BardoThodol
Silver Meritorious Patron
I recall one question that was something like:
Question: Should a program be . . .
1. Changed
2. Followed exactly
3. Questioned
4. Rewritten to get better results
All the questions were geared towards finding people who would take and follow orders (without thinking). Of course, the correct answer was number 2.
I got 100% on the test, and I never saw the answers, because while I often felt and thought one thing, I also knew what the "right answer" should be based on all that Hubbard said. I consciously knew that I didn't agree with many of the answers, but I gave the correct answer that I knew was wanted. I was able to be outside the box, but understand how one was supposed to behave within the box.
So, because I got 100% on the Leadership test, I got put pn executive posts for awhile. But, I never did well, because I never agreed with the nonsense in the first place. I remember when I was a new Sea Org member posted as a Flag Rep. INT Management sent down an eval and a program for me to implement in my org. It was an immense piece of idiocy and illogic. I told them so, and I wouldn't implement it. I had evaluators and senior Flag Mgmt executives on the phone to me, screaming at me. So, within a few months on post I was Comm Eved for refusing to follow Command Intention. My life in the Sea Org pretty much followed that basic pattern.
What a wonderful example of the lunacy of the entire subject.
You're testing for....uh...leadership, but all the "correct" answers exclude anyone who is truly a leader.
By definition, a leader doesn't just follow orders exactly; that's the balliwick of mid-level management.
And the best leaders allow for the creative input of those who work for them.