[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: SCREENERS RUN THE WORLD Who was the most important person in the twentieth century. For years, I voted for Lenin. Without Lenin, there would have been no Stalin, no Hitler, no Mao. An extra 100 million people would have died of natural causes -- maybe 150 million. But then I read about Stanislav Petrov. I changed my mind. You probably have not heard of Mr. Petrov. Until two or three years ago, neither had I. Here is his story. You deserve to know it. Stanislav Petrov was the officer on duty at the Serpukhov-15 bunker near Moscow on September 26, 1983, a time when the Cold War was at a peak. It was Petrov's responsibility to observe the satellite early warning network and notify his superiors of any impending nuclear missile attack against the Soviet Union. In the event of such an attack, the Soviet Union's strategy was to launch an immediate all-out nuclear counter-attack against the United States, as the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction required. Just past midnight, at 00:40 hrs, the bunker's computers indicated that a US missile was heading toward the Soviet Union. Petrov reasoned that a computer error had occurred, since the United States was not likely to launch just one missile if it were attacking the Soviet Union — it would launch many simultaneously. Also, the satellite system's reliability had in the past been questioned, so he dismissed the warning as a false alarm, concluding that no missile had actually been launched by the United States. A short time later the computers indicated that a second missile had been launched, followed by a third, a fourth and a fifth. Petrov still felt that the computer system was wrong, but there was no other source of information with which to confirm his suspicions. The Soviet Union's land radar was not capable of detecting missiles beyond the horizon, so by the time land radar could positively identify the threat, it would be too late. Petrov's dilemma was this: if he was disregarding a real attack, then the Soviet Union would be devastated by nuclear weapons without any warning or chance to retaliate, and he would have failed in his duty. On the other hand, if he were to report an attack that wasn't really happening, then his superiors may have decided to launch an equally catastrophic real assault against their enemies. In either case, millions of people would die. Understanding that if he were wrong, nuclear missiles would soon be raining down on the Soviet Union, Petrov decided to trust his intuition and declare the system's indications a false alarm. After a short while, it was apparent that his instincts were right. There were no approaching missiles. The crisis put him under immense pressure and stress, yet Petrov's judgement had been sound. A full-scale nuclear war had been averted. This appears on Wiki Encyclopedia, that wonder of wonders. I searched for "nuclear war," USSR, radar, and averted. The Wiki article was at the top of the list. If Petrov was not the most important man, then the candidates to replace him are others who were on duty in similar command posts and who also ignored the computers. There are similar stories on both sides of the Iron Curtain. THE FLOW OF INFORMATION This story illustrates my point in this essay. Every system of administration relies on low-level decision- makers. They are not paid much money. They are not likely to win awards. Hardly anyone has heard of them. Yet they determine what wins and what loses. There is an old slogan: "The British Navy is a system designed by geniuses to be run by morons." That gets right to the point. Shelby Foote, the Civil War historian, told a great story for Ken Burns's "Civil War" documentary. General Grant had a colonel on his staff who was a real dolt. Grant kept him close at hand. Whenever Grant wrote an order to a commanding general, he would hand it to the colonel. He would then ask the colonel to explain the order to him. If the colonel explained it accurately, Grant issued the order. If the colonel muddled it, Grant rewrote it. That was necessary to keep accurate information flowing downward. But there is an even more important requirement: to keep accurate information flowing upward. This is far more difficult to achieve. Why? Because every system's incentive structure works to thwart the upward flow. The sanctions in a system determine its response. A downward chain of command allows the decision-maker to follow the system's response to his order. He can establish blame. But an upward flow is initiated at many points in the system. It is very difficult for the decision-maker at the top to find out where the reporting system broke down. He may not even know that the system has broken down. Someone has to tell him. Question: Who has any incentive to tell him, if the information is more negative than positive? Every system imposes negative sanctions from the side that are stronger, on a day-to-day basis, than sanctions imposed at the top. This is the tattle-tale syndrome. We learn how it works when we are children. Those we tell on ("rat" on) can retaliate later, and will. At the same time, those at the top, who are inundated with new information requiring decisions, want to reduce the flow of bad news. We see this process operating in large families. Parents join forces with the misbehaving children by punishing the messenger: "goody two-shoes." The messenger learns fast: It is safer to hold your tongue and let the parents finds out about the problem from outside rather than from inside the family's chain of command. In prisons, snitches are hated by prisoners more than any other deviants. A snitch takes his life in his hands. In some cases, a snitch has to be transferred to a different prison to save his life. Every organization must come to grips with this two- fold problem: (1) Senior decision-makers need accurate information; (2) The system of institutional sanctions makes it unlikely that bad news will flow upward. Then there is an explosion. In the case of Lt. Colonel Petrov, there was not an explosion. We are alive today because of this. His reward? His career hit a dead end. He was investigated for withholding information. He was not reprimanded, but he received no reward until the story finally came out in 1998, long after the Soviet Union was gone. He could have been executed. "Be thankful for small favors." WHEN THINGS GO KA-BOOM! The senior executive who does not create a system for allowing upset consumers to register complaints where he can see them is asking for trouble. The chain of command must be open enough so that the head man, should he decide to investigate, can find ticking time bombs. Why? Because lower-echelon employees have major incentives to let senior management think everything is running smoothly. If they blow the