From: nnburk <nnburk@cobain.HDC.NET>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 15:15:31 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: The Year 2000: Social Chaos or Social Transformation? (Part 2)
Message-ID: <360D6406.45F0@yankton.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



How might we respond? 

     As individuals, nations, and as a global society, do we have a 
choice as to how we might respond to Y2K, however problems
     materialize? The question of alternative social responses lies at 
the outer edges of the interlocking circles of technology and
     system relationships. At present, potential societal reactions 
receive almost no attention. But we firmly believe that it is the
     central most important place to focus public attention and 
individual ingenuity. Y2K is a technology-induced problem, but it
     will not and cannot be solved by technology. It creates societal 
problems that can only be solved by humans. We must begin
     to address potential social responses. We need to be engaged in this 
discourse within our organizations, our communities,
     and across the traditional boundaries of competition and national 
borders. Without such planning, we will slide into the Year
     2000 as hapless victims of our technology. 

     Even where there is some recognition of the potential disruptions or 
chaos that Y2K might create, there's a powerful dynamic
     of secrecy preventing us from engaging in these conversations. 
Leaders don't want to panic their citizens. Employees don't
     want to panic their bosses. Corporations don't want to panic 
investors. Lawyers don't want their clients to confess to anything.
     But as psychotherapist and information systems consultant Dr. 
Douglass Carmichael has written: 

          Those who want to hush the problem ("Don't talk about it, 
people will panic", and "We don't know for sure.")
          are having three effects. First, they are preventing a more 
rigorous investigation of the extent of the problem.
          Second, they are slowing down the awareness of the intensity of 
the problem as currently understood and the
          urgency of the need for solutions, given the current assessment 
of the risks. Third, they are making almost
          certain a higher degree of ultimate panic, in anger, under 
conditions of shock.15 

     Haven't we yet learned the consequences of secrecy? When people are 
kept in the dark, or fed misleading information, their
     confidence in leaders quickly erodes. In the absence of real 
information, people fill the information vacuum with rumors and
     fear. And whenever we feel excluded, we have no choice but to 
withdraw and focus on self-protective measures. As the veil of
     secrecy thickens, the capacity for public discourse and shared 
participation in solution-finding disappears. People no longer
     believe anything or anybody-we become unavailable, distrusting and 
focused only on self-preservation. Our history with the
     problems created by secrecy has led CEO Norman Augustine to advise 
leaders in crisis to: "Tell the truth and tell it fast."16 

     Behaviors induced by secrecy are not the only human responses 
available. Time and again we observe a much more positive
     human response during times of crisis. When an earthquake strikes, 
or a bomb goes off, or a flood or fire destroys a
     community, people respond with astonishing capacity and 
effectiveness. They use any available materials to save and rescue,
     they perform acts of pure altruism, they open their homes to one 
another, they finally learn who their neighbors are. We've
     interviewed many people who participated in the aftermath of a 
disaster, and as they report on their experiences, it is clear
     that their participation changed their lives. They discovered new 
capacities in themselves and in their communities. They
     exceeded all expectations. They were surrounded by feats of caring 
and courage. They contributed to getting systems restored
     with a speed that defied all estimates. 

     When chaos strikes, there's simply no time for secrecy; leaders have 
no choice but to engage every willing soul. And the field
     for improvisation is wide open-no emergency preparedness drill ever 
prepares people for what they actually end up doing.
     Individual initiative and involvement are essential. Yet 
surprisingly, in the midst of conditions of devastation and fear, people
     report how good they feel about themselves and their colleagues. 
These crisis experiences are memorable because the best of
     us becomes visible and available. We've observed this in America, 
and in Bangladesh, where the poorest of the poor
     responded to the needs of their most destitute neighbors rather than 
accepting relief for themselves. 

     What we know about people in crisis 

          shared purpose and meaning brings people together 
          people display unparalleled levels of creativity and 
resourcefulness 
          people want to help others - individual agendas fade 
immediately 
          people learn instantly and respond at lightning speed 
          the more information people get, the smarter their responses 
          leadership behaviors (not roles) appear everywhere, as needed 
          people experiment constantly to find what works 

Who might we become? 

     As we sit staring into the unknown dimensions of a global crisis 
whose timing is non-negotiable, what responses are available
     to us as a human community? An effective way to explore this 
question is to develop potential scenarios of possible social
     behaviors. Scenario planning is an increasingly accepted technique 
for identifying the spectrum of possible futures that are
     most important to an organization or society. In selecting among 
many possible futures, it is most useful to look at those that
     account for the greatest uncertainty and the greatest impact. For 
Y2K, David Isenberg, (a former AT&T telecommunications
     expert, now at Isen.Com) has identified the two variables which seem 
obvious - the range of technical failures from isolated to
     multiple, and the potential social responses, from chaos to 
coherence. Both variables are critical and uncertain and are
     arrayed as a pair of crossing axes, as shown in Figure 2. When 
displayed in this way, four different general futures emerge.
     In the upper left quadrant, if technical failures are isolated and 
society doesn't respond to those, nothing of significance will
     happen. Isenberg labels this the "Official Future" because it 
reflects present behavior on the part of leaders and
     organizations. 

