Orders, Query Of
July 23, 2008
Last Revised: May 23, 2012 4:50 PM
Within the Hubbard Management System there is a procedure for handling disagreements with orders or instructions from seniors -- it is a procedure that, when followed, protects the junior from discipline when he "disobeys and order" (in proper form).
The FIRST method is to submit a CSW (Completed Staff Work) up lines to explain how something is a "major departure from the Ideal Scene," provide relevant data and advise something that promotes reuturn to the ideal scene. It is NOT a CSW to write that you need a pay raise! If a "CSW" has nothing to do with the business purposes and ideal scene, then it is NOT a CSW.
Neither a CSW nor an "Orders, Query of" is intended to deal with a personal problem, but is intended for a business situation.
There is a MORE FORMAL way which should be followed ONLY when the CSW method does not get results, even when fully and properly done. That is the subject of this Company Policy.
There are many organizations using the Hubbard Management System where ALL of the official Policies are those written by Mr. Hubbard. That is not true of Vibrant Life. Most of Vibrant Life Company Policies are written by Karl Loren, sometimes quoting an excerpt of Hubbard Policy and infrequently quoting an entire Hubbard Policy.
There is no attempt, here or elsewhere, to suggest that Karl Loren's written Policies are perfect or even compare in any way with those by Mr. Hubbard. While you might disagree with Policies written by Mr. Hubbard, you might have more cause to disagree with those written by Karl - and that is OK -- as long as the same Policy as Hubbard wrote ("Orders, Query of") is followed for any order or Policy or instruction written by Karl or, for that matter, your senior in the Vibrant Life organization.
When and if you disagree with some Policy (whether Hubbard's or Karl's), and then disobey it, that would be a transgression against the code of behavior within Vibrant Life, for Vibrant Life activities. A more technical term, within the Hubbard Management System is that a transgression is called an "overt." The Hubbard materiel is rich with references to overts and related matters.
Per Mr. Hubbard:
The Admin Scale is "A scale for use which gives a sequence (and relative seniority) of subjects relating to organization.
The scale is worked up and down until it is (each item) in full agreement with the remaining items in the scale on the same subject.
Group mores aligned so and followed by the group gives one an ethical group and also establishes what will then be considered as overts and withholds in the group by group members. (Basic Reference HERE)
Overts are behaviors that violate the VL Group mores, which, in turn, must be those established by Company Policy in order that all staff align with the same moral code for their business behavior.
It is OK to disagree with an order, even to disobey doing it, as long as you follow the Hubbard Policy quoted below in green. It is NOT OK to disagree and then NOT write it up per this Hubbard Policy.
Thus, when and if someone asks you, in the proper situation, to "write up your overts and withholds" the general definition of what an "overt" is (transgression" would be a violation of Policy written by Karl or Mr. Hubbard.
In following the proper form, as below, if you DO disagree with some Policy, and INDICATE your disagreement in a written "Orders, Query of," as below, then would NOT have the overt of disagreement without reporting it.
Disagreements, without reporting them as below, are the stuff that can drive a group into pieces -- some following Policy, some not, some hiding their disagreement.
It occasionally happens that an order is issued or a policy is enforced or is found to exist which if put into full effect in a certain area would result in loss or destruction.
Someone told to man up, for instance, all admin departments, sees that this would upset the tech/admin ratio.
Instead of putting the order into effect he should query the order with:
A. the name of the issuer and the exact order.
B. the reason it would result in loss or destruction if put into effect,
C. a recommendation resolving the problem the order sought to solve.
Noncompliance as a method of avoiding a destructive order is very risky. It is far, far better, in writing, to make the above submission.
Going ahead and putting the order into effect even though it means loss and destruction without advising anyone is itself very destructive.
Sometimes a policy is interpreted incorrectly so that if one put it into effect fully as interpreted, loss and destruction would result. An instance of this was a type of course omitted from a policy letter. Someone did not query but instead closed the course and refunded thousands in advance payments. This was a misinterpretation of the policy which was only discussing course levels.
The correct action of one and all would have been to have queried.
Another instance was an order that cancelled out and fired the personnel of a Letter Registrar because a fixed pay rate was being paid. The org followed the order and promptly went into debt as this was the only typist available and her dismissal was destructive of all income. Half a dozen people at least should have queried the order before executing.
A policy written for an affluent org is pushed on a tiny org. It executes even though it doesn't seem correct. The result is destructive.
The very meaning of policy can be shifted by reinterpretation. When this is done and seen to be destructive, anyone following the reinterpretation is just as guilty as the misnterpreter. The correct action is to query.
Even "You're fired" can be an incorrect order and can be queried if done as above.
"Your Class VIII is appointed HCO ES Canada." Great. But you know you've only got one VIII. To permit the order to be carried out is destructive. An order placing your best auditors into admin leaving tech crippled should have the living daylights queried out of it even by the janitor.
IT DOES NOT RELIEVE ONE OF RESPONSIBILITY WHEN ONE EXECUTES A DESTRUCTIVE ORDER. The one who follows it is in fact far more guilty than the issuer since the one following it is right there, able to OBSERVE whereas the issurer may not be.
The query should go to the issuer formed as ABC above. If it is still insisted upon and still is destructive, send it and all particulars to the nearest Sea Org unit. Label it DESTRUCTIVE ORDER and ask for help in handling. Refuse meanwhile to put it into effect.
ON ONE CAN BE COMM EVED FOR QUERING AN ORDER IN PROPER FORM.
Using this policy to avoid routine actions plainly not resulting in loss or destruction WHICH NOT DONE do result in loss or destruction can result in an investigation and the one who refused the order can be held at fault and any resulting destruction.
This policy mainly applies to new, nonroutine orders or attempted changes.
Placing an org or person in an incorrect condition comes under this policy.
Source HCO PL 15 December 1968 Issue II, page 534, OEC Vol O.
Quotes from L. Ron Hubbard are copyright 1994 © by the L. Ron Hubbard Library. All rights reserved.