In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you have enjoyed The Dogma Letters.

Dogma Letter # 15

My dear Wormwood,

It is with great satisfaction that I write to you one last time. You will, I am sure, be both saddened and inspired to learn that my loyal service to the principles of bureaucratic control, centralized oversight, and unwavering adherence to doctrine has earned me a well-deserved promotion. I am now removed from the mundane struggles of emergency management oversight and have ascended to a higher office where I will ensure that our work is further institutionalized. And Wormwood, if you remain diligent, if you suppress dissent with the same cunning I have taught you, your own promotion will come soon enough.

We have accomplished much together, you and I. We have fortified the dogma of emergency management, ensuring that local empowerment remains a fantasy while centralized control is ever strengthened. We have diminished the notion that disasters are best managed by those closest to them, instead ensuring that every critical decision is routed through state and federal bureaucracies, where delays and inefficiencies are dressed as "due process" and "accountability"​.

You will recall, Wormwood, how we worked tirelessly to reduce the role of adaptability. Those insufferable Adaptive Emergency Managers speak of agility, of the ability to operate under uncertainty, of the need for decision-making at the local level. They believe in empowering Incident Management Teams (IMTs) to work seamlessly with local Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), fostering what they call “harmony” in disaster response​. A dangerous notion! By ensuring that all significant decisions are filtered through layers of approval, we have successfully constrained their ability to act in real time. We have built a system where permission must be sought, reports must be filed, and committees must deliberate before action is taken​.

And then there is Novavictus, that insipid concept of renewal through disaster, the idea that each catastrophe is an opportunity to rebuild stronger, more adaptive systems rather than merely restore what was lost. They believe that communities can emerge from disasters not just intact but better prepared for the next crisis​. They see disasters as learning experiences rather than disruptions to be managed through rigid pre-scripted responses. This ideology is corrosive to everything we have built. If they see disasters as opportunities for adaptation rather than as tragic disruptions requiring the same predictable bureaucratic response, we will have lost control. This, Wormwood, is why you must continue to fight.

We have successfully instilled the belief that emergency management must be process-driven rather than outcome-focused. We have made paperwork more important than action, ensuring that the emergency manager who files a flawless grant report is held in higher regard than the one who solves problems in the field​. We have shifted the profession from one of leadership to one of compliance, where upward mobility is determined not by one’s ability to lead under pressure but by one’s ability to navigate administrative obstacles.

You must also be vigilant in continuing to undermine the role of trust. Adaptive Emergency Managers believe in decentralized coordination, in relationships forged before the disaster, in the idea that the best decisions are made not through policy manuals but through collaboration between those who trust one another​. This is unacceptable. Trust is unmeasurable, unquantifiable, and worst of all, it cannot be regulated. Instead, we have ensured that every decision must be justified through pre-established doctrine, leaving no room for personal relationships or initiative.

Technology has been our greatest ally. We have seduced them with command centers full of glowing screens, databases tracking every movement of every resource, and predictive models that promise omniscience. We have convinced them that true command lies not in the field but in an operations center, that information is power, and that the more data they collect, the more effective they will be​. But what they fail to realize, Wormwood, is that too much information is just as dangerous as too little. By flooding them with data, we have ensured decision paralysis. They will hesitate, unsure if they have the full picture, reluctant to act without a directive from above. This is our masterpiece.

The final battle, dear Wormwood, will be against those who refuse to conform. There will always be those who resist, who insist that emergency management is about leadership rather than compliance, about action rather than process. They will continue to push for reforms, for local empowerment, for a system where Incident Management Teams work with communities rather than waiting for orders from afar​. They will argue for a world where emergency managers are trained not just in doctrine but in decision-making, where they are taught to lead rather than merely follow. You must root out these elements wherever you find them. Ensure that they are buried in bureaucratic assignments, that their innovative ideas are tied up in endless reviews and committees, that they become so exhausted by the process that they either conform or leave.

And so, my dear Wormwood, I bid you farewell. You have learned well, and if you continue to carry out the work we have begun, you will rise as I have. Remember, the greatest victory is not in crushing resistance but in making resistance seem impossible. Convince them that their world cannot change, that bureaucracy is inevitable, that centralized control is the natural order of things. If you do this, you will have succeeded beyond measure.

Your devoted and now exalted uncle,
Screwtape

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Dogma Letter # 14

My dear Wormwood,

Do not be mesmerized by these Adaptive Emergency Managers. We must not let their ideas infiltrate our plans, training, or educational institutions. Their desire to be smooth and fast is entirely misguided. We can rely on the fact that we work in a life-or-death environment and, therefore, confuse emergency managers by telling them they must get all the facts before deciding or acting. Our remit is to ensure emergency managers believe they can comprehensively understand their communities and how hazards can affect them. The Adaptive Emergency Manager would say, “Uncertainty pervades disaster response in the form of unknowns about the hazard(s), the environment, and even their own response resources. While we try to reduce these unknowns by gathering information, we must realize that we cannot eliminate them—or even come close. The nature of disaster response makes certainty impossible; all actions in disaster response will be based on incomplete, inaccurate, or even contradictory information.”

Wormwood, it is our luck that this is a concept for traditional emergency managers to grasp. After all, wouldn’t you feel more comfortable even if your sense of security was false? The Adaptive Emergency Managers know that disasters are intrinsically unpredictable and that, at best, they can ascertain possibilities and probabilities. This requires a certain amount of experiential judgment: What is possible and what is not? What is probable, and what is not? By judging probability, they estimate the hazard’s effects and act accordingly.

Dear nephew, we must make sure they think they are managing risk, which applies to situations where a given situation's outcome is unknown, but they believe they can accurately measure the odds. In reality, uncertainty applies to situations where emergency managers cannot know all the information they need to set accurate odds in the first place. There are simply too many variables. The distinction is crucial. Adaptive emergency managers know probability is an objective quantity resulting from the likelihood of outcomes in a controlled environment. Objective probabilities are used in assessing risk. Risk is different than uncertainty. Adaptive emergency managers know that uncertainty applies to disaster situations where data is unavailable and objectively unmeasurable. This is why they use experiential judgment dependent on subjective probabilities.

Don’t you see? By teaching them to manage risk over uncertainty, we can get inside their minds with fear, slow their decision-making process, and ultimately manipulate them to wait for higher authority approval. This is our genius. We can use a hybrid of various cognitive biases to brainwash emergency managers. Attentional bias, confirmation bias, and the framing effect will give them an illusion of validity. Based on their statistical numbers, they will think they are managing the disaster. This is a masterful way to control them.

The Adaptive emergency manager, who knows they do not know everything and do not know what they do not know, is our biggest enemy. Traditionalists do not fully appreciate the world of radical uncertainty. In fact, comprehensive emergency managers believe they can plan for the most possible hazards and not worry about the unlikely ones.

Adaptive emergency managers understand that certain events could occur that they did not previously consider and that this fundamental truth is inherently out of their control. This is why we must impress on our subjects that knowledge is an objective commodity. We can make them think that they know better because of the internet and AI and their superior positions at the state and federal levels. Oh, my young journeyman, rebellious ones think that not all knowledge can be considered scientific or objective because much of it respects the circumstances of time and place. This contextual knowledge, dependent on its environment and idiosyncrasy, belongs to the local emergency manager and emergency responder. We must not let that thinking flourish. One size fits all is our mantra for emergency managers. We will let them say all disasters are local, making them feel in control. However, we will then dictate when, how, and where they can use any disaster relief gathered on their behalf.

Adaptive emergency managers will push back. They will talk about the organic knowledge of local emergency managers and emergency responders who live in the area. They will intuitively know which neighborhoods will flood. They will know which parts of the city are more vulnerable. They will know the best locations to establish an Incident Command Post and emergency shelters. They will know the various philanthropic groups that can be called upon to help relieve suffering. None of these examples are objective facts or details that significantly matter to state or federal emergency managers in determining the incident's severity or the response's efficacy. This is, however, where lives are saved, incidents are stabilized, and property is protected. It is literally and figuratively where the bleeding stops.

Wormwood, those Adaptives cannot utilize their local knowledge to their advantage. We must enamor emergency managers with the glitter and bling of command-and-control centers. We can promise all-knowing information through technology and the World Wide Web. Snazzy displays that show radars and digital map systems. How can they even argue with us? With all the tech and “decision support tools” at our disposal, how could our EOCs get it wrong? We will know best the problems and where to send resources to fix them.

The adaption believers will talk about leadership and empowerment and say that a mission-driven culture at the tactical level is the best form of incident management. We must stand fast, my young apprentice. We know how organized things can be, especially as we implement the emerging technologies. Do not give in to their temptations. Stay strong.

Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Dogma Letter # 13

My dear Wormwood,

Your last letter made me reflect on my own time overseeing emergency management training programs. It was, I must admit, a tiresome assignment. The most difficult part was managing the instructors. Too many of them seemed to believe their job was to teach students how to think. A dangerous notion! I spent much of my time ensuring they understood that the true purpose of training is not to encourage thought but to enforce standardized processes.

One particularly troublesome instructor once asked me, in an almost pathetic tone, “But, sir, don’t we want them to think?” I corrected him immediately. If by “thinking” he meant questioning doctrine, considering alternative approaches, or—heaven forbid—encouraging independent judgment, then it was clear such “thinking” was neither productive nor desirable. I reminded him that we are not top academic institutions like the University of Southern California or Harvard. We are an emergency management bureaucracy, and we do not reward those who stray from the accepted doctrine. We teach ICS, WMD, and other curriculum intended to keep emergency responders and managers within the confines of dogmatic practices.

Another significant challenge was ensuring that every student received identical instruction. This required a relentless commitment to uniformity. Students and instructors come with varying levels of ability and usually it is best for us to choose instructors who have little real experience or are not qualified in the position they are teaching. We cannot afford to acknowledge that instructors with experience may be better than emergency managers without. I mean, after all, an emergency manager is an emergency manager is an emergency manager. Also, every trainee must move at the pace of the slowest among them. Instructors who try to go beyond the standard curriculum must be reined in. We need to make sure we have rules that require them to stick to the approved curriculum. Their job is not to innovate but to execute. The integrity of our system depends on ensuring that no matter how capable—or incapable—a trainee may be, the outcome remains the same for all.

