If you find the wrong product for a post, you knock the staff member’s hat off.

Example: Get the janitor a product of “a well established business” and he’s the Exec Esto!

When all the “products” have been “found” you can have bits of trouble here and there. This would be very mysterious unless you realize that a certain percentage of products found will be

(a) Incorrect

(b) Too few

(c) Incompletely worded

(d) Are doingnesses not havingnesses

(e) Can’t be worked into a stat.

There will also be a certain small number who were upset by a poor Product Rundown and will have to have auditing to handle (usually the bypassed charge list L1C on the Product Rundown or what is called a Green Form or even a Word Clearing Correction List).

The majority probably will be all right so that’s a pluspoint.

But these flubbed rundowns become themselves a WHY.

So let’s see how to correct one.

1. Did the product add up to a havingness?

2. Was it exchangeable?

3. Did it match the actual hat?

4. Were there more for the same post?

5. Is the person really wearing several hats, each of which has a product?

6. If more than one found did they go together with each other?

7. Does it give the person a different hat?

8. Did it give the person somebody else’s hat?

9. Were there misunderstood words in the rundown?

10 .Does the person have contrary orders from some other person?

11. Was it just an exercise to the person?

12. Did doing the rundown make the person ARC broken or otherwise put ruds out?

13. Didn’t the person agree with it?

14. Was the person really trying to do some other job?

15. Was the person about to leave present post or wanted to?

16. Was the Product Rundown really not done?

17. Is the person unhappy on post?

18. Is the person taking illegal orders?

19. Is the person connected to antagonistic people (PTS)?

20. Wrong post for the product?

21. Wrong org bd?

22. Crossed over into another department?

23. Crossed over into another division?

The questions, assessed on a meter, should be handled if they read.

And when that is done (assessed and handled), the door is open to finding the WHY called for in Esto Series 13. The above questions could be the Why or part of it but usually that’s just a symptom of the real Why called for in Esto No. 13.

But in any event the questions correct the Product Rundown and it’s vital to do that.

The routine action with a post is to get the person to list on separate cards WITH CORRECT EXACT WORDING each hat the person wears or has been wearing no matter how small. This is NOT copied from a P/L. It’s an honest “What hats do you really wear?”

The list may be as long as 35 or 40. The higher you go on the command channel, the more of these hats.

Having done that for every member in a division you wind up with either

(1) Completely expressed division hats or

(2) Woefully missing functions or

(3) Badly adjusted work loads.

(4) A totally cross-hatted scramble.

You put these cards (identified as whose by the writing) onto a blank org board. You now have AN EXISTING ORG BD.

The following is an entirely separate action.

Now you take the 1965 org bd or FEBC org board or whatever org board is a model and see if the “hats” you have go under the functions listed on the board.

You adjust the hats around to cover the actual functions of the division.

You write up cards to cover the missing functions.

You put these new cards on the org board.

You write up the functions of the org board of the division by departments on a separate model and add the valuable final products per HCO PL 4 Mar 72.

This gives you the functions to get out the VFPs expected.

These functions will or won’t get out the VFPs.

What functions are needed to get them out?

By blocking in these you have now a FUNCTION ORG BOARD.

From this function org board you can now make up a TITLES ORG BD.

Each title has some of these functions. The functions must be of the same general type for the title.

When you have done this (with divisional secretary, divisional Org Officer and divisional Esto and department heads), you now have a TITLES ORG BD.

The main failure in putting names on an org bd is that people take the easy way out and try to put a different person’s name on each title. This gives you a 100 person division “absolutely vital” while the production is about 5 man!

You take the names you have NOW in the division and post those to cover all the functions and titles.

You post from the top down. YOU NEVER POST FROM BOTTOM UP. And you NEVER LEAVE A GAP BETWEEN PERSONS ON LOWER POSTS AND HIGH POSTS. Either of these faults will raise hell in the division’s functioning and are grave faults.

Having done this you now have a POSTED ORG BOARD.

Now the hat lists you have are probably wildly different than your posted org bd.

Take the cards of hats they were wearing and try to fit these onto your POSTED ORG BD.

You now at once “before your very eyes” will see what’s wrong with your product and what might be right with it.

You will have one of these:

(1) Completely expressed division hats

(2) Woefully missing functions

(3) Badly adjusted work loads, OR

(4) A function not on the POSTED BD but done by someone that is getting the product!

You will see that the board made from the hat cards they wrote, doesn’t usually compare with your posted org bd!

AND THAT’S A POSSIBLE WHY YOU COULDN’T GET PRODUCT RUNDOWNS DONE!

Hats don’t add up to product. Or the actions really being done are totally unproductive.

You now have it before your eyes.

By an excess of purity you can crash a division or an org by removing a key function someone is doing that’s NOT on the posted org bd but IS getting the product!

We had a Phone Reg recently removed because he wasn’t allowed for on the org bd and “had to be Dir Reg but wouldn’t.” When he was forced into line, the stats promptly crashed!

The stats recovered promptly when his removal was spotted and he was ordered back on post.

You don’t juggle an org board lightly. You can destroy a division or unit by juggling hats.

The rule is DON’T DISMANTLE A WORKING INSTALLATION. NEVER!

You can build around it, support it, put in another one like it. But don’t touch it!

It is heartbreaking to build a successful upstat division — takes months — and have somebody crash it by musical chairs, musical functions.

So always look at stats. And look at the PAST points of high stats of that div in past years and see what was its organization when it was really upstat.

You could do no better than to rebuild that old structure.