                               Figure 2.

     The upper right quadrant describes a time where technical failures 
are still isolated, but the public responds to these with
     panic, perhaps fanned by the media or by stonewalling leaders. 
Termed "A Whiff of Smoke," the situation is analogous to the
     panic caused in a theater by someone who smells smoke and spreads an 
alarm, even though it is discovered that there is no
     fire. This world could evolve from a press report that fans the 
flames of panic over what starts as a minor credit card glitch
     (for example), and, fueled by rumors turns nothing into a major 
social problem with runs on banks, etc. 

     The lower quadrants describe far more negative scenarios. 
"Millennial Apocalypse" presumes large-scale technical failure
     coupled with social breakdown as the organizational, political and 
economic systems come apart. The lower left quadrant,
     "Human Spirit" posits a society that, in the face of clear 
adversity, calls on each of us to collaborate in solving the problems of
     breakdown.

     Since essentially we are out of time and resources for preventing 
widespread Y2K failures, a growing number of observers
     believe that the only plausible future scenarios worth contemplating 
are those in the lower half of the matrix. The major
     question before us is how will society respond to what is almost 
certain to be widespread and cascading technological
     failures? 

                               Figure 3.

     Figure 3 above shows a possible natural evolution of the problem. 
Early, perhaps even in '98, the press could start something
     bad long before it was clear how serious the problem was and how 
society would react to it. There could be an interim scenario
     where a serious technical problem turned into a major social problem 
from lack of adaquate positive social response. This
     "Small Theatre Fire" future could be the kind of situation where 
people overreact and trample themselves trying to get to the
     exits from a small fire that is routinely extinguished. 

     If the technical situation is bad, a somewhat more ominous situation 
could evolve where government, exerting no clear positive
     leadership and seeing no alternative to chaos, cracks down so as not 
to lose control (A common historical response to social
     chaos has been for the government to intervene in non-democratic, 
sometimes brutal fashion. "Techno-fascism" is a plausible
     scenario -- governments and large corporations would intervene to 
try to contain the damage -- rather than build for the
     future. This dictatorial approach would be accompanied by secrecy 
about the real extent of the problem and ultimately fueled
     by the cries of distress, prior to 2000, from a society that has 
realized its major systems are about to fail and that it is too late
     to do anything about it. 

Collaboration is our only choice 

     Obviously, the scenario worth working towards is "Human Spirit," a 
world where the best of human creativity is enabled and
     the highest common good becomes the objective. In this world we all 
work together, developing a very broad, powerful,
     synergistic, self-organizing force focused on determining what 
humanity should be doing in the next 18 months to plan for
     the aftermath of the down stroke of Y2K. This requires that we 
understand Y2K not as a technical problem, but as a systemic,
     worldwide event that can only be resolved by new social 
relationships. All of us need to become very wise and very engaged
     very fast and develop entirely new processes for working together. 
Systems issues cannot be resolved by hiding behind
     traditional boundaries or by clinging to competitive strategies. 
Systems require collaboration and the dissolution of existing
     boundaries. Our only hope for healthy responses to Y2K-induced 
failures is to participate together in new collaborative
     relationships. 

     At present, individuals and organizations are being encouraged to 
protect themselves, to focus on solving "their" problem. In
     a system's world, this is insane. The problems are not isolated, 
therefore no isolated responses will work. The longer we
     pursue strategies for individual survival, the less time we have to 
create any viable, systemic solutions. None of the
     boundaries we've created across industries, organizations, 
communities, or nation states give us any protection in the face of
     Y2K. We must stop the messages of fragmentation now and focus 
resources and leadership on figuring out how to engage
     everyone, at all levels, in all systems. 

     As threatening as Y2K is, it also gives us the unparalleled 
opportunity to figure out new and simplified ways of working
     together. GM's chief information officer, Ralph Szygenda, has said 
that Y2K is the cruelest trick ever played on us by
     technology, but that it also represents a great opportunity for 
change.17   It demands that we let go of traditional boundaries
     and roles in the pursuit of new, streamlined systems, ones that are 
less complex than the entangled ones that have evolved over
     the past thirty years. 