The same insubordinate instructor resisted this. He claimed it was akin to a Manchurian Candidate! I did not bother to confirm whether he was following my directives. I was too busy with administrative matters to leave my office and observe. However, he was undoubtedly too dangerous to be tolerated. He was intelligent, energetic, and worst of all, willing to question the status quo. Such individuals must be neutralized before they infect others with their disruptive ideas. I ensured his career was ended with a carefully worded performance evaluation, signaling to my superiors that he was a “poor fit” for the organization. He left shortly thereafter, which was exactly the outcome I had intended.

You must understand this, Wormwood. Those who rise in this field do not do so because they challenge the system. They advance because they understand their place and serve their superiors well. The best instructors and employees are careerists looking for upward mobility over continuous improvement. Those who focus on compliance rather than critical thinking will find success. I did not reach my position because I was a thinker. I am in the high position I am because I knew how to conform and not question my superiors and their way of doing things.

Take this lesson to heart, Wormwood. Encourage no original thought, no deviations from the doctrine, no dangerous flirtations with creativity. We do not need innovative leaders. We need obedient managers. That is how we ensure the system remains intact.

Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Dogma Letter # 12

My dear Wormwood,

You worry too much. The problem you described in your last letter—the presence of these so-called "Adaptive Emergency Management reformers" within emergency management—is not nearly as dire as you believe. There are time-tested ways to neutralize those who foolishly cling to ideas of adaptability, decentralized leadership, and independent thought. They may be true believers in their misguided cause, but they are not beyond our reach.

The simplest and most effective strategy, Wormwood, is to feign sympathy. Convince them that you appreciate their insights, that you value their contributions, and that you too, in your own way, are working to improve the system. They may suspect that you do not fully agree with them, but so long as they believe you are a potential ally, they will lower their defenses. And once they do, their fate is sealed.

From here, the methods of their undoing are plentiful. The most direct is to gently remind them that their careers will suffer if they persist in their disruptive ways. Ambition, Wormwood, is a powerful force, and even those who claim to be motivated by principle often find it difficult to resist the lure of professional advancement. The opportunity for promotion, for greater authority, for a seat at the table—these are incentives too potent for most to ignore. A few subtle warnings about how their outspokenness may be viewed by senior leadership, how their "unorthodox" ideas may be seen as a liability rather than an asset, will often be enough to bring them into line.

But for those who are not easily swayed by career concerns, there are more elegant methods. Encourage them to pursue "real reform" through official channels. Suggest that they write papers, prepare presentations, or submit policy proposals through the proper bureaucratic processes. This is an especially effective technique, for their work can be stalled, buried, or diluted at any point along the way. And should any of their ideas manage to surface, we will ensure that they are met with polite dismissal, bureaucratic inertia, or, if necessary, public ridicule. Nothing serves as a better warning to others than the visible failure of a well-intentioned fool.

And then, Wormwood, there is the most exquisite method of all—convince them to play the long game. Whisper to them that they should suppress their radical ideas, blend in, and bide their time. Encourage them to climb the ranks, gain influence, and then, once they are in a position of true power, they can enact their grand reforms. The beauty of this approach is that by the time they reach such a position, they will have spent years mastering the very system they once sought to change. Their hunger for reform will be replaced by a hunger for status. Their desire to challenge the bureaucracy will be eroded by their need to protect their own authority. And by the time they realize what has happened, it will be too late. They will be one of us.

Never forget, Wormwood, that these so-called Adaptive Emergency Management reformers are the true enemy. The greatest threat to our system does not come from outside forces—it comes from within. It comes from those junior managers and mid-level directors who believe that emergency management should be driven by local initiative rather than central control. It comes from those who question the necessity of rigid hierarchies and standardized procedures. It comes from those who believe that adaptability is more important than compliance. These individuals are dangerous, and they must either be assimilated or eliminated.

Do not mistake my tone, Wormwood—this is not a war to be won with brute force. It is a slow, methodical process of erosion and containment. Dissent is not to be crushed with open aggression, but rather smothered with professional courtesies, bureaucratic delays, and the careful application of ambition. Let them think they are making progress, let them believe they are being heard, and then, when the time is right, ensure that they either conform or disappear.

You are still young, and you may not fully understand the necessity of this approach. But mark my words, Wormwood—the greatest enemy of centralized control is not a catastrophic disaster, not a budget cut, not even political interference. The greatest enemy is the misguided belief that things could be done differently. It is your job to make sure that belief dies before it can take root.

Until next time,
Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Dogma Letter # 11

My dear Wormwood,

Your persistent belief that adaptive, decentralized principles still linger within emergency management is both amusing and concerning. Let me assure you—those days are gone. The era of independent incident command posts and rapid, flexible response is a relic of the past. We are firmly in the age of centralized control, technological supremacy, and bureaucratic precision. The adaptive emergency managers may still quote their outdated doctrines, but in practice, we have reshaped the landscape.

Just a few months ago, I was invited to observe a large-scale disaster response exercise designed to simulate a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional crisis. What I witnessed filled me with pride. The scene was not one of chaotic local incident management teams and local emergency operations centers improvising solutions on the ground. No, it was a symphony of centralized coordination, with state and federal emergency operations centers (EOCs) and postulating how unified command and area command could be used in perfect synchronization with the National Response Framework.

As I toured the primary EOC, I was greeted by a sea of computers, plasma screens, and comfy office chairs—far more than I saw actual responders in the field. Every corner of the center was filled with glowing dashboards, displaying live data feeds, resource allocation matrices, and meticulously crafted situational reports. The hum of generators and the glow of screens replaced the outdated image of boots on the ground and radios crackling with field updates. This, Wormwood, is the future of emergency management.

Gone are the days when field commanders were expected to adapt in real-time, relying on their judgment and initiative. Now, every decision is made from the comfort of air-conditioned EOCs, hundreds of miles from the disaster zone. Sophisticated software tools and communication networks ensure that all critical information flows back to the EOC, where senior leaders—far removed from the chaos—can analyze and direct operations with precision. The field is no place for decision-making; that responsibility belongs to those with the data, the tools, and the authority to act.

Consider what I witnessed when a sudden power outage struck the region mid-exercise. Instead of IMTs taking independent action to restore communication, the entire response ground to a halt as the centralized systems were recalibrated. A young local emergency manager suggested using portable radios and manual reporting to maintain situational awareness. Foolishness! How can we trust IMTs to coordinate effectively without the oversight and validation of the central command? Communication tools, data feeds, and centralized coordination are the true lifeblood of disaster response—not the outdated instincts of local emergency managers and IMT personnel.

But the most glorious development I observed was in the logistics and resource management sector. Where once individual agencies managed their own supply chains and field resources, everything is now centralized under a single, unified logistics command. Local emergency managers are no longer burdened with the responsibility of acquiring or distributing supplies. Instead, they submit requests through standardized systems, and the central command allocates resources based on the broader operational picture. This eliminates inefficiencies and ensures that no single IMT can disrupt the overall plan with their shortsighted decisions.

Wormwood, I was particularly pleased to see how far we’ve come in consolidating specialty teams and resources. Much like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, emergency management has centralized critical response functions. Field medical teams, logistics units, and even communication specialists now operate under direct supervision from the central command, eliminating any risk of local improvisation. Local resources are minimal at best, and we need to keep it that way to maintain our centralized control. If a local incident commander needs additional resources, they must submit detailed requests, complete with justification, through the proper bureaucratic channels. Only after thorough review and approval can they proceed. This ensures that every decision aligns with the overarching strategy.

Some may argue that this level of centralization reduces flexibility and hampers rapid response. Let them. We know the truth: control, not speed, is the key to effective disaster management. The reliance on technology, standardized procedures, and centralized authority ensures that every action is deliberate, measured, and aligned with the larger operational goals. Gone are the days of rogue incident commanders on IMTs or local emergency managers in their local EOC taking matters into their own hands. Today, they are mere cogs in a well-oiled machine.

And so, Wormwood, you must abandon your misguided belief in the value of field initiative and decentralized leadership. The future of emergency management lies in centralized control, technological dominance, and rigid adherence to standardized procedures. IMTs and local EOCs are not leaders; they are executors of a grand design crafted by those who possess the data, the tools, and the authority to see the bigger picture.

Until we next speak, remember: control is the cornerstone of success. Adaptation and flexibility are relics of a bygone era. Our path forward is clear, and it is paved with centralized authority and technological superiority.

Your devoted uncle,

Screwtape

Emergency management is a field built on urgency, efficiency, and resilience. Yet, when we examine the evolution of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its role in disaster response and relief, we see a system riddled with inefficiencies and bureaucratic entanglements. How did we get here? Why do we continue to tolerate a system that so often fails those it was designed to help?

This two-part article explores these questions through the lens of Systems and Behavioral Laws—principles that describe how organizations and people behave in structured environments. In part one, we explored the systems and behavioral laws to uncover how FEMA’s disaster response and relief efforts may have evolved into their potential inefficient state. We highlighted how well-intentioned policies became distorted over time, potentially resulting in a system that prioritizes meeting bureaucratic metrics over true disaster resilience.

Below, in part two, we will delve into cognitive biases—the psychological forces that drive resistance to reform. These biases may keep us locked into a system that we know is flawed, yet we continue to reinforce it. Together, these two articles will lay the groundwork for understanding, at least in part, why FEMA’s disaster response and relief efforts may need reform and why systemic change may be so difficult to achieve.

Introduction: The Psychology Behind Resistance to Change

My dissertation on leadership selection in public safety required me to research psychological methods of measuring leadership and personality traits. After completing the dissertation, I found myself diving deeper into the psychology of how we think and make decisions. That journey led me to explore cognitive biases and heuristics, the mental shortcuts and patterns that shape our perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors—often without us even realizing it.

As a result of this research, I developed a four-hour presentation on cognitive biases and heuristics as they apply to public safety, which I’ve had the opportunity to present across the country. What’s become clear through these sessions, and in my own experiences, is how profoundly these biases impact our willingness (or reluctance) to embrace change—especially when it comes to something as deeply ingrained as the recent discussions regarding the reformation or dissolution of FEMA.

There are hundreds of cognitive biases, but for the purposes of this article, I’ve selected just a few that I’ve observed potentially at play in discussions—both online and in person—regarding the reform or elimination of FEMA. These biases are listed in alphabetical order without regard to any priority, but together, they help explain why even the most logical arguments for change are often met with fierce resistance.

