Well, Hubbard developed such a pattern in the 1960s and I thought it was about time I showed it to you. Why wait for the ETs to do it? After all, they might get distracted by something and forget. Who's planet is this, anyway? If we want to keep it, we better start taking some responsibility for running it correctly.
So here it is:
This same pattern is used by an individual: The thetan operates a body via a mind to get a product. That's it. That's the whole pattern. And I've demonstrated here how you nest the pattern in itself. You can keep going as deep as you want. It depends on how big a group you are organizing. On a planet, there could be major organizations several levels down in the pattern. How well they all fit together depends on how closely they are willing to cooperate with each other.
Next, Let's see how LRH applied this to a human organization. Here's the same pattern with some post titles and functions filled in. Does it cover all the bases? I think it does. The rest of the "magic" is in how each of the functions as outlined below is actually accomplished. And that's in Policy.
Executive Director (Planning)
There's one little difference in this pattern compared to the ones used by the guys "up there." It uses the various technologies developed by LRH to accomplish things.
For example, the Management division uses Statistics. It's a technology.
The Personnel division uses Ethics technology.
The Quality division uses auditing and word clearing technologies to correct and enhance the staff.
This pattern, taken one level deeper, results in 27 departments organized into 9 divisions.
This is enough detail to cover the major functions any individual or group must do in order to survive and prosper.
As long as you cover these functions, no matter what you call them, you'll do alright.
This pattern reflects some basic principles that LRH discovered concerning people and groups.
Optimum group size
I consider this a key principle. He found production groups do best when limited to a size of about six people. In his discussions of this principle he sometimes mentions having a deputy for the guy in charge (the Thetan). This is because that person has his own work to get done for the group a level up where he is a junior member. So the deputy would do most of the day-to-day supervision and coordination of the three junior members of the group. Each of those, in turn, might have their own groups that they run with the help of a deputy (or not).
This always reminded me of how a family is organized. Notice that while other institutions come and go, the family has persisted down through the centuries. One reason it does is that it uses this pattern. As a generality, a family will tend to fail if it strays too far from this basic pattern. We see this in families where both parents have full time jobs, which results in the kids not getting the attention they need.
The school classroom, in contrast, violates this pattern, unless the teacher takes the initiative to implement it informally among the students. As a result, we have constant problems with our schools. The teacher cannot give 20 or 30 kids the attention they each need to do well in school, particularly if the parents aren't doing their parts.
Cover all functions
For an individual or group to be successful, it must somehow cover all 27 basic functions. In organizations, this is done by "posting from the top down." That makes an individual the "Executive Director" of his own personal "organization." And it means that anyone in an organization is responsible for all functions below them, manned or not.
Assign conditions based on stats. Use Ethics to keep stats honest.
The manager's dream is to know what is really happening in the group he or she manages.
This is done by using accurate statistics that measure raw production is some way that is consistent. If a lumber mill decides to measure its output in finished board-feet, then it has to stick with that way of counting it. If it wants a finer breakdown, it uses sub-stats.
Stat keeping usually depends on human observation. Automated counting is cool when it's possible, but machines can make mistakes, too, or be fudged. So whenever stats don't look quite right, management sends Inspections in to check it out. If they find dishonesty, a wise executive acts quickly to correct the problem.
Conditions are a part of LRH Ethics technology. The usual operating conditions run from Non-Existence, up through Danger, Emergency and Normal, then may reach higher into Affluence and Power. The condition of a stat depends on its trend, its steepness, and its range. A low range could be non-existence, or just emergency. A higher range could be normal, if that production level is sufficient to support the group, or Power if that range is enabling the group to expand significantly.
LRH has established guidelines, which he calls formulas, for improving conditions. The test of a formula is in the stat that results from applying it. If a formula is applied honestly and the stat fails to increase, then one suspects an incorrect condition assignment.
There is a give-and take between management and "labor" regarding how conditions get assigned and formulas applied. The guy doing the work may have data about conditions "on the floor" that management is missing. But management may have big-picture understandings that the guys on the floor are missing.
Coordination meetings are used to help keep the flow of information between different levels of the organization alive.
