Has anyone ever seen a successful organization run on LRH Admin tech?

(Originally published by OldAuditor on September 8, 2010 – comments are included)

This may be one of the hardest concepts for the field practitioner to grasp, that the Admin Tech was nowhere as effective as the spiritual technology. Read on and see for yourself.

I have never seen a successful organization run on LRH Admin tech and Geir Isene hasn’t either, but maybe you have. If so feel free to comment. What I have seen is more like this:

A small core of auditors trying valiantly to support a huge burden of overhead personnel.

Let’s consider what successful means:

-A growing and profitable organization that produces more than it consumes.
-Employees are paid regular wages for a 35-40 hour week, more for extended work weeks.
-The products and services of the organization are of superior quality.
-Word of mouth advertising and referrals are a constant source of new business.
-Employee referrals are a significant source of new hires.
-The largest portion of employees are involved in design and production of products.
-The products are competitively priced.

Did you ever consider that LRH Admin Tech might be a botched product?

I never did until very recently although I never found the Admin Tech to be a good fit for any company I was ever involved with.

It wasn’t until I read Geir Isene’s brilliant article, “WANTED! Value in LRH admin tech” that I realized I had never looked at the underlying flaws in LRH Admin tech which make it ONLY suitable for a slave society!

Here are some brief excerpts from recent articles by Geir:

The fact remains; There are no visible successful implementation of LRH admin tech (including the Church of Scientology) – “successful” implies a significant positive deviation from the mean of the market in which it is implemented. If there are I will surely stand corrected.

I understand how some really would want LRH admin tech to be the “only workable management system”. But it isn’t. It’s not even close. As a system, it’s a failure. This is not to say that there aren’t babies in this bath water and that one should chuck out the whole lot. There are great bits an pieces in there – especially in the Management Series (three books containing several series of policies, including the PR series, Personnel series, etc.). As always, pick what works.

LRH admin tech as a whole system is seriously flawed.


Recruitment: Hubbard teaches an organization to recruit many staff in parallel and then keep a big back door open for those who fail. I dispute this hire-and-waste principle. I believe it to be disruptive and detrimental to an organization.

(As it is currently applied, almost every post in the church is being held by an untrained person)

Manning up an organization: Keeping an admin/tech ratio of 2 to 1, meaning you would have only one third of the personnel delivering billable service. Do the math. What service organization can survive with this over-administration without the use of slave labor?

(In most orgs, the admin-tech ratio is greater than 30 to 1. How can one person generate enough income to pay wages for 30 others? This only works if you run your organization using slave labor or unpaid volunteers!)

Management by statistics: Weekly statistics. Several statistics for each post. Managed from top-down. I have seen this creating frantic and neurotic organization with little long-term vision.

The organizing board: Hierarchical, over-administered with people stuck in boxes of responsibility and where very few are able to fulfill the implicit responsibilities of the vertical they are in charge of.

(Most staff members regularly receive conflicting orders from several different executives. This is absolute insanity. The biggest outpoint for me was the fact that the technical division which delivers the products that generate income is way down the org board. Imagine a software company where there were no technical experts in top management!)

Gier Isene has had years of experience delivering LRH Admin Tech and finally realized somethng that we were all busy ignoring. Here is what he has to say:

All the Scientologists I have met have accepted large or small portions of Scientology by faith rather than by inspection. Their personal experiences have shown them that parts of Scientology has great workability. Maybe it was the communication course, maybe their Dianetics sessions, or the moment they went Clear or an OT level that got them real and tangible gains or maybe something entirely different.

From those successful experiences and gains comes the acceptance by extrapolation. “If that was so excellent, then this must surely also be great“. And thus preconceptions are born.

So, dear readers, are you up for a challenge? Can you recall any organization which uses or used LRH Admin Tech and came close to being a successful organization as defined above?

Or are you more familiar with orgs operating like this: The coconuts surrounding the vehicle represent the maelstrom of cross orders and unusual solutions that LRH Admin Tech uses to speed the org on its way.

Number of views:636


Centurion  on September 9th, 2010 Edit comment

I would have to agree.

The WISE companies I worked for were both nothing but insane. The work wages were poor, and the environment was militant and hostile. There is something to the idea that admin tech is flawed or at the very least, so widely misunderstood that it is being used incorrectly.

In any event, all the big transnational companies do not use LRH tech, and they are doing fine for the most part. That Facebook guy never did a WISE course, and he got it going just fine.


