By Frik Blaauw
The Bridge Chart found displayed in the Orgs has a smallish section at the bottom – invariably produced horizontally – which attracts very little attention from EDs and D of Ps and others talking to newbies.
When Ron introduced the Grade Chart, he took some time to discuss that bottom section, in the video. Various states of Awareness are arranged on a scale from -34 on upwards.
He makes comments like “rather elastic bottom”, “some people are more bottom than others”.
And then the crucial one: “Only at minus 4 can he become a Scientologist, or capable of being one.”
I’ve reproduced this bottom section in another graphic below. Using this scale, let’s examine staff recruitment into Orgs and the Sea Org.
The proportion of staff brought in by family and friendship ties are large – easily the majority source of recruitment. Given the statement that staff and SO members are the crème de la crème of the population, that particle flow of admiration hooks even the most unsuitable person – even if he very well is at less than -4 on the Awareness Scale. Couple that with the oft unscrupulous/unprofessional staff drives by senior staff . . . . . and if they themselves are on that lower scale, then “the birds of a feather” syndrome plays out.
Let me repeat what Ron says – it’s not what he does or say that determines where he is on the Scale, it’s what he thinks he is aware of. At most, he will only be aware of the state immediately above where he currently is.
Peer and family pressure does the rest, and we end up with these unsuitable staff members.
There is very little on offer to handle someone at -34 and bring him up the scale, to where he can become a Scientologist at -4.
This is partly why LRH said that less than 10% of the population could ever be a Scientologist.
Having a staff member at -14 for example, will enturbulate that section of work.
(Some bloggers would say that Miscaviage is at -14, and see what that has produced!)
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I have been in general management of large organisations, and consulted in other in various business sectors, and recruitment and training of staff was high on the agendas.
In a lot of cases, I would not have the staff I have seen working in the Orgs, in any organisation I was in charge of. At the top of the scale of crimes I personally have witnessed in the Orgs are theft, lying, fraud and blackmail.
I have found that when a staff member is too deep in unknown and untrained territory, he will do such crimes – perhaps in a desperate attempt to leave? And the staff is also protected by an out-of-context PL. They know it – so anything goes.
We also see a portion of staff applications where this is the last attempt at some employment – anything! He has not been able to get a job, and is now desperate. Anything is better than nothing, right?
Notwithstanding what I have said above, there is undoubtedly some superb staff in our Orgs, and I pay homage to people like Graham Holm at Joburg North and Mathilda my favourite auditor at Joburg.
Although this writing has been about staff and SO (and mission holders), it does apply to public too. Nothing like bad members to ruin an organisation!
I hope that in a future new Org system, the above mistakes will not be repeated in our anxiousness to expand.
A luta continua.