Pilot'sPost Z34 -- Admin Scale
.
Pilot'sPost Z34
Admin Scale
From Posts 34 and 35 (August 1998)
On 23 July 98, "chas" <
[email protected]> posted on
subject "Admin Scale"
> I was looking at the Admin Scale and liked the idea it puts forth but was
> not happy with the order. I have re-worked the scale and feel it is much
> easier to apply. I made no changes to the scale other then moving two items,
> which changes the importance of the items. Does the change make sense to
> anyone else?
> Charles
>
> Current scale taken from HCO PL 6 Dec 70 "Third Dynamic De-Aberration" is:
>
> Admin scale
>
> Goals
> Purposes
> Policy
> Plan
> Program
> Project
> Orders
> Ideal Scene
> Statistics
> Valuable Final Products
>
> Change this to:
>
> Admin scale
>
> Goals
> Purposes
> Policy
> Plan
> Program
> Project
> Orders
> Products
> Statistics
> Ideal Scene
>
>
> The ideal scene is senior to the product but you need to understand
> everything listed above ideal scene before you are able to establish what
> the ideal scene should be. Everything is set up so that the goals can be
> achieved. Each relates to each other and all must relate to reaching the
> goals. So the goals are senior. But the ideal scene needs to be correctly
> stated for any proper evaluation to take place to correct negative
> situations or enhance positive ones. So a correctly stated ideal scene is
> just as important as the goals but you are not able to state the ideal scene
> until you have everything in place above it. So you start with the goals and
> you end with an ideal scene. The right goals for an activity should make the
> purpose self-evident and on down the list. So one should take the time to
> correctly state the goals for an activity. The ideal scene is the result
> from correctly stating all the areas of the scale above it. It is then that
> a departure from the ideal scene begins an evaluation into a situation.
> Product has tended to be overstated; it is not the end all but rather a
> measuring stick with regards to the set goals. The proper product will help
> achieve the goals. So the product must be properly stated and must fit in
> relation to the rest of the scale. But the quantity and quality of the
> product comes under the next two items on the list; statistics and ideal
> scene. So the bookends of the Admin Scale are Goals at one end and Ideal
> Scene at the other end. So the whole intent and purpose of this scale is to
> create and establish an ideal scene which is set from all the items above
> it. This ideal scene will in turn give a visible means in which to reach the
> stated goals. CML; 23 July 1998.
To which
[email protected] (Ralph Hilton) replied
# No. I would agree with the original.
# The ideal scene has to be established before one can correctly
# establish a statistic. Pursuing statistics and VFPs in a way that
# places lesser importance on the ideal scene is a major flaw in
# scn management. The overall statistic is senior to individual VFPs.
# Data Series 13 goes into depth about the relationship between the
# Ideal Scene and the Statistic. I would consider the Data Series the
# senior technology relating to administration. The rest has to be
# evaluated with a full understanding of that.
I think that Ralph is correct in his analysis as far as it goes,
but there is a basic flaw in the entire scale.
Note that this scale is very MEST mechanical. This tends to be
the case with many of the later policies. The brilliance of the
1952-4 period is that things were evaluated from a Theta perspective
that seems to have been lost in the later days.
I don't want to put down the data series here, it is among the
best of the later policy series. But it needs to be reviewed
the way that Ron used to look at things when he was at his peak.
In other words, lets examine it from the perspective of a free
being who can make his postulates stick but who has gotten fooled
into trapping himself and tangled his postulates up into a knot.
Part of making a postulate stick is to visualize the desired
result. That is visualizing the ideal scene. This is senior
to policies.
Your postulate is not to have the policies followed, but simply
to achieve the goal by whatever means and to do that you visualize
what you want. Then you think up policies which might help
you get there.
