Every post and part of an org must have a statistic which measures the volume of product of that post. The head of a part has the statistic of that part.
Every post or part of an org has a product. If it has no product, it is useless and supernumerary.
An Exec Sec has the products of his or her portion of the org. The first product of an Exec Sec is, of course, his or her portion of the org’s divisions. If the portion itself does not exist, then of course the Exec Sec has no stat at all as an Exec Sec even if very busy — so he or she is not an Exec Sec despite the title. This is true of a department head, a section head and a unit head. One can’t really be the one in charge if the thing one is in charge of doesn’t exist. Also, things that don’t exist themselves can have no product.
The whole rationale (basic idea) of the pattern of an org is a unit of 3. These are
In Division One the HCO Sec is the thetan, Department One the MIND, Department Two the BODY and Department Three the PRODUCT. The same pattern holds for every division.
It also should hold for every department and lower section and unit.
And above these, it holds for a portion of an org.
In the HCO portion of the org we have the HCO Exec Sec as the thetan, the Exec Div (7) as the MIND, Division One as the BODY and Division Two as the PRODUCT. And so with other parts of an org. They always go
Now if you know and understand and can apply this, you can not only plan or correct an org or one of its parts, you can also assign conditions correctly. You need data gained from inventories or counts of items or the statistic assigned and drawn.
It is not enough to only follow graphs. That is a lazy, lazy, lazy, no-confront method when used alone. Graphs can be falsified, can be too fixed on one thing and can ignore others unless you read all the graphs of the part you are interested in.
Graphs are a good indicator and should be used wherever possible. BUT you must also keep in mind that it requires ALL the graphs to be wholly accurate in a conditions assignment and the most accurate conditions assignment possible and that the graphs must be based on ACTUAL figures.
So, to begin, you look at the graphs. You look for recent ups and downs. Then you look for trends (long-range drifts up or down). Then you look for discrepancies. Like high enrollment — low income, high letters out — low enrollment weeks later.
It is safe enough at first to simply assign moderate conditions (Emergency, Normal, Affluence) by the current ups and downs of the graphs. This should result in expansion.
EXPANSION (product increase) is THE WHOLE REASON you are assigning conditions in the first place, so you expect, reasonably, that if you assign conditions by graph you will get expansion.
Now, after a while (weeks or months) you see you are getting expansion so you go on assigning conditions by graph. An Exec Sec would also inspect the physical areas of Dangers and Affluences as a matter of course.
BUT let us take the reverse case. You assign conditions by graph (and inspections of Danger and Affluence) and what you are assigning conditions to DOESN’T expand!
Well, now we get to work. There is something wrong.
The first thing that can be wrong is that what you are assigning conditions to really doesn’t exist. The Director of Comm does not have a Department of Comm. He has only a messenger-telex operator, no way to handle his other departmental functions and answers the phone himself.
So, finding no department, REGARDLESS OF OTHER REASONS (“can’t get staff” “income too low” “no quarters”), you bang him with a condition of Non-Existence. Because he obviously doesn’t exist as a Dir Comm, having no Comm Dept. (Non-Existence is also assigned for NO USE and NO FUNCTION.)
Now, if this assignment to the Dir Comm of Non-Existence — with no further help from you, mind — does not result in a Comm Dept in a reasonable time, you assume he doesn’t want one to be there and you assign a condition of Liability.
You don’t explain it all away. That’s what he’s doing so why imitate him?
You don’t say, “He’s just overwhelmed — new — needs a review — natter, natter, figure, figure.” You simply ASSIGN!
He STILL doesn’t get a Comm Dept there.
You inspect. You find the Ethics Officer isn’t enforcing the Liability penalty (“Pete is my pal and I . . .”). So you assign the Ethics Officer a condition of Liability as he gets, naturally, what he failed to enforce.
Now they mutiny and you assign a condition of Treason, shoot both of them from guns and fill the posts.
The new incumbents you tell, “The boys before you aren’t here now and aren’t likely to be trained or processed until we get around to the last dregs so we hope you do better. You begin in Non-Existence. I trust you will work your way out of it at least into Danger before the week is out. As you are just on post, the penalties do not apply for Non-Existence. But they will after 30 days. So let’s get a Dept of Comm and an Ethics Section.”
Now of course, if the E/O had to be shot from guns, Dir I & R is at once assigned a DANGER CONDITION complete with penalties as that section was in his/her dept.
If there’s no HCO (Div 7, 1,2) part of the org, the LRH Comm of that org yells for the next senior org to act. And if there’s no LRH Comm, the next senior org should see that it’s gone by lack of stats or reports or expansion and act anyway.
