I have found that whenever I have had to handle something, I found the person who should have handled it unhatted and with misunderstood words on things intimately connected with his duties.

Thus I have found this cycle of great use and thoroughly recommend it.

When a Hat Officer has somebody to hat, he hats that person fully. It may take days. You don’t keep changing Hat Officers on the same person day after day.

1. Emergency item or omission requiring handling turns up.

Hat Officers, like auditors have their pcs, should have a list of clients they are hatting.

2. Handle it right now fast (my handling something time lapse is about 5 minutes to half an hour). (That means terminatedly.)

It isn’t getting points that count. It’s getting a fully hatted person.

3. Spot who should have handled it.

A frequent change of Hat Officers, like a frequent change of auditors, winds up with no completions.

4. Interrogate the person on basics of his post (not ask about “hat folders,” etc.).

Every Hat Officer post should have its list of clients. The Hat Officer changes only when transferred. The post keeps the same clients.

In all cases so far I have found the person not doing his post duties, unhatted, with huge misunderstoods on words like “post,” “hat,” “muster,” etc.

It takes a firmly hatted staff to handle the scene we’ve got on the planet today.

5. Hat the guy.

So I can tell you that any overload you have is from unhattedness of the most basic kind.

An org is as efficient and looks as good as its people are individually hatted and do their jobs.

It’s a very good system. I recommend it.

A sort of a do-it-yourself HCO!

It works.

[Note:'' The original mimeo copies of this policy letter were incorrectly numbered as Exec Series 24.]