6608C23 SHSpec-77 Organization

     A business org pattern wouldn't fit a scientology org because business
orgs have never isolated the principles of organization.  In a scientology
org, you are handling life as a commodity, and you are handling life with a
vessel made out of life.  This is like trying to pour water into a pitcher
made of water.  In this situation, you will find out every frailty in an
organization.  But one law businesses have not violated:  Any organization is
better than no organization.

     Individuals as such, operating together, will fall apart when they
collide with an organized group.  Brilliant leadership can only go so far.  It
needs execution.  Otherwise it fails.  An organization will normally win,
unless it is confronted with a superior organization.  An organization
consists of a group of individuals with a common goal or purpose.  There will
never be an org that is perfect, because it is composed of individuals who are
to a greater or lesser degree informed of the rules and in agreement with the
purpose.

     An organization must, to some degree, consist of sentient, irreducible
individuals.  It must depend on the individuals.  For instance, literacy is a
prerequisite for democracy.  England does better than some other democracies
because it has a high level of education.  Individuals in the U.S. have so
many and varying prejudices that none can really take hold.  It also has a
high level of education.  Therefore it is the richest country in the world.
Business management in the U.S. is very tight.  In spite of bad leadership
that will eventually cause trouble, the U.S. is doing well.

     Organization also has drawbacks:

     1.  Limited power of choice of the individual.

     2.  An organization often swallows up the talents and potential
         contributions of the individual.

     3.  It often plays Hobb with the very principles that it is trying to
         forward.

     4.  Wrongly led, an organization becomes a machine that goes straight
         over the cliff to destruction.

But the plus points prevail over the out-points.  Organizations endure better
than individuals.  On the whole track, orgs best survived when led by
keyed-out OT' .  You would think that these individuals would be unorganizable
because of their differences of opinion.  Yes.  They do have differences of
opinions.  But they still realize that it is better to be organized than not.
They also recognize the liabilities of orgs.  Higher posts shift a lot in OT
organizations.  The OT's are a minority group in charge of fantastic
majorities.

     An individual who puts together an organization without knowing how to do
it makes a mess.

     Law of Organization:  A large organization is composed of groups, and a
small organization is composed of individuals.  When a large org is composed
of individuals the individual gets devalued.  You get a lack of comparability
[between the individual and the group of which he is a member].  Therefore,
the individual feels oppressed.  "The people vs.  John Jones" makes a
paranoid.  Therefore, the ideal form of organization is individuals composed
into sub-groups.  If you try to produce a group that is all composed of
individuals and expand it, it goes all to [pieces].  An org will remain a
small group as long as it is composed of individuals.  Income tax is a
violation of this principle, because the individual must report to the
government once a year.  Thus, quite apart from the economics of income tax
[e.g. penalizing up stats], this will make the country grow smaller.  Each
person can be jumped on by the government without a buffer.  You must cut out
the situation of having an organization vs. an individual, and stick to the
situation of the organization vs. a group.

     A group does have an optimum size.  Seven or eight subordinates is a
lot.  If a person had only two subordinates, he would loaf.  So the optimum is
somewhere between two and eight.  So we can say that five is optimal.  A big
group, then, would be ten and a small group would be two or three.  By the
time you are getting up into a group of seven or eight, it is best to split
things up into two groups.  The members of each section look to their section
leader.  [This also means that an executive spends one sixth of his time
consulting with higher management and five sixths of his time dealing with his
five subordinates.] A director only looks to his section leaders, and an
[Executive] Secretary only looks to directors.  A danger condition would
consist of an [Exec] Sec giving orders to section leaders, bypassing the
director.  When this happens, the org will get smaller.

     You could move this organizational scheme out to where the org could
contain the population of the planet.  Size means nothing if you know this law
of organization.  Therefore you need an expandable and a contractable system.
The lowest number in a group should be five to six people.  Two people isn't
really a group; it is a pair.

     When the state breaks down the family as a group, the church, etc., the
state shrinks.

     When a manager becomes overworked, his area won't expand.  Therefore, if
you want to expand, make sure your manager isn't overworked.

     You can't have a section that is independent of other sections.  If you
try to have such a section, it will float free and collapse.  It must have
service and communication connections with the rest of the group.

     There are seven divisions on the Org Board.  The Org Board is a cylinder,
a circle.  To show this fact, we put the seventh division in front of Div 1.
You enter the org board at the first department of the first division.  The
org board is organized to impel a particle from the first division on out
through the back door.  Any particle entered early will shunt late.  Div 7
doesn't necessarily catch what is ejected at Div 6, so there is a way out of
the org board.  If you violate the position of anything on this chart, you cut
your throat.

     The order of departments was found by trial and error.  Earlier on, we
got into trouble because we tried to put Origin or Construction in Dept. 9
[now (1976) the Department of Records, Assets, and Materials, in Div 3.]  It
belonged at Origin, so construction had to be back towards source.  If
something is mis-positioned on the board, it will be non-functional and will
cease to work.  The order of the divisions is:

     1.  HCO.  You have to start with communications.

     2.  Dissem.  Dissemination is necessary with the communication.  You must
         tell people what you are going to make.

     3.  Organization Division (Treasury).  This is the division that
         organizes the MEST for the assembly of products.

     4.  Tech.  This division has to do with production.

     5.  Qual.  This division deals with correction or adjustment.

     6.  Distribution.  This division is to get rid of the product.  This is
         also a sales division.  When they are busy getting rid of the
         product, they are also making new customers that enter at Div. 1.

    [7.  Executive.  The first department would be the office of the E.D. or
         general manager.]

     The problem in an organization is one of succession, but if you get
management, you don't need succession.  The LRH comm approves anything that is
not against policy, that the ED wants to do.  The U.S. should have the Office
of George Washington.  Each department should have less than or equal to five
sections, or it should be written up again.  Then you get subsections, units,
subunits, etc..  The org board is a flow chart.

     An other primary law of management, the fast-flow system of management:
Don't inspect before it goes wrong.  This just holds up the activities of the
organization and puts in arbitraries.  You don't run an organization by being
super-nervous.  You let something happen.  Then you act.  Don't put in
permanent preventers.  Let the flow go.

     An organization must produce something.  Everyone must have a stat.

     The org pattern would do for a government.  It is far more socialistic
than socialism and far more communistic than communism.  Socialism and
communism are relatively conservative in comparison.  You would introduce
individual companies into your organization as service or production units.

     The reason why divisions are in units of three departments is that you
have the head of the division representing the thetan, and the three
departments representing the mind, body, and product, respectively.

