BY-PASS = Jumping the proper terminal in a chain of command.

If you declare a Danger Condition, you of course must do the work necessary to handle the situation that is dangerous.

This is also true backwards. If you start doing the work of a post on a by-pass you will of course unwittingly bring about a Danger Condition. Why? Because you unmock the people who should be doing the work.

Further, if you habitually do the work of others on a by-pass you will of course inherit all the work. This is the answer to the overworked executive. He or she by-passes. It's as simple as that. If an executive habitually by-passes he or she will then become overworked.

Also the Condition of Non-Existence will occur.

So the more an executive by-passes, the harder he works. The harder he works on a by-pass, the more the section he is working on will disappear.

So purposely or unwittingly working on a by-pass, the result is always the same — Danger Condition.

If you have to do the work on a by-pass you must get the Condition Declared and follow the formula.

If you Declare the Condition, you must also do the work.

You must get the work being competently done, by new appointment or transfer or training or case review. And the condition is not over when the hearings are over. It is over when that portion of the org has visibly statistically recovered.

So there are great responsibilities in declaring a Danger Condition. These are outweighed in burdensomeness by the fact that if you DON'T declare one on functions handled by those under you which go bad, it will very soon catch up with you yourself, willy-nilly and declared or not you will go into a Danger Condition personally.

There's the frying pan — there's the fire. The cheerful note about it is that if the formula is applied you have a good chance of not only rising again but also of being bigger and better than ever.

And that's the first time that ever happened to an executive who started down the long slide. There's hope!

There is one further footnote on a Danger Condition. I have carefully studied whether or not HCOBs and Policy Letters and actions by me were by-passes. And a search of statistics refutes it as when I give the most attention to all echelons of an org wherever the org is, its statistics rise and when I don't they fall. Therefore we must assume that advice is not a by-pass, nor is a general order by me. Where there is disagreement on a command channel I am trying to forward then a by-pass occurs.

So we can assume correctly on experience and statistics that danger conditions occur only when there are fundamental disagreements on a command channel.

If you yourself then ferret out the disagreement ones of those under your orders you will clear your command lines.

Review can always find disagreements when they exist with a meter.

Where Danger Conditions are declared, the declaring executive should make an effort to find the disagreement with himself, policy, the org or Scientology as a basic Review action on persons found responsible for a Danger Condition. The only errors are not to look for them and not to find all the disagreements the person has on the subject of his superiors and post, policy, technology or orders.”

This is why a low leadership survey grade person can be counted on to put wherever he is in danger. His disagreements are too many and he doesn't execute and thereby secretly puts his superior into by-passing and a danger condition inevitably occurs.

It needn't occur.

We have the data, now.