The progression from policies down to orders is reasonable
because you need agreement to get the orders done. So you lay
things out in a sensible manner. But that entire section of
the scale is really an ARC step - agreement, duplication, an
understanding of what is to be done, etc. It deteriorates
into control when ARC and understanding fail, and with that
you begin sliding down the prehave scale (O/W a limited theory)
and will eventually end up with overts and dramatizations
unless you keep rekindling the theta at the top.
Postulates and live communication have to be senior to policy
or we might as well all sign up to become MEST right now.
So we have Goals and Purposes. Then we have the visualization
of an ideal scene. Then we have postulates, ARC, and understanding.
That lets us agree on some policies, plans, etc. to get the job
done. But policy is only a guiding thing (old definition) and
so we use it when it helps but bypass it whenever it is in
the way. Our overriding judgements should be based on the
goal we are working towards, the ideal scene we are postulating,
and of course ARCU which must be senior to policy or else
people will use the policies against each other as the CofS
has amply demonstrated.
That leaves Products and Statistics. Faced with the choice
between following a plan or policy and violating it to get
a valuable final product, the correct decision is generally
to violate policy to get the product out. But you can't even
evaluate if its a valuable product without an ideal scene to
judge it against and you can't force products while creating
ARC breaks in all directions or you end up with an ARC broken
field. So the products have to be above policy but below
ARCU.
You don't have to have a policy to get a product. You could
get a valuable product simply by postulates and live communication.
But when you can't make it with a simple wave of the hand,
then you use policies and plans and so forth as a crutch so
that you can do something step by step and still make it.
The statistics only exist in the context of the ideal scene
and furthermore are low level MEST quantifications. If you're
upscale, you can look at a product directly and see its value,
but if you have to depend on bean counting, then you are
trusting that the policies, plans, and so forth have given
you the right beans to count.
So you violate policy to get a real product that can be
percieved as valuable in terms of the goals, postulates,
and so forth. But you would not violate policy to get
some number to look good. So that puts stats at the bottom
of this hierarchy. For example, you would violate policy
to get somebody trained through class 4, but you wouldn't
violate it to get the gross income up or raise the letters
out stat. Unless of course your goal is to make money and
the hell with the tech.
Of course the statistics should reflect the valuable final
products. But that is based on the hope that the accumulation
of individual efforts will add up to achieving the products
and ideal scene. That hope depends on the policies and
orders being correct and therefore cannot override them.
In summary, my revision of the admin scale would be
as follows:
Goals
Purposes
Ideal Scene
Postulates
ARCU
Valuable Final Products
Policy
Plan
Program
Project
Orders
Statistics
Note that although its unpopular, you can make postulates
out of agreement. But if you make policies that drive the
staff out of ARC, your staff will end up as a pack of rabid
critics, as we have seen demonstrated for us by the CofS.
==============
From Post 35:
On 16 Aug 98, LaMont Johnson <
[email protected]> responded on
subject "Super Scio Tech - About The Admin Scale"
> Friends,
>
> I've kept my piece for quite a while and have simply observed the
> overhaul that is appearing on these pages.
>
> I am quite keen on seeing to it that the technology of LRH be brought
> forward such that those who might benefit from proper application do so.
I agree. I am quite supportive of retaining the tech that already
exists, making it easily available (I encourage FZ Bible etc.),
keeping it in use, and acknowledging LRH for the fantastic work that
he did.
I also feel that much of the tech from the 1950s is not used and
needs to be restored and revitalized.
I also feel that the research line is incomplete and that much more
work is needed. This work only gets done by encouraging free
thought and continually questioning everything. If a datum is
correct it should be able to stand on its own merits rather than
being held up by the support of an authority. Science continually
goes through this, looking for exceptions to Newton rather than
worshipping him.
I have argued before that the freezone should be safe and supportive
for standard tech as well as for alternatives and extensions.
And I have stated from the first that a reformed CofS should retain
its standard tech basis (without fighting against alternatives,
but simply delivering a product).
I think we need both.
