1.) This is a talk on ESTOs. As you know, there is nothing covering this in policy at this time. This will be handled and policy letters will be written.
2.) You should note, that the Product Org Officer System, which is the immediate predecessor, was not put into policy either, but was on tapes: It was run and was very successful, but it hat a fatal weakness. And that was the ESTABLISHMENT COULD NOT OCCUR.
3.) There were two reasons for this:
1.) The flurry and urgency of Production make it very difficult for Establishment to Occur. 2.) The Establishment personell of the org were insufficiently numerous to stand up the demands of Production.
4.) Therefore the org was relatively unhatted while production was being demanded of it, and the demands for production produced fantastic quantities of Dev-T.
5.) This Dev-T then drowned the org which had not been established.
6.) This Dev-T policy pack you have covers this fully. Now, you ask, "what is new about this?". "We have known about Dev-T for years!" Yes, we have, and there was a FAINT reference to unhattedness in the Dev-T policies. But it did not step up the IMPORTANCE of that fact.
7.) The CAUSE of Dev-T IS UNHATTEDNESS.
8.) And Dev-T drowns the org.
9.) Ex: It's like "yellow jaundice". The skin turns yellow. That is a symptom. But the cause is a LIVER infection. To just try to apply cosmetics to the yellow skin will not handle the disease. The CAUSE is in the liver, and it needs antibiotics, etc.
10.) Dev-T is only the SYMPTOM. Unhattedness is the CAUSE.
11.) Therefore you can DETECT unhattedness by spotting Dev-T.
12.) A survey of Dev-T throughout the org will bring into your hands those who are UNHATTED. And they are consuming the time of a least 2 other staff member while their jobs and post products are NOT being done. So 1 Person doing Dev-T is like having at LEAST 3 less staff in the org!
13.) So, Dev-T showing up will tell you immediately that you have an added unproductive staff load and a "camoflaged HOLE" in the org.
14.) A "camoflaged hole" is where it looks like something is there, but it's actually a hole.
15.) And that hole ITSELF will generate Dev-T. But the area is so noisy, you don't see it as a hole. Ex: You think you have a Qual Sec, but he is always on every one else's lines with Dev-T. There is a being there with a title, but in reality there are not Qual Sec functions being done. And that "missingness" generates its own Dev-T.
16.) The people all around the area have to wear the hat of Qual Sec - So they don't get their own posts done! AND they have to cope with the nonsense that is coming from that particular post.
17.) So "Dev-T" is a primary diagnostic tool for the "illness" of an org.
18.) Now it isn't a "who". You shouldn't think of it in terms of a "who", as in "Who is the SP?" or "Who should we shoot?". That is an Ethics Officer attitude, not an ESTO attitude. The ESTO thinks of it as "who needs HATTING?"
19.) So you are working with a DIAGNOSIBLE ILLNESS OF A 3RD DYNAMIC, the symptom of which is Dev-T.
20.) So it's somebody NOT doing his job PLUS involving a lot of others around him in the time, effort, and material use, for "no-production". (So you CAN have 8655 staff members getting out the production of only 1 small boy!)
21.) And the small boy would probably be kicked in the head if they caught him at it! (Joke)
22.) It is very easy to think of this in terms of maliciousness, or evil intention, because the destructiveness is so great.
23.) And you as an ESTO will continually receive demands from the Production-Programs side of the org to "shoot".
24.) They don't have a "why". It just seems desperate! So you get a "Shoot him - now - now - now!"
25.) Ex: During WW II the Germans could not believe the ineffeciency and uselessness of the Italian intelligence agency. They concluded it was full of spies and came down on them HARD and took over the whole thing themselves. The Italian intelligence wasn't that bad, they just weren't HATTED.
26.) So in the desperation of operations, with everything going down the spout, the HE&R that can be generated is very great. Its 1st expression therefore is: "Them guys is doing us in! Where are some lions to throw them to?"
27.) So if you wind up automatically throwing everybody overboard, firing, racking, doing-in, Comm Eving, shooting or getting rid of everyone indicated to you as "bad", you would soon have NO-organization at all - and you would lose the war like Italy did.
