Ed's speach...hear U go folks!greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Consortium// THE NEED FOR THOUGHTFUL DISCOURSE ABOUT Y2000 //
By Ed Yourdon
Sooner or later, the employees of your company are likely to ask senior management for some kind of advice about Y2000 personal preparedness. Perhaps they've noticed that the organization is stockpiling a month's worth of raw materials and parts; perhaps they've heard rumors that the organization is about to install backup communication devices because they're not sure the phones will be working. Or perhaps their questions will simply be prompted by whatever they're reading and seeing in newspaper and television reports.
For simplicity, let's assume that they ask for advice on two key issues: withdrawing money from the banks, and stockpiling food. Of course, the CEO could weasel out of the problem by saying, "This is a personal matter for employees to decide on their own, and we never offer advice on such personal matters." But is that really true? Does the Human Resource department offer any advice on drug/alcohol abuse, or retirement planning, or prenatal health issues, or anything else that affects the employee's personal life? If so, then it's pretty cowardly to offer nothing but a "no comment" response to sincere questions from employees about Y2000 preparations.
More likely, the typical organization will offer a variation on the advice we've been hearing from government spokesmen in recent months -- e.g., "don't worry, Y2000 will only be a minor bump in the road." And in the course of making such comments, there seems to be an irresistable urge for executives to caution against panicking or extreme action. Such cautions may be appropriate, but they don't answer the employees' fundamental question; it's likely that they'll respond by saying, "Okay, I'm calm, I'm not panicking -- but what's a reasonable plan with regard to currency withdrawals and food stockpiling?"
I'm growing increasingly concerned that the simplistic, sound-bite commentaries by business and government leaders in this area are doing little more than polarizing the community into two groups: those who ARE panicking, and those who interpret the sound-bite advice as a justification to ignore Y2000 completely.
Let me offer two examples to illustrate the nature of the problem. On 6 May, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made the following comment at a Chicago Fed conference, after delivering a speech about the economy (see http://infoseek.go.com/Content?arn=a2036rittz-19990506&qt=greenspan&sv=IS&lk=noframes&col=NX&kt=A&ak=news1486 for details), "I'm increasingly less concerned about whether there will be true systemic problems. What I am concerned about are peoples' reactions to the fear that something momentous is going to happen on January 1st 2000." He went on to say, "I'm sure that people will get very wise soon and recognize that the last thing you want to do is to draw inordinate amounts of currency out of the banks."
Well, it's comforting to know that Mr. Greenspan is "increasingly less concerned" than he presumably was at some point in the past, though it would be nice to know what he means by "true systemic problems." But if I'm a typical middle-class citizen, I'm probably less concerned about such cosmic issues as "systemic problems" than I am about the question of whether I should take my money out of the bank. And it's the last sentence of the excerpt quoted above that addresses that question -- in much the same language that I would imagine a typical corporate CEO offering official advice to the employees of his or her organization.
Most of us understand that Mr. Greenspan is advising us not to do anything extreme or rash. But how are we supposed to translate that into specific action? In particular, how are we supposed to interpret the word "inordinate" in the context of Mr. Greenspan's sentence? Is $100 inordinate? A thousand dollars? A week's income? A month's income? Does "inordinate" mean the same thing for all of us, or does it mean something different for married people with children than it does for single people?
Take a look at Greenspan's sentence again and you'll see that it raises a number of other questions, such as:
* Does Mr. Greenspan mean that "people" are NOT very wise today? All of the people? Some of the people? Just how "unwise" are we? What made us unwise? What credentials are required to declare that someone is wise or unwise? Just how "soon" will we all become "very wise"? How will we know when it has happened? What is the basis -- i.e., "I am sure" -- for Mr. Greenspan's confidence that this sudden increase of wisdom will occur soon?
* Why is drawing "inordinate amounts" (whatever that means) the "last thing you want to do"? What are all the things that would precede this last thing -- i.e., is there a subtle implication that there might be other "socially acceptable" forms of Y2000 preparation that would be okay, just so long as the "last thing" we contemplate is drawing out inordinate amounts of currency?
* If the drawing out of "currency" is being described as a not-very- wise act of not-very-wise people, is there some other form in which it could be withdrawn that would meet the approval of the very-wise- ones? What about T-bills? What about gold? What about writing a check that empties your bank account, for the purchase of a zillion cases of Spam?
With all due respect to Mr. Greenspan, I don't think that speeches like this one contribute to the kind of thoughtful discourse that we need to have if we citizens are to make an informed decision about what we plan to do with our money that currently resides in the nation's banks. On the contrary, the speech consists of a number of ambiguous, undefined terms strung together in such a way as to provide an emotional appeal against panicking.
Here's another example: in early February, the Senate Y2000 committee held a hearing to listen to representatives of the food industry talk about the possibility of disruptions in food supplies. During the hearing (see http://foxnews.com/news/national/0302/d_ap_0302_146.sml for details), Mr. C. Manly Molpus, president of the Grocery Manufacturers of America, cited a report produced by the Gartner Group that concluded "consumer behavior, fueled by misconceptions, could actually present the greatest threat" through "needless and frivolous stockpiling."
