that uncovered the false datum. If there are any more answers to
the question, they are handled exactly as in Step F (location) and Step G
(handling).
That particular question is left when the person has no more answers.
Then, if the person is not totally handled on the subject under discussion,
one would use the other questions from Step E and handle them in the same
way. All the questions can be asked and handled as above but one would not
continue past a point where the whole subject has been cleared up and the
person can now duplicate and apply the data he has been having trouble
with.
1. CONDITIONAL: If False Data Stripping is being done in conjunction
with
Crashing Mis-U Finding one would now proceed with the Crashing Mis-U
Finding.
J. Send the person to the Examiner.
K. Have the person study or restudy the true data on the subject you
have been handling.
END PHENOMENA
When the above procedure is done correctly and fully on an area the
person is actually having difficulty with, he will end up able to
duplicate, understand and apply and think with the data that he could not
previously grasp. The false data that was standing in the road of
duplication will have been cleared away and the person's thinking will have
been freed up. When this occurs, no matter where in the procedure, one ends
off the False Data Stripping on that subject and sends the person to the
Examiner. He will have cognitions and VGIs and on the meter you will have
an F/N. This is not the end of all False Data Stripping for that person. It
is the end of that False Data Stripping on the person at that particular
time. As the person continues to work with and study the subject in
question, he will learn more about it and may again collide with false data
at which time one repeats the above process.
NOTE
False data buries itself as the person may firmly believe that it is
true. Sometimes the person will have such faith in a particular person,
book, etc., that he cannot conceive that any data from that particular
source might be false. One artist being false data stripped had received
some false data from a very famous painter. Even though the data didn't
really add up and actually caused the artist tremendous problems, he tended
to believe it because of where it came from. It took persistence on the
part of the person administering the False Data Stripping to eventually
blow this false datum with a resulting freeing up of the artist's ability
to think and produce in the area.
MISUNDERSTOODS
Misunderstoods often come up during False Data Stripping and should be
cleared when they do. One would then continue with the False Data
Stripping. One person being false data stripped knew he had some false data
from a particular source but the false data was a complete blank-he
couldn't remember it at all. It was discovered that he had a Mis-U just
before he received the false data and as soon as this was cleared up he
recalled the false data and it blew. This is just one example of how Word
Clearing can tie in with False Data Stripping.
REPEATED USE
False Data Stripping can be done over and over as it will come off in
layers as mentioned before. If False Data Stripping has been done on a
specific thing and at some later point the person is having difficulty with
a drill or the materials, the stripping of false data should be done on him
again. In such a case it will be seen that the person recognizes or
remembers more false or contrary data he has accumulated on the subject
that was not in view earlier. As he duplicates a drill or his materials
more and more exactly, former "interpretations" he had not-ised, incorrect
past flunks that acted as invalidation or evaluation, etc., may crop up to
be stripped off.
268
CAUTIONS
CODE. False Data Stripping is done under the discipline of the
Auditor's Code. Evaluation and invalidation can be particularly harmful and
must be avoided. All points of the code apply.
RUDIMENTS. One would not begin False Data Stripping on someone who
already has out-ruds. If the person is upset or worried about something or
is critical or nattery, then you should fly his ruds or get them flown
before you start False Data Stripping.
OVERRUN. One must be particularly careful not to overrun the person
past a blow of the false datum. The stress in recall is that it is a light
action which does not get the person into engrams or heavy charge. Keep it
light. If you overrun someone past the point of a blow, he may drop into
engrams or heavy charge. Just take the recall step to a blow and don't push
him beyond it.
DATEILOCATE. Date/Locate is another way of getting something to blow.
If a false datum does not blow on the recall steps despite going earlier
similar, then it could be handled with Date/Locate in session as ordered by
the C/S. This would normally be done as part of a False Data Stripping
Repair List. Date/Locating false data would never be done except in session
as ordered by the C/S or as directed by the False Data Stripping Repair
List. The auditor must be totally starrated on Date and Locating and
practised in it before he attempts it.
FALSE DATA STRIPPING REPAIR LIST. The False Data Stripping Repair List
is used in session by an auditor when False Data Stripping bogs
inextricably or the person is not F/N GIs at Exams or gets in trouble after
False Data Stripping has been done. A bogged False Data Stripping session
must be handled within 24 hours.
NEW STUDENTS. Students who are new to Scientology should not use this
procedure on each other as they may be insufficiently experienced to
deliver it competently. In this case the Supervisor or someone qualified
would administer False Data Stripping to those students who need it.
SUMMARY
The problem of the person who is unable to learn or who is unable to
apply what he learns has never been fully resolved before. Misunderstoods
were and are a major factor and Word Clearing must be used liberally. Now,
however, I have made a major breakthrough which finally explains and
handles the problem of inability to learn and apply.
Man's texts and education systems are strewn with false data. These
false data effectively block someone's understanding of the true data. The
handling given in this HCOB/PL makes it possible to remove that block and
enable people to learn data so they can apply it.
With the ability to learn comes stability and the production of
valuable products. With stability and the production of valuable products
comes the achievement of one's purposes and goals, high morale and
happiness.
So let's get to work on stripping away the false data which plagues
Man, clogs up his ability to think and learn and reduces his competence and
effectiveness. Let's increase the ability of individuals and the human
race.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:gal.gm Copyright 0 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
269
HUBBARD COMMUNICATION
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 AU
Issue I
Remimeo
Product Officers
Org Officers
Execs
All Staff
Programs Chiefs
Project Operators
Mission Operators
Missionaires
Assistant Guardians Product Debug Series I
Flag Representatives
LRH Communicators Esto Series 37
Cramming Officers
Review
DEBUG TECH
Ref. LRH ED 302 INT DEBUG TECH BREAKTHROUGH
HCO PL 23 Aug 79 11 DEBUG TECH CHECKLIST
HCOB 23 Aug 79 11 PRODUCT DEBUG REPAIR LIST
HCOB 17 Jun 79 URGENT, IMPORTANT-CRASHING
MIS-Us: THE KEY TO COMPLETED
CYCLES OF ACTION AND PRODUCTS
HCOB 7 Aug 79 FALSE DATA STRIPPING
HCO PL 26 Mar 79RA MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS AND
CYCLES OF ACTION-MU
WORDS AND NO PRODUCTS
HCOB 23 Aug 79 1 CRASHING MUs, BLOCKS TO
FINDING THEM
When I wrote LRH ED 302 DEBUG TECH BREAKTHROUGH in February of this
year I promised that there would be a policy letter issued covering the
tech more fully. Well, there have been further breakthroughs in the area of
debugging production. The tech given in that LRH ED has been acclaimed by
hundreds to be miraculous. This policy reissues that tech and brings it up-
to-date with the new discoveries.
HISTORY
Recently I noticed quite a few programs were not progressing rapidly.
I found many targets bugged. Project operators did not seem to know what to
do and were getting losses and becoming frustrated. Their targets were
"bugged."
"Bugged" is slang for snarled up or halted.
"Debug" means to get the snarls or stops out of something.
I had always been given to believe somebody had developed and written
up debug tech. People would often tell me they had debugged this or that,
so of course I assumed that the tech existed and that issues and
checksheets existed and were in use. Yet here were people operating
projects who couldn't get the targets done by themselves or others.
I didn't recall ever having written any policy letter containing the
tech of debugging programs or targets.
So I called for the various "debug checksheets" and "debug issues"
they were
270
using and found something very astonishing. None had any real tech on
them to debug something. They just had various quotes that did not
necessarily apply.
I did a study of the subject based on what people trying to debug
should be doing and what they were not doing and developed a fast,
relatively simple system. Some project operators were located in very
bugged areas which had brought them to apathy and even tears of
frustration. The new debug tech was put into their hands and they came
streaming back in wild excitement. It worked! Their areas were rolling!
I am releasing this tech to you as it is vital that programs are
quickly executed and that production occurs.
This debug tech is tested, fully valid and for immediate use.
Debug tech is a vital executive tool. Anyone who is responsible for
getting targets and programs executed, getting production out, turning
insolvency into solvency and generally making a better world frankly can't
live without it.
Debug tech is used to debug program targets, programs, a lack of
completion of the cycles of action which lead to production and in short,
whenever there is any insufficiency of viable products coming from an area,
org or individual.
THE TECH
1. INSPECTION
The first action in debugging an area is an inspection to see what is
going on in terms of production. In inspecting the area you do the
following:
1. You look for what products have been gotten out in the past.
2. You look for products that are there completed.
3. You look for what products can be attained in the immediate future.
4. You look for the value of the products produced as compared to the
overall
cost of the production organization.
5. You look for overt products or cycles where products continuously
have to
be redone, resulting in no or few products.
The full volume of data on how to do an investigation is given in the
Investigations Checksheet on page 175 of The Volunteer Minister's Handbook.
When you first inspect an area for products you just look. Policies on
"Look Don't Listen" apply (HCO PL 16 Mar 72, Esto Series 8, LOOK DON'T
LISTEN). Don't listen to how they are going to get 150 products, just look
and walk around with a clipboard.
If you don't see 150 products waiting to be shipped or invoices
showing they have been, they don't exist. If you don't see receipts for 150
shipped products, they don't exist and never have. The product is either
there or there is ample shipping or departure or finance evidence that they
have just left or been shipped. Products that are only in people's heads
don't exist.
Dreams are nice-in fact they are essential in life but they have to be
materialized into the physical universe before they exist as products.
The most wide trap the debugger can fall into is, "But next week since
experience will tell you that next week's production may never
arrive. The definition of
product is something that can be exchanged for a valuable product or
currency. They
271
have subproducts. These are necessary. A subproduct can also be an
overt product and block final products.
When you have ~done your product inspection, you then look over the
period of time from a viewpoint of time and motion. This is to answer the
question, "Are things arranged so that there is no time wasted in useless
motions which are unnecessary?" This includes poor placement of materiel on
a flow line or tool sheds five miles from the site of work so that one has
to go there every time one wants a hammer, out-ofsequence flows or waits.
One counts up the amount of wasted time simply because of the
disorganization of a place. It isn't enough to say a place is disorganized.
How is this disorganization consuming time and motion which is not
resulting in a higher quantity of production? Examples of this are quite
gross.
When you have done this study, during which of course you have made
notes, you will have the raw materials necessary to make an estimation of
the area.
If there is not an adequate and even spectacular record of products
getting out and if products have to be redone or if no products are coming
out, you proceed as follows:
11. PERSONAL HANDLING
Find a product that can be gotten out, any product, and insist that it
and products like it or similar cycles be gotten out flat out by the
existing personnel.
Do not let this debug act as an excuse for them not to produce. The
first step of this handling is to demand production.
When you have gotten them on that, you enter in upon a second stage of
debug. This consists essentially of finding if the place is knowledgeable
enough and able enough to produce what is actually required and what is
actually valuable or being needed from it.
This is accomplished as follows:
(Note: You should not attempt to find Crashing MUs, etc., until the
above inspection and the Steps A to H below have been done.)
A. Where are the orders relating to this target (or project or
production area)? (Can include policies, directives, orders, bulletins,
issues, despatches, tapes, valid texts and previous debugs and any and all
files.)
Handling: Collect up all of the orders relating to this target (or
project or production area). This includes the orders and policies the
person is operating off of as well as all those he should be operating off
of. At this point you may need to employ the "How to Defeat Verbal Tech
Checklist":
1 . If it isn't written it isn't true.
2. If it's written, read it.
3. Did the person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order
it?
4. If you can't understand it, clarify it.
5. If you can't clarify it, clear the MUs.
6. If the MUs won't clear, query it.
7. Has it been altered from the original?
272
8. Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech
order.
9. Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow
it.
IF IT CAN'T BE RUN THROUGH AS ABOVE IT'S FALSE! CANCEL IT! And use
HCOB 7 Aug 79 FALSE DATA STRIPPING as needed.
B. Have you read the orders?
Handling: If he has not read them then have him read, word clear and
starrate them.
Ca. Do you have MUs on these orders?
Handling: Get the orders word cleared using M4, M9 or M2 Word
Clearingwhatever Word Clearing is needed to fully clear any MUs he has.
Cb. Do you have false data on these orders?
Handling: Strip off the false data per HCOB/PL 7 Aug 79 FALSE DATA
STRIPPING,
Handle this step (Ca and Cb) until the person has duplicated the
orders and issues relating to this production area.
D. Are there financial or logistics problems on them?
Handling: Debug using HCO PL 14 Mar 72, Issue II, Esto Series 7,
FOLLOW POLICY AND LINES and Flag Divisional Directive of 25 Aug 76
FINANCIAL PLANNING MEMBER HAT CHECKSHEET. Debugging this may require
getting the whole FP Committee through the FP pack.
E. Are there personnel problems?
Handling: Debug this using HCO PL 16 Mar 71, Org Series 25, Personnel
Series 19, LINES AND HATS and the Personnel Series, as given in The
Management Series.
It may be necessary to do this debug on the HAS or any person
responsible for getting the products of staff members who produce.
F. Are there hatting problems?
Handling: Handle this using full Word Clearing and False Data
Stripping and get the scene debugged using HCO PL 29 Jul 71, Personnel
Series 21, Org Series 28, WHY HATTING? and HCO PL 22 Sep 70, Personnel
Series 9, Org Series 4, HATS and HCO PL 27 Dec 70, Personnel Series 16,
HATS PROGRAM PITFALLS.
Hatting problems may include the total and utter lack of a hatting
course for the staff or a hatting course where WHAT IS A COURSE? PL is
flagrantly not in and if you find this you have gotten to the root of why
you are working hard debugging all over the place and it had better be
handled quick.
It may also be that the area senior doesn't make sure his staff puts
in study time off production hours and in this you may find the senior is a
failed student himself and this you would also have to handle.
Note: A person who cannot be hatted at all has false data. The
handling would be to strip off the false data.
273
G. Is there exterior influence stopping the production which cannot be
handled in the production area?
Handling: Handle using HCO PL 31 Jan 72, Data Series 22, THE WHY IS
GOD and HCO PL 25 May 73, Data Series 27, SUPPLEMENTARY EVALUATIONS and HCO
PL 30 Dec 70, Org Series 20, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL.
When told that these exterior influences exist the wise debugger
immediately verifies. The simplest way to verify is to ask the person who
is supposed to be putting stops on the line if he has issued such orders.
You commonly find out he hasn't. But if he has, then you have started to
locate your area to handle.
You commonly run into verbal tech at which moment you use the "How to
Defeat Verbal Tech Checklist."
H. What other excuses exist?
Handling: As per HCO PL THE WHY IS GOD, HCO PL 19 May 70, Data Series
8, SANITY, HCO PL 30 Sep 73, Data Series 30, SITUATION HANDLING and HCOB 19
Aug 67, THE SUPREME TEST.
And once any obvious ones in the above have been handled, and
production still isn't rolling, you have
1. Routine finding of MUs per Word Clearing Series.
J. Crashing MU tech per HCOB 17 Jun 79 CRASHING MIS-Us: THE KEY TO
COMPLETED CYCLES OF ACTION AND PRODUCTS. Crashing MU Finding is done
exactly per this HCOB. Crashing MUs can be buried or suppressed as covered
in HCOB 23 Aug 79, CRASHING MUs, BLOCKS TO FINDING THEM. The factors as
listed in that HCOB which can cause a Crashing MU to remain hidden and
unknown may have to be handled before the Crashing MU appears.
K. Do they have any idea at all that they should be getting out any
products? Or do they pretend to but don't?
Handling: Simply two-way comm of why the guy was there. It might come
as a startling realization that he is supposed to get out products. This
can be backed up with Exchange by Dynamics, HCO PL 4 Apr 72, Esto Series
14, ETHICS and Short Form Product Clearing, HCO PL 13 Mar 72, Esto Series
5, PRODUCTION AND ESTABLISH MENT-ORDERS AND PRODUCTS or HCO PL 23 Mar 72,
Esto Series 11, FULL PRODUCT CLEARING LONG FORM.
There is also such a thing as a person who will not complete a cycle
of action. This is normally true of what we call a "suppressive person" or
even an insane person.
Handling: Get the person's case looked into by a competent C/S and
also by the Ethics Officer for background.
But as PTS people are in suppressive persons' valences he may only be
PTS.
Handling: See Section P below for de-PTSing.
L. Wrong stat. The person has been given a stat that has nothing to do
with what he is supposed to produce.
Handling: Get the right stat figured out so that it agrees with what
he is supposed to produce and actually measures his actual production.
M. Wrong VFP or wrong product? Do they have the idea of VFP right? (or
does
274
the org think it's the award rather than the product, i.e. GI rather
than an audited paying pc or a trained paying student?).
It of course can occur, amazingly, that the person or department,
etc., is trying to turn out a product that has no exchange value. This can
occur because what they do produce is so flubby as to be called "an overt
product" which nobody can use further on up the line or even at the end of
the line. You handle this by coming down on their sense of fitness of
things. Overt products waste resources and time and personnel and are
actually more destructive than on first glance. They cannot be exchanged
but they also waste resources as well as lose any expected return. You can
remedy this sort of thing by improving their tech so they do turn out
something decent and useful.
They can also be turning out a type of product nobody wants-such as
1819 buggy whips in a Space Age. They may be great buggy whips but they
won't exchange because nobody wants them.
They may also be getting out products of excellent quality but never
telf anybody they have or do them. This can apply as narrowly as one worker
who doesn't tell anybody he is having or doing them or a whole organization
which, with complete asininity, never markets or advertises their products.
It is also possible that a combination of all three things above may
be found.
It also may be they have all sorts of products they could get out but
they never dreamed of getting them out yet their life blood may depend upon
it.
Handling: HCO PL 24 Jul 78, SUBPRODUCTS, which tells how to compile a
subproducts list and attain VFPs. Exchange by Dynamics per HCO PL 4 Apr 72,
Esto Series 14, ETHICS and Full Product Clearing Long Form on the correct
and actual VFP (as well as any other products the person or area may have),
as well as marketing and PR tech.
N. Never figured out what they would have to do to get a product?
Handling: Handle this using HCO PL 7 Aug 76, Issue 1, 11 and 111,
Admin Know-How Series 33, NAME YOUR PRODUCT, Admin Know-How Series 34, WANT
YOUR PRODUCT, Admin Know-How Series 35, TO GET YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW TO
ORGANIZE, HCO PL 24 Jul 78, SUBPRODUCTS and HCO PL 14 Jan 69, OT ORGS.
0. Out-ethics?
Handling: Determine the situation and handle with O/W write-ups or
auditing and ethics conditions or correction of past conditions and the
ethics policies that apply.
P. Is the area or individual creating problems and demanding solutions
to
them?
Handling: Give the person PTS handling as per ethics policies. If and
when available, get the personnel de-PTSed using Clay Table De-PTSing as
per HCOB CLAY TABLE DE-PTSing-THEORY AND ADMINISTRATION. (Note: Clay Table
De-PTSing can only be done on someone by a person who has had the step
himself.)
Q. Total organize? (Is the area organizing only?)
Handling: This is an indicator of many misunderstoods in the area,
especially on the part of its senior. The senior and the personnel in the
area need full Word Clearing on the materials to do with the production
area, including Crashing MU Finding as in J (ref. HCO PL 26 Mar 79RA
MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS AND
275
CYCLES OF ACTION-MU WORDS AND NO PRODUCTS) off production hours and
meanwhile make them produce what they can.
R. Organization adequate to get the product?
Inadequate organization:
Handling: Debug the organization per HCO PL 13 Sep 70, Org Series 1,
BASIC ORGANIZATION, HCO PL 14 Sep 70, Org Series 2, COPE AND ORGANIZE, HCO
PL 14 Sep 70, Org Series 3, HOW TO ORGANIZE AN ORG, HCO PL 8 Oct 70, Org
Series 8, ORGANIZING AND PRODUCT, HCO PL 29 Oct 70, Org Series 10, THE
ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATION BY PRODUCT.
No organization:
Handling: This is the situation where someone does not organize any
corner of his area or work or organizations or lines. This manifests itself
by irrational demands to only produce and to prevent any organization so
that production can occur. The handling is to clear the misunderstoods
(including Crashing MUs) in the area, particularly on the purpose of the
production and why one is producing.
Lacking a sense of organization?
Handling: Lack of a sense of organization lies below the level of MUs,
overts and withholds and PTSness-and you have to go north through PTSness
and overts and withholds to even get to the MUs.
The handling would be de-PTSing as in Step P. Then handle any overts
and withholds and then clear the M Us in the area being addressed
(including Crashing MUS).
Debug tech is laid out as a checklist in HCO PL 23 Aug 79, Issue 11,
DEBUG TECH CHECKLIST. It is a very useful checklist as the points of debug
can be assessed on a meter by an auditor (or any person trained to use an E-
Meter) or be administratively used by anyone wishing to debug an area.
HCOB 23 Aug 79, Issue II, PRODUCT DEBUG REPAIR LIST is for use by an
auditor to repair someone who has been messed up by somebody trying to
debug his area. As faulty debugging can mess a person up, this repair list
has been written to remedy that, should it occur.
Normally, in an area that is very bogged and not producing, the first
question or two will deliver the reasons right into your hands. They are
trying to produce blue ruddy rods but the order they finally dig up after a
fifteen minute search says specifically and directly that green fingleburns
are what are wanted here and that blue ruddy rods are forbidden. It is
usually outrageous and large. As you go down the list you will find out
that you are running into things which open the door to justification. So
you take very good care to notice the justifications which are being used.
The handling of justifications is indicated in HCOB 23 Aug 79, Issue 1,
CRASHING MUs, BLOCKS TO FINDING THEM and the HCOB of JUSTIFICATIONS, 21 Jan
AD10.
WHAT TO HANDLE
Handling of course is indicated by what you find and the above
references. But handling must always be in the direction of at least 50%
production. Even while debugging do not go for an all-organize handling.
Also do not go for an all-production handling.
A person, once trained on the data as contained in this PL, Crashing
MU tech, False Data Stripping and Product Clearing, will be able to get
almost any area
276
debugged and producing. It is important to remember that debug tech
applies from the very small expected action to the huge expected project.
THE EP OF DEBUG
The above debug actions are never carried on past the point where the
target or area or individual or org has been debugged.
Once production has been debugged and desirable products are now being
gotten for real in adequate quantity, the debug has been accomplished.
This could occur at any one of the above steps. And when it does you
let the area get on with producing the products they are now able to
produce.
EVALUATION AND PROGRAMMING
There is a whole different technology called evaluation. The full tech
on how to execute and program is contained in the Data Series and the Data
Series Evaluator's Course and BPL 4 Jul 78 ELEMENTARY EVALUATOR'S COURSE
and the Target Series HCO PLs: 14 Jan 69 OT ORGS, 16 Jan 69 TARGETS, TYPES
OF, 18 Jan 69, Issue 11, PLANNING AND TARGETS, 24 Jan 69, TARGET TYPES, 24
Jan 69, Issue 11, PURPOSE AND TARGETS and HCO PL 4 Dec 73, Data Series 32,
TARGET TROUBLES. One is expected to know how to evaluate. But even after
you have evaluated, evaluations contain targets. And targets get bugged. So
you will need debug tech even when you are an accomplished evaluator.
With the debug tech and the added steps of Crashing MU Finding, overts
and withholds, False Data Stripping, Product Clearing, etc., you will be
able to crack the back of the most resistive nonproducing areas and get
them into roaring, high-morale production.
Between February 79 and 23 August 79, 1 have spent a great deal of
development time on the technology needed to completely debug people,
projects, targets and production. A very large number of missions,
researches and pilots were undertaken to discover and polish up this tech.
It can now be considered a completed development cycle.
The above IS the tech.
USE IT!
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:kjm.gm Copyright c 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
277
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 AUGUST 1979
Issue II
Remimeo
Tech
Qual
All Execs
All Staff
Programs Chiefs
Project Operators
Mission Operators
Missionaires
AGs
LRH Comms Esto Series 38
FRs
Product Debug Series 2
DEBUG TECH CHECKLIST
Ref: HCO PL 23 Aug 79 DEBUG TECH
Issue I
HCOB 23 Aug 79 PRODUCT DEBUG REPAIR LIST
Issue 11
The Product Debug Series
This checklist is clarified by HCO PL 23 August 79, Issue 1, DEBUG
TECH, and is used in conjunction with that PL.)
Production is the basis of morale. People who don't get products have
low morale.
Executives and responsible people have the task of getting out
products. When they don't get them out, the unit or organization fails.
It is extremely upsetting and puzzling to a staff member and to his
seniors when he can't get out the products expected of him. I have seen an
executive going around in circles for weeks trying to guess why such and
such a staff member couldn't get out the products of his post area. I have
seen staff members actually in tears because they were unable to achieve
the products of their post. I have also seen people busy, busy, busy and
totally unaware of the fact that they were producing absolutely nothing.
LRH ED 302 was a breakthrough. It has now been written into HCO PL 23
Aug 79, DEBUG TECH and contains a considerably expanded tech on how to
debug products. People have had very great success in applying it.
To give them even greater successes, I have rewritten LRH ED 302-1
into this PL. The whole object of this checklist is to debug a lack of
products and accomplishments of an org or post.
This Debug Checklist is used in conjunction with HCO PL DEBUG TECH. It
gives the person doing the debug a list of things that could be standing in
the way of production. The sequence of handling is as laid out in the Debug
Tech PL. The first action is an inspection of the area. Then come the
personal handling steps.
This sequence must be followed in any debug action. For instance, if
you haven't done the inspection then how would you know what it is you are
trying to debug?
This checklist can be assessed on a meter or be administratively used
(off the meter) by mission operators, program operators, project operators,
evaluators, executives and anyone else needing to debug a cycle of action
or lack of products, including any staff member or student himself.
278
When assessed on a meter, each reading line would be taken to F/N by
doing the handling given for that line.
When doing this checklist the individual should have the issues and
references he may need to carry out the handlings along with him.
THE EP OF DEBUG
Debug actions are never carried on past the point where the target or
area or individual or org has been debugged.
Once production has been debugged and desirable products are now being
gotten for real in adequate quantity, the debug has been accomplished.
This could occur at any one of the steps. And when it does you let the
area get on with producing the products they are now able to produce.
PRODUCT DEBUG REPAIR LIST
In case of a bog or trouble on the following checklist use HCOB 23 Aug
79, Issue 11, Product Debug Series 10, PRODUCT DEBUG REPAIR LIST to repair
the person so he can continue with the debug actions.
INSPECTION
00. The first action in debugging an area is an inspection to see what
is going on in terms of production. In inspecting the area you do the
following:
1. You look for what products have been gotten out in the past.
2. You look for products that are there completed.
3. You look for what products can be attained in the immediate future.
4. You look for the value of the products produced as compared to the
overall cost of the production organization.
5. You look for overt products or cycles where products continuously
have to be redone, resulting in no or few products.
Full data on how to do this inspection is given in HCO PL 23 Aug 79,
Issue 1, DEBUG TECH.
0. Find a product that can be gotten out, any product, and insist that
it and products like it or similar cycles be gotten out flat out by the
existing personnel.
THE CHECKLIST
Section A:
A 1. NO ORDERS?
(Find out if (a) he's needing orders due to not knowing his hat or if
(b) he's not getting any direction or guidance from his senior. Handle (a)
by getting him hatted, or (b) by doing this checklist on his senior.)
A2. NEVER RECEIVED THE ORDERS?
(Have him get the orders and handle any cut line that isn't relaying
the orders.)
A3. CROSS ORDERS?
(Find out what and handle per HCO PL 13 Jan AD29, ORDERS, ILLEGAL AND
CROSS.)
279
A4. ILLEGAL ORDERS?
(Find out what and handle per HCO PL 13 Jan AD29, ORDERS,
ILLEGAL AND CROSS.)
A5. VERBAL TECH?
(Find out what and handle per the "How to Defeat Verbal Tech
Checklist" and HCO PL 7 Aug 79, FALSE DATA STRIPPING.)
Section B:
B 1. HASN'T READ THE ORDERS?
(Have him read, word clear and starrate the orders.)
B2. AVOIDANCE OR NEGATION OF POLICY?
(Pull the O/Ws per W/H system. Then clear up his MUs on the
relevant policy.)
B3. POLICY UNKOWN?
(Determine what applicable policy is unknown to him and have him
read, word clear and starrate it.)
B4. NO POLICY?
(Have him work out what the policy should be and submit it for
approval.)
B5. LACK OF TECH?
(Have him get familiar with the exact problem he's encountering and
make him work out a solution that will handle it.)
Section C:
C 1. MISUNDERSTOODS?
(Find and clear the MUs.)
C2. MISUNDERSTOODS ON THE ORDERS? (Find and clear the MUs.)
C3. DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE ORDERS? (Handle with Word Clearing and
False Data Stripping.)
C4. FALSE DATA ON THE ORDERS?
(Handle with HCO PL 7 Aug 79, FALSE DATA STRIPPING.)
C5. OUT OF AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDERS?
(Handle any out-ruds. Then handle with Word Clearing and False
Data Stripping.)
C6. LACK OF INTEREST?
(Find out if it's out-ruds or MUs or past failures and handle
accordingly.)
C7. NO INTEREST?
(Find out if it's out-ruds or MUs or past failures and handle
accordingly.)
C8. LACK OF VALUE OF THE CYCLE OF ACTION ITSELF? (Find his MUs and
handle. Have him demo out the cycle of action.)
Section D:
D 1. FINANCE BUGS?
(Find out what and get it debugged and also if it amounts to that,
get
the whole FP Committee through the FP pack.)
280
D2. LOGISTICS PROBLEMS?
(Find out what it is and handle with HCO PL 14 Mar 72, Issue 11, Esto
Series 7, FOLLOW POLICY AND LINES, and any other debug tech needed.)
D3. NO EQUIPMENT?
(Find out what is needed, if it is really needed, and if so debug it
per D I and D2 above so it is gotten. Remember that there are enormous
percentages of people who absolutely have to have before they can possibly
do and use that usually as an excuse not to produce.)
Section E:
E 1. SCARCITY OF PERSONNEL?
(Indicate it and then investigate and handle HCO which is usually up
to its ears in personnel requests and busy on them instead of putting an
HCO there that properly recruits, hats and utilizes personnel. This may
mean doing this Debug Checklist on the HAS or any person responsible for
that division or activity because they aren't getting the products of staff
members who produce.)
E2. SOME OTHER PROBLEM WITH PERSONNEL?
(Debug this using HCO PL 16 Mar 71, Org Series 25, Personnel Series
19, LINES AND HATS and the Personnel Series as given in The Management
Series.)
Section F.-
Fl. ABSENCE OF HATTING?
(Find out if it's (a) lack of a hatting course for the staff, (b) a
hatting course where WHAT IS A COURSE? PL is flagrantly not in, (c) the
area senior doesn't make sure his staff put in study time off production
hours or (d) some other reason why he does not go to study. Handle
according to what comes up and HCO PL 23 Aug 79, Issue 1, DEBUG TECH.)
F2. DOESN'T ATTEND STUDY?
(Find out if it's (a) lack of a hatting course for the staff, (b) a
hatting course where WHAT IS A COURSE? PL is flagrantly not in, (c) the
area senior doesn't make sure his staff put in study time off production
hours or (d) some other reaon why he does not go to study. Handle according
to what comes up and HCO PL 23 Aug 79, Issue 1, DEBUG TECH.)
F3. ABSENCE OF DRILLING?
(Get any needed drilling on equipment and actions done.)
F4. ABSENCE OF CRAMMING?
(Get the subject cramming is needed on and send him to Cramming.)
F5. FALSE CRAMMING?
(Handle per HCO PL 7 Aug 79, FALSE DATA STRIPPING. Assess and handle a
Cramming Repair List if necessary.)
F6. A DISASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE DEFINITION AND THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE?
(Have him demonstrate-in clay if necessary-and give real examples of
the definition. Program him for M8 and M9 program and the Disassociation
Rundown.)
F7. FALSE DATA ON THE HATTING MATERIALS? (Handle with False Data
Stripping.)
281
F8. LACK OF TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW?
(Locate the area of technical know-how he is lacking in and get him
studying and drilling the tech on it.)
F9. UNABLE TO BE HATTED?
(Strip off the false data in the area with False Data Stripping.)
Section G:
G1. EXTERIOR INFLUENCE STOPPING THE PRODUCTION
WHICH CANNOT BE HANDLED IN THE PRODUCTION AREA?
(Handle per Section G of HCO PL 23 Aug 79. Issue 1, DEBUG TECH.)
Section H.-
H 1. OTHER EVENTS?
(Find out what and handle per HCO PL 23 Aug 79, Issue 1, DEBUG TECH.)
H2. OTHER REASONS?
(Find out what and handle per HCO PL 23 Aug 79, Issue 1, DEBUG TECH.)
H3. HUGE PRODUCTION BUG?
(Find out what and use full debug tech to handle.)
H4. TIME?
(Find out if there'sjust NOT ENOUGH time to do what he has to do or if
he's wasting time by not being organized or is being dev-ted and handle.)
H5. LACK OF PROXIMITY TO THE SCENE?
(Have him get on the correct comm lines and get in ARC with the scene.
Handle ruds if necessary.)
H6. NO COMM LINES?
(Determine whether this is from W/Hs or MUs and handle accordingly.)
H7. INABILITY TO COMMUNICATE?
(Pull his W/Hs. Make him do Reach and Withdraw on the people and
objects of his area. Program him for the M8 and M9 program course.)
H8. ABSENCE OF ALTITUDE?
(Have him read HCO PL 4 Oct 68, ETHICS PRESENCE and Exec Series I and
2 and have him demo how he can use them.)
H9. BAD HEALTH?
(Send him to the MO on an MO routing form and get it handled. Get any
needed PTS handling done.)
HIO. LUCK?
(2WC his considerations on it and bring his cause level up by getting
him to look at what he can do about it.)
Section I.-
11. MISUNDERSTOODS IN THE PRODUCTION AREA?
(Routine Word Clearing per the Word Clearing Series.)
282
12. MISUNDERSTOODS ON WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE? (Routine Word
Clearing per the Word Clearing Series.)
13. CONFUSIONS IN THE AREA?
(Routine Word Clearing per the Word Clearing Series.)
Section J_-
J 1. CRASHING MISUNDERSTOOD?
(Crashing MU Finding per HCOB 17 June 79, CRASHING MISUs: THE KEY TO
COMPLETED CYCLES OF ACTION AND PRODUCTS.)
J2. TROUBLE COMPLETING CYCLES OF ACTION IN THE PRODUCTION AREA?
(Crashing MU Finding per HCOB 17 June 79, CRASHING MISUs: THE KEY TO
COMPLETED CYCLES OF ACTION AND PRODUCTS.)
Section K..
KI. NO IDEA AT ALL THAT PRODUCTS SHOULD BE GOTTEN OUT?
(Simply two-way comm of why the guy is there. It might come as a
startling realization that he is supposed to get out any products. This can
be backed up by Exchange by Dynamics-HCO PL 4 Apr 72, Esto Series 14,
ETHICS, and Short Form Product Clearing per HCO PL 13 Mar 72, Esto Series
5, PRODUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT-ORDERS AND PRODUCTS or HCO PL 23 Mar 72,
Esto Series 11, FULL PRODUCT CLEARING LONG FORM.)
K2. PRETENDING TO KNOW THAT PRODUCTS SHOULD BE GOTTEN OUT BUT DON'T?
(Simply two-way comm of why the guy is there. It might come as a
startling realization that he is supposed to get out any products. This can
be backed up by Exchange by Dynamics-HCO PL 4 Apr 72, Esto Series 14,
ETHICS and Short Form Product Clearing per HCO PL 13 Mar 72, Esto Series 5,
PRODUCTION AND ESTABLISHMENT-ORDERS AND PRODUCTS or HCO PL 23 Mar 72, Esto
Series 11, FULL PRODUCT CLEARING LONG FORM.)
K3. WON'T COMPLETE A CYCLE OF ACTION?
(Get the person's case looked into by a competent C/S and an Ethics
Officer for background. If you are dealing with a suppressive or insane
person, handle per ethics policies. If it is PTSness, get the person de-
PTSed.)
Section L:
Ll. WRONG STAT.?
(Get the right stat figured out so that it agrees with what he is
supposed to produce and actually measures his actual production.)
L2. DOES THE STAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE BEING
PRODUCED?
(Get the right stat figured out so that it agrees with what he is
supposed to produce and actually measures his actual production.)
283
Section M:
M I. WRONG VFP9
(Use HCO PL 24 July 78, SUBPRODUCTS and Exchange by Dynamics and Full
Product Clearing Long Form on the correct and actual VFP-as well as any
other products the person or area might have.)
M2. WRONG PRODUCT?
(Use HCO PL 24 July 78, SUBPRODUCTS and Exchange by Dynamics and Full
Product Clearing Long Form on the correct and actual VFP-as well as any
other products the person or area might have.)
M3. NO IDEA OF THE PRODUCT?
(Get a complete and accurate statement of the correct product and
Product Clear him on it. See also HCO PL 7 Aug 76, Issue 1, Esto Series 31,
PRODUCT/ORG OFFICER SYSTEM, NAME YOUR PRODUCT.)
M4. UNSURE OF WHAT THE PRODUCT IS?
(Get a complete and accurate statement of the correct product and
Product Clear him on it. See also HCO PL 7 Aug 76, Issue 1, Esto Series 31,
PRODUCT/ORG OFFICER SYSTEM, NAME YOUR PRODUCT.)
M5. THINKING IT'S THE AWARD RATHER THAN THE PRODUCT.? (Use HCO PL 24
July 78, SUBPRODUCTS and Exchange by Dynamics and Full Product Clearing
Long Form on the correct and actual VFP-as well as any other products the
person or area might have.)
M6. DOES THE PRODUCT HAVE NO EXCHANGE VALUE?
(Use HCO PL 24 July 78, SUBPRODUCTS and Exchange by Dynamics and Full
Product Clearing Long Form on the correct actual VFP-as well as any other
products the person or area might have, and per HCO PL 23 Aug 79, Issue 1,
DEBUG TECH, Section M.)
M7. OVERT PRODUCTS?
(Handle any W/Hs connected with this. Then handle per HCO PL DEBUG
TECH, Section M.)
M8. IS THE PRODUCT A PRODUCT THAT NOBODY WANTS?
(Handle any W/Hs connected with this. Then handle per HCO PL DEBUG
TECH, Section M.)
M9. NO MARKETING OR ADVERTISING OF THE PRODUCT?
(Handle any W/Hs connected with this. Then handle per HCO PL DEBUG
TECH, Section M.)
Section N:
NI. NEVER FIGURED OUT WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE TO GET A PRODUCT?
(Handle per HCO PL DEBUG TECH, Section N.)
Section 0:
01. OUT-ETHICS?
(Determine the situation and handle with O/W write-ups or auditing and
ethics conditions or correction of past ethics conditions and the ethics
policies that apply.)
284
02. ACTIVE CO UNTER- INTENTION?
(Pull the O/Ws and then locate the MUs. Then watch him and remove him
if he remains Cl.)
03. ACTIVE COUNTER-INTENTION ON THE PART OF OTHERS?
(Find out who. Handle any agreement he has with their CI as a W/H. Get
the person or persons who have CI handled on their O/Ws and get their MUs
found. Remove if the person or persons remain CL)
04. OTHER-INTENTIONEDNESS?
(Pull the O/Ws and then locate the MUs. Then watch him and remove him
if he remains other-intentioned.)
05. OTHER-INTENTIONEDNESS ON THE PART OF OTHERS?
(Find out who. Handle any agreement he has with their otherintention
as a W/H. Get the person or persons who have otherintention handled on
their O/Ws and get their MUs found. Remove if the person or persons remain
other-intentioned.)
Section P:
Pl. CREATING PROBLEMS AND DEMANDING SOLUTIONS TO THEM?
(Give the person PTS handling as per ethics policies. If and when
available get the personnel de-PTSed with clay table de-PTSing, as covered
in HCOB 28 Aug 79, CLAY TABLE DE-PTSINGTHEORY AND ADMINISTRATION.)
P2. LOTS OF UNSOLVABLE PROBLEMS IN THE AREA?
(Give the person PTS handling as per ethics policies. If and when
available get the personnel de-PTSed with clay table de-PTSing, as covered
in HCOB 28 Aug 79, CLAY TABLE DE-PTSINGTHEORY AND ADMINISTRATION.)
P3. CONNECTED TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING ANTAGONISTIC?
(Give the person PTS handling as per ethics policies. If and when
available get the personnel de-PTSed with clay table de-PTSing, as covered
in HCOB 28 Aug 79, CLAY TABLE DE-PTSINGTHEORY AND ADMINISTRATION.)
P4. PTS?
(Give the person PTS handling as per ethics policies. If and when
available get the personnel de-PTSed with clay table de-PTSing, as covered
in HCOB 28 Aug 79, CLAY TABLE DE-PTSINGTHEORY AND ADMINISTRATION.)
P5. ACCIDENTS?
(Give the person PTS handling as per ethics policies. If and when
available get the personnel de-PTSed with clay table de-PTSing, as covered
in HCOB 28 Aug 79, CLAY TABLE DE-PTSINGTHEORY AND ADMINISTRATION.)
Section Q:
Ql. ORGANIZING ONLY?
(Handle his MUs in the area including any Crashing MUs.)
Q2. TOTAL ORGANIZATION?
(Handle his MUs in the area including any Crashing MUs.)
285
Section R:
R I. ORGANIZATION INADEQUATE TO GET THE PRODUCT? (Handle per Section R
of HCO PL 23 Aug 79, DEBUG TECH.)
R2. LACK OF ORGANIZATION?
(Handle per Section R of HCO PL 23 Aug 79, DEBUG TECH.)
R3. NO ORGANIZING?
(Clear the misunderstoods, including Crashing MUs, in the production
area, particularly on the purpose of the production and why one is
producing.)
R4. LACK OF A SENSE OF ORGANIZATION?
(De-PTSing as covered in Section P. Then handle any overts and
withholds and then clear the MUs in the area, including Crashing MUS.)
R5. NO GRASP OF THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATION?
(De-PTSing as covered in Section P. Then handle any overts and
withholds and then clear the MUs in the area, including Crashing MUS.)
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nc.gm Copyright c 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
286
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 AUGUST 1979R
Remimeo Issue 11
All Orgs REVISED 19 NOVEMBER 1979
All Staff
(Revisions in this type style)
Establishment Officer Series 39
Org Series 39
SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER
(This HCO PL has been revised in order to show the importance of the
ProductlOrganizing Officer and Establishment Officer systems in
relation
to the Service Product Officer. These systems are totally valid and
should be in full use in organizations.)
References:
The Flag Executive Briefing Course tape lectures
The Org Series
The Establishment Officer Series
HCO PL 9 Aug 79 1 CALL-IN: THE KEY TO FUTURE
DELIVERY AND INCOME
HCO PL 7 Aug 761 NAME YOUR PRODUCT
HCO PL 7 Aug 76 Il WANT YOUR PRODUCT
HCO PL 7 Aug 76 111 TO GET YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW
TO ORGANIZE
HCO PL 20 Nov 65 THE PROMOTIONAL ACTIONS OF
AN ORGANIZATION
HCO PL 28 Jul 74 ADDITIONS TO PROMOTIONAL
ACTIONS OF AN ORGANIZATION
HCO PL 28 May 72 BOOM DATA
HCO PL 15 Nov 60 MODERN PROCUREMENT LETTERS
HCO PL 14 Feb 61 THE PATTERN OF A CENTRAL ORG
HCO PL 21 Nov 68 SENIOR POLICY
HCO PL 28 Feb 65 DELIVER
HCO PL 23 Aug 79 1 DEBUG TECH
HCO PL 23 Aug 79 // DEBUG TECH CHECKLIST
HCO PL 9 Aug 79 111 SERVICE/CALL-IN COMMITTEE
HCO PL 10 Jul 65 LINES AND TERMINALS ROUTING
The post of SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER is hereby established in the
Office of the CO/ED, Dept 19, of all Class IV and Sea Org orgs. His direct
senior is the CO/ED.
Until such time as a SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER is posted the
responsibilities and duties are covered by the Service/Call-in Committee as
fully laid out in HCO PL 9 Aug 79 1, CALL-IN: THE KEY TO FUTURE DELIVERY
AND INCOME and HCO PL 9 Aug 79 111, SERVICE/CALL-IN COMMITTEE.
The VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCTS of this post are (1) flawlessly serviced
and
287
completed paid pcs and students who re-sign-up for their next service,
and (2) high quality promotional items in the hands of volumes of public
who come in, sign-up and start an org service.
The main statistics for the SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER are
(1) Number of pcs and students completed and re-signed on to their
next service. (This includes those actually routed on to the next upper org
for services and who do re-sign.)
(2) Number of public in and started onto a service.
Completion: By completion is meant those actions completed and
attested at C & A and accompanied by an acceptable success story.
Re-sign: By re-sign-ups are meant pcs and students who, after
completion of a service, see the Registrar to sign up again for another
service while in the org.
Promotional Items: Those items which will produce income for the
organization. By promotional items are meant those things which make
Scientology and our products known and will cause people to respond either
in person or by written reply to the result of receiving Scientology
commodities. These are tours, book outlets, Sunday services, events, upstat
image, fliers, info packs, handouts, books, ASR packs, specified service
promotion, etc.
There are of course many other stats that reflect the SERVICE PRODUCT
OFFICER'S subproducts and these are VSD, TOTAL GI, INTENSIVES COMPLETED,
BULK MAIL OUT, NUMBER OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIONS OF THE ORG IN, NUMBER OF FULLY
AND PARTIAL PAIDS GOTTEN INTO THE ORG AND ON TO THEIR NEXT SERVICE. These
are very important parts of the SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER HAT, as they
reflect his subproducts which lead to his valuable final product.
SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER
RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
The purpose of an organization is to deliver service to the public.
The primary functions which add up to delivery to the public are promotion,
sales, call-in, delivery itself and re-sign. The Service Product Officer is
responsible for the flow of PRODUCTS through these areas. He is a PRODUCT
OFFICER. He names, wants and gets products in these areas and thus ensures
that the organization is accomplishing its purpose of service to the
public.
The full technology of Product Officers is explained in the Flag
Executive Briefing Course lectures, where the ProductlOrg Officer system
was developed. This system is still fully valid and is, in fact, the tech
of the Service Product Officer. He is solely interested in products. When
the Service Product Officer comes across a situation that requires
organizing, he gets his Organizing Officer to handle it. The 0/0
(Organizing Officer) should actually be operating a few steps ahead of the
Service Product Officer at all times-organizing for immediate production,
per the ProductlOrg system. A full study of the ProductlOrg system, as
contained in the FEBC tapes, the Org Series and Esto Series 33, 34 and 35,
NAME, WANT AND GET YOUR PRODUCT, is recommended in order to attain a
thorough understanding of the actions of the Service Product Officer and
his Organizing Officer.
The Service Product Officer is not a stopgap at any point of the
promotion, sales, call-in, delivery and re-sign lines, where executives
have failed to post and hat staff. This would be the responsibility of the
Exec Establishment Officer per Esto Series 1. Establishment Officers see
that short and long-range establishment are occurring in the organization
in the form of recruiting, hatting and training of staff The Esto system is
a necessary and very vital tool for the Service Product Officer and the
organizationand should definitely be in full use.
288
The Service Product Officer has the authority to directly order or
work with any terminal involved in the promotion, sales, call-in, delivery
or re-sign areas so long as he maintains direct liaison with their seniors.
The Service Product Officer must be fully aware of every post in the
org and what their jobs consist of. He must know who handles what cycles
and what cycles are on the lines. For instance, it is up to the Service
Product Officer to be aware of all promotional actions occurring in the org
and who is doing them, or if they aren't getting done. He must be aware of
what public aren't getting serviced and he ensures those responsible get
them serviced. He doesn't do this himself as a serious goof of any Product
Officer would be to go down the org board and do the job himself. The
Service Product Officer must ensure others get the work done. Otherwise, he
would wind up doing everyone's post and not getting anything done. It's
actually pretty overwhelming to think of a Service Product Officer as
responsible for doing everyone else's post duties. That's the sure-fire way
to sink fast. Where a product isn't getting out the Service Product Officer
debugs it using HCO PL DEBUG TECH, in order to get production. He is not
interested in first finding the person's MU or excuse, he is interested in
getting production occurring now. Let the Org Officer and Qual worry about
the staff member's MUs.
Divisional Secretaries are the Product Officers for their division per
the ProductlOrganizing Officer system. The Service Product Officer sees
that the Product Officers over the whole delivery cycle are getting their
products. He coordinates the flow of products from division to division. A
Service Product Officer doing his post fully and properly is, in fact, the
person that makes the org board work. He sees that products aren't jamming
up at one point of the line, but that they continue through the
organization.
The Service Product Officer walks into the Tech Div and finds the Tech
Sec sitting at his desk, shuffling paper and the pcs are piling high and
complaining about no service. The last thing the Service Product Officer
would do is start organizing the Tech staff around and scheduling the pcs.