But if your div or activity was a working installation that was really getting out the product don’t monkey with it. Study it instead.

If Product Clearing wasn’t good, and the unit isn’t doing well, then do the above org bd exercises to see what gave.

And you probably will now see that you didn’t have the right products.

Try to get your division or dept standard if its stats are low. Standard is your 1965 SH org bd for a big org. That org really ran! Most policy is built on it.

But a little org builds up from “Org Program No. 1” LRH ED 49INT 9 Dec 1969. And can go through the 6 dept stage of London, LA and DC in their glory (’56-’62). They had an HCO, a Registration, Accounts, Training, Processing and a Department of Personnel Efficiency (public). These did all the functions. There was an HCO Sec and an Association Sec. But Org Pgm No. 1 phases into it with a person in full charge of public.

Or a little org can build a big org from Org Pgm Number 1 right on into the ’65 org bd.

The approximate products of HCO PL 4 Mar 72 are being worked for. I say approximate as there may be more and the wording may be better adjusted.

When you have the hats getting out the subproducts (those necessary to make the VFPs of the org) you will get the VFPs.

You may find it necessary to correct your posted org board to get the VFPs.

Remember, it has the staff it has, plus any new ones it manages to get plus any field technical persons it can get in to go on staff.

YOU HAVE TO SET IT UP TO GET OUT THE VFPs NOW NOW NOW.

An org can’t stand idle to be organized. It can die if it is hatted just to establish.

So you post the people you have to do the functions that must be done.

Then you Product Clear.

You clear from the top down.

You HAT to produce.

There isn’t anything more important than this step.

The easy way to do this is to do 2 of the short form steps quickly on EACH staff member from the top down.

Then take the next two on ALL the staff, each one.

If a Product RD has been done already but it isn’t running well, correct it, with above list.

And do it with two steps and go on to the next staff member.

The biggest omission is not clearing products at all.

The next biggest omission is failing to clear from the top down.

The next is not clearing them all through the div two at a time.

The next is not clearing products on the new people coming into the div promptly.

A div can be tangled by having the wrong products for the hats.

So product is always suspect when stats are down or lines tangle.

The biggest Why of products not getting cleared is an Esto I/C in a small org or an Exec Esto who does not run and train his Estos. If an Exec Esto listens to “but I can’t use a meter,” “my TRs are out,” “she won’t let me hat her,” “I have Mis-Us on the P/Ls so don’t read them” and does not handle his Estos the way a coach handles a hot football team, products won’t get cleared.

Naturally if products are not cleared on an Esto I/C or an Exec Esto or if they aren’t cleared on the Estos they will flounder.

Once again it’s a two-step-at-a-time action round and round while getting other things done between each two steps.

An example of Product Clearing that throws things out is crossing the hats of the Esto MAAs.

The Exec Esto’s MAA is responsible for the schedule and getting to work and exercise and activities of STAFF MEMBERS.

The Assistant Esto MAA is responsible for Estos.

If their products are incorrectly cleared they will flounder around and their posts may look of little value.

The Exec Esto’s MAA probably has a product like “effective post hours of each staff member.” Each staff member on post one hour is a product. He also therefore has a welfare sort of function that leads to a lesser product that leads to the main one. Like, “a staff member in good physical condition for the day.” And this gives another lesser product, “a secure staff member for that day.” And so it goes. This is not a list nor an exact wording of his products. But do you see that they all fit? They are ethics type stats so they have time in them because they preserve and measure survival. They could not be graphed without time in them. They would not vary.

The Esto’s MAA has “an Esto on post with ethics in that day.” He has lesser products of “a defended or secure Esto that day” and “an Esto assisted with liaison with HCO.” Do you see that the products mesh? If an Esto has out-ethics he can’t be defended because he can be hit from above.

Also the Exec Esto’s MAA has the staff and the Esto’s MAA has the Estos so “both sides” are supported.

Now if you product cleared the Exec Esto’s MAA as having “a working Esto” as his product he would be at once the Exec Esto! While called “Esto’s MAA.” He wouldn’t be able to make head nor tail of his post.

If the org’s HCO Ethics Officer had the same products as the Esto MAA’s (or, lord help us, all three had wrong products) whole zones of ethics would be missing in the org and out-ethics would occur. The Ethics Officer has several products but as HCO is a production division, he has “an out-ethics person whose ethic level has been made acceptable.” It would not be “Ethics Orders issued” as that isn’t the whole product of the E/O nor would “people hit by ethics” be a product because it isn’t a product. The product would have to include public and if it didn’t the whole public zone would be out. Students would get into an E/O section jammed with staff backlog and would be kept off course and maybe blow. Decent investigations couldn’t be made. So ethics would go out in the area.

But an Esto having trouble with a staff member would know, if products were right and published, to send him to the Exec Esto’s MAA!

And what of files? It’s useless to duplicate files so HCO Ethics Files has all Ethics files and the Exec Esto MAA’s files and the Esto MAA’s files.

So, just with this example, you can see that products can be very neatly coordinated. AND MUST BE FROM STAFF MEMBER TO STAFF MEMBER in a section, a department, a division, an org. Then it all FLOWS. Somebody is in charge of each internal product in the org that it takes to make a VFP and in charge as well of that VFP loosely (incorrectly called) the GI (GI is really the valuable FINAL REWARD for which the VFPs are exchanged).

Thus, an org properly product cleared RUNS, PRODUCES VFPs in high volume and quality and is rewarded with GI and other things for which VFPs exchange.

And that’s the org you want!