We have ignored their pleas for too long. Turned our back have we, on their words of despair, worry, grave concerns; only to keep asking them again and again “What will happen?”
It’s time we set economists free.
Data, by its very nature, is unfeeling, unemotional. It begs to be included in decision-making and is guilty of being misleading—both in good and bad ways. Data becomes the unwilling tool to manipulate and exploit—a mirage in the desert of nothing and a testimonial with no substance, other than social herding theory and flawed, pragmatic rationales. Data can also sting with reason and compel people to action—much-needed action.
Economists (“analysts,” too, fall into this category) “worry” a lot, according to what we read in the media. Not only do they worry, but they’re “deeply troubled about…, remain very concerned…., fear that the worst is yet to come…., uncertain as to what will occur next quarter…” and other deeply disturbing adjectives that describe economists’ angst and despair they feel. This constant exposure to the hazardous job and threatening elements in working in deep mines of economics must be curtailed. Where’s a canary to safeguard the psyche of the economist when you need one? Every…single….day we read about the economists emotional roller coaster as we beg them for answers. Stop, just stop. Enough already. We need to do something to help them!
And we can.
We can help save another economist by doing our part to release them from worry, strife, fear and dire straits. We can alleviate their emotional and physical stress of having to be inundated with the constant bombardment of data and analysis that follows them, haunts them. It’s unfair to subject our communities to the despair and concerns these economists have. We have enough on our plate already regarding the topics of how to earn more, find new jobs, save for college, reduce our medical costs and the like. We don’t need to shoulder the burdens of the economists’ worries as well.
How can we save the economist? Stop interviewing them.
Historical data has shown that economists (however you define) are not much better at predicting than the rest of us. They look at data a lot more than the rest of us and make educated guesstimates yet, the reality is, that most of them are paid to analyze, not predict what will happen. And, even when they predict bad things will happen, we always recover. Always. The predictions, in reality, don’t matter. We recover and thrive due to the human condition, not the data telling us “we’ve arrived!” We have put too much weight on their predictions. Is “predicting” part of the job spec? If somebody has a job spec on what a typical economist’s role is at a university or research facility, does it read “…this person in the role of an economist, if hired, will be expected to read all the data and make predictions that will appear in the major newspapers for all the world to see. This person will also state how one feels after reviewing the data (i.e. troubled, deeply concerned, fearful…etc.)?
As a reader of news and a businessman in America, I don’t want the guilt on my head of these economists’ depression, anxiety, worry, fear and grave concerns. Not fair. I want them to be able to work in a world that they’re free to do whatever they want for a living and not have the wrath of having to make predictions for me and my peers on what is going to happen in the economy. I beg you please, set them free.
Set them free from interviews and having to predict. Stop quoting their deeply-seated concerns—I can’t take it anymore. Let them live in peace and find a job that they aren’t forced to look at cold, hard numbers and then attempt to make sense of what these numbers may mean, feeling obligated to pour their hearts out to me as they deliver the bad news via an interview that lands in the press. Oh, the humanity.
If economists “truly” believe in their belief that numbers don’t lie; that the data is to be taken seriously as a true and genuine predictor of what is to come, then I suspect that every single economist in America is not married. Because to enter into a marriage insures a 50% chance of divorce (according to the data) and this is something that any card-carrying economist would have no part in—If they truly believe the data. If even one is married, we must be suspect to their adherence to the data as a viable tool.
Maybe economists would prefer for us to elicit the insights of more business owners and leaders in midsized business in America to see what they are doing to rebound and thrive in challenging times. Leaders that don’t have the access to the throngs of heavy data the economists are burdened with in their buildings built of brick and mortar to carry the weight of such massive records.
Let us all join together and put an end to this unfair treatment of economists. Let them analyze the data in peace and let them decide how and when they will speak. Let them muster the courage to go to work in a society that expects production, not predictions; that measures what one got done and not what one said they might get done.
Set the economist free. Won’t you join me in my quest?
Russell Riendeau, PhD, is a national speaker on best practices in motivation and leadership and the senior partner of East Wing Group, Inc., and author of The CEO’s Guide to Talent Acquisition (Eyecatcher Press 2008). He can be reached at russ@russriendeau.com