No sir, that's a serious offense. The first thing he would do is find out
what can be produced RIGHT NOW, what auditors can be gotten into session
right now and makes the Tech Sec do it and GET IT DONE. This all takes
about 15 minutes and he gets the area flowing again and then, WHAM! . . .
he's out and into his next area. The Service Product Officer would not sit
down and just start word clearing or doing Exchange by Dynamics on the Tech
Sec. He would unstick the flows and get them moving. Then he would alert
HCO and Qual to this serious problem of unhattedness and demand it be
handled.
The basic sequence of the Service Product Officer on getting the
products flowing off the lines is PUSH, DEBUG, DRIVE, NAME IT, WANT IT, AND
GET IT. That's the only way you ever get a product. Products don't happen
on their own.
This means he tells the Tech Sec to get Joe Blow there in session now!
There is no general "audit these pcs." You'd never get a product that way.
The ED/CO has no authority to order the Service Product Officer to
perform the total duties of any one post. The Service Product Officer must
guard against being stuck into one post after another, doing it all
himself. Nor is the Service Product Officer an "expeditor" for the CO/ED.
It is also very important that the Service Product Officer advise
seniors that he is going into their areas so as not to create a Danger
condition and wind up having to run the entire org. He also does this by
getting the seniors to handle their juniors so a product is gotten. He does
not walk in and cross-order the seniors of areas but works with them to see
that products are produced.
The Service Product Officer is one who comes up with BIG IDEAS on
getting public flooded into the org and being serviced swiftly. He is the
one who thinks along the line of PRODUCTS PRODUCTS PRODUCTS. By spanning
the divisions, he coordinates the product wanted and ensures each division
is aware of its part in getting this product and that their actions are
uniform. Where the Service Product
289
Officer spots diversity, or lack of uniformity, he must alert his Org
Officer or HCO. By doing the actions of coordination for a product and
product demand, the Product Officer creates a team and more importantly
sets the pace of the org's production and morale.
ORG LINES AND THE SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER
There are certain aspects of the organization which the Service
Product Officer must be thoroughly trained in to do his job properly.
The Service Product Officer must be fully aware of all the Valuable
Final Products (VFPs) of each department and each division of the org.
Without this the Service Product Officer can create havoc, as he would be
ordering Division 6 to recruit or the Reges to supervise. By not knowing
cold the org V17Ps, the Service Product Officer would certainly jam the
flows throughout the org board.
A serious fault in any executive is not knowing the functions of
terminals and the relation of one terminal to another. A key function of
any executive is that of routing. An executive that misroutes
communications and particles will tie his org in knots and wonder why no
products are coming out. Therefore, a Service Product Officer must know
cold every post function in the org and what particles belong on what
lines.
He has got to know where a product comes from and where it goes in
order to see it through the lines. A Product Officer's job is to name, want
and get a product. However, he must first know where that product is to
come from and where it is to go. This is an incredibly fundamental point.
In order for org lines to flow, routing forms (RFs) must be used. A
routing form is a full step-by-step road map on which a particle travels.
Every point a particle (which could be a student, pc, mail, etc.) must go
through to wind up at its destination must be listed on the routing form.
The Service Product Officer's Organizing Officer must ensure routing
forms exist and are in use for each and every line in an org he deals in.
Both he and the Service Product Officer must know these forms cold and be
able to instantly spot when a line is being abused or ignored so as to slam
in the correct routing.
A Service Product Officer must fully clay demo all the lines of an
organization for each and every product. This must include each particle
from entrance to the org and through all lines on which that particle would
flow until it leaves the org. Lines are the most fundamental point of
administration. To not have a full grasp of these lines would be
detrimental to any Product Officer.
SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER
SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS
It is very easy for the Service Product Officer to become wrapped up
in one area while neglecting the others; however, this must not be done as,
while products might be getting through in one area, they may well be
seriously bogging in others. The Service Product Officer is concerned with
promotion, sales, call-in, delivery and re-sign. He begins his product
officering in promotion and gets products out there or started and moves on
to sales and gets them on to getting their products and so on through call-
in and delivery and re-sign. He then returns to the beginning, promotion,
and follows up on what he started there and gets even more production out.
This is basically how the Service Product Officer moves through the org.
Daily, the Service Product Officer must plan and battle plan out his
day. He must list those products he intends to achieve in each one of his
areas and then gets them.
The Service Product Officer is not an "information courier" or "data
gatherer." He is ahead of the game and knows the data. He must know what
public haven't been regged in the org yet, he must know who hasn't been
taken into session that day, or who
290
has been stuck in Ethics for 3 days, and ensure these things get
handled. Therefore he must be quicker and faster than anyone else in the
org and run run run.
PROMOTION
Promotion is the first action of the SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER. He must
ensure the many promotional pieces and actions are getting done. Some of
these are
1. Selling of books.
2. Staff selling books.
3. Books placed in public bookstores.
4. Selling of books to FSMs, franchises, distributors, retailers and
salesmen.
5. Books sold on each public contact.
6. Books advertised in mags, ads, posters, fliers, etc.
7. ASR packs.
8. Info packs.
9. Div 6 handouts for lectures and free testing.
10. Posters on major services in Div 6.
11. Promo to field auditors, FSMs, gung ho groups, Dianetic study
groups.
12. Org mags.
13. Flag shooting boards.
14. Promo for future events and tours.
15. The AUDITOR (for SHs).
16. Clear News.
17. ADVANCE! mag (for AOs).
18. SOURCE mag (FSO).
19. 1 WANT TO GO CLEAR CLUB promo (AOs),
20. SHSBC/NED/ INTERNSHIPS /NOTs /GRADES, etc., specified in promo.
21. Promo at points of public inquiry.
22. Free testing ads.
23. Fliers inviting people to buy Scientology books.
24. More-Info-Cards used in books.
25. Ads in newspapers.
26. Questionnaires to detect people's plans for training and
processing.
27. Enough letters to public so they come in.
28. All promotional actions per HCO PL 20 Nov 65, PROMOTIONAL ACTIONS
OF AN ORGANIZATION.
29. Book seminars, public campaigns and lectures.
30. Public Reception display (books, posters, handouts, etc.).
31. Tours and events, Sunday service.
32. Free testing line.
33. Handling of gung ho groups, keeping FSMs well supplied and
supervision of Dianetic study groups and FSMs.
34. Test centers outside the org as an extension.
35. Radio and TV advertisements.
36. Dept 17 services.
37. Reception greeting, handling, routing, chasing up people for
appointments and handling incoming calls with ARC and efficiency.
38. Formation of Dianetic counseling groups.
39. Weekly tape and film plays.
40. Promotes the org and standard tech to Auditors Association.
41. Contacts and sees any sign of ARC broken field and alerts Chaplain
to clean up the field.
The first thing a Service Product Officer would want to do is get out
a large volume of promo to at least get some activity occurring. This would
entail Dissern getting any promo laying around the org dug up and sent out
to students and pcs. They would get it out in letters and mailings, they
would get it handed out to students and pcs, they would pick up the half-
completed promo piece, have it fixed up and sent out. They would have promo
placed in Reception, in any public inquiry, etc. In other words, the
Service Product Officer ensures that the org fully utilizes what promo they
do have. He would also have specific promo pieces done to enlighten the
field on what services
291
the org has. Where any of this bogged he would push-debug-drive-name
it-want it-and get it.
The Service Product Officer, in trying to get in any promotional
items, must review what resources he has. For example, is there a Dir
Clearing; is there a Receptionist; etc.? He must concentrate on getting
those terminals that already exist busy on promotional actions that will
create the largest volume of inflow, while his Organizing Officer works on
getting more immediate resources to increase the volume even further. It
would be senseless to have the Dir Clearing running around trying to form
up groups in an inactive field, single-handing, when he has FSMs that need
to be gotten on to selecting and driving in new public. The Service Product
Officer is concerned with priorities of promotional actions, so must be
totally aware of all the promotional items and actions that an org can
produce.
Actions such as "improved org appearance," "high ARC handling," and
"correct and efficient routing of public" can be put in instantly. If he
has 2 people in all of Dissem he still can and must get the particles
flowing and products coming off the line.
SALES
The sales lines consist of enlightening the public, having lines to
sign people up, getting public into the org and signed up for service.
The following gives you an idea of some of the sales actions and lines
in an org:
1. Body Reg phones and schedules public to come in for interview.
2. Use of CF to produce business.
3. Reges who accept advance registrations.
4. D of T procurement of students.
5. D of P procurement of pcs.
6. Receptionist sells to public coming in.
7. SHs in communication with the Class IV Org Tech Secs and Registrars
and targeting them for public completing and routing on to the higher org.
8. AO's and SH's case consultant actions.
9. AO/SH events to Class IV Org academies to encourage upper level
auditor training.
10. Use of FSMs, Auditors Associations, personal contact, etc., to get
public into the org and on to their next service.
11. Fast lines so public are not left waiting to see the Reg.
The lines of routing a public person to the Reg, or from the Reg to a
service must be tight so public aren't lost, and the Reg is kept busy
continuously with the public. Therefore, the Service Product Officer must
police these lines and where he notices any lack of uniformity he gets his
Org Officer onto it. Nonuniform or slow routing interferes with the
product, so the Service Product Officer gets it speeded up now by push-
debug-drive-name it-want it-and get it.
The first actions of the Service Product Officer in the sales area are
to get all "in-the-org" public routed to the Reg on breaks or after course
end to be further signed up for additional service. He can also have Dissem
drilling done with Reges so as to increase sales in the org. His operating
procedure is products, products, products, now, now, now. His Org Officer
or HCO and Qual can worry about organize, organize, organize.
CALL-IN
Call-in is the action of getting fully paids into the org on to their
next service. This also includes getting partially paids fully paid and on
to their next service. These functions are of great concern to the SERVICE
PRODUCT OFFICER as undelivered services to the public can mess up a field
and increase the chance of refunds. The Service Product Officer should see
to it that the Call-in Units are given stiff targets and
292
that their production is not monitored by low auditor hours or low
producing training areas. The execution of needed programs to get Call-in
Units fully operational is under the Service Product Officer per HCO PL 9
Aug 79 1 CALL-IN: THE KEY TO FUTURE DELIVERY AND INCOME. This same policy
also lists out the functions of the Call-in Units. Call-in falls between
sales and delivery, as it deals with those either fully or partly paid and
needing only to finish payment and be called in and gotten onto service.
DELIVERY
The Service Product Officer must ensure that the service lines of the
org are fast and 100% standard, that pcs and students do complete quickly
and don't get lost off the lines.
The Service Product Officer is to have an alert line with the public
set up whereby if a student or pc's study or auditing is slowed, or if the
public person is dissatisfied in any way, he can alert the Service Product
Officer so it can be handled.
Some of the actions and lines to be product officered by the Service
Product Officer are as follows:
1. Tech Services arranges housing, has the pc met when he is arriving
and generally operates as the pc's host while in the org.
2. The many lines such as pc to Ethics, pc to Examiner, student to
Ethics, student to Qual, C/S Series 25 line and pc to D of P line must be
drilled so they are flawless and handled with ARC.
3. The most senior policy applied to this area is HCO PL 21 Nov 68,
SENIOR POLICY "WE ALWAYS DELIVER WHAT WE PROMISE."
4. There must be an adequate amount of auditors, Tech Pages and
FESers, Ds of P, Supervisors, Course Admins, etc.
5. The auditing line must be fast so no pcs wait to be serviced.
6. Use of all hands tech terminals in the org auditing when required
to handle backlogged service.
7. Getting students through their courses and on to their internship
at which point they can audit in the HGC.
8. Proper scheduling so every pc gets in 121/2 hours a week minimum.
9. Recovering blown auditors, getting them fixed up and auditing.
The Service Product Officer ensures tech lines are fast. For instance,
a pc's folder not getting C/Sed for days, or idle auditors and Ds of P
"waiting" for pcs when they can be made to procure pcs, must be spotted and
handled by the Service Product Officer.
The Service Product Officer must be kept briefed on what pcs, and
students arrive and how they are going to be handled. He must get around to
these areas (Training and HGC) to ensure that there are no slows with
public or anything that would get in the way of public receiving top
quality service.
Service to the public is the reason the org is there and service must
be kept fast and 100% standard and plentiful. This is a primary duty of the
Service Product Officer; he is there to ensure this occurs.
It is losses on service that keep public away, org income down and
staff pay low.
RE-SIGN-UP
The re-sign-up line is also very key to an organization's prosperity.
It brings further income, and proves conclusively that the last service
received by the public person was of high quality. This is why the Service
Product Officer must be very alert to the amount of re-signs. Some of the
things that should be watched for are
1. That the Reg is supplied with an upstat cert for his last completed
service to present to the student or pc.
293
2. That the Reg knows fully how to handle the public person that won't
re-sign (by sending them to Qual).
3. The Reg must be provided with tech estimates, Grade Chart
information, etc., so he is aware ahead of time of what the student or pc's
next action is.
4. Tech terminals are fully briefed and the line is in that every
completion gets routed to the Reg. This must be drilled.
The public person should be serviced in your org until he/she requires
upper level service that your org cannot deliver, at which point they
should be directed to the next higher org.
PITFALLS
The Service Product Officer can lose his effectiveness if he takes any
"hey you" orders or gets stuck in at various points. He is not an
expeditor. He is not an information and full-time coordinator terminal. He
is an executive, a Product Officer, and he is there to ensure the entire
machine runs.
He must be well versed on actions occurring in the org. He must also
pay strict attention to completing actions he has started and to carry a
handling through to a done. Otherwise he can wrap himself around a pole
with incomplete cycles which will ball up the line and prevent the service
lines from flowing flawlessly.
Where the Service Product Officer post bogs it is undoubtedly due to a
lack of an Organizing Officer, as with the speed in which a Service Product
Officer demands products, he requires a fast moving Org Officer. So it is
essential this post be provided with an Org Officer as soon as possible.
Those personnel in the org who are responsible for organization, any
Esto personnel, etc., are the people who put the units in the org there. It
is not the duty of a Service Product Officer to man and hat the org.
Therefore, it is a lot of sweat off the Service Product Officer's brow to
have a fully functioning Esto team backing up his actions in getting the
flow of products out of the organization.
SUMMARY
The Service Product Officer ensures all the actions of getting public
into, through and out of the org are accomplished with high quality
results.
It is extremely important that this post be manned in each and every
org. It doesn't just make the difference between a poor, empty org and a
good org. This post makes the difference between a good org and a booming
org.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:dr.gal.gm Copyright Q 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
294
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 FEBRUARY 1980
Remimeo
Exec Hats
All Staff Hats
Esto Series 40
Org Series 40
Product Debug Series 9
ORDER versus DISORDER
(Ref: HCO PL 9 Feb 74R ETHICS-CONDITION BELOW
Rev. 17.2.80 TREASON-CONFUSION FORMULA
AND EXPANDED CONFUSION
FORMULA
HCO PL 30 Dec 70 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL)
I made a breakthrough recently, while investigating low production
areas and realized that a good deal more needs to be said on the subject of
order and disorder.
Order is defined as a condition in which everything is in its proper
place and performs its proper function. A person with a personal sense of
order knows what the things in his area are, he knows where they are, he
knows what they are for. He understands their value and relationship to the
whole.
A personal sense of order is essential in getting out products in an
area.
An orderly typist, for instance, would have all the materials
requiring typing, she would have ample paper and carbons within arm's
reach, she would have her correction fluid to hand, etc. With all
preparatory actions done, she would sit down to type with an operational
typewriter and would know what that typewriter was and what it was for.
She would be able to sit down and get her product, with no wasted
motion or stops.
But let's say you had a carpenter who couldn't find his hammer and he
didn't even know what a hammer was for and he couldn't find his chisel
because when he picked it up he put it down and couldn't find it again and
then he didn't know where his nails were. You give him a supply of lumber
and he doesn't know what it's for, so he doesn't categorize it where he can
put his hands on it.
How many houses do you think he would build?
The actual fact of the case is that a disordered person, operating in
a disorganized area, makes a 10-minute cycle into a 3-week cycle (believe
it, this is true) simply because he couldn't find his ruler, lost his
eraser, broke his typewriter, dropped a nut and couldn't find it again and
had to send off to Seattle for another one, etc., etc., etc.
BASICS
In working with a group of nonproductive technicians recently, I
discovered something interesting: out-basics. I actually found a lower
undercut to what we generally think of when we say "basics."
These technicians had reportedly researched a key piece of equipment
and had it all sorted out. But I found that they didn't even know the basic
fundamental of what that machine was supposed to do and what they were
supposed to be doing in their area.
That told me at once that they had no orderly files, no research data.
They were losing things.
295
Now, if they were losing things, that opened the door to another
basic: they couldn't have known where things were. They put down a tool
over there and then when they needed it again they would have to look all
over the place because they hadn't put it down where it belonged.
Their work was not organized so that it could be done and the tools
were not known.
So I checked this out. Were they logging the things they were using in
and out so they could find them again? Were they putting things away when
they were done with them? No, they weren't.
This is simply the basic admin coupled with the knowledge of what the
things one is working with are. It's orderliness and knowing what things
are, knowing what they are for and where they are, etc. That's the
undercut.
If people don't have a true knowledge of what the things they're
working with are, if there are omitted tools, inoperational tools, if they
don't know what their tools are supposed to do, if there are no files or if
once used, files are not reassembled and put back in the file drawer, if
things get lost and people don't know where things are and so on, they will
be running around spending 3 or 4 hours trying to locate a piece of paper.
That isn't production.
If a person can't tell you what the things he works with are, what
they're for and where they are, he isn't going to get out any product. He
doesn't know what he's doing.
It's like the carpenter trying to build a house without knowing what
he's got to build it with, without understanding his tools and raw
materials and the basic actions he must take to get his product. That's
what was holding up production in the area: disorderliness. And the basics
were out.
This is actually far below knowing the tech of the area-the actual
techniques used to get the product. The person does not even know what his
tools and equipment are or what they're supposed to do. He doesn't know
whether they are operational or inoperational. He doesn't know that when
you use a tool you return it to its proper place. When you have a despatch
you put it in a file where it can be retrieved. It undercuts even knowing
the orders and PLs relevant to his hat.
What are the basics that are missine. The basics of sitting down to
the table that one is supposed to sit down to, to do the work! The basics
of knowing what the tools, materials and equipment he works with are and
what he's supposed to do with them to get his product. Those are the basics
that are missing.
We are down to a real reason why a person cannot turn out products.
That is what is holding up such a person's production. It is well
below knowing the technique of his job.
Out-basics. Does the guy know where the file is? When he finishes with
that file does he leave it scattered all over the place or does he put it
back together and into the file where it can be found?
Now, a person who's working will have papers all over the place, but
does he know where they are and is he then going to reassemble them and put
them back in order or is he going to just leave them there and pile some
more papers on top of them?
If you find Project No. 2 scattered on top of Project No. 1, you know
something about that area. Basics are out.
This is a little piece of tech and with that piece of tech you've got
insight. You would have to have an overall picture of what the area would
look like when properly ordered and organized-how it would be organized to
get optimum production.
Then you could inspect the area and spot what's going on. You would
inspect on the basis of: how does the area compare with how it should be
organized? You would find out if the personnel didn't know what the things
in their area were or what they
296
were for, you would see if they knew the value of things in the area
or if there were altered importances, omitted files or filing, actions
being done out of sequence, inoperational tools or equipment, anything
added to the scene that was inapplicable to production, etc.
In other words, you can inspect an area by outpoints against this one
factor of orderliness.
This sort of out-basics and disorderliness cuts production down to
nothing. There just won't be any production at all. There will be no houses
built.
What we are talking about here is an orderly frame of mind. A person
with a sense of order and an understanding of what he is doing, sits down
to write a story or a report and he'll have his paper to hand, he'll have
it fixed up with carbons and he'll have his reference notes to hand. And
before he touches the typewriter, he'll familiarize himself with what the
scene is. He'll do the necessary preparatory work in order to get his
product.
Now someone else might sit down, write something, then dimly remember
there was a note someplace and then look for an hour to find where that
note was and then not be able to find it and then decide that it's not
important anyway and then come back and forth a few times and finally find
out he's typed it all up without a carbon.
There is a handling for this. Anyone trying to handle an area who
doesn't understand the basics of what they're dealing with and is in an
utter state of disorder must get a firm reality on the fact that until the
basics are learned and the disorder handled, the area will not produce
satisfactorily.
The following inspection is used in determining and handling the state
of such an area-
INSPECTION
This inspection is done in order to determine an area's knowledge of
basics and its orderliness. It can be done by an area's senior for the
purpose of locating and correcting disordered areas. It is also used as
part of debug tech as covered in HCO PL 23 Aug 79 DEBUG TECH. It is for use
by anyone who is in the business of production and getting products.
The full inspection below would be done, clipboard in hand, with full
notes made and then handlings would be worked out based on what was found
in the inspection (according to the Handling Section of this PL and the
suggested handlings given in parentheses below).
1. DOES HE KNOW WHAT ORGANIZATION, FIRM OR COMPANY HE'S IN? DOES HE
KNOW WHAT HIS POST OR JOB IS?
This is a matter of does he even know where he is. Does he know what
the organization or company he works for is, does he know what the post he
is holding is?
(If he is so confused and disoriented that he doesn't even know the
company or org he's in or doesn't know what his post is, he needs to apply
the Expanded Confusion Formula, HCO PL 9 Feb 74R and then work up through
the conditions.
Of course the person would also need to be instant hatted on his post-
the organization, his post title, his relative position on the org board,
what he's supposed to produce on his post, etc.
If he is doing this handling as part of his Expanded Confusion
Formula, simply have him get the instant hatting and carry on with his
Confusion Formula.)
297
2. A SK THE PERSON WHA T HIS PR OD UCT IS.
Does he know? Can he tell you without comm lag or confusion?
You may find out that he has , no idea of what his product is or that
he has a wrong product or that he has confusions about his product. Maybe
he doesn't even know he's supposed to get out products.
(If this is the case, he must find out what his product is. If the
person's product is given in policy references, he should look these up. If
his product is not covered in tech or policy references, he'll have to work
out what it is.)
3. CAN HE RATTLE OFF A LIST OF THE BASIC ACTIONS, IN PROPER SEQUENCE,
NECESSARY TO GET OUT HIS PRODUCT OR DOES HE HEMANDHAWONIT?
Does he know what to do with his product once it is completed?
He may try to tell you what he does each day or how he handles this or
that and what troubles he's having with his post. You note this, but what
you're interested in is does he know the basic actions he has to take to
get out his product. And does he know what to do with the product once it
is complete?
(If he can't rattle off the sequence of actions 1, 2, 3 then he'd
better clay demo the basic actions, in proper sequence, necessary to get
out his product and then drill these actions until he can rattle them off
in his sleep. If he does not know what to do with his product once
completed, then he'd need to find out and then drill handling the completed
product.)
4. ASK HIM WHAT HIS TOOLS ARE THAT ENABLE HIM TO GET THIS PRODUCT
Note his reaction. Can he name his tools at all? Does he include the
significant tools of his area? Does he include his hat pack as a tool?
(If he doesn't know what his tools are, he'd better find out what he's
operating with and what it does. A good workman knows his tools so well he
can use them blindfolded, standing on his head and with one arm tied behind
his back.)
5. ASK HIM TO SHO W YOU HIS TOOLS.
Are his tools present in the work area or does he have them out of
reach, down the hall or in some other room?
(He may have to reorganize his work space to get his tools within easy
reach and to get in some basics of organization. The purpose of such
organization would be to make production easier and faster.)
6. ASK HIM TO TELL YOU WHAT EACH OF HIS TOOLS ARE.
Can he define them? Does he know what each of them are and what they
are for?
(If he doesn't know, he'd better find out.)
7. ASK HIM TO TELL YOU WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS BETWEEN EACH ONE OF
HIS TOOLS AND HIS PRODUCT
(If he can't do this, have him clay demo the steps he takes to get out
his products with each tool he uses, so he sees the relationship between
each tool and his product.)
8. ASK HIM TO NAME OFF THE RAW MATERIALS HE WORKS WITH. ASK HIM TO SHO
W YO U HIS MA TERIA LS.
Does he know what his raw materials are? Are they in his work area?
Are they in order? Does he know where to get them?
298
(He may have to find out what the raw materials of his post are (by
defining them) and where they come from. He should drill procuring and
handling them and then run Reach and Withdraw on them.)
9. DOES HE HA VE A FILE CA BINET? FILES? A SK HIM WHA T THE Y A RE.
Does he know what they are for? Does he know what a despatch is, etc.?
(He may have to be brought to an understanding of what riles, file
cabinets, despatches, etc., are and what they have to do with him and his
product. He may have to clay demo the relationship between these things. He
will have to set up a filing system. Ref. HCO PL 18 Mar 72, Esto Series 10,
FILES.)
10. DOES HE HAVE A SYSTEM FOR LOCATING THINGS?
Ask to see it. Check his files. Does he have logs? Does he log things
out and correct the logs when he puts them back? Are the comm baskets
labeled? Does he have a specific place for supplies? Ask him to find
something in his files. How long does it take?
Does he have an orderly collection of references or a library
containing the materials of his field? Is it organized so as to be usable?
(If he has no system for locating things, have him set one up. Have
him establish a filing system, a logging system, label the comm baskets,
arrange supplies, etc. Get a reference library set up and organized. Drill
using the system he has.)
11. WHEN HE USES AN ITEM DOES HE PUT IT BACK IN THE SAME PLACE? DOES
HE PUTITBACK WHERE OTHERS CANFIND 177
He'll probably tell you, yes, of course he does. Look around. Are
objects and files lying about? Is the place neat or is it a mess? Ask him
to find you something. Does he know right where it is, or does he have to
search around? Is there an accumulation of unhandled particles around?
(Have him clay demo why it might be advantageous to put things back in
the same place he found them. Drill him on putting things back when he's
finished with them. Have him clean up the place, handling any accumulation
of unhandled particles.)
12. IF FEASIBLE, ACTUALLY GO WITH THE PERSON TO HIS PERSONAL LIVING
AREA.
Is the bed made? Is the area clean? Are things put away? How much
dirty laundry does he have? Is it stowed in a bag or hamper or is it strewn
about the place? People who had disorderly personal mest, I for I were not
getting out any products on post-they had no sense of order.
(If his personal quarters are a mess have him-on his own time of
coursestraighten up his personal area and keep it that way on a daily
basis. This will teach him what order is.)
HANDLING
Some areas, of course, will be found to be in excellent order and will
pass the inspection. These will most likely be high production areas.
Other areas will be found to have only a few points out which would
correct easily with the above handlings. These will probably be areas where
some production is occurring.
Where personnel have a concept of what order is and why it is
important they will usually be eager to correct the points of disorder that
have turned up on the investigation and may need no further urging,
drilling or correction, but will quickly set about remedying outpoints. For
many bright and willing staff members just reading this.policy will be
enough to get them to straighten out their areas right away.
299
There is, however, a sector which has no concept of order, and may not
have the slightest notion of why anyone would bother with it. You will most
likly find them in apathy, overwhelm or despair with regard to their post
areas. No matter what they do they simply cannot get their products out in
adequate quantity and quality. They try and try and try but everything
seems to be working against them.
When you find such a situation, know that the area is in Confusion.
You are trying to handle an area which is in a confirmed, dedicated
condition of Confusion.
Such an area or individual would require the application of the
Expanded Confusion Formula (HCO PL 9 Feb 74R) including the handlings
above. So if these things confirm in an area you must use the Expanded
Confusion Formula and the handlings given above to full completion.
Because, frankly, such an area or individual is in a condition of Confusion
and will remain in Confusion until the Expanded Confusion Formula including
the full handlings from the inspection are applied.
Once out of Confusion the person would have to be brought up through
the rest of the conditions.
CAUTION
The condition of Confusion is a very low condition and should never be
assigned where it is not warranted. Where one or two points on the above
inspection were found to be out in an area, and where these corrected
easily, there would be no purpose in assigning Confusion to that area. In
fact it may worsen an area to assign an incorrect condition.
But where you have a long-term situation of no or few products
combined with a state of disorder, know that the area or individual is in a
condition of Confusion and that the application of the Confusion Formula
plus the handlings given in this PL will bring the area out of the muck and
up to square one where it can begin producing.
NOTE: If the inspection is done on a person or area and some of the
points are found to be out and handlings are done but no condition of
Confusion is assigned the area must be reinspected about a week later. This
way you will detect if an actual condition of Confusion was missed, as the
area will have lapsed back into disorderliness or will have worsened.
SUMMARY
A knowledge of the basics of an area and having orderliness in an area
are essential to production.
When you find a fellow who is a light year away from the basics and
doesn't have a clue on the subject of order and he's flying way up in the
sky someplace instead of just trying to put together what he's supposed to
put together or do what he's supposed to do, you've got your finger on his
Why for no production.
With the inspection and handlings given in this policy we can now
handle any degree of disorderliness and disorganization.
And order will reign.
Nonproductive areas become capable of producing.
Already-producing areas increase their production.
And production will roll.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:gal.gm Copyright c 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
300
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 APRIL 1980
Remimeo
LRH Comm (Modifies HCO PL 9 May 1974 PROD-ORG,
Hats ESTO AND OLDER SYSTEMS RECONCILED)
Esto Hats
Execs
Establishment Officer Series 41
ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER SYSTEM REVITALIZED
Ref- HCO PL 7 Mar 72 Esto Series I R
THE ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER
HCO PL 14 Jul 72 Esto Series 22
ESTO FAILURES
The Establishment Officer system, which has never fully gone in in the
past, is hereby revitalized and reconstituted.
It is a well-known fact that a postive way to expand an org is to get
the org on-policy and in-tech. It is the most effective way of guaranteeing
the expansion of Scientology.
It was the establishment of HCO and strong Department Ones which
preceded the growth and eventual boom of the great orgs in 1973 and 1974
and it was the unmock of HCOs and Department Ones that signaled the later
downfall and crash of these orgs. Additionally all booms and depressions of
an org are due to its being expertly built up and then, having a peak
period, it is not maintained in that well-established condition and
disintegrates.
The handling for this is the ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER.
KEY TOOL
As the Esto system is a key tool through which the LRH Comm carries
out his purpose of seeing that the org is established, the LRH Comm ensures
that an Exec Esto is posted.
The HCO of the org is held responsible for getting the Exec Esto
appointed.
EXPANSION
The purpose of the Establishment Officer is to ESTABLISH and MAINTAIN
the establishment of the org and each division therein.
Therefore, the way to expansion is to get the Esto system truly
functioning and guaranteeing the prosperity of the org.
DEPT ONE
The first duty of an Exec Esto is to put a strong Dept One there per
Esto Series 22 ESTO FAILURES, and the Exec Esto must roll up his sleeves
-and do the work in Dept One if he is to succeed. The Exec Esto and Estos
under him should be out in the org actually working in their divisions and
coordinating with the execs to back up org production. They are not hidden
away behind desks in some ivory tower. They are not the juniors of the org
execs. They have project orders, provided by International Headquarters,
which they follow and in coordination with org execs achieve their purpose
of establishment and thus an expanding org.
301
Once the Exec Esto is chosen and on post he must be rapidly hatted up
and drilled on the Esto Series and given project orders to start putting
Department One there as per HCO PL 14 Jul 72 ESTO FAILURES. It is the job
of the LRH Comm to ensure the Exec Esto follows his project orders and does
not get cross-ordered or stopped in his duties of establishing HCO and the
org.
All existing Esto tech applies and is valid.
POSITION
The Exec Esto is org boarded in Department 21 in the "Office of the
Exec Esto" as per HCO PL 7 Mar 72 Esto Series IR THE ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER.
This does not mean he is in the LRH Comm Network but the LRH Comm is the
administrative senior of the Exec Esto. This does not lessen the
responsibility of the org and execs for seeing that the Exec Esto post is
covered and the Esto system goes in, nor does it lessen the responsibility
of the Exec Esto to work in coordination with org execs to achieve the
needed org establishment.
It is up to the LRH Comm to act as arbitrator on any conflicts
regarding any Estos' duties and he sees that the appropriate policy
reference from the Esto Series or Esto tapes is followed.
PRECAUTION
The LRH Comm must not become "flap crossroads" for personnel and any
and all personnel demands from org terminals are not to be directed to the
Office of the Exec Esto or the LRH Comm. On-policy personnel requests are
routed on standard lines to HCO and handled per policy. The LRH Comm and
Exec Esto must be allowed to get on with their jobs of establishing HCO and
the org.
This system properly implemented can take your org to higher and
higher levels of expansion and prosperity. It must be put in with a
vengeance and not allowed to be unmocked for ANY reason. No Esto in an org
can be transferred or removed or disciplined without clearance of
International Headquarters and LRH Comms must see that this is rigidly
enforced.
SUMMARY
The Esto system fully established will make the true difference in the
establishment of the org and each division therein. And you'll see the org
take off to greater and greater heights than ever before.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
As assisted by
Msm Barbara Price
LRH Comm International
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:BP:dr.gm Copyright 0 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
302
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue I
Rernimeo
(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 of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY BDCS:LRH:SA:bk.nf
Copyright 0 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The original mirneo copies of this policy letter incorrectly
labeled it as "Admin Know-How 36" which has been corrected above.]
303
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 SEPTEMBER 1980
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 23 August 1972)
Esto Series 43
Org Series 48
ACTIVITY
We are in the midst of a great deal of activity.
This means a certain amount of disestablishment occurs.
Such times are the times when Dept I has to go FLAT-OUT.
It has to actually produce.
It has to get new people in, org boards revised, hats collected,
people on new posts HATTED!
It has to somehow hold the form of the org and keep it producing.
This is no time for Dept I people to sit at a desk doing their in-
baskets all day or studying.
This is the time when the org form situation is continually reviewed
and beefed up and hatted.
A hat is NOT an explanation. It is a checksheet and pack and it gets
DONE right now.
This is the time when you make up for fewer numbers with better
utilization. And you make up for increased traffic with greater efficiency
on each individual post.
Esto trainees who don't know or can't do these things won't be worth
anything in their own orgs.
The question is, can they do it or can't they9
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Accepted and approved by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright 0 1972, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
304
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1980
Remimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 8 March 1971)
Org Series 43
Esto Series 44
ORG OFFICER
Org Officers think they approach HASes to organize. They don't.
HCO has not formed because Org Officers keep making demands on it
instead of doing their job. The organization it takes to get out a specific
product is instant stuff. HCO is a long-term build of the establishment.
Entering instant organization into HCO of course defeats its purposes and
prevents it from the long-haul actions necessary to form a whole org.
If an Org Officer considered himself the Product Officer's expeditor
he would begin to get the idea.
We have a Product Officer/Org Officer mission going in to expedite
FEBCs. The Product Officer will get the product-a competent graduated FEBC
on an airplane going home-being made and fired. The Org Officer will push
the materiel and lines into shape to back up the Product Officer. Now,
what's that have to do with HCO? Nothing.
The Org Officer makes sure there is a pack or tape or recorder or gets
them (not by despatch) and the Product Officer checks out, verifies,
grooms, solves FEBC problems, pushes cases.
The Course Super goes on supervising, Course Admin goes on admining.
What they're doing right with the student gets pushed and done more of. And
what organization there is gets more of from the Org Officer.
For instance,
SITUATION: Course numbers building up. You see this in orgs.
HANDLING: Put on a Prod-Org mission to get numbers completed and
fired.
The Prod-Org team finds 3 who could be made ready to fire at first
glance and gives the order GO-GO-GO, to Action.
The personal cope was fire three NOW. The medium-range was get a
mission on it.
That is uptight production.
A Prod-Org team works in hours and days. Save an hour, save a day. Do
it in hours, do it in days.
By doing it they learn line and materiel outnesses and their reform
CSWs of lines and actions are written up when they're completed and that's
their first contact with the HAS and HCO.
305
Now with these reforms the general org action will be easier and
faster and a product backlog peak won't occur so fast again.
A Prod-Org team that writes despatches and harasses HCO just doesn't
know THAT THE PROD-ORG SYSTEM IS TO HANDLE BACKLOGS AND OMISSIONS IN
PRODUCTS. Having handled they can advise or order or get approval for line
changes and new recruitment, etc. These, the HAS can get in for the long
haul.
Prod-Orgs WORK, they don't just order.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and edited for issue by Sherry Anderson Compilations
Missionaire
Accepted and approved by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright c 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
306
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue III
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 24 Feb 1970)
Esto Series 45
ESTOs
An Esto has a definite job to do. He is not part of the division's
lines. He hats, organizes, trains, sets up files, lines, and does all those
establishment actions people need to really establish a division and
maintain it.
If you want an Esto to go into gales of laughter, say "I am too busy
to get hatted." Those papers and that enmest show that a 2 hours of hatting
a day save a year of dev-t nonproduction.
HCO over the world could not establish orgs. It can do its
departmental functions. The answer is the Esto.
You'll be seeing a lot of this. Might as well know who these strange
people are who keep insisting you find out about comm baskets and things.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:bk.gm Copyright 0 1970, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
307
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue VI
Remimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of I I June 1972)
Admin Know-How Series 40
Esto Series 46
PRODUCT OFFICERS
Worked last evening getting Tech to start shooting them through to
completions.
The P/L on Selling and Delivering Auditing (HCO PL 28 Sept 71) tells
why you have to audit a pc all at once whole program. Dribbling it out
means repairs due to life upsets before the guy made it.
So crowd it on and get a pc through. Then we'll have some products for
our coins.
A Product Officer has to name, want and get his products.
This means one says, "You there. Joe Blow. Want him completed. All
right get it DONE." Product by product. There is no general "Audit these
pcs." "Get up the hours." Hell, you never get a product that way.
"You there, George Thunderbird. I want you through your Primary and
onto and
through course and classified. Get going, man, get going. Oh, you were
told to weedle
the toofle before you woofled by Dorance Doppler. Org Officer? Get
that name-to
F/MAA, get the cross orders the hell off my lines. Now you George
Thunderbird, I
want you through your Primary and onto and through course by I July.
You got it?
You got it now! Good. Well, get with it. Get going!" Note on
clipboard: Org Off to get
cross order by Dorance Doppler invest and report. "There's your slip."
Note on
progress bd. Geo Thunderbird HSDA I Jul. Now you Tobler Tomias, what's
the tale;
how are you going? . . . Well standing there smoking and looking at
the scenery isn't
going to do anything. If your girl doesn't like you anymore the thing
to do is drown
your sorrows in the Primary RD. . . . Okay you are to be an Exp Dn.
All right, that's
fine. I want you completed by 16 July. . . . I don't care if that's a
16-hour day. Let's
see, Primary RD by - and Class IV Acad by - and _. Yes that's
16 July AT NOON. Man to hell with your PTPs. Get going, man." And on
the progress
board. And from the board - "And here's Bill Coal, he should be off
the Primary
today, where is he. All right Bill-ah, you made it that far. Now
you're on schedule.
That's great. HSDA. Get with it, man. You completed Primary 20 minutes
ago and
aren't on the next course. Super!* What the .55
That's the way it goes for a Tech Prod Off. "We are finishing Agnes,
Trop and Goshwiler today. Today. Yes today. Certified and off lines. Got it
D of T? Well, do it!"
Push, debug, drive. Name it, want it, get it.
That's the only way you ever get a product.
Sad but true.
308
They don't ever happen by themselves.
And all the public relations chatter in the world is not a product. I
know this
Product Officer beat-
It's a piece of cake.
But it has to be DONE.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Accepted and approved by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:bk.gm Copyright 0 1972, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
*Supervisor
[Note: The original mitneo copies of this policy letter incorrectly
labeled it as "Admin KnowHow 38" which has been corrected in this issue.]
309
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 OCTOBER 1980
Issue III
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 24 June 1972)
Personnel Series 35
Esto Series 47
POSTING
I am finding that persons not grooved in on new posts before being
asked to act have a high confusion level which is hard on the area. Estos
should groove people in hard on the duties and existing scene and if the
person is too confused or out-ethics, alert HCO and not place them.
A person needs a day or two to find his feet on the new ground before
acting or he'll be nervous and uncertain.
We want certain and competent people on post
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.gm Copyright 0 1972, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
310
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 OCTOBER 1980
Rernimeo Issue 11
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 8 September 1971)
Exec Series 28
Esto Series 48
INSTABILITY
You will find that persons who are having a rough time or giving
others one are either just leaving or haven't arrived on the post. In other
words they in some way are not actually ON post.
It is also an oddity that those who have to go to point B haven't
arrived ever at point A in order to be able to leave for B.
The ability to BE something strongly shows up in post performances.
The real stars can BE anything wholly and completely for short or long
periods. They ARE what they are being. They aren't just arriving or
leaving.
To BE OR UnBe, that is the ability! To not quite be or to WAS is the
aberration.
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.gm Copyright 0 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
311
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 OCTOBER 1980
Rernimeo Issue 11
(Originally LRH OODs item of 22 June 1974.)
Exec Series 30
Esto Series 49
TECH
Every action that results in a product has a certain tech.
One finds out about it or develops it.
When one adopts false tech he will then wind up with confusion as
false tech will not deliver a product. It delivers a confusion-like
psychiatry.
The more false tech you hold onto or apply the more confusions you
will get.
When real tech is invalidated then false tech can enter in. So the
test of false tech is does it give a confusion and the test of real tech is
does it give a product.
A Mis-U word in real tech then can let false tech in.
If the tech is not available for a certain job one then has to develop
it. His development will be correct only if it delivers a real product.
When one busily develops tech where proven tech already exists and is
available, one is wasting his time.
Technology is that part of knowledge that is used.
So it is not enough just to know. One also has to apply.
If one really knows his tech it is very easy to apply it. When one is
uncertain. his application is uncertain.
Life in living forms depends upon real products.
When products take too long to bring about or when they turn out to be
overt products then they are not economical to produce. Overdue and overt
products are both very costly in time and catastrophes.
If you find in any area you are taking too long to produce a product,
then it's time to review your tech. (A) Does tech exist? (B) If yes, "Am I
applying it?" (C) If no, "Do I have to develop it?"
If it is (C), then one had better get very busy sorting it out. It is
easier and less expensive to do that than to go on turning out overt
products.
Any product has its tech.
Do you know the tech to produce yours?
(Note: Also see HCO PL 23 August 1979, Issues I and 11, DEBUG TECH and
DEBUG TECH CHECKLIST.)
L. RON HUBBARD Founder Compiled and issued by Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire Accepted by the BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH
OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:SA:nc.gm Copyright 0 1974, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
312
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue VIII
Remirneo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 14 May 1972)
Exec Series 22
Esto Series 50
MORALE
Production is the basis of morale.
If one can get a unit producing and actually accomplishing worthwhile
production,
then their morale will rise. I
Thus, it does not matter too much how one starts a unit producing so
long as it does get started.
I was given a good example of this with just one person who has been
on MO lines. She is actually well now. She is miserable. There is nothing
wrong with her at all except she is out of the action and is not producing
anything.
This has been noted in other fields. The "idle rich" are the most
miserable people you ever wanted to meet. "To Have and Have Not" or some
such title by Hemingway talks about it for the best part of a book.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Accepted and approved by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright 0 1972, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
[Note: The original mimeo copies of this policy letter incorrectly
labeled it as "Esto Series 41" which has been corrected above.]
313
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 NOVEMBER 1980
Issue IV
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs items of
26 February 1971 and 24 August 1970.)
Org Series 61
Esto Series 51
DRILLS
Drills have several purposes. To groove in a team action is a
principal one. To test a system fully. To groove in lines.
Whenever postings are changed, the new post holders have to be grooved
in on their posts (hatted and on-post trained) and then the team. itself
must be drilled.
The two steps are always needed.
There's a maxim about all training that applies. It is this: TRAINING
MUST INCLUDE ALL THE ACTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS OF THE ACTUAL.
This includes of course the whole cycle of an actual sequence of
actions. It's the sequence that counts.
The drilling of sequences of actions is a stable series of data that
prevents chaos from overwhelming one.
This applies to org lines as well. Dummy runs and dummy bullbait runs
serve as the drill.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Approved and accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright c 1970, 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 4 MARCH 1981
Remimeo
(Originally taken from an ED
issued to a special film
project dated 15 January
1979.)
(Amended to remove technical terms.)
Establishment Officer Series 52
MISTAKES
It isn't making mistakes that is actionable, it is failing to learn
from them and repeating them.
Four people recently taken out of a special unit of a filming project
not only couldn't apply tech standardly on which they were fully hatted but
also couldn't learn from their mistakes. As a consequence their redone work
contained the same mistakes that were originally made.
A new piece of Esto tech has come into view, those who cannot be
hatted also don't learn from their own mistakes and where you have this in
a production unit it is better to replace the person rather than just hope.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Assisted and amended by the Sea Org Lieutenant Council's Issue Project
Accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:LCIP:nc.gm Copyright 0 1979, 1981 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED
315
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1970
Remimeo Issue 11
.Exec Dir Hat
HES Hat Org Series I
HAS Hat
BASIC ORGANIZATION
What is organization?
Most people have so many associated ideas with the word "organization"
that they think of one as an identity or a being, not as a dynamic
activity.
Let's see what one really is.
Let us take a pile of red, white and blue beads. Let's organize them.
Now let us draw the org board.
Let us dump them all on top of in-charge, all mixed up in a confusion.
Obviously in-charge must route them to dig himself out. So we get
In-Charge
Red White Blue
Beads Beads Beads
Thus we find out much of what an in-charge does. He routes. He
separates into types or classes of thing or action.
This so far is a motionless org.
We have to have products. Let's say its products are drilled beads,
strung beads, boxed beads.
We would get
,_--Red - Driller - Stringer - Polisher
In-Charge White - Driller - Stringer - Polisher
J:~:~Rlile Driller - Stringer - Polisher
Or we would get
___~-Red
In-Charg White~"~ Driller - Stringer Pol
Blue
Or we would get
In-Charge
Bead Bead Bead Bead
Separation Drilling Stringing Polishing
316
It is not particularly important which pattern of org board we use so
long as it handles the volume of beads.
If we only have I person in this "org" he would still have to have
some idea of organization and a sort of org board.
If we have any volume to handle we have to add people. If we add them
without an org board we will also add confusion. The organization without
an org board will break down by overload and cross flows and currents.
These in conflict become confusion.
All a confusion is is unpatterned flow. The particles collide, bounce
off each other and stay IN the area. Thus there is no product as to have a
product something must flow OUT.
We can now note two things. We have some stable items. These are posts
or locations. And we have flow items. There are things undergoing change.
So an org's positions change flowing particles.
Particles flow in sequence.
Things enter an org, get changed, flow out of an org.
An org with one type of item only (red beads) is less complex than one
with several types of items.
In-Charge
Red Red Red Red
Clay Bead Bead Bead
Procurer Molder Boxer Shipper
Any activity has a sequence of actions. It has to have stable points
which do not flow in order to handle things which do flow.
It is not necessary to have a stable terminal do only one thing. But
if so then it also has a correct sequence of actions.
All this is true of an engine room or a lawyer's office or any
organization.
In an engine room fuel flows in and is changed to motion which flows
out. Somebody runs the machines. Somebody repairs the machines. It may all
be done by one person but as soon as volume goes up one has to plan out the
actions, classify them and put them on an org board which the people there
know and abide by or the place will not operate well.
This is done by dividing operation and repair into two actions, making
two activities on the same org board.
Chief E I ngineer
Stores Repair Motormen
and Crew Watches
Fuel
The Chief keeps the flows going and the terminals performing their
actions.
317
In a lawyer's office we get different actions as a flow.
Head of Firm
-7
Ambulance Case Court
Contactor Preparation Appearance
would be a flow pattern, possibly with a different person (with a
different skill) on each point.
Or we could have a sort of motionless org board.
Head of Firm
Crimina Corporate Trust
Clients Clients Dept.
But if we did that we would have to put the motion in vertically so
that flow would
occur.
Head of Firm
Criminal Corporate Trust
Dept. Dept. Dept.
I I I
Contacts & Contacts & Contacts
Interviews Interviews Inves I tment
I I
Case Preparations
Preparation I Vaults
I Services
Court
Appearances
Org boards which only give terminals usually will not flow.
A typical army org board of yesteryear was
General
I
Offi cers
Army
When they got into a lot more men they had to have a flow board.
General
Recruits Equipment Training Army Operations
318
So one organizes by
1. Surveying the types of particles.
2. Working out the changes desired for each to make a product.
3. Posting the terminals who will do the changing along the sequence
of changes.
The board also must include a recognition of the types in 1 which
routes the types to the terminals who change them and to a further routing
out as products.
To be practical an org board must also provide for pulling in the
materials, disposing of the product and being paid for the cycle of action
and its supervision.
A company has various actions.
It is essentially a collection of small org boards combined to operate
together as a large org board.
The basic principles you have to know to organize anything are
contained in this policy letter.
To plan out any action one has to be able to visualize its sequence of
flows and the changes that occur at each point. One has to be able to see
where a particle (paper, body, money) comes in and where it leaves.
One has to be able to spot any point it will halt and mend that part
of the flow or handle it.
