Dogma Letter #5

The Screwtape Letters

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 #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/?