Dogma Letter # 7

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 # 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 na?ve 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

Leader’s Intent Defined by Randy Collins

Randal A. Collins, Ed.D

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