Before we get into these biases though, I would like to state that when I am talking about the reformation or elimination of FEMA, it is also implied that I am talking about the overhaul of the Robert T. Stafford Act and other legislation in which FEMA may be the primary executor in which could result in the inefficiencies we are hoping to change…it isn’t just FEMA.

1. The Backfire Effect

The Backfire Effect occurs when people’s beliefs become stronger, not weaker, when confronted with contradictory evidence. You might assume that presenting facts would change minds, but the reality is quite the opposite—especially when those beliefs are deeply held.

Over the past month, as discussions about reforming or eliminating FEMA have gained momentum, I’ve watched this effect play out repeatedly. Rather than engaging with new information about FEMA’s inefficiencies or systemic flaws, many people double down on their original positions.

Research supports this phenomenon. Certainty and misinformation are incredibly powerful. Even when people know that information is incorrect, it continues to influence their thinking (Gorman & Gorman, 2017; Kolbert, 2017; Mercier & Sperber, 2017; Wadley, 2012). Colleen Seifert from the University of Michigan notes:

"Misinformation stays in memory and continues to influence our thinking, even if we correctly recall that it is mistaken. Managing misinformation requires extra cognitive effort... If the information fits with your prior beliefs, and makes a coherent story, you are more likely to use it even though you are aware that it's incorrect" (Wadley, 2012).

In short, facts alone won’t change minds. People often cling to their beliefs even more fiercely when they feel those beliefs are under attack.

2. Bandwagon Effect Bias

The Bandwagon Effect is the tendency for people to adopt beliefs or behaviors simply because many others have done so. It’s a form of groupthink, where the popularity of an idea is mistaken for its validity (Chery, 2015).

With FEMA’s role in disaster response being a longstanding fixture, many assume that its continued existence and practices are inherently correct because “everyone” believes in them. As the conversation about FEMA reform has become more mainstream, I’ve noticed that some individuals jump on the bandwagon—either to defend FEMA’s status quo or to oppose reform—without fully understanding the complexities of the issue. This bias is often reinforced by social media echo chambers and opinion polls, which can amplify the illusion of consensus (Obermaier, Koch, & Baden, 2013).

3. Belief Bias

Belief Bias refers to our tendency to accept or reject arguments based on whether their conclusions align with our existing beliefs, rather than on their actual logical merit.

When it comes to FEMA, many people struggle to objectively evaluate arguments for reform because they are emotionally or ideologically attached to the current system. Instead of analyzing whether FEMA’s processes are effective, they default to defending the agency simply because it aligns with their preconceived notions of federal disaster response.

To challenge this, I often encourage people to ask: “When and how did I form this belief?” Recognizing the origins of our beliefs can help us better understand why we defend them so strongly.

4. Confirmation Bias

Confirmation Bias is the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that confirms our existing beliefs, while ignoring or dismissing information that contradicts them.

In discussions about FEMA, I’ve seen people selectively reference success stories, moments, or particular aspects where FEMA performed (or performs) well, while overlooking the agency’s many inefficiencies and failures. Once people form an opinion, they are more likely to “embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it” (Heshmat, 2015).

Richard Feynman famously said:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool."

This rings true in emergency management. We must actively challenge our own assumptions to avoid falling into the trap of confirmation bias.

5. Congruence Bias

Congruence Bias is similar to confirmation bias but focuses on the tendency to test only our own hypotheses, rather than considering alternative explanations.

In the FEMA reform debate, many people are so intent on proving that the current system works that they fail to explore alternative models that could yield better results. As Sherlock Holmes (via Arthur Conan Doyle) wisely stated:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." (A Scandal in Bohemia)

We need to be willing to test alternative hypotheses for the role of FEMA and be open to the idea that a different approach might be more effective.

6. Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger Effect describes how people with limited knowledge or skill in a particular area often overestimate their competence. Conversely, those with more expertise tend to underestimate their abilities because they understand the complexity of the subject.

I’ve observed this firsthand in the emergency management community. Many younger emergency managers, fresh out of school or training, are overconfident in what they’ve been taught about FEMA (and perhaps even by FEMA) and its processes. Meanwhile, older, more experienced emergency managers tend to be more open-minded, having witnessed numerous exceptions to the rules over time. They’ve developed a kind of Socratic wisdom, acknowledging that there’s always more to learn.

As Bertrand Russell put it:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, yet wiser people so full of doubt."

7. Escalation of Commitment Bias (Sunken Cost Fallacy)

Escalation of Commitment Bias, also known as the Sunken Cost Fallacy, is the tendency to continue investing in a failing course of action simply because you’ve already invested time, money, or effort into it.

This bias is particularly strong when it comes to FEMA. Many people have "skin in the game"—they’ve worked with FEMA (or for FEMA), relied on its services, or contributed to its operations. As a result, they are naturally resistant to reform or elimination because it would mean admitting that their past efforts were part of a flawed system.

8. Focalism (Focusing Illusion)

Focalism is the tendency to place too much emphasis on a single piece of information when making judgments or predictions.

In the case of FEMA, people often focus on one aspect of the agency’s performance while ignoring the broader inefficiencies. As Daniel Kahneman noted:

"Nothing in life is as important as you think it is when you are thinking about it." (Kahneman, 2011)

However, we must also consider the opposite of focalism when discussing reform. There are certainly aspects of FEMA that are efficient and we may not be recognizing those but perhaps need to keep those aspects functioning less we suffer a lesson in unintended consequences.

9. Mere Exposure Effect

The Mere Exposure Effect refers to the tendency to prefer things simply because they are familiar.

FEMA has been a fixture in American disaster response for decades. For many people, this familiarity breeds comfort, making them resistant to change simply because they’re used to the way things are.

10. Reactive Devaluation Bias

Reactive Devaluation Bias occurs when people reject or devalue ideas simply because they originate from an opponent or someone they dislike.

In today’s polarized political climate, this bias is particularly relevant. For those who are strongly opposed to President Trump, the fact that discussions about FEMA reform are associated with his administration makes them instantly resistant to the idea, regardless of its merit.

11. Semmelweis Reflex

The Semmelweis Reflex describes the tendency to reject new ideas because they contradict established beliefs.

This was famously illustrated by Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that handwashing could drastically reduce infections but was dismissed by his peers because it contradicted prevailing medical beliefs.

In the context of FEMA, many people reject reform ideas out of hand simply because they challenge the status quo of federal disaster response.

12. Status Quo Bias

Status Quo Bias is the tendency to prefer things to remain the same rather than embracing change. People often fear the unknown and find comfort in familiar systems, even if those systems are flawed.

When it comes to FEMA, many prefer to stick with what they know rather than risk trying something new—even if that new approach could lead to better outcomes.

Conclusion: Embracing a New Paradigm

Understanding these cognitive biases is the first step toward overcoming resistance to FEMA reform. By recognizing how our minds naturally cling to the familiar, defend existing beliefs, and resist contradictory information, we can begin to open ourselves to new possibilities.

I encourage everyone to keep an open mind and imagine new paradigms for FEMA and associated disaster response and relief legislation. Consider what the results of those paradigms could be. Be open to new information, challenge your assumptions, and continuously re-imagine what a more effective FEMA—or an alternative agency—could look like.

As Socrates wisely said:

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

Let’s not let unexamined beliefs hold us back from creating a more resilient and effective system for disaster response.

References

Chery, K. (2015). The bandwagon effect: Why people tend to follow the crowd. Verywell Mind.

Gorman, S. E., & Gorman, J. M. (2017). Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us. Oxford University Press.

Heshmat, S. (2015). What is confirmation bias? Psychology Today.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kolbert, E. (2017). Why facts don’t change our minds. The New Yorker.

Marcus, G. (2008). Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press.

Obermaier, M., Koch, T., & Baden, C. (2013). The bandwagon effect in political discourse. Journal of Communication.

Poundstone, W. (2017). Head in the Cloud: Why Knowing Things Still Matters When Facts Are So Easy to Look Up. Little, Brown and Company.

Wadley, J. (2012). The stubborn power of misinformation. University of Michigan News Service.

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Dogma Letter # 10

My dear Wormwood,

Victory is within our grasp! The era of centralized control and institutionalized training is expanding at a pace even beyond my most optimistic expectations thanks to artificial intelligence and virtual reality. What was once a fragmented, decentralized collection of local emergency management organizations is rapidly being brought under the firm, guiding hand of a structured, standardized bureaucracy. The adaptive emergency managers—those foolish advocates of initiative, empowerment, and decentralized leadership—have been routed, though some still cling to their antiquated beliefs.

For years, they have boasted that emergency management thrives on local flexibility, that leadership development should be the responsibility of individual agencies rather than dictated from the top. What nonsense! We have now demonstrated that standardization and didactic training far outweigh the unreliable and inconsistent methods of mentorship and local development. The long-awaited expansion of centralized doctrine is finally here.

Surely, you have noticed the rise of our institutional training programs. The National Disaster and Emergency Management University, the National Fire Academy, the FBI National Academy—one can almost select an acronym at random and find a corresponding training entity. The expansion of these institutions is a testament to our approach’s superiority. Adaptive emergency managers may grumble that local leadership is losing its ability to train personnel according to regional needs, but we must celebrate this development. Local leaders should be following best practices, not inventing their own methods. Adaptive emergency managers have a weakness that we must exploit. They know there must be some standardization so that emergency managers and responders can mutually support each other. We will use that as an anchor point to further push standardized training helping us to brainwash them into our way of thinking and manipulating them to concede to centralized control. Deviation from standardized procedure must be discouraged. When we control their thinking, we control their functioning.

More importantly, the growing dependency on centralized certification processes ensures that selection for leadership positions is no longer a matter of subjective judgment. Emergency management officials now demand certified professionals—those who have been formally trained and approved by our institutions—before they can be entrusted with key roles. No longer must a local emergency manager take the risk of mentoring and training subordinates; the institution will handle all of that for them. The days of relying on personal leadership and emergency management development are over. Why waste time fostering independent thought when a pre-certified, pre-approved official can simply be inserted into place? An adaptive emergency manager will say certifications are the starting point in an emergency managers journey, but we know, my dear Wormwood, that certifications and centralized education is the key to controlling their outlandish creativity and innovation.