28.) And the people still left would be so terrified, they would become ineffective and robotically UNdependable and WANT to lose and end the game too.
29.) You can generate a level of INSECURITY in an org this way which is unbelievable. Posts aren't safe, nothing is safe, and eventually you hear a rumour coming up the line "I don't think it's SAFE to be an Exec, the last 6 Execs on that post got shot!"
30.) I have seen this come up in Session folders as W/H's, because the person was from an org where the "yellow jaundice" of Dev-T was rampant and made the "skin" of that org very, very, yellow.
31.) The depths to which humans can sink because of non-comprehension are very, very low. That is no reason to lose your faith in the human race, because they can be "pulled up" from the depths too!
32.) Ex: Three stewards had been hurt in last 3 days, slipping and falling. I sent messengers to investigate. Water was found on the galley floor, slippery soapy water. Traced it to a dishwasher who had long gloves on and when she raised her hands, the dishwater ran on the floor from the gloves. The dishwasher thought the "Jackon Boiler" (For coffee) was leaking and was about to involve the Engine Room repair crew in the cycle, until I just told her to roll up the cuffs of her gloves.
33.) A PERFECT example of Dev-T. ONE unhatted dishwasher who had not done TR 0 on her area. Dev-T caused:
- 3 injuries
- Broken dishes.
- Commodore and 2 messengers involved for 1 hour.
- Engine Room repair crew nearly called off post to handle a no-sit, on the Boiler for Coffee.
34.) This is the kind of thing an ESTO has to handle 16 hours a day.
35.) Continous, continous discovery of WHY and handling by HATTING. It's the "why" you can't hat, the "why" it's going wrong, and it has to do with an individual person. And there ALWAYS is a WHY.
36.) Now, when these discoveries are done from Command Level, the WHY is found and there are ORDERS or TARGETS to fully handle.
37.) It's not usually the case that people WON'T get out the bulk mailing. There is a "bug", a "why". This would require an INVESTIGATION, EVALUATION, AND PROGRAM (by C/O, E/D, or Product Officer).
38.) It would have then, targets on it for the ESTO to do to handle any unhattedness.
39.) Ex:
- Bulk mail stat down.
- Investigated.
- Found no postage money asked for in FP.
- Further investigation finds it's not correct on FP # 1, so is never approved.
- The FP # 1 was not done for THIS org, a faulty one was "borrowed" from another org of the same size to "save time" and get a "fast compliance".
40.) The ESTO would be given the HATTING targets: FP Commitee, Dissem Sec, Treasury, HCO, and anyone who approved the FP # 1, and the originator of it for use in the org.
41.) Ex: A Treasury Division who ALSO invoices the Management Org %'s. When asked what THIS ORG'S income was, they kept giving the Management Org's income (from the %%s). They neglected collecting any of their OWN income because they thought the %'s WERE their income! Really unhatted! I checked further and found not one person in that Treasury Division knew any basic finance policy!
42.) They didn't know: INCOME MUST BE GREATER THAN OUTGO. They didn't know: A MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE SERVICE ORGANIZATION ATTACHED TO IT.
43.) The 2nd one is because IF a Management Org is so lousy that they can't make the service org attached to them make money, then they have no right to collect from remote orgs.
44.) So this Treasury division was ignorant of ANY policy. How did happen? The FALSE datum came into that: "This is a S.O. org, so Scientology policy doesn't apply". - So of course no one bothered to study it! And also, "We are not a management org, so their policy doesn't apply either". Result? NO INCOME COLLECTED AT ALL. The whole division was a camoflaged hole.
45.) Now there is a thing called a "Disagreement Check" done by Qual in Dept 13. And they should know how to do these fast without backlogging them. This is a good way to find the area of personal, individual, UNHATTEDNESS.
46.) As an ESTO, you will find one of these wild "twists" where-ever it is going wrong. Some are hard to believe. So in the realm of THE INCREDIBLE, it is easy to just substitute "shoot him".
47.) You will find people who say: "He's crazy, he's treasonable, shoot him, nobody in his right mind would think like that".
48.) True, maybe he ISN'T in his "right mind", but you as an ESTO can put him there. His "right mind" as a staff member is with his HAT ON.49.) There is a management scale of actions that begin with sounding out a person's CASE in the matter.