Excuse me?! Frivolous stockpiling? When is the last time you heard someone say, "I'm feeling very frivolous today, so I think I'll go down to the grocery store and do some stockpiling." Could you distinguish between a frivolous stockpiler and a non-frivolous stockpiler if you saw them wheeling their grocery carts down the aisle containing tunafish and rice? I can understand the concern about "needless" stockpiling, and I'm well aware of the concerns that large amounts of stockpiling could create shortages, but when the pejorative term "frivolous" is introduced into the sentence, it subtly implies that ANY stockpiling is silly and childish, or politically incorrect, socially unacceptable, and downright unpatriotic.
None of us wants to be unpatriotic, and none of us wants to be the cause of a national food shortage. But warnings about such behaviors don't help us answer the practical questions that we all have to answer for ourselves -- and, by extension, all the employees in our organization eventually to answer for themselves: how much stockpiling is prudent? How much is enough? What kind of guidelines should we use to make our own determination of when we've gone too far?
A superficial sound-bite answer -- e.g., "three days of food is enough" -- doesn't help either, for it doesn't acknowledge that different people have different circumstances. What if I'm sincerely concerned about the combined impact of disruptions in food delivery to the grocery stores AND disruptions in fuel delivery to the gas stations, which I need in order to drive to the grocery store AND disruptions in my ability to obtain cash from my ATM machine? What if I have good reason to believe that Y2000 will cause my employer to shut down for a month, leaving me without any income?
Perhaps a three-day food stockpile is sufficient for the average family -- but some will be comfortable with only a one-day supply, while others may feel they need and want a month's supply. Similarly, the average citizen may feel comfortable withdrawing enough cash to last for two or three days -- while others will withdraw nothing at all, and still others may feel they need a week's or a month's supply of cash.
If we assume that the vast majority of employees in our organization -- and citizens in our country -- are mature, responsible, prudent adults, then what we need to do is provide these adults with the information with which they can make decisions that are right for them. Thoughtful discourse is what we need, not trivial sound-bites or bombastic warnings against panic and excessive behavior. The media is not providing this kind of thoughtful discourse, nor are our government officials. You can find examples of thoughtful discourse in some of the Y2000 community meetings, and on some of the Internet discussion groups; but it's a rare commodity.
All of which leads to the suggestion that I would give, if I were the CEO: "Let's get together and talk about it. Let's have a company meeting -- or multiple company meetings -- so we can listen to everyone's suggestions and concerns. Let's schedule the company meeting for a Saturday afternoon, so we'll have plenty of time without interrupting our normal activities. Let's set up a discussion group on the corporate intranet. Let's create a resource library of books, articles, and URL links to Internet sites that can provide some good advice on this topic. Let's not panic, but let's not ignore the issue. Let's talk about it. Let's have some thoughtful discourse so that we can all make the decisions that are right for ourselves, right for our families, right for the communities in which we live, and right for the organization in which we work."
Whenever you read a Y2000 article in the popular media, whenever you hear a government official making pronouncements about Y2000, ask yourself: does this contribute to thoughtful discourse on the subject?
Ciao! Ed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-- Mary (timmary0@airmail.net), May 24, 1999
About a week ago someone E-mailed me. They first thanked me for the usefulness (to them)of the information I had laboriously assembled on my website. They also suggested that the "An Introduction" article on my site would do nicely for Mr. Yourdon to read during his allotted 5 minutes in front of Congress. After reading his speech, I don't think they were all wrong. IMHO he could have made much better use of such an opportunity; I like to think that I would've. Now, I think the world of Mr. Yourdon, respecting him greatly as an IT professional of considerable standing, and for all he has done (and continues to do) with respect to Y2K awareness. However, that speech was not at all what I think the moment called for. A secular version of Gary North would have been more appropriate; something along the lines of GN's generic interview with a reporter. (Look on the home page of his site www.garynorth.com; go to the bottom and click on "Links and Forums". On the Links page, go to the bottom of the text but just before the columns of subjects, look for "If you are a reporter who wants an interview with me, click here" and click on it.) Well, I expect to get flamed repeatedly for this posting, but I believe it to be true, so here goes.my website: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com OR http://y2ksafeminnesota.hypermart.net
-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), May 24, 1999.
Since this is the last night I'll be hanging out, I did so enjoy reading this speech!!! Especially the part about "frivolous stockpiling". That's just what I needed! ROTFLMBO
Mr. K
Mr. Yourdon - you're quite a sharp guy. Keep it up. There are only a handful of folks like you that can get the attention of government folks.
-- Mr.K (MrK@a.crossroad), May 24, 1999.
I have to wonder if this the real report Ed is going to give. It just doesn't sound right to me...-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), May 24, 1999.
What a lousy joke. I hope Phil removes this thread ASAP.Shame on you.
-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 24, 1999.
Is this really Ed's speech? Part of it is taken from a post of his a couple of weeks back. It didn't strike me as odd then, but if it's used in the speech to the Senate, the part about Greenspan reminds me of "it depends on what the definition of "is" is. Sure don't want the senators thinking about that when they should be paying attention to the matter at hand.mb in NC
-- mb (mdbutler@coastalnet.com), May 24, 1999.