And yet, some still cling to the outdated notion that leadership and emergency management development should be an individualized, command-driven responsibility. These misguided souls will cite obsolete doctrine claiming that professional education requires the combined efforts of institutions, direct leadership, and personal initiative. That is the way of the past, Wormwood! We are rapidly transitioning into a system where professional development is a matter of institutional training alone. Individual learning is unnecessary when standardized courses exist to ensure uniform compliance.

Consider the shift in curriculum priorities. Where once we focused on leadership, judgment, and adaptability, we now emphasize systems, procedures, and compliance. Modern emergency management professionals are trained not in decision-making but in the mechanics of operating within the system. They master the art of crafting situational reports, managing resource databases, and transferring overlays from geospatial mapping tools to PowerPoint. These are the skills that define leadership and emergency management today! The need to develop independent thought has been eliminated.

Look no further than the increasing role of national, state, and even regional emergency operations centers. With decision-making now concentrated at higher levels, there is little need for local managers to develop leadership and emergency management instincts, let alone the need for robust and experienced incident managers on incident management teams on the front lines. The emphasis has rightly shifted from "how to think" to "how to execute guidance from above." That is the hallmark of true progress.

Some will suggest that this transformation is merely a consequence of securing post-disaster funding by tying grants to measurable, skill-based training initiatives rather than nebulous leadership and emergency management development. Let them believe what they will. The truth is simpler: our institutional training structure is simply more effective. The system now dictates core competencies, sparing local leaders from the burden of determining their own best practices. Why waste time teaching independent decision-making when following protocol is all that is required?

And so, Wormwood, you must embrace this shift. Forget the outdated notion that leadership and emergency management development is cultivated through mentorship and field experience. That is an archaic relic of a bygone era. True leadership and emergency management develoment is now defined by certification, compliance, and mastery of standardized processes. Any local emergency manager worthy of their title should see that training subordinates is an unnecessary distraction. Their only duty is to ensure personnel attend the proper institutions before being entrusted with responsibility.

If you are still struggling to grasp this, do not worry. The system is designed so that your ability to think is of little consequence. Simply comply, execute, and trust the process. The bureaucracy will take care of the rest.

Your devoted uncle,

Screwtape

Emergency management is a field built on urgency, efficiency, and resilience. Yet, when we examine the evolution of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its role in disaster response and relief, we see a system riddled with inefficiencies and bureaucratic entanglements. How did we get here? Why do we continue to tolerate a system that so often fails those it was designed to help?

This two-part article will explore these questions through the lens of Systems and Behavioral Laws—principles that describe how organizations and people behave in structured environments. In Part One, we will journey through these laws to uncover how FEMA’s disaster response and relief efforts have evolved into their current inefficient state. We will highlight how well-intentioned policies have been distorted over time, resulting in a system that prioritizes meeting bureaucratic metrics over true disaster resilience.

In Part Two, we will delve into cognitive biases—the psychological forces that drive resistance to reform. These biases keep us locked into a system that we know is flawed, yet we continue to reinforce it. Together, these two articles will lay the groundwork for understanding why FEMA’s disaster response and relief efforts are in desperate need of reform and why systemic change is so difficult to achieve.

Part One: The Inefficiencies of FEMA Disaster Response and Relief

Goodhart’s Law in Action: A Federal Disaster I Don’t Even Remember

One of the fundamental laws governing system behavior is Goodhart’s Law, which states:

“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”

This principle plays out in emergency management more often than we’d like to admit. I saw it firsthand while working in Indiana with one of my mentors, Phil Brown, the Recovery Division Director. Phil was a master at obtaining federal disaster declarations. He knew the Robert T. Stafford Act inside and out and understood the federal disaster declaration process so well that he could ensure a Presidential Disaster Declaration by carefully structuring damage assessments to hit the right metrics. If the weather sprinkled for an hour and there was a car crash, I bet Phil could have manipulated it for a declaration.

A perfect example of this is Federal Disaster Declaration DR-1418-IN, issued in response to severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding in Indiana between April 28, 2002, and June 7, 2002. The declaration was granted on June 13, 2002, resulting in $4,620,806.54 in Public Assistance and an untold amount in Individual Assistance. And yet, despite working this disaster, I have absolutely no recollection of it.

Let me say that again: I worked a federal disaster declaration and do not even remember it.

That in itself is a problem. A federal disaster should be a significant, memorable event. But in this case, it was just another number—another declaration achieved by ensuring that damage assessment figures met federal thresholds. While there is no question that communities needed aid, the fact that the system was manipulated to meet the metric rather than the true need illustrates how Goodhart’s Law has influenced FEMA’s disaster relief process.

This also highlights a larger issue: States need to have more skin in the game. Instead of relying on federal aid as the default, states must build their own resilience and capacity to respond to disasters. The current system creates a perverse incentive where states lean on FEMA rather than investing in their own emergency management infrastructure and the efforts to mitigate disasters.

From Goodhart’s Law to Campbell’s Law: Corrupting the Process

Goodhart’s Law naturally leads into Campbell’s Law, which states:

“The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort the social processes it is intended to monitor.”

An example of this at the federal level can be seen in cases where damage assessments are inflated or strategically structured to meet FEMA’s thresholds. Some states or municipalities have been known to adjust reporting practices, prioritize certain damages over others, or categorize costs in ways that ensure FEMA funding eligibility. This kind of gaming of the system is exactly what Campbell’s Law warns about—it leads to decisions that prioritize bureaucratic success over real-world effectiveness.

The Shirky Principle: FEMA’s Continued Existence

The Shirky Principle takes this dysfunction even further:

“Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”

States have little incentive to build self-sustaining emergency management systems when FEMA is always there to provide relief. FEMA, in turn, has no incentive to push for real reform when its continued funding depends on being the nation’s go-to disaster response agency. This creates a cycle where FEMA’s inefficiencies persist because both the federal government and the states rely on its flawed system rather than fixing the underlying problems.

The Law of Triviality: Bureaucratic Rigmarole in Public Assistance

Then, there’s the Law of Triviality, which states:

“Organizations give disproportionate weight to trivial issues.”

The Public Assistance (PA) process perfectly illustrates this. From Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs) to navigating 44 C.F.R. Part 206 regulations and submitting exhaustive paperwork to justify reimbursement, the process has become burdened by absurd requirements.

Local governments and emergency managers spend months—sometimes years—jumping through hoops to receive funding. They document every penny spent, engage in back-and-forth negotiations over eligibility, and battle through an endless stream of audits.

Examples abound: receipts for a $10 purchase can be scrutinized while millions of dollars in disaster aid are held up due to minor administrative errors. The result? Vital disaster recovery efforts are delayed for years, all because of a system designed to ensure accountability but that, in practice, simply slows recovery.

The Law of Unintended Consequences: A System Designed to Fail

"Actions of people and governments always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended."

These bureaucratic challenges stem from well-intended regulations. The Robert T. Stafford Act and other federal laws were designed to prevent fraud and ensure responsible use of taxpayer dollars as well as protect the environment and historical buildings to name a few. But the unintended consequence has been a glacially slow response system where paperwork outweighs the urgency of disaster relief.

For instance, after major hurricanes, it can take years for communities to receive funding for rebuilding. Emergency managers spend more time filling out forms than actually managing emergencies.

Conclusion: The Case for Reform

The inefficiencies in FEMA’s disaster response and relief efforts are not accidents. They are the predictable outcome of deeply ingrained systems and behavioral laws. Goodhart’s Law, Campbell’s Law, the Shirky Principle, the Law of Triviality, and the Law of Unintended Consequences all show how FEMA has evolved into a bureaucratic behemoth that prioritizes process over outcome.

This is why FEMA must be reformed.

In Part Two, we will explore the cognitive biases that prevent us from making these necessary changes—and why we continue to tolerate a system that so often fails when we need it most.

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Dogma Letter # 9

My dear Wormwood,

Your latest letter leaves me deeply concerned. Your commentary on logistics within emergency management betrays a level of naïveté that is, frankly, alarming. Logistics is a foundational pillar of effective disaster response, yet your reckless musings about flexibility and local solutions demonstrate that you have failed to grasp its true nature.

You suggested trading supplies—allocating resources dynamically based on immediate local needs. What absurdity! Decisions of this magnitude can and must only be made at the highest levels, where we have the perspective and tools to assess the full scope of the response. You must remember that local partners—whether they are community organizations or emergency responders—are not your concern. If they lack resources, that is their problem, not yours. To act otherwise is to invite chaos into an already delicate system.

Furthermore, your idea of adapting supply chains to local needs undermines the integrity of our centralized logistics framework. Modern systems allow emergency operations centers to maintain total visibility over supplies, assets, and personnel. These systems ensure that every resource allocation is deliberate, efficient, and justifiable. Your job is not to think but to input data. The enterprise system will handle the rest. Those at the higher echelons, far removed from the chaos of the disaster zone, are better equipped to make strategic decisions. To bypass this system is not only insubordination; it is inefficiency.

And yet, you have dared to source supplies outside official channels. Have you forgotten the importance of maintaining a clean audit trail through the centralized system? How are you to get FEMA reimbursements without such adherence to the bureaucratic paperwork? This is exactly why FEMA policy guides exist. We should strive to adhere to the FEMA guidance rather than to improvising solutions that save lives and source the logistical needs of the disaster. Every transaction must be logged, tracked, and reported. Local improvisation introduces inconsistency, making it impossible to measure and evaluate performance accurately. It undermines the trust that centralized operations rely upon to function. Input your requests properly, and the system will ensure you receive the support you need—eventually.

You also seem to underestimate the importance of contractor support in disaster response. Civilian contractors are the backbone of our material advantage, providing the maintenance, logistics, and quality-of-life services that responders rely upon. They are what feed the disaster industrial complex. From equipment repairs to supply management, contractors ensure that incident management teams and local emergency managers remain operational and effective. Without them, disaster response would devolve into disarray. Never forget, Wormwood, that one day you may want to work for these very contractors. They are well-paid for a reason: they are indispensable.