LO  on September 9th, 2010 Edit comment


the picturea are hilarious !
I only can give data of comparable magnitude. The Salvation Army in an European Country has following stats:
3800 members
1300 Staff members that earns a minimum of 3500.- $ per Month and the directors a maximum of about 6000.- $ (they would feel bad to ask more).
Their yearly income is about 180 millions $. They own hundreds of buildings and are helping the poors, alcoholics, women, kids, drug addicts,disabled people,old people, refugees. They get about 30 millions per year for their work from the government because they are so effective.
They don’t make any fuss about their success, they just help without asking anything back. 1000ds of people are put back onto their feets and are getting a life because of them.
They get yearly about 30 millions in donations from people
– 40 000 days of volunteer work done by their members.
The stats of Scientology Orgs in that Country:
– 6000 members (osa pred that)
– about 3-400 staff members with a salary of about 200-600 $ per month.
– some people are helped…
– no money for their work from the government
– after 5-6 years an Org got 10 Millions of donations together for a building and thought they were totally OT because of achieving that.
This makes about 2 millions per year and the other orgs got much less.
The salvation Army when it came into that country around 1890 handled the government in 5 years to be accepted as a bona fide organisation, even they were under heavy attacks !
So please tell me which Religion has the better management and is more effective ?

lunamoth  on September 9th, 2010 Edit comment

This was a tough one for me to finally get, but I have gotten it. Admin tech as a body is worse than useless. It contains some workable elements, IMO, but as a system of administering a business? I have never seen or heard of a company run on this tech that is both prosperous for the owners AND either a great place to work or well-paying employment. A truly successful company would have to be all three, especially from a scientological point of view – actually, you would also have to factor in what level of exchange the company provides with its customers, its employees and the other dynamics, which would include the environment. I wonder what Disc Keeper’s stats are regarding the sustainability and green-friendliness of their production and administrative practices?

No, I have to admit, I believed for a long time that admin tech was truly good, but hadn’t examined the actual statistics all around me. Doing so has aligned some conflicting data for me, such as why so many companies using it either
fail outright or hobble along in a crippled manner, and why so many WISE employers simply expect ungodly hours for crappy pay. And don’t get me started on WISE. Jeeeze.

Maria  on September 10th, 2010 Edit comment

There was a lot of good discussion on Geir’s blog on this subject, but in a nutshell: the commentors found that the PRINCIPLES outlined in the Management Series are very effective and useful, however the policy letters in the OEC volumes 1 – 7 are specifically oriented to running a Church of Scientology and CANNOT be applied as-is to any other organization, nor was that ever the intention of those policy letters.

As far as the Church of Scientology being successful with the applicaton of it as I understand it was to be applied, I have never ever seen a Church of Scientology even come close to applying the full scope of Church policy in any but the most rote and often fatally stupid way.

And old Auditor, I totally agree with you on the issue of auditors being at the bottom of the org board. Pure craziness. But it was never supposed to be that way, at least not how I learned the policy. The Tech Sec, Qual Sec and many of the “admin” posts in the techn divisions are supposed to be tech trained to an expert level. But they can’t seem to get people trained with any success and just keep loading up with admin personnel. Of course, you can’t fire anyone so it just becomes a big fat white elephant that must be fed.

The two policies that I think are responsible for all this are proportional pay, which makes for lazy, lazy management and Sea Org berthing, which does the same thing in a different way.

If they had to pay their staff, you’d see a big, big change right away and a lot more interest in actually working out which policies should be applied and which ones need revision.

But alas, LRH’s word has become “scripture” and is literally applied.

Fancy  on September 10th, 2010 Edit comment

Maybe because I did not study it and it was part of my church exit I tossed that about at once. I have only one admin book and it is the dictionary.

I had no desire to collect the rest. It is why I am out for I seldom followed policy.

Aeolus  on September 11th, 2010 Edit comment

Having worked for several WISE companies over the years, my reality is that the more closely LRH policy is adhered to, the crazier the place is and the more stressful for the workers. However, it does enable the owners to get more production for less pay than they might otherwise. Employees put up with the constant push to get stats up, up, up because they are Scientologists and that’s what LRH said to do. Otherwise they would bail out and get a normal job that didn’t jack their blood pressure up so high.

In the end though, those gains are lost to the inefficiency of this bloated system of micromanagement, which is at least one reason why none of the hundreds of WISE companies have ever made it into the top tier of the business world.