Now you say, “But that’s ruthless! No staff would....”
Well, such a statement reasoning is contrary to the facts.
The only time (by actual experience and data) you lose staff and have an unstaffed org is when you let low stat people in. Low stat personnel gets rid of good staff members. An org that can’t be staffed has an SP in it!
Orgs where ethics is tight and savage grow in numbers!
Man thrives, oddly enough, only in the presence of a challenging environment. That isn’t my theory. That’s fact.
If the org environment is not challenging, there will be no org.
We help beyond any help ever available anywhere. We are a near ultimate in helping. At once this loads us up with SPs who would commit suicide to prevent anyone from being helped and it lays us wide open as “softees” to any degraded being that comes along. They are sure we won’t bite so they do anything they please. Conditions correctly assigned alone can detect and eject SPs and DBs.
So if we help so greatly, we must also in the same proportion be able to discipline. Near ultimate help can only be given with near ultimate discipline.
Tech can only stay itself where ethics is correctly and ruthlessly administered. Admin like ours has to be high because our orgs handle the highest commodity — life itself.
So our admin only works where tech is IN. And our tech works only where ethics is in.
Our target is not a few psychiatric patients but a cleared universe. So what does THAT take?
The lowest confront there is, is the confront of evil. When a living being is out of his own valence and in the valence of a thoroughly bad, even if imaginary, image, you get an SP. An SP is a no-confront case because, not being in his own valence, he has no viewpoint from which to erase anything. That is all an SP is.
BUT the amount of knowing havoc an SP can cause is seen easily if only in this planet’s savage, cruel wars.
An executive who cannot confront evil is already en route to becoming suppressive.
Next door to the “theetie-weetie” case is the totally overwhelmed condition we call SP (suppressive person).
It is so easy to live in a fairyland where nothing evil is ever done. One gets the image of a sweet old lady standing in the middle of a gangster battle with bodies and blood spattering the walls saying, “It’s so nice, it’s only a boy’s game with toy guns.”
The low statistic staff member who never gets his stats up is making low stats. He isn’t idle. It’s a goodie-goodie attitude to say, “He just isn’t working hard.” The chronic low-stat person is working VERY HARD to keep the stat DOWN. When you learn that, you can assign conditions and make an org expand.
When stats WON’T come up, you drop the condition down. Sooner or later you will hit the REAL condition that applies.
Conversely, as you upgrade conditions you will also reach the condition that applies. Some staff members are in chronic Power. Who ever assigns it? They take over a post — its stats soar. Well, to measure just stats of the post taken over as his condition is false since his personal condition is and has been Power. And if it is Power, then that personal condition should be assigned.
That is very easy to see.
BUT what if you have a personnel who whenever he or she takes over a post the stat collapses?
Well you better assign that one too. For just as the one in Power works to maintain up stats, the one in the lower condition, whether one cares to confront it or not, works too and is just as industriously collapsing not only his own post stats but also the stats of posts adjacent to his! So he is at least a condition of Liability as the post if vacant would only be in Non-Existence! And as somebody next to it might do a little bit for it, it might even get up to Danger condition, completely unmanned!
When there are discrepancies amongst statistic graphs, SOME graph is false.
When you find a false graph, you assign anyone who falsified it intentionally and knowingly a condition of Liability, for that action is far worse than a noncompliance.
And you had better be alert to the actual area where the false graph originated as it has a tiger in it. Only physical inspection of a most searching kind (or a board if it is distant) will reveal the OTHER crimes going on there. There are always other crimes when you get a false report. Experience will teach one that if he really looks.
It is more than policy that one gets the condition he fails to correctly and promptly assign and enforce.
It’s a sort of natural law. If you let your executives goof off and stay in, let us say, a Danger condition, yet you don’t assign and enforce one, they will surely put YOU in a Danger condition whether it gets assigned or not.
Remember that when your finger falters “on the trigger.”
That natural law stems from this appalling fact.
We didn’t, a long, long time ago, get in ethics. We goofed. And the whole race went into the soup where it remains to this day.
And if we are to live in this universe at all, at all, we are going to have to get in ethics and clean it up.
Whether that’s easy to confront or not is beside the point. The horrid truth is that our fate is FAR more unconfrontable!
Now we have to have highly skilled tech to bail us out. And I assure you that that tech will never get in or be used beneficially at all unless
1. We get ethics in, and
2. Unless Scientology orgs expand at a regular rate.
Only then can we be free.
So that’s how and WHY you assign and enforce conditions. It’s the only way everyone finally will win.