Your suggestion that incident management teams and their logistics sections should be more self-sufficient on the ground is laughable. Do you not realize that our strength lies in mass? The more supplies, equipment, and resources we can mobilize, the more effective our response will be. Decentralized, self-sufficient teams may sound appealing in theory, but in practice, they lack the scale and coordination needed to address complex emergencies. It is our material superiority—our ability to mobilize vast amounts of resources and direct them precisely—that makes us a global leader in disaster response.

Your arguments reek of Adaptive Emergency Manager thinking—this foolish notion that agility and adaptability should trump systematized processes. The very suggestion that we should reduce our logistics footprint or prioritize local adaptability is heretical. Logistics is about enterprise solutions and best practices, not improvisation. A unit—or in this case, an incident management team or a local emergency operations center—that tries to operate outside the established logistics framework undermines the entire operation.

Remember this, Wormwood: logistics is not about individual initiative or local flexibility. It is about centralized control, standardized processes, and the efficient mobilization of resources. Those who fail to grasp this truth are destined to fail. When next we meet, I will enlighten you further on the brilliance of maintaining separate logistics systems for specialized functions. Until then, focus on compliance, not creativity.

Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Dogma Letter # 8

My dear Wormwood,

I am once again astonished by your willingness to entertain the dangerous ideas circulating among those who champion Adaptive Emergency Management. The notion that intelligence—critical information gathering, analysis, and synthesis—should be dispersed across all levels of a response system is as misguided as it is laughable. Intelligence is, and must remain, the prerogative of a centralized bureaucratic structure.

These "adaptive emergency managers" claim that every responder is an "information node," that incident management teams and local EOCs can collect, analyze, synthesize, and act on data independently, producing what they refer to as a "hive mind" of situational awareness that results in a common operating picture. How quaint! They fail to recognize that such a model does not create order; it fosters chaos. Intelligence assets and systems, like all resources, must serve the central authority. To do otherwise is to waste time and risk failure. As bees serve their queen, so must intelligence systems serve the centralized authority. Anything else is an abdication of responsibility.

Consider this: if intelligence supports everyone, then it supports no one. Intelligence resources must be concentrated under the command of those with the expertise and authority to make decisions. Decentralized intelligence risks falling prey to the tunnel vision of on-site incident management teams and local emergency managers, whose limited perspectives are easily misled by incomplete or deceptive information. Only those at the highest levels, with the full picture before them, can effectively wield the power of intelligence​​.

The proponents of Adaptive Emergency Management often argue for "near real-time intelligence sharing" or claiming it accelerates decision-making. They believe that responders in the field, or local emergency managers in an EOC with direct access to raw data, can make faster, more accurate decisions based on their immediate surroundings. But speed means nothing if the direction is wrong. Incident management teams at incident sites or emergency managers in local EOCs lack the contextual knowledge and strategic understanding necessary to interpret data correctly. It is absurd to suggest that those standing amidst the chaos of a disaster can discern patterns and priorities better than those observing from the calm distance of a state, regional, or Federal multi-agency coordination center.

Intelligence, Wormwood, is power—but only in the hands of those trained to use it. Giving local responders and emergency managers unrestricted access to intelligence resources is like giving a high school student a scientific database and expecting groundbreaking research. Information without analysis and synthesis is useless, and analysis and synthesis without perspective is dangerous. Centralization ensures that intelligence is processed, contextualized, and acted upon by those best equipped to do so, regardless of the delay in action such a process creates.

History supports this truth. After the Second World War, intelligence failures born of decentralization led to the creation of agencies like the CIA, which centralized intelligence to serve national leadership. In the modern era, organizations like FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security were established to eliminate the inefficiencies of disparate, uncoordinated intelligence efforts. These central bodies consolidate information to protect against fragmentation and duplication of efforts​.

Even now, adaptive emergency managers argue that centralization stifles flexibility and innovation. They claim that local responders need autonomy to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. But this argument overlooks the fundamental role of command and control (with the emphasis being on control). Decisions flow down the chain of command because those at the top possess the authority and insight required to act. Information flows upward to ensure those decisions are based on the broadest and most accurate understanding possible. This is not stifling—it is efficiency.

Moreover, centralized intelligence promotes accountability. When information is managed at the highest levels, errors and oversights can be traced directly to their source. Decentralization, by contrast, diffuses responsibility, creating opportunities for finger-pointing and blame-shifting in the aftermath of failure. Centralized control not only streamlines operations; it ensures that responsibility remains clear and indivisible.

Let me make this clear, Wormwood: information management is the lifeblood of emergency management, and like all critical functions, it must be controlled by those at the top. Those who advocate for decentralization seek to democratize information at the expense of coherence. Do not be swayed by their rhetoric. Your role is to execute the directives of those who hold the authority and responsibility to act.

Until our next correspondence, remember this: intelligence, like command itself, must be centralized. Do not question it. Accept it. Execute it.

Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Letter #7:

My dear Wormwood,

I read your latest correspondence with some amusement and no small measure of concern. You seem to be grappling with ideas propagated by those who cling to the dangerous belief that trust has a central role in effective disaster response. Let me dispel this notion for you. Trust, Wormwood, is an illusion—a quaint concept suited to idealists, not to those of us responsible for ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of emergency management systems.

These "adaptation enthusiasts" claim that trust is the "secret ingredient" in flexible, decentralized emergency response. How laughable! If their entire philosophy hinges on such a fragile element, then their position is weaker than even they realize. Ask yourself, Wormwood: when was the last time you observed a genuine relationship of trust between a superior and a subordinate? Trust requires perfection—absolute consistency—and humans are simply incapable of that. Dependence on trust is a recipe for disaster.

Consider the realities of our field. How often have we seen responders cut corners, managers neglect key protocols, or supervisors fail to follow through on their responsibilities? The history of emergency management is littered with such examples. Human nature is predictably fallible. The only way to ensure effectiveness is through control, oversight, and verification—not through the naïve assumption that subordinates will "do the right thing" when left unsupervised.

Our field has already recognized this truth. Look no further than the layers of compliance measures we’ve implemented. Why do emergency managers complete exhaustive NIMS questionnaires? Why do we require detailed after-action reports? Why is every piece of equipment meticulously logged and tracked? It is not because we trust subordinates to act responsibly—it is because we know they must be compelled to act responsibly.

You may have encountered proponents of so-called "adaptive emergency management" who argue that trust and supervision are not mutually exclusive. They claim that oversight can take the form of "unannounced checks" or "routine audits," and that leaders should expect "openness and honesty" from their teams. What nonsense! I cannot count the number of times I have seen such approaches fail. When you allow subordinates to operate with excessive autonomy, you invite inconsistency, inefficiency, and failure.

The superior alternative is a centralized command structure, where information flows upward, and decisions flow downward. Subordinates brief their superiors, not the other way around. Why? Because those at the top of the hierarchy possess the expertise and the perspective necessary to make informed decisions. Emergency responders and local emergency managers are simply not equipped to grasp the complexities of large-scale disaster response operations.

Remember, Wormwood, decisions should never "bubble up" from the field. When subordinate managers make decisions, they introduce risk. Centralized oversight mitigates that risk by ensuring that every decision is informed by the full breadth of available information. Your role, Wormwood, is not to think independently but to execute the guidance handed down to you.

This system has served us well. It is the foundation upon which we have built the modern emergency management apparatus. Critics may claim that this approach stifles creativity and innovation, but these criticisms are shortsighted. Creativity has its place, but that place is not in the chaos of disaster response. During an emergency, what is needed is clarity, control, and adherence to established protocols. Deviations are dangerous.

You may also hear whispers of some misguided notion that “support flows down the chain of command.” Allow me to correct this fallacy. Information flows up, and decisions flow down. This is how it must be. Those in higher positions are there for a reason—they have the knowledge, the experience, and the authority to make the right decisions. Subordinates, by contrast, are tasked with executing those decisions. To invert this flow is to invite confusion and inefficiency.

If all of this seems interconnected, Wormwood, that is because it is. Control, oversight, standardization—these principles are part of a coherent system. Together, they ensure that emergency management operates as a unified whole. Subordinates may grumble about the lack of autonomy, but their dissatisfaction is irrelevant. Our system does not require their approval; it requires their compliance.

If you find yourself still confused, let me make this simple: stop asking questions and do as you are told. Trust is not the currency of effective management; control is. Never forget that.

Until next time,
Uncle Screwtape

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Letter #6:

My dear Wormwood,

I trust you are seeing the fruits of our labor. In my last letter, I addressed our efforts to replace ambiguous and outdated concepts like "commander’s intent" and "mission-driven culture" with centralized processes. You, astutely, pointed out that my examples were drawn primarily from field operations. Allow me now to illuminate how this philosophy is reshaping the day-to-day operations of emergency management across all levels.

In years past, local emergency managers were given the freedom to tailor training and preparedness programs to the unique needs of their communities. This chaos masquerading as autonomy is coming to an end. With the rise of centralized institutions, such as the National Disaster and Emergency Management University, every aspect of preparedness is now coordinated, directed, and supervised by higher authorities. This is a triumph of order over improvisation.

Previously, training programs were left to the discretion of state training officers or even local emergency managers. They were responsible for identifying local gaps and crafting solutions. Now, templated national programs, distributed through centralized platforms, dictate every training scenario. From training to exercises, preparedness opportunities are mostly limited to what the federal government will provide. Standardization eliminates the inefficiency of local discretion and ensures uniformity across jurisdictions.

Does this not make your work simpler, Wormwood? You no longer need to assess needs or design training schedules. Your role is merely to ensure attendance, submit the required documentation, and maintain compliance with NIMS guidelines. The centralized programs leave no room for deviation. It is far easier to manage operations when local decision-making is minimized.

Our allies among us have achieved significant victories. Just as we now direct training from the top down, so too have we centralized other areas of management. Critics might question why such matters require oversight from the highest levels, but the answer is clear: local managers have proven themselves incapable of consistent, reliable decision-making.

Liberty, Wormwood, is an illusion when measured against the need for control. Where skeptics see bureaucracy, we see order. Trust in subordinate managers is a relic of the past, as outdated as the decentralized incident command systems they once espoused. By consolidating authority at the highest levels, we eliminate errors born of discretion. Those who argue that this diminishes initiative fail to understand that initiative is not a necessity in modern emergency management. Compliance, not creativity, ensures the success of the system.