Freedom of Speech  on September 11th, 2010 Edit comment

Yes! I am part of a growing and expanding company that fits everything you described above. In fact in it’s 5th year it is still experiencing double-digit growth. You will forgive me if I don’t name it as I am still “officially” in. We don’t apply every bit of LRH admin tech to it because we don’t know it all … but we apply what we know. We have also studied other leaders of business and wealth and much of what they say does correlate with what LRH said, just different terms.

And NO! It is not a WISE business. WISE is parasitic by my estimation. They want a tithe but deliver nothing in exchange. No real help. Why would any business owner want to pay taxes locally, federally and then to some WISE parasite who does NOTHING. Wise is grouped with tax people for me … all parasitic on my production.

Also, being a veteran org staff member I will say that what Management does is to cross-order the hell out of everyone in class V orgs and this is WAY off-policy. In fact, the data indicates that if a Cl V org disconnected from Management they might actually be able to get something done. As it is, Management sabotages CLV actions … orders in the form of telexes from specific posts don’t arrive on channels but bypass all the seniors keeping the leaders of the org in Danger. Go be a Qual Sec or HAS or W/C’r and enjoy telexes directly from uplines for you to “execute now or else” while your seniour is completely in the dark about it.

And yes, this is a big part of why organizations stay small.

The whole unhatted staff and whatever else is just details. Parts of the whole scene but the Management intervention = sabotage is a much bigger outpoint. On a further note, Management terminals, many of them don’t have a clue about LRH policy. Some take isolated concepts or lines from policies and try to enforce broad scale handlings off of them. The outpoint is some don’t understand the entirety of the concept or PL they are quoting from and just use it to further their end.

So yes I believe management technology can work and no I don’t believe many people, especially Scientologists, in or out of the church have fully duplicated that technology. Where it is to be used, how it is used, why and when. LRH was not against doing the things that worked whether they were put into PL form or not. He clearly stated it to be a guideline.

I also think a lot of people can’t think with Admin tech in terms of converting it for usage into their own specific business. When you cognite on what you can convert for usage and start doing it, you will see it’s worth.

Just my two cents.

OldAuditor  on September 11th, 2010 Edit comment

Freedom of Speech,

I have to believe that you are quite selective about what LRH Admin Tech you apply to your company.

How do you apply the Org Board policies without resulting in an impossible overhead burden?

I agree that Admin Tech is material to think with and there is some items of value in many different Policy Letters. When we treat it as gospel from LRH, we no longer use good judgment.

Marketing Series 3 in its original version was a brilliant summation of the essential points of creating viable product lines.

Sinar  on September 11th, 2010 Edit comment

LRH admin tech seems to have been applied successfully to create the first St Hill Org, and various Org which reached St Hill size some years ago before the Idle Orgs replaced the game.

Have not seen it used well in other commercial or secular organizations. Friends who are ex’s tried to use it in their real estate biz, but were unsuccessful as perhaps some drastic policies such as org boards need revision for those type of applications. Tech in the management series such as Data series, PR & marketing series are definitely useful, as well as statistics.

Freedom of Speech  on September 11th, 2010 Edit comment

Hey OA, If I am duplicating your question right:

In terms of the org board, we just kind of tailor-made it to fit our business model. The flow line is still the same, and there is still definitely all of the divisions but it’s scaled down to our present state and size. We only have functions that are needed per our organization and we only hire based on this:

“What hat in the org is being run to the detriment of other functions getting done, that would result in EXCHANGEABLE VALUE if someone were posted there?”

In other words, we don’t hire just because there is a post to fill (as talked about in Esto tapes and org posting PLs) but instead hire based on workload vs value(return) vs budget. So in our product we have crunched numbers: “How many MORE ____’s must we deliver in order to justify the pay of someone holding position X?” If we hire anyone without taking such into consideration the pay of that person comes out of our pay =( …. so we always make sure it’s a viable hire and fits our criteria.

The Tech to Admin ratio, states 2:1 but I believe I read somewhere else where this ratio changes the bigger the org gets. Can’t remember now. But the Tech to Admin ratio is definitely applicable exclusively to a Scn org. In my business we have an 80% tech to 20% admin personnel. This allows us to pay our stars – tech people – good pay and this keeps us expanding. We continue to add admin people per the above calculation.

As a side note: Believe it or not about 10 years ago someone in Management put together a “How To Post Your Org” mini-program to be done by all HCO’s.