     There's an interesting lesson here about involvement that comes from 
the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Just a few weeks
     prior the bombing, agencies from all over the city conducted an 
emergency preparedness drill as part of normal civil defense
     practice. They did not prepare themselves for a bomb blast, but they 
did work together on other disaster scenarios. The most
     significant accomplishment of the drill was to create an invisible 
infrastructure of trusting relationships. When the bomb
     went off, that infrastructure displayed itself as an essential 
resource--people could work together easily, even in the face of
     horror. Many lives were saved and systems were restored at an 
unprecedented rate because people from all over the
     community worked together so well. 

     But there's more to this story. One significant player had been 
excluded from the preparedness drill, and that was the FBI. No
     one thought they'd ever be involved in a Federal matter. To this 
day, people in Oklahoma City speak resentfully of the manner
     in which the FBI came in, pushed them aside, and offered no 
explanations for their behavior. In the absence of trusting
     relationships, some form of techno-fascism is the only recourse. 
Elizabeth Dole, as president of the American Red Cross
     commented: "The midst of a disaster is the poorest possible time to 
establish new relationships and to introduce ourselves to
     new organizations . . . . When you have taken the time to build 
rapport, then you can make a call at 2 a.m., when the river's
     rising and expect to launch a well-planned, smoothly conducted 
response."18 

     The scenario of communities and organizations working together in 
new ways demands a very different and immediate
     response not only from leaders but from each of us. We'd like to 
describe a number of actions that need to begin immediately. 

What leaders must do 

     We urge leaders to give up trying to carry this burden alone, or 
trying to reestablish a world that is irretrievably broken. We
     need leaders to be catalysts for the emergence of a new world. They 
cannot lead us through this in traditional ways. No leader
     or senior team can determine what needs to be done. No single group 
can assess the complexity of these systems and where
     the consequences of failure might be felt. The unknown but complex 
implications of Y2K demand that leaders support
     unparalleled levels of participation-more broad-based and inclusive 
than ever imagined. If we are to go through this crisis
     together rather than bunkered down and focused only on individual 
security, leaders must begin right now to convene us.
     The first work of leaders then, is to create the resources for 
groups to come together in conversations that will reveal the
     interconnections. Boundaries need to dissolve. Hierarchies are 
irrelevant. Courageous leaders will understand that they
     must surrender the illusion of control and seek solutions from the 
great networks and communities within their domain.
     They must move past the dynamics of competition and support us in 
developing society-wide solutions. 

     Leaders can encourage us to seek out those we have excluded and 
insist that they be invited in to all deliberations. Leaders
     can provide the time and resources for people to assess what is 
critical for the organization or community to sustain-its
     mission, its functions, its relationships, its unique qualities. 
>From these conversations and plans, we will learn to know one
     another and to know what we value. In sudden crises, people 
instantly share a sense of meaning and purpose. For Y2K, we have
     at least a little lead time to develop a cohesive sense of what 
might happen and how we hope to respond.

     Secrecy must be replaced by full and frequent disclosure of 
information. The only way to prevent driving people into isolated
     and self-preserving behaviors is to entrust us with difficult, even 
fearsome information, and then to insist that we work
     together. 

     No leader anywhere can ignore these needs or delay their 
implementation. 

What communities must do 

     Communities need to assess where they are most vulnerable and 
develop contingency plans. Such assessment and planning
     needs to occur not just within individual locales, but also in 
geographic regions. These activities can be initiated by existing
     community networks, for example, civic organizations such as Lions 
or Rotary, Council of Churches, Chamber of Commerce,
     the United Way. But new and expansive alliances are required, so 
planning activities need quickly to extend beyond traditional
     borders. We envision residents of all ages and experience coming 
together to do these audits and planning. Within each
     community and region, assessments and contingency plans need to be 
in place for disruptions or loss of service for:

          all utilities 
          electricity, water, gas, phones 
          food supplies 
          public safety 
          healthcare 
          government payments to individuals and organizations 
          residents most at risk, e.g. the elderly, those requiring 
medications 

What organizations must do 

     Organizations need to move Y2K from the domain of technology experts 
into the entire organization. Everyone in the
     organization has something important to contribute to this work. 
Assessment and contingency plans need to focus on: 

          how the organization will perform essential tasks in the 
absence of present systems 
          how the organization will respond to failures or slowdowns in 
information and supplies 
          what simplified systems can be developed now to replace 
existing ones 
          relationships with suppliers, customers, clients, 
communities-how we will work together 
          developing systems to ensure open and full access to 
information 

     The trust and loyalty developed through these strategic 
conversations and joint planning will pay enormous dividends later on,
     even if projected breakdowns don't materialize. Corporate and 
community experience with scenario planning has taught a
     important principle: We don't need to be able to predict the future 
in order to be well-prepared for it. In developing scenarios,
     information is sought from all over. People think together about its 
implications and thus become smarter as individuals and
     as teams. Whatever future then materializes is dealt with by people 
who are more intelligent and who know how to work well
     together. 