> I have maintained my silence and "hoped for the best". Afterall, I'm not
> Hubbard, and what happens to his tech, admin and ethics systems is
> actually none of my affair.
You, I, and many others all devoted tremendous amounts of time and
efforts to this, so we do have a part in it, it IS our affair.
> Having said that -
>
> DSEC, FEBC and the Org Board are management tools. Yes, they may stem
> from a philosophic viewpoint, but a guy on the other side of L-12, OT
> VII the hard way, who has done those administrative trainings (like me,
> for example) doesn't look to kindly at revisions of the revisions.
There must be something wrong in policy or the org would have
straightened itself out long since.
There are many conflicts with the basics that Ron outlined back
in the 1950s. Confidentiality is one of the most flagrant
examples (he says again and again that making the tech confidential
is suppressive).
I think that the tech is only incomplete, but the policy has
some fatal flaws.
For example, the org is statted on its gross income and the
value of services delivered. This means that if you double
the prices and only deliver half the service, you will be
upstat. This is not to say that the org shouldn't make money,
but it should not be the senior importance. If money is
the number one factor ... well, you can see the results.
And yet there is a lot that is correct and valuable even in
the admin tech. So it would be a waste to just toss it.
I think that the data series and admin scale are especially
good which is why they are worth the time. But if these
are unflawed, then why are things so bad in the CofS?
Policy is treated as senior. And yet we know that Ron previously
said to hell with the policy when it gets in our way. Doesn't
that indicate that there are things which should be above
policy on the admin scale? If the scale was right, you would
just point to it and say "This is why I violated policy in
this case" and the ethics officer would pat you on the head
and say "Good boy".
You of all people have suffered especially from the blind
fanaticism that is currently being encouraged by the SO.
I would think that you would want to look the policy over
and try to debug it and with your extensive training on
policy I would think that you are particularly well prepared
to do that.
> ARCU is ***not*** senior to KRCP. Never was, never will be.
>
> 1. ARC leads to cohesion. Total ARC brings about as-is-ness.
>
> 2. KRC leads to causation. Total KRC is serenity (of beingness).
Of course. I put KRC items like mocking up an ideal scene
and making postulates above ARC. But for policy you need
agreement or else it is so much toilet paper and all you get is
covert non-compliance.
> I know strong minds have worked this Admin Scale up and down to come to
> these revisions, and my bringing up the two items above sounds violently
> like the caustic criminality that gets tossed around by the xhurch mgmt.
>
> But you don't say, "Nice Bull"...you either clobber the s.o.b. with a
> hickory 2x4, or you run like hell, while pondering how you got into that
> bullpen in the first place.
Ideal scene - to still be alive tomorrow. Postulate (which is
a doingness) - to run like hell. Policy and orders don't come into
it, they might even have ordered you to get in there with the
bull but it violates your ideal scene so you run like hell anyway.
> Some pundit will say, "Well, with a revised admin scale..."
Exactly. Better to violate the policy or even (horrors) create
an ARCX rather than getting trapped into a very non-ideal
scene such as bleeding on the ground after being smashed by
the bull.
Then again, if you're really good you might calm the bull down
and handle it with the ARC of "Nice bully". If you can manage
that, then you do, but the judgement call is on what scene
you can postulate and create.
You mustn't be afraid of ARCXing people. If you make ARC the
senior datum you will end up promoting the nicest guy instead
of the effective one. But you must never operate on a basis
of constantly creating ARC breaks. So the policies must not
have ARC breaks built into them.
Basically you work to maximize ARC within the parameters of
what you are trying to accomplish. Sometimes you do have to
ARC break somebody, but you never do that if there is an
alternative that maintains ARC while still achieving the goal.
So the revised scale encourages judgement. Consult the ideal
scene first, then see if you can do it with ARC, and only
then worry about policy (if you have any time left).
> Love,
>
> LaMont Johnson
ARC,
The Pilot
**