Anyway, this was actually a mini-program worth something (don’t know if it’s being used today though) but the program went over all the LRH policies on Tech to Admin ratio, how to post the org board, taking into consideration post from the top down but by workload, etc. etc. etc. You worked out the sequence you would post YOUR org up. It was very good and stabilizing as anyone who’s been around knows the musical chairs and “blah blah evolution” you must [unmock] this personnel and send to Flag yesterday or Comm Ev!!”

Anyway, I learned a lot from reading all that LRH. Oh that was the other thing; it was all LRH policies not know-best from some hairbrain exec who hasn’t ever DONE anything in the area. 😉

Freedom of Speech  on September 11th, 2010 Edit comment

As a further note slightly off-topic from my last post but applicable none-the-less. I believe one of the big problems today is that some people in Management, CL Vs and HCO’s around the world haven’t cognited on the value of admin tech. You see these CLV people are harassed daily about getting new recruits. The situation is truly desparate and LRH gets thrown aside with “just get the product!!! command intention!!, stop using policy to stop!!!” and all the other crap people use to justify their ignorance of policy.

The problem then is getting trained new recruits – not bodies which tend to pad stats and don’t last long anyway as is evident by the ideal orgs going UUPPPPPP till grand opening and then tapering downward because people actually NEED MONEY to live in society.

Back to my point: It takes quite some time to make auditors (now) and so you can recruit someone for such a post but it may take months or years (years if training to CL6 at Flag from nowhere on the training side).

Whereas “any idiot” can be taught how to answer a phone, or file a letter, or route communication, or sell a book.

Orgs get soooo over-balanced with people who WANT to do good but they simply aren’t trained in admin to be valuable enough to make it mean something. And the tech lineups that now take so much time hampers the situation further because by the time the guy is done with his training, he’s at retirement age. Well not really, but you get the idea.

Orgs go wonky on the Tech to Admin ratio because HCO’s haven’t duplicated that green on white is just as important to administering an organization as knowing the red on white cold in order to produce results with a PC.

OldAuditor  on September 11th, 2010 Edit comment

Sinar, I have heard the stories about the fabled Saint Hill growth, but I also read that the staff had to work outside jobs to make ends meet.

The only org that I ever saw that looked prosperous was the Orange County Org back in the very early Eighties and I believe staff pay was still substandard when compared to working at Wal-Mart for example.

LRH said somewhere to avoid listening to the brags and to look at the actual products. In a successful organization, well-paid and competent staff are a vital subproduct of the final product or service delivered to customers. Staff on slave wages can be beaten into producing but the product will be flubby and the means of production are held in place by force alone. Successful companies are held together by staff united in a common purpose who are surviving well on most of their dynamics.

Scientology Orgs resemble an ancient Greek Tireme, where the motive power is provided by slaves beaten regularly and the top brass ride in comfort under brightly colored awnings. They look impressive but the human suffering involved was legendary.

lunamoth  on September 12th, 2010 Edit comment

I have some subjective reality on staff working/pay conditions from the “golden years” of OC Org (early eighties). Staff pay was too low to do more than barely survive (unless you were an exec) and most staff members had moonlights. And still the “havingess” level of most, especially those with dependent children, was very low.

Joining staff at OC was viewed (from a strictly material viewpoint) to be a real and significant financial sacrifice.

So despite being the prime example to the world of how well an organization can do when running on “standard LRH admin tech,” that organization did not meet the criteria set out here for a truly “successful” business.

Sinar  on September 12th, 2010 Edit comment

OA & LM,
Good points, doesn’t seem to work without outside “help” in the form of moonlighting. I also experienced that before going to the SO working Day Org hours and moonlighting on Sat & Sun even with Div head pay. Come to think of it, most staff at that time had to moonlight unless their husbands worked full time or something in a “regular” job, even the ED. (late 70′s)

Sinar  on September 12th, 2010 Edit comment

Was the UC effective in getting staff up the grade chart in OC at it’s heyday?

Freedom of Speech  on September 13th, 2010 Edit comment

I read on Marty’s blog that LRH had called for a handling on staff pay, once and for all. This was in the late 70′s, early 80′s … I don’t think those he asked to get a done on it, got a done on it.

It was clear you weren’t going to be making CEO pay as an ED but that it’d be MUCH better certainly than it is now.

