My recent reexamination of LRH admin tech sparked some interesting discussions – some on this blog and more on other forums and mailing lists. I would like to follow up and addresses a rather odd stance taken by some.
While nobody can point to a successful implementation of LRH’s management philosophy (the admin tech) some justify this by pointing to one or more of the following:
a) No-one is trained well enough to implement it
b) People have M/Us (misunderstandings) regarding the tech
c) The admin tech will not work in the presence of suppression
d) The tech has been altered (presumably by others than LRH) sufficiently to render it unworkable as a system
e) Too few know about it – hence there are too few implementations for significant statistical data.
Let’s take up each of these:
a) Nowhere have I seen such an emphasis on training in any management philosophy than in the Church of Scientology, and it only barely works there due to slave labor. If the management philosophy would require even more training to see to its success, then what we are looking at is such a complex system that it fails to carry its own weight.
b) If a management system requires flawless understanding of it to make it work, it is a failure compared to the many other management systems that works very well with people even sloppily trained on it.
c) The admin tech is supposed to be the perfect way of handling suppression.
d) Why did the admin tech not include elements that guarded it from such alterations? Also, other management philosophies have been altered far more and still works very well. This is called evolution.
e) WISE (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises) claims: “Hubbard management technology has been applied in more than 140,000 companies across the globe. At the root of this success is its consistent workability — where it is exactly applied it uniformly brings growth and prosperity to businesses and organizations of all sizes.” I would call that significant statistical data – yet nothing but small companies with Scientologists as owners step up claim it successful.
The fact remains; There are no visible successful implementation of LRH admin tech – “successful” implies a significant positive deviation from the mean of the market in which it is implemented. If there are I will surely stand corrected.
If the lack of success should be attributed to some other factor than mere unworkability, should that not apply equally well to other technologies – like voodoo, flat-earth science, psychiatry, breatherianism, et al.?
I understand how some really would want LRH admin tech to be the “only workable management system”. But it isn’t. It’s not even close. As a system, it’s a failure. This is not to say that there aren’t babies in this bath water and that one should chuck out the whole lot. There are great bits an pieces in there – especially in the Management Series (three books containing several series of policies, including the PR series, Personnel series, etc.). As always, pick what works.
Hubbard teaches in his admin tech to look at the actual results to judge a systems workability. If he is right in that, then the admin tech is flawed. If he is wrong in that, well… that lesson is part of the admin tech, and hence it is flawed.
I advocate applying Occam’s razor to this; LRH admin tech as a whole system is seriously flawed.