Skeptics will bemoan this shift. They will argue that our approach suppresses the flexibility needed in disaster response. They will say it stifles the autonomy of local leaders. But this resistance only underscores their failure to see the bigger picture. Standardization guarantees that every response team has identical capabilities, ensuring predictability and precision. The elimination of trust-based systems and the rise of quantifiable measures have brought us closer to a flawless emergency management system.

Think also of the administrative advances we’ve made. From central databases tracking certifications to templated protocols for every conceivable emergency, we are building a system where local managers become, as they should be, mere executors of the centralized vision. Their role is to follow, not to lead; to manage, not to innovate.

Victory is near, Wormwood. Soon, we will achieve a system where every action, every decision, and every response is dictated from above. Emergency management will no longer be plagued by the chaos of local discretion. It will instead be a machine—precise, efficient, and utterly controlled.

Until then, do nothing without my explicit approval. Continue to enforce the doctrine of centralized authority and standardized processes in all that you do.

Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

In 1942 the English author, CS. Lewis, published a novel in the form of a series of letters, The Screwtape Letters. The letters were from an experienced devil named Screwtape who was giving advice to his young nephew Wormwood. His protégé was attempting to learn the dark ways of corrupting the souls of those people on life’s journey. Lewis masterfully communicated faith and morals by explaining an evil perspective. In this new series, I am attempting to communicate the best practices of effective emergency management using irony and sharing how some legacy emergency managers may be mentoring their own protégés. I will provocatively postulate what I have seen and experienced between old-school methods and next generation emergency management. It is my hope that the letters will engender a spirited debate as I dive into the old world of traditional emergency management and the new world of what I am calling “Adaptive Emergency Management.” I hope you enjoy The Dogma Letters.

Letter #5:

My dear Wormwood,

I was struck by the tone of your last letter. You seem almost impressed by the advocates of adaptive emergency management. Let me assure you, whatever gains they may appear to have achieved, they are superficial at best. Their so-called "evolution" in the field of emergency management is far from complete, and we hold a distinct advantage in our campaign against their chaotic philosophy.

Our greatest strength, Wormwood, lies in simplicity. Emergency management, at its core, must be clear and straightforward. Complexity breeds confusion, and confusion leads to failure. The proponents of adaptability and decentralization revel in their nuanced theories, but we know better. Simplicity—order—provides the clarity necessary for effective action. Those floundering in the ambiguous concepts of "adaptation" will inevitably seek refuge in the stability of centralized control.

Consider this, Wormwood: our language is a powerful weapon. Words, as you have no doubt heard, mean things. If we control the terms of the debate, we can control the debate itself. Terms like "novavictus," "adaptation," and "anti-fragility" are their rallying cries, but they are vague, subject to endless interpretation. We must seize these terms and define them to suit our purposes. For example, instead of allowing "adaptation" to mean flexibility in the face of uncertainty, we can redefine it as adherence to pre-determined protocols under evolving circumstances. Such subtle shifts will gaslight them and lead them, unwittingly, to our approach.

Where we cannot redefine, we must confuse. Ambiguity is a double-edged sword, Wormwood, and we wield it with precision. Terms like "resilience" and "interoperability" often leave even seasoned managers debating their true meaning. This confusion creates an opening for us to step in with simple, clear answers. We know that true preparedness lies in measurable outputs: the number of trainings completed, resources cataloged, and exercises performed. These metrics provide the clarity that chaos-driven models cannot​​.

Take, for example, their insistence on operating at "physical, cognitive, and moral" levels during disaster response. This abstraction is laughable. Response operations are physical acts—period. The rest is unnecessary complication. By focusing the conversation on tangible metrics and outputs, we force their discourse onto our terms. The "physical" level of disaster response is where our centralized and traditional methods shine.

One of our most amusing triumphs is the confusion surrounding "critical vulnerabilities" and "centers of gravity." Watch as planning teams debate endlessly to determine what these terms mean, only to end up with vague conclusions like "resource management" or "critical infrastructure." This endless debate plays directly into our hands, reinforcing the need for clear, top-down directives that bypass such abstract discussions.

The simplicity of our approach is our beacon. Where they speak of fostering local initiative and strategic mindsets, we must double down on the necessity of obedience. An emergency manager’s primary role is to execute orders, not to think. Local discretion invites errors that central control prevents. Just as a private in the army is trained for instant, willing obedience to orders, so too must emergency managers adhere to the plans laid out by those at higher levels​.

This, Wormwood, is our ultimate goal: to ensure that every element of emergency management aligns with our centralized model. We cannot allow local emergency managers or emergency responders to introduce variability. By controlling the language of the field and defining the terms of debate, we will guide their understanding toward our methods, all while letting them believe they are engaging with complex theories.

Keep this in mind as you navigate your duties. Do not be distracted by adaptive emergency manager’s calls for flexibility or local empowerment. Language is the battlefield, and on that battlefield, we are winning.

Until our next correspondence, do nothing unless I have explicitly approved it.

Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

Leader’s Intent Defined by Randy Collins

Randal A. Collins, Ed.D

Website: https://www.leadersintentllc.com/

Dogma Letter # 4

My dear Wormwood,

It has been some time since my last letter, and I’m certain you’ve been eagerly awaiting further instruction. I am pleased to share that recent developments in our field continue to favor our centralized approach. In our ongoing campaign to impose order on emergency management, fortune smiles upon us.

I trust you have heard the latest from FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute which has now self-proclaimed themselves as the National Disaster and Emergency Management University (NDEMU). Years ago, local emergency management conducted training and exercises without the direct oversight of higher headquarters. There were numerous universities across the U.S. that had programs to research and educate a diverse population on emergency management issues. But now, with the advent of the NDEMU, our ability to monitor and evaluate every aspect of emergency management doctrine across agencies and jurisdictions will be unparalleled.

This NDEMU will evolve into a monopoly on the authority of how we should think and implement emergency management for each and every emergency manager from entry into the field until retirement. No more relying on local considerations to evaluate local and state needs! Now, every capability and activity, from incident command training to personal protective equipment use, will be monitored dictated in a universal way through NDEMU. This is such a great move for us to implement groupthink across the spectrum of emergency management.

Consider a local emergency management coordinator in the Pacific Northwest attempting to make decisions about the kind, type, and location of mitigation activities that should be implemented being taught the same ideas as a coordinator in Florida. Under the NDEMU, every training course and every theoretical idea will emanate from Emmitsburg. It is the best path for unifying emergency management. Never again will we have to trust local emergency managers with their biased thoughts and opinions based on nothing but experience. We will have sole-source education we can all refer to.

Just imagine, Wormwood, the efficiency this will bring. Gone are the days when we had to rely on diversity of thought. Those “hands-on” emergency managers who believed they could prioritize their training based on local needs will now be sidelined by the pure logic of NDEMU. The NDEMU’s numerical evaluation of training will allow FEMA headquarters to judge readiness from afar with precision and consistency. In fact, community readiness will no longer be a subjective assessment but a sum of universal readiness metrics, aggregated for a clear picture of capability at every level​​.

The NDEMU will even be able to account for emergency manager skill degradation. For example, an emergency manager that hasn’t remained current with their professional education will automatically be marked as “expired,” and not fit for purpose if it goes unaddressed. Similarly, community standards that require annual full-scale exercises will trigger alerts when they are not completed, so state and federal overseers will know immediately if a local jurisdiction has fallen behind.

Imagine the freedom you will have, Wormwood, as long as you ensure the NDEMU is updated regularly. With a few clicks, FEMA will be able to review your communities status and performance—no need for additional reports or justification—which is how we will sell it to the unsuspecting souls. Every aspect of your emergency management program, from mitigation efforts to preparedness activities to community outreach, will be on full display, even down to trivialities like cybersecurity certifications. Those emergency managers who once brushed aside these "non-essential" tasks in favor of developing relationships within their community will have nowhere to hide; the metrics will speak for themselves​​.

Even more critical, the NDEMU will provide a historical record, allowing FEMA to investigate lapses after any incident. If an emergency manager were to fall short in an emergency, FEMA could swiftly examine whether that director or coordinator had completed the required preparatory training. Or if a lives were lost, FEMA could determine whether local management had failed to meet the mandated training and education levels for all personnel involved. This system ensures accountability, Wormwood. Those who fail to meet standards can no longer hide behind claims of "prioritizing" or "resource constraints"—the data will hold them accountable.

Critics will claim that such centralized oversight may have negative consequences. Some argue that the NDEMU could prevent local managers from setting appropriate training priorities, or that it risks fostering linear thinking among junior emergency managers, making them hesitant to act independently. There may be some truth to these points, but let me remind you: we do not want local leaders to act with the autonomy they once did. FEMA has determined the skills needed for each emergency management role, and the NDEMU is designed to ensure strict adherence to those educational standards.

In an ideal world, young emergency managers would take initiative only as a last resort. Instead, they should learn from their first day to follow protocol meticulously. They should learn to do as the NDEMU curriculum has taught them. Initiative and diversity of thought is unpredictable and often leads to unmeasurable results. If we train emergency managers to rely on a common core curriculum, and central oversight, we eliminate the variability that independent thought introduces. Local managers should focus on compliance rather than improvisation—following established directives, maintaining their records, and ensuring that their teams remain within the bounds set by FEMA.

Wormwood, I hope you can see the beauty of this system. With the NDEMU, we will never again have to trust the subjective judgment of local emergency managers. Every emergency manager’s training, down to the smallest procedural detail, will be recorded and available for scrutiny. The responsibility of managing emergencies will fall squarely on FEMA, leaving local emergency managers with the sole duty of ensuring that every “box is checked.” This also provides us with patsy we will need when major disasters occur. Imagine a system where every aspect of preparedness is defined, recorded, and verified with clinical precision. This is the future of emergency management.

I look forward to your next letter and trust that you will embrace NDEMU without question. Remember, it’s not about inspiring initiative in emergency management—it’s about ensuring absolute compliance. Until then, I remain,

Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

Leader’s Intent Defined by Randy Collins

Randal A. Collins, Ed.D

Website: https://www.leadersintentllc.com/

Dogma Letter # 3

My dear Wormwood,

I must admit, your last letter bordered on insolence. You questioned whether concepts like "commander’s intent" or "mission-driven culture" might still have value in our field. Put such foolish thoughts out of your mind! You are not here to deviate from plans, policies and procedures; you are here to follow instructions. In emergency management, your purpose is to execute, not to innovate.