50.) And that's when you are checking out personell for employment or recruitment.
51.) If you start filling up an org with people whose cases are below the center-line of an OCA, you are going to be in trouble.
52.) Now it's easy to analyze these graphs. If you turn it over, you will find the the Testing Officer has done a beautiful analysis of this case that reads like a horoscope. And that's fine, and the pubic love them. BUT THAT ISN'T HOW I USE THEM.
53.) You use an OCA simply and totally this way:
DOWN ON THE LEFT: (below the center-line) = WILDLY SCREAMINGLY, OUT OF VALENCE.
DOWN ON THE RIGHT: (below the center-line) = EVIL PURPOSE, WILDLY NUTS OR PSYCHOTIC.
54.) And that is all you need to know except this one fact - A PERSON WHO IS VERY THEETIE-WEETIE, HAS A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANCES, AND HAS A VERY HIGH OCA (they are kind of "fey", it's all "significant" - every look, glance, idea, statement is very "significant" to them), WILL, UNDER PROCESSING, FALL VERY LOW ON THE LEFT SIDE, THEN FALL VERY LOW ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THEN WILL COME BACK UP INTO NORMAL RANGE AND BE SANE.
55.) I've now told you, in these few sentences, all you need to know about an OCA. That's all you ever use.
56.) Now an OCA can be "messed up" by evaluation for the person before he does it, telling him what to write on it, falsifying and OCA, or an OCA being done by somebody who was a TEST I/C and knows all the right answers.
57.) But that can be confirmed by an APTITUDE TEST. IF THE SCORE ON AN APTITUDE TEST IS BELOW 65, THE PERSON IS SOMEONE WHO WILL BREAK THINGS AND HAVE ACCIDENTS, SO YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH THEM AS A STAFF MEMBER.
58.) So the OCA can be cross-checked with the aptitude test. That's all you need to know about the OCA (or APA as it's called in America).
59.) The OCA is easier to read as it has the center-line. The APA has the shaded areas. They are both the same test.
60.) Now you want nothing to do with any kind of test that requires OPINION to evaluate. (Like the ROHRSHACH or MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC.)
61.) The psychologist has gone into "SIGNIFICANCE of his own EVALUATIONS" on cases, because he, himself, is so "significant".62.) If anybody ever tries to give you a ROHRSHACH, or "ink blot" test, just say "I don't see anything in it." or "It's just ink on a piece of paper." That absolutely RUINS their test.
63.) Most of these psychology tests were born out of "phrenology", which is reading the bumps on a person's head to tell their character!
64.) Then they went a little "deeper", and thought it was the "brain", that caused wierd behavious. You think I'm kidding? No, these are facts!
65.) I.Q. TESTS, precisely timed, are another factor. You don't want anything to do with a person whose I.Q. (Intelligence Quotient) is below 70 (for staff). You want to regard with some suspicion a person whose I.Q. is only 90.
66.) PROCESSING will raise an I.Q. at about one point per hour of processing.
67.) So, there are the 3 tests most used in Scientology (OCA, Aptitude, I.Q.). (Others were tried and discarded, because MSH could do them in 1 min 30 sec and they were supposed to take 20 minutes, so she figured they were worthless - Laugh.)
68.) You can evaluate personell against other things, like PAST RECORD or EXPERIENCE, but that is subject to FALSE REPORTS.
69.) So PAST EXPERIENCE is valid, but has to be taken only conditionally. STATISTICS are valuable as an indicator of past performance - if accurate and not false or meaningless.
70.) The higher in the org the STAT represented, the more validity it has. It indicates ability to control several areas. But an individual stat like "Stamped envelopes" is subject to falsification.
71.) Ex: A C/O whose INCOME and PAID COMPLETITIONS was very high. The validity of that is very great.
72.) But "not statistic at all" and "never kept a statistic" are very significant also - a person like that may be totally Dev-T or lazy.
73.) So, EVALUATION of PERSONELL can be done with a fair rapidity.
