It occasionally happens that an order is issued or a policy is enforced or is found to exist which if put into full effect in a certain area would result in loss or destruction.
Someone told to man up, for instance, all Admin departments, sees that this would upset the Tech-Admin ratio.
Instead of putting the order into effect he should query the order with
A. The name of the issuer and the exact order.
B. The reason it would result in loss or destruction if put into effect.
C. A recommendation resolving the problem the order sought to solve.
Non-Compliance as a method of avoiding a destructive order is very risky. It is far, far better, in writing, to make the above submission.
Going ahead and putting the order into effect even though it means loss and destruction without advising anyone is itself very destructive.
Sometimes a policy is interpreted incorrectly so that if one put it into effect fully as interpreted, loss and destruction would result. An instance of this was a type of course omitted from a policy letter. Someone did not query but instead closed the course and refunded thousands in advance payments. This was a misinterpretation of the policy which was only discussing course levels. The correct action of one and all would have been to have queried.
Another instance was an order that cancelled out and fired the personnel of a letter registrar because a fixed pay rate was being paid. The org followed the order and promptly went into debt as this was the only typist available and her dismissal was destructive of all income. Half a dozen people at least should have queried the order before executing.
A policy written for an affluent large org is pushed on a tiny org. It executes even though it doesn’t seem correct. The result is destructive.
The very meaning of policy can be shifted by re-interpretation. When this is done and is seen to be destructive anyone following the re-interpretation is just as guilty as the mis-interpreter. The correct action is query.
Even “You’re fired” can be an incorrect order and can be queried if done as above.
“Your Class VIII is appointed HCO ES Canada.” Great. But you know you’ve only got one VIII. To permit the order to be carried out is destructive. An order placing your best auditors into Admin leaving Tech crippled should have the living daylights queried out of it even by the janitor.
IT DOES NOT RELIEVE ONE OF RESPONSIBILITY WHEN ONE EXECUTES A DESTRUCTIVE ORDER. The one who follows it is in fact far more guilty than the issuer since the one following it is right there, able to OBSERVE whereas the issuer may not be.
The Query should go to the issuer formed as ABC above. If it is still insisted upon and still is destructive send it and all particulars to the nearest Sea Org unit. Label it DESTRUCTIVE ORDER and ask for help in handling. Refuse meanwhile to put it into effect.
NO ONE CAN BE COMM EVED FOR QUERYING AN ORDER IN PROPER FORM.
Using this Policy to avoid routine actions plainly not resulting in loss and destruction WHICH NOT DONE do result in loss or destruction can result in an investigation and the one who refused the order can be held at fault for any resulting destruction.
This policy mainly applies to new, non-routine orders or attempted changes.
Placing an org or person in an incorrect condition comes under this policy.