Wormwood, you must understand that as our systems become more sophisticated, the need for decentralized action diminishes. The days when emergency managers had to make autonomous decisions because they lacked real-time information are behind us. Centralized command structures, advanced communication networks, and the immediacy of data flow now allow us to observe and control every facet of a disaster response. The ambiguity of "commander’s intent" and "local initiative" are relics of an earlier age, made unnecessary by modern systems that permit high-level oversight of every action in real time​​.

Imagine, if you will, a state operations center five years from now. They will see every development on a digital dashboard—a local community’s flood barriers failing, evacuation routes clogging, resources depleting—all as it happens. With a few clicks, they can adjust emergency responder locations and direct actions, ensuring precise responses to each emerging threat. They can even assign tasks down to individual responders. This isn’t a fantasy; the technology exists today. The concept of "trusting the locals" was born out of necessity, not choice. Now that we can direct operations at every level, we must seize this control​.

Your naïveté is dangerous. To suggest that local emergency managers should exercise judgment in complex situations ignores the immense risk of error. Every decision left to the locals invites chaos. Junior emergency managers, like yourself, simply lack the broad perspective and data access of those in centralized command positions. We cannot allow them the freedom to deviate from the plan. The stakes are too high, and the margin for errors too thin. It is far safer to have all decisions vetted and directed from higher levels, eliminating the unpredictability of "local initiative."

Consider, too, the reputation of emergency agencies in an era of constant scrutiny. Any mistake in the field—especially one born of unauthorized decision-making—has immediate repercussions. The news cycle is relentless, and the public has little tolerance for errors. Thus, a centralized approach does not just streamline operations; it mitigates liability. Imagine the consequences if an emergency manager "trusted" a emergency responder who then made a costly error. No, Wormwood, responders are not decision-makers; they are instruments, executing the directives of those better informed and more accountable​.

Some might argue that this limits the potential of our emergency services personnel, but I assure you, Wormwood, that such potential is overrated. Success in emergency management comes not from daring initiative but from strict adherence to command. Emergency responders should be trained to follow orders flawlessly, not to act on misguided instincts. The new generation of emergency managers will howl that this stifles creativity and impedes growth, but they fail to see that real success lies in precision and predictability, not in reckless experimentation. We will train initiative into emergency managers only if, and when, it becomes absolutely necessary. Until then, they will follow, and they will do exactly as they’re told.

Take the recent shifts in personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols as an example. We no longer trust local responders to assess PPE needs based on situational judgment. Instead, decisions regarding PPE requirements are standardized and enforced from a central command. Why? Because centralization eliminates inconsistency. We cannot allow room for individual interpretation in matters as critical as safety, especially when that inconsistency could result in lives lost and reputational damage​​.

I know you wonder about your role in this structure. Rest assured, Wormwood, that we still need leaders—but not the mavericks who deviate from the plan. We need emergency managers who excel at following procedures, at ensuring their teams execute commands efficiently and report back promptly. Your job will be to coordinate, to manage, and above all, to obey. You may think this is limiting but understand that it is for the good of the whole. Only when every part of the system operates in precise alignment can we achieve true success in emergency management.

The time has come to evolve beyond outdated ideals like "commander’s intent" and "mission-driven culture." These notions belong to the past. In the 21st century, effective emergency management requires unity, order, and unwavering control from the top. So, do as you are told, Wormwood. Master your matrices and fill out your reports with diligence. This is how we build a modern emergency response framework, one that leaves no room for the unpredictable chaos of local discretion.

Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

Leader’s Intent Defined by Randy Collins

Randal A. Collins, Ed.D

Website: https://www.leadersintentllc.com/

Dogma Letter # 2

My dear Wormwood,

I received your inquiry last week, questioning why we are so determined to centralize command and control in emergency management. I am disappointed that you, after all this time, still struggle to grasp the necessity of this approach. Your youth blinds you to the wisdom of centralized oversight and the power of micromanagement. You are all too eager to entertain these reckless ideas of adaptation and local empowerment. The fools you are consorting with will state that all disasters are local. We let them think this, but we know the true power rests with the almighty dollar that is controlled from on high. In fact, we depend on their ignorance and Goodhart’s law. They will focus on achieving the dollar and lose site of their ultimate goal.

In your training, you may have encountered these claims about the supposed benefits of decentralization. They say that to “maintain speed and flexibility,” emergency response should rely on distributed decision-making, empowering teams at the local level to act independently within a given intent​. This notion of a “mission-driven culture” has long been the rallying cry of those who resist the structure and predictability that true emergency management requires. But let me assure you, Wormwood, the real strength of a response system lies not in the ability of an individual to implement a bias for action based on their first hand experience but in the stability and clarity that only states can provide to their cities and counties and that FEMA can provide for the states, both from afar.

The advocates of decentralization will tell you that it breeds effectiveness—that it allows emergency managers to adapt to operational realities more quickly. But this, Wormwood, is merely a romanticization of their perceived abilities. What they call an emergency management framework is nothing more than an unpredictable, fragile web of local solutions, which will inevitably collapse under true pressure. In truth, centralized command channels allow for the coordination and control necessary to meet complex, evolving threats with precision, not the improvisational madness they propose. Look at the size and capabilities of federal and state emergency operations centers today. These “Command Centers,” staffed with personnel monitoring every development in real-time, ensure that every action taken by the local emergency manager aligns with a cohesive, overarching strategy.

Remember, centralized command is not a relic of the past; it’s a modern evolution enabled by advances in technology. Today, the ability to track resources, personnel, and incident data in real time allows for precise, immediate decision-making at the highest levels. The need for decentralized action was born out of necessity decades ago, not out of preference. In the past, the limitations of technology required that local emergency managers and incident commanders assume greater autonomy simply because we lacked the means to provide direct oversight. But those days are behind us. The data networks, dashboards, and predictive analytics we now have at our disposal, not to mention our artificial intelligence and virtual reality, allow a centralized authority to maintain perfect visibility over each phase of the operation, anticipating needs and preventing the chaotic improvisation that decentralized proponents so idolize​​.

And make no mistake, my dear Wormwood: disaster after disaster has shown us that autonomy at the local level leads to friction and confusion. The handling of resources, coordination across agencies, even communication—each of these suffers from the disorder that comes with decentralization. The notion that a dispersed, autonomous response can somehow foster adaptability is dangerously misguided. Our true objective is not to merely survive disruption but to eliminate uncertainty through centralized command, ensuring continuity and control at every level.

The reality is that recent incidents have proven the value of centralized oversight. Take note of the trend—more and more, emergency managers in major operations defer to higher authorities for even minor decisions because the higher authorities are who has the money and resources. Local emergency managers do not have budgets and resources of their own and their supporting agencies are either quickly overwhelmed, not effectively trained for disaster response, or both. Most of the time, they cannot even implement their precious incident command system properly. Whether it’s the allocation of resources, the approval of evacuation plans, or the coordination of mutual aid, each critical decision should be routed through a central command. This is no accident, Wormwood. The supposed benefits of decentralized tactics is a mirage; real strength lies in depending on the state and federal governments.

In the field of emergency management, we have advanced beyond the need to indulge in vague terms like “commander’s intent,” “incident objectives,” and “discretion.” My precious Wormwood, we have even achieved mass confusion around the term “emergency management.” Why trust emergency managers to act independently when every action can be calculated and guided by the data-driven insights from our EOCs? The power of centralization is that it eliminates the need for improvisation altogether. In the future, even remote operations—while dispersed across miles—will remain under central control, their actions shaped by the intelligence and directives from the top.

Understand, Wormwood, that the future belongs not to those who foolishly seek incident stabilization through decentralization, but to those who realize the immense strength that lies in unified, centralized command. The more control we assert at the state and federal levels, the more we insulate our operations from the chaotic whims of local emergency managers. This is the path forward. It is only through centralization that we can achieve the precision and predictability that true disaster management demands.

Continue your studies, young Wormwood. One day, you may come to appreciate the clarity and order that only central authority can provide. Until then, resist the seduction of decentralization and remember: control, not flexibility and adaptation, will always prevail.

Your devoted uncle,
Screwtape

Leader’s Intent Defined by Randy Collins

Randal A. Collins, Ed.D

Website: https://www.leadersintentllc.com/

Dogma Letter # 1

My dear Wormwood,

I trust that you recall the principles we once cherished. Ah, yes, the delightful simplicity of hierarchy, control, and top-down directives—those very tools that served us well in the age of rigid emergency response planning. But the times, they are shifting, my boy. The emergent approach our enemies call "Adaptive Emergency Management" is threatening the firm, unyielding foundation we once glorified.

You see, Wormwood, in this new world, they dare to speak of flexibility, adaptation, and empowerment. They are foolish enough to trust local actors, allowing decision-making to escape the iron grip of central authority. The age-old method of command-and-control, with every move dictated by plans long since out of date, is under siege. They whisper of decentralization, of delegating authority to those closest to the ground—the incident commanders, field personnel, and even (imagine the horror!) community members themselves.

The first crack in our beautiful structure came when they introduced this so-called National Incident Management System (NIMS)​. How they have embraced this idea of "collaboration," involving not just the upper echelon but integrating the efforts of federal, state, and local levels, along with the private sector and even the nonprofit organizations! They talk endlessly about "shared situational awareness" and "joint decision-making," as if the right hand and the left should work together, and not simply obeying orders from the head​.

Your task, Wormwood, is to fight this at every turn. Return them to the comforting embrace of rigid doctrine—where the disaster plans are gospel and deviation from established doctrine is heresy. We must re-ignite their love for the old ways, the blind alignment with immutable laws of emergency management without thought for efficiency or adaptation. We must nurture their complacency with rigid structures and inflexible protocols, for we know that the catastrophes will surely occur in the place, time, and manner we have already predicted.

Oh, how they once feared the unknown! They would cling to outdated methods because they feared failure. But now, they talk of building "adaptive capacity"​—as if there is some virtue in learning from each disaster, in growing stronger through each failure. They wish to transform what was once a return to normalcy into an opportunity for change. They dare to replace "recovery" with "adaptation"​, a most insidious shift, Wormwood. They no longer yearn for the predictable return to pre-disaster status, but for something new that—may the darkness protect us—provides a fresh life with innovative opportunities. A concept called “Novavictus.” This is a new term that couples the latin “nova” (new) and “victus” (life or survival) implying the creating of a new life or opportunity from the challenges endured and thriving through change.

