Failed Orgs ≠ Admin Tech

I’ve heard more than one person now point to failed orgs and low staff pay as evidence that Admin doesn’t work. Talk about your wrong Why. Let me illustrate this with an entirely different example.

A guy designs and builds a new kind of car. This baby is sleek, and man, is it fast. Even though it’s street-legal (not a race car), it can do 0–60 in two seconds flat! Needless to say he’s pretty proud of his baby. To sell it, he invites a bunch of people to take it for a spin.

The first guy gets behind the wheel, but the car doesn’t move at all. The crowd watching starts to chuckle, and the first driver gives up. The next guy gets in and he manages to get the car to go, but in fits and starts, lurching a bit, then stopping. He gives up and walks away, shaking his head. Driver number three gives it a try and he manages to get the car going smoothly, but only barely — certainly not a speed demon. The crowd’s laughter grows as he leaves the vehicle. Then number four confidently gives it a try, and while he does go faster, it’s still pretty slow. Meanwhile, the car’s designer is pulling out his hair. “What’s happening?” he asks himself. “I succeeded in breaking speed records with this baby.” So what went wrong?

Well, the first driver managed to turn the car on, but he never put it into gear. Number two got it into gear, but didn’t know how to use a clutch. The next guy got past the clutch issue, but didn’t give it any gas. And the last guy knew to give it gas, but he was also riding the brake. So there wasn’t anything wrong with the car — the drivers weren’t properly hatted on how to drive it. And that’s what’s wrong with Orgs — the staff aren’t properly hatted, fail to correctly use Admin, and things don’t work right.

Okay, I hear some of you saying, “Well, you should build a car that’s easier to drive.” Really? That’s your answer? Does the same viewpoint apply to the Tech? Would you plop someone in the chair with a meter and tell him to audit a PC despite not learning the Level first? In other words, should there be no need to train an auditor? (For the few of you nodding yes, dang!)

It’s funny, the Admin-trained people I know all have the utmost respect for red-on-white, but I’ve heard from some auditors who view green-on-white with complete disdain. Let me tell you, as someone who’s trained on Admin, it can be life changing. I experienced LFBDs from some of the things I studied. Just as Tech can help you understand why people do what they do, Admin can help you understand all kinds of whys. The Data Series is awesome tech. So is the Esto Series. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. Don’t do an A=A.

Where’s the Div 6 activity?

One of my long-standing pet peeves in Scientology has been the imbalance between promoting to existing public versus raw public. FSMs, even way back when I was on staff, preferred to work with cognited Scientologists over running the Dissemination Drill on raw public. Sure, I understand it’s a whole lot easier to confront someone who already knows Scientology is the way out. Approaching a raw public could leave you dealing with all kinds of headaches (entheta, Third Party, etc.).

CofS has taken cannibalism of public to a whole new level. The stories of outrageous regging are all over the place. But I fear there’s a similar problem in the Field.

While there may be some in the Field who are actively promoting Scientology to raw public, I haven’t seen any major activity in this area. I’ve heard some say that it’s planned, but mostly the focus I’ve seen and heard is on fellow people in the Field, servicing those who are already out, and trying to get more to “wake up” and leave CofS. That’s all good, but we still have a planet to clear, folks.

With CofS crumbling before our eyes, the Field should be positioning itself to take on the job of clearing the planet. Of course, this goes back to that dreaded “Organization” concept because, ideally, there’d be marketing and promotion to reach all those wogs. To do it properly and on the necessary scale, we’d need the money to finance things like TV commercials and web ads (not email marketing, please — I hate spam!). These could point to a central internet presence that provides people with a destination to learn more, as well as a way for them to locate a “provider” in their area. You know, they type in their location and it would show who in that area offers what. It would just be field practices in the beginning (please, auditing and training), but eventually, we’d need some type of Org structure. (Okay, pick your jaw back up. No, you don’t need to cower in the corner. As I mentioned in my “Who’s afraid of Admin?” post, it’s not Organizations or Admin that’s the boogeyman.)

My point is we need to think big, not just worry about our own cases. I totally understand “racing Dynamic One” — I’m not getting any younger myself and I have a whole lot of Bridge to still do. But I also recognize this is a big planet with a whole lot of people. The more people we clear, the better life would be here on Earth. If appealing to your Third and Fourth Dynamics isn’t working, think about your Second. Don’t you want your kids and grandkids to have a safer, saner world to live in?

Who’s afraid of Admin?

Okay, now I’m really going to step into it! If you were to meet me, you’d never think I was the type to stir a hornets’ nest, but when I feel strongly about something, I tend to speak up. Ask my poor hubby…

I’ve noticed a viewpoint that appears to be held by some of the major voices in the Field that bothers me greatly — a blaming of Admin (Green-on-White) for a multitude of sins. Can you say “wrong target”? Most, if not all, the complaints I’ve read and heard regarding Admin can be traced back to a misapplication (or non-application) of Admin. Just as Red-on-White Tech would create poor results if not applied correctly, Green-on-White “tech” must also be standardly and correctly applied.

Sadly, there’s been widespread misapplication of Admin for many years. It’s usually the result of unhattedness. On the small scale, this plays out with someone slapped onto a post, given a pitiful excuse of a mini-hat (if that), and then yelled at for not producing stats. But the unhattedness goes all the way to the top of Orgs, of Management Orgs, and of CofS itself.