If a higher-level manager comes into an area to inspect, the people there may not be comfortable at directing his attention to out-points they are aware of. Their direct senior, on the other hand, could be getting an earful. It is that person's responsibility to pass such information up the line at coordination meetings. And it is the responsibility of seniors to listen and ask, and to give their juniors big-picture data to share with the people who work under them.
Nowadays, a lot of this can be computerized. But that won't work if all are not aware of the basic principles as outlined above.
Teach the pattern and the basics
All group members are responsible for learning how this pattern works, teaching it to new members, and enforcing it amongst each other. If a ball gets dropped, someone knowing enough to step in and do the right thing can mean the difference between a minor annoyance and a disaster.
Application to Larger Groups
Most people see this as a "top down" pattern, and that turns them off. They like to think that they should have a say in how their group is managed, no matter how ignorant they are of situations or how to handle them.
But the press of history makes certain things clear. And one clear lesson is: The best organized group usually wins. If you can accomplish some degree of individual freedom and democratic action, and stay well-organized, then you have a very winning organization indeed. But it's a trick. And that trick depends heavily on individual ability. As the ability of each group member rises, so does its survivability.
And ability has been a real problem for groups. Most don't seem to be very aware of how ability is created, maintained, or enhanced. They depend on luck and "gifted individuals" to help them carry through. And that is a very dangerous dependency.
LRH has pointed the way out of that mess. You shouldn't take my word for it. But you'll never know if you never bother to study any of his materials. I'm not saying you can't get there some other way. I'm just saying I don't know any other way.
What I can say about larger groups is this: If they learned these basics and tried to figure out how to accomplish their goals using those basics, then a workable system would inevitably evolve. I can't say that I know exactly how it should work. It could probably work in a variety of different forms.
Of course, if the "leaders" of the larger group aren't really interested in the survival and prosperity of all those in their area of responsibility, then you have a problem. That's called "out-ethics at the top" and it's a killer. Literally. It is usually reversed, when it is, by some sort of insurrection. The good guys move back in, take over, and throw the bad guys out. Most won't be sure which guys were good and which were bad until conditions in the group begin to change. And if the management shift brings no improvement, well, then it was a bad call.
However, what anyone familiar with these basics can point out are features of our current system that are clearly incompatible with the "holographic" theory of social organization:
- Centralized policing of anything. This goes against the principle of optimum group size, a basic pattern violation. We see this when almost any government authorities are set loose directly on the public. The IRS is a glaring example. Any level of an organization only deals directly with the levels directly below it and above it. That's a basic.
- Cooked stats. If you operate by statistics that do not simply count something so that anyone can double-check the figure, then you enter into statistics as PR, or as outright lies. I think sports do well and are popular because their stat systems are so transparent.
- Failure to assign conditions. If a politician does something treasonous and no one is willing to call him on it, then you don't have a working system.
- Secrets. When management is not sharing basic operational details with others who need to know, then you have the perfect environment for criminals to take over from the honest.
- Enforced ignorance. When media outlets are used to deceive instead of honestly inform citizens of how things really work, you cut off citizens from the democratic process, and that can be fatal.
Possible future patterns
I would expect to see a planet ruled by some sort of council, with each council member responsible for a sector, and each sector comprised of a few countries or sub-sectors, and countries in turn divided into regions, and each region has a few states in it, and so forth.
The members of the planetary council give speeches and make reports and so forth, but they would never order around a country directly. Too many levels down!
In terms of government, the same pattern would be followed right down to the level of the family. But there might be some ways to consolidate functions. So families might interact with local governments via their churches or their schools, or the places they work. And that would be it.
That's as much government as an individual ever has to interact with directly. He never gets ordered around by a county agency, or a state agency, or a federal agency. Those higher levels are all group-to-group interactions. A citizen only has to take orders from the local cop, probably. And that cop probably lives in the neighborhood, and makes sure he knows everyone who lives there on a first name basis.
So you'd have neighborhoods "competing" with each other to see which could apply conditions the best, and make their stats rise the most. And as families and neighborhoods did better, so would every level above them.
And that's good organization, how to make it "holographic" and how to keep it humane.
A blueprint for a new millennium. Or as, LRH likes to call it, a New Civilization.