whistle, they will be sanctioned negatively by their peers, but probably not rewarded with a lot of money or a promotion by the senior brass. The system of sanctions, positive and negative, is skewed toward the negative. This keeps negative information from flowing uphill. So, the munchkins down in the bowels of the organization sit tight and hope that the problem will go away. Lots of problems do go away, or -- just as good from the point of view of the munchkins -- they are never discovered. The glitches remain, but they remain small. If they are ever discovered, nobody gets blamed. Blame-avoidance is the heart, mind, and soul of munchkin-land. When positive sanctions are few because they cost management a lot of money, negative sanctions determine the organization's pathway. It is crucial that senior managers devote time, effort, and money to devising pathways for bad news to flow upward. If they don't, it may eventually flow inward with one loud ka-boom. The poster boy of this process is Kenneth Lay. His official story was "Nobody told me." Had he not died unexpectedly, he would have spent the rest of his life in prison on this basis. DON'T MAKE PEACE WITH DIGITS Clayton Makepeace is one of the great advertising copywriters of my generation. Those of us in the business would love to be able to do what he dies with words. He writes, and people get out their credit cards. Recently, he hit a brick wall. Actually, it was a digital wall. Only he never knew he hit it. He faces what all of us who are in the publishing industry face: the new world of the Internet. The thing bites you if you're not looking. In making the transition from pieces of paper to digits, we copywriters and editors have had to come to grips with new demons. We learned our trade with the demons of paper: printing, list rentals, and the U.S. Postal Service. Then, a decade ago, we entered the world of digits. New demons are out there. "The devil is in the details," the old saying goes. These days, this means he's in the code. The problem is, we writers can't read code. We could understand ink and paper and even the U.S. Postal Service. But computer code? We're blind. So, we rely on webmasters. The problem is, most webmasters don't like to deal with people. They deal with digits. Webmasters don't want to hear from managers. They also don't want to hear from site visitors. That is why so few sites have the webmaster's email address listed on the home page or the "Contact Us" page. I signed up for Clayton's e-letter. I wanted to see what he offered. Eventually, I decided the letter was just too long. He had warned about this in his promo letter. He said he writes long letters. Fair enough; I was warned. The reader gets to decide. So, I cancelled my subscription. The software said I had canceled. The software lied. I kept receiving it. So, I canceled again. Repeat performance. This went on for weeks. Finally, I dropped him a note. I thought it would be best to identify myself as someone using a similar marketing strategy: the "Tip of the Week: e-letter for my site. Clayton: I thought I should subscribe. I decided after one issue to cancel. As you warned, you are long-winded. I suffer from the same affliction. But I control it. My weekly letters are no more than 6 paragraphs. Short paragraphs. I have tried to cancel every week for a month. Your software is set to issue a report confirming the canceled subscription, but it never does. This converts your letter into spam. It makes you look like a huckster. You are not one. You broke the #1 law of the Web: "I cannot safely trust my site's original design." If you fail to test every aspect personally at least once a month, you are asking for trouble. I have had to mark your letter as junk. It will now get removed before I see it. I hope your email system delivers this letter to you. When "contact us" goes only to subordinates, you are asking for grief. CMA rules! Underneath was my automatically generated signature file: Get any investment question answered within hours at http://www.garynorth.com. Also, sign up for my free Tip of the Week. It was obvious that I am also in the information business. Presumably, it was clear that I was writing to Clayton. I said: I hope your email system delivers this letter to you. When "contact us" goes only to subordinates, you are asking for grief. CMA rules! I got a reply. It was about what I expected. It was a letter from a subordinate. I am sorry that you had difficulties with canceling from The Total Package, I will make sure that you are unsubscribed. The problem facing Clayton is not my inability to unsubscribe. The problem is a software design flaw. His software is converting his letter into unwanted spam, which nobody with any future in this industry wants. So I wrote back: Clayton should drop me a note saying he has read my letter. I wrote it to him. I think a brief note is appropriate. He has a major problem with his software. He needs to get it fixed. I got a reply. It, too, is pretty much what I expected. Clayton generously gives away lots of free information on how to be a copywriter and great marketer. But, he is also still a working copywriter and his clients demand most of his time which leaves him little time to answer simple customer service request. Clayton gives away a highly motivational marketing letter. Generosity is not the issue here. So, what happens? Ka-boom! The unpleasant information comes from outside the chain of command. This was inevitable. That is because the information flow in the e-letter promotional side of his business -- generating new clients -- is structurally independent of his core business: servicing existing clients. The problem is, the two are inescapably linked. Every organization suffers from attrition: lost clients. It therefore needs a way to generate new clients. The two are of necessity linked at the top. Every site operator should have his name and e-mail address in the "Contact Us" page. It should say, "If all else fails, contact me." That option sends a clear message to the munchkins: "We had better report bad news before he finds out from outsiders." This is the negative incentive needed to keep the flow of accurate information flowing. CONCLUSION On my letters, my e-mail address is found in multiple locations. I receive bad news. I can forward this, where required, to staff people at Agora. The one form of bad news I rarely get is the most important: when readers get dropped from my list. Instead of letting me know, they forget about my letter. If I could overcome this defect in the system, I would be a most happy fella.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: DeaconBenjamin, Red Jones, Tauzero, Mekons4, rack42, Kamala, historian1944 (#0)
(Edited)
good story, nice article...bookmarked
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||