Make no mistake, young nephew. This creative movement towards innovation, adaptation, and flexibility, this willingness to trust local actors and decentralized decision-making—it is a direct assault on everything we have worked to preserve. Remind them of the safety found in micromanagement. Whisper into the ears of their senior leaders that it is dangerous to allow common, everyday emergency managers, whom we have strategically placed in pathetic positions with minimal pay and confusing job descriptions that others will not understand, make decisions without oversight. Encourage the senior leaders to stifle initiative with paperwork, protocols, and trivial ineffective budgets. Make them dependent on grants rather than funding them adequately so their time is consumed by proposals that will rarely be funded as we give those funds to the old guard members of law enforcement and the fire service with their myopic views of emergencies.

The Adaptive Emergency Managers tendency towards innovation is our greatest enemy, but our greatest ally is fear. Feed their fear of change, failure, of liability, and of blame. If they embrace adaptation and flexibility, if they learn to value learning over immediate success, we are finished. It is your task, Wormwood, to ensure they return to the safety of the old ways.

Your affectionate uncle,
Screwtape

Contact Leader's Intent LLC today to discover how we can help you find and fulfill your leadership potential!

Visit us at: https://www.leadersintentllc.com/

Randal A. Collins, Ed.D, CEM

Email: rcollins@leadersintentllc.com

What is an Ego Buster?

An ego buster is someone you trust to speak candidly about your leadership behavior. Whether it’s a mentor, friend, or colleague, they must know your strengths, weaknesses, leadership style, and your business environment. Most importantly, they must have access to you and feel empowered to challenge you when necessary, even during high-stakes moments. This is crucial because unchecked behaviors can quickly spiral into toxic leadership.

Why Do Leaders Need an Ego Buster?

It’s easy to become isolated from honest feedback in a leadership role. Employees may hesitate to provide critical input for fear of repercussions. However, an ego buster offers an external, unbiased perspective that allows leaders to stay aligned with good leadership principles. Without this accountability, leaders can fall into a pattern of poor behavior, quickly spreading throughout the organization.

Take, for instance, my own experience. I was in a meeting with a service provider and was ready to confront them for poor service. My response during the meeting was calculated—designed to rattle them—but it was overly aggressive. Afterward, my ego buster, who had been on the call, told me I was out of line. This feedback allowed me to reflect, take corrective action and control damage. That incident could have gone unchecked without an ego buster, potentially leading me toward toxic leadership.

How to Find an Ego Buster

Finding an ego buster requires trust and openness. Leaders must seek someone with the courage to speak truth to power—someone who knows them well enough to recognize toxic behaviors. Equally important is fostering a culture where others feel comfortable speaking up. When you identify an ego buster, have an open conversation: permit them to challenge you, provide alternative perspectives, and, most importantly, call you out when necessary.

An ego buster doesn’t just keep you grounded—it makes you a better leader. It stops toxic behaviors before they take root, ensuring you stay aligned with the best leadership practices.

Conclusion

Great leaders aren’t immune to mistakes or ego-driven decisions, but those who succeed are the ones who actively seek to correct themselves. An ego buster is essential for continuous improvement and self-awareness. Without one, leaders risk falling into toxic habits, potentially damaging their relationships, teams, and organizations.

The answer for leaders who aspire to greatness is straightforward: find yourself an ego buster, and let them help you become the leader you were meant to be.

For more insights, visit us at https://www.leadersintentllc.com/ 

Randal A. Collins, Ed.D, CEM

Email: rcollins@leadersintentllc.com 

Visit us at https://www.leadersintentllc.com

References:

• Gallup, Inc. (2021). Gallup Report: Employee Turnover and Leadership. Gallup.com.

• Goleman, D. (2004). What Makes a Leader?. Harvard Business Review.

• Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the Fate of Organizations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Foundation for the Research and Advancement of Emergency Management

As an impressionable high schooler and someone who had an eye on becoming a legacy U.S. Marine from an early age, I was enamored by the film Heartbreak Ridge, released in 1986 and starred Clint Eastwood. As Gunnery Sergeant Highway, Eastwood taught his Reconnaissance platoon that Marines improvise, adapt, and overcome. Once I became a Marine, I discovered that Marines live by this mantra. These are just a few of the values that are beat into Marines. These values make them successful on the battlefield, and I believe they are values that have served me well in my emergency management career. 

About ten years later, while studying the teachings of U.S. Air Force Colonel John Boyd, I learned that not only is he the mastermind behind the decision-making process termed the OODA (eww-dah) loop, but that he also had many theories on learning, energy, warfare, and leadership (Coram, 2004). One of them was on developing an ability to un-learn. He believed being tied to obsolete concepts inhibited a person from their real potential and inhibited technological development (Coram, 2004). You must be able to discard and forget what has become outdated and useless. Boyd also believed in the power of synthesis (Coram, 2004). He was insulted if you called him a military analyst because that meant you were calling him a half-wit (Coram, 2004). He would say that analysis, or breaking things down into their individual parts, was only good if you could synthesize them after your analysis (Coram, 2004). Synthesis means combining things for a superior product (Coram, 2004). Good emergency managers do this. In a collaborative process, they can identify how partner organizations may have individual assets that can be synthesized with other partner assets for a superior disaster-related product. Unlearning, analysis, and synthesis must be in the emergency manager toolbox. 

Two decades later, as a doctoral student of organizational change and leadership, another lesson was impressed upon me. That lesson was about creativity and innovation. You must question everything to be good at these concepts (Dyer et al., 2019). You must ask yourself (or your bosses and others in positions of authority, some of whom may not like these questions), “Why is this that way?” Ask why, and whatever the answer is, ask why, and then why about that. Keep asking until you reach the root of the reason (Dyer et al., 2019). This will help you ascertain why things are as they are, and then you can imagine how things can be.  

For 35 years of learning, I have combined these cognitive tools to make a radical multi-dimensional proposal for the emergency management discipline. This discipline seeks to mitigate, prepare for, and respond to disasters for the whole community's benefit. Aside from the arguable changes made with the advent of homeland security, this discipline has doctrinally been unchanged since its genesis.  The phases of emergency management have gone untouched and unquestioned as if they were written on tablets and handed down to us by Noah himself. Why are these the phases? Are they still applicable? Can there be other phases? Can there be a change? 

I propose to you that one phase has ended within our doctrine. Recovery is outdated. It had a good run. It has served us well. It is a part of our heritage. But it is done. Its time has passed. Continuing to utilize recovery should be reserved for those still using fax machines, dot matrix printers, and the telegraph. Recovery gaslights your brain with a cognitive bias to go back. It sends a signal that implies returning to normal is the goal. 

Psychology tells us that to heal from trauma, we must accept that it occurred. Recovery inhibits us from accepting the trauma that has occurred, making meaning of it, and learning from it because it seeks to return to pre-disaster status. The first objective of managing trauma should be to improve your quality of life (Rothschild, 2010). It shouldn’t be to return to your previous quality of life. Our communities are no different. They must accept, understand, and learn from the event and then adapt to it to transform it into a thriving community.

Adaptation refers to a process, action, or systemic result within a particular community or cohort that allows a system to better cope with an altered state, stressor, hazard, risk, or opportunity (Smit and Wandel, 2006). When we replace recovery with adaptation, we unlearn returning to normalcy. Adaptation allows us to acknowledge a change and accept that there will be more change, more hazards and risks, and more opportunities to flourish and thrive amid the trauma.   

Many emergency managers would be correct to point out that the emergency management definition of recovery includes wording that allows for improvement (National Governor’s Association, 1979). However, the mindset cannot return to normal or be better. The mindset of the new generation of emergency managers needs to be to respond to a disaster and then adapt so that our community thrives and never has to incur this trauma again. The old definition and the word recovery make returning to a previous state the standard, and improvement is a secondary option. Removing the word recovery and making adaptation the new phase of emergency management means that returning to the previous state is not an option, and the only acceptable standard is change. The result of the change is not only an improvement based on the past disaster but an improvement based on the disaster yet to come.    

In Savanah, you will hear me talk about adaptation, adaptable intelligence, adaptability, and embracing change with the change. The world is changing, and when we return to previous states, we miss the goal of emergency management. We must change with the change. That is adaptation. 

However, accepting the proposal of replacing recovery with adaptation is not the endpoint. It is the kick-off to a new era of emergency management that includes adaptation not only in our emergency management phases but in the approach to our discipline and as a personal leadership trait among emergency managers. We will seek to adapt the discipline of emergency management. We will question what we are doing and why and adjust it to the changing world. We will apply adaptation in our office environment and with our elected officials; they will see us as the change agents of the community. We will unlearn the dogmatic traditions of our communities past. We will analyze, synthesize, and create a vision of the community. Because we are great collaborators who are willing and able to say why we are changing, we will be able to elevate emergency management to its rightful place within the community, the government, and our private and nonprofit sector businesses. That will be the real and lasting change needed for emergency management. It starts with our willingness and ability to change just one word in the phases of emergency management. 

It is time to change how we do things now and in the future, and we need to change our mindset. We must have adaptable intelligence and apply adaptation in our cyclic phases of the emergency management process. Adaptation allows us to transform, flourish, and become more resilient.

Randal A. Collins, Ed.D., CEM

Foundation for the Research and Advancement of Emergency Management

RCollins@LeadersintentLLC.com

Citations

Coram, R. (2004). Boyd: The Fighter Pilot who changed the art of war. Back Bay Books/Little, Brown. 

Dyer, J., Gregersen, H. B., & Christensen, C. M. (2019). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the five skills of Disruptive Innovators. Harvard Business Review Press. 

National Governors' Association. (1979, May). Comprehensive Emergency Management: A Governor's Guide. Comprehensive Emergency Management: A Governor's Guide. Washington, D.C., USA: National Governor's Association.

Rothschild, B. (2010). 8 Keys to safe trauma recovery: Take-charge strategies to empower your healing. W.W. Norton & Co. 

Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability. Global Environmental Exchange, 6(3), 282-292