A proper org board is a perpetual combination of flows which do not
collide with one another and which do enter and do experience the desired
change and which do leave as a product.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The first line in paragraph 2 on this page which originally
read, "recognition of the types in A" has been corrected to read,
"recognition of the types in I".]
319
EN07-
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1970
Remimeo
Exec Dir Hat
HES Hat
HAS Hat
Executive Hat
Org Series 2
COPE AND ORGANIZE
It's perfectly all right to cope. One always must.
But one MUST organize things while he copes.
The mounting overload and overwhelm in an area comes entirely from
cope-copecope without organizing also.
Example: You have to handle something for which there is no planned
organization. Like a mob at a congress. You can cope. But if you don't take
the first available instant to grab 3 guys and give them specific duties
right then to mind doors and tickets it all just gets worse and worse and
the cope catches up as overwhelm.
Any old org bd is better than no org bd at all.
A good org bd well grooved in, duties well apportioned, permits things
to smooth out and increase in volume without strain.
In a flood if you can channel the water, you can handle the flood. If
you just batter at water you drown.
ORGANIZATIONAL GENIUS IS COMPOSED ONLY OF ARRANGING SEQUENCES OF
ACTION AND DESIGNATING CHANNELS FOR TYPES OF PARTICLES. THAT'S ALL IT IS.
Then you can handle flows and prevent stops.
So you must always organize as you cope.
National riots are just the inability of leaders to arrange sequences
of action and designate channels for types of particles.
One area which was never organized became just an anthill of do-less,
useless motion.
If your in-basket is too high you cope and handle it AND ORGANIZE YOUR
LINES for the future.
"I'm absolutely drowning is the same as saying "I can't organize
worth a
damn!"
ORG BD
Every exec has his own personal org bd. Really it's at least 21 depts.
But you don't have to go that fancy.
320
I had an org bd once that was 8 folders, each representing traffic
from a major org, reports placed in it latest on top, a communicator who
did the placing, a greeter who handled bodies and an inspector that was me.
Just myself and one other. But it was an org. With that "org bd" I handled
all the Scientology in the world at that time, lectured, researched and had
ample time left over. It reduced full-time cope to a part-time job. Later
100 staff members (WW) replaced me as Exec Dir and I moved off post. They
were all very busy but they didn't even know they had an org bd they were
on, no individual operated his own personal org bd. Their cope and
ignorance took the stats right on down. But they sure were busy coping!
The antithesis (opposite) of an org bd is confusion. The amount of
confusion present doesn't add up to production, even though it is totally
exhausting. The end product one wants is not exhaustion. The amount of
energy expended does not measure production. Production is solely the
amount of completed cycles that occur. The more they are planned in
sequence and the better the different types are channeled the more
production will occur.
So cope by all means but don't forget to organize a little each time
you get a chance.
The end product of cope is drown.
The end product of organize is freedom.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rr.cden.gm Copyright cl 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
321
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1970
Issue 11
Remimeo
Exec Dir Hat
HES Hat
HAS Hat
Org Series 3
URGENT
HOW TO ORGANIZE AN ORG
Let us assume that you have an org to run (or any part thereof).
How would you organize it and get it to function?
1. You would count up and name the different vital actions necessary
to functioning.
2. You would count up the persons needed for each function and give
them the post names.
3. You would do a checksheet for each post to include its vital data.
4. You would collect the material of each checksheet into a pack.
5. You would recruit the minimal number to begin it, keeping in mind
finance and solving that.
6. You would show one of them how to check the others out to get them
trained.
7. You would then get the org running.
8. You would expand it by single hatting vital posts.
9. All the while you would cope with things as they came up.
10. You would add to checksheets and packs things learned while
operating.
11. You would add posts as they were found needful.
12. You would never drop out the actions of recruiting, checksheets,
packs and training.
Naturally the org would have to have a function that was valuable and
would have to execute it or produce and be paid or it would not be viable
(able to live).
All right. All that seems straightforward enough.
Now let's see how it could go wrong.
Foremost would be a failure to function or produce and a failure to
get paid for it. This would cripple the activity and bring in inadequate
operating funds, curtailing facilities and pay and making it undermanned,
hurting its image and shutting off recruitment.
322
Recruiting to fill a new function could be incorrectly (destructively)
done by using the production area as the recruitment pool. Also each time a
portion was operating well, it could be used as a recruitment pool and
emptied out and unmocked. This would destroy all training effort and injure
the viability and reverse organization back to cope.
Or no recruitment could be done at all.
There could be no checksheets or packs.
There could be no training done even when checksheets and packs
existed.
The checksheets or packs could be too short or unreal for the post. Or
they could be too long or relate to another post.
The head of the org could fail to check out the heads of portions.
The heads of portions could fail to get their juniors hatted and
checked out.
The org staff could be unaware of their belonging to the org and be
unaware of its purpose and general products.
The problems as listed above could remain obscured and ethics could be
substituted as an effort to get up production.
There are ten basic points that could go out. These are (1) recruiting
(2) training (3) training on post (4) utilization (5) production (6)
promotion of product (7) sale of product (8) finance (9) justice (10)
morale.
It is assumed that the activity is worthwhile and the potential
production valuable. Given that, the remaining ten points are the points
where organization breaks down as these areas are the most aberrated in the
society.
The fundamental outnesses, however, would be failure to recruit, to
have checksheets and packs for each post, get training done on them and
have new people on post serve on it in-training.
Let us suppose the head of an org or division never checked any junior
out on anything.
Looking at standard functions, everyone would be posting and routing
people except Dept 1, intended for that. Everyone would be handling comm
except Dept 2, intended for that. Everyone would be inspecting and handling
stats except Dept 3. And so on down the line. The place would be a dog's
breakfast of total cope.
All right, let us say one does have a dog's breakfast instead of an
org. How would one straighten it out?
One would cope to maintain some semblance of viability.
One would throw together an org board and post it and drill people on
it.
One would throw together hats and get them worn.
One would continue to cope but now also force others to help the
coping and cope themselves as sernispecialists on their own posts.
Finally one would get checksheets and packs together for each post
covering all its actions.
One would then get these checksheets and their packs trained on for
each post fully,
323
Thereafter one would insist that executives made sure theirjuniors had
checksheets and packs as their hats.
And one would continue to recruit as by this time the org would be
expanding and it would become upset by undermanning and go down hill again.
One would watch the ten aberrated points as they go out very easily.
People gather up all sorts of weird solutions to running a
disorganized org. "We need more experienced people"; "We can't produce so
should be subsidized," are two common ones.
When people on post do NOT have grooved-in hats they do goofy things.
The goofiness is not confined just to their job functions. Lacking a
purpose and not conceiving the org purpose they can go utterly astray and
do things that are quite mad. Like tearing things up. Like breaking things.
Like getting involved in goofy relationships.
You can detect an org where posts are not grooved in by the number of
oddball things happening.
The way to put this sort of situation right is to start organizing as
given in this rundown.
Working on organization as you cope, it will eventually make it come
out right.
When it sags just come back to this rundown and it will all straighten
out again.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rr.eden.gm Copyrightc 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
324
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIW
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstea
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 SEP
Remirneo
Exec Hats
Personnel Hats
Ethics Hats Personnel Series 9
Org Series 4
AN URGENT IMPORTANTAND STARRATE PL
HATS
HAT-A term used to describe the write-ups, checksheets and packs that
outline the purposes, know-how and duties of a post. It exists in folders
and packs and is trained-in on the person on the post.
HAT TECHNOLOGY
"Hats" developed in 1950 for use in Dianetic orgs as a special
technology. The term and idea of "a hat" comes from conductors or
locomotive engineers, etc., each of whom wears a distinctive and different
type of headgear. A "hat" therefore designates particular status and duties
in an organization.
A "hat" is a specialty. It handles or controls certain particles in
various actions and receives, changes and routes them.
A "hat" designates what terminal in the organization is represented
and what the terminal handles and what flows the terminal directs.
Every hat has a product.
The product can be represented as a statistic.
Any job or position in the world could have its own hat. The reason
things do not run well in a life, an org, a group, nation or the world is
an absence of hats.
The reason why an org runs well when it does is hats.
Any protest of anyone against things not running right can be traced
to lack of hats.
Any slump an org goes through can be traced directly and at once to an
absence of one or more hats being worn.
HAT CONTENT
A hat must contain
A. A purpose of the post.
B. Its relative position on the org bd.
C. A write-up of the post (done usually by people who have held it
before relief and when so done it has no further authority than advice).
D. A checksheet of all the policy letters, bulletins, advices,
manuals, books and drills applicable to the post. (As in a course
checksheet.)
325
E. A full pack of the written materials plus tapes of the checksheet
plus any manuals of equipment or books.
F. A copy of the org bd of the portion of the org to which the post
belongs.
G. A flow chart showing what particles are received by the post and
what changes the post is expected to make in them and to where the post
routes them.
H. The product of the post.
1. The statistic of the post, the statistic of the section, the
statistic of the department and division to which the post belongs.
STAFF HAT
There is also a general staff hat.
This hat contains
(a) The overall purpose of the org, its aims, goals and products.
(b) The privileges or rewards of a staff member such as auditing,
training on post, general training availability, pay, vacations or leave,
etc.
(c) The penalties involved in nonproduction or abuse of post
privileges or misuse of the post contracts.
(d) The public relations responsibilities of a staff member.
(e) The interpersonal relations amongst staff members including
courtesy, cleanliness, attitudes to seniors and juniors, office etiquette,
etc.
(f) The mest of posts generally, its papers, despatches, files,
equipment.
(g) The comm and transport system of the org.
GRADIENT SCALE OF HATS
A "gradient scale" means "a gradual increasing degree of something." A
nongradient scale would be telling someone to enter a skyscraper by a 32nd
story window.
Thus there is a gradient scale of organizing.
A key to this is found in Problems of Work's theory of confusion and
the stable datum.
One in actual practice has to cope while organizing.
COPE means to handle whatever comes up. In the dictionary it means "to
deal successfully with a difficult situation." We use it to mean "to handle
any old way whatever comes up, to handle it successfully and somehow."
IF YOU REMAIN IN COPE, THE DEMAND TO COPE INCREASES.
In that you have the key to "exhausted executives" or staff members.
You have why the President of the US ages about 20 years in one term of
office as you can see by comparing dated photographs of past presidents. He
is totally on cope. His government has an org board that looks like a pile
of jackstraws. He has no hat. His staff have. no hats. His government
departments have no hat. The technologies of economics, law, business,
politics, welfare, warfare, diplomacy, have been lost or neglected (they do
Axist to some extent).
326
The guy is on total cope. And the post has been on total cope since it
was created as an afterthought by the Constitutional Congress that began
the post in the 18th century. Even what it says in US civics textbooks is
not found in practice.
So "difficult situations" are the order of the day and are handled by
special actions and appointments.
The people who should handle them haven't got real hats.
This is all catching up with the country at this writing to such a
degree that the citizen cannot benefit from a stable society or social
order. The country looks more like a war of insurgency.
In other words departures from hats has lead into total cope and it is
steadily worsening.
Any organization put in by one political party is knocked out by the
next incumbent and who could totally organize a country in four years? (The
term of a president.)
Yet it is hanging together some way and some way meeting increasing
demands and pressures.
I have stated this in a large example so that it can be seen in a
smaller unit.
To handle this one would first have to want to straighten it out and
then assemble the tech of admin to straighten it out. And then one would
have to begin on a gradient scale of org bd and hats.
A cope sort of hat would be tossed off orders to some other people on
staff who have some title of some sort.
Along with this would be a posted org bd that has little to do with
duties actually performed and used by a staff that doesn't know what it is.
One begins to move out of cope (as given in other series) by putting
an org board together that labels posts and duties and getting people on
them to handle the types of particles (bodies, mailings) of the org.
The next action would be brief write-ups of the posts and their duties
and checking people out on them.
Actually if you only got to the middle of the last paragraph with an
org the executives would remain in cope. So much know-how would be missing
in the org's staff that every rough bit would shoot up to the executive for
special handling and that is cope.
Hats only in this far is not good enough as it still takes a genius to
run the place.
The next gradient scale is to get the hat to contain
(i) The post write-up itself
(ii) The theory and practical necessary to run it.
This is done by a preparation of checksheets of data and a pack
matching it for key posts.
Naturally the org bd now has to become more real and staff has to be
checked out on it.
Then hats as post checksheets and packs are extended to the rest of
the staff.
327
The mechanisms of training have to exist by this time.
Seniors have to be made responsible that every junior below them has a
hat consisting of write-up, checksheet and pack.
Meanwhile one continues to cope.
Gradually, gradually staff begin to know (through checkouts) their
hats.
New staff coming on are grooved in better.
Cope begins to diminish and the organization tends to smooth out.
Here and there competent handlings begin to show up brightly.
Now we find a new situation. With everyone throwing together
checksheets and packs for staffs we find nonstandard checksheets. Some
messenger has to do the full checksheet of the HCO Division pages and pages
long. The HCO Sec has a checksheet with just 10 items on it.
So a central authority has to standardize post checksheets and survey
and put in overlooked bits of data.
But that is way up the line. The org long since has become smooth and
prosperous.
So that is the gradient scale of getting in hats.
EXPERTS
Here and there you find an area of special expertise in an org where
the expertise is so expert in itself that it obscures the fact that the
person does not also have a full post hat.
A lawyer would be a case in point. It takes so long to learn law in
some law school that an org executive can overlook the fact that the post
hat is missing. Org policy on legal matters and staff hat remain unknown to
this legal post AND JAM IT UTTERLY, This came to light when a whole series
of cases was being neglected because the legal staff member, an excellent
lawyer, did not know how to make out a purchase order or that one could or
should. Investigation found no post or staff hat. Only a legal degree.
Orgs continually do this with auditors. They are technical experts in
auditing. So they get assigned to posts in the HGC WITH NO HAT. Backlogs
occur, things goof up. Tech fails. All because it is overlooked that they
are PART OF AN ORG and need staff and post hats and need to be trained on
them.
Worse than that, a highly classed auditor is often put on an admin
post without hat or training for it.
You would not take an admin trained person and without further
training tell him to audit. So why take an auditor and tell him to handle
an admin division?
Without his post write-up, checksheet and pack FOR THE POST and
without training on it, the person just isn't qualified for it no matter
what other line he is expert in.
It is great to have an expert who has been specially trained in some
profession. But lawyer, engineer or public relations, he must have his hat
for the org post and be trained on it or he will goof! Yet one won't
suspect why that area is goofing because "he's a Class VI isn't he?"
328
UTILIZATION
Personnel can recruit madly, answering every frantic demand for
personnel and yet HAVE THEM ALL WASTED for lack of full hats and full
training on those hats.
An investigation of blows (desertions) from orgs shows that lack of a
grooved-in hat was at the bottom of it.
People come on a job. It is at once a great mystery or an assumption
of total know-one or the other.
Either one continued leads them into a state of liability to the org.
People who don't know what they are doing and people who don't but
think they do are both NONUTILIZED PERSONNEL.
Pay and prosperity for the rest of the staff will go down unless this
is remedied.
The whole org can sag and even vanish under these conditions.
So Personnel has a vested interest in hats being complete and staff
trained on them. For Personnel people cannot possibly cope with "no pay so
can't hire anyone" and "no people so can't produce."
The answer is H-A-T-S.
And a hat is a write-up, a checksheet and a pack.
And the staff member trained on them.
ETHICS
When a person has no hat he lacks purpose and value,
When he has no purpose and value he not only goofs, he will commit
crimes,
It is apparently easier to hit with ethics than to program and give
someone a full hat and get him trained on it.
Police action is not a substitute for having purpose and value.
This is so fundamental that one can even trace the unrest of a nation
to lack of purpose and value. A huge welfare program guarantees crime and
revolt because it gives handouts, not hats.
Even a field Scientologist should have a hat.
By doing only this over the world we would own the planet as in an
expanding population, individual purpose and value are the most vital and
wanted commodities,
If there are no real hats there will soon be no money of any value and
no bread!
SUMMARY
ANY HAT IS BETTER THAN NO HAT according to the way a thetan seems to
think.
But be that as it may, the downfall of any org can be traced directly
and instantly to no recruiting or no org board, no hats or unreal hats or
no training on hats.
The sag of an org can be traced directly to lack of hats and lack of
training on hats.
329
The overload of any post can be traced directly to lack of an org bd
and lack of hats and no training on hats.
The way out is to organize the org board and hats while you cope.
If you do not your cope will become an overwhelm. If you do your
burden will lighten and your prosperity increase.
It took 13 months of hard work and 20 years of org experience to learn
that, given a product, lack of HATS was the WHY of departures from the
ideal scene and that working toward providing full complete HATS was the
way to get back toward the ideal scene.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.cden.ts.gm Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
330
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 SEPTEMBER 1970
Issue III
Remimeo Executive Hats
Org Series 5
ORG BD CUTATIVES
The most serious blunder in re-doing org boards is losing past
functions off them.
"Cutative" is an invented word to mean the impulse to shorten or leave
out or the thing left out.
THE RULE IS: ANY MAJOR FUNCTION, ACTION OR POST LEFT OFF AN ORG BOARD
WILL WRAP ITSELF AROUND THE IN-CHARGE LIKE A HIDDEN MENACE.
As the function is not expressed it is not recognized. But it forces
itself upward and can swamp an activity if not done.
Thus we get the laws:
1. Activity functions must all be expressed on the org board.
2. All functions below a personnel on an org bd are the responsibility
of that personnel, no matter what size the staff may be.
3. Functions omitted will act as invisible overloads.
EVOLUTION OF ORG BDs
Usually the first org board ever done for an activity is a dream up.
It is seldom real but better than no org bd at all.
Experience then refines it.
Some functions on it are not related to it, are unreal.
Some functions not on it rise up to haunt and overload the in-charge.
Actions done by an executive that are not on the org board in
departments get posted like small flags opposite the executive's name.
(Like legal, VIP greeting, etc.)
After a while these little flags are too many.
A reorganization occurs and the flags are put down into departmental
functions. This gets them off the executive's neck and gets them manned up.
So far so good. Now what happens is a catastrophe. A new executive who
has no experience with this org bd DREAMS UP A NEW ONE. This is out of
sequence in evolution. He is treating the place as though it had NO org bd
simply because he doesn't know the existing board.
This gives us the cutative. He drops functions off the board. These
now wrap around his neck. The place stalls.
331
YOU HAVE TO KEEP EVERYTHING ON THE ORG BD THAT WAS EVER ON THE ORG BD
EVEN IF IT WAS 3000 YEARS.
SALVAGE
It often occurs that one has to do a full, complete salvage of an org
bd.
There is absolutely no reason except the org bd writer's laziness not
to put everything on an org bd!
There is a rule about posting an org bd. You don't post a name for
every post. That is folly. You post by work load.
All the functions below a person are handled by that person. If they
are too much you put in a new name and person on a heavy load function.
So why do a cutative? It means no more people. It just means more
space and tape. What's saved but elbow grease? What's lost? The whole org
can be lost and become nonviable.
Example: SH original board had 10 major divisions on it. They were
just functions really. They were the 10 sources of income before SH trained
or processed anyone. Some years ago I tore the place apart looking for that
old org bd. It was evidently thrown away. Today SH does not have but one of
those income functions! Nine have been lost! It added training and
processing, it lost 9 functions capable of supporting it. They should be
looked up in the 1959-1960 accounts records, the old invoices analyzed and
gotten back and put on the WW org bd and manned. This is regardless of what
is already on the org bd.
Other functions lost off that and the SH org bds should be posted back
on them and at least held from above or double or triple-hatted.
Example: DC which had the original 6 dept org bd should recover those
posts and put them on the 9 div org bd so early policy would make sense.
Example: London should recover its earliest org bds and put their
posts and functions on its current org bd,
There comes a time when early org bds have to be salvaged and reposted
on existing org bds.
BECAUSE THOSE FUNCTIONS ARE STILL THERE AND MOST OF THEM GONE
INVISIBLE.
Example: A Division 2 org bd asked to be redone threw away 50% of its
functions and posts, was dreamed up brand new off a division already caved
in by loss of performance. The excuse was "other activities now do these."
Published, this org bd would have driven its executive mad with omitted
duties that would come to him as invisible overloads.
The "We don't do that now" is like what once happened to tech. One
could say, "Maybe you think you don't do it now but the function is still
there hidden. It was found once. Now you've lost it again."
OLD EMPIRES
The Egyptian, Greek and Roman Empires still try to operate! I've
checked it. The late British Empire may be gone on the British org bd but
it will still function without expression until it kicks England's head in.
The British public shovels money out by the scoopful to an empire that
doesn't exist!
Trying to kill an org takes years and years and years and it still
tries to survive.
332
When one takes responsibility for a function or area it still tends to
persist.
It is an odd phenomenon. The third dynamic track is that way. Changes
later on the track (short of auditing individuals) do not change earlier
circumstances.
A thetan's intentions get very pale perhaps but a thetan never really
gives up.
All this expresses itself on the subject of org bds.
One can also willfully disregard an existing board, dream up a new
board that does not express the functions and get into real trouble.
A NEW LOOK
Examining this subject of org bds in the light of very current
experience with asking people to redo them, these facts have emerged.
It gives us a new look.
The next full Sen org bd issue you see will have on it all functions
of which we have any trace and the nine division board we are using.
The new board will have nine divisions. It will also include all past
titles and functions in addition to all current titles and functions with
the past titles in parenthesis.
Many org bds of other activities have never become expressed at all
and have left a tangled history. The US still hangs flags around the Office
of the President and one hears "The Executive Branch is usurping the power
of Congress." Congress once had all those functions but didn't put them on
its org bd. They still do them but lost the titles to the President. Thus
an appointee despotism rises in place of a democracy. It all goes back to a
lost congressional org bd.
It is necessary for a people or a staff to
(a) Have an org bd
(b) Know the org bd
(c) Have the org bd express the total functions and duties that have
ever been held by any post even including the flags of yesteryear duly
dated.
Don't cut functions off an org bd. If they have become known they have
been found. Why lose them?
One can rearrange flow patterns.
One cannot abandon living functions on an org bd.
It's only the unknowns on an org bd that get anyone overloaded,
confused or in trouble.
So why not keep it visible?
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.gm Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
333
HUBBARD COMMUNICATION
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstea
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 SEPI
Issue I
Rernimeo
Cashiers
Div Ills Org Series 6
Pub Div Hats
Div 11 Hats
FSMs CUTATIVE PRICES
F/Os
HCO PL of 27 Apr AD 15 "Organizational Price Engram" is fully valid
and must be followed. It explains why price cuts damage orgs.
Price cuts are forbidden under any guise.
1. PROCESSING MAY NEVER BE GIVEN AWAY BY AN ORG.
Processing is too expensive to deliver.
2. BOOKS MAY NEVER BE GIVEN AWAY BY AN ORG OR BY PUBS
ORG.
They are too expensive to manufacture.
3. FSM COMMISSIONS MAY NEVER BE PAID ON DISCOUNTED OR
CUT-RATE ITEMS.
If an FSM can't sell for full value he does not rate any commission.
4. SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COURSES ARE LIMITED TO INTERNSHIPS,
HSDC AND ACADEMY LEVELS.
5. COURSE SCHOLARSHIPS ONLY MAY BE OFFERED FSM ON
CONTEST AWARDS.
6. SCHOLARSHIPS ARE ONLY AVAILABLE TO WORKING FSMs OF
PROVEN SELECTEE SUCCESSES.
7. ALL SCHOLARSHIPS AND AWARDS OUTSTANDING TERMINATE
IF NOT TAKEN BEFORE I JANUARY 1971.
8. FSM COMMISSIONS ARE PAID ONLY ON THE ARRIVAL OF A
STUDENT OR PC, NOT ON RECEIPT OF THE FEE.
Adv payments are sometimes refunded.
9. ONLY FULLY CONTRACTED STAFF IS AWARDED FREE SERVICE,
AND THIS IS DONE BY INVOICE AND LEGAL NOTE WHICH BECOMES DUE AND
PAYABLE IF THE CONTRACT IS BROKEN.
10. FSM BONUS AWARDS TO ORGS MAY ONLY BE DELIVERED TO
CONTRACTED STAFF MEMBERS OF THAT ORG.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright Q 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
334
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I OCTOBER AD 20
Remimeo HC Checksheet
Org Series 7
HATS AND COUNTER-EFFORT
When you are trying to get somebody to do something he should do, you
are in effect trying to get him to wear his hat.
In trying to get things done you often feel you are running into
"counter-effort." (Contrary action or effort to your action or effort.)
The most usual counter-effort is NOT willfulness or mutiny or out-
ethics. Most people consider these are the reasons they get opposition to
worthwhile actions.
The most usual counter-effort is lack of a hat, defining a hat as a
write-up, checksheet and pack on which the person is trained.
It looks like willful stupidity, waywardness, laziness, mutiny,
antagonism or what have you.
Whatever the reason for it may be it must include lack of a hat.
The variations are enormous, almost infinite.
Example: Mr. A is trying to get Mrs. A to be a good wife. Mrs. A is in
outright mutiny. Now it could be that Mr. A does not have or know his
husband hat or Mrs. A has no wife hat or the neighbors or friends don't
have neighbor or friend hats or Mr. B has no social hat and is trying to
estrange Mrs. A or he has no husband's hat of his own; but whatever it is,
it is a matter of hats. SOMEBODY (or all of them) in this is not wearing
their hat.
I had someone in marital trouble look at me thoughtfully once and say,
"I don't have any idea what are the rights or duties. OF a wife."
Example: A Course Supervisor having trouble getting a student to
study. He pleaded and argued and wore himself out.
He never realized this student DID NOT HAVE A STUDENT HAT. He could
have saved all his energy spent in arguing and applied it to making up a
student hat and getting it assembled and studied and would have gotten
somewhere.
ORG BD
So we draw up an org board for an activity for several people.
It is all correct as to function and flows.
We put the names of the several people on it where they seem to be
fitted.
The activity doesn't go.
So we explain and drill the org board on the people.
It comes up to a flubby sort of cope.
335
The missing point now is HATS. Each one has to have and know his own
hat and something about the hats of others.
Things will promptly get much better! The activity and the
interpersonal relations and the lives of these people are greatly improved.
Personally they are running into much less cross-flow and confusion.
So they have a happier time, less effort and more production.
A badly organized, badly hatted, badly trained group is at each
other's throats continually. To get anything done at all they have to
operate at the level of correction instead of production.
Any ripple of emergency in such a group operates as a major impact.
PROGRAMS
There is still a missing element when one has org boarded and hatted
and specialist trained an activity. This is PROGRAMS.
The sequence of flows and the changes or actions at each point plotted
against time are in fact the major sequences and programs of a group.
MANAGEMENT SUCCESS
Given a desired product a fully successful management can only be
founded on the actions inherent in
1. A good org bd
2. Hats as write-ups, checksheets and packs
3. Hats trained-in
4. Sequences and programs known and followed.
IT IS FAR FAR EASIER TO WORK ON AND ACCOMPLISH THOSE FOUR THINGS THAN
IT IS TO COPE AGAINST THE COUNTER-EFFORT GENERATED WITHOUT THEM.
Naturally while getting this done, anyone has to cope to keep things
going.
SINGLE-HANDING
"Single-handing" means to handle things by yourself.
You can single-hand when you are all alone or you can single-hand in a
large group that is supposed to be working or helping.
When only one man, senior or junior, is doing all the controlling and
work of an activity he is said to be "single-handing."
The term derives from the sea (like so many English words). Single
means "one only" and "hand" means a sailor. "Handing" is the verb form of
"single-hand."
No other activity expresses so well the idea of "one man working" or
"one man controlling."
It is of course derogatory to others who are around and not working.
336
The phenomenon comes about by having non-org-boarded, unhatted and
untrained people.
Now the oddity of it is that it can occur (a) when there are other
people who are also supposed to be working (b) when there is an org board
(c) when there are hats and (d) when programs exist.
This of course looks like "bad morale," "apathy," even "mutiny."
The missing elements usually are
(a) The other people don't know the purpose of the activity or what's
really going on.
(b) The org bd is unknown to them even when it exists.
(c) The hats are not checksheets and packs and have not been trained-
in.
(d) The sequences or programs that should occur are not drilled in and
if they were the no-hat situation would wreck them.
The point is even more amazing when a group with a purpose and an
excellent potential product WILL BE POOR AND WILL FAIL if org bd, hats and
sequences and programs are not fully known and drilled.
Groups are like that.
This is why Man and his activities succeed only in the presence of
huge affluences or extraordinary personal leadership.
Lacking org bds, hats, training, programs that he knows and can do,
Man flounders.
UNHATTED LEADERS
Leaders who are not org boarded, hatted and trained and programmed can
make a fantastic mess out of a formerly well-organized group.
It takes some doing. But no one can knock the known org board apart
faster than a senior. No one can knock off hats easier than someone in
authority who does not himself know they exist.
Nero and his ilk destroyed the whole Roman Empire. That civilization
was about as well org boarded and hatted as any civilization on the planet
in recent millenia. Nero thought he was a lute player and composer and
charioteer. These were the only hats he ever wore aside from that of
murderer.
A few emperors like him and that was that.
The Christians had an org board, member hats and staff hats, post hats
of a sort and constant training. And that was the end of the Roman Empire
and the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire.
Way up in Pope Alexander the Sixth's time (the days of Lucretia
Borgia) when bishoprics were for sale and the member hats were forgotten,
the Holy Roman Empire failed.
So there is plenty of history and example, even though the full tech
was not even developed. You can see the dim counterparts of org boards and
hats weaving their way through all Man's yesterdays.
The history of the world is not written by wars and violence. It is
written against an unseen background of beneficial products, org board,
hats and programs.
337
The fantastic administrative skill of Arthur Wellesley the Duke of
Wellington and the rigid org bd of Nicholas of Russia defeated Napoleon
whose only skills were military genius and personal leadership and luck.
So when the head of something does not know about org bds and hats and
programs he can single-hand things perhaps into temporary power but will
wear himself out with cope and soon decline.
One can't just run things. One has to put something there and the
something is a desirable product, and org bd hats and programs and see they
are grooved in properly.
And looking over history the most valuable product of an executive is
holding the form of his org and providing his staff members with hats and
programs well grooved in.
It takes so much more time and effort to build up an org in terms of
org bd and hats and get it to hold its form that one might not at once see
its benefit. Trying to get a result without also building an organization
inevitably winds up in single-handing, coping, overwhelm and eventual
defeat.
The right answer is single-hand while you train up your people.
For one will wind up single-handing any post he has not org bded and
hatted and programmed,
And that is true of even a junior member of a staff. If HE doesn't
hammer away to get in org bds and hats and sequences and programs, HE will
wind up single-handing all his section-while they stand around making life
miserable with inefficiency, goofs and flubs and obvious counter-effort.
It isn't labor against management or the people against government.
One or the other or both aren't on org bds and aren't wearing their hats.
And in an interdependent society or a complex activity the final
result of no org bd, no hats, no programs known is chaos. And very
unpleasant chaos as well.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: Page 337, paragraph 14 has been corrected to read, "Pope
Alexander the Sixth's time." Earlier issues read, "Pope Alexander the
Fourth's time."]
338
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 OCTOBER 1970
Remimeo
Executives
Org Series 8
ORGANIZING AND PRODUCT
Disorganization gives a poor product.
Organization (providing tech exists to make the product) will produce
a good product.
If a product is poor or spotty one must
(a) Organize
(b) Make the tech available and known.
You can literally have mobs of people working and excellent production
tech and get a horrible product.
The missing ingredient is organization.
Organization consists of a real and functional org board, hats
consisting of checksheets, packs and manuals and training of this material.
The most used org bd is the "hey you! org bd." In other words just tag
anyone to do anything.
This guarantees bad production and a lousy product.
One can have an org bd that isn't real and get a "hey you! org bd."
Or one can have a good org bd that isn't known and get a "hey you! org
bd" in actual practice.
A whole org can be org bded and hatted and trained and yet shatter
when an untrained senior turns it into a "hey you! org bd." This is easily
the commonest cause of org collapse.
LOSING AN ORG BD
When an org bd leaves out known vital functions these tend to wrap
around the neck of the in-charge as unknown items of irritation.
The commonest fault in re-drawing an org bd is throwing the old one
away and without looking at or getting a full inspection of the actual
functions being done, dreaming up a brand new board. This produces a
delusory situation. It is in fact a disassociation of the real work and the
org bd delusion.
MINIMUM FUNCTION
A post tends to dwindle down to the "irreducible minimum function."
A mail clerk will distribute mail as that is visible to others.
Logging it is less visible. Properly sorting it is less visible.
339
If "receiving, logging, sorting and distributing" are left off the org
bd and "mail distribution" is all that is left on it, the other functions
tend to vanish and the post slides to "irreducible minimum" of just
grabbing and slinging out mail.
A galley org bd can be deficient and carry only "food," or "cook";
you'll get "food" and that's all. It will possibly be very lousy food as
the org bd is down to an irreducible minimum. Says "food" so they just
sling out food any old way of any old kind. Bad product. The answer is to
organize it. What are the steps in sequence that it takes to get good food
served and the place cleaned up? If they are all on the org bd as functions
you have the SEQUENCE of actions expressed as functions which can be posted
and delegated as duties.
OUT SEQUENCE and OMITTED HATS are the commonest fault in programs and
org boards. (See Data Series.)
One person may have 35 separate hats,
If so, he needs 35 hat folders, checksheets and packs and 35 baskets
or compartments for the flows.
Further, the hats must be in sequence of flow where they relate to one
type of particle.
Thirty-five hats is large but many an executive unknowingly wears
more. And the ones he doesn't see are his areas of upset.
The smaller the number of people in an activity, the more hats each
has.
One girl holding down seven branches of an office finally got
untangled just by having seven baskets, one for each branch, and working a
stated time on each one each day. She sorted the inflow into the baskets by
branches and then did them in rotation that made an org bd of the baskets.
She suddenly got production where she had had just despair and chaos.
SUMMARY
To improve an existing product, ORGANIZE.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright cl 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
340
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 OCTOBER 1970
Remimeo
Org Series 9
ORGANIZING AND HATS
"Org bd" is actually an abbreviation not for an organization (noun)
board but an organizing (verb) board.
The org bd shows the pattern of organizing to obtain a product.
A board then is a flow chart of consecutive products brought about by
terminals in series.
We see these terminals as "posts" or positions.
Each one of these is a hat.
There is a flow along these hats.
The result of the whole board is a product.
The product of each hat on the board adds up to the total product.
WORKING IT OUT
When asked to work out an org bd (or when the board there is doesn't
work) one might think the task very difficult.
In studying this subject so as to be able to communicate it, I made
several small breakthroughs in the subject itself.
Several questions on this can be very easily answered now.
Does an org bd have any value?
Yes. Without an org bd there is no group product, there is only a mob.
Yes. When there is no org bd there is much greater effort involved in
getting anything done.
Yes. The waste of people involved in no org bd and the loss of product
justify any amount of effort to work out, make known and use a proper org
bd.
Man instinctively uses an org bd and protests the lack of one. The
rawest recruit walking aboard a ship assumes the existence of an org bd, if
not a posted one, at least a known one. He assumes there will be somebody
in charge and that different activities will be under different people.
When there is no known org bd he protests. He also feels insecure as he
doesn't know where he fits into this organization.
Almost all revolts are manned by people who have been excluded out and
are not on the country's org bd. This is so true that the ridiculous
circumstance recently occurred in the US. The President found he had
"professional relief receivers." Certain people had assumed the status of
"government dependent" and were giving this as their profession. It was of
course a post of sorts. And because it wasn't admitted as a post by the
government there were some riots.
341
The effort to belong or to be part of is expressed by an org bd. A
person with no post is quite miserable. A person with an unreal post feels
like a fraud or a mistake.
Morale then is also considerably affected by the quality of an org bd
or its absence.
The overall test for the group, however, is its viability. Viability
depends on having an acceptable product. Groups which do not have an
acceptable product are not likely to survive.
The volume and acceptability of a product depends in no small measure
on a workable known org bd. This is true even of an individual product.
An individual or small group, to get anywhere at all, requires a very
exact org bd. The oddity is that the smaller the group the more vital the
org bd. Yet individuals and small groups are the least likely to have one.
Large groups disintegrate in the absence of an org bd and go nonviable in
the presence of a poor one.
The quality of a product, usually blamed on individual skill only,
depends to an enormous extent upon the org board. For example, one
disorganized mob that was trying to make a certain product was worked to
death, harassed, angry at one another and had a wholly unacceptable product
at about twice the usual cost; when organized to the degree of a third,
still without proper schedules, still largely untrained, they began to turn
out an acceptable product at about half the effort-so even some
organization worked,
The product volume and quality depends utterly and totally upon the
org board and hats and their use. You can train individuals endlessly but
unless they are operating on a workable org bd they will still have a poor
or small volume product.
The traditional reliance of British intelligence on star agents
instead of organization cost them (along with misused PR) their empire.
Lack of a known and real org bd can spell failure. And lack of
knowledge of the subject of organization has to be substituted for by pure
genius at every point.
Thus to make anything at all, to improve any product, sustain morale
and distribute work equitably and make it count, one has to have a real and
a known org bd.
So how do you make one?
HATS
An org bd is made up of hats.
The definition of a hat is the "beingness and doingness that attains a
product."
Let us take a train:
The engineer wearing his engineer hat has the title of engineer.
That's the beingness.
He accepts orders, watches signals and general conditions, operates
levers and valves to regulate the operation of his engine and to start,
change and stop. That's the doingness.
He safely and on schedule moves the train passengers and/or freight
from one location to another. A moved train and load is the product.
So how do we find out there is a hat called engineer?
342
As people are continually accepting or viewing already existing posts,
when you ask them to dream up an org bd they at first may not realize that
you are asking them to invent the correct posts.
They don't have to invent "engineer." Everybody knows "an engineer
runs a train."
So if you didn't know this, you'd have to figure it out.
One would do it this way. One would have to think along these lines.
The idea comes about because of a concept that people and goods have
to be moved over distances on land. Or that a new area building up has to
have transport of people and goods from and to it.
Ah. This will be viable in an economic framework because people will
pay to be moved and pay for their goods to be moved.
Trains do this.
So let's use trains.
Arranging finance (or by prepayment) and obtaining a franchise for a
right of way, track is laid, rolling stock and stations and roundhouses are
built.
Now it emerges that somebody has to drive the train. So somebody had
better be hired to drive the train.
So there comes into view the post of engineer.
How do we know this? Because we have to have a product of moved people
and goods. That was what we were trying to do in the first place.
Therefore, the engineer hat.
So supposing now we did not have any org bd at all.
The engineer hat would be the only hat. So he collects fares, runs
stations, fixes his engine, buys fuel, loads the cars, sells stock. . . .
Wait a minute. If the engineer did all that the following would
happen:
1. He would be exhausted.
2. His temper would be bad.
3. He would have machinery breakdowns.
4. He might have, wrecks.
5. The railroad property otherwise unhandled would disintegrate.
6. He would have a low volume of product.
7. His product would be uneven and bad as he could maintain no
schedule,
8. There would shortly be no railroad.
Now let's go wog and "solve" this.
Let's appoint a person for each station and say "There we are!"
Well, it would still be a mess.
343
So let's hire more engineers and more station agents and more
engineers and more station agents. . . and wind up with a confused mess, a
huge payroll and a lousy product. That's how governments do it. And it is
notable that current governments have no product but disaster.
No, we have to solve this in quite another way.
We do not get anywhere and we will not get a sensible org bd and
nothing will work or be viable unless WE COUNT THE PRODUCTS CORRECTLY AND
DEVELOP HATS TO ATTAIN THEM.
When we have done this we can arrange the hats on an org bd so there
is a flow and command channels and communication channels and we've got an
org bd.
You cannot work out an org bd until you have counted products!
As volume increases you estimate the products before the final product
and hat those.
Quality of final product depends on a real org bd and hats, both
complete, real and trained-in and the functions DONE.
Let us see now how you break down a final product into the products
which, put together, comprise it.
We have the final product of a railroad-viably moved loads. How many
lesser products go into the big product?
There is a matter of machinery here. Any machine has 2 products: (a)
the machine itself in good operating condition, (b) the product of the
machine. A repairman and machine shop man and a roundhouse keeper each has
a product under (a). That is just for the machine, the engine.
Under (b) we have what the machine itself produces (hauled trains in
the case of an engine).
Here we have then 2 major products-and these break down into lesser
products, earlier in sequence to the final product.
There is even an earlier product to these-bought engines. And an
earlier product to that-finance for equipment.
As for the load itself, a delivered load, accepted by a consignee at
the end, as you back up the sequence you will find a product-stored
freight. And before thatunloaded freight. And before that-moved freight.
And before that-loaded freight. And before that-freight assembled for
shipment. And before that-freight contracts procured. And before that-
advertising placed in public view. And before thatsurveys of public freight
requirement. And before that-survey for activities requiring freight
service.
Each one of these products is a hat.
Surveying this again we see there's no charges or money involved so no
economic viability. Thus we have a product, money made. This has earlier
hats of course. The bewilderment of some people (and a lot of executives)
who gape at a no-dough situation is laughable. They aren't product-minded.
They think money falls into a company's lap or out of a TV set. They can't
think the product-sequence necessary to obtain money. So they go broke and
starve. There are always a lot of prior products to the product MONEY.
Fixated people just fixate on money itself, have no product sequence and so
go broke or are poor.
344
Someone has to have a desirable product that is sold for more than it
cost to produce and have to sell it and deliver it to have money. Money
even makes money. And even a pool of money has to have a product sequence
or it vanishes.
Even in socialism or communism the how does it support itself question
must be understood, answered, its product sequence identified, org boarded
and hatted. In such a moneyless society the org boarding has to be much
tighter as money adds flexibility and lack of it as a working factor makes
problems that are hard to solve.
ORGANIZING
In order to organize something one only has to
1. Establish what is the final product.
2. Work backwards in sequence to establish the earlier products
necessary to make each next product and which all in a row add up to the
final product.
3. Post it in terms of vertical greater and greater completeness of
product to get command channels.
4. Adjust it for flows.
5. Assign its comm sequence.
6. Work out the doing resulting in each product. Write these as
functions and actions with all skills included.
7. Name these as posts.
8. Post it.
9. Drill it to get it known.
10. Assemble and issue the hats.
11. Get these known.
12. Get the functions done so that the products occur.
This is what is called "organizing."
As a comment, because railroads didn't fully organize their viability
decayed and they ceased to be so used.
Railroads think it's the government or airplane rivalry or many other
things. It isn't. They had too many missing hats, were actually too
disorganized to keep pace with the society's demands, ceased to fully
deliver and declined. In fact there has never been a greater need of
railroads than today. Yet, disorganized, badly org boarded and hatted, they
do not furnish the service they should and so are opposed, government
regulated, union hammered and caved in.
To have a quality product, organize!
To raise morale, organize!
To survive, organize!
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
345
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 OCTOBER 1970
Remimeo
Exec Hats
Org Series 10
THE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATION BY PRODUCT
The different products involved in production are
1. Establishing something that produces. (Product 1)
2. Operating that which produces in order to obtain a product.
(Product 2)
3. Repairing or correcting that which produces. (Product 3)
4. Repairing or correcting that which is produced. (Product 4)
Example: A typewriter is manufactured and located on a desk. This is
establishing something that produces as in (1). A typist operates or runs
the typewriter which thus produces typed sheets, stencils, etc., which are
the product produced. This satisfies (2) above. The typewriter from various
causes eventually requires repair in order to continue to produce. This
satisfies (3). The correction of things typed would satisfy (4).
These are the four basic PRODUCTS involved in production.
Thus there are really four basic products necessary to a production
activity.
These are
1. The established machine.
2. The machine's product.
3. The corrected machine.
4. The corrected product.
That makes a minimum of 4 products for any production cycle.
Three major factors govern every product. These are
A. Quantity
B. Quality
C. Viability
Quantity would be an acceptable, expected or useful volume.
Quality would be the degree of perfection of a product.
Viability would be the longevity, usefulness and desirability of the
product.
As each product in the four listed above has three factors in each
product, there are then 12 major points (4 x 3) regulating production.
346
Product I-Establishing the typewriter, contains
(i) The quantity of typewriters established.
(ii) The quality of the typewriters established.
(iii) The viability of the typewriters established.
Product 2-The product of the typewriter (typed things) also has three:
(iv) The quantity of the typed things.
(v) The quality of the typed things.
(vi) The viability of the typed things.
Product 3-The repair of the typewriter itself also has three factors:
(vii) The quantity (amount) of the repair.
(viii) The quality of the repair.
(ix) The viability of the repair.
Product 4-The correction of the thing produced.
(X) The quantity (amount) of the corrected product.
(xi) The quality of the corrected product.
(Xii) The viability of the corrected product.
Thus to get a product, "typed things," there are actually 12 separate
factors.
This applies to all machinery. For instance there is the generator
that produces and there is the thing (electricity) produced by the
generator. There is the repaired generator. And there is the corrected
electricity (such as reducing its voltage or converting it).
Now if you did not know that you were handling 12 factors in producing
electricity the tendency would be to "just run the generator" and ignore
the actual factors governing production.
The results of this would be total operation only. The generator would
soon go to pieces. The electricity furnished would vary all over the place
and blow out other equipment. There would be no funds to repair or replace
the generator when it broke down. By paying little attention to products
(as the wog world often does) or by shifting their importances-giving total
importance to running it-there would soon be no viability at all. The end
result would be 2 wrong products-scrap metal that was once a generator and
no electricity.
Now, surprise, surprise! An organization composed of people is
influenced by these same things!
Org Product 1 is putting it there.
Org Product 2 is what the org produces.
Org Product 3 is the repair of the org.
Org Product 4 is the correction of the org's product.
347
If we do not know these products and factors exist, continual mistakes
can be made just as bad as just running a generator. Instead of the desired
final product, which is offered and sold and delivered, we get scrap paper
and insolvency.
To establish an org one has to put one there. This requires a
desirable and economic product of the org envisioned, the technology of
making the final product, the technology of making and handling the org,
the procurement of a location, recruitment, an org bd, hats, and training
and the equipment and materiel needed to produce the final product and the
obtaining of the raw materiel to make the final product. Thus established.
it must be done so that
(i) The amount of org is created proportionate to its final product
demand.
(ii) The quality of the org itself-shabby, posh, active or lazy, etc.
(iii) The viability of the org (how long will it last economically,
how will it expand, does income exceed out-go, etc.).
The product of the org itself is regulated by
(iv) The quantity of product produced (which must be of sufficient
volume to
satisfy demand).
(v) The quality of the org's product or products (which must be
adequate to
satisfy those requiring and paying for the production).
(vi) The viability of the org's product (how long does it last and is
it adequate
for its value).
The repair of the org itself must be
(vii) The quantity or amount of repair necessary to make the org
functional (which may amount to simply giving it a new letterhead or
rebuilding the whole place, nearly the establishing product again).
(viii) The quality or expertness of the repair (a bad one could
destroy the place).
(ix) The viability of the repair (if the right WHY is handled the
repair as a product will last a long time and if a wrong reason for decline
is handled the place will just cave in again).
The correction of the org's product to obtain a uniformly satisfactory
product:
(X) The quantity (proportion of the org's product that has to be
corrected
(which might require, if too high, the repair of some part of the org
itself).
(xi) The quality of the correction (expert and can be afforded and
itself
nondestructive). '
(xii) The viability of the product corrected. (Will it last and be
nearly as good as the better produced product?)
All these factors must be consulted.
ANALYSIS
If one understands these factors and realizes they are all present in
running an eggbeater or the world's biggest oil company, one will not be
groping around in rags.
A checklist of the 12 factors influencing the 4 major products can be
made up and each point as it relates to an org can be studied about a
particular org.
348
One has here the basics. From these there can arise a near infinity of
lesser items.
When one does not know these basics one flounders endlessly while
attempting to handle a post, a portion of an org or the whole org. One gets
into a frantic correct the errors and outpoints or goes into apathy as he
has no guidelines.
However, using these basics, one can easily check them off and so see
what he has to do to more closely approach the ideal.
In Dianetics and Scientology, for example, the final pc product of
Flag auditors trained on the same HCOBs as field auditors, on rougher pcs,
is infinitely better than the pc-product elsewhere. This is a puzzle. The
clue is not in auditing at all. It lies in an earlier product-training. A
Class V1 or a Class VIII auditor on Flag was trained (a) more rapidly
(amounting to as little as 1/6th of the time in an org), and (b) more
honestly, and (c) the Flag auditor is expertly corrected as a product when
he begins to audit until the auditing product is perfect. The training
(quantity, and lasting quality) on the course is better and the training
extends to training on post until the auditor's product (the auditing of
the pc and the pc) need little or no product correction. The equivalent
used to be required HGC training-on post training-for a staff auditor to
become a staff auditor. In no org did auditors go fresh from school into
auditing with no further training. This went out in some orgs. The product
"corrected auditor" became a missing product. Thus Flag auditing produces a
better product as that product-corrected auditor- exists on Flag.