My husband has made the point on his blog that there’s also a problem with ‘corporate culture’. I’m sure there are people who are Admin trained, but after years of being mishandled, yelled at, and beaten down (in some cases, literally), haven’t been able to hold their position in space, going into agreement with the exact wrong way to do things.

Admin is something I know a thing or two about. When I was a Class V Org staff member, I was sent to LA to do the Organization Executive Course (OEC) and Flag Executive Briefing Course (FEBC). For those who don’t know those courses, the OEC covers the main Green volumes (Divisions 0-7) while the FEBC covers the Management Series volumes as well as some excellent LRH tapes (the FEBC and Est O tapes). The analogy used is that an OEC grad is to Admin as a Class VI auditor is to Tech, while an FEBC compares to a Class VIII auditor. So as an interned FEBC, Exec Status III, I know about Admin and how it’s supposed to work. Sadly, you’d be hard pressed to find it fully and correctly applied in CofS today.

Let’s start with why Admin is so important. Don’t listen to me; look at what LRH says:

HCO PL 29 May 1961 Quality and Admin in Central Orgs (Keeping Scientology Working Series 3):

“Administration is no unimportant function. On the contrary, I had to work in Scientology a long time before I found out that in the absence of good administration, technical quality is impossible.”

HCO PL 4 June 1971 Standard Admin:

“To approach the subject of STANDARD ADMINISTRATION realistically, one first must recognize that a right way to do things can exist.”

“There is a TECH of ADMIN. This would be the right ways to do administration actions or organize something.”

“There are correct ways to do things in ADMIN. For each correct procedure there can be an infinity of incorrect actions.”

“The subject of admin only appears difficult because those involved in it SELDOM LEARN THE CORRECT PROCEDURES. Instead they do other odd things that, taken as a whole, give a thoroughly confused scene.”

“‘On-policy’ (knowing and applying our procedures) has been the common denominator of each boom. ‘Off-policy’ (not knowing, not applying our procedures) has been the common denominator of every org or continental area collapse.”

HCO PL 10 July 1986 Keeping Admin Working:

“It may not be generally understood, however, that the principles given in that policy letter [Keeping Scientology Working, Ed.] do not apply only to what is commonly referred to as ‘tech’ — the first dynamic technology given in HCO Bulletins. You see, when ‘tech’ goes out, the pc suffers. When ‘admin’ goes out, the org declines.

Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin. The principles of unvarying adherence to precise technology, constant alertness to tech alter-is and insistence that every Scientologist abide by these rules apply just as severely to the third dynamic technology of standard administration — POLICY.”

I could go on, but I think you get his point. There’s been way too much misapplication of Admin and I’ve been on the receiving end of some. My org was a hot bed of unhattedness and the unusual solutions, stat pushes, low staff pay, etc. that go along with it. The “it’s 10:00 on a Wednesday night and nobody goes home until we get the Gross Book Sales up!” insanity. I know what it feels like to be subjected to incorrect (or missing altogether) justice actions. I do understand the pain and frustration this misapplication of Admin causes, but I also know what it’s like when it’s done as LRH lays out.

Before we ‘fired’ back into our orgs, FEBCs were treated to a tour of a true “Ideal Org”. It was an amazingly theta experience. The first thing that hit me was the complete and total lack of tension in the air. People were busy getting their products; they were focused, but happy and smiling as they went about their work. It was so unlike any Org I’d been in, from my home Org, to my Continental Liaison Office (CLO), to even Flag Command Bureau where we did our training. If only Int had insisted on getting all Management staff (from Int to Cont levels), through the FEBC program when LRH first developed it (at the time and ongoing to PT), perhaps COB could never have gotten the foothold to do all the damage he did.

Standard Admin has to start at the very top. I can’t speak for today, but when I was on staff, this was part of the problem. As a Class V Org ED, I answered to a Programs Chief at the continental level and that person was either (1) not admin trained at all, (2) beaten down over the years in the SO, or (3) trying to sabotage the Org. I won’t go into the particulars, but trust me, this person didn’t appreciate what an FEBC is trained to do.

My point is that Admin is not the boogeyman. It’s not this terrible tool to hit and hurt the suffering staff. It is misapplication or non-application of Admin that has done so much damage. Let me leave you with one more LRH passage:

HCO PL 10 July 1986 Admin Degrades:

“How does standard ‘green-on-white’ policy get lost? Just as with the ‘red-on-white’ tech of auditing or training, it can potentially be obscured or made to seem unimportant by the actions of an ill-intentioned individual.

“Someone considers that the best way to get a new staff member quickly onto post is to shorten his hat checksheet or label key hat materials as ‘old.’ The new staff member fails, dragging a whole unit or department down with him in a maelstrom of dev-t.

“In a hurry to get something accomplished, someone skimps on the usual, on-policy procedures and routings and soon his improvised (squirreled) ‘handling,’ tolerated by others, becomes ‘the way it’s always done around here.’ And crash goes that area.

“Seeking to get his own stats up at any cost (and ignoring the effects of his actions on the org as a whole), an ‘expert’ manages to obscure standard, on-policy lines and routings and implements his own ‘successful actions,’ then torpedoes any attempt to get policy in. The result — the org falls far short of what it could be producing if it were operating by the book.”