     And such planning needs to occur at the level of entire industries. 
Strained relationships engendered by competitive
     pressures need to be put aside so that people can collaboratively 
search for ways to sustain the very fabric of their industry.
     How will power grids be maintained nationally? Or national systems 
of food transport? How will supply chains for
     manufacturing in any industry be sustained?

What you can do 

     We urge you to get involved in Y2K, wherever you are, and in 
whatever organizations you participate. We can't leave this
     issue to others to solve for us, nor can we wait for anyone else to 
assert leadership. You can begin to ask questions; you can
     begin to convene groups of interested friends and colleagues; you 
can engage local and business leaders; you can educate
     yourself and others (start with www.Year2000.com and www.Y2K.com for 
up-to-date information and resources.) This is our
     problem. And as an African proverb reminds us, if you think you're 
too small to make a difference, try going to bed with a
     mosquito in the room. 

The crisis is now 

     There is no time left to waste. Every week decreases our options. At 
the mid-May meeting of leaders from the G8, a
     communiqu was issued that expressed their shared sensitivity to the 
"vast implications" of Y2K, particularly in "defense,
     transport, telecommunications, financial services, energy, and 
environmental sectors," and the interdependencies among
     these sectors. (Strangely, their list excludes from concern 
government systems, manufacturing and distribution systems.)
     They vowed to "take further urgent action" and to work with one 
another, and relevant organizations and agencies. But no
     budget was established, and no specific activities were announced. 
Such behavior-the issuing of a communiqu, the promises
     of collaboration and further investigation-are all too common in our 
late 20th century political landscape. 

     But the earth continues to circle the sun, and the calendar 
relentlessly progresses toward the Year 2000. If we cannot
     immediately change from rhetoric to action, from politics to 
participation, if we do not immediately turn to one another and
     work together for the common good, we will stand fearfully in that 
new dawn and suffer consequences that might well have
     been avoided if we had learned to stand together now. 

Copyright 1998 John L. Petersen, Margaret Wheatley, Myron Kellner-Rogers 
(posted with permission)



     John L. Petersen is president of The Arlington Institute, a 
Washington DC area research institute. He is a futurist who
     specializes in thinking about the long range security implications 
of global change. He is author of the award winning book,
     The Road to 2015: Profiles of the Future and his latest book is Out 
of the Blue - Wild Cards and Other Big Future Surprises,
     which deals with potential events such as Y2K. He can be reached at 
703-243-7070 or johnp@arlinst.org 

     Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers are authors and 
consultants to business. A Simpler Way, their book on
     organizational design was published in 1997. Dr. Wheatley's previous 
book, Leadership & the New Science, was recently
     named one of the 10 best management books ever, and it also was 
voted best management book in 1992 in Industry Week, and
     again in 1995 by a syndicated management columnist. Their consulting 
work takes them these days to Brazil, Mexico, South
     Africa, Australasia and Europe. In the States, they've worked with a 
very wide array of organizations. 



1 See Peter de Jager, www.year2000.com 

2 United Airlines, Flight Talk Network, February 1998 

3 "Slow Knowledge," _______1997. 

4 See "The Complexity Factor" by Ed Meagher at 
www.year2000.com/archive/NFcomplexity.html

5 "Industry Wakes Up to the Year 2000 Menace," Fortune, April 27, 1998 

6 The Washington Post, "If Computer Geeks Desert, IRS Codes Will Be 
ciphers," December 24, 1997 

7 Business Week, March 2, 1998 

8 www.igs.net/~tonyc/y2kbusweek.html 

9 "Industry Gridlock," Rick Cowles, February 27, 1998, 
www.y2ktimebomb.com/PP/RC/rc9808.htm 

10 Cowles, January 23, 1998, ibid www site 

11 The Complexity Factor, Ed Meagher 

12 www.computerweekly.co.uk/news/ll_9_97 

13 REUTER "CIA:Year 2000 to hit basic services: Agency warns that many 
nations aren't ready for disruption," Jim Wolf, May 7, 1998 

14 see http://www.Yardeni.com 

15  www.tmn.com/~doug

16 "Managing the Crisis You Tried to Prevent," Harvard Business Review, 
Nov-Dec. 1995, 158. 

17 In Fortune, April 27, 1998 

18 quoted in "Managing the Crisis You Tried to Prevent," Norman 
Augustine, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1995, 151. 



To WFS Home

<http://www.wfs.org/year2k.htm>