This is given to show the use of the product factors-
Where any of these products or factors are missing, the viability of
the whole is shaken. By using them the whole becomes viable.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rr.rd.gm Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
349
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I NOVEMBER 1970
Remimeo
Org Series 11
ORGANIZATION AND MORALE
Morale is a large factor in organizing.
An executive is utterly dependent upon the willingness of those who
work for him.
(How to Live Though an Executive.)
Willingness, while it is also a factor in morale, is also a
manifestation of morale.
Morale, the tone of a group, is the target of "do-gooders," the "one-
worlders," the labor agitator, the commie agent, the local minister and a
general mixed company of often well-meaning but nevertheless deadly people.
"You poor fellow. They treat you so badly . . . we will take up this
great injustice . . . workers should have everything free . . . communist
imperialist aggressors against poor working people . . . . You poor fellow,
God will make you welcome in his heaven from this earthly toil . . . . Kill
the managers. . . . Down with law and order. . . ."
Well, it all winds up in revolution eventually and mounds of dead
workers and a few dead managers.
So let's look this over.
If you can do something about an ill situation you do. If you can be
effective you can at least make the situation easier. If you can't do that
you can sympathize.
Sympathy with the abused apparently not only does no good but winds up
in revolt!
How?,
You have this young girl, see. She is wearing last year's dress. No
new clothes. So you say, "You poor thing wearing last year's dress." Up to
now she wasn't worried about it. Now she says, "I wish I had some new
clothes." And you say, "You poor thing. Doesn't your mother ever buy you
new clothes?" "No." "The beast!" She goes home and revolts.
Get it?
The UN says, "Every woiker, he got to have job, house, lotsa dough."
Worker says, "Who? Me?" "Yes you poor down-trodden sod." And the UN says,
"United States. You rich. You pay!" US pitches out the foreign aid. The
countries take the dough and revolt and elect a military junta that chops
off heads every hour on the hour.
The one-world do-gooders in the US say, "US, you pay poor fired
woikers!" US puts out sixty-three billions. You can't walk down a street.
Riot and insurrection.
Why?
Sympathy. But not one brain cell worth of organization. 350
People want to be part of things, part of life.
If the clod heads that pass for modern politicians had the ability to
organize and handle an economy (in big countries or small) people could
easily be part of things and build the place up. It is in fact a highly
skilled activity. And currently quite beyond the heads of nations. Or they
wouldn't have unemployment, riots, inflation and future death.
Take Russia. (You take her, 1 don't want her.) She had half a century
of growing revolt. The oatmeal brained Romanoffs spent their roubles on war
and secret police. Up jumped Lenin, "You poor woikers!" Revolt. Dead Czar.
Dead Russia. Their "workers paradisC can't feed itself. The Czars were
supremely awful. Their commissars weren't even that good. One secret
policeman per worker was about the ratio in Stalin's day.
Let's be practical. Who is going to build this UN house for the poor
worker? Who is going to pay the billions except the worker?
And if, as we so glaringly see, the end product of all this "poor
worker" is riot and civil commotion, insurrection and piles of dead workers
then mightn't there be something a bit awry with its morale value?
Sympathy is a morale depressant. And knowingly or not, a morale
destroyer.
If the person who sympathized was good enough to do something about it
he would.
There's nothing at all wrong with righting evil conditions. Far from
it.
But if you want to better things KNOW HOW TO ORGANIZE.
Don't just stir up a revolt that will get workers machine gunned.
If the chronic moaner knew how to throw together an organizing board
and groove in the lines, as part of the state or the opposition, he could
certainly change things for the better.
Organizing is the know-how of changing things.
Good morale is the product of good organization!
If you organize something well and efficiently you will have good
morale. You will also have improved conditions.
Wherever morale is bad, organize!
A very careful survey of people shows that their basic protests are
against lack of organization. "It doesn't run right!" is the reason they
protest things.
Inequalities of work load, rewards unearned, no havingness, these are
some of the things that are snarled about.
They are cured by organizing things.
Russia Siberiaed or shot all her managers, thinking managers and
capitalists were the same thing. Then she couldn't feed her people.
And you can't even discuss morale as a subject when a country has to
be held together with barbed wire frontiers to hold in its own secret
policed people!
The only thing 1 really have against communists is that they know how
to make a revolt but not how to make a country.
351
And the only thing I have against the capitalist do-gooder is that all
the corn and games in the world will not make a viable country.
Neither system winds up in happiness or high morale.
The physical universe is no rose bed. But it can be confronted and can
be lived in by a group.
Whenever you see bad morale, behind it you will see chaotic
disorganization.
A nation or an org follows the same laws.
Disorganization from any cause deprives people of wanted beingness,
doingness and havingness.
When you deprive people of those things you're going to have pretty
awful morale.
And only organization and very good organization will bring about
beingness, doingness and havingness.
All three factors must be served. And purpose and reason must exist.
A bum with a handout sandwich is a bum with a handout sandwich. You
can't change anyone upward with sympathy. It is a witch's weapon, a devil's
curse. But you can change someone upward with organization.
Bad organization = bad morale.
Good organization equals good morale.
And good organization is something worked on by a group. not ordered
under pain of death.
The only tops that get blown when effective organization starts going
in are those who don't want others to have things and take delight in
suppression-in other words good organization is only opposed by those who
have reason to fear others. For in organization lies the secret of a
group's strength.
A small group thoroughly organized can conquer the disorganized
billions. And have excellent morale while they're doing it!
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.ka.rd.gm Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
352
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 NOVEMBER 1970
Issue 11
Remimeo CORRECTED AND REISSUED 7 NOV 70
Org Series 12
THE THEORY OF SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS
This "HCO Bulletin" 21 Sept 58 explains how a Scientology organization
differs from "the industrial ideal."
The industrial idea of organization is a cogwheel type organization
with each member of it totally fixed on post, doing only exact duties, with
all cogwheels intending to mesh. The industrial idea does not differentiate
between a machine and a human or live organization.
The product laws (Products 1, 2, 3 and 4 as given in the Org Series)
apply to both a live organization and a machine organization and any
organization. Since a live and a machine organization hold these laws in
common, the industrialist confuses the live organization and the machine
organization.
HCO P/L 29 October 70, Org Series No. 10,---TheAnalysis of
Organization by Product" also carries a mention of this difference between
a live and a machine organization.
As the industrial idea has already been mentioned in this Org Series,
and as this Org Series mainly applies to live (not machine) organizations,
and as people tend to fall into a machine organization pattern (and also to
use a live organization to not know their own speciality best) this earlier
issue on live organization is published in full:
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE FOR ALL STAFF MEMBER HATS
LONDON (Issued at Washington)
HCO BULLETIN OF SEPTEMBER 21,1958
THEORY OF SCIENTOLOGY ORGANIZATIONS
An organization is a number of terminals and communication lines
united with a common purpose.
The actions of an organization can all be classified under the heading
of particle motion and change. To analyze a post or a department or an
organization, make a list of each particle it handles (whether types of
bodies, types of comm or any other item) and follow each item from the
point it enters the post or department or organization to the point it
exits. If a particle isn't handled properly and passed along properly there
is a confusion or a dead end. To organize an organization requires more
than theory. One has to inspect and list the particles and get their routes
and desired changes of character enroute. Then he has to see that terminals
and comm lines exist to receive, change and forward the particle. All types
of particles belong to somebody, are handled some way, come from somewhere
and go somewhere. There are no confusions when lines, terminals and actions
exist for each type of particle.
353
Judgment and decision are needed in every staff post. If the handling
of items are just "petty details" then so is your fellow man a "petty
detail."
There are no laborers in a Scientology organization. We are all
managers of these particles.
Routes of handling are not orders to handle but directions to go. A
route is not necessarily correct for all cases. It is only correct for most
cases. Robots can't handle livingness. Robot organizations and robot
civilizations fail. They only seem to worklike the commie empire seems to
work until you find out everyone is starving to death in it. A perfect
organization is not a machine but a pattern of agreements. A route is only
the agreed upon procedure. It is not only occasionally broken, it now and
then should be. The terminals involved make the agreement or the route
doesn't work. A route along terminals that never agreed is no route but a
labyrinth. People agree to postulates they can understand and appreciate.
Hence, a route and handling begins with a particle, develops with a theory,
comes to life with an agreement and continues to work because of judgment
and decision.
The routing, the comm lines, the pattern of an organization do not do
the work. The work is done by living beings using good sense and skill. The
organizational pattern only makes their work easier and lessens confusion
and overburden. Governments, armies, big research bureaus reduce themselves
down to routes and titles. They don't work. They don't do work. They allow
for no human equation. Therefore, slave societies (composed only of routes
and unthinking terminals) are always beaten eventually by free peoples.
There is a point where routes and exact procedures become unworkable, just
as there is a point, facing a volume of work, that individuality and no
teamwork becomes unworkable. An optimum organization is never severely
either one. Total individuality and total mechanization alike are
impossible. So if you or your department or your organization seem to be
too heavily inclined to either one, yell don't talk. A bad organization
will fire you and you can do something more profitable. A good organization
will listen. BUT-always have a better idea than the one in use. Grumbling,
refusing to work, don't work. A better idea, talked over with the terminals
on either side of you, put down in concise writing, submitted, will be put
into action in a good organization. Of course, there's always a chance that
the new proposed handling throws something out of gear elsewhere. If it
does, you have the right to know about it.
An "organization" doesn't get the work done. As an orderly plan it
helps its terminals get the work done. The staff as individuals do the
work. An organization can help or hinder getting the work done. If it
helps, it's good. If it hinders, it should be examined thoroughly.
An organization can work wholly at "taking in its own laundry." All
the work that gets done is the work generated inside the shop by unreal
routes and weird changes of particles. This is a government circa mid-20th
century. Its highest skill is murder which in its profundity it makes
legal.
A totally democratic organization has a bad name in Dianetics and
Scientology despite all this talk of agreement. It has been found by actual
experiment (LA 1950) that groups of people called on to select a leader
from among them by nomination and vote routinely select only those who
would kill them. They select the talkers of big deals and ignore the doers.
They seem to select unerringly the men of average skill. That is never good
enough in a leader and the people suffer from his lack of understanding. If
you ever have occasion to elect a leader for your group, don't be
"democratic" about it. Compare records as follows: Take the person who is a
good auditor, not just says he is. Take the person who has a good, not
necessarily the highest, profile and IQ. Take the person who can grant
beirigness to others. And look at the relative serenity and efficiency of
any past command he may have had. And even then you're taking a chance. So
always elect temporarily and reserve the right of recall. If his first
action is to fire people, recall him at once and find another leader. If
the organization promptly prospers, keep him and confirm the election by a
second one. If the abundance of the organization sags in a month or so,
recall and find another. Popularity is some criterion-but it can be created
for an election only, as in the US. Select in an election
354
or by selection as an executive the person who can get the work done.
And once he's confirmed, obey him or keep him. He's rare. But beware these
parliamentary procedure boys and girls who know all the legal and time
wasting processes but who somehow never accomplish anything except chaos. A
skilled, successful leader is worth a million impressive hayseeds.
Democracies hate brains and skill. Don't get in that rut. In the US War
Between the States militia companies elected their officers with great lack
of success in battle. They finally learned after tens of thousands of
casualties that it was skill not popularity that counted. Why be a casualty-
learn first. Democracy is only possible in a nation of Clears-and even they
can make mistakes. When the majority rules the minority suffers. The best
are always a minority.
WHAT IS YOUR JOB?
Anything in an organization is your job if it lessens the confusion if
you do it.
Your being exactly on post and using your exact comm lines lessens
confusion. But failure to wear another hat that isn't yours now and then
may cause more confusion than being exactly on post.
The question when you see you will have to handle something not yours
is this: "Will it cause less confusion to handle it or to slam it back onto
its proper lines?"
Example: A preclear wandering around looking for somebody to sell him
a book. You see him. The book sales clerk isn't there. The books are. Now
what's the answer? You'll create a little confusion if you hand him a book,
take his money and give it to the book sales later. You'll create confusion
for you own post and the organization if you go chasing around trying to
find "book sales terminal." You'll create a feeling of unfriendliness if
you don't help the preclear get his book. Answer it by deciding which is
less confusing. You'll find out by experience that you can create confusion
by handling another's particles but you will also discover that you can
create confusion by not handling another's particles on occasion.
The only real error you can make in handling another's particles is to
fail to tell him by verbal or written comm exactly what you did. You stole
his hat for a moment. Well, always give it back.
Remember, in a Scientology organization every Scientologist on staff
potentially wears not just his own but every hat in the organization. He
has to know more jobs than his own. Particularly jobs adjacent to his post.
He often has to do more jobs than his own because those jobs have to be
done and he sees it. A non-Scientology member of an organization is only
limited in what he can do in the organization by lack of know-how. But the
limitation is applicable only to instruction and auditing. But a
Scientologist: he may find himself wearing any hat in the place including
mine. And others may now and then wear his hat.
A staff member gets the job done of (1) his own post, (2) his
department, and (3) the whole organization.
People who are always off line and off post aren't doing their own
jobs. When we find somebody always off post and in our hair we know if we
look at his post we'll find a rat's nest. So there are extremes here as
well.
HOW TO HOLD YOUR JOB
Your hat is your hat. It is to be worn. Know it, understand it, do it.
Make it real. If it isn't real it is yourfault since you are the one to
take it up and get it clean with an executive. If he doesn't straighten it
up so you can do it, it's still Your fault if it's not done.
You hold a job in a Scientology organization by doing your job. There
are no
355
further politics involved-at least if I find out about it there
aren't. So do your job and you've got a job. And that's the way it is.
But on post or off, we only fail when we do not help. The "public"
only objects to us when we fail to help or when we fail to answer their
questions. So we have two stable data on which to operate whether we're on
post or not:
HELP PEOPLE!
ANSWER PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS EXACTLY!
When you don't you let everybody down.
NEATNESS OF QUARTERS
THE PUBLIC KNOWS US BY OUR MEST
A part of everyone's hats is keeping a good mock-up in people,
offices, classrooms. quarters.
Keep your desk and your mest neat and orderly. It helps.
And when you see things getting broken-down or run-down or dirty, fix
them or clean them or if you can't, yell like hell on the right comm line.
THE DESPATCH SYSTEM
The despatch system is not there to plague you but to help you.
Except when you've got to have speed, never use an inter-office phone
to another terminal. And never write a despatch and present it and you at
some other point at the same time. That's "off-line" just as a phone is
"off-line." A good use of the organization's lines reduces confusion. The
other guy is busy, too. Why interrupt him or her unnecessarily with routine
that should go on the lines? You'll usually get an answer in the same day
or at least in 24 hours. The organization's comm lines are pretty good.
They make it possible for this small handful of us to get more things done
in this society than any other organization on Earth in terms of actual
accomplishment.
A comm line can be jammed in several ways. Principal of these is
entheta. Ask yourself before it goes on the lines-it's bad news but is it
necessarily important? Another is OVERBURDEN. Too much traffic jams a line.
Too long a despatch doesn't get read. Another is TOO LITTLE data. That can
jam a line but thoroughly. It takes more despatches to find out what goes.
Another way is to bypass the line itself-this jams the terminal. The final
way, in broad classes, to jam a comm line is to PUT ERRONEOUS DATA on it.
The last is a pet hate of Scientology people. Generally its form is
"everybody knows." Example: "They say that George is doing a bad job," or
"Nobody liked the last newsletter." The proper rejoinder is "Who is
Everybody?" You'll find it was one person who had a name. When you have
critical data omit the "everybody" generality. Say who. Say where.
Otherwise, you'll form a bad datum for somebody. When our actions are said
to be unpopular the person or persons saying so have names.
IN SUMMARY
A post in a Scientology organization isn't a job. It's a trust and a
crusade. We're free men and women- probably the last free men and women on
Earth. Remember, we'll have to come back to Earth some day no matter what
"happens" to us. If we don't do a good job now we may never get another
chance.
356
Yes, I'm sure that's the way it is.
So, we have an organization, we have a field we must support, we have
a chance.
That's more than we had last time night's curtain began to fall on
freedom.
So we're using that chance.
An organization such as ours is our best chance to get the most done.
So we're doing it!
L. RON HUBBARD
rs:29.9.58 all staff members field offices
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rr.rd.gm Copyright 0 1958, 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
357
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 NOVEMBER 1970
Remimeo
Org Series 13
PLANNING BY PRODUCT
One of the cycles or correct sequences of action is
BE - DO - HAVE
This sequence is often altered in orgs and even in individuals. Be is
first in the physical universe, Do is second, Have is third.
By getting it out of sequence a considerable confusion can be
generated.
A lot of riddles of human behavior can be solved by realizing this
goes out of sequence or gets omissions.
The Spanish peasant and the Spanish officials go to war at the drop of
a straw. Their history is jammed with revolts. The peasant knows that if he
is a peasant (be) and does his work (do) he should have. The Spanish
official is stuck in BE. He has so he can be and he doesn't have to do
anything. Also a degree or title in Spain is a BE and there is no do. So
there is no have unless it comes from the peasant. The two altered cycles
collide.
Juvenile delinquency and shattered lives in the West stem directly
from corruptions of this cycle.
Children in the West are commonly asked "What are you going to BE when
you grow up?" It is a silly question and can drive any child up the wall.
Because it's the wrong question-hits the wrong end of the cycle. He can't
work out his personal org bd easily.
He is also asked "What are you going to DO in life?" That's just as
bad. It is quite difficult to answer.
You have to do an org bd backwards-establish the product (have), find
out what to do to achieve it and only then really can you accurately
discover what one has to BE to accomplish this.
A lot of people and businesses fail because they don't do this. A
beirigness taken first all too often winds up in a doingness without any
havingriess resulting.
If we asked children, "What do you want to PRODUCE in life?" we could
probably get a workable answer. From that he could figure out what he'd
have to do to produce that and from that he could know what he had to BE.
Then. with a little cooperation he would be able to lead a happy and
valuable life.
Concentrating on BE, one finds him ready to BE all right but then he
stands around the next 50 years waiting for his havingriess to fall out of
the sky or slide to him via a welfare state.
The above data, missing in society, contributes to juvenile
delinquency, crime, the welfare state and a dying civilization.
It is a wrong personal org bd to BE only.
So it is with an activity or company.
What is the desired product that will also be desired by others? is
the first question one asks in organizing. It must be answered before one
can adjust or arrange finance or any org bd,
358
Then one asks what has to be done to produce that? And there may be a
lot of dones figured out and put in sequence.
Now one can work on BE,
Thus you would have the basic ingredients of an org bd.
Here is a common altered cycle:
Mr. A has a truck-HAVE. He tries to figure out what to DO with it. He
works it around to try to make money. He would usually go broke. As he
supposes he already has a product-a truck, and he needs a product-" money,"
he rarely backs it up to a BE.
Some people's "think" gets all involved in altered sequences or
omissions of the BE - DO - HAVE cycle.
An activity has several final products. All of them must be worked out
and considered. Then one can work out the sequence of DOs (each with a
product) in order to accomplish the final products. Only then can one work
out the BE.
By omission or fixations on one of these points a person or an org can
fail or perhaps never even get started.
Fixation on DO without any product in view leads to bored wandering
through life.
Mothers even know this one. "Mama, what shall I do?" is a long drawn
refrain. Smart mamas often say "Make a cake" or "Make mud pies" or "Make a
house." Dumb ones say "Go and play and stop bothering me!"
Armies, with guard or death "products," get obsessed with DO to a
point where officers and noncoms will state, "Get those men busy!" No
product. Meaningless, often frantic and useless DO.
It could be said that any developed traffic (dev-t) comes from people
who have no product.
Immense bureaucracies can build up where there are no realized or
stated products.
Target policies and practice are successful because they state the
desired product.
Unless one organizes from the final product the organization can get
unreal and useless.
Even Russia could learn this one. Their "workers" are all trying to
get to the university where they can BE. The Russian government was
recently pleading with young people to become workers. But of course that's
just another BE that implies DO. Russia has yet to realize her product was
and is revolution. It's no wonder their main problem is how to feed and
clothe and house their people.
Unless an org or a person knows exactly what the final product is for
the org or a post, there'll be a lot of busyness but not very much
havingness for anyone.
The answer is to figure out the final product and work back through
the do of subprojects and you will then materialize a real org, a real
beingness.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
359
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 NOVEMBER 1970
Rernimeo
Org Series 14
THE PRODUCT AS AN OVERT ACT
When a product is nonexistent or bad it can be classified as an overt
act against both the org and any customer.
You can estimate what the existing scene of a post really is by
looking at its product.
When a flubby product is observed, you can at once approximate the
existing scene.
The time it takes to achieve the product is also an estimation. A long
time to achieve a small flubby product gives one a good idea of the
existing scene.
This also estimates the amount of "noise" in an area.
Example: Post X is supposed to sort ruddy rods. There are no sorted
ruddy rods ready. That's an omitted action. The post has to be ordered to
sort ruddy rods. That's ordering someone to wear his hat which is altered
sequence as he should have been wearing it already. The post must be a
false terminal as it isn't wearing its hat. The product so far is no sorted
ruddy rods. You order them sorted. You get bent tangled ruddy rods
furnished after a long time period filled with dev-t. Estimate of existing
scene-psychotic and an awful long way from any ideal scene. Actual quality
of product-an overt act.
When several org members are furnishing a poor individual product, the
org becomes difficult to handle as the person in charge is operating as
correction not as establishment and org product.
Wherever an org's product is low in quantity and quality one must
recognize that it contains several members who unconsciously furnish overt
acts in the guise of post products and begin to straighten things out
accordingly.
The road to sanity for such a person or org is a good grasp of
organizing and products, making known the technology needed to produce a
product, getting it properly done so that the person can then wear his hat.
If this still doesn't occur, personal processing is necessary as the
personnel may well be dramatizing overt acts (harmful acts) by turning out
a bad product.
The final product of an org is the combined products of all the
members of that org directed to accomplish the final products of that org.
Stupidity, lack of a worked out org bd, lack of recognition of what
the final org products should be, lack of training, lack of hats, can
produce poor final products. In an activity not doing well the poor final
product or its lack of any product is the compound errors in subproducts.
An org where the product is pretty bad or nonexistent contains many
elements-posts-in it which have as their individual "post products" not
products at all but overt (harmful) acts.
Pride of workmanship is pride in one's own product.
Every post has some product. If the products of all posts in an
activity are good and the product sequence is good then the final products
of the org will be good.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
360
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 NOVEMBER 1970
CORRECTED AND REISSUED 29 AUGUST 1974
Remimeo
Personnel Series 12
Org Series 15
ORGANIZATION MISUNDERSTOODS
By Scientology study technology, understanding ceases on going past a
misunderstood word or concept.
If a person reading a text comes to the word "Felix Domesticus" and
doesn't know it simply means HOUSE CAT, the words which appear thereafter
may become "meaningless," "uninteresting" and he may even become slightly
unconscious, his awareness shutting down.
Example: "Wind the clock and put out the Felix Domesticus and then
call Algernon and tell him to wake you at 10:00 A.M.," read as an order by
a person who didn't bother to find out that "Felix Domesticus" means "house
cat" or "the variety of cat which has been domesticated" will not register
that he is supposed to call Algernon, will feel dopey or annoyed and
probably won't remember he's supposed to wake up at 10:00 A.M.
In other words, when the person hit a misunderstood word, he ceased to
understand and did not fully grasp or become aware of what followed after.
All this applies to a sentence, a book, a post or a whole
organization.
Along the time track a crashing misunderstood will block off further
ability to study or apply data. It will also block further understanding of
an organization, its org board, an individual post or duties and such
misunderstoods can effectively prevent knowledge of or action on a post.
ALL THIS IS THE MOST COMMON CAUSE OF AN UNACCEPTABLE POST PRODUCT, OR
NO PRODUCT AT ALL.
The difficulties of an organization in functioning or producing stem
from this fact.
Personal aberration is the cause of products that are in fact overt
acts.
Scientology technology today easily handles the personal aberration
part of the problem, IF IT IS USED AND PROPERLY APPLIED. Leaving an org
unaudited or being unable to figure out how to run a viable org so that it
can afford to audit its staff members is asking for post or org products
that are overt acts.
Employing persons of the Leipzig, Germany, death camp school
(psychologists, psychiatrists) to handle personal aberration is like
throwing ink in water to clean it up. Governments stupidly do this and
wonder why their final product as an organization is riot, war and a
polluted planet. The point is not how bad psychology and psychiatry are,
but that one does have to handle personal aberration in an organization and
these schools were too vicious and incompetent to do so.
Those who are personally very aberrated are not about to produce
anything but an overt act. They are difficult to detect as they are being
careful not to be detected. Things "just sort of go wrong" around them,
resulting in a product that is in fact an overt act. But these constitute
only about 10 or 20 percent of the population.
361
The remaining 80% or 90% where they are nonfunctional or bungling are
so because they do not understand what it's all about. They have in effect
gone on by a misunderstood such as what the org is supposed to do or the
admin tech they use on their posts or where they are or what their product
is.
Earth organizations like governments or big monopolies get a very bad
repute because of these factors:
1. Personal aberration of a few undetected and unhandled.
2. Inadequate or unreal basic education technology and facilities.
3. Inadequate or unknown organization technology.
4. Noncomprehension of the individual regarding the activities of
which he is a part.
5. Noncomprehension of the basic words with which he is working.
6. Purposes of the post uncleared.
7. Admin of the post not known or comprehended.
8. Technology in use not fully understood.
9. A lack of comprehension of products.
Out of these nine things one gets organizational troubles and the
belief that it takes a genius to run one successfully. Yet all the genius
in the world will fail eventually if the above nine things are not handled
to some degree.
The common methods currently in use on the planet to handle these
things are very crude and time-consuming as the items themselves are either
dimly comprehended or not known at all.
IA. Personal aberration is met by torture, drugs or death when it is
detected. Yet only the very serious cases who are obviously screaming,
muttering or unconscious are singled out whereas the dangerous ones are
neither detected nor handled at all and become with ease generals or
presidents or dictators, to say nothing of lesser fry. Ten percent to 20%
of any organization is stark staring mad, doing the place in so adroitly
that only their actual product betrays them.
2A. Basic education as well as higher general education has become a
massproduced area crawling with bad texts and noncomprehension and used
mainly by hostile elements to overturn the state or pervert the race and
its ideals.
3A. Organizational technology is so primitive as to change national
maps and leading companies many times a century, an extremely unstable
scene for a planet.
4A. Very few individuals on the planet have any concept of the
structure entities such as their country or state or company. Persons
surveying the public in the US, pretending to advise acceptance of "new
measures" already in the Constitution were threatened for being
revolutionaries. Hardly anyone knew the basic document of the nation's
organization much less its rambling structure.
5A. The basic words of organization are glibly used but not generally
comprehended-words like "company .. .. management," "policy." Vocabularies
have to be increased before comprehension and communication occur and
misunderstoods drop out.
6A. Post purposes are often glibly agreed with while something
entirely different is done.
362
7A. Administrative actions involving posts are often only dimly
comprehended and seldom well followed but in this matter of communication,
despatches, etc., the planet is not as deficient as in others except that
these functions, being somewhat known can become an end-all-tons of
despatches, no actual product. In some areas it is an obsession, an endless
paper chain, that is looked on as a legitimate product even when it leads
to no production.
8A. The planet's technology is on the surface very complex and
sophisticated but is so bad in actual fact that experts do not give the
planet and its populations 30 years before the smoke and fumes will have
eaten up the air cover and left an oxygenless world. (The converters like
trees and grass which change carbon dioxide to oxygen are inadequate to
replace the oxygen and are additionally being killed by air impurities
coming out of factories and cities.) If the technology destroys the base
where it is done-in this case the planet-it is not adequate and may even be
destructive technology.
9A. The whole idea of "product" is not in use except in commercial
industry where one has to have a car that sells or a washing machine that
actually washes.
THE HARD ROAD
It is against this primitive background that one is trying to run an
organization.
If it were not for improvements made on each one of these points the
task could be hopeless.
I have gone to some length to outline the lacks in order to show the
points where one must concentrate in (a) putting an org together and (b)
keeping it viable.
In these nine areas we are dealing with the heart of it in running
orgs.
Enthusiasm is a vital ingredient. It soon goes dull when insufficient
attention is paid to resolving and getting in these nine points.
Bluntly, if they are not gotten in and handled, the task of living and
running a post or an org will become so confused that little or no
production will occur and disasters will be frequent.
THE WORDS
The by-no-means-complete list of words that have to be fully cleared
and understood just to talk about organization as a subject, and to
intelligently and happily work in an org EVEN AS ITS LOWEST EMPLOYEE is
A company A board of directors Top management Policy Management
Programs Targets Orders Technology Know-how Org bd Post Hat Cope Purposes
Organize Duties A checksheet
363
. checklist
. comm channel
. command channel
. relay point
. stable terminal
Double-hatted
A product
Aberration
VIABILITY
This is key vocabulary. One could draw up a whole dictionary for these
things and no one studying it would be any wiser since it would become
salted with other words of far less importance.
The way to do this list is sweat it out with a meter until one knows
each can't mean anything else than what it does mean.
Out of a full understanding of what is implied by each, a brilliantly
clean view is attained of the whole subject of organization, not as a
fumble but as a crisp usable activity.
Unless one at least knows these words completely so that they can be
used and applied they will not buffer off confusions that enter into the
activity.
Glibness won't do. For behind these words is the full structure of an
activity that will survive and when the words aren't understood the rest
can become foggy.
We do know all these needful things. We must communicate them and use
them successfully.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:kjm.rd.ts.gm Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
[Note: The 29 August 1974 reissue corrected the word test to text in
the second paragraph of this HCO PLJ
364
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 NOVEMBER 1970
Remimeo (CORRECTED AND REISSUED 27 NOV 1970)
Org Series 16
POLICY AND ORDERS
Probably the greatest single confusion that can exist in the subject
of organizing is the reversal of "policy" and "orders."
When definitions of these two things are not clearly understood they
can be identified as the same thing or even reversed.
When they are not understood plainly then staff members set their own
policy and demand orders from top management, totally reversing the roles.
Confusion thus generated can be so great as to make an organization
unmanageable. It becomes impossible for staff to do its job and management
cannot wear its hat.
People in an organization obsessively demand orders from policy source
and then act on their own policy. This exactly reverses matters and can be
a continual cause of disorganization.
As policy is the basis of group agreement, unknown policy or policy
set by the wrong source leads to disagreement and discord.
Demanding or looking for orders from policy source and accepting
policy from unauthorized sources of course turns the whole organization
upside down. The bottom of the org board becomes the top of the org bd. And
the top is forced to act at lower levels (order issue) which pulls it down
the org bd.
But this is not strange as we are dealing here with principles rather
new in the field of organization, principles which have not been crisply
stated. THERE IS NO EXACT ENGLISH WORD for either of these two functions.
POLICY as a word has many definitions in current dictionaries amongst
which only one is partially correct: "A definite course or method of action
to guide and determine future decisions." It is also "prudence or wisdom"
"a course of action" and a lot of other things according to the dictionary.
It even is said to be laid down at the top.
Therefore the word has so many other meanings that the language itself
has become confused.
Yet, regardless of dictionary fog, the word means an exact thing in
the specialized field of management and organization.
POLICY MEANS THE PRINCIPLE EVOLVED AND ISSUED BY TOP MANAGEMENT FOR A
SPECIFIC ACTIVITY TO GUIDE PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING AND AUTHORIZE THE
ISSUANCE OF PROJECTS BY EXECUTIVES WHICH IN TURN PERMIT THE ISSUANCE AND
ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS THAT DIRECT THE ACTIVITY OF PERSONNEL IN ACHIEVING
PRODUCTION AND VIABILITY.
POLICY is therefore a principle by which the conduct of affairs can be
guided.
A policy exists, or should exist, for each broad field or activity in
which an organization is involved.
365
Example: The company has a lunchroom for its employees. Top policy
concerning it might be "To provide the employees cheaply with good food and
clean fast service." From this the lunchroom manager could plan up and
program how he was going to do this. With these approved they form the
basis of the orders he issues.
Now let us say the manager of the lunchroom did not know organization
and that he did not try to get a policy set or find if there was one and
made up his own policy and planned and programmed and issued his orders on
that. Only the policy he makes up is "To make dough for the company."
Now the wild melee begins.
Top management (the lunchroom manager's highest boss) sees stenos
eating cold lunches brought from home at their desks. And begins to
investigate. How come? Stenos then say, "We find it cheaper to eat our own
lunches." Top management finds coffee in the lunchroom is terrible and
costs several shillings. Dried out sandwiches cost a fortune. There is no
place to sit . . . etc. So top managment issues orders (not policy). "Feed
that staff!" But nothing happens because the lunchroom manager can't and
still "make dough for the company." Top managment issues more orders. The
lunchroom manager thinks they must be crazy at board level. How can you
make dough and still feed the whole staff? And top management thinks the
lunchroom manager is crazy or a crook.
Now you multiply this several times over in an organization and you
get bad feeling, tension and chaos.
Let us say top managment had issued policy: "Establish and run a
lunchroom to provide the employees cheaply with good food and clean fast
service." But the lunchroom manager hired knew nothing of organization,
heard it, didn't realize what policy was and classified it as a "good
idea." Idealistic, probably issued for PR with employees. "But as an
experienced lunchroom man I know what they really want. So we'll make a lot
of dough for the company!"
He thereafter bases all his orders on this principle. He buys lousy
food cheap, reduces quality, increases prices, cuts down cost by no hiring
and does make money. But the company gets its income from happy customers
who are handled by happy staff members. So the lunchroom manager
effectively reduces the real company income by failing to cater to staff
morale as was intended.
UNPREDICTABLE
It is a complete fact that no top management can predict WHAT policy
will be set by its juniors.
The curse of this is that top management depends on "common sense" and
grants greater knowledge of affairs to others at times than is justified.
"Of course anybody would know that the paper knives we make are supposed to
cut paper." But the plant manager operates on the policy that the plant is
supposed to provide employment for the village. You can imagine the
squabble when the paper knives which do NOT cut paper fail to sell and a
threatened layoff occurs.
Nearly all labor-management hurricanes blow up over this fact of
ignorance of policy. It is not actually a knowing conflict over different
policies. It's a conflict occurring on the unknown basic of unknown or
unset policy of top management and the setting of policy at an unauthorized
level.
ORDERS
"Order" takes up two small print columns of the two ton dictionaries.
The simple definition is
366
AN ORDER IS THE DIRECTION OR COMMAND ISSUED BY AN AUTHORIZED PERSON TO
A PERSON OR GROUP WITHIN THE SPHERE OF THE AUTHORIZED PERSON'S AUTHORITY.
By implication an ORDER goes from a senior to juniors.
Those persons who do not conceive of an organization larger than a few
people tend to lump all seniors into order-issuers, tend to lump anything
such a senior says into the category of order and tend to lump all juniors
into order-receivers.
This is a simple way of life, one must say.
Actually it makes all seniors bosses or sergeants and all juniors into
workers or privates. It is a very simple arrangement. It does not in any
way stretch the imagination or sprain any mental muscles.
Unfortunately such an organized arrangement holds good for the metal
section of the shop or a platoon or squad. It fails to take into account
more sophisticated or more complex organizations. And it unfortunately
requires a more complex organization to get anything done.
Where one has squad mentality in a plant or firm, one easily gets all
manner of conflict.
Few shop foremen or sergeants or chief clerks ever waste any time in
trying to tell the "rank and file" what the policy is. "Ours was not to
reason why" was the death song of the Light Brigade. And also the open door
to communism.
Communism is unlikely to produce a good society because it is based on
squad mentality. Capitalism has declined not because it was fought but
because it could not cope with squad mentality. The policies of both are
insufficiently embracive of the needs of the planet to achieve total
acceptability.
An order can be issued solely and only because its issuer has in some
fashion attained the right to issue the instruction and to expect
compliance.
The officer, the chief clerk, the shop steward, the sergeant, each one
has a license, a warrant, a "fiat" from a higher authority which entitles
him to issue an order to those who are answerable to him.
So where does this authority to issue orders come from?
The head of state, the government, the board of directors, the town
council, such bodies as one could consider top management in a state or
firm, issues the authority to issue orders.
Yet such top persons usually do not issue authority to issue orders
without designating what the sphere of orders will be and what they will be
about.
This is the policy-making, appointment-making level at work.
All this is so poorly and grossly defined in the language itself that
very odd meanings are conceived of "policy" and "orders."
Unless precise meanings are given, then organization becomes a very
confused activity.
Understood in this way, the following sentence becomes very silly:
"The board of directors issued orders to load the van and the driver was
glad to see his policy of interstate commerce followed."
Yet a group will do this to its board of directors constantly. "You
did not issue
367
orders. . . ." "We were waiting for orders. . . ." "I know we should
have opened the doors but we had no order from the council. . . ."
The same group members, waiting for orders to sit or stand by special
board resolution, will yet set policy continually. "We are trying to let
others do their jobs without interference." "I am now operating to make
each member of my department happy." "I am running this division to prevent
quarrels."
Ask officers, secretaries, in-charges, "What policy are you operating
on?" and you will get a quick answer that usually is in total conflict or
divergence from any board policy. And you will get a complaint often that
nobody issues their division orders so they don't know what to do!
The fact is that POLICY gives the right to issues orders upon it to
get it in, followed and the job done.
A group of officers, each one issuing policy madly while waiting for
the head of the firm to give them orders is a scene of mix-up and
catastrophe in the making.
Policy is a long, long-range guiding principle.
An order is a short-term direction given to implement a policy or the
plans or programs which develop from policy.
"People should be seated in comfortable chairs in the waiting room" is
a policy.
"Sit down" is an order.
If policy is understood to authorize people to issue orders, the
picture becomes much clearer.
"Clearing post purpose" is another way of saying "Get the policy that
establishes this post and its duties known and understood."
Unless an organization gets this quite straight, it will work in
tension and in internal conflict.
When an organization gets these two things completely clear, it will
be a pleasant and effective group.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright c 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
368
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I DECEMBER 1970
Remimeo
Org Series 17
REALITY OF PRODUCTS
The character of the VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCTS OF AN ACTIVITY is
something which must be established EXACTLY.
Example: Ajax Ball Bearings Ltd. did well for a while and then went
into a decline. The exact change point into the decline coincided with a
change to new stockholders and considerable executive and staff turnover.
At first glance the WHY would have seemed to be so many transfers-musical
chairs. However, a complete survey shows that the definitions of Ajax
valuable final products where changed from "useful ball bearings sold in
quantity at a profit" to "world acceptance of Ajax." The big ad campaigns,
internal shop and accounting policy shifts to accomplish this, the new
fuzzy ideas about it and failure to spot the WHY took Ajax down. Traced
further it was found that the new advertising manager had originated this
policy and the new board had only a foggy notion of its duties and knew
nothing of "valuable final products." The whole company started
"manufacturing" acceptance instead of ball bearings. The production shop
got more and more idle, more and more neglected, had fewer and fewer men in
it. Admin got more and more people and down down down went the stats.
A survey of any activity, requesting a list from each member of the
company answering the question, "What are the valuable final products of
this company?" can reveal much and can show that many are setting policies
and doing things in the company name which have no real relation to what
the company is doing and therefore drive the activity in contrary and
conflicting directions.
After all it is the crew, staff members and workers who do the work.
When they have to set their own policy and use their own ideas of the
valuable final products, you can get a lot of conflicts and upsets which
should never exist.
Make no mistake: An activity can be totally unmanageable and become
nonviable over just these points. Possibly all labor-management upsets come
from them.
1. Policy is set by top management after experience and agreed upon by
others. Where policy is needed it should be requested from the top, not set
independently by the supervisors or workers.
2. The valuable final products of an activity must be very carefully
surveyed, established and clearly released at policy level AS POLICY.
Anarchy appears to fail (as it did before the Spanish revolution 1936)
and strong central management succeeds around this one point of policy.
Everyone sets his own in an anarchy. Businesses succeed only on that point
and the precise establishment of valuable final products.
When the exact valuable final products are known and agreed upon, only
then does successful group action become possible.
The car industry looks easy. The valuable final product is a car. But
automotive labor and unions have not agreed to that. Their "valuable final
product" is "a big pay check." This one point damaged and may have
irreparably destroyed the US economy in 1970 when General Motors, the
country's largest industry, had a walkout and layoff.
369
Failing to handle this one point GM management was failing duty as
management (they lost their general manager last year due to a Ford
maneuver of hiring him over, then firing him). Labor in this case ruined
their future pay checks and lost thousands of jobs.
Forty years ago a similar inability to set policies and establish
valuable final products began to wipe out the coal industry in the US.
Under a John L. Lewis, the miners made coal mining economically impossible.
Management, mostly absentee and careless, half a century before that had
begun to make errors, run unsafe mines and look on an appearance in society
pages as a valuable final product. Today "Appalachia" is a ruined poverty
area. And oil is the fuel-of which there is little compared to US domestic
coal.
So do not discount these two points. They are capable of wicked
backlashes when not done right. They are the WHY of not only organization
failures but also the failures of civilizations.
PRECISE WORDING
The valuable final products of any activity small or large must be
very precisely and totally listed and totally continually posted.
The valuable final products of a division should be on the org board
under the division and the valuable final products of the org should be on
the org board in a glaring red list.
Let us take a college. US colleges and others are so clouded up with
"government projects" and "scientific findings" and "published papers" and
"sport wins" and "general public awe of their greatness' , ' that they have
pretty well forgotten a "welltrained and successful student in the field of
his major." So the student body product becomes "revolt." And the college
product becomes "???" in the public mind. I do not speak idly. The very
last thing a college wants in a student is one who is an individual
success. A downtrodden anonymous member of some industrial team or an
underpaid professor is about as high as a college will tolerate from their
student bodies according to surveys. For several hundred years, since
Francis Bacon (1561--1626) in fact, there has been no renowned philosopher
who has not been eased carefully out of his college long before graduation.
The list exceptions are tame sellouts like Dewey, part of the Leipsic death
camper crew.
So here is civilization at risk. The valuable final product of its
educational institutions is not stated and is neglected in favor of a
multitude of false or valueless products. They are not known by their
students but by their arrogance and political connections. This is not idle
data. Failure to understand this fact of valuable final products began
around 1862 the downfall of imperial Russia, spearheaded by its college
students. Having no real valuable final product, clearly stated and agreed
upon, opens the door to conflict not only in the company but in the state
and the entire civilization. (Granted, imperial Russia stank, which is my
exact point. So did Stalinism.)
Studying back and forth over history, poking about in old ruins,
remembering, adding it up, the apparent causes of organizational decay are
(a) Failure to have an informed, trained top management capable of
setting real policy in accordance with the need of the organization.
(b) Failure of top management to set policy.
(c) Company members, supervisors and workers setting their own policy
out of agreement with or in ignorance of the needs of the organization and
themselves.
(d) Failure of top management to wisely, completely and precisely
establish the valuable final products of the activity.
370
(e) Ignorance of or disagreement with the valuable final products by
workers and company members.
In a much more general sense we would have
A. Unwise or unset policy.
B. Unreal or unstated or undone valuable final products.
These apply to any organizaton of any size. The most flagrant
offenders are governments. I have never met a political leader or police
officer who had a clue about valuable final products of the state. You or I
might feel that "public safety" was a valuable final product of police, but
the police don't say so.
In amongst psychiatry I have worked for hours trying to make numerous
psychiatrists state what they were trying to accomplish. I have never even
gotten one to hazard even a suggestion of why he was doing what he was
doing, much less say "a cured patient" or "a safeguarded society."
The confusion on these points of valid policy and valuable final
product is so great in the world of this writing as to be intolerable.
So do not feel strange that in our early organizations it has been
hard to handle things-they were cheek by jaw with a society that believed
itself a jungle and where "moral" standards were being set by the
psychiatrists who gave the world Hitler and twelve million exterminated
Germans.
When the society goes in this direction (war, murder, psychiatry) it
conceives its valuable final product to be dead men.
Thus it is very, very important for us to get these hitherto obscure
or unidentified principles up into the light where they belong and to USE
them.
I . The beings of top management must be fully informed and capable of
setting or knowing and publishing policy according to the need (including
viability) of the organization which will be agreed upon by the whole
activity. This means an informed, trained top management and includes org
management.
2. Top management and managers must KNOW policy and be able to set or
request policy where it is unknown or nonextant.
3. All members (top management, managers, supervisors, technicians,
workers) must understand the mechanisms of setting policy, how to get it
set, know policy that is set and know what is valid policy and who sets it.
4. The valuable final products of an organization must be known to,
precisely and completely established, and defined by top management.
5. The valuable final products of an activity must be known fully to
and agreed upon by all beings in the organization including why, and the
abandonment of random products which are being done but which do not in any
way add up to valuable final products.
ECONOMICS
The economics of any group is such that it cannot tolerate offbeat
products and remain sound. This is true of any political or commercial
form, group or commercial company.
All of the activities of a group in some way must add up to known
valuable final products of a group or it will, as an entity, shatter.
371
Even in a "moneyless state," a barter economy, this remains factual.
Western civilization and Eastern alike have decayed on the altars of
war gods. Diplomatic and political incompetence have squandered their
efforts and brought them to inflation and then dust. A socialism where the
population goes unshod or a capitalism where a barrowload of bucks will not
buy a loaf of bread are paying for ignorance of their actual valuable final
products and the squandering of funds and effort on side issues.
One cannot appropriate or apportion funds without an intimate
knowledge of the valuable final products of the activity.
One cannot handle property unless one knows the valuable final
products of the activity.
One cannot assign personnel without huge waste of manpower unless one
knows the valuable final products.
Therefore one must be able to list and know the valuable final
products of an activity before one can
i. Do financial planning.
ii. Arrange, buy or sell property.
iii. Allocate spaces assigned for different functions.
iv. Assign personnel.
If one tries to do these things first and discover final products
later, all efforts to organize will be canceled.
CENTRAL AUTHORITY
The valuable final products must be agreed upon and issued as policy
and additions to the list must be referred to the policy-making level of
the group before being confirmed as valid.
The aimless meanderings of contemporary societies show the absence of
such lists. It some time ago began to be stated and believed that society
"just took in each other's washing"; and the joke, Parkinson's Law, in
which bureaucracy multiplies automatically, both give evidence that society
is believed not to have any valuable final products even as faint as "a
good life."
Individual members of a group or society must know the valuable final
products of the activity and must be in some agreement with them to have a
successful group.
SURVEYS
Surveys of what should be the valuable final products show mainly the
spirit of the matter. It should not be believed for a moment that a
standard survey would apply: a standard survey being the adding up of the
answers and taking the majority as useful.
Such a survey measures willingness concerning types or directions of
activity.
Given this, setting the exact things the group can or should produce
and wording them exactly requires a lot of looking and a lot of work.
What products of the group are economically valuable? This is the key
point that will be overlooked.
372
What, in short, can this group exchange with other groups or society
that will obtain things the group does not produce? This is the heart of
economics. The law of supply and demand applies.
This is too hard-headed an approach for a whole group to decide upon
without a great deal of personal work.
If the group has a past to assess, then it will previously have
produced products from time to time that did demonstrate economic value. A
search for and a list of these is of primary value.
If the group has no past, it has some experience available from the
society which it can employ.
It can be taken as a rule that group members will not identify or
phrase the valuable final products. And it can be taken as another rule
that it will in the course of time lose those products from its production
that were valuable.
Final is another word that will probably escape grasp. Subproducts
leading to final products will be given equal billing with the final
product.
So three surveys have to be done.
What does the group think its final product should be? This gives
willingness and direction.
What have been the previous valuable final product successes of the
group? (That did exchange with other groups so the producing group can
obtain things it does not produce.) This in a new group would' be a survey
of what similar groups have produced.
There would then be a period of intense and expert work by or for
central policy authority where questions like: Have times changed? Were
these items every thoroughly offered? What was the relative value in light
of their cost? Is recosting necessary due to money value changes? Which
ones really brought value back to the group from others? Can we still
produce these? Thus a list is drawn up, precisely worded.
Then the final (3rd) survey can occur. This is the issue of the
reworked list above to the group to get them to look at it from their
viewpoint and see if it is feasible and any points missed and any expert
opinion taken amongst the experts in the group.
The final list of valuable final products could then be drawn and
issued as policy.
A special watchdog production tally officer could then be appointed to
make sure these valuable final products are being prepared for and
produced.
Yes, it would take all that to get the list of valuable final products
of an activity.
The valuable final product list does not come wholly from top
management.
The list does not come only from the group.
Major social and business catastrophes occur when (a) no list is set
(b) top management only sets the list or (c) the group sets the list up.
Phrases like "a better world" or "a big car" or "lots of customers"
are quite incomplete and unreal. Even the words "an auditor" or "a release"
are correct but are not fully enough described to be good statements of a
valuable final product.
A notable example of all this occurred in the car industry when Edsel
Ford, ten years ago, did not survey past products and current demands and
produced---The
373
Edsel." Henry Ford half a century earlier had established the company
products as a cheap, small rugged automobile that would put America on
wheels and a big, expensive car to hold up the company image. "The Edsel"
went in between and millions were lost and scores of dealers were wiped
out. No survey. No precise product.