It includes:
- THE TEST BATTERY
- HIS ETHICS RECORD
- HIS PERSONELL RECORD
- HIS STATISTIC RECORD
74.) Now that is the way to Evaluate personell. you will ERR in "failing to believe it" more than anything else.
75.) There is also the "hope" factor people use in orgs - they put somebody on a post just to have a "body" there, and "hope" that somehow he will get audited to handle his outnesses.
76.) It is true that auditing WILL improve a person, but you have to know the "Degraded Being" technology. (There are HCOBs on this).
77.) Yes, 100 hours of auditing and all Lower Grades WILL improve this person's ability on post. BUT YOU HAVE HIRED A PC! And staff members are supposed to HANDLE PCs. PCs do NOT easily handle the public. And you've just mixed your personell pools. You have tried to take your STAFF from the PC pool!
78.) Now, the minute you put a PC on a POST, he will start to absorb ALL the auditing meant for staff.
79.) And the F/N VGIs % of Staff will fall if you have too many of these PCs on post.
80.) This is because you will be processing THEM and not the rest of the staff.
81.) So, you end up "REWARDING A DOWNSTAT" and that is the thing which has driven civilizations right on out the bottom.
82.) So the "pc" ought to be out there with a job, shovelling coal or something, and BUYING his processing.
83.) An org can develop a real "soft spot" on this and end up being a "free clinic".
84.) You as an ESTO may find these people scattered through the divisions of an org. You estimate them by the factors I have given and by the thickness of his pc folders while on staff, plus a meter check.
85.) Now, an ESTO should know all about METER CHECKS. Meter checks are not sec-checks. You just put the guy on the meter. What does he read? That's it. What's his TA? Does he F/N? Does he have a Dirty Needle? That's all you want to know.
86.) Now an INTERVIEW on a meter is very interesting because you always find the charged areas.
87.) I always do my D of P interviews on a meter.
88.) And as an ESTO, I would do personell interviews on a meter. (This is for those already on staff you are trying to debug, not applicants for a job on the recruiting line.)
89.) I would make up a little list of possible areas that COULD be bugging the staff member and ask him each one and note the reads and reaction. You may be surprised at the result. Ex: Staff member not doing his job, causing Dev-T. His wife is divorcing him, he has debts, and lost his car so has no transport.
WITHOUT A METER, you may be so foolish as to ASSUME you know the reason he is doing poorly - such as "Of course he has problems, his wife is leaving him." Send him to the Chaplin or to Qual for a session and start causing Dev-T yourself!
WITH A METER, you do an interview on various areas - Home?, Wife?, Money?, Job?, Health?, Transport? - and you find he has trouble with his SENIOR on the Org Board and NONE of the other ares are bothering him! Handling can be as simple as a checkout on ONE policy letter!
90.) So don't try to HANDLE until you know the WHY. Otherwise as an ESTO, you will start causing Dev-T yourself!
91.) Before you take any broad, sweeping actions on a case, a staff member, or an org, you had BETTER KNOWN WHY.
92.) There are certain lists which help you in certain areas. For example, if you found a "why" on a staff of not being able to study - we have a STUDY CORRECTION LIST. We are rich in this kind of thing.
93.) But that LIST would have to be done by an auditor and it would have to be C/Sed so as to not interfere with any auditing program in progress. Because it IS AN AUDITING ACTION to handle the areas that come up on such a list.
94.) If a C/S orders, or an ESTO tries to get done, an action like this in the middle of some other major case action - you can WRECK THE CASE. SO DON'T DO IT.
95.) Remember, C/Ses don't like Execs ordering "other actions" to be done on a case in the middle of a program. So, as an ESTO - coordinate these things.
96.) Also, do NOT make your Interview Questions DOWNTONE or ACCUSATIVE.
(EX: Are you planning to blow? Are you disappointed in your job?, etc., etc.)
Because, if these read and not cleared up fully in auditing AT ONCE the person WILL dramatize or cave in or blow.
97.) You can ask anything you want and he will feel good about it afterward as long as you don't INVALIDATE him in the Questions.
(Ex: How are you doing on post? How is your job going?)
