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 communiqué 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 communiqué, 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>