If all this seems commercial, remember that in any civilization a
group has to buy or acquire those things it does not produce. This is true
in captialism, communism or tribal barter. There is no Santa Claus and even
a corn and games welfare state can go broke and always has.
Thus the valuable final product of a group must be valuable to another
group or individuals in society around it and sufficiently so that it can
receive in return things it wants or needs but does not produce. And it
must DELIVER its valuable final product, a point most often missed.
A group of knights in a castle on a hill had protection for the
peasant as a valuable final product. When they ceased to deliver and used
only threat and robbery the peasant eventually invented a longbow whose
arrow could penetrate armor and knighthood was no longer in flower.
All this is really quite simple. It is even in the Factors.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rr.rd.gm Copyright 10 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
374
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 DECEMBER 1970
Remimeo
Dept 14 Hats
Personnel Series 13
Org Series 18
THIRD DYNAMIC DE-ABERRATION
The exact mechanism of 3rd dynamic (group or organization) aberration
is the conflict of COUNTER-POLICY.
Illegal policy set at unauthorized levels jams the actions of a group
and IS responsible for the inactivity, nonproduction or lack of team
spirit.
Counter-policy independently set jams the group together but inhibits
its operation.
Out-reality on org bds, hats, etc., is to a large degree caused by
disagreements and conflicts which are caused by illegal policy.
If we had a game going in which each player set his own rules, there
would be no game. There would only be argument and conflict.
VARIETIES OF COUNTER-POLICY
At the start it must be assumed or effected that there is someone or
somebody to set authorized policy for the group. Absence of this function
is an invitation to random policy and group conflict and disintegration. If
such a person or body exists, new proposed policy must be referred to this
person or body and issued, not set randomly at lower levels or by
unauthorized persons.
Policies so set by the policy authority must be informed enough and
wise enough to forward the group purpose and to obtain agreement. Ignorant
or bad policy even when authorized tends to persuade group members to set
their own random policy.
When no policy at all exists random policy occurs.
When policy exists but is not made known, random policy setting will
occur.
Ignorance of policy, the need or function of it, can cause random
policies,
Hidden not stated random policies can conflict.
Correct policy can be relayed on a cutative basis-a few words left off
or a qualifying sentence dropped which makes policy incorrect or null.
"Children may not go out" can be made out of "Children may not go out after
midnight."
Altered policy can be limitless in error.
Attributing a self-set policy to the authorized source can disgrace
all policy as well as pervert the leadership purpose.
Policy can be excluded from a zone of a group that should be governed
by it. "Pipe-making policy does not apply to the small pipe shop."
Such masses of unnecessary policy can be issued that it cannot be
assimilated.
375
Policy can exist in large amounts but not be subdivided into relevant
subjects as is done in hat checksheets.
Disgrace of policy can occur in a subsequent catastrophe and render
any policy disgraceful, encouraging self-set policy by each group member.
CLEARING A GROUP
All authorized policy must be set or made available in master books
and adequate complete policy files. This makes it possible to compile hats
and checksheets and issue packs.
Group surveys of "What policy are you operating on?" can reveal random
policy.
All bugged (halted) projects can be surveyed for illegal policy and
cleaned up and gotten going again.
Other actions can be taken all of which add up to
1. Get existing policy used.
2. Get areas without policy crisply given policy from the authorized
source.
3. Debug all past projects of false policy.
4. De-aberrate group members as per the Organization Misunderstoods PL
and other materials.
5. Educate the group members concerning policy technology.
6. Set up systems that detect, isolate and report out-policy and get
it corrected and properly set, issued and known.
7. Monitor any new policy against statistics and include policy
outnesses as part of all statistical evaluations.
ADMIN SCALE
I have developed a scale for use which gives a sequence (and relative
seniority) of subjects relating to organization.
GOALS
PURPOSES
POLICY
PLANS
PROGRAMS
PROJECTS
ORDERS
IDEALSCENES
STATS
VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCTS
This scale is worked up and worked down UNTIL IT IS (EACH ITEM) IN
FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE REMAINING ITEMS.
In short, for success, all these items in the scale must agree with
all other items in the scale on the same subject.
Let us take "golf balls" as a subject for the scale. Then all these
scale items must be in agreement with one another on the subject of golf
balls. It is an interesting exercise.
376
The scale also applies in a destructive subject. Like "cockroaches."
When an item in the scale is not aligned with the other items, the
project will be hindered if not fail.
The skill with which all these items in any activity are aligned and
gotten into action is called MANAGEMENT.
Group members only become upset when one or more of these points are
not aligned to the rest and at least some group agreement.
Groups appear slow, inefficient, unhappy, inactive or quarrelsome only
when these items are not aligned, made known and coordinated.
Any activity can be improved by debugging or aligning this scale in
relation to the group activity.
As out-reality breeds out-comm, and out-affinity, it follows that
unreal items on the scale (not aligned) produce ARC breaks, upsets and
disaffection.
It then follows that when these scale items are well aligned with each
other and the group there will be high reality, high communication and high
affinity in the group.
Group mores aligned so and followed by the group gives one an ethical
group and also establishes what will then be considered as overts and
withholds in the group by group members.
This scale and its parts and ability to line them up are one of the
most valuable tools of organization.
DEBUG
When orders are not complied with and projects do not come off, one
should DETECT, ISOLATE and REPORT and handle or see that it is handled, any
of the scale items found random or counter.
If any item below POLICY is in trouble-not moving-one can move upwards
correcting these points, but certainly concentrating on a discovery of
illegal or counterpolicy. Rarely it occurs some old but legal policy needs
to be adjusted. Far more commonly policy is being set by someone verbally
or in despatches, or hidden, that is bugging any item or items below the
level of policy.
So the rule is that when things get messed up, jammed up, slowed or
inactive or downright destructive (including a product as an overt act) one
sniffs about for random or counter-policy illegally being set in one's own
area or "out there."
Thus in the face of any outness one DETECTS-ISOLATES-REPORTS and
handles or gets handled the out-policy.
The detection is easy. Things aren't moving or going right.
The isolation is of course a WHAT POLICY that must be found and WHO
set it.
Reporting it would mean to HCO.
Handling it is also very easy and would be done in Qual.
This admin tech gives us our first 3rd dynamic de-aberrater that works
easily and fast.
Why?
377
Well, look at the Admin Scale. Policy is just below purpose.
Purpose is senior to policy.
The person who is setting random or counter illegal policy is off
group purpose. He is other-purposed to greater or lesser degree.
From 1960 to 1962 1 developed a vast lot of technology about goals and
purposes. If we define a goal as a whole track long, long-term matter and a
purpose as the lesser goal applying to specific activities or subjects we
see clearly that if we clean up a person's purposes relating to the various
activities in which he is involved and on the eight dynamics we will handle
the obsession to set random or counter-policies!
So it is an auditing job and the tech for it is extensive. (The
African ACC was devoted to this subject. Lots of data exists on it.)
It happens however that around 20% (probably more) of any group's
members are actively if covertly anti-group and must be handled at a less
profound level under "personal aberration" in the Org Misunderstoods policy
letter before you can begin to touch purpose.
Thus any group member, since this tech remedy helps them all, would be
handled with
1. General case de-aberration (called LlOs on Flag).
2. Purpose handling for posts.
3. Org bd, hatting and training.
Those setting random or counter-purpose later detected would get
further no. 2 and no. 3.
As the universe is full of beings and one lives with them whether he
likes it or not, it would be to anyone's interest to be able to have
functioning groups.
The only way a group jams up and (a) becomes difficult to live in, and
(b) impossible to fully separate from, is by random and counter-purposes.
If one thinks he can go off and be alone anywhere in this universe he
is dreaming.
The first impulse of a hostile being is "to leave" a decent group.
What a weird one.
The only reason he gets in jams is his inability to tolerate or handle
others,
There's no road out for such a being except through.
Thus all we can do to survive even on the first dynamic is to know how
to handle and be part of the third or fourth dynamic and clean it up.
Probably the reason this universe itself is considered by some as a
trap is because their Admin Scale is out,
And the only reason this universe is sometimes a trial is because no
one published its Admin Scale in the first place.
All this is very fundamental first dynamic tech and third dynamic
tech.
It is the first true group technology that can fully de-aberrate and
smooth out and free within the group every group member and the group
itself.
378
Thus, combined with auditing tech, for the first time we can rely
wholly on technology to improve and handle group members and the group
itself toward desirable and achievable accomplishment with happiness and
high morale.
Like any skill or technology it has to be known and done and continued
in use to be effective.
The discovery, development and practical use of this data has made me
very, very cheerful and confident and is doing the same thing on the test
group.
I hope it does the same for you.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.ts.gm Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
379
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 DECEMBER 1970
Remimeo
Personnel Series 14
Org Series 19
GROUP SANITY
The points of success and failure, the make and break items of an
organization are
1. HIRING
2. TRAINING
3. APPRENTICESHIPS
4. UTILIZATION
5. PRODUCTION
6. PROMOTION
7. SALES
8. DELIVERY
9. FINANCE
10. JUSTICE
11. MORALE
These eleven items MUST AGREE WITH AND BE IN LINE WITH THE ADMIN SCALE
(Org Series 18).
Where these subjects are not well handled and where one or more of
these are very out of line, the organization will suffer a third dynamic
aberration.
This then is a SANITY SCALE for the third dynamic of a group.
The group will exhibit aberrated symptoms where one or more of these
points are out.
The group will be sane to the degree that these points are in.
Internal stresses of magnitude begin to affect every member of the
group in greater or lesser degree when one or more of these items are
neglected or badly handled.
The society at large currently has the majority of these points out.
These elements become aberrated in the following ways:
1. HIRING
The society is running a massive can't have on the subject of people.
Automation and employment penalties demonstrate an effort to block out
letting people in and giving them jobs. Confirming this is growing
unemployment and fantastic sums for welfare-meaning relief. Fifty percent
of America within the decade will be jobless due to the population
explosion without a commensurate expansion in production. Yet production by
US presidential decree is being cut back. War, birth control, are two of
380
many methods used to reduce population. THIS THIRD DYNAMIC PSYCHOSIS
IS A REFUSAL TO EMPLOY PEOPLE. EXCLUSION OF OTHERS IS THE BASIC CAUSE OF
WAR AND INSANITY.
2. TRAINING
Education has fallen under the control of one-worlders, is less and
less real. Data taught is being taught less well. Less data is being
taught. School and college unrest reflect this. Confirmation is the
deteriorated basic education found in teenagers such as writing. Older
technologies are being lost in modern rewrites. THIS THIRD DYNAMIC
PSYCHOSIS IS A COVERT REFUSAL TO TRAIN.
3. APPRENTICESHIPS
The most successful industries, activities and professions of earlier
centuries were attained by training the person as an apprentice, permitting
him to understudy the exact job he would hold for a long period before
taking the post. Some European schools are seeking to revive this but on a
general basis, not as an apprentice system. A THIRD DYNAMIC PSYCHOSIS IS A
DENIAL OF ADEQUATE EXPERIENCE TO SUCCEED.
4. UTILIZATION
In industries, governments and armed services as well as life itself,
personnel are not utilized. A man trained for one thing is required to do
something else. Or his training is not used. Or he is not used at all. A
THIRD DYNAMIC PSYCHOSIS IS FAILURE TO UTILIZE PEOPLE.
5. PRODUCTION
Modern think is to reward downstats. A person is paid for not working.
Governments who produce nothing employ the most people. Income tax and
other current practices penalize production. Countries which produce little
are given huge handouts. War which destroys attains the largest
appropriations. A THIRD DYNAMIC PSYCHOSIS IS TO PREVENT PRODUCTION.
6. PROMOTION
Promotion activities are subverted to unworthy activities. True value
is seldom promoted. What one is actually achieving gets small mention while
other things are heavily promoted. Reality and PR are strangers. A THIRD
DYNAMIC PSYCHOSIS IS UNREAL OR NONFACTUAL PROMOTION.
7. SALES
Sales actions are unreal or out of balance. Clumsy or nonfunctioning
sales activities penalize producers and consumers. In areas of high demand,
sales actions are negligible even when heavy advertising exists. This is
proven by the inability to sell what is produced even in large countries so
that production cutbacks are continual threats to economies and workers. A
population goes half-fed in times of surplus goods. With curtailed car
factories a nation drives old cars. With a cutback construction industry
people live in bad houses. Sales taxes are almost universal. A THIRD
DYNAMIC PSYCHOSIS IS THE IMPEDING OF PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION TO POTENTIAL
CONSUMERS.
8. DELIVERY
Failure to deliver what is offered is standard procedure for groups in
the humanities. Commercially it is well in hand.
381
9. FINANCE
One's own experience in finance is adequate to demonstrate the
difficulties made with money. A THIRD DYNAMIC PSYCHOSIS IS THE PERVERSION
OF FINA NCE.
10. JUSTICE
Under the name of justice, aberrated Man accomplishes fantastic
injustices. The upstat is hit, the downstat let go. Rumors are accepted as
evidence. Police forces and power are used to ENFORCE the injustices
contained I to 9 above. Suppressive justice is used as an ineffectual but
savage means of meeting situations actually caused by the earlier listed
psychoses. When abuses on I to 9 make things go wrong, the social
aberration then introduces suppressive injustices as an effort to cure.
Revolt and war are magnified versions of injustices. Excess people-kill
them off in a war. A THIRD DYNAMIC PSYCHOSIS IS THE SUBSTITUTE OF VIOLENCE
FOR REASON.
11. MORALE
A continuous assault on public morale occurs in the press and other
media. Happiness or any satisfaction with life is under continuous attack.
Beliefs, idealism, purpose, dreams, are assaulted. INSANITY IS A REFUSAL TO
ALLOW OTHERS TO BE, DO OR HAVE.
Any action which would lead to a higher morale has to be defended
against the insane few. A THIRD DYNAMIC PSYCHOSIS IS A DETESTATION OF HIGH
MORALE.
The COMMON DENOMINATOR of all these insanities is the desire to
SUCCUMB.
Insanities have as their end product self or group destruction.
These eleven types of aberration gone mad are the main points through
which any group SUCCUMBS.
THEREFORE, these eleven points kept sane guarantee a group's SURVIVAL.
EXAMPLES
Seeing all this in one example permits one to see that these third
dynamic insanities combine to destroy.
A. Believing it impossible to obtain money or make it, a firm cannot
hire enough people to produce. So has little to sell, which is badly
promoted and is not sold so it has no money to hire people,
B. Needing people for another job the firm robs them from a plant
which then collapses and fails to make money so no new people can be hired.
This reduces production so people have to be dismissed as they can't be
paid.
C. Persons are in the firm but are kept doing the wrong things so
there is little production and no promotion or sales so there is no money
to pay them so they are dismissed.
D. A new product is put in. People to make it are taken from the area
already making a valuable product which then collapses that area and there
is not enough money to promote and selling fails so people are dismissed.
The examples are many. They are these same eleven group insanities in
play upon a group, a firm, a society.
382
SANITY
If this is a description of group aberration, then it gives the keys
to sanity in a
group.
1. HIRING
Letting people INTO the group at large is the key to every great
movement and bettered culture on this planet. This was the new idea that
made Buddhism the strongest civilizing influence the world has seen in
terms of numbers and terrain. They did not exclude. Race, color, creed,
were not made bars to membership in this great movement.
Politically the strongest country in the world was the United States,
and it was weakened only by its efforts to exclude certain races or make
them second-class citizens. Its greatest internal war (1861-65) was fought
to settle this point, and the weakness was not resolved even then.
The Catholic Church only began to fail when it began to exclude.
Thus inclusion is a major point in all great organizations.
The things which set a group or organization on a course of exclusion
are (a) the destructive impulses of about 10 or 15% of the society (lunacy)
and (b) opposition by interests which consider themselves threatened by the
group or organization's potential resulting in infiltration (c) efforts to
mimic the group's technology destructively and set up rival groups.
All these three things build up barriers that a group might
thoughtlessly buy and act to remedy with no long-range plans to handle.
These stresses make a group edgy and combative. The organization then
seeks to solve these three points by exclusion, whereas its growth depends
wholly upon inclusion.
No one has ever solved these points successfully in the past because
of lack of technology to solve them.
It all hinges on three points: (1) the sanity of the individual, (2)
the worthwhileness of the group in terms of general area, planetary or
universal survival, and (3) the superiority of the group's organization
tech and its use.
Just at this writing, the first point is solved conclusively in
Scientology. Even hostile and destructive personalities wandering into the
group can be solved and, due to the basic nature of Man, made better for
the benefit of themselves and others.
The worthwhileness of the organization is determined by the assistance
given to general survival by the group's products and the actual factual
delivery of those valid products.
The superiority of a group's admin tech- and its application is at
this current writing well covered in current developments.
Thus inclusion is almost fully attainable. The only ridges that build
up are the short-term defense actions.
For instance, Scientology currently must fight back at the death camp
organizations of psychiatry whose solution is a dead world, as proven by
their actions in Germany before and during World War 11. But we must keep
in mind that we fully intend to reform and salvage even these opponents. We
are seeking to include them in the general survival by forcing them to
cease their nonsurvival practices and overcome their gruesome group past.
383
There are two major stages then of including people-one is as paid
organization personnel and one as unpaid personnel. BOTH are in essence
being "hired." The pay differs. The wider majority receive the pay of
personal peace and effectiveness and a better world.
The org which excludes its own field members will fail.
The payment to the org of money or the money payment to the staff
member is an internal economy. Pay, the real pay, is a better personal
survival and a world that can live.
Plans of INclusion are successful. They sometimes contain defense
until we can include.
Even resistance to an org can be interpreted as a future inclusion by
the org. Resistance or opposition is a common way point in the cycle of
inclusion. In an organization where everyone wins eventually anyway the
senselessness of resistance becomes apparent even to the most obtuse. Only
those who oppose their own survival resist a survival-producing
organization.
Even in commercial companies the best organization with the best
product usually finds competitors merging with it.
2. TRAINING
Basic training, hats, checksheets and packs MUST exist for every
member of a group.
Criminal or antisocial conduct occurs where there is no hat.
Any type of membership or role or post in the whole organization or
its field requires individual and team training. Only where you have a
group member who will not or cannot bring himself to have and wear a hat
will you have any trouble.
This is so true that it is the scope of personnel enhancement.
Ask yourself "Who isn't trained on his post and hatted?" and you can
answer "Who is causing the trouble?"
Basic training, slight or great, is vital for every member of a group,
paid or unpaid.
A field auditor must have a hat. A student needs a student hat, etc.,
etc.
This requires training.
Training begins in childhood. Often it has to be reoriented.
Training as a group member must be done.
Training in exact technology or in the precise tech of admin is not
the first stage of training. Basic training of group members, no matter how
slight, must exist and be done.
Otherwise group members lack the basic points of agreement which make
up the whole broad organization and its publics.
Training must be on real materials and must be rapid. The technology
of how to train is expressed in speed of training.
The idea that it take 12 years to make a mud pie maker is false. TIME
in training does not determine quality of training. Amount of data learned
that can be applied and skills successfully drilled determine training.
384
That the society currently stresses time is an aberrated factor.
The ability to learn and apply the data is the end product of
training. Not old age.
The rate of training establishes to a marked degree the expansion
factor of a group and influences the smoothness of the group during
expansion.
If training is defined as making a person or team into a part of the
group then processing is an influencing factor. The facilities for
processing and quantity available are then a determining factor in group
expansion.
3. APPRENTICESHIP
Training on post is a second stage of any training-and processing-
action.
This is essentially a familiarization action.
To have a person leave a post and another take it over with no
"apprenticeship" or groove-in can be quite fatal.
The deputy system is easily the best system. Every post is deputied
for a greater or lesser period before the post is turned over and the
appointment is made. When the deputy is totally familiar he becomes the
person on the post.
Rapid expansion and economy on personnel tend to injure this step.
Lack of it can be very destructive.
Optimally there should be one or two deputies for every key post at
all times. This is a continual apprenticeship system.
Economically it has limitations. One has to weigh the losses in not
doing it against the cost in doing it. It will be found that the losses are
far greater than the cost, even though it increases personnel by at least a
third for a given organization.
When an organization has neglected it as a system (and has turned over
too many posts without deputy or apprenticeship action) its economics may
decay to where it can never be done. This is almost a death rattle for an
organization.
In a two-century-old, highly successful industry, only the apprentice
system was and is used (Oporto wine industry). The quality of the product
is all that keeps the product going on the world market. If the quality
decayed the industry would collapse. Apprenticeship as a total system
maintains it.
Certainly every executive in an organization and every technical
expert should have a deputy in training. Only then could quality of
organization be maintained and quality of product guaranteed.
The total working organization should be on this system actually. And
whenever a person is moved up off a post, the deputy taking over, a new
deputy should be appointed. The last step (appointment of a new deputy) is
the one that gets forgotten.
Failure to recruit new people over a period will very surely find the
whole organization declining soon solely because there is no apprentice
system of deputies. The organization expands, singles up the posts,
promotes some unapprenticed people and begins to lose its economic
advantage. Low pay ensues, people blow off, and then no one can be hired.
It's a silly cycle, really, as it is prevented easily enough by hiring
enough soon enough when the org is still doing well.
The rule is DEPUTY EVERY POST AND NEWLY DEPUTY THEM WHEN PROMOTIONS
OCCUR.
The most covert way to get around this is just to call each person's
junior a deputy
385
even though he has other duties. This makes it all look good on an org
board. "Do you have each post deputied?" "Oh yes!" But the deputies are
just juniors with posts of their own.
A deputy is used to run the same post as it is deputied for. This
means a double posting pure and only.
You'd be amazed at how much production an executive post can achieve
when it is also deputied and when the principal holder of the post will use
the deputy and gen him in, not get him to cover an empty lower post.
4. UTILIZATION
People must be utilized.
Equipment must be utilized.
Space must be utilized.
Learning to USE is a very hard lesson for some. Untrained people, bad
organization, poor machinery, inadequate space all tend to send one off
utilization.
The rule is, if you've got it use it; if you can't use it get rid of
it.
This most specifically applies to people. If you've got a man, use
him; if you can't use him get him over to someone who can use him. If he
isn't useful, process and train.
Anyone who can't figure out how to use people, equipment and spaces to
obtain valuable final products is not worthy of the name of executive.
Reversely we get what an executive or foreman is-an executive or
foreman is one who can obtain, train and use people, equipment and spaces
to economically achieve valuable final products.
Some are very skilled in preparing people, systems, equipment,
property and spaces to be used. But if these then go to someone who does
not USE them you get a bad breakdown.
The welfare state and its inflation is a sad commentary on "executive
ability."
An executive whose people are idle and whose materiel is decaying is a
traitor to his people and the org, just that, for he will destroy them all.
UTILIZATION requires a knowledge of what the valuable final products
are and how to make them.
Action which doesn't result in a final product that adds up to
valuable final products is destructive, no matter how innocent it seems.
Man has a planet as a valuable final product. Improper use of the
countries and seas, air and masses which compose it will wind up with the
destruction of Man, all life on it and the usefulness of the planet. So
proper utilization of anything is a very real factor.
The 19th century industrialist, like the mad kings who built great
structures, used up men; they didn't properly use men.
And not using them at all, the current fad, is the most deadly of all.
UTILIZATION is a big subject. It applies to resources, capabilities
and many other factors.
386
The question being asked in all cases is, "How can we USE this to
economically obtain a valuable final product?"
Failing to answer that question gives one the "mysteries of life."
5. PRODUCTION
One may be prone to believe there is no sense in any production at
all. Such a one would also be likely to say, "There is no sense at all." Or
"If they keep on producing it will become impossible to destroy it all."
Production of some final valuable product is the chain of all
production sequences.
Even the artist is producing a reaction. The reaction's service in a
wider sphere to enforce it is what gives art its sense. A feeling of well-
being or grandeur or lightheartedness are legitimate valuable final
products, for instance.
The production areas and activities of an org that produce the
valuable final products are the most important areas and activities of the
org.
6. PROMOTION
The acceptance of valuable final products and of their value depends
in a large degree upon (a) a real value and (b) a desire for them.
Promotion creates desire for the valuable final product.
The old saw that the man who builds a better mousetrap will have the
whole world coming to his door is a total falsity.
Unless the value is made known, and the desire created, the mousetraps
are going to go unsold.
Promotion is so important that it can stand alone. It can have limited
success even when there is no product! But in that case it will be of short
duration.
Promotion must contain reality and the final product must exist and be
deliverable and delivered for promotion to be fully successful.
Public relations and advertising and all their skills cover this area
of promotion.
7. SALES
It is hard to sell what isn't promoted and can't be delivered.
Economics greatly affect selling.
Anything must be sold for a price comparable to its value in the eyes
of the purchaser.
COSTING is a precise art by which the total expenses of the
organization administration and production must be adequately covered in
the PRICING allowing for all losses and errors in delivery and adequate to
produce a reserve.
PRICING (the amount being asked) cannot be done without some idea of
the total cost of the final valuable product.
The sale price of one final valuable product may have to cover the
cost of producing other products which are delivered without price.
PRICING however does not necessarily limit itself to only covering
immediate
387
cost of a product. A painting with a dollar's worth of paint and
canvas may have a price of half a million dollars.
Also a painting used in promotion may cost two hundred dollars and be
displayed at no cost at all to the beholder.
These relative factors also include the SKILL of the salesman himself
and there is much technology involved in the act of selling something to
someone and the world abounds in books on the subject.
Therefore sales (once promotion is done) are bound up really in
COSTING, PRICING AND SELLING.
The value in the eye of the purchaser is monitored by the desire
created in him for it. If this is also a real value and if delivery can
occur then SELLING is made very easy-but it is still a skilled action.
The production of a valuable final product is often totally determined
by whether or not it can be sold. And if it can be sold at a price greater
than the cost of delivering it.
That it gets sold depends on the salesman.
The skill of the salesman is devoted to enhancing the desire and value
in the eyes of the buyer and obtaining adequate payment.
8. DELIVERY
The subject and action of DELIVERY is the most susceptible to
breakdown in any organization. Any flaw on the sequence of actions
resulting in a valuable final product may deteriorate it or bar off final
delivery.
There are many preparatory or hidden-from-public-view steps on a
production line. When any of these break down, delivery is imperiled.
Given the raw materials and wherewithal to make some valuable final
product, the valuable final product should occur.
WHEN A VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCT DOES NOT GET PRODUCED AND CANNOT BE
DELIVERED, REPAIR THE EARLIER STEPS OF ITS PRODUCTION.
Example: An auditing result is not delivered. Don't just repair the
pc. Repair training of auditors and C/Ses. Repair the assembly line before
the valuable final product. The subproducts are less visible. Yet they add
up to the valuable final product.
THE LAW OF THE IRREDUCIBLE MINIMUM occurs in all delivery problems.
Someone is trying to produce only the visible end product of a post or
production line and neglects the earlier contributory actions and products
as these are not plainly visible.
When an organization or its posts operate only on an irreducible
minimum, production goes bad and DELIVERY crashes.
Take a cook who has his post at an irreducible minimum. Food is
appearing on the table. If he reduced just one bit more the food would no
longer be edible at all. He neglects purchasing, menus and preparation.
That these occur is invisible to the diners. That food appears on the table
is visible to the diners. If the cook operates at any less level than he
is, no edible food would be visible-hence, irreducible minimum. The food
served will be bad. But it will be visible. Invisible-to-the-diners actions
aren't being done.
To improve the food, get the less visible actions done. Get the
sequence of actions all done. The result will be improved food.
388
Take training. The final valuable product is a trained auditor. The
Course Supervisor who runs his post on an irreducible minimum is simply
there, appearing to supervise.
His final product may be horribly unskilled. The teaching may take
"forever."
To improve this one goes earlier on the assembly line-materials,
packs, tapes, student tech services, recorder repair, scheduling-dozens of
actions including getting the Course Supervisor trained.
The visibility is still a Course Supervisor and students being taught.
But with the whole earlier line in, the final valuable product is
excellent!
A being hopes lazily for instantaneous production. It doesn't happen
this way in the mest universe. Things are produced in a sequence of
subproducts which result in a final valuable product. Hope all you want to.
When you omit the subproducts you get no valuable final product.
When the people in an organization do not know the valuable final
products of the org and when a person on a post does not know the final
products of his post, a condition arises where no org DELIVERY will occur,
or if it does occur it will be poor or costly. It is vital that a person
knows what his post final products are and what his unit, section,
department and division subproducts are and how his own and each of these
contribute to the valuable final products of the organization for actual
delivery to occur.
Delivering other than valuable final products or useless final
products or final products that need constant correction also adds up to
nondelivery.
A whole civilization can break down around the point of DELIVERY. So
can an organization.
Since money can be looked upon as too valuable a final product it can
actually prevent DELIVERY.
Failure to deliver is the one point beings do not forgive. The whole
cycle hangs upon DELIVERY.
DELIVER WHAT IS PROMISED when it is expected, in sufficient volume and
adequate quality, is the first maxim even of a group in politics or the
humanities.
9. FINANCE
Finance too often disregards the other factors in this scale or the
other factors in this scale too often disregard finance for organizations
to long remain viable.
Financing must be in agreement with all the other factors of this
scale and all the other factors must be in agreement with finance for
viability to occur.
Because money is interchangeable for commodities then people can
confuse it with too many things.
If you regard money like so many beans, as a commodity in itself, you
open the door to understanding it.
Money is so many beans in to get so many beans out.
When you can master this you can handle FINANCE.
The FINANCE persons of an org, a civilization, a planet, should put so
many beans in and expect more beans out than they put in. This is quite
correct as a viewpoint for finance.
389
The difference of beans in and beans out for a planet is made up by
adding beans enough to those already in existence to cover new commodity.
When finance people fail to do this beans cease to be in pace with
production and inflation and deflation occur.
In an org or any of its parts, industriousness of the staff makes the
difference between the beans in and beans out.
An org has to have income greater than outgo. That is the first rule
of finance. Violating it brings bankruptcy.
Now if the FINANCE people of an org apply the same rule remorselessly
to all its transactions (financial planning) with each person and part of
an org, finance becomes real and manageable.
So many beans in to support the first division means so many beans out
of the org back to finance because of the cooperative work of the first
division.
A hectic effort to work only with production products will wind
finance up in a knot.
One has to estimate (COST) the contribution of each part of an org to
the valuable final product to know what to allow what part of an org.
Finance has to have a full reality on the valuable final products and
the subproducts and post products of the whole org to intelligently
allocate funds.
This person, that division, each contributes some part of the action
that results in the money received for the valuable final products.
So finance can extend so much money for each and expect that and an
additional amount back.
If this occurs, so will expansion.
Finance comes unstuck when it fails to "COST" an organization and
fails to support valuable final product production.
Finance must not only practice "income greater than outgo" for the
org, it must practice it for each part of the org as well.
Then solvency becomes real.
The greatest aberration of finance is that it seeks to save things
into solvency. The real losses in an org are the sums never made. These are
the most important losses for finance to concentrate upon.
An org that makes E500 a week that should make E5000 a week in
potential is losing the finance people E4500 a week!
Finance can force production along certain lines by putting in funds
and getting more back.
Finance becomes too easily the management of an org but it only does
that when it ceases to deal in its own commodity-money.
An org which has executives unfamiliar with finance will fall at once
into the control of the finance people in the org. And these finance
people, if they don't really know money, will fall at once under the
control of outside finance people.
One has to know finance in any organization anywhere, even in a
socialism. Sooner or later the books get balanced in any society.
390
10. JUSTICE
Without justice there can be no real organization.
Even a government owes its people an operating climate in which human
transactions and business can occur.
Where insane and criminal individuals operate unchecked in the
community, justice is uncertain and harsh.
The society in which the insane rise to positions of power becomes a
nightmare.
Justice is a difficult subject. Man handles it badly.
Justice cannot occur until insanity can be detected and cured.
The whole task of justice is to defend the honest man. Therefore the
target of justice is the establishment of a sane society.
The inability to detect or cure the insane destroys civilizations.
Justice is an effort to bring equity and peace. When one cannot detect
and cure insanity then sooner or later justice actions will become unjust
and be used by the insane.
To us, justice is the action necessary to restrain the insane until
they are cured. After that it would be only an action of seeing fair play
is done.
11. MORALE
When all factors balance up in an org and give the group a common
direction and mutual viability, morale can be expected to be good.
When the Admin Scale and the ten elements described are out of balance
(without proper importance given to each) and when one or many of these
(Admin Scale and the elements herein described) are not in agreement one
with another, then morale will be poor.
Morale is not made of comfort and sloth. It is made of common purpose
and obstacles overcome by the group.
When the Admin Scale and these elements are not held together by
similar aims, then morale has to be held up artificially.
The most ghastly morale I have ever seen was amongst "the idle rich."
And the highest morale I've ever seen was amongst a furiously
dedicated, common-purposed group working under fantastic stresses with very
little against almost hopeless odds.
I used to observe that morale in a combat unit would never materialize
before they had been through hell together.
All drama aside, morale is made up of high purpose and mutual
confidence. This comes from the Admin Scale items and these elements of
organization being wellaligned, one with the next, and honest sane endeavor
to achieve a final goal for all.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:ms.rd.ts.gm Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
391
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 DECEMBER 1970
Remimeo
SO Member Hat
Staff Member Hat
Personnel Series 15
Org Series 20
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
The differences between a competent person and an incompetent person
are demonstrated in his environment (surroundings).
A person is either the effect of his environment or is able to have an
effect upon his environment.
The 19th century psychologist preached that man had to "adjust to his
environment." This false datum helped begin a racial degeneration.
The truth is that Man is as successful as he adjusts the environment
to him.
Being competent means the ability to control and operate the things in
the environment and the environment itself.
When you see things broken down around the mechanic who is responsible
for them, he is plainly exhibiting his incompetence-which means his
inability to control those things in his environment and adjust the
environment for which he is responsible-motors.
When you see the mate's boats broken up you know he does not have
control of his environment.
Know-how, attention, and the desire to be effective are all part of
the ability to control the environment.
One's "standards" (the degree of rightness one is trying to establish
and maintain) are directly related to one's desire to have a controlled
environment.
The attainment of one's standards is not done by criticism (a human
system). It is done by exerting control of one's environment and moving
things effectively toward a more ideal scene.
Control of the environment begins with oneself-a good case state, a
body that one keeps clean and functioning. This extends to one's own gear,
his clothing, tools, equipment. It extends further to the things one is
responsible for in the environment. Then it extends out into the whole
environment, the people and the mest.
One can get pretty dirty fixing things up. That's okay. But can one
then also clean oneself up?
The ability to confront mest is a high ability. After that comes the
ability to handle and control it.
The ability to confront people is also a high ability. After that
comes the ability to get along with them and to handle and control them.
There is the supreme test of a thetan-the ability to make things go
right.
The reverse of this is the effort to make things go wrong.
392
Incompetence-lack of know-how, inability to control-makes things go
wrong.
Given some know-how or picking it up by observation, sane people make
things go right.
The insane remain ignorant intentionally or acquire know-how and make
things go wrong.
Insane acts are not unintentional or done out of ignorance. They are
intentional, they are not "unknowing dramatizations." So around insane
people things go wrong.
One cannot tell the difference really between the sane and insane by
behavior. One can tell the difference only by the product. The product of
the sane is survival. The product of the insane is an overt act. As this is
often masked by clever explanations it is not given the attention it
deserves. The pretended good product of the insane turns out to be an overt
act.
A large percentage of this planet's population (undetermined at this
time for the "general public" but in excess of 20%) are insane. Their
behavior looks passable. But their product is an overt act. The popularity
of war confirms this. The products of existing governments are mainly
destructive. The final product of the human race will be a destroyed planet
(a contaminated air cover rendering the planet unable to sustain life,
whether by radiation or fumes).
Thus, due to the inability to detect and handle the insane, the sane
majority suffers.
The hidden actions of the insane can destroy faster than an
environment can be created UNLESS one has the know-how of the mind and life
and the tech of admin and the ability and know-how to handle mest.
An area or activity hit by an influx of new recruits or new customers
tends to unsettle. Its mest gets abuse, things go out of control.
Gradually, working to put in order, the standards are again being
attained. The minority insane get handled, the know-how of groups and orgs
becomes more generally known, the tech of mest gets used again.
As an organization expands it goes through cycles of lowered condition
and raised condition. This is normal enough since by taking on more and
more area one is letting in more and more insane even though they are in a
small proportion to the sane.
Order is reestablished and survival trends resumed to the degree that
the sane begin to reach out and handle things around them and as the insane
are made sane.
Thus one gets downtrends and uptrends. As soon as a group begins to
feel cocky, it takes on more area. This includes more unhandled people,
admin and mest and a downtrend begins. Then the sane begin to handle and
the insane begin to be sane and the uptrend starts.
This is probably even the basis of national economic booms and
depressions.
This is only bad to the degree that the insane are put in charge. As
soon as this happens the downtrend becomes permanent and cultural decay
sets in.
A group expanding rapidly into a decadent culture is of course itself
subjected to the uptrend-downtrend cycles and has to take very special
measures to counteract the consequences of expansion in order to maintain
any rate of growth.
The individual member of a group can measure his own progress by
increased ability to handle himself, his post and environment and the
degree of improvement of the group itself because of his own work within
it.
393
A group that is messing up its gear and environment worse than it did
a while ago and is not improving it of course has to be reorganized before
it perishes.
No group can sit back and expect its high brass to be the only ones to
carry the load. The group is composed of individual group members, not of
high brass.
The survival of a group depends upon the ability of its individual
members to control their environment and to insist that the other group
members also control theirs.
This is the stuff of which survival is made.
A sane group, knowing and using their technologies of handling men and
mest, cannot help but control their environment.
But this depends upon the individual group member being sane, able to
control his mest and those around him and using the tech of life, the tech
of admin, the tech of specific types of activity.
Such a group inevitably inherits the culture and its guidance.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.rd.gm Copyright 0 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
394
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 JANUARY 1971
Remirneo
Personnel Series 17
Org Series 21
DUPLICATING FUNCTIONS
All you have to do to run out of personnel, finance and get no
production is to duplicate the same functions that give the same product in
an org.
Take three orgs side by side under the same management. Only if each
division of each org had entirely different products would this be
possible.
Now let's do it wrong. Each of these 3 orgs has an HCO and full
personnel duties. Each separately promotes. Each has its own finance
office, each has its production div producing the same products. Each has
its own correction div-the place in general would be very overmanned, yet
each div would be undermanned for its full functions. The product would be
terrible if it existed at all. Morale would be ghastly, inter-org
collisions continual.
The right way would be to work out the different products and then
assign them
to one or another of these orgs. One org would have to be the source
org that produced
the other two. One org would have all the finance with liaison only in
the other two
orgs. One org would have to hire, hat and train with only liaison in
the other two. The
orgs would have org bds which had the function but under it would be
the note
"Liaison with 15 source org.
In the impatience and emotion of organizing one org tends to
individuate and establish a duplicate function because "it can't get
service." This begins the catastrophe. Now they'll all begin to go broke
while having men bulging out of the windows.
In looking over potential insolvency, look over duplicate functions.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.gm Copyright 0 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
395
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 JANUARY 1971
Remimeo
Org Series 22
SQUIRREL ADMIN
When a squirrel is given a circular wheel he will run in it 'round and
'round and 'round. He gets nowhere,
When persons in an organization do not know organizing or their org
board or hats, they go 'round and 'round and 'round and get nowhere.
There is no valuable production. There is no money.
When you have an organization that has no valuable production you know
that the people there go 'round and 'round and 'round and get nowhere.
They are squirrel administrators.
STANDARD ADMIN
There are right ways to handle a group. This is the single fact which
most often escapes people attempting to handle groups.
Also, for every correct solution there can be an infinity of wrong
solutions.
The right way is a narrow trail but strong. The wrong ways are broad
but all lead into a bog.
You could "fix" a radio by hitting it with a sledge hammer, putting a
hand grenade in it or throwing it out of a 155th story window. The number
of wrong ways you could "fix" it would be infinite.
Or you could find out what was wrong with it and replace the part or
properly correct it.
The difference between the wrong way and the right way is that the
radio, wrongly "solved," doesn't work. The radio correctly solved works.
So the test of the wrong way or the right way is whether or not the
radio then worked.
This is the basic test of all administrative solutions. DID THEY WORK?
When experienced persons, working from basic theory, have evolved a
technique for handling a situation which routinely now handles that
situation, we have now a STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
When that situation appears, we apply that solution and the matter
gets handled.
The test is, did the solution work?
Solutions that work and are therefore routinely used to handle the
situation to which they apply are then called STANDARD ADMIN.
A multitude of these correct solutions are used in STANDARD
ORGANIZING. The org board, the hats, comm lines, comm centers, comm
baskets, despatch forms, routing forms, inspection actions, promotion
actions, central filing, customer or visitor handling, selling, collecting
income, paying bills, inventorying, doing finance reports,
396
handling raw materials, training persons to handle and properly change
materials, correcting or improving staff competence, correcting
organizational form, inspecting reviewing and handling failed products,
handling contacting and converting the publics, establishing and using
field distributors and salesmen, providing public services, maintaining
contact with the original and basic technology, handling rivals and
opposition, and running the organization in general all have standard
actions.
Now, glancing over the above rough list, you see we have hit the high
spots of a 21 department, 7 division org bd.
Each is a standard solution to continuing and recurring problems.
Each contains numerous standard solutions to the recurring problems
associated with them.
Underneath all this is basic theory and around it is survival and
potential success.
USE OF STANDARD ACTIONS
The difference between a successfully viable organization with
cheerful and cared for staff and a limping scene is standard and squirrel
administration.
If standard admin is successful then why is it sometimes not used?
First the data has to exist, be available and known.
Next the data has to be used.
At first glance this may seem so clear-cut that it cannot go wrong.
But one must look a bit further.
One is dealing with a variable called Man. One is working in a world
full of noise and conflict.
Certain personalities do not want the group or the organization to
succeed (see HCOB 28 Nov 1970 Psychosis). This problem has been so great
amongst men that every historical culture-each one an organization-has
died. About ten to twenty percent of mankind, at a broad guess, fit into
this category.
In this universe it is easier to destroy than to construct. Yet the
survival of life forms depends on construction.
To overcome this Man has developed technology and the cooperative
effort known as organization.
The forces of the physical universe can be channeled and used only
with technology.
The forces inherent in life forms can succeed only when channeled and
aligned with one another.
Therefore, to succeed, a group must have the technology it uses
available and known to it. And then use it.
From this one obtains the agreement and alignment necessary to
generate the group action and production which brings about success.
NONCONFRONT
When a group member has the data, the bar to his using it would be his
own disagreement with the group succeeding or, more frequently, his
inability to confront things.
EXAMPLE: Two group members are quarreling. A third group member seeks
to handle it. Even though he knows the technique (third party law), his own
inability to confront people makes him fail to use the correct solution and
he backs off.
397
In backing off he thinks of some nonconfront nonstandard "solution"
such as firing them.
He has become a squirrel administrator.
EXAMPLE: The plant machinery is in bad shape. It is deteriorating to
such an extent that it soon will cease to run. The mechanics plead for
money to repair. The plant manager unfortunately cannot confront machinery-
he not only "doesn't know about it" but it frightens him. He does not
financially plan its full repair on a gradient back to an ideal scene. He
simply dreams up the vague hope a new type will be invented. He does
nothing. The machinery now costs more to run than it produces. The plant
fails. The plant manager was a squirrel administrator.
So we have various causes of failure:
I . A secret desire to destroy.
2. The nonexistence of technology.
3. Nonavailability of the technology.
4. Ignorance of the technology even when available.
5. Failure to apply the technology even when available and known
because the being cannot or does not confront the people or the portions of
the physical universe concerned.
The existence of any of these things brings a group toward squirrel
administration.
Natural cataclysms or political or social catastrophes or upheavals
are the other two points which can bring about a failure but even these can
be planned for and to some degree handled. The future possiblity of these
must also be confronted in order to be circumvented.
Any successful organization will be fought by the society's fancied
rulers or enemies. This is something which should be taken in stride. The
ability to confront these discloses that standard administrative actions
exist for these two.
DRILLS
Thus an administrator or staff member, even when the group's tech is
available and known, must be able to confront and handle the confusions
which can occur and which invite a turn away and a squirrel solution.
Even this situation of the inabilities to confront and handle can be
solved by third dynamic (group) drills and drills on the sixth dynamic
(physical universe).
The drills would be practices in achieving general awareness-and
confronting and handling the noise and confusions which make one oblivious
of or which drive one off and away from taking standard actions.
COMPETENCE
Competence is increased in the individual and the group by successes.
Successes come from anticipating the situation and handling it.
Standard admin is the key to competence and successes in an
organization.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.rd.gm Copyright 0 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
398
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 FEBRUARY 1971
Issue II
Remimeo
Org Series 23
LINES AND TERMINALS
There is a scale concerning lines and terminals.
ASSOCIATED TERMINALS
Handling flows and correctly changing particles.
GROUPED TERMINALS
LINES
PARTICLES
SIGNIFICANCES
FALSE TERMINALS
MISDIRECTED LINES
WRONG PARTICLES
FALSE SIGNIFICANCES (RUMORS)
MYSTERIOUS TERMINALS
CHAOTIC LINES
MENACING PARTICLES
DANGEROUS IMPRESSIONS
NONEXISTENT TERMINALS
NONEXISTENT LINES
NONEXISTENT PARTICLES
UNCONSCIOUS IMPULSES
THE CHAOS OF UNHAPPY NOTHINGNESS
Any organization and any individual staff member thereof is somewhere
on this scale.
The trick of the scale is the awareness factor. At a position on the
scale, the being or org is NOT AWARE of the scale levels above him.
Thus an organization at "mysterious terminals" is unaware of "false
significances" or anything else above "mysterious terminals." Thus an org
or individual at "mysterious terminals" is unaware of any falsity or any
oddity in significances or ideas.
Any level is the effect of any level ABOVE IT.
Any level is slightly at cause over any level below it.
Thus a well-organized group is not at effect and can make an effect
upon any group below it in awareness on the scale.
CAUSES
There are several causes for lower positions on the scale.
The first cause is degree of personal aberration where a personnel is
willfully throwing the terminals, lines, particles and significances into
disarray. Show me how he regards terminals, handles particles or routes and
I will know how sane or crazy he is. The significances given to terminals,
handling particles and lines is a direct index of sanity.
399
The second cause is unawareness. Drills on lines and terminals were
once thought to improve awareness. This is no longer held to be true.
Drills have to be done to BRING ABOUT awareness. People are not naturally
aware of other people, lines, various particles or ideas. Due to a century
of psychological instruction from childhood that they are animals and after
thousands of years of the "upper classes" regarding them as such, people
tend to favor a dangerously low or nonexistent awareness. A sort of
jurisprudence has been in effect that it is safer to be unaware as then one
is "not guilty." A humanoid who has just run over a child has a first
response of "I didn't see him." This is highly nonsurvival. If one never
notices safes about to fall on him he is soon dead. And painfully so.
Unawareness is a sort of blindness where the person looks like he is
looking but sees nothing. Degrees of this exist. One can make a terrible
lot of errors with this. Mr. A appears to the observer to be noticing,
smelling things and hearing whereas he registers no sights, has a blind
nose and tunes out all sound. "Did you read it?" "Yes." "What did it say?"
And you hear a lot of things then that weren't on the paper. There are even
degrees of registry. A person appears to see and yet doesn't. A person
appears to see and on being asked will say what he saw but can be unaware
of seeing, registering or saying he saw! This drives teachers quite mad.
One has the glib student who can parrot but cannot apply. This is a surface
registry without awareness. Thus drills such as the Admin Training Drills
or dummy runs on lines are needed to bring about awareness. A few very sane
fortunate fellows can see, register, understand and handle correctly
without any drills at all. Others need drills to bring about awareness
below a superficial response. To unaware people, terminals, lines,
particles and significances just don't exist.
The third general category is delusion. One sees A and believes it to
be G. This is a lower band of self-protection. Some workers (an awful lot
of them) will only take jobs which are mechanical "so they can daydream."
Their concept of a terminal is an altered terminal. A line goes somewhere
else. A particle is something else. And an idea is really another idea.
Such people are incapable of duplication. Say "I see the cat," they hear
"Cars are dangerous." They aren't really crazy. They just register
alterations of what they perceive.
The person who can attain the state of awareness of terminals as they
are, lines as they should be, particles as they exist and significances
that are the intended significances are very valuable people. An ideal
group can be made up of such people.
CONSTRUCTIVE ACTIONS
An organization consists of terminals, lines, particles and
significances.
An AGREEMENT factor has to be established and the group has to be
aware of it and use it.
This agreement factor would consist of
1. Purposes of the group.
2. A list of the hats including a short statement of the purpose and
function of each post.
3. A full list of the particles handled by the group and the changes
expected at each point of flow.
4. The flow lines of the particles being handled and changed.
5. The significances (technologies) of the group to form, flow and
change particles.
If an Org Officer does not compile these five things and make them
fully known and agreed to by all in the group, no organization will form or
work.
Thus the PLAN of the group has to be laid out and drilled and known or
no organization will form.
400
One will just have a group of individuals colliding with each other
with no production.
The greatest source of confusion in a group are intermediate seniors
who knock hats off faster than they can be gotten on and lines out before
they can flow, all simply out of ignorance of the general plan of the
organization.
Those who cannot perceive one or more of the above five points or
bodies of data have to be drilled into awareness of them and dummy run.
Those who are quite crazy will frantically fight the hatting,
stringing of lines and changing of particles and will inject mad
significances into it all.
So the answer to how to make a group into an organization is to handle
the insane one, prepare the five layouts named above, drill and dummy run
everyone in the group on its entire pattern and expertly hat the specialist
actions required at each point of change.
Then one has an organization that can produce and be viable.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.gm Copyright 0 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
401
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 MARCH 1971
Rernimeo
Prod OTg Hats Org Series 24
Tech Hats
Qual Hats
LINE DESIGN
HGC Lines, An Example
The present lines for the HGC in any org are the subject of HCOB 5
March 71, C/S Series 25, "The Fantastic New HGC Line," which is to be
considered part of this policy letter.
This modifies early Tech org boards to some extent.
The old line in '65 policy did not include a Case Supervisor as such
and shunted failed pcs to Qual Review.
Today Tech does its own pc repairs and Qual concentrates on cramming
HGC auditors as well as students. Qual can also cram the Tech C/S.
It is completely amazing that a statistic ceiling on well-done
auditing hours delivered could not have exceeded 250-300 well-done hours a
week no matter how many auditors were hired or posted. The post of the C/S
overloaded and the D of P post could not function well without overload.
The new line is capable of a statistic ceiling of 600 to 800 well-done
hours a week. After that a new second HGC is manned fully and given new
space.
The importance of a properly formed line, traveling in correct
sequence is then driven home.
An improper line will reduce the statistic ceiling by 1/2 to 1/3 of
what can be achieved by the same number of people.
The overload of seniors usually occurs because of improperly set up
lines.
Lines are invisible to most people and they are unable to conceive of
them until given full drills.
Unless this new C/S line is used you will not be able to average more
than 250 well-done hours a week no matter how many auditors you put in the
HGC. The auditors will be idle, confused and causing upsets.
If an org cannot get more than 250 well-done hours a week, it will
find that it cannot really make money from processing.
Thus the new line will give volume, quality and viability in
processing pcs.
Advantages of the line are that one HSST can handle up to 30 auditors.
The earlier ceiling was eight or ten auditors.
With higher volume, backlogs vanish rapidly.
The admin personnel in the line can be afforded.
Line design, then, is a strong and unsuspected cause of low statistic
ceilings.
Product and Org Officers must be intimately familiar with this HGC
line. And they must be aware of the fact that faulty line design can
cripple an org's income and overload its posts and excellent line design
can double the stat ceiling in any department while lightening the load.
L. RON HUBBARD
LRH:mes.rd.gm Founder
Copyright 0 1971
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
402
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 MARCH 1971
Issue IV '
Remimeo
Org Series 25
Personnel Series 19
LINES AND HATS
It will be found that in organization there are MANY major factors
involved.
The following three, however, give the most problems:
1. Personnel
2. Hats
3. Lines.
Technology is a subdivision of both personnel (who may have to be
specially trained before they can be considered personnel) and hats (which
are mainly admin technology and line functions).
To solve any problem, one has to recognize what the problem is. One
cannot solve problem A by trying to solve problem B or C. Example: Problem:
broken-down car. You cannot fix the car by repairing the kitchen lino.
Example: You cannot floor the kitchen by fixing the car.
All this may seem obvious when obviously stated. But there is a more
subtle version. ANY PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT SOLVE IS NOT THE PROBLEM. There
must be some other problem.
Locating and isolating situations (problems) in an organization is the
technique of the Data Series. That technology will find for one the problem
that should be solved.
As there are three major organizational factors these then also form
the core of all organizational situations (or problems, same thing).
Each one of these'is its own zone-personnel, hats, lines.
Each one has its own problems. There are situations in personnel.
There are situations in hats. There are situations in lines.
They are related. They are not identical.
You will find you cannot wholly solve a problem in lines by solving
personnel. You cannot wholly solve a problem in hats by solving lines. You
cannot wholly solve a problem in personnel by solving the other two.
Example: Production hours are down. Fifteen new personnel are added to
the area. Production stays down. It was a problem in lines.
Example: Confusion reigns in the pipe shop. The lines are carefully
straightened out. Confusion still reigns. It was a problem in hats.
Example: Broken products are wrecking org repute. Hats are carefully
put on. Products continue to be broken. It was a problem in personnel.
403
Example: The org stays small. Executives work harder. The org stays
small. It was a series of problems in personnel, hats and lines, none
addressed at all.
You will see symptoms of all this in various guises. The test of
whether or not the right problem was found is whether or not production
increased in volume, quality and viability.
In actual practice one works on all three of these factors constantly-
personnel, hats and lines-when one is organizing.
You will find with some astonishment that failure to have or know or
wear or do a hat is the commonest reason why lines do not go in. That
personnel is hard to procure and train because hats and lines are being
knocked out. That hats can't be worn because lines or personnel are out.
Situations get worsened by solving the wrong problem instead of the
real problem. In the Data Series this is called finding the right Why.
Organizational problems center around these three things in the
broadest general sense. More than one can be present in any situation.
Production problems are concerned with the particles which flow on the
lines, changed by the hatted personnel, with consumption and general
viability. So to make a full flow from organization through to
distribution, one would add raw materials, changed state of materials and
their consumption. Organization is not an end-all. To have value it must
result in production.
But when personnel, hats and lines are not solved, production is very
difficult. Therefore to get production one must have an organization to
back it up. And personnel, hats and lines must exist and be functional. If
these exist, the rest of the factors of establishment can be brought into
being.
It goes without saying that organization involves other problems like
space, materiel, finance, etc. These and many more also enter into "Whys"
of no production. But dominating others are problems in personnel, hats and
lines. Others tend to solve if these are handled and organized.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.sb.rd.gm Copyright 0 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
404
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 25 MARCH 1971
Remimeo
Org Series 26
VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCTS
By definition, a valuable final product is something that can be
exchanged with other activities in return for support. The support usually
adds up to food, clothing, shelter, money, tolerance and cooperation (good
will).
On an individual basis this is easy to grasp. The individual produces
a product or products which, flowed into the dept, div, org, company,
community, state, nation or planet, then returns to him his pay and good
will or at least sufficient good will to prevent his abandonment or
destruction.
Long-range survival of the individual is attained in this fashion.
A valuable final product (VFP) is valuable because it is potentially
or factually exchangeable.
The key word in this sense is EXCHANGEABLE. And exchangeability means
outside, with something outside the person or activity.
A valuable final product could as easily be named a VALUABLE
EXCHANGEABLE PRODUCT.
Sanity and insanity are matters of motive, not rationality or
competence. The sane are constructive, the insane are destructive.
Thus insanity on the part of the potential receiver of a VFP can
prevent an exchange of a final product the receiver should be able to use
and for which he should be willing to give active support and good will to
the producer. Example: Man starving; you try to sell him good food at
reasonable price for which he has money to pay. He tries to shoot you and
destroy the food. This is insanity since he is trying to destroy the
product he needs and can afford.
Crime is the action of the insane or the action of attempting seizure
of product without support. Example: Robbers who do not support a community
seek to rob from it supporting funds.
Fraud is the attempt to obtain support without furnishing a product.
Sanity and honesty then consist of producing a valuable final product
for which one is then recompensed by support and good will, or in reverse
flow, supporting and giving good will to the producer of the product.
Ethical basics, morale, social subjects, law, all are based on this
principle of the valuable final product. Previously it has been
"instinctive" or "common sense." It has not before been stated.
Civilizations which facilitate production and interchange and inhibit
crime and fraud are then successful. Those that do not, perish.
Persons who wish to destroy civilizations promote departures from
these basic rules of the game. Methods of corrupting fair interchange are
numerous.
405
The FACTORS are the first appearance of these principles.
The theory of the valuable final product is an extension of the
FACTORS.
Parts of organizations or organizations, towns, states and countries
all follow the principles which apply to the individual.
The survival or value of any section, department, division or org is
whether or not it follows these principles of interchange.
The survival or value of any town, state or country follows these
principles of interchange.
You can predict the survival of any activity by confirming its
interchange regularities or can predict its downfall by irregularities in
this interchange.
Therefore it is vital that a person or a section, department, division
or part of an org or an org figure out exactly what it is interchanging. It
is producing something that is valuable to the activity or activities with
which it is in communication and for that it is obtaining support.
If it is actually producing valuable final products then it is
entitled to support.
If on the other hand it is only organizing or hoping or PRing and is
not producing an interchangeable commodity or commodities in VOLUME or
QUALITY for which support can be elicited and even demanded, it will not be
VIABLE.
It doesn't matter how many orders are issued or how well org boards
are drawn or beautiful the plans to produce are made. The hard fact of
production remains the dominant fact.
How well organized things are increases production volume and improves
quality and thus can bring about viability.
But it is the valuable final product there and being interchanged that
determines basic survival.
Lack of viability can always be traced to the volume and quality of an
actual valuable final product.
Hope of a product has a short-term value that permits an activity to
be built. But when the hope does not materialize, then any hoped for
viability also collapses.
One then must organize back from the actually produced product.
For instance, a technical subject is capable of producing an exact
result.
IF persons are trained to actually produce the result AND THE RESULT
IS PRODUCED then one can exchange the technicians with the community for
support.
If the result is produced (by training the technicians well) then the
result can be interchanged with an individual for support and good will.
Where any of these factors suffer in volume or quality then an
interchange is difficult and viability becomes uncertain.
406
As individuals, communities and states are not necessarily sane,
upsets can occur in the interchange even when production is occurring.
Therefore the producer has a stake in maintaining the sanity of the
scene in which he is operating, and one of his valuable final products is a
scene in which production and interchange can occur.
The basics of valuable final products are true for any industrial or
political, or economic system.
Many systems attempt to avoid these basics and the end result would be
disaster.
The individual, section, department, division, org or country that is
not producing something valuable enough to interchange will not be
supported for long. It is as simple as that.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:mes.rd.gm Copyright G 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
407
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFIC
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 JULY 1971
Remimeo
HASes Starrate
FEBC Grads Org Series 27
Starrate
FEBC Checksheet
Starrate
HCO ESTABLISHMENT FUNCTIONS
HCO means HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE.
The elementary and very simple actions of HCO are contained in this:
It is really hCo.
C = Communications.
To have Communications you have to have TERMINALS.
Flows can ONLY occur when terminals are rock steady and STABLE. There
can be NO flows and NO power without steady terminals. Hence, comm cannot
occur without stable terminals.
The ORG BOARD is the pattern of the terminals and their flows. So you
have to have an org bd. And the org bd must in truth be a representation of
what is in the org.
The org bd shows where what terminals are located in the org so flows
can occur.
HCO has recruitment which means it gets people from OUTSIDE the org to
be placed as terminals in the org = posts.
HCO has the posting of the org bd and designating the spaces in the
org so that flows can occur.
Hatting is a prime function of HCO because otherwise the terminals
won't know what they are supposed to be doing or what flows they handle or
how.
HCO has INSPECTION to see that the flows are going right and that
terminals are functioning.
Ethics exists to handle gross outnesses in flows.
Then routing can occur.
Then production can occur.
In essence that is ALL there is to an HCO.
If it realizes its key is C for communications and that comm requires
terminals and an org bd so that flows can occur then HCO will function.
This action of putting in terminals is called ESTABLISHING
Thus HCO is the establishing division.
DISESTABLISHING
If HCO does not know this and if it makes numerous errors or alters
importances away from this, it DISESTABLISHES the org.
DIS = Take apart.
ESTABLISH = Put there.
DISESTABLISH = Take apart what is put there.
Thus disestablish means to take out terminals and tear things up.
In using the org itself as a source of personnel, then an "HCO" tears
things up far faster than it puts things there.
408
HAS
The HCO Area Secretary, HAS, has the function of ESTABLISHING THE ORG.
That means to find, hat, train, apprentice persons from OUTSIDE the
org, to locate them in the org and on the org bd and then route the raw
materials (public people in this case) along the line for production, which
means changing particles into a final product.
If HCO establishes the org then all will be well.
If it fails to recruit or hat or org bd or route or distribute comm or
police the lines, the org will stagger or fail.
The HAS is responsible for seeing that HCO establishes the org.
An HAS who is doing anything else is DISESTABLISHING.
HCO EXTERNAL
HCO has the incoming and outgoing flow lines as well.
This gives it Address. This means the location of the terminals
OUTSIDE the org that the org contacts.
This in itself is an org bd.
The HAS must insist that the outside terminals are also established.
This gives an international network of flows amongst terminals.
WHAT is produced and WHAT flows on the lines is the business of other
terminals outside HCO unless these threaten the functions of HCO.
SIMPLICITY
Now if you think there is anything more to it than this, work and work
and work to do it in clay, clean up the misunderstood words and become thus
able to envision and handle it.
Many policies exist about HCO. There is a lot of admin tech connected
with an HCO but ALL OF IT is entirely and completely concerned with how to
establish an HCO and an org.
This P/L should be known, known, known and any further confusion would
be plainly the result of personal aberration such as an inability to
conceive of a terminal or a space or a thirst for confusion only found in
very batty places.
The functions of an HCO and the duties of an HAS are so elementary and
so plain that they cannot be misunderstood even by experts.
HCO establishes the org.
That is the basic thing to know.
The techniques of how it is done are well recorded and broadly issued.
HCO does NOT disestablish the org.
HCO does NOT leave an org unestablished.
HCO ESTABLISHES THE ORG.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.gm Copyright c 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
409
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 JULY 1971
Remimeo
Org Series 28
Personnel Series 21
WHY HATTING?
A few days ago when I found that musical chairs and flubbed hatting
had unstabilized some areas, I wondered whether or not this might stem from
some social aberration that was very general in the societies in which we
are working.
And it seems to have been the case. I worked on it a bit and found
this:
LAW: THE POWER OF A THETAN STEMS FROM HIS ABILITY TO HOLD A POSITION
IN SPACE.
This is quite true. In Scn 8-80 the base of the motor is discussed. It
holds two terminals in fixed positions. Because they are so fixed, power
can be generated.
If a thetan can hold a position or location in space he can generate
POWER.
If he cannot, he cannot generate power and will be weak.
We have known this for 19 years. It applies here.
Observation: MODERN SOCIETY TENDS TO CONFUSE AND UNSTABILIZE PERSONS
WITH ITS HECTIC PACE.
Observation: BEINGS WHO ARE AFRAID OF STRONG PEOPLE TRY TO WEAKEN
THEM.
Observation: PERSONS WHO ARE PUSHED AROUND FEEL THEY CANNOT HOLD A
POSITION IN SPACE.
Observation: PEOPLE HATE TO LOSE THEIR POSTS AND JOBS. THEY FIND IT
DEGRADING.
In processing picking up this chain of lost positions achieves very
good gains and rehabilitates a person's ability to hold a job.
LAW: BY GIVING A PERSON A POST OR POSITION HE IS SOMEWHAT STRENGTHENED
AND MADE MORE CONFIDENT IN LIFE.
LAW: BY LETTING A PERSON RETAIN HIS POST HE IS MADE MORE SECURE.
LAW: BY HATTING A PERSON HE IS GREATLY STRENGTHENED AS HE IS HELPED TO
HOLD HIS POST.
A basically insecure person who feels he is unable to hold his
position in space, is sufficiently strengthened by hatting to feel secure
enough to do his job.
LAW: HAVING A HAT, BEING HATTED, AND DEMONSTRATING COMPETENCE MAKES A
PERSON FEEL CAPABLE OF HOLDING HIS POSITION IN SPACE AND HE BECOMES MORE
STABLE, CONFIDENT IN LIFE AND MORE POWERFUL.
410
LAW: UNHATTED PERSONS ON A POST CAN BECOME CRIMINAL ON THE POST
BECAUSE THEY FEEL INSECURE AND BECOME WEAK.
When a person is secretly afraid of others he instinctively will not
hat them or hats them wrongly and tends to transfer or move them about.
When a person is insecurely posted and insufficiently hatted he can
try to weaken others by trying to prevent their hatting and trying to get
them transferred or even dismissed.
This is apparently the social aberration at work.
The answer to a sane org and a sane society is not welfare and
removal. It is
Recruit them Train them Hat them Apprentice them Give them a post.
This is so strong in truth it would de-aberrate the bulk of the crime
out of a society.
And it sure will put an org in POWER.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.gm Copyright c 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
411
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF I I AUGUST 1971
Issue III
Rernimeo
Org Series 29
INFINITE EXPANSION
There is no reason whatever to ever contract or reduce the size of an
org except covert destruction.
In theory there is no limit to the size of an org.
The 1967 org bd is capable of expanding to 200,000 staff members!
For our purposes, there is no real limit to expansion.
So long as property purchase does not commit future income dangerously
and so long as HASes keep the admin staff in a ratio of two to one
technical staff, there is no limit to expansion.
So long as cash-bills is kept more cash than bills there is no limit
to expansion.
So long as the staff produces what their posts call for there is no
limit to expansion.
So long as you DELIVER in quality what you SELL there is no limit to
expansion.
So long as you keep standard on admin and keep standard on tech, there
is no limit to expansion.
So don't get frightened, don't fire people, don't cut back. Understand
the above and the whole of this policy letter. And there is no limit to
expansion.
So EXPAND.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sb.gm Copyright 10 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
412
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 JULY 1972
Issue 11
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 22
Executive Series 14
Org Series 30
ESTO FAILURES
For several months I have been studying the Esto system in operation
and have finally isolated the exact points of any failures so they can be
turned to successes.
PUTTING IN THE SYSTEM
An Esto returning to an org can crash it.
The exact reasons for this are
A. The execs who heretofore did organizational work say, "Ali, here's
the Esto system at last," and promptly drop their organizational and
personnel actions.
Yet here is this lone E Esto, no divisional Estos, no one trained to
support him.
The right answer is when an E Esto goes into an org where there are no
Estos or only a TEO or QEO, he must gather up the execs and tell them it
will take him weeks to recruit and train Estos and that THEY MUST CONTINUE
ANY ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIONS THEY ARE DOING and that the HAS IS STILL
ESTABLISHING THE ORG.
Otherwise they let go their lines.
B. The new E Esto takes key production personnel from the divisions to
be Estos and they crash.
The answer to this is to RECRUIT the new Estos.
This is easier than it looks if you recruit idle area auditors to be
Estos.
If you do this remember that they went idle as auditors because they
had out-ethics, were PTS, had misunderstoods and out TR 0. To get them you
do a 3 May 72 P/L, a 5 April 72 P/L, Method 4 on their courses and make
them do real TRs, especially Zero. And they'll be ready.
You get a list of area auditors and contact them and do the above on
them and you'll have Estos who are half-trained already.
Failing this or in addition to it just plain recruit.
C. The first post a new E Esto should take is Dept 1.
He does NOT "hat the HAS" or "just do programs." He rolls up his
sleeves and WORKS as director of Dept 1.
He recruits, he posts up Dept 1. He hats the hell out of Dept 1.
He makes a Department I that really really flows in personnel, puts up
org bds and hats.
WHEN he has a Department I FUNCTIONING he can begin to recruit Estos
as well as other org staff.
If he can't get a Dept I whizzing he has no business being an Esto,
does he?
413
He does NOT put in Dept 2 or act as Dept 3. He makes the HAS handle
these.
With a strong, working Dept 1, an Esto system can then go. in.
D. Musical chairs is the commonest reason any org collapses.
A "new broom sweeps clean" complex will wreck any org.
An E Esto on arrival, taking over Dept 1, FREEZES ALL PERSONNEL
TRANSFERS. He does not permit even one transfer.
The only exception would be where a musical chair insanity has just
occurred. If this was followed by a stat crash then one REVERTS THE ORG TO
THE UPSTAT PERIOD and then FREEZES PERSONNEL TRANSFERS.
But before one reverts one must evaluate the earlier period by stats
to be sure it WAS the upstat period.
By freezing personnel one protects what he is building.
Almost all musical chairing is the work of a suppressive except when
it is the work of an idiot.
E. Anyone trying to hold Dept I in a personnel-starved org is holding
a hot seat as any HAS or Personnel Director can tell you.
Body traffic to this dept in any medium-sized org defies belief.
It looks like Grand Central Station at the rush hour.
"I have to have " "Where is my Course Super etc.,
etc., etc., is the constant chant.
You can spend the whole day interviewing staff execs and get nothing
done.
There is a right way to do all these things and a billion wrong ways.
Obviously the answer to all their problems is to get and train new
people. Yet how can one in all the commotion?
Ninety percent of these requests are from people who are not hatting
and using the people they already have.
The right way is on any new personnel demanded one gets Dept 3 to do
an Inspection and Report Form for people in the area of the exec doing the
demanding. You will find very often unhatted, untrained and wasted
personnel and many outnesses.
You hold the line on personnel by saying: "Handle these unutilized or
halfworking staff or these outnesses. You are here on my procurement board
as entitled to the (give priority, 3rd, 8th) person we hire or recruit."
And get industrious in recruiting, using all standard actions for that
is the only way things can be solved.
Most orgs would run better on less people because the personnel are
not hatted or trained. One org, two years before this writing, made four
times as much money on half the personnel it now has.
Unhatted, the staff is slow and uncertain. Unproducing, the div heads
demand little.
But they sure can scream for more personnel!
No org ever believes it is overmanned.
F. Some divisions (like the usual Treasury or Dissem) can be
undermanned. Key income posts most often are empty.
When one mans up an org one sets priorities of who gets personnel.
This is done by PRODUCTION paralleling. One mans up against
production.
414
New people come in through Div VI. They are signed up by Div 11.
Delivery is done by Div IV. Money is collected by Div 111. That gives you a
sequence of manning up.
You man income and delivery posts with new hirings.
The E Esto is trying to get in a Dept I so of course he gives this a
priority as well.
Until the income is really rolling in and the delivery rolling out.
one does very little about other areas.
Having gained VOLUME, one now begins to man up for quality. This means
a Cramming and a WC Section in Qual. It means more HCO.
One now hits for future quantity by getting auditors in training, more
upper execs in training.
When the org is so built and running and viable it is time the whole
Esto system got manned up.
G. Every 5th person hired on an average should be put in Dept I as a
Dept I extra personnel who does Dept I duties and trains part-time as an
Esto.
This gives the E Esto additional personnel in Dept 1.
It also begins an Esto right.
His most essential duties as an Esto are Dept I type duties.
You eventually have a bulging Dept 1. You have a basic Dept I that
functions well and will continue so. You have the Esto trainees who are
working in Dept I as Dept I personnel. And you have of course some new
people who are HCO Expeditors until they get in enough basics for real
regular posting.
This makes a fat Dept I and proves one can Esto!
SUCCESS
If an E Esto introduces the Esto system exactly as above and in no
other way, he will be a success.
Like an auditor varying processes or altering HCOBs, a new E Esto who
varies the above will bring about disaster.
Where E Estos have gone into orgs other ways or where the system has
been varied, stats have crashed.
By going in this way, as above, it can be a wild success.
How fast can you put in an Esto system? It takes months of hard work.
It depends really on how good the E Esto is at recruiting, org bding and
hatting.
If he's good at these things the time does not stretch out to forever.
For comparison, it took half a year each to build DC, Johannesburg and
SH to their highest peaks. They were all built from a Dept I viewpoint of
recruiting, org bding and hatting hard enough to get production.
So this is the oldest pattern we have-Dept I evolves the org.
When the org gets too big Dept I.Ioses touch. You extend it into each
div and you have the Esto system. And you have Estos.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.rd.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
415
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 JULY 1972R
Remimeo REVISED 20 DECEMBER 1978
(Revisions in this type style)
Establishment Officer Series 23R
Executive Series 15R
Org Series 31R
THE VITAL NECESSITY OF HATTING
On a graph analysis of past stats, my campaign on hatting where a hat
was a checksheet and pack apparently introduced a steady rise of the
international gross income.
Studying this further I discovered a new basic, simple fact:
HATTING = CONTROL
A person who is hatted can control his post.
If he can control his post he can hold his position in space-in short,
his location. And this is power.
When a person is uncertain, he cannot control his post, he cannot
control his position. He feels weak. He goes slow.
If he can control his post and its actions he feels confident. He can
work effectively and rapidly.
The key is CONTROL.
Control is the ability to START, CHANGE and STOP.
When he is hatted he knows the tech of HANDLING things. Thus he can
control them. He is at CAUSE over his area.
If you have an org composed only of weak wobbly posts, they tend to
collapse in on each other. There is no POWER.
The org then cannot be CAUSE over its environment because it is
composed of parts which are not cause. The whole is only the sum of its
parts.
If all the parts are each one at cause, then the whole will be at
CAUSE over its environment.
Only an org at CAUSE can reach and CONTROL.
Thus a fully hatted org can be at cause over its environment, can
reach and control its fates and fortunes.
THUS THE PRIMARY TARGETS OF AN ESTO ARE
A. ESTABLISHED ORG FORM and
B. FULLY HATTED PERSONNEL.
BASIC SEQUENCE OF HATTING
1. Recruited or hired. Signs contract
416
2. Posted in HCO Expeditor pool or division if divisional recruit (per
HCO PL 2 Sept 74R RECRUITING AND HIRING).
3. In SO new recruit goes directly onto Product Zero in the Estates
Project Force and upon graduation from EPF goes to HCO Expeditor pool (Ref.
FO 372 7 PRODUCT TRAINING LINE-UP).
4. Staff Status Zero.
5. Eligible for student auditing but must have a stat and demonstrated
he has produced on post
6. Staff Status 1.
7. Staff Status //.
8. Posting as other than an HCO Expeditor.
9. Full hatting with a checksheet and pack with Word Clearing M6, M7
and M4.
10. Method 1 Word Clearing, Primary Rundown or Primary Correction
Rundown.
11. Administrative or tech training (OEC or auditing).
No one should have any other training much less full-time training
before Step 10 in the above. Flag Orders in the Sea Org may change this
line-up slightly but it is basically the same.
There are time limits placed on how long it takes to do SSI and SSII.
A person who can't make it is routed to Qual where he is offloaded with
advice on how to get more employable. (In the SO it is Fitness Board.)
TIME-TESTED
The above is the route that has been tested by time and found good.
Other approaches have NOT worked.
Granting full-time training at once is folly. The person may get
trained but he'll never be a staff member. This is the biggest failure with
auditors-they don't know the org. Admin training with no org experience to
relate it to is a waste of time.
This was how we built every great org. And when it dropped out the org
became far less powerful.
Old-timers talk of these great orgs in their great days. And they will
tell you all about the org boarding and hatting that went on. How the
Hatting Officer in HCO and the Staff Training Officer in Qual worked as a
team. And how fast the lines flew.
The above steps have stood the test of time and are proven by stats.
RECRUITING AND HIRING
You never recruit with a promise of free courses or free auditing. Not
even HASes or HQSes. You recruit or hire somebody to be part of the team.
OPEN GATE
If any opinion or selection is permitted as to who is going to be let
on staff, all recruitment and hiring will fail.
By actual stats when you let anyone say "No! Not him! Not her!" the
gate shuts, the flow stops. And you've had it.
Requirements and eligibili , tyJail. The proof is that when they have
existed in orgs,
the org wound up with only PTSes and no-case-gains!
417
The right answer is FAST FLOW hiring. Then you have so many that those
who can't make it drift low on the org board or off. You aren't trying to
hold posts with unqualified people "who can't be spared."
In a short-staffed org "looking only for the best people" the guy
nobody will have gets put on an empty "unimportant" department. He's now a
director!
It only happened because you didn't have dozens.
The answer is NOT lock the gate or have requirements. The answer is
HAT.
An org that isn't hatted goes weak and criminal.
Don't be selective in hiring or recruiting. Open the gates and HAT!
Follow the steps given above and you have it.
Don't spend coins like training or auditing (or travel) on people
until they have proven their worth. No bonuses or high pay for anyone until
they have reached and attained Step 8 (a good stat). The cost of such fast
flow hiring is not then a big factor.
The only trouble I ever had with this was getting div heads to UTILIZE
their staff. A FIRST JOB FOR AN EXECUTIVE IS TO GET THINGS FOR HIS PEOPLE
TO DO. AND KEEP THEM BUSY AT PRODUCTIVE THINGS.
So I used to have to go through the org that did FAST FLOW HIRING
regularly and get people to use their new people. And to move off those who
could not work.
This was ALL the trouble I had with the system.
And until I enforced FAST FLOW HIRING there was always some effort by
someone to close the gate.
ALL the great executives in Scientology came up in such orgs.
With a flow of people the best move on up. The worst, if any, drop
off.
Only orgs with restricted hiring or recruiting give trouble.
IN A FAST FLOW HIRING ORG THE HAS AND ESTOs MUST BE ON THE BALL. THE
BREAKDOWN OCCURS WHEN THEY DO NOT HAT AND KEEP ON TOP OF THE PERSONNEL
SCENE.
Fast flow hiring only breaks down and,,gets protested where HCO and
Estos are not doing a top job. They have to really hahdie the personnel,
post them, hat them, keep the form of the org.
A fully formed org in a heavily populated location would need hundreds
of staff. It would make hundreds of thousands.
But only if it is fast flow hiring, hatting, holding the form of the
org, and only then could it produce.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Revision as assisted by
Arden Hansen
FMO 2025 I/C
LRH:AH:ntjk.gm Copyright c 1972, 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
418
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 JULY 1972
Remimeo
Establishment Officer Series 26
Executive Series 16
Org Series 32
ESTABLISHING
HOLDING THE FORM OF THE ORG
If a person who could not play a piano sat down at a piano and hit
random keys, he would not get any harmony. He would get noise.
If the head of a division gave orders to his staff without any regard
to their assigned posts or duties, the result would be confusion and noise.
That's why we say a division head "doesn't know how to play the piano"
when he knows so little about org form that he continually violates it by
giving his various staff members duties that do not match their hats or
posts.
But even if one could play the piano, one would have to have a piano
to play.
SPECIALISTS
Each org staff member is a specialist in one or more similar
functions. These are his specialties.
If he is fully trained to do these he is said to be HATTED.
The combined specialties properly placed and being done add up to the
full production of an org.
The org form is then the lines and actions and spaces and flows worked
out and controlled by specialists in each individual function.
These specialists are grouped in departments which have certain
actions in common.
The departments having similar functions are grouped into divisions.
The divisions combine into the whole org form.
It is far less complex than it looks. It would be very complicated and
confusing if there weren't divisions and departments and specialized
actions. Without these you would get noise and very limited production and
income, and at great strain.
Take a theater as an example. There are people who advertise it; these
are the public relations people; they are hatted to get publicity and make
people want to come to the play; call them the PR Division. There are the
producers and directors; they are hatted to present a performance and make
it occur; call them the Production Division. There are the actors and
musicians; call them the Artists Division. There are the property men; they
are hatted to get costumes and items needed; call them the Property
Division. There are the stage hands and electricians and curtain and set
men; call them the Stage Division. There are the ticket sellers and money
handlers and payroll and bills payers; they are hatted on money and
selling; call them the Finance Division.
419
There are the people who clean the theater and show people to seats
and handle the crowds; call them the House Division. And there are the
managers and playwrights and score writers and angels (financiers); call
them loosely the Executive Division.
Now as long as they know their org board, have their flows plotted
out, are hatted for their jobs and do a good job, even a half-good play can
be viable.
But throw away the org board, skip the flows, don't hat them and even
a brilliant script and marvelous music will play to an empty house and go
broke.
Why? Because an org form is not held. Possibly an untrained unhatted
producer will try to make the stage hands sell tickets, the actors write
the music, the financiers show people to their seats. If he didn't know who
the people were or what their hats were he might do just that.
And there would be noise and confusion even where there was no
protest. People would get in one another's road. And the general
presentation would look so ragged to the public they'd stay away in droves.
ESTO ACTION
Now what would an Esto (or an Executive Director) have to do with, let
us say, an amateur, dilettante theatrical company that was about to bog.
Probably half the people had quit already. And even if there were
people in the company they would probably need more.
The very first action would be to Esto Series 16 the top men to make
money quick.
The first organizing action would be to kick open the hiring door.
This would begin with getting out hiring PR and putting someone there to
sign people up who came to be hired (not to test and audition and look at
references, but just to sign people up).
The next action would be to do a flow plan of public bodies and money.
So one sees where the org form reaches. Then a schedule.
The next action would be to do an org board. Not a 3-week job. (It
takes me a couple hours to sketch one with a sign pen for posting.) AND GET
IT POSTED.
One then takes the head of each of these divisions and hats him on
what his division is supposed to do and tell him to do it. NOW.
You make and post the flow plan, org bd and terminal location plan
where the whole company can see them.
Chinese drill on a flow plan to show them what they're doing and what
has to be done.
Chinese drill on the org board including introducing each person named
on it and getting it drilled, what he does and who he is.
You Chinese drill the terminal locations where each of these persons
(and functions) is to be found.
You get agreement on schedules.
You now have a group that knows who specializes in what and what's
expected of each.
You get the head of the whole company to work with and hat the heads
of his divisions.
420
Now you get the heads of divisions to hat their own staffs while you
help.
And you get them busy.
You then put the polishing touches on your own Dept I (personnel PR,
personnel hiring, personnel placement, org bds, hat compilations, hat
library and hatting hatting hatting).
And by hatting and insisting on each doing his specialized job and
getting seniors to HOLD THE FORM OF THE ORG by ordering the right orders to
the right specialists and targeting their production and MAGIC! This
amateur theatrical company gets solvent and good enough to wind up on
Broadway. It's gone professional!
You say, yes, but what about artistic quality9 What about the tech of
writing music and acting. . . .
Hey, you overlooked the first action. You kicked the door open on
hiring and you hatted and trained. And you let go those who couldn't get a
stat.
Eventually you would meet human reaction and emotion and would put in
a full HCO and a full Qual particularly Cramming. But you'd still do that
just to be sure it kept going.
Yessir, it can't help but become a professional group IF you, the
Esto, established and made them HOLD THE FORM OF THE ORG and produce while
they did it.
An Executive Director can do all this and produce too. The great ones
do things like this. But here it is in full view.
A Scientology org goes together just like that. Which could be why,
when we want to get something started, we say:
"Get the show on the road!"
But there is no show until it is established and the FORM OF THE ORG
is held.
You are luckier than the amateur theatrical company's Esto. You have
policy for every post and a book of it for every division and all the tech
besides.
So there is no valid reason under the sun you cannot establish and
then hold the form of the org,
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.bh.ts.gm Copyright 0 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
421
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 JULY 1974
Issue I
Remirneo
Org Series 33
PRODUCTION BUGS
An analysis of failures to produce in several fields showed this
fault:
EXPERIMENTING ON A STANDARD
PRODUCTION LINE.
Example: A cook can cook 30 dishes of various types successfully.
Instead of retaining these as they are and seeking on the side to create or
find new dishes, the cook experiments with and changes her 30 standard
dishes. The result is failed production.
Example: A musical group has 15 finished pieces of repertoire. Instead
of developing totally new pieces, they rewrite their existing repertoire.
The result is a failure to do good shows.
Example: An org is doing well with a standard CF letter writing
campaign. This personnel is pulled off onto phones only as an experiment.
The org stats crash. The correct action would be a pilot phone program
using new personnel and leaving the standard actions in.
In all cases the right thing to do is maintain without variation the
standard production line and if experimenting or change is to be done:
pilot it on the side with people or actions that do NOT impede standard
production.
There is always a better model in the research lab than there is on
the production line. The only bug occurs when the incomplete and unknown
model is shoved over as the standard production.
If on test and experience a new action, properly piloted, is better,
then *and only then is it added to the standard line.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:act.gm Copyright 0 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
422
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 13 JULY 1974
Issue Il
Rernimeo
Org Series 34
WORKING INSTALLATIONS
Never unmock (take down or destroy) working installations.
A working installation is something that is operational.
The most flagrant violation of this is tearing up Div A to create Div
B.
Division A is working. Somebody orders Division B to be strengthened.
A stupid or suppressive personnel person will tear up Div A to get
personnel for Div B.
The correct action is to find extra or new people for the new action.
MUSICAL CHAIRS (transfers of persons around an org) is THE SINGLE MOST
DESTRUCTIVE ACTION TO AN ORG'S STATS.
A failure to recruit and train new- people leads one tow9rd the
destruction of working installations.
Whenever a new unit has to be made up, the failure to recruit and
train shows up vividly. Essential people are ripped off their posts to form
the new unit and the destruction of working installations by this action
shows up at once in production stats.
It takes a great deal of work to find, hat and post people and get
them experienced enough to produce. It takes a lot of work to make a
working installation. But in one swoop some irresponsible personnel
transfer can destroy it.
In mechanical matters the same thing applies. It takes a lot of work
to make something operational. If for a while it is not used, a mechanic
may rob its parts to set up something else instead of getting new parts for
the something else. Then when the working installation is needed, it
doesn't function and a great deal of trouble and expense is put in setting
it up again. The trouble and expense is far more costly than getting the
parts elsewhere.
NEVER UNMOCK A WORKING INSTALLATION.
It will be far more costly than going to a lot of trouble and expense
to get the people or parts elsewhere.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:rhc.gm Copyright 0 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
423
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1976
Remimeo
All Staffs
Org Series 35
Executive Series 17
THE STAT PUSH
WHAT exactly is a stat push?
The danger in talking about this subject at all is that someone can do
an immediate make-wrong by saying, "This means don't try to raise any
stats."
So to understand this subject at all, one must have a pretty clear
idea of exactly
what is meant by "Don't push stats." 4
First of all one has to know precisely that STATISTICS ARE AN
INDICATOR; THEY ARE NOT AN OBJECT.
WHEN YOU PUSH THE INDICATOR YOU DO NOT OBTAIN THE OBJECT IT
REPRESENTS.
PRODUCTION IS COMPLETED CYCLES OF ACTION, NOT JUST NUMBERS.
The figure " I " in "I apple" is not the apple.
Therefore pure, raw, naked stat pushing is an outpoint called "wrong
target."
Pushing a stat without doing anything to bring about the stat is
therefore an aberration.
Demanding a stat without doing anything to see that it occurs or
putting anything there to make it or correcting anything that is preventing
it is an aberration built out of either psychosis or ignorance of what
should really be done.
It is quite true that stats must be kept up. But unless they are kept
up by putting something there or correcting something that is there and
getting all the cycles of action done by all those who should do them, the
stats will DECREASE and eventually vanish.
An order, a telex, a yell to the effect "GET THE STATS UP" is so much
wasted time.
Further, such an order or telex or yell in any form has a very
deteriorating effect. Individuals or staffs look at it in a properly weird
light. They are there, they are doing what they can, they have problems and
tangles and barriers. And telling them to "Get the stats up" causes various
reactions, none of them very good. Essentially, it gives them neither help
nor direction and even subtly informs them that the person ordering either
does hot know or does not care what is going on and is not about to help.
The eventual reaction can become an ignoring of that command channel.
There are some specialized actions in stat pushing. Chief amongst them
is the "GI push."
The usual indicator of this is a neglect or abandonment of staff or
caring about staff. One sees no real effective attention on recruitment,
training, apprenticing, hatting, future execs. And when one sees this it
usually follows that there is a "GI push" going on somewhere in the
executive strata. Why this indicator? Well, you see, it only takes a small
handful of people to get in GI and where executive attention is fixated on
a "GI push" the various production staff, HCO and the rest of the org
aren't "necessary." You find this with EDs who reg instead of getting
Registrars and putting an org there, with EDs who go for credit unions and
odd financial deals. And you will
424
also find they have the biggest number and amount of refunds and the
biggest backlogs AND a shrinking and unhappy org. Unfortunately, they soon
also get a crashing GI for none of the support actions are being done
across the divisions.
The reason "GI pushing" happens so often is the structure of the
society itself. The only real crime for which one can be punished by the
governments of today is lack of money. In other crimes if one has the huge
sums necessary to hire lawyers one can often get off. But the crime of
having no money is the only crime one cannot get out of. There are even
laws which cause the arrest on the street of persons who do not have so
much money in their pockets or wallets: it is called "vagrancy." So with
the whole aberrated society on a big "GI push," with Wall Street measuring
values only in how much something costs, with wages and prices soaring, at
this writing, to total social disaster, it is no wonder that short-sighted
and untrained or even aberrated executives get into a "GI push."
The answer to not having money is, of course, to make more money. And
there is nothing whatever wrong with that. BUT that is not done with a "GI
push." It is done with putting a whole org there, every part of it
functioning and delivering with all the bugs out of its lines, and making a
lot, lot, lot more money. Fifty trained staff producing everything an org
is supposed to produce will make far more money than five guys
concentrating on GI only and letting the rest of the org go to blazes. The
GI made by the fifty will go on increasing. The GI made by the five (and
not backed up by the rest of the org) will decrease week by week and then
crash.
Let us take some examples of "stat pushing":
The room is cold and the staff is wearing overcoats and using
blankets. Mr. Stat Pusher walks over to the thermometer on the wall and
sees that it reads very low. So he yells at the thermometer, "Get the stat
up!" Nothing happens of course; it still says 15*, so he yells at the
staff, "Get that stat up!" Now, in this instance, having a stat pusher
around, the org has no Treasury Div and so there was nobody to pay the
bills and the fuel company has refused to deliver further fuel. The janitor
is missing because there is no HCO to hire one or keep one on post so
there's no one to light the furnace even if it had fuel. And due to an
unhatted Financial Planning Committee, that also doesn't meet or exist, no
new boiler was ordered when the old one blew up last year. The stat pusher
seems incapable of observing these facts, and is too unskilled to bring
them to rights. So he continues to yell "Get the stat up" and the staff
wears more and more coats and blankets until at last it is just a quiet
scene of solid ice.
If the letters out stat is down, this is a bad INDICATOR. It is vital
that one keeps stats and observes when one goes down. It is extremely hard
to manage on one's post or in an org unless one has a stat. But, in going
down, WHAT is being indicated? A lack of letters out. So what does one do?
Does he yell "Get the letters stat up" or does he look into this? If he
looked into it he could find the real Why, handle it and the letters stat
would go up. He might find that the Letter Reges were all sacked so as to
increase the unit pay one week and that he has somehow gotten a nut onto a
personnel or finance post (whose R/Ses make even his head jerk back and
forth). He might find that the typewriters had broken down. He might find
that Dept 5 people were all being used by Div 5 to handle their files. At
the very least he will find something aberrated or ignorant going on which
has to be handled before the letters can be flooded out again. WHEN this is
found and handled, THEN the letters out stat will go up.
So Mr. Stat Pusher is essentially operating on a short circuit. He
cannot or will not look.
And there is another variety of stat aberration which comes about
after a lot of "Get the stat up" has failed. This is Mr. Stat Ignorer.
Mr. Stat Ignorer is driving along in a car and he looks at the
speedometer. It says 15 m.p.h. He glares at the needle for a moment and
then handles it. He pastes a piece of paper over it so it can't be seen.
And sits back and drives contentedly. If he'd looked, he would have found
he had three flat tires and an engine about to run out of oil and explode.
Then there is also Mr. Stat Faker. He knows that he will get in
trouble if his STAT is down. So he simply dreams up a figure and puts it on
graph paper. He is encouraged
425
and rendered confident in this because he is sure that no senior will
come around and notice the towers of unanswered letters or the huge
backlogs of cramming orders or the mobbed waiting room of unhandled public
or the mountain of uncorrected and unfiled address plates. He is confident
because no senior has in the last year or two. And he can say "I'm an
upstat" when the Ethics Officer tries to hit him for keeping the front door
to the org obstructed with his motorcycle. And he is recognizable by a
caved-in case, low morale and a hunted look of glee as he creeps through
the org.
There is one common denominator the stat pusher, the stat ignorer and
the stat faker have. And that is AN ABSENCE OF SKILLED MANAGEMENT.
We have investigatory tech. It is there for use. We have the Data
Series evaluation tech. It is there for use. We have administrative tech.
And it is all published and there for use. And further, when it is known
and used, proven times without number now, production and prosperity occur
AND show up as statistics which INDICATE that production and prosperity are
occurring.
Yes, it is very, very true that an org or a manager or an auditor or
file clerk gets in trouble if his stats are down.
Yes, it is true that stats should exist and be used.
But it is equally true that the way to get a stat is to put something
there that can get something done and get the lines debugged and the scene
handled.
The fate of the stat pusher, the stat ignorer and the stat faker is to
look around one day and find no org.
It's a very long way between yelling or telexing or writing "Get the
stat up" and handling things and getting production cycles completed so
that the stat WILL go up.
The stat, properly stated and honestly kept, IS a vital indicator of
the scene. If you know how to use them you can get the areas that have to
be handled. And if you know your policy and tech you can find the real Whys
and get real handlings and get things whizzing.
We mean to have all the stats going up because this INDICATES a
bettering state of affairs for everyone.
The job of the Product Officer is NOT to yell "Get the stats up." The
Product Officer is there to notice and order things like "Get those letters
answered so they get answers." And the job of the Org Officer is to carry
out the handlings the Product Officer finds necessary to get production
rolling.
A fire-breathing Product Officer is worth his weight to every staff
member IF he is trying to get and is getting production which results in
bettered conditions, better products, better prosperity and THIS will
incidentally show up in the stats.
It's a world of things that have to be done and coordinated before the
stats go up.
We are in the business of people, we are in the business of a bettered
world. We have to have completed cycles of action. And these are shown in
stats.
We are also in a world of exchange and would be no matter what
ideology we lived under. We have to "make Gl" and we have to have "the
stats up."
But our success is measured in terms of the ACTIONS we do, for only
those show up in the indicators called statistics.
So, okay. Let's go about it the right way. And find what is holding
the stats down and handle and correct those things and so, honestly and
swiftly, become upstat.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:lf.gm Copyright 0 1976 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
426
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1976-1
ADDITION OF 17 APRIL 1977
Remimeo
All Staffs (Reissued 5 Dec 1977, to clarify the point that this PL
only clarifies HCO PL 20 Sept 76, THE STAT PUSH
and does not cancel it.)
Org Series 35-1
Executive Series 17-1
STAT PUSH CLARIFIED
This policy letter is revised. The second paragraph of the original
said that it was dangerous to talk about the subject because somebody could
do an immediate makewrong by saying "This means don't try to raise any
stats."
Well, exactly that happened. There was a heavy campaign run into all
Flag Operations Liaison Offices and to orgs designed to discredit asking
for raises in stats. (The person who did it and failed to push production
quotas is suspended and under Comm Ev.)
The whole point seems to have been missed. It was this: You can't ask
for a NUMBER, you CAN and MUST ask for a SOMETHING.
That something is a product. It is a thing, a tangible item.
Right at this minute, as a result of a mission, HCO PL 16 Nov 76
"Production Quotas" has now been provided with thoroughly researched
subproducts one has to push in order to get the PRODUCTS. These are the
real tangible actions you have to take to get a number of actual products.
In other words, by getting many exact minor products, you then can achieve
the valuable final product.
STATISTICS are those numbers which simply count the products attained
or obtained.
Stat management is the only kind of management you can do on a
production scene. Management by statistics was brought to a fine art in
Scientology admin tech. To discredit it is, of course, to court failure.
Abusing statistical management is also something of a crime. It has
been done by some managers who said "Get the stats up" without ever saying
what subproducts you had to get that would then make up the product.
Stat management is a valuable tool and has gotten us over the years.
To discredit it first by saying first just "Get the stats up" without
saying how or what or why was one side of the pendulum. Then the pendulum
swung clear to the extreme and people were being made guilty for even
watching stats or demanding or working to raise them.
So let's get a little middle swing of the pendulum now.
It is perfectly all right to demand that stats rise so long as one
says what subproducts and products make up those stats and gives some
indication of what people should do to get the stats rising.
It is perfectly all right to do stat management.
427
And it is perfectly okay to come down hard on people or orgs who fail
to get their stats in viable range.
So long as you give them some idea of what small products
(subproducts) they have to get to make up the real products, you are NOT
doing a stat push.
So long as you give people some direction and guidance, you can yell
for stat increases all you want.
And you better.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:lf.kjm.gm Copyright 0 1976, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
428
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead,
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 NOVE
Remimeo Flag Bu All Orgs
Ext HCO FB Admin Know-How Series 36
Org Series 36
Executive Series 18
Personnel Series 28
MANNING UP AN ORG
The Sequence of Posting Depts and Divs
You need an org bd first and an allocation board.
The sequence in which an org is manned up is roughly:
- Dept I
- Dept 11
- Reg and Body Routers and Intro people in Div 6
- Dept 12 (enough auditors and C/Ses to approach 2 admin to I tech in
org)
- Dept 6
- Dept 7
- Dept 3
- SSO and Supers in Qual to train staff
- Dept 5 for CF Address and Letter Reges
- Dept 4 for promo
- Dept 21 (LRH Comm)
- Dept 10
- Dept 20
- FR & execs
- Full Div 6
- Full Div I
- Full Div 4
- Full Div 2
- Full Div 5
- Full Div 7
- Full Div 3
(Note, an AO always mans up the AO dept or div along with the SH one
in each case.)
Wrong sequence of manning is Dept 6, Dept 12, Dept 6, Dept 12, Dept 6,
Dept 12, as you wind up with a stuck clinic that won't expand.
Wrong sequence will contract an org while trying to expand it as the
org will go out of balance, bad units, noisy and unproductive.
If manned in a correct sequence its income has a chance to stay
abreast of its new staff additions.
Emphasis on GI without comparable emphasis on delivery and
organization can throw an org into such a spin only a genius can run it.
Manned in proper sequence, and hatted as it goes, an org almost runs
itself.
429
Single-handing from the top comes from longstanding failures to man or
man in sequence, from earlier noncompliance with explicit orders or from
not understanding orgs in the first place.
An'unhappy org that doesn't produce has usually been manned only
partially and out of sequence.
The trick is planned manning, ignoring the screams of those who know
best or demand personnel; just manning by posting those who have been
screamed for the loudest is a sure way to wind up with no people and total
org problems instead of a total org that is prosperous and producing.
Incidently, this is a rough approximation of the sequence of hats the
ED gradually unloads as his org takes over.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:nt.gm Copyright 0 1976 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
430
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 NOVEMBER 1976
Remimeo
All Staffs
Org Series 37
Executive Series 19
PRODUCTION QUOTAS
Ref.- HCO PL 8 Feb 72 Issue 11
Mgmt Series Vol 2
In a recent pilot, executed at my orders by the Staff Captain, it was
found that:
WHERE A STAFF MEMBER DOES NOT KNOW THE SUBPRODUCTS WHICH GO TO MAKE UP
A GROSS DIVISIONAL STATISTIC THE GDS WILL SUFFER AND FALL.
And it was also found:
WHERE SUBPRODUCTS ARE NOT GIVEN A QUOTA, QUOTAING A GDS FAILS.
The report on the pilot follows and is given in full as it is an
excellent example of what a Product Officer or executive runs into and how
it is solved.
" During the last two weeks, while running the FSO, I've had a lot of
experience with the above subject, and thought that the data that I have on
it might be useful to you.
" When first going into the org I pushed for actual products along
with quotaing of the GDSes.
"This went over very well, however, the day you sent a telex to quota
the products that make up the stat, things really started moving much
better.
"Your telex really opened the door for me as to how to go about
getting an org to work on products and get stats up.
"Here is the best example. The week before last on Monday or Tuesday
the student points were heading for bad downstats for the week. The D of T
was more or less tearing her hair out about how she could meet her quota.
She and the Tech Sec were trying to figure out what had changed.
"This was right after I had read your telex referred to above, so what
I did was to tell them how they had to work on the products that make up
the stat.
"The next step was to list out what the subproducts were that made up
the stat. I just made a very simple list, not necessarily a complete one,
of.- (1) course starts, (2) F/Ning students, (3) students that are on
target, (4) students that increase their production daily. Then made sure
the D of T would understand how these made up the stat.
"The next step after that was to change 1-4 above into 'number of.'
"This brought about what one could call instant sanity, and
exclamations of realizations of how the area could be handled.
431
"This was followed up by making the D of T work on each of these
products. It took a lot of work and figure out how to do, as far far from
all students were F/Ning, etc. It took actions like finding every bogged
student and debugging him on a flat-out basis.
"The end result was that the stat did not crash, but went up some, and
this week went up even more.
"Other actions were required in the area, such as the Qual Sec and
Chief Off sorting out the TRs Course, the D of T doing TRs, and more, but
it worked for sure.
"After this, we made this the pattern for the dept heads to follow:
i.e. work on the products and subproducts that make up the stat, list them
out, quota them, make the quotas, make your GDS quotas.
"It has also been put in on Dept 18 lines, so that Tours and external
Reges are no longer pushed on GI and bodies only. There is a pilot project
with Flag Service Consultant WUS since a few days which puts in a whole
subproduct system and quotaing and reporting on it, which was very well
received.
"However, what I also wanted to tell you, is that this does not go in
automatically, we're still catching bugs on it.
"These are the bugs that have been run across:
" 1. Dir Reg had a bunch of subproducts and products beautifully
quotaed, but when asked what his quotas were for 'closes' and 'completed
Reg cycles,' he dropped his jaw as he had not thought about that.
"He immediately quotaed these and production increased right away.
"2. The Dir Procurement (Dissem Sec HFA) had not set any quotas for
CF/Address as she stated that 'that area would not be possible to quota.'
Her M U was that she thought she had to quota every single area of
Addresso, rather than the part they were working on at the moment. She had
a major win on this.
"She also kept her quotas in her head as she 'hated to have papers
lying around.' She since has them all in a book and is very happy.
"3. The Dist Sec could not think of the subproducts that would produce
NNCE
"4. The Dir Income was working on subproducts in such a way that they
did not add up to his GDS, or rather, that they did not result in his GDS
quota being met, and tried to justify this,
"Several others required close personal contacts to list out what the
products would be that made up their stat.
"MUs are still coming up, but it sure works! It's brilliant, Sir.
"My picture of an org that operated on this basis with every staff
member should be incredible.
"Now, I have looked at the trouble an executive would run into
implementing the order to quota products that make up stats, and I can see
lots, unless you know exactly how to do it.
"This is what I see on it:
"You would have to keep the GDS quota there and in mind constantly, as
if you don't, things can slack off too easily.
432
"You would have to bring the terminals concerned to an understanding
of the cycle of working on products that make up the stat.
"You would have to get a list of what the products and subproducts
are, without making it miles long
"You would have to make sure that the list is complete, per policy and
actually makes up the stat.
"You would then have to make sure that the list is quotaed.
"You would then have to make sure that the quotas are met, and you
would have to watch out for anyone using it wrongly so the GDS quota is not
met.
"On most of these you would have to make sure that there are proper
'figure out how to do's,' on how to go about getting the products.
"The above actually, now that I look at it, fits in exactly with your
PLs on Name, Want and Get the Products.
"I think also what is of importance is that you really break down what
it takes to get the products: i.e. if the DTS here was told to get 10 fully
paids into the org, she would be 'blank,' until you broke it down into-make
up the list of them, make so many contacts, get so many ETAs, etc.
"Pressure is still required to get a momentum and keep it going.
"Another example is getting out over 100,000 pieces of promo in one
week. It takes incredible detailed planning that covers everything; when
what has to be through I/A and on the assembly line, what checks have to be
gotten when, what has to be addressed when and franked, what all hands are
needed and when, etc. I had to force through exact planning on this with
targets assigned, etc., and then push like mad.
"The use of HCO PL Exec Series 7 is also very important in all this."
Therefore these conclusions can be considered valid and vital:
EVERY GDS MUST BE BROKEN DOWN INTO SUBPRODUCTS AND THE STAFF MEMBERS
MUST KNOW THEM IN ORDER TO ATTAIN A GDS.
And:
EVERY SUBPRODUCT MUST BE QUOTAED FOR A GDS QUOTA TO BE ATTAINED.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:nt.gm Copyright 0 1976 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
433
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 20 JULY 1978
Rernimeo
Org Series 38
HELD FROM ABOVE
DOUBLE-HATTING
There are two types of double-hatting.
One of these, we all know about and is very common and quite
permissible. This is what might be called "level" double-hatting. In this,
for example, Mimeo Files is also Mimeo Files Equipment. So long as one does
not have a hat in each of separate divisions and the hat is all in one
division (and in a large org all in one department) not too much strain and
trouble will result.
The other type of double-hatting can be called "verticaP' double-
hatting. In this, the head of an area also holds an 1/C hat in his own
area.
We see this in " H17X' on org boards. "Held from above" is very
common. A Tech Sec is also D of P.
Well, in a small org that isn't making any money and isn't delivering,
this would be usual. Probably the Tech Sec would also be the only auditor.
But we are talking here about busy areas that produce where we condone
too much "HFA."
Vertical double-hatting is a sure way to be under stress.
Example: The Artillery Officer, 1 C of all artillery, takes on the hat
of "Ammunition Inventory 1/C." Well, he's so tiMp in counting shells he
omits to notice-as he should as Artillery Officer 1/C-that they just lost
their guns. Result-lost battle, court-martial. And all because he was
vertical double-hatted.
When a person occupies two points of different level on a command
channel he is asking for trouble. He is busy on the lower point, usually
because it is a full-time doingness, and so neglects many other sectors
that should be supervised from the higher point.
When 1 see "D of P" marked as HFA by the ED, 1 don't have to look at
stats or future Ethics Orders for that org. I know exActly what they will
be. The D of P post might be being done but the org will be in a shambles
for lack of active supervision. The ED will soon be the subject of a
mission.
Yes, one can do it for a week-even a month at times. BUT if one does
not straighten it out he'll be on the aspirin route.
Advice to any 1/C who is vertical double-hatted is
1. Recruit
2. Train
3. Hat
the lower post quick and see that it produces.
CRAWL BACK UP THE ORG BOARD.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:ab.dr.gm Copyright c 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
434
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 AUGUST 1979R
Remimeo Issue 11
All Orgs REVISED 19 NOVEMBER 1979
All Staff
(Revisions in this type style)
Establishment Officer Series 39
Org Series 39
SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER
(This HCO PL has been revised in order to show the importance of the
ProductlOrganizing Officer and Establishment Officer systems in
relation
to the Service Product Officer. These systems are totally valid and
should be in full use in organizations.)
References:
The Flag Executive Briefing Course tape lectures
The Org Series
The Establishment Officer Series
HCO PL 9 Aug 791 CALL-IN: THE KEY TO FUTURE
DELIVERY AND INCOME
HCO PL 7 Aug 76 1 NAME YOUR PRODUCT
HCO PL 7 Aug 76 11 WANT YOUR PRODUCT
HCO PL 7 Aug 76 111 TO GET YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW
TO ORGANIZE
HCO PL 20 Nov 65 THE PROMOTIONAL ACTIONS OF
AN ORGANIZATION
HCO PL 28 Jul 74 ADDITIONS TO PROMOTIONAL
ACTIONS OF AN ORGANIZATION
HCO PL 28 May 72 BOOM DATA
HCO PL 15 Nov 60 MODERN PROCUREMENT LETTERS
HCO PL 14 Feb 61 THE PATTERN OF A CENTRAL ORG
HCO PL 21 'Nov 68 SENIOR POLICY
HCO PL 28 Feb 65 DELIVER
HCO PL 23 Aug 79 1 DEBUG TECH
HCO PL 23 Aug 7911 DEBUG TECH CHECKLIST
HCO PL 9 Aug 79 111 SERVICE/CALL-IN COMMITTEE
HCO PL 10 Jul 65 LINES AND TERMINALS ROUTING
The post of SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER is hereby established in the
Office of the CO/ED, Dept 19, of all Class IV and Sea Org orgs. His direct
senior is the CO/ED.
Until such time as a SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER is posted the
responsibilities and duties are covered by the Service/Call-in Committee as
fully laid out in HCO PL 9 Aug 79 1, CALL-IN: THE KEY TO FUTURE DELIVERY
AND INCOME and HCO PL 9 Aug 79 111, SERVICE/CALL-IN COMMITTEE.
The VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCTS of this post are (1) flawlessly serviced
and
435
completed paid pcs and students who re-sign-up for their next service,
and (2) high quality promotional items in the hands of volumes of public
who come in, sign-up and start an org service.
The main statistics for the SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER are
(1) Number of pcs and students completed and re-signed on to their
next service. (This includes those actually routed on to the next upper org
for services and who do re-sign.)
(2) Number of public in and started onto a service.
Completion: By completion is meant those actions completed and
attested at C & A and accompanied by an acceptable success story.
Re-sign: By re-sign-ups are meant pcs and students who, after
completion of a service, see the Registrar to sign up again for another
service while in the org.
Promotional Items: Those items which will produce income for the
organization. By promotional items are meant those things which make
Scientology and our products known and will cause people to respond either
in person or by written reply to the result of receiving Scientology
commodities. These are tours, book outlets, Sunday services, events, upstat
image, fliers, info packs, handouts, books, ASR packs, specified service
promotion, etc.
There are of course many other stats that reflect the SERVICE PRODUCT
OFFICER'S subproducts and these are VSD, TOTAL GI, INTENSIVES COMPLETED,
BULK MAIL OUT, NUMBER OF PROMOTIONAL ACTIONS OF THE ORG IN, NUMBER OF FULLY
AND PARTIAL PAIDS GOTTEN INTO THE ORG AND ON TO THEIR NEXT SERVICE. These
are very important parts of the SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER HAT, as they
reflect his subproducts which lead to his valuable final product.
SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER
RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
The purpose of an organization is to deliver service to the public.
The primary functions which add up to delivery to the public are promotion,
sales, call-in, delivery itself and re-sign. The Service Product Officer is
responsible for the flow of PRODUCTS through these areas. He is a PRODUCT
OFFICER. He names, wants and gets products in these areas and thus ensures
that the organization is accomplishing its purpose of service to the
public.
Fhe full technology of Product Officers is explained in the Flag
Executive Briefing Course lectures, where the ProductlOrg Officer system
was developed. This system is still fully valid and is, in fact, the tech
of the Service Product Officer. He is solely interested in products. When
the Service Product Officer comes across a situation that requires
organizing, he gets his Organizing Officer to handle it. The 0/0
(Organizing Officer) should actually be operating a few steps ahead of the
Service Product Officer at a/1 times-organizing for immediate production,
per the ProductlOrg system. A full study of the ProductlOrg system, as
contained in the FEBC tapes, the Org Series and Esto Series 33, 34 and 35,
NAME, WANT AND GET YOUR PRODUCT, is recommended in order to attain a
thorough understanding of the actions of the Service Product Officer and
his Organizing Officer.
The Service Product Officer is not a stopgap at any point of the
promotion, sales, call-in, delivery and re-sign lines, where executives
have failed to post and hat staff This would be the responsibility of the
Exec Establishment Officer per Esto Series 1. Establishment Officers see
that short and long-range establishment are occurring in the organization
in the form of recruiting, hatting and training of staff The Esto system is
a necessary and very vital tool for the Service Product Officer and the
organizationand should definitely be in full use.
436
The Service Product Officer has the authority to directly order or
work with any terminal involved in the promotion, sales, call-in, delivery
or re-sign areas so long as he maintains direct liaison with their seniors.
The Service Product Officer must be fully aware of every post in the
org and what their jobs consist of. He must know who handles what cycles
and what cycles are on the lines. For instance, it is up to the Service
Product Officer to be aware of all promotional actions occurring in the org
and who is doing them, or if they aren't getting done. He must be aware of
what public aren't getting serviced and he ensures those responsible get
them serviced. He doesn't do this himself as a serious goof of any Product
Officer would be to go down the org board and do the job himself. The
Service Product Officer must ensure others get the work done. Otherwise, he
would wind up doing everyone's post and not getting anything done. It's
actually pretty overwhelming to think of a Service Product Officer as
responsible for doing everyone else's post duties. That's the sure-fire way
to sink fast. Where a product isn't getting out the Service Product Officer
debugs it using HCO PL DEBUG TECH, in order to get production. He is not
interested in first finding the person's MU or excuse, he is interested in
getting production occurring now. Let the Org Officer and Qual worry about
the staff member's MUs.
Divisional Secretaries are the Product Officers for their division per
the ProductlOrganizing Officer system. The Service Product Officer sees
that the Product Officers over the whole delivery cycle are getting their
products. He coordinates the flow of products from division to division. A
Service Product Officer doing his post fully and properly is, in fact, the
person that makes the org board work. He sees that products aren't jamming
up at one point of the line, but that they continue through the
organization.
The Service Product Officer walks into the Tech Div and finds the Tech
Sec sitting at his desk, shuffling paper and the pcs are piling high and
complaining about no service. The last thing the Service Product Officer
would do is start organizing the Tech staff around and scheduling the pcs.
No sir, that's a serious offense. The first thing he would do is find out
what can be produced RIGHT NOW, what auditors can be gotten into session
right now and makes the Tech Sec do it and GET IT DONE. This all takes
about 15 minutes and he gets the area flowing again and then, WHAM! . . .
he's out and into his next area. The Service Product Officer would not sit
down and just start word clearing or doing Exchange by Dynamics on the Tech
Sec. He would unstick the flows and get them moving. Then he would alert
HCO and Qual to this serious problem of unhattedness and demand it be
handled.
The basic sequence of the Service Product Officer on getting the
products flowing off the lines is PUSH, DEBUG, DRIVE, NAME IT, WANT IT, AND
GET IT. That's the only way you ever get a product. Products don't happen
on their own.
This means he tells the Tech Sec to get Joe Blow there in session now!
There is no general "audit these pcs." You'd never get a product that way.
The ED/CO has no authority to order the Service Product Officer to
perform the total duties of any one post. The Service Product Officer must
guard against being stuck into one post after another, doing it all himself
Nor is the Service Product Officer an "expeditor" for the CO/ED.
It is also very important that the Service Product Officer advise
seniors that he is going into their areas so as not to create a Danger
condition and wind up having to run the entire org. He also does this by
getting the seniors to handle their juniors so a product is gotten. He does
not walk in and cross-order the seniors of areas but works with them to see
that products are produced.
The Service Product Officer is one who comes up with BIG IDEAS on
getting public flooded into the org and being serviced swiftly. He is the
one who thinks along the line of PRODUCTS PRODUCTS PRODUCTS. By spanning
the divisions, he coordinates the product wanted and ensures each division
is aware of its part in getting this product and that their actions are
uniform. Where the Service Product
437
Officer spots diversity, or lack of uniformity, he must alert his Org
Officer or HCO. By doing the actions of coordination for a product and
product demand, the Product Officer creates a team and more importantly
sets the pace of the org's production and morale.
ORG LINES AND THE SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER
There are certain aspects of the organization which the Service
Product Officer must be thoroughly trained in to do his job properly.
The Service Product Officer must be fully aware of all the Valuable
Final Products (VFPs) of each department and each division of the org.
Without this the Service Product Officer can create havoc, as he would be
ordering Division 6 to recruit or the Reges to supervise. By not knowing
cold the org VFPs, the Service Product Officer would certainly jam the
flows throughout the org board.
A serious fault in any executive is not knowing the functions of
terminals and the relation of one terminal to another. A key function of
any executive is that of routing. An executive that misroutes
communications and particles will tie his org in knots and wonder why no
products are coming out. Therefore, a Service Product Officer must know
cold every post function in the org and what particles belong on what
lines.
He has got to know where a product comes from and where it goes in
order to see it through the lines. A Product Officer's job is to name, want
and get a product. However, he must first know where that product is to
come from and where it is to go. This is an incredibly fundamental point.
In order for org lines to flow, routing forms (RFs) must be used. A
routing form is a full step-by-step road map on which a particle travels.
Every point a particle (which could be a student, pc, mail, etc.) must go
through to wind up at its destination must be listed on the routing form.
The Service Product Officerk Organizing Officer must ensure routing
forms exist and are in use for each and every line in an org he deals in.
Both he and the Service Product Officer must know these forms cold and be
able to instantly spot when a line is being abused or ignored so as to slam
in the correct routing.
A Service Product Officer must fully clay demo all the lines of an
organization for each and every product. This must include each particle
from entrance to the org and through all lines on which that particle would
flow until it leaves the org. Lines are the most fundamental point of
administration. To not have a full grasp of these lines would be
detrimental to any Product Officer.
SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER
SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS
It is very easy for the Service Product Officer to become wrapped up
in one area while neglecting the others; however, this must not be done as,
while products might be getting through in one area, they may well be
seriously bogging in others. The Service Product Officer is concerned with
promotion, sales, call-in, delivery and re-sign. He begins his product
officering in promotion and gets products out there or started and moves on
to sales and gets them on to getting their products and so on through call-
in and delivery and re-sign. He then returns to the beginning, promotion,
and follows up on what he started there and gets even more production out.
This is basically how the Service Product Officer moves through the org.
Daily, the Service Product Officer must plan and battle plan out his
day. He must list those products he intends to achieve in each one of his
areas and then gets them.
The Service Product Officer is not an "information courier" or "data
gatherer." He is ahead of the game and knows the data. He must know what
public haven't been regged in the org yet, he must know who hasn't been
taken into session that day, or who
438
has been stuck in Ethics for 3 days, and ensure these things get
handled. Therefore he must be quicker and faster than anyone else in the
org and run run run.
PROMOTION
Promotion is the first action of the SERVICE PRODUCT OFFICER. He must
ensure the many promotional pieces and actions are getting done. Some of
these are
1. Selling of books.
2. Staff selling books.
3. Books placed in public bookstores.
4. Selling of books to FSMs, franchises, distributors, retailers and
salesmen.
5. Books sold on each public contact.
6. Books advertised in mags, ads, posters, fliers, etc.
7. ASR packs.
8. Info packs.
9. Div 6 handouts for lectures and free testing.
10. Posters on major services in Div 6.
11. Promo to field auditors, FSMs, gung ho groups, Dianetic study
groups.
12. Org mags.
13. Flag shooting boards.
14. Promo for future events and tours.
15. The AUDITOR (for SHs).
16. Clear News.
17. ADVANCE! mag (for AOs).
18. SOURCE mag (FSO).
19. 1 WANT TO GO CLEAR CLUB promo (AOs).
20. SHSBC/NED/INTERNSHIPS/NOTs/GRADES, etc., specified in promo.
21. Promo at points of public inquiry.
22. Free testing ads.
23. Fliers inviting people to buy Scientology books.
24. More-Info-Cards used in books.
25. Ads in newspapers.
26. Questionnaires to detect people's plans for training and
processing.
27. Enough letters to public so they come in.
28. All promotional actions per HCO PL 20 Nov 65, PROMOTIONAL ACTIONS
OF AN ORGANIZATION.
29. Book seminars, public campaigns and lectures.
30. Public Reception display (books, posters, handouts, etc.).
31. Tours and events, Sunday service.
32. Free testing line.
33. Handling of gung ho groups, keeping FSMs well supplied and
supervision of Dianetic study groups and FSMs.
34. Test centers outside the org as an extension.
35. Radio and TV advertisements.
36. Dept 17 services.
37. Reception greeting, handling, routing, chasing up people for
appointments and handling incoming calls with ARC and efficiency.
38. Formation of Dianetic counseling groups.
39. Weekly tape and film plays.
40. Promotes the org and standard tech to Auditors Association.
41. Contacts and sees any sign of ARC broken field and alerts Chaplain
to clean up the field.
The first thing a Service Product Officer would want to do is get out
a large volume of promo to at least get some activity occurring. This would
entail Dissem getting any promo laying around the org dug up and sent out
to students and pcs. They would get it out in letters and mailings, they
would get it handed out to students and pcs, they would pick up the half-
completed promo piece, have it fixed up and sent out. They would have promo
placed in Reception, in any public inquiry, etc. In other words, the
Service Product Officer ensures that the org fully utilizes what promo they
do have. He would also have specific promo pieces done to enlighten the
field on what services
439
the org has. Where any of this bogged he would push-debug-drive-name
it-want it-and get it.
The Service Product Officer, in trying to get in any promotional
items, must review what resources he has. For example, is there a Dir
Clearing; is there a Receptionist; etc.? He must concentrate on getting
those terminals that already exist busy on promotional actions that will
create the largest volume of inflow, while his Organizing Officer works on
getting more immediate resources to increase the volume even further. It
would be senseless to have the Dir Clearing running around trying to form
up groups in an inactive field, single-handing, when he has FSMs that need
to be gotten on to selecting and driving in new public. The Service Product
Officer is concerned with priorities of promotional actions, so must be
totally aware of all the promotional items and actions that an org can
produce.
Actions such as "improved org appearance," "high ARC handling," and
"correct and efficient routing of public" can be put in instantly. If he
has 2 people in all of Dissem he still can and must get the particles
flowing and products coming off the line.
SALES
The sales lines consist of enlightening the public, having lines to
sign people up, getting public into the org and signed up for service.
The following gives you an idea of some of the sales actions and lines
in an org:
1. Body Reg phones and schedules public to come in for interview.
2. Use of CF to produce business.
3. Reges who accept advance registrations.
4. D of T procurement of students.
5. D of P procurement of pcs.
6. Receptionist sells to public coming in.
7. SHs in communication with the Class IV Org Tech Secs and Registrars
and targeting them for public completing and routing on to the higher org.
8. AO's and SH's case consultant actions.
9. AO/SH events to Class IV Org academies to encourage upper level
auditor training.
10. Use of FSMs, Auditors Associations, personal contact, etc., to get
public into the org and on to their next service.
11. Fast lines so public are not left waiting to see the Reg.
The lines of routing a public person to the Reg, or from the Reg to a
service must be tight so public aren't lost, and the Reg is kept busy
continuously with the public. Therefore, the Service Product Officer must
police these lines and where he notices any lack of uniformity he gets his
Org Officer onto it. Nonuniform or slow routing interferes with the
product, so the Service Product Officer gets it speeded up now by push-
debug-drive-name it-want it-and get it.
The first actions of the Service Product Officer in the sales area are
to get all "in-the-org" public routed to the Reg on breaks or after course
end to be further signed up for additional service. He can also have Dissem
drilling done with Reges so as to increase sales in the org. His operating
procedure is products, products, products, now, now, now. His Org Officer
or HCO and Qual can worry about organize, organize, organize.
CALL-IN
Call-in is the action of getting fully paids into the org on to their
next service. This also includes getting partially paids fully paid and on
to their next service. These functions are of great concern to the SERVICE
PRODUCT OFFICER as undelivered services to the public can mess up a field
and increase the chance of refunds. The Service Product Officer should see
to it that the Call-in Units are given stiff targets and
440
that their production is not monitored by low auditor hours or low
producing training areas. The execution of needed programs to get Call-in
Units fully operational is under the Service Product Officer per HCO PL 9
Aug 79 1 CALL-IN: THE KEY TO FUTURE DELIVERY AND INCOME. This same policy
also lists out the functions of the Call-in Units. Call-in falls between
sales and delivery, as it deals with those either fully or partly paid and
needing only to finish payment and be called in and gotten onto service.
DELIVERY
The Service Product Officer must ensure that the service lines of the
org are fast and 100% standard, that pcs and students do complete quickly
and don't get lost off the lines.
The Service Product Officer is to have an alert line with the public
set up whereby if a student or pc's study or auditing is slowed, or if the
public person is dissatisfied in any way, he can alert the Service Product
Officer so it can be handled.
Some of the actions and lines to be product officered by the Service
Product Officer are as follows:
I . Tech Services arranges housing, has the pc met when he is arriving
and generally operates as the pc's host while in the org.
2. The many lines such as pc to Ethics, pc to Examiner, student to
Ethics, student to Qual, C/S Series 25 line and pc to D of P line must be
drilled so they are flawless and handled with ARC.
3. The most senior policy applied to this area is HCO PL 21 Nov 68,
SENIOR POLICY "WE ALWAYS DELIVER WHAT WE PROMISE."
4. There must be an adequate amount of auditors, Tech Pages and
FESers, Ds of P, Supervisors, Course Admins, etc.
5. The auditing line must be fast so no pcs wait to be serviced.
6. Use of all hands tech terminals in the org auditing when required
to handle backlogged service.
7. Getting students through their courses and on to their internship
at which point they can audit in the HGC.
8. Proper scheduling so every pc gets in 121/2 hours a week minimum.
9. Recovering blown auditors, getting them fixed up and auditing.
The Service Product Officer ensures tech lines are fast. For instance,
a pc's folder not getting C/Sed for days, or idle auditors and Ds of P
"waiting" for pcs when they can be made to procure pcs, must be spotted and
handled by the Service Product Officer.
The Service Product Officer must be kept briefed on what pcs and
students arrive and how they are going to be handled. He must get around to
these areas (Training and HGQ to ensure that there are no slows with public
or anything that would get in the way of public receiving top quality
service.
Service to the public is the reason the org is there and service must
be kept fast and 100% standard and plentiful. This is a primary duty of the
Service Product Officer; he is there to ensure this occurs.
It is losses on service that keep public away, org income down and
staff pay low.
RE-SIGN-UP
The re-sign-up line is also very key to an organization's prosperity.
It brings further income, and proves conclusively that the last service
received by the public person was of high quality. This is why the Service
Product Officer must be very alert to the amount of re-signs. Some of the
things that should be watched for are
I . That the Reg is supplied with an upstat cert for his last
completed service to present to the student or pc.
441
2. That the Reg knows fully how to handle the public person that won't
re-sign (by sending them to Qual).
3. The Reg must be provided with tech estimates, Grade Chart
information, etc., so he is aware ahead of time of what the student or pc's
next action is.
4. Tech terminals are fully briefed and the line is in that every
completion gets routed to the Reg. This must be drilled.
The public person should be serviced in your org until he/she requires
upper level service that your org cannot deliver,'at which point they
should be directed to the next higher org.
PITFALLS
The Service Product Officer can lose his effectiveness if he takes any
"hey you" orders or gets stuck in at various points. He is not an
expeditor. He is not an information and full-time coordinator terminal. He
is an executive, a Product Officer, and he is there to ensure the entire
machine runs.
He must be well versed on actions occurring in the org. He must also
pay strict attention to completing actions he has started and to carry a
handling through to a done. Otherwise he can wrap himself around a pole
with incomplete cycles which will ball up the line and prevent the service
lines from flowing flawlessly.
Where the Service Product Officer post bogs it is undoubtedly due to a
lack of an Organizing Officer, as with the speed in which a Service Product
Officer demands products, he requires a fast moving Org Officer. So it is
essential this post be provided with an Org Officer as soon as possible.
Those personnel in the org who are responsible for organization, any
Esto personnel, etc., are the people who put the units in the org there. It
is not the duty of a Service Product Officer to man and hat the org.
Therefore, it is a lot of sweat off the Service Product Officer~3 brow to
have a fully functioning Esto team backing up his actions in getting the
flow of products out of the organization.
SUMMARY
The Service Product Officer ensures all the actions of getting public
into, through and out of the org are accomplished with high quality
results.
It is extremely important that this post be manned in each and every
org. It doesn't just make the difference between a poor, empty org and a
good org. This post makes the difference between a good org and a booming
org.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:dr.gal.gm Copyright c 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
442
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 FEBRUARY 1980
Remimeo
Exec Hats
All Staff Hats
Esto Series 40
Org Series 40
Product Debug Series 9
ORDER versus DISORDER
(Ref- HCO PL 9 Feb 74R ETHICS-CONDITION BELOW
Rev. 17.2.80 TREASON-CONFUSION FORMULA
AND EXPANDED CONFUSION
FORMULA
HCO PL 30 Dec 70 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL)
I made a breakthrough recently, while investigating low production
areas and realized that a good deal more needs to be said on the subject of
order and disorder.
Order is defined as a condition in which everything is in its proper
place and performs its proper function. A person with a personal sense of
order knows what the things in his area are, he knows where they are, he
knows what they are for. He understands their value and relationship to the
whole.
A personal sense of order is essential in getting out products in an
area.
An orderly typist, for instance, would have all the materials
requiring typing, she would have ample paper and carbons within arm's
reach, she would have her correction fluid to hand, etc. With all
preparatory actions done, she would sit down to type with an operational
typewriter and would know what that typewriter was and what it was for.
She would be able to sit down and get her product, with no wasted
motion or stops.
But let's say you had a carpenter who couldn't find his hammer and he
didn't even know what a hammer was for and he couldn't find his chisel
because when he picked it up he put it down and couldn't find it again and
then he didn't know where his nails were. You give him a supply of lumber
and he doesn't know what it's for, so he doesn't categorize it where he can
put his hands on it.
How many houses do you think he would build?
The actual fact of the case is that a disordered person, operating in
a disorganized area, makes a 10-minute cycle into a 3-week cycle (believe
it, this is true) simply because he couldn't find his ruler, lost his
eraser, broke his typewriter, dropped a nut and couldn't find it again and
had to send off to Seattle for another one, etc., etc., etc.
BASICS
In working with a group of nonproductive technicians recently, I
discovered something interesting: out-basics. I actually found a lower
undercut to what we generally think of when we say "basics."
These technicians had reportedly researched a key piece of equipment
and had it all sorted out. But I found that they didn't even know the basic
fundamental of what that machine was supposed to do and what they were
supposed to be doing in their area.
That told me at once that they had no orderly files, no research data.
They were losing things.
443
Now, if they were losing things, that opened the door to another
basic: they couldn't have known where things were. They put down a tool
over there and then when they needed it again they would have to look all
over the place because they hadn't put it down where it belonged.
Their work was not organized so that it could be done and the tools
were not known.
So I checked this out. Were they logging the things they were using in
and out so they could find them again? Were they putting things away when
they were done with them? No, they weren't.
This is simply the basic admin coupled with the knowledge of what the
things one is working with are. It's orderliness and knowing what things
are, knowing what they are for and where they are, etc. That's the
undercut.
If people don't have a true knowledge of what the things they're
working with are, if there are omitted tools, inoperational tools, if they
don't know what their tools are supposed to do, if there are no files or if
once used, files are not reassembled and put back in the file drawer, if
things get lost and people don't know where things are and so on, they will
be running around spending 3 or 4 hours trying to locate a piece of paper.
That isn't production.
If a person can't tell you what the things he works with are, what
they're for and where they are, he isn't going to get out any product. He
doesn't know what he's doing.
It's like the carpenter trying to build a house without knowing what
he's got to build it with, without understanding his tools and raw
materials and the basic actions he must take to get his product. That's
what was holding up production in the area: disorderliness. And the basics
were out.
This is actually far below knowing the tech of the area-the actual
techniques used to get the product. The person does not even know what his
tools and equipment are or what they're supposed to do. He doesn't know
whether they are operational or inoperational. He doesn't know that when
you use a tool you return it to its proper place. When you have a despatch
you put it in a file where it can be retrieved. It undercuts even knowing
the orders and PLs relevant to his hat.
What are the basics that are missing? The basics of sitting down to
the table that one is supposed to sit down to, to do the work! The basics
of knowing what the tools, materials and equipment he works with are and
what he's supposed to do with them to get his product. Those are the basics
that are missing.
We are down to a real reason why a person cannot turn out products.
That is what is holding up such a person's production. It is well
below knowing the technique of his job.
Out-basics. Does the guy know where the file is? When he finishes with
that file does he leave it scattered all over the place or does he put it
back together and into the file where it can be found?
Now, a person who's working will have papers all over the place, but
does he know where they are and is he then going to reassemble them and put
them back in order or is he going to just leave them there and pile some
more papers on top of them?
If you find Project No. 2 scattered on top of Project No. 1, you know
something about that area. Basics are out.
This is a little piece of tech and with that piece of tech you've got
insight. You would have to have an overall picture of what the area would
look like when properly ordered and organized-how it would be organized to
get optimum production.
Then you could inspect the area and spot what's going on. You would
inspect on the basis of. how does the area compare with how it should be
organized? You would find out if the personnel didn't know what the things
in their area were or what they
444
were for, you would see if they knew the value of things in the area
or if there were altered importances, omitted files or filing, actions
being done out of sequence, inoperational tools or equipment, anything
added to the scene that was inapplicable to production, etc.
In other words, you can inspect an area by outpoints against this one
factor of orderliness.
This sort of out-basics and disorderliness cuts production down to
nothing. There just won't be any production at all. There will be no houses
built.
What we are talking about here is an orderly frame of mind. A person
with a sense of order and an understanding of what he is doing, sits down
to write a story or a report and he'll have his paper to hand, he'll have
it fixed up with carbons and he'll have his reference notes to hand. And
before he touches the typewriter, he'll familiarize himself with what the
scene is. He'll do the necessary preparatory work in order to get his
product.
Now someone else might sit down, write something, then dimly remember
there was a note someplace and then look for an hour to find where that
note was and then not be able to find it and then decide that it's not
important anyway and then come back and forth a few times and finally find
out he's typed it all up without a carbon.
There is a handling for this. Anyone trying to handle an area who
doesn't understand the basics of what they're dealing with and is in an
utter state of disorder must get a firm reality on the fact that until the
basics are learned and the disorder handled, the area will not produce
satisfactorily.
The following inspection is used in determining and handling the state
of such an area.
INSPECTION
This inspection is done in order to determine an area's knowledge of
basics and its orderliness. It can be done by an area's senior for the
purpose of locating and correcting disordered areas. It is also used as
part of debug tech as covered in HCO PL 23 Aug 79 DEBUG TECH. It is for use
by anyone who is in the business of production and getting products.
The full inspection below would be done, clipboard in hand, with full
notes made and then handlings would be worked out based on what was found
in the inspection (according to the Handling Section of this PL and the
suggested handlings given in parentheses below).
1. DOES HE KNO W WHAT ORGANIZATION, FIRM OR COMPANY HE'S IN? DOES HE
KNOW WHAT HIS POST OR JOB IS?
This is a matter of does he even know where he is. Does he know what
the organization or company he works for is, does he know what the post he
is holding is?
(If he is so confused and disoriented that he doesn't even know the
company or org he's in or doesn't know what his post is, he needs to apply
the Expanded Confusion Formula, HCO PL 9 Feb 74R and then work up through
the conditions.
Of course the person would also need to be instant hatted on his post-
the organization, his post title, his relative position on the org board,
what he's supposed to produce on his post, etc.
If he is doing this handling as part of his Expanded Confusion
Formula, simply have him get the instant hatting and carry on with his
Confusion Formula.)
445
2. A SK THE PERSON WHA T HIS PR OD UCT IS.
Does he know? Can he tell you without comm lag or confusion?
You may find out that he has no idea of what his product is or that he
has a wrong product or that he has confusions about his product. Maybe he
doesn't even know he's supposed to get out products.
(If this is the case, he must find out what his product is. If the
person's product is given in policy references, he should look these up. If
his product is not covered in tech or policy references, he'll have to work
out what it is.)
3. CAN HE RATTLE OFF A LIST OF THE BASIC ACTIONS, IN PROPER SEQUENCE,
NECESSARY TO GET OUT HIS PRODUCT OR DOES HE HEM AND HAW ON IT?
Does he know what to do with his product once it is completed?
He may try to tell you what he does each day or how he handles this or
that and what troubles he's having with his post. You note this, but what
you're interested in is does he know the basic actions he has to take to
get out his product. And does he know what to do with the product once it
is complete?
(If he can't rattle off the sequence of actions 1, 2, 3 then he'd
better clay demo the basic actions, in proper sequence, necessary to get
out his product and then drill these actions until he can rattle them off
in his sleep. If he does not know what to do with his product once
completed, then he'd need to find out and then drill handling the completed
product.)
4. ASK HIM WHAT HIS TOOLS ARE THAT ENABLE HIM TO GET THIS PRODUCT
Note his reaction. Can he name his tools at all? Does he include the
significant tools of his area? Does he include his hat pack as a tool?
(If he doesn't know what his tools are, he'd better find out what he's
operating with and what it does. A good workman knows his tools so well he
can use them blindfolded, standing on his head and with one arm tied behind
his back.)
5. 4 SK HIM TO SHOW YOU HIS TOOLS.
Are his tools present in the work area or does he have them out of
reach, down the hall or in some other room?
(He may have to reorganize his work space to get his tools within easy
reach and to get in some basics of organization. The purpose of such
organization would be to make production easier and faster.)
6. A SK HIM TO TELL YO U WHA T EA CH OF HIS TOOLS A RE.
Can he define them? Does he know what each of them are and what they
are for?
(If he doesn't know, he'd better find out.)
7. ASK HIM TO TELL YOU WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS BETWEEN EACH ONE OF
HIS TOOLS AND HIS PRODUCT
(If he can't do this, have him clay demo the steps he takes to get out
his products with each tool he uses, so he sees the relationship between
each tool and his product.)
8. ASK HIM TO NAME OFF THERAW MATERIALS HE WORKS WITH. ASK HIM TO SHO
W YO U HIS MA TERIA LS.
Does he know what his raw materials are? Are they in his work area?
Are they in order? Does he know where to get them?
446
(He may have to find out what the raw materials of his post are (by
defining them) and where they come from. He should drill procuring and
handling them and then run Reach and Withdraw on them.)
9. DOES HE HAVE A FILE CABINET? FILES? ASK HIM WHAT THEY ARE.
Does he know what they are for? Does he know what a despatch is, etc.?
(He may have to be brought to an understanding of what files, file
cabinets, despatches, etc., are and what they have to do with him and his
product. He may have to clay demo the relationship between these things. He
will have to set up a filing system. Ref. HCO PL 18 Mar 72, Esto Series 10,
FILES.)
10. DOES HE HAVE A SYSTEM FOR LOCATING THINGS?
Ask to see it. Check his files. Does he have logs? Does he log things
out and correct the logs when he puts them back? Are the comm baskets
labeled? Does he have a specific place for supplies? Ask him to find
something in his files. How long does it take?
Does he have an orderly collection of references or a library
containing the materials of his field? Is it organized so as to be usable?
(If he has no system for locating things, have him set one up. Have
him establish a filing system, a logging system, label the comm baskets,
arrange supplies, etc. Get a reference library set up and organized. Drill
using the system he has.)
11. WHEN HE USES AN ITEM DOES HE PUT IT BACK IN THE SAME PLACE? DOESHE
PUTITBACK WHERE OTHERS CANFIND IT?
He'll probably tell you, yes, of course he does. Look around. Are
objects and files lying about? Is the place neat or is it a mess? Ask him
to find you something. Does he know right where it is, or does he have to
search around? Is there an accumulation of unhandled particles around?
(Have him clay demo why it might be advantageous to put things back in
the same place he found them. Drill him on putting things back when he's
finished with them. Have him clean up the place, handling any accumulation
of unhandled particles.)
12. IF FEASIBLE, ACTUALLY GO WITH THE PERSON TO HIS PERSONAL LIVING
AREA.
Is the bed made? Is the area clean? Are things put away9 How much
dirty laundry does he have? Is it stowed in a bag or hamper or is it strewn
about the place? People who had disorderly personal mest, I for I were not
getting out any products on post-they had no sense of order.
(If his personal quarters are a mess have him-on his own time of
coursestraighten up his personal area and keep it that way on a daily
basis. This will teach him what order is.)
HANDLING
Some areas, of course, will be found to be in excellent order and will
pass the inspection. These will most likely be high production areas.
Other areas will be found to have only a few points out which would
correct easily with the above handlings. These will probably be areas where
some production is occurring.
Where personnel have a concept of what order is and why it is
important they will usually be eager to correct the points of disorder that
have turned up on the investigation and may need no further urging,
drilling or correction, but will quickly set about remedying outpoints. For
many bright and willing staff members just reading this policy will be
enough to get them to straighten out their areas right away.
447
There is, however, a sector which has no concept of order, and may not
have the slightest notion of why anyone would bother with it. You will most
likly find them in apathy, overwhelm or despair with regard to their post
areas. No matter what they do they simply cannot get their products out in
adequate quantity and quality. They try and try and try but everything
seems to be working against them.
When you find such a situation, know that the area is in Confusion.
You are trying to handle an area which is in a confirmed, dedicated
condition of Confusion.
Such an area or individual would require the application of the
Expanded Confusion Formula (HCO PL 9 Feb 74R) including the handlings
above. So if these things confirm in an area you must use the Expanded
Confusion Formula and the handlings given above to full completion.
Because, frankly, such an area or individual is in a condition of Confusion
and will remain in Confusion until the Expanded Confusion Formula including
the full handlings from the inspection are applied.
Once out of Confusion the person would have to be brought up through
the rest of the conditions.
CAUTION
The condition of Confusion is a very low condition and should never be
assigned where it is not warranted. Where one or two points on the above
inspection were found to be out in an area, and where these corrected
easily, there would be no purpose in assigning Confusion to that area. In
fact it may worsen an area to assign an incorrect condition.
But where you have a long-term situation of no or few products
combined with a state of disorder, know that the area or individual is in a
condition of Confusion and that the application of the Confusion Formula
plus the handlings given in this PL will bring the area out of the muck and
up to square one where it can begin producing.
NOTE: If the inspection is done on a person or area and some of the
points are found to be out and handlings are done but no condition of
Confusion is assigned the area must be reinspected about a week later. This
way you will detect if an actual condition of Confusion was missed, as the
area will have lapsed back into disorderliness or will have worsened.
SUMMARY
A knowledge of the basics of an area and having orderliness in an area
are essential to production.
When you find a fellow who is a light year away from the basics and
doesn't have a clue on the subject of order and he's flying way up in the
sky someplace instead of just trying to put together what he's supposed to
put together or do what he's supposed to do, you've got your finger on his
Why for no production.
With the inspection and handlings given in this policy we can now
handle any degree of disorderliness and disorganization.
And order will reign.
Nonproductive areas become capable of producing.
Already-producing areas increase their production.
And production will roll.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:gal.gm Copyright 10 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
448
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 28 FEBRUARY 1980
Remimeo
I
Org Series 41
Finance Series 25
Executive Series 21
PRODUCTION AND ONE'S STANDARD OF LIVING
References:
BPL 19 Mar 71* Finance Series 7
BEAN THEORY-FINANCE AS A
COMMODITY
HCO PL 9 Mar 72 1 Finance Series I I
INCOME FLOWS AND POOLS-PRINCIPLES
OF MONEY MANAGEMENT
HCO PL 27 Nov 71 Exec Series 3, MONEY
HCO PL 3 Dec 71 Exec Series 4, EXCHANGE
FEBC Tapes
(NOTE.- I realize that management units, orgs and staffs are daily
pounded with false economic data. The real facts of life collide with much
false data. Such crippling data comes from many sources-school,
advertisers, government, bankers, propagandists, even parents who insisted
Johnny be a doctor so he could "live well" or set a horrible example
themselves. Many have had a hand in messing up people's wits on the
subject. It is a factor in inhibiting the individual prosperity of
executives, staff members and orgs. Where an area is not prospering, this
PL should be starrated on its people and the false data they have on this
subject stripped so that they then can prosper as they should.)
"Standard of Living" can be defined as the relative quality of a
person's or group's possessions, quarters, food, equipment, tools and
conditions of their area of work and existence. It is the state of the
person's living, including working, environment. Where its potential
continuance exists it is related to survival. It is a basic natural
economic law that personal production of VFPs and one's standard of living
are intimately related.
This applies to the individual as well as the team.
Where violations occur, inequities exist.
At a personal level one must produce in excess of his standard of
living just to retain and maintain it.
Actually, the "excess" means that because of overload, taxes,
services, plant, utilities, raw materials, machine and other costs
additional to his own work sphere, a person cannot expect to get the full
value of his VFPs all to himself. That is not economically feasible. The
"excess" varies from post to post and job to job but is never less than 5X
minimum. In industry it is considered to be at least IOX to maintain
company standards and solvency. The "excess" can be very high indeed in
some industries. But in any case any idea that it should be one for one is
fatal. People who know little of economics or management sometimes propose
a worker should get the full value of his VFPs-but all work and all VFPs
require support services and to neglect these would quickly bring on
poverty. Even when working for oneself alone, these "excess" factors exist
and seldom drop below 5X as one still requires support services. Corrected
gross income divided by staff has to be at least 5X the cost of the
standard of living of the individual staff member for that standard to be
barely
449
maintained. This does not mean staff pay should be 1/5 of that figure.
It means that all the things (pay included) that go into maintaining their
welfare and work environment would have to be covered by 1/5 of that
figure. A fairly efficient and prosperous org with a hatted, industrious,
gung ho staff can very easily maintain quite acceptable standards at 1/10
that figure. The actual cash value of every piece of work done by a person
can actually be calculated. It is intricate and tricky to do and much
subject to over and under estimation but it can be done. It is not vital to
do this but one might just be curious about it. If so, do it for yourself.
Thus VFPs can be priced against what they bring in as part of the overall
scene even when they seem indirect. All the above figures are very rough
and subject to variation but this gives you some idea of what is meant by
"excess" in that law.
Where a number of people in a group or on a team do not produce VFPs
in excess of their standard of living they depress the standard of living
of the group or team.
Where some in a group do not only not produce VFPs but produce overt
products, they actively depress the standard of living of everyone in that
group or on that team.
Many economists and theorists seek to avoid that law. They do it to
gratify politicians or aggrandize some false philosophy whose true purpose
is suppression under other colors. But the law remains and its violation
breeds an epidemic of economic ills. Amongst such ills are inflation, super
bureaucracy, chaos with the marketplace and a decay of the civilization.
When a whole society demands a high standard of living and yet doesn't
concentrate on the personal production of VFPs, it is finished.
Products are the basis of a standard of living. They don't appear from
midair. They come from work truly done. Not from hope or false data.
It is a druggie's dream that machines, computers, under the
dictatorship will do it all. Machines can raise a standard of living by
assisting in production. But they can't do Man's living for him.
Intelligently designed and used, they permit, within limits, increases in
population. But machines are just tools. They have to be thought up,
designed, built, run and serviced and their raw materials and fuel have to
be found and delivered and their products promoted, delivered, used and
often in their turn serviced. The machine age was actually recognized as
failed when world leaders first began to urge population reduction on the
planet to "improve the individual standard of living." If machines were
going to solve it all why is the civilization now in such a steep decline?