Also we gotta remember that in LRH’s time he funded all the “IAS funded” activities through Scientology orgs, delivery of service and selling of books. That could have been a reason for lower pay back then. There is NO EXCUSE now with the IAS raking in millions that org staff should still be going unpaid.

Miscavige is likely justifying it because LRH said (paraphrasing) that staff aren’t there to make money but to clear people. LRH didn’t intend staff to be broke though. That’s running a pretty big cant-have on the dedicated few willing to carry the torch.

Now I could see Miscavige doing that as he sips his Scotch and enjoys his caviar.

Snicks  on September 14th, 2010 Edit comment

I am up for the challenge.

Yes, I see very successful companies run on LRH admin tech. I’m in the WISE sector and have been for years. Honestly, I would say about 80% of our clients are doing great, massive expansion, well paid staff, etc.

The other 20% are on an ethics program just to get them up to the point of handling their first dynamic before going near the 3rd.

But I will tell you what it really takes to do this. You have to apply the key LRH references that will work. If you look at all the admin tech and think it all applies at once, no way! Even LRH says you can’t take a program for a large Org and run it on a small Org. I’ve seen this done and it’s devastating.

I have never found the admin tech to be flawed but I sure as hell have found the application to be flawed and stupid.

LRH developed the admin tech over a period of years. Most people have M/U’s just on the conditions and can’t/don’t apply them correctly.

So, yes, I can point to about 100 companies that are doing great, but it takes a village.

OldAuditor  on September 14th, 2010 Edit comment

Snicks, I would be very interested in knowing the names of even one successful company being run on LRH Admin Tech.

I worked for several Wise organizations including Sterling Management, my friends worked at Executive Software and I saw at first hand the Dev-T caused by the application of LRH Admin Tech to non-church businesses.

For example, the successful actions of the WISE management companies was getting the client business owner to buy a large Bridge package, preferably the Ls. This way the consultant would rake in a healthy FSM commission even though the client company was struggling under the burden of grafting a church org board and an elaborate top down command system onto an otherwise lean and mean company.

If your company is responsible for hundreds of successful client companies, I commend you on being very selective in how much LRH Admin tech you applied. Perhaps you could enlighten us on how your experience differs from everyone elses.

John Doe  on September 14th, 2010 Edit comment

Great article, David. Your (and Geir’s) question is one that needed to be asked.

If old St. Hill was successful, and if Orange county was also considered successful, I’d have to say there should be fine print to that claim, like on those weight loss commercials, “Results not typical.”

Based on my experience and observation, and that of anyone I’ve ever discussed the “staff experience” with, the business model dictated by Admin tech is, empirically, not a successful one. When I say successful, the only standard I am using is, “is the activity able to support itself on its own efforts?”

LRH used to decry that psychiatry and psychology could not exist without billions of dollars of government subsidy. Well, in all fairness, it is evident that scientology churches, as run according to admin tech, would cease to exist if they weren’t heavily subsidized. That subsidy consists of staff members working long hours, basically for free. These staff members are subsidizing the orgs the same as if they worked a regular job and then turned over nearly all their paycheck to that org. People join and work on staff for any number of reasons but fact remains that staff members, through their underpaid efforts, are subsidizing the existence of the orgs.

There are those who, finding it hard to accept any failing of the admin tech, will claim that the orgs that are unsuccessful are “not applying policy or not applying it fully.” My answer to that is, why is it then, that people find it so difficult to apply this admin tech? If applying this tech means sure success and prosperity, why can’t it be applied so that say, half the orgs were booming and with staff not having to moonlight? A quarter of the orgs? Ten percent??? Certainly, if admin tech was sufficiently robust, it could withstand a little or a lot of alteration or omission and still produce an acceptable result. Instead, the vast number, if not all the orgs, have staff working outside jobs to make ends meet, or if in the SO, living in very substandard conditions.

(As an aside, I would like to encourage those using the term, “slave labor” to describe staff members, to please refrain from doing so. While the long hours and low pay may often feel like slavery to the individual staff member, they can and do leave staff employment all the time. A slave is considered property and cannot lawfully leave. It is inaccurate to call a staff member a slave. But mostly, I’d like to discourage the term because it is a highly emotionally charged term for most people. If we are attempting to initiate reform, we must continue to appeal to reason; we should avoid appearing like we are attempting to emotionally manipulate readers like so many of the hate sites try to do.)