98.) So an interview by an ESTO is not a "sec-check" and not "auditing by list", it's just a 2WC to find the area of difficulty. About as far as I would go, is I might ask if he had "Overts on Post?" but I wouldn't "tell him" what they were - and I would get them off right away.
99.) So you are just trying to find the zone he has trouble with. One of the 1st things you say is, "I'm not auditing you."
100.) You just let him talk a bit about each one and you will probably get an F/N.
101.) There was a student here for the OEC, FEBC that went spinny each time he tried to read an HCOB or HCOPL. Finally, I had an HCOPL pinned on a board upside down and had him confront it for two hours. He came out of it, and was able to study.102.) Your viewpoint as an ESTO is:
A) This person is supposed to be occupying a post.
B) He is supposed to be producing something for an organization.
103.) The AUDITOR'S point of view is "trying to do something for the case".
104.) So, as an ESTO, when EVALUATING personell and going over these tests and so forth, you are ONLY interested in the EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY of this person and how his MORALE affects it.
105.) Someone may say "that's a very capitalistic, totalitarian, communistic, cruel way of looking a people". But it ISN'T. IF THIS GUY DOESN'T PRODUCE, HIS MORALE WILL REMAIN ON THE BOTTOM.
106.) Production is the basis of Morale, and an individual who ISN'T completing cycles of action and getting something done will NEVER have good morale. I don't care how many ice-cream sodas he has every day or how many liberties he goes on every week, I don't care what you do FOR him. If he ISN'T CONSTRIBUTING SOMETHING to his immediate enviornment - he's a "GONE DOG".
107.) We know what "psychosis" is these days, there is a bulletin on it. It is simply an EVIL PURPOSE. It means "a definite obsessive desire to destroy or harm". Now, anybody has a few evil-purposes that they may say or do when they are forced to do something they do not want to do108.) And that is a PSYCHO, a real PSYCHO.
109.) Now there are people who are PTS and who act "fairly psycho", and there are people who are "Aberrated" - who merely have OUTPOINTS in their thinking.
110.) The psychairitrists never differentiated amongst these people. That's because he thought people had a "disease" called "mental illness". It's not true. There is no "bacteria" that produces "psychosis".
111.) So, it falls into 3 groups:
A.) The guy is a really evil-purpose boy. He's out to destroy the lot. His whole life is monitored by this. Criminals and that sort, are motivated this way. And they are hard to detect because they carefully "cover it all up". These guys are relatively rare, but not too rare (2 1/2%)
B.) People are likely to confuse them with a PTS, who roller-coasters. He has an SP (or Psycho) in his enviornment somewhere. He's way up today, way down tomorrow. He's fairly obvious. (The Psycho SP is NOT so obvious. You can't tell he is an SP by his "behaviour" in most cases. Only by his actions and results.) The "PTS case" in a FOLDER looks like: several good sessions, then a repair, more good ones, then a repair - over and over. On POST it is the same - did OK this last week, now not doing well at all, over and over. So you look at the Folder Summary. (Don't confuse it with a "slow-case" or one having lots of Rundowns who is nevertheless getting F/Ns.) The PTS will go: F/N, BER, F/N, etc. HITA, Repair to F/N, BER, F/N, etc. He IS connected to a Suppressive. There is somebody in his enviornment, or family, or on his case, that is a psycho SP. Sometimes a person can be connected to an SP and HE doesn't cave in.....
THE SUPPRESSIVE DOES! But where you have staff members who continually roller-coaster, you are dealing with a PTS. The PTS Policy all applies and is fully correct. We can solve it these days bay a PTS Rundown. It can be done by a Class IV and is not difficult to do.
C.) And there is the "aberrated" staff member who has outpoints in his thinking. He can be handled by normal processing and hatting actions.
112.) So in the category of "CASE" there are two situations the ESTO will come across:
I.) He discovers the person is a pc or "case" before he gets hired or during his application or testing.
HANDLING: DON'T. Just DON'T hire the person.
II.) He discovers the person is already on staff, hired by someone earlier.
HANDLING: Don't just kick him out or put him in front of a "fitness board". (It takes a Court of Ethics or Comm EV to recommend a fitness board.) And to just "fire him" would make staff feel insecure. So how do you handle it?