It took producing men working in and with a machine age to make the society
go. Not idle mobs on welfare expecting a high standard of living while a
few guys work their guts out. Pie in the sky is nice but did anyone ever
get to eat it? This misinterpretation of the machine age was a heavy
violation of the above economic law. But the real harm of the machine age
was creating a false belief that one did not have to produce much to
survive. This lowered people's estimate of how much they would themselves
have to produce to survive, much less have a high standard of living.
Factually one normally has to work fast and expertly and in high volume to
bring about any acceptable standard of living for himself and his group.
This is a point the machine age obscures. But it remains vividly and
demonstrably true.
An executive who works hard yet wonders about his own low standard of
living should look over his people to find those who are not producing VFPs
or who produce even overt products while yet demanding a living. They are
absorbing the potential raised standard of living of the group.
Where a group has a very low standard of living, it need only review
the above law and its potential violations to understand why.
One cannot, in fact must not, increase the standard of living of a
group in ways that violate the above law. It will eventually bring calamity
on that group.
In a society led astray by crackpot economics, violations of the above
law create a vast number of wrong examples. The rich (most of whom work
like mad) are seen as idle or even criminals. The best way of life is made
to appear to be idleness. One seems to be owed a living without any effort
on his own part. The producing worker should be fined by higher taxation.
These are not seen to be simply false data spread about to
450
wreck the place but are held as "truths." And in their wake comes a
funeral for that group or society.
There is even an economic theory spread about today called
"equalitarianism." It declares everyone should get the same pay and have
the same standard of living. It does not mention that anyone should do any
work. It holds that the better worker should not be better rewarded. It
would crash any society.
Then there is the "monetarist" who believes you can manipulate a whole
society with money alone. And no thought of any production. His answer to
production? (You won't believe this.) Decrease demand! In other words,
reduce everyone's standard of living!
Basic economics eventually catches up with all these weird false
pretenses. It may take time but, as in the law of gravity, the apple
eventually falls no matter how many crackpots advance theories to say it
can't fall, will go up, or vanish. Real basic economic laws are like that.
They catch up. So don't wonder about inflation and depression and decayed
civilizations. Basic economics caught up with the crackpots.
An executive has to pay attention to the basic law about a standard of
living. If he doesn't pay close attention to it. the standard of living of
himself and of his group will cave in.
He can be "a good fellow" and seek popularity by attempting to raise
the standard above what is earned. He and his group will crash.
He can be foolish and seek to raise his own rewards above what he
personally is earning in terms of VFPs. But both he and his group will
fail.
He can ignore the real producers of the group and not see that their
standard of living is comparable to their individual production. And he and
the group will fail.
He can ignore the nonproducers and the overt product makers and by so
ignoring them, tear his own and the group's standard of living to bits.
He can listen to a bunch of PR from a staff member about how valuable
that staff member is and surrender to it without ever really counting up
the real VFPs that staff member is not producing (or even preventing). (It
happens.) Only real VFPs count.
He can work himself half to death without demanding production from
others and have his own standard of living crash.
There are swarms of false data flying about today on this subject. It
is taught in schools, the very best schools; it is heard on the radio and
seen on TV and in the papers. The civilization, as it caves in, is blinded
by literally thousands of false ideas about what and how a standard of
living occurs. These, where they conflict with the basic law, actively
prevent one from prospering as they blind him to the truth of his scene.
In an org or management unit in Scientology, the real VFP is valuable
fine people who produce valuable final products who then make up a valuable
fine public. Every piece of work and duty in a management unit or an org
contributes to that.
The standard of living of an executive, a management unit, an org or a
staff member is determined by that one basic economic law: The personal
production of VFPs for the group and one's standard of living are
intimately related.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
BDCS:LRH:ab.gal.gm CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
Copyright 0 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
*[Note: BPL 19 Mar 1971 mentioned under "References" on page 449 has
been revised and reissued as HCO PL 19 Mar 1971R, same title.)
451
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue I
Rernimeo
(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 of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY BDCS:LRH:SA:bk.nf
Copyright c 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: The original mirneo copies of this policy letter incorrectly
labeled it as "Admin Know-How 36" which has been corrected above.]
452
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1980
Remimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 8 March 1971)
Org Series 43
Esto Series 44
ORG OFFICER
Org Officers think they approach HASes to organize. They don't.
HCO has not formed because Org Officers keep making demands on it
instead of doing their job. The organization it takes to get out a specific
product is instant stuff. HCO is a long-term build of the establishment.
Entering instant organization into HCO of course defeats its purposes and
prevents it from the long-haul actions necessary to form a whole org.
If an Org Officer considered himself the Product Officer's expeditor
he would begin to get the idea.
We have a Product Officer/Org Officer mission going in to expedite
FEBCs. The Product Officer will get the product-a competent graduated FEBC
on an airplane going home-being made and fired. The Org Officer will push
the materiel and lines into shape to back up the Product Officer. Now.
what's that have to do with HCO? Nothing.
The Org Officer makes sure there is a pack or tape or recorder or gets
them (not by despatch) and the Product Officer checks out, verifies,
grooms, solves FEBC problems, pushes cases.
The Course Super goes on supervising, Course Admin goes on admining.
What they're doing right with the student gets pushed and done more of. And
what organization there is gets more of from the Org Officer.
For instance,
SITUATION: Course numbers building up. You see this in orgs.
HANDLING: Put on a Prod-Org mission to get numbers completed and
fired.
The Prod-Org team finds 3 who could be made ready to fire at first
glance and gives the order GO-GO-GO, to Action.
The personal cope was fire three NOW. The medium-range was get a
mission on it.
That is uptight production.
A Prod-Org team works in hours and days. Save an hour, save a day. Do
it in hours, do it in days.
By doing it they learn line and materiel outnesses and their reform
CSWs of lines and actions are written up when they're completed and that's
their first contact with the HAS and HCO.
453
Now with these reforms the general org action will be easier and
faster and a product backlog peak won't occur so fast again.
A Prod-Org team that writes despatches and harasses HCO just doesn't
know THAT THE PROD-ORG SYSTEM IS TO HANDLE BACKLOGS AND OMISSIONS IN
PRODUCTS. Having handled they can advise or order or get approval for line
changes and new recruitment, etc. These, the HAS can get in for the long
haul.
Prod-Orgs WORK, they don't just order.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and edited for issue by Sherry Anderson Compilations
Missionaire
Accepted and approved by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright 0 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
454
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue 11
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 29 Oct 1970)
Personnel Series 31
Org Series 44
AN ORG BOARD
REF: HCO PL 28 Oct 70 ORGANIZING AND HATS
An org board is a list of hats with seniorities. The hats are in flow
sequence.
A hat is a duty. It outlines the actions necessary to accomplish a
production and receive what's needed, change and route it.
In theory the I/C holds all functions. When he doesn't fully outline
them they can't be hatted. If they're not hatted he wears them as an
unknown fog. Simple as that.
What defines a hat is a product.
If you count up the expected products you get the minimum number of
hats. The steps to get the product is the hat. Products are also composed
of lesser products, so hats can be enlarged. It's what you designate as a
product that makes a hat. It's the importance of that product to others on
the line that makes the hat's importance.
The completeness and size of the product make the seniority of the
hat.
The overall product of a division determines the hat of the divisional
officer. The lesser products that when combined make the overall product
determine the rest of the division hats.
Until you can define in one go the overall product of a division you
aren't likely to be able to post any real part of its org board. For the
product of hats of that div add up to the div product.
When you see an unposted or unreal org board, the head of the div is
not producing a product with that div, no matter how busy it all looks or
how exhausting.
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.gm Copyright 0 1970, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
455
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 SEPTEMBER 1980
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of I I March 197 1)
Org Series 45
ORG BOARD AND PRODUCTION
HCO PL 9 March 197 1, Issue 11, POSTING AN ORG BOARD, will solve a lot
of confusion about org boards,
Read it and then look at what you may currently have and lights may
blink like a pinball machine.
An org board does have something to do with getting the work done.
Quality as well as volume depend upon workable organization.
The opposite ends of the action are organization at one end and
production at the other.
Things get easier and better all around.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:bk.gm Copyright c 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
[Note: The original mimeo copies of this policy letter were
incorrectly numbered as Org Series 63.1
456
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 11 SEPTEMBER 1980
Rernimeo Issue 11
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 10 Nov 1971)
Org Series 46
Exec Series 23
ORGANIZATION AND SURVIVAL
Well organized activities survive. The survival of individuals in
those organizations depends on the highly organized condition of the
activity.
A small group, extremely well organized, has excellent chances of
survival.
Even a large group, badly organized, hasn't a prayer.
The essence of organization is org boarding, posting with reality and,
in keeping with the duties being performed, training and hatting.
To this has to be added the actual performance of the duties so that
the activity is productive.
The outward signs of a badly organized group are slovenliness and
fumbles.
Another ingredient that goes hand in hand with organization and
survival is toughness. The ability to stand up to and confront and handle
whatever comes the way of the organization depends utterly on the ability
of the individuals of the organization to stand up to, confront and handle
what comes the individual's way. The composite whole of this ability makes
a tough organization.
An individual who is not properly posted, isn't performing the duties
of the post, is not trained or hatted, is soft. He has no position to hold,
therefore he goes down at the first fan of a feather.
Confidence in one's teammates is another factor in organization
survival. Confidence in one's self is something that has to be earned. It
is respect. This is a compound of demonstrated competence, being on post
and being dependable.
After an individual has failed, confidence in him on the part of his
teammates sinks. He has lost face and is not respected. This, then, shows
itself up in numerous ways. It is up to that individual to earn back
confidence so that his teammates will again trust him. The way to do this
is to get properly org boarded, trained, hatted and to confront and handle,
with competence, whatever that post is supposed to control.
The ultimate in no confidence by a group in a team member is no post
at all, Reports from those who have no post or from those who are between
posts stress the horrors of having no post.
Our survival depends fully on becoming entirely and completely
organized. This will happen to the degree that every separate unit,
department and division in an org is properly org boarded, properly
performing the duties of the post, is trained and fully hatted.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
of the
BDCS:LRH:SA:d~.grn CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
Copyright c 1971, 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
457
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue I
Remirneo
(Originally LRH Flag Ship OODs
item of 7 March 1971.)
Org Series 47
Executive Series 24
Admin Know-How Series 39
HANDLING OVERLOADED POSTS
Reference:
HCO PL 28 Jul 71 ADMIN KNOW-HOW 26
Product and Org Officers can take over a grossly overloaded key post
and (a) increase its production and (b) reduce the work hours. They should
take over posts for 48 hours and give the incumbent a rest and see what
gives.
The rules that seem to apply are
a. It is a key post of the area in question and
b. It is the most overloaded and/or most nonproductive post in that
area.
It's one thing to issue orders. It's another to do work.
One doesn't stand behind the guy. One takes him off the post and
actually does the work of the post.
While doing it one will see why it can't be done or isn't being done
and one can then get a good bright idea of how it can be done and get it in
and write it up.
One often finds he has to ask "What hat am I wearing?" when one finds
he is on overload.
Well, one solution is to just go over and really wear that hat and see
why it can't be worn, get an idea of how it can be worn, do the action to
see if it's right, write it up for issue and put the person back on it.
A junior often can't mesh up the lines so they work because he hasn't
the know-how and hasn't the authority. His proper action would be to figure
his post out and write it up for issue and get it in his hat. When he
doesn't do this it jams or overloads his own and other lines.
Where this situation exists and isn't changing, a Product Officer, Org
Officer or HAS or the divisional Product or Org Officers have an out. They
can take over such a post, do all its work for 48 hours with no help from
the incumbent, get an idea of how to debug it, see if that works, write it
up and turn the post back over.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder Compiled and issued by Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF
SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright* 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
458
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 22 SEPTEMBER 1980
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 23 August 1972)
Esto Series 43
Org Series 48
ACTIVITY
We are in the midst of a great deal of activity.
This means a certain amount of disestablishment occurs.
Such times are the times when Dept I has to go FLAT-OUT.
It has to actually produce.
It has to get new people in, org boards revised, hats collected,
people on new posts HATTED!
It has to somehow hold the form of the org and keep it producing.
This is no time for Dept I people to sit at a desk doing their in-
baskets all day or studying.
This is the time when the org form situation is continually reviewed
and beefed up and hatted.
A hat is NOT an explanation. It is a checksheet and pack and it gets
DONE right now.
This is the time when you make up for fewer numbers with better
utilization. And you make up for increased traffic with greater efficiency
on each individual post.
Esto trainees who don't know or can't do these things won't be worth
anything in their own orgs.
The question is, can they do it or can't they9
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Accepted and approved by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright 0 1972, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
459
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue I
Remimeo
Hat Officei
(Originally LRH OODs item
of I I August 1972)
Org Series 49
HAT OFFICER
When a Hat Officer has somebody to hat, he hats that person fully. It
may take days. You don't keep changing Hat Officers on the same person day
after day.
Hat Officers, like auditors have th& pcs, should have a list of
clients they are hatting.
It isn't getting points that count. It's getting a fully hatted
person.
A frequent change of Hat Officers, like a frequent change of auditors,
winds up with no completions.
Every Hat Officer post should have its list of clients. The Hat
Officer changes only when transferred. The post keeps the same clients.
It takes a firmly hatted staff to handle the scene we've got on the
planet today.
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.gm Copyright 0 1972, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
460
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 OCTOBER 1980
Issue I
Remimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 13 July 1971)
Org Series 50
THE USUAL
When in doubt do the usual, the routine, the standard.
If your hat says recruit, recruit. Don't do tool purchasing.
WHEN A POST DOES NOT DO ITS USUAL ACTIONS THESE BACKLOG AND APPEAR AS
TRAFFIC AND DEMANDS.
The post goes into desperation and tries to cope and, failing to do
what it was supposed to do in the first place, just goes more desperate.
A post will run wrong so long as it does not do the usual. And it will
go wronger and wronger.
Like auditing a pc. Every shortcut, every unusual solution, just makes
the pc worse. You can't go on with unusual solutions forever. The pc will
collapse.
So it is with a post.
Do what the post is supposed to do in the first place. Cope part of
the time, yes. But somehow get in the usual action.
If you don't you will feel desperate, 9,000 feet up and in a
hurricane.
EVERY personnel line has gotten in this state.
Failing to recruit and do the usual has backlogged HASes over the
world to a point of total desperation. Yet I see no Personnel Procurement
Officers single-hatted on post in orgs. I see no new campaign for recruits.
I see no hammer to get standard forms signed.
Thus by not doing the basic usual actions, each HAS is going mad
trying to answer people who are demanding personnel. Then the HAS musical
chairs the place, destroys the org form.
WHY? Because the usual action of PPOs on post and records and lines
and personnel promo were not done.
Not doing the usual resulted in desperate solutions.
This is the way any post goes when it backlogs. It backlogs for lack
of the usual. Then it goes into total desperation.
The way to get out of the mess is each day do a couple hours of the
usual regardless of traffic and demands.
461
And surprise! One will dig out of it and get on top of it.
One has to know three facts.
1. The usual solution already exists. One has to find out or work out
what it is.
2. Unusual actions will backlog one and if continued will drown one.
3. One can dig himself out if he spends some time each day getting the
usual lined up and in.
One's full hat usually contains the usual. A starter is to get the
full hat and know it.
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:bk.gm Copyright 0 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
462
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 OCTOBER 1980
Rernimeo Issue 11
Hats Officer
HAS (Originally LRH OODs item
of 6 June 1971)
Org Series 51
Personnel Series 34
A MAJOR DUTY OF THE HATS OFFICER
REF: HCO PL 7 JANUARY 1966 LEAVING POST
If you leave a post without turning over your hat and grooving in your
relief, you are at risk. You can be called back for the next two years if
that post goes wrong.
You must HAVE a hat in a folder and its write-ups (all of them) and
you must turn it over.
The Hats Officer is supposed to see this is done. It is really his
major duty. He must see that it is done and he must be able to attest that
the relief on the post HAS and CAN DO and IS DOING the hat.
Hats, checksheets and packs are also furnished by the Hatting Section
under Hats Compilations. These are issued as prepared. However there is
ALWAYS a hat.
Anyone on post without a hat cannot be expected to be paid.
If a Hats Officer only compiles hats he unmocks the org.
The Hats Officer must be there in a flash at every post change and see
that the hat, and duties of the post are turned over and the relief grooved
in. Records, Assets and Materiel Dept 9 sees that the materials are turned
over and are correctly inventoried or the Dir of RAM or the Treas Sec can
be hit for any lost items,
This is an old, old drill.
There are standard ways to do things.
Any post not so turned over MUST be turneci over correctly with hat
and materiel or the org will shatter.
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:ns.gm Copyright c 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
463
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 OCTOBER 1980
Issue II
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 25 April 1970)
Org Series 52
MORE ON LINES AND HATS
REF: HCO PL 16 Mar 71 LINES AND HATS
The soggy feeling one gets from lines sometimes comes directly from
the line passing through a point which isn't wearing its hat.
Hats can be not worn through ignorance or through neglect. Many times
hats are
accepted not to help a group but "to have an opportunity to ." Like an
MD who studies medicine to "make money" or "to obtain better
opportunities with
women." So one has two reasons to wear a hat-(a) to do a job, (b) to
have an
opportunity to do something else.
When a hat is not worn for any reason at all, one gets a breakdown at
that point. We call this a "camouflaged hole." Somebody has a title but
doesn't do the duties or actions that go with it.
That is the soggy feeling's cause, the unworn hat. A group that cannot
or does not snap and pop and get on top of it has some members in it who
aren't wearing their hats.
The most common reason why hats aren't worn is because they are not
known.
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.gm Copyright c 1970, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
464
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 OCTOBER 1980
Issue 11
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 6 April 197 1)
Org Series 53
ORG BOARD KNOWLEDGE
It is very funny to see what a green crew member does with an org bd.
He eventually gets to know one terminal, the Captain. Anything that he
wants he asks the Captain.
However, it can be worse than this. An org crew sometimes doesn't even
know the Captain! They are a sort of drifting mob.
Knowledge of the org board permits a crew to push in the lines.
Whether the lines and terminals are in or not depends upon the crew or
staff, not on one senior.
If the whole crew uses Knowledge Reports, sees the right terminals and
knows enough about lines and hats to force performance of duty and service,
then the org will form and smooth out and prosper.
A Knowledge Report to the MAA or E/O when someone has refused to do
his hat, senior or junior, will accumulate enough data to permit the
reposting of areas so they work.
In the final analysis service quality, cleanliness, production and
prosperity depends upon a staff or crew.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Accepted and approved by the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright 0 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
465
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 8 OCTOBER 1980
Issue III
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 17 September 1970)
Org Series 54
HATS
We're right at the beginning of handling the real WHYs in departures
from the ideal scenes.
We are establishing recruitment and we are beginning real hats that
include checksheets and packs.
Real hats made up of a factual checksheet and pack of FOs, PLs, HCOBs,
manuals and books and required to be trained on are THE missing items in
orgs over the world.
Ethics was designed to keep in tech and policy. We expand it to keep
policy in use.
As it has been used it was a personal target action not a tool to spot
out-tech and out-policy.
So ethics is going to have to shift target from the individual to the
drop out of know-how.
When you see how far out things are on this point of view over the
world in orgs it takes a bit of confronting.
Both auditing tech and all our admin policy has been very nearly lost
for three years!!!
Pretty awful.
But the plus side is look how we'll soar when we get it in!
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.gm Copyright c, 1970, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
466
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 OCTOBER 1980
Remimeo
(Originally an LRH OODs item
of 21 September 1970)
Org Series 55
COPE
I've had an insight into what "cope" really is. It is the process of
finding and correcting outpoints without ever discovering a WHY and without
organizing any return to the ideal scene.
A coper goes "outpoint found-correct it; outpoint found-correct it;
outpoint found-correct it." This perpetual cycle never finds or corrects
WHY these outpoints. So it just gets worse and worse and worse.
If you start spotting outpoints and correcting them you are not
dealing with the Why but with the symptoms only. So an executive gets on a
cycle of outpoint spotted, corrected, spotted, corrected, spotted,
corrected. With no WHY located it will just wind up in a collapsed mess of
cope.
If all one ever did was handle despatches one would really get into a
mountain of overwork while stats stayed down,
The WHY we face now is absence of recruiting, lack of full hats with
checksheets and packs.
The Why of that was failure to make the materials riled accessibly and
collatable. So it's a snake eats its tail. No hats then brought a condition
of no data available in files. A true dwindling spiral.
And no hats traces to the introduction of ethics into HCOs and that it
is easier to assign a condition than to compile or check out a hat. Hats
went out when ethics came strongly in. Without ethics in HCO, HCO can only
make stats recover by org form and hats.
Ethics has a role-after all else fails.
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:ns.gm Copyright c 1970, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
467
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 26 OCTOBER 1980
Remirneo Issue III
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 7 Nov 1970)
Org Series 56
"NOISE" AND ORGANIZATION
REF: HCO PL 14 Dec 70 GROUP SANITY
HCO PL 8 May 70 DISTRACTION AND NOISE
Each division is to have a completed org board.
In order to do this well it is best to study the Org Series.
"Noise" is the amount of disturbance and off-line actions and chatter
and general dev-t in an area.
In some divisional areas "noise" by far exceeds actual traffic.
An org board amongst other things reduces "noise" when it is well done
and known.
Improvement of production occurs when there is a good org board that
is also well known.
When you assess the effort expended on a post against the actual
production of a post you get an idea of the amount of "noise" present. One
can be expending lots of time and effort and yet attain no production.
Proper organization increases production and reduces effort by eliminating
"noise."
My insistence on getting org boards done, in and known comes from my
own post observation. For some time I have been seeing lots of "noise" and
very low production.
When this visibly began to eat into my own production (about April
'70) 1 began to push in organizational steps. I restudied the subject (as
you see in the PLs of the Data Series, Personnel Series and Org Series) and
consulted existing realities. I was amazed to find how little technology
Man actually had on the subject and how wide a gap there was between theory
and reality.
Studying orgs themselves, including the ship, Flag Org, bureaux and
orgs as per LRH ED 123 INT (the ten social aberrations, later issued as HCO
PL 14 Dec 70, GROUP SANITY) the worst items were "hiring, training,
apprenticeship and utilization" including production.
The first four would of course account for (if out) lack of
production.
So far as an org is concerned, these are the functions of HCO.
Once these points are in you will see things begin to move better,
noise drop out and production increase while effort reduces.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Approved and accepted by the
BDCS:LRH:SA:dr.gm BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
Copyright 0 1970, 1980
by L. Ron Hubbard of the
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
468
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 30 OCTOBER 1980
Issue I
Remimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 10 March 1971)
Org Series 57
ESTABLISHMENT AND THE HAS
REF: HCO PL 21 July 71 1 HAS STANDARD ACTIONS
The terminal for staff members and execs to contact when they want
personnel is the HCO Area Sec (HAS).
They do NOT route this through or to the Org Officer.
The HAS should work to put an establishment there.
The Org Officer helps the Product Officer to get products by
organizing the immediate area being concentrated on so it is smoothly
producing.
You don't write Personnel to get personnel. You write the HAS.
The HAS channels to HCO on such matters.
When the concept of what is an establishment is grasped, all else is
easy.
Space, materiel, machines, personnel, hats, lines, control of the org
form, are all establishment. (Org Series 10, Product 1.)
The HAS uses Inspection and Reports (Dept 3 HCO) (stats) to measure
the volume, quality and viability of the establishment so more or less can
be put there. The HAS corrects the establishment using her other depts-
Personnel, org bd, comm lines and lines and Ethics.
Until everyone knows what is an HAS and what is an Org Officer they
won't be able to direct requests or comms and the system will jam up.
The HAS establishes, forms, puts there, corrects, posts, hats, org
boards, stats, corrects the org. All on a long-term basis.
The Org Offlicer organizes production areas for the Product Officer so
they produce.
The Product Officer gets the products of the establishment produced or
corrects the products.
Org Series No. 10 gives you the four types of products-1, 3, 2, 4. One
is the establishment itself. Three is correcting the establishment. Two is
what the establishment produces. Four is correcting the faulty product of
the establishment.
You can organize forever and get no production of valuable final
products.
You can produce valuable final products with no organization on a
total cope. But volume, quality and viability will be awful and the
overload will soon overwhelm.
469
So there are two sides to the coin-organize, produce.
There is long-term, steady, stable, expanding organizing. That's the
HAS.
There is instant, immediate, right-now organizing. That's the Org
Officer working with the Product Officer.
There is hammer-pound, right-now production of products. That's the
Product Officer backed up by the Org Officer close to hand and a bit out in
front.
There are also "Consumption" Officers who get the products wanted
outside and consumed. These are the Dissemination Secretary (Div 11) (old
public) and the Distribution Secretary (Div VI) (new public).
So you have a line-up: Organize an establishment, organize the
production area, produce, get the product wanted and consumed.
It's all that simple.
On this depends the uniforms, the pay, the facilities, the food, the
transport, personal success, expansion, general success and eventual
accomplishment of large targets.
When these points aren't understood, then all the shortages and upsets
and confusions you object to occur.
Wherever morale is low, somebody around that point doesn't understand
this or agree with prosperity.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:SA:bk.gm Copyright c 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
470
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 NOVEMBER 1980
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 25 July 1971)
Org Series 58
HATTING THE RIGHT WAY
The sequence is instant hat, mini hat, fully hat.
Staff Status 0, Staff Status I and Staff Status 11 are minimum for a
recruit. (For the Sea Org it is Products 0, 1 and 2.)
As the recruit line works in, all these must be done while the person
is in the expeditor pool of his org. (Product 0 for Sea Org is the
exception.)
Then expeditors are instant hatted for short jobs and mini hatted for
longer temporary jobs.
When posted, or apprenticed and posted, they are then fully hatted on
lower posts and apprenticed and fully hatted for more senior posts.
This should get programmed out for each staff member.
It takes a while to hat anyone fully. But it just has to be worked at.
A couple hours a day eventually arrives.
The reason most people who don't study regularly aren't studying is
that they have 3 or 8 or a dozen incomplete courses behind them. They begin
to define a course as "something you don't complete!"
This can get in the road of courses very badly.
The right way out is complete each pgm left incomplete or at least run
out the bypassed charge of past incompletes.
Word Clearing is the real big boost. Somebody the other day didn't
know what TR (for Training Drill) meant in an HCOB and the whole thing was
blank until he spotted it!
Clearing the purpose of a post is essential to hatting.
Well anyway, grab the slogan
TO BE HAPPY GET HATTED AND PRODUCE THE ACTIONS OF YOUR POST.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Approved and accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright Q 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
471
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead. Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 SEPTEMBER 1980
Issue II
Remimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 28 March 1971)
Org Series 59
STATE OF ORGS
There are innumerable little out-org situations that need remedying.
They make life rough, consume time and edge up tempers.
By standing for about 45 minutes in one place observing I found five
bits that in themselves would each add up to a time-consuming confusion.
No transport unit, no purchasing unit, no line patrol or refinement
were visible.
This makes people seem to work very hard but results in no production.
Therefore it takes HAS officer-type observation as the org's lines are
out.
To adjust a line one (a) sorts out the particle types, (b) sorts out
the change points, (c) puts the correctly hatted terminals on it, (d)
removes needless terminals, (e) reduces the number of times something is
handled, (f) shortens the distance, and (g) increases the speed of flow.
If you do any one of these the line will get better. If you do them
all the speed is fantastic and the load lightens all around and products
occur.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
for the
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY
BDCS:LRH:SA:bk.gm Copyright 0 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
[Note: The original mimeo copies of this policy letter were
incorrectly numbered as Org Series 41.]
472
L
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 NOVEMBER 1980
Issue III
Remimeo
(Originally LRH OODs item
of 31 Oct 71)
Org Series 60
Personnel Series 39
FULL HATTING
A person is responsible for his own hatting. Dept I is also
responsible.
As lack of full hatting is the WHY of declining organization it is
very important that persons be fully hatted.
The gradient is instant hatting, mini hatting and full hatting.
A person found on a post who is not fully hatted is liable to ethics
action.
Awareness of the scene does not seem to exist in the absence of
hatting. Thus unhatted persons look sort of blind.
For instance, an unhatted Dissem Div is completely unaware of no
money, no students, no pcs.
It's sort of strange. Mystery about the post seems to result in no
perception of its environment. Mystery on post equals mystery of
environment. You see this as a sort of frightened no confidence.
I think hatting even changes eyesight. We ought to test it out.
We already know that unhatted people get hurt more than hatted people.
We know overts stem from misunderstoods. And we know running overts changes
eyesight.
It then probably follows that unhatted people couldn't see a tiger if
it was biting them!
So, how to be mystified by it all and afraid-remain unhatted.
Get hatted and see.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
for the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright c 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
[Note: The original mimeo copies of this policy letter were
incorrectly numbered as Personnel Series 38.1
473
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 NOVEMBER 1980
Issue IV
Rernimeo
(Originally LRH OODs items of
26 February 1971 and 24 August 1970.)
Org Series 61
Esto Series 51
DRILLS
Drills have several purposes. To groove in a team action is a
principal one. To test a system fully. To groove in lines.
Whenever postings are changed, the new post holders have to be grooved
in on their posts (hatted and on-post trained) and then the team itself
must be drilled.
The two steps are always needed.
There's a maxim about all training that applies. It is this: TRAINING
MUST INCLUDE ALL THE ACTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS OF THE ACTUAL.
This includes of course the whole cycle of an actual sequence of
actions. It's the sequence that counts.
The drilling of sequences of actions is a stable series of data that
prevents chaos from overwhelming one.
This applies to org lines as well. Dummy runs and dummy bullbait runs
serve as the drill.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
Compiled and issued by
Sherry Anderson
Compilations Missionaire
Approved and accepted by the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
of the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA
BDCSC:LRH:SA:dr.gm Copyright 0 1970, 1971, 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED
474
HUBBARD COMMUNICATI
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinst
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 J
Rernimeo
Starrate on
all Execs Target Series I
OT ORGS
What it takes to make an org go right is the intelligent assessment of
what really needs to be done, setting these as targets and then getting
them actually fully DONE.
We have all the data necessary to make orgs boom.
Therefore we find that when they don't, these faults must be present:
I . Completely unreal analysis of what needs to be done to make things
really go.
2. Cross orders-juniors setting other targets a-cross vital targets.
3. Noncompliance with vital target accomplishment.
4. False reports on actions or false data concerning targets.
5. Failure to doggedly follow through on one action and get it done
fully and completely.
6. Distractions leading to any of the above.
MAJOR TARGET
The desirable overall purpose being undertaken. This is highly
generalized, such as "to become an auditor."
VITAL TARGET
By definition a VITAL target is something that must be done to operate
at all.
Man's worst difficulty is his inability to tell the important from the
unimportant. "Every target is the same as every other target" is part of A
=A =A.
It takes good sense to be able to survey an area and find out
1. What MUST be done.
2. What SHOULDN'T be done.
3. What is only desirable to be done.
4. What is trivial.
As Man all too easily specializes in stops he tends to stress what
SHOULDN'T be done. While this enters into it, remember that it's a STOP.
STOPS ALL OCCUR BECAUSE OF FAILED PURPOSES.
BEHIND EVERY STOP THERE IS A FAILED PURPOSE.
A stuck picture or a motionless org are similar. Each has behind it a
failed purpose.
475
THERE IS A LAW ABOUT THIS-ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO RESTORE LIFE AND
ACTION IS TO REKINDLE THE FAILED PURPOSE. THE STOPS WILL AT ONCE BLOW.
That law (it comes out of OT VIII materials) is so powerful it would
practically revive the dead!
It applies to orgs.
It applies to cities or nations.
When you diverge from a constructive purpose to "stop attacks," the
purpose has been abandoned. You get a stop. The real way to stop attacks is
to widen one's zone of responsibility. And pour the coal on the purpose.
Thus all attacks one makes should be in THE DIRECTION OF ENLARGING ONE'S
SCOPE AND AUGMENTING BASIC PURPOSE.
Thus, in the case of Scientology orgs one should attack with the end
in view of taking over the whole field of mental healing. If our purpose
was this then it had to be this on all dynamics. We only got into trouble
by failing to take responsibility for the whole field!
We'll win back by reasserting that responsibility and making it good.
Targets, to that degree, are purposes.
Purposes must be executed. They are something to DO.
OT
Let us look at the definition of OT-cause over thought, life, form,
matter, energy, space and time.
As one falls away from that one becomes a SPECTATOR, then one becomes
an effect. Then one is gone
One causes things by action. Not by thinking dim thoughts.
One can be doing an IN-basket as simply a spectator.
In the society today spectatorism is very common. Magazine writers,
reporters, write weird pieces that look at how odd things are. The writer
doesn't understand them at all. He just watches them.
Spectatorism is not so low as total effect.
The total effect-no cause-person has mainly a case. He doesn't even
look.
Thus there is a gradient scale of OT. It's not an absolute. One is as
OT as he can CAUSE things.
One of the things to cause is target attainment. When somebody can
push through a target to completion he's to that degree OT.
People who don't push targets are either just spectators or they are
total effect.
ORG STATE
An org is somewhere on the OT Scale. Any org is. Of any kind.
An org can figure out the vital targets and push them through to
completion or it can't.
It's a gradient scale.
An org succeeds or fails to the degree its individual executives and
staff members can measure up to the OT formula: Cause.
476
Scientology orgs must become cause over their environments.
They do this by each executive and each staff member accomplishing
targets, small and large.
Thus:
(a) if the targets of what MUST be done to operate at all are set and
(b) are carried out with no noncompliance and
(c) if no false reports are entered into it,
Then
That org is way high on the OT Scale
AND IT WILL CONQUER ITS ENTIRE ENVIRONMENT COMPLETE.
That's really all there is to it.
One way to fail at it is do (a) with things that are so general that
they invite no doingness.
Some guys are so bad off they set targets like "move the mountain" and
give one and all a big failure. Since there's no way to do it and probably
no reason to either, that's an SP target. So what MUST be done means just
that. What is vital and necessary. Not what is simply a good idea.
Here's some MUST targets as examples:
A. Get tech delivered 100% in the org itself.
B. Get the public aware of its being delivered and wanting it.
C. Get the admin machinery in to get the public in and out.
Or another series:
D. GET 10,000 trained auditors into the org field.
E. Get the public aware of the project and wanting training.
F. Set up terrific 100% snap-pop courses to handle the flow.
Or another:
G. Get a �100,000 reserve cushion.
H. Get all accounts staff and executives checked out on finance
policy.
1. Shove the throttle down on promotion.
J. Deliver fantastic service.
K. Get enough tech people in training to handle the flows.
L. Find bigger poshier quarters to handle the flow when it rises.
M. Get all staff onto the OEC to diminish flow line flubs.
You get the idea.
An exec who is just a spectator to his in-basket flow is doing nothing
but cultivating dev-t.
You can assess the situation.
477
You can drive targets home to full completion.
Every executive and every staff member is somewhere on the OT Scale.
And he can rise higher just by setting up the targets and plowing them
through to done, done, done.
Yes, it requires ideas. But ideas come from interested looking and
sizing it all up before you set the target in the first place.
You can even raise an org by gradients so as not to overwhelm it. Set
and make small targets. Then bigger and bigger ones.
Well, you get the idea.
It's the ORG's road to OT.
L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:bw.ei.rd.gm Copyright 0 1969 by L. Ron
Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
[Note: This policy letter has been corrected as per HCO P/L 23 January
1969, OT ORGS CORRECTION.]
[Note: The Target Series designations and numbers have been added to
the target policy letters by the editor.]
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 JANUARY 1969
Remimeo
Target Series 1-1
OT ORGS CORRECTION
(Correction to HCO Pol Ltr 14 Jan 69)
(The first paragraph below and the next heading "Vital Target" were
left out of issue.)
MAJOR TARGET
The desirable overall purpose being undertaken. This is highly
generalized such as "to become an auditor."
VITAL TARGET
By definition a VITAL target is something that must be done to operate
at all.
(The HCO Pol Ltr 14 Jan 69 continues).
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:Idm.ei.gm Copyright 0 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
478
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 16 JANUARY 1969
Remimeo
(Reissued from Flag Order No. 1734,
same date and title)
Target Series 2
TARGETS, TYPES OF
There are several VALUES of targets. Not all targets are the same
value or importance.
There are, in any org, "understood" or continuing targets which came
from FOs or Pol Ltrs and Mission Orders.
PRIMARY TARGETS
There is a group of "understood" targets which, if overlooked. bring
about inaction.
The first of these is
SOMEBODY THERE Then
WORTHWHILE PURPOSE Then
SOMEBODY TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE AREA OR ACTION
Then
FORM OF ORGANIZATION PLANNED WELL Then
FORM OF ORGANIZATION HELD OR REESTABLISHED Then
ORGANIZATION OPERATING
If we have the above "understood" targets we can go on BUT IF THESE
DROP OUT OR ARE NOT SUBSTITUTED FOR then no matter what targets are set
thereafter they will go rickety or fail entirely.
In the above there may be a continual necessity to reassert one or
more of the "understood" targets WHILE trying to get further targets going.
VITAL TARGETS
Under this heading comes WHAT WE MUST DO TO OPERATE AT ALL.
This requires an inspection of both the area one is operating into and
the factors or materiel or organization with which we are operating.
One then finds those points (sometimes WHILE operating) which stop or
threaten future successes. And sets the overcoming of the vital ones as
targets.
479
CONDITIONAL TARGETS
It is interesting that one can go into an art type "perfection" with
targets and groom up primary targets far beyond the need to accomplish
purposes.
You've seen chaps work all their lives to "get rich" or some such
thing in order to "tour the world" and never make it. Some other fellow
sets tour the world and goes directly at it and does it. So there is a type
of target known as a conditional target: If I could just . . . then we
could . . . and so accomplish. . . . This is all right of course until it
gets unreal.
There is a whole class of conditional targets that have no IF in them.
These are legitimate targets. They have lots of WILL in them, "We will . .
. and then. . . ."
Sometimes sudden "breaks" show up and one must quickly take advantage
of them. This is only "good luck." One uses it and replans quickly when it
happens. One is on shaky ground to count on "good luck" as a solution.
A valid conditional target would be
"We will go there and see if the area is useful."
All conditional targets are basically actions of gathering data first
and if it is okay, then go into action on a vital target and operating
target basis.
This could add up like this:
CT I - Survey Lower Slobovia to see if it would be a suitable place
for an org.
This survey done, if it is positive, one then goes into primary
targets and operating targets.
The primary targets would be
Lower Slobovia One: Appoint local Organization Officer here for Lower
Slobovia.
Lower Slobovia Two: Form up Lower Slobovian Org. (Personnel)
Lower Slobovia Three: Train up org. (Staff Training Officer)
Lower Slobovia Four: Translate texts. (Translation Section)
Lower Slobovia Five: Finance formation. (Finance Section)
Lower Slobovia Six: Transport LS Org. (Transport Section)
Lower Slobovia Seven: Prepare LS bldg in LS BEFORE ORG ARRIVES.
(LS Org Officer)
Thus we would establish Lower Slobovia. AND IT WOULD ALL GO OFF WELL
TO THE DEGREE THE PRIMARY TARGETS WERE MADE, DONE, COMPLETED.
Primary targets setting on Lower Slobovia would fail if some primary
target were omitted in the first place (never set) or if the conditional
target findings on LS were a false report.
Thus we are very hot on "false report" and very hot on
"noncompliance."
480
OPERATING TARGETS
An operating target would set the direction of advance and qualify it.
It normally includes a scheduled TIME by which it has to be complete so as
to fit into other targets.
Sometimes the time is set as "BEFORE." And there may be no time for
the event that it must be done "before." Thus it goes into a rush basis
"just in case."
To get all the shoe salesmen in Boston enrolled on a PE Course would
be an operating target. This would then go into the framework of a primary
target as to the remaining targets set.
Operating targets often look like "basic purpose." They can come
before or after primary targets. But an operating target has its own series
of primary targets. To enroll all the shoe salesmen you need somebody in
charge of it, a PE Supervisor, literature, a handbook for salesmen, etc.,
etc., which are all set as primary targets.
Sometimes an elaborate operating and primary target series falls apart
because there was no conditional target set, i.e. to find out if Boston had
any salesmen and which types were responsive. You might find the operating
target had been set with no inspection.
So, again, we can move backward and find that an operating target
needs a conditional target ahead of it-to wit, an inspection.
PRODUCTION TARGETS
Setting quotas, usually against time, are production targets.
These often fail because they are unreal or issued for other reasons
than production (i.e. propaganda).
As statistics most easily reflect production, an org or activity can
be so PRODUCTION TARGET conscious that it fails to set conditional,
operating or primary targets. When this happens, then production is liable
to collapse for lack of planning stated in other types of targets.
Production as the only target type can become so engulfing that
conditional targets even when set are utterly neglected. Then operating and
primary targets get very unreal and stats go DOWN.
YOU HAVE TO INSPECT AND SURVEY AND GATHER DATA AND SET OPERATING AND
PRIMARY TARGETS BEFORE YOU CAN SET PRODUCTION TARGETS.
A normal reason for down statistics on production is the vanishment of
primary targets. These go out and nobody notices that this affects
production badly. Production depends on other prior targets being kept in.
PROGRAMS
Programs are made up of all types of targets coordinated and executed.
ON TIME.
Programs extend in time and go overdue to the extent the various types
of targets are not set or not pushed home or drop out.
Programs fail only because the various types of targets are not
executed or are not kept in.
481
SUMMARY
You can get done almost anything you want to do if types of targets
are understood, set with reality, held in or completed.
People whose own purposes have failed often cannot either set or
complete targets. The remedy is to rehabilitate their own purposes which
then blows off the stops.
People who stop targets actively have failed so badly that they can
only think in terms of stops.
This whole subject of targets and purposes is probably a large one.
These are just rough notes and the naming of the different types which is
itself a considerable advance.
It is of help in grasping what is going on and gets one somewhere.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:sdp.ei.rd.gm Copyright c 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
482
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 JANUARY 1969
Issue 11
Remimeo (Reissued from Flag Order No. 1736,
same date and title)
Target Series 3
PLANNING AND TARGETS
(There are at this writing 3 HCO Pol Ltrs of near date on this subject
of targets. The area has never before been examined or written up as a
philosophic subject.)
Plans are NOT targets.
All manner of plans can be drawn and can be okayed. But this does not
authorize their execution. They are just plans. When and how they will be
done and by whom has not been established, scheduled or authorized.
This is why planning sometimes gets a bad name.
You could plan to make a million dollars but if when, how and who were
not set as targets of different types, it just wouldn't happen. A brilliant
plan is drawn as to how to convert Boston Harbor into a fuel tanker area.
It could be on drawings with everything perfectly placed. One could even
have models of it. Ten years go by and it has not been started much less
completed. You have seen such plans. World's fairs are full of them.
One could also have a plan which was targeted-who, when, how-and if
the targets were poor or unreal, it would never be completed.
One can also have a plan which had no CONDITIONAL TARGET ahead of it
and so no one really wanted it and it served no purpose really. It is
unlikely it would ever be finished. Such a thing existed in Corfu. It was a
half-completed Greek theater which had just been left that way. No one had
asked the inhabitants if they wanted it or if it was needed. So even though
very well planned and even partially targeted and half-completed, there it
is-half-finished. And has remained that way.
A plan, by which is meant the drawing or scale modeling of some area,
project or thing, is of course a vital necessity in any construction and
construction fails without it. It can even be okayed as a plan.
But if it was not the result of findings of a conditional target (a
survey of what's needed or feasible) it will be useless or won't fit in.
And if no funds are allocated to it and no one is ordered to do it and if
no scheduling of doing it exists, then, on each separate count it won't
ever be done.
One can define planning as the overall target system wherein all
targets of all types are set. That would be complete planning.
COMPLETE PLANNING
To get a complete plan okayed one would have to show it as:
(a) A result of a conditional target (survey of what's wanted and
needed).
(b) The details of the thing itself, meaning a picture of it or its
scope plus the ease or difficulty in doing it and with what persons or
materials.
483
(c) Classification of it as vital or simply useful.
(d) The primary targets of it showing the organization needed to do
it.
(e) The operating targets showing its scheduling (even if scheduled
not with dates but days or weeks) and dove-tailing with other actions.
(f) Its cost and whether or not it will pay for itself or can be
afforded or how much money it will make.
Complete planning would have to include the targets and the plan of
the thing.
Thus, by redefining words and assigning labels to target types we can
get a better grip on this.
A plan would be the design of the thing itself.
Complete planning would be all the targets plus the design.
Thus we see why some things don't come off at all and why they often
don't get completed even when planned. The plan is not put forward in its
target framework and so is unreal or doesn't get done.
Also it's a great way to lose or waste money.
Sometimes a conditional target fails to ask what obstacles or
opposition would be encountered or what skills are available and so can go
off the rails in that fashion.
The whole subject of plans, targets and target types is new in the
realm of analyzed thought.
It is a subject to "get the feel of" and "learn to think concerning"
rather than a fully "canned" subject.
But if these points are grasped, then one sees the scope of the
subject and can become quite brilliant and achieve things hitherto out of
reach or never thought of before.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:Idm.ei.rd.gm Copyright Q 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
484
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 JANUARY 1969
Rernimeo
Target Series 4
TARGET TYPES
(Note: This is a developing subject, new in philosophy. It is part of
the philosophy Scientology.)
You should learn the names and types of targets for quick use and
classification of what you are trying to do.
MAJOR TARGET - The broad general ambition, possibly covering a long
only approximated period of time. Such as "to attain greater security" or
"to get the org up to 50 staff members."
PRIMARY TARGET - The organizational, personnel, communication type
targets.
These have to be kept in. These are the terminals and route and
havingness and org board type targets. Example: "To put someone in charge
of organizing it and have him set remaining primary targets." Or "To
reestablish the original comm system which has dropped out."
CONDITIONAL TARGETS - Those which set up EITHER/OR to find out data or
if a project can be done or where or to whom.
OPERATING TARGETS - Those which lay out directions and actions or a
schedule of events or timetable.
PRODUCTION TARGETS - Those which set quantities like statistics.
PROGRAM - The complete or outline of a complete target series
containing all types.
While there may be other types of targets, these (more fully described
in HCO P/L 14 Jan 69, 16 Jan 69, 18 Jan 69 and correction HCO P/L 23 Jan 69
and this one, HCO P/L 24 Jan 69) should be studied and every target set
should be classed as one or more of the above.
"Complete planning" and "programs" are synonymous at this time and
PROGRAMS is the preferred word.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:Idm.ei.gm Copyright c, 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
485
HUBBARD COMMUNICATI
Saint Hill Manor, East Grins
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 24 J
Issue 11
Remimeo
Gung Ho
FSMs
Pub Divs Target Series 5
PURPOSE AND TARGETS
(This is No. 5 in the Target Series)
Out of data of OT VIII has come some material that cannot be relegated
to that level. It is minor to that level but major to our operations.
The reason we are fought where we are fought is contained in its major
part in purposes.
Purposes often fail and wind up in stop.
Stopped purposes can then be dramatized.
In Scientology we use (quite correctly) FREEDOM. While not the most
basic purpose TO BE FREE is a common purpose to all thetans.
This tends to key in (restimulate), in some persons, the stop of being
free. They themselves wanted to be free. They were stopped, they dramatize
the STOP of being free and try then to stop us. We restimulated (keyed in)
their own purpose to be free or free others and where we are opposed the
person or persons dramatize the stop or disagreement.
Also where we not only restimulate the stop but oppose and deny him as
well, we get an enemy.
We are then stopping stoppers. While this is necessary to save the
day, it is preventable if begun early enough,
The psychiatrist is not the only "freedom stopper" we will ever meet.
Many people who have been in healing and mental treatment in the times
before we came along had only failures. So anything offered to them
(including their own) will be looked on as a failure at best or at worst a
fraud.
That it really can be done in Scientology is not only outside their
reality but regenerated the failed purpose they have had to be free and
free others and they dramatize STOP.
While this is not the total reason (interrelations also restimulate
ethnic values meaning customs) it is a big reason for dedicated opposition
to us.
We restimulate their failed freedom efforts and they dramatize what
stopped them. So they irrationally seek to stop Scientology.
This would also be true for products of a commercial nature. It is
good advertising technology.
Freedom is one of the buttons that gets us forward. It is also the
button that restimulates the opposition into efforts to stop us.
486
In dissemination then to such people, theoretically one need only get
them remembering when they wanted to be free or free others to blow their
stops. But as they may have many crimes now built up on top of it some may
just spin.
But in all discussions with persons opposing Scn, one should try the
approach of getting them to remember their efforts to be free or to free
others and let them talk. As you listen you will realize they were without
Scientology to help them and they didn't have a chance.
Led in from that point you may get a very receptive person.
L. RON HUBBARD
Founder
LRH:Idm.ei.rd.gm Copyright 0 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED
487