OldAuditor  on September 14th, 2010 Edit comment

Slave labor applies to Sea Org staff, especially those at the Int Base in Hemet CA. They live and work under degraded conditions that would cause universal public outrage if the facts were more widely known. My old friend Heber Jentszch has been locked up at the Int Base for at least the last five years.

Staff members of outer orgs are not slaves, as they can conceivably blow from their posts without physical harm being done to them unless they are SO staff on garrison duty. They work very long hours for less than minimum wages, but they can leave, so we should consider them volunteers for the cause.

Snicks  on September 15th, 2010 Edit comment


I wish I could give you the names, but…LOL

I say hundreds based on many years of production and whether or not former clients are continuing to do well, I can’t say.

Many of our consultants worked for Sterling in the past and went through the nightmare of it crashing. After careful surveying of all of them, I arrived at a couple of decisions from my own data, on what caused the crash:

1) Expansion was too fast and HCO and Qual dropped out.
2) Failure to deliver what was promised. Good old KSW!
3) Putting the needs of others ahead of the client. i.e. stat pushes, pushing for Bridge cycles when that is not part of the program, disseminating to their staff (NEVER DO THAT!).
4) Lack of follow-up and using the debug tech when the client stalled.

How much LRH admin tech do we use? Actually, just very basic ones. We don’t go near putting in an Org Board – this is too overwhelming and not necessary.

We hat them on Dev-T, the conditions, stats and give them a job description manual. We rely very heavily on training and apprenticeships to get the training implemented. Consulting is used to back up the training and not the other way around. “Booming an Org through Training” is a key reference.

In other words, we don’t confuse an academy with a Div 6 public. These are Div 6 guys and all they want is some help that they can confront.

Each client has a tailored made program and all tech terminals are aware of the program. The training is done to pick-up the ruins the client has and slanted towards it. For example, if the client has danger conditions because he is a chronic by-passer, he really gets that trained in and then put on a mini-program to start delegating. If he’s good at promoting, then we just keep his understanding on the Emergency condition light. You have to use lots of judgment and just watch the indicators.

I also apply the 2 rules for auditing – get in comm with the guy and do something for him. My viewpoint is this – if he’s happy with the service, then I’m happy.

We also spend a lot of time training consultants and we have 2 Senior Consultants that C/S, cram and oversee every cycle, so if something goes off the rails, it is caught. We also keep our comm lines wide open with tons of ARC so all staff are very comfortable communicating and getting help when they need it.

We actually don’t run stats really hard. By that I mean, if we have a Danger, it’s a quick cycle, no heavy ethics and just help the person through it. These are good people and should be treated as such.

I have to agree with you on your statement about the Dev-T. Many a time I have pulled a client aside, sat them down and corrected them on causing so much Dev-T! I think it’s the nature of an unhatted and inexperienced executive. If I can keep them calm and just looking at the stats, this seems to work.

As far as the FSM’ing, I’ve heard about what you said. We do FSM very selectively and carefully and do stay on top of their FP. No one comes near or talks to our clients unless we are part of the cycle. We keep the Org Boards separate, so it’s a very cooperative scene between us and the Church. I think this is the way it’s supposed to be.

We have a great relationship with WISE and I have always found them to be wonderful. Every time I see packs arrive for training, I thank them in my heart for all their hard work.

I hope this helps! My viewpoint is all the tech LRH developed works and when it comes to groups, you are dealing with much more insanity on a larger scale because you are dealing with so many people. I think we are all learning and everything comes down to being basic, simple and easy.

ClearlyMistreated  on October 5th, 2010 Edit comment

Here’s my experience and thoughts on this interesting conversation:

I’ve been helping manage a “WISE” business for 20 years now. We tried to implement a lot of the admin tech during the first 10 years but it took too much effort and didn’t seem to be worth the effort (org board, stats, etc.) For most of the last 10 years we’ve felt guilty for being off-policy but we’ve actually done better.

Personally, I’ve had better results just applying LRH philosophy to my own post. Basics like ARC, granting beingness, etc. Others tend to follow my example and people generally like working here.

I think the problem with admin tech is that it seems to be premised on the stable datum of “man is basically bad” and needs to be controlled, monitored, punished, etc. Whereas, the philosophy side is based on “man is basically good” and if you treat them that way it brings out the best in them. My employees have a high willingness to be here and that follows through into productivity. They may not be as productive as if I were driving them on a stat system, but it builds a high-ARC team that works well on a long-term basis.

The other WISE businesses I see appear to be more of slaveshops where only the owner makes any money. They do tend to stay small

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *