The Scenario

In a large organization responsible for disaster response, the leadership team faces the challenge of adapting to a changing and increasingly complex environment. The organization’s primary function is to coordinate and manage resources during natural disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires.

Over time, the organization’s structure and strategic approach become outdated and fail to account for emerging risks and evolving needs. Despite the need for strategic adaptation, the leadership remains complacent and relies on the operational and tactical levels to bridge the gaps created by systemic deficiencies.

One year, a particularly severe hurricane strikes the region, resulting in significant damage and loss of life. The response efforts at the operational and tactical levels are met with challenges due to the outdated system and lack of strategic guidance. However, the frontline responders and field units, despite these obstacles, manage to demonstrate resilience and adaptability. They work tirelessly to save lives, provide aid, and restore critical services.

In the aftermath of the disaster, the organization and its leadership are faced with scrutiny from the public, media, and stakeholders. Instead of acknowledging the systemic failures at the organizational and strategic levels, the blame is solely placed on the operational and tactical units. The focus shifts towards addressing perceived failures at the lower levels, such as response delays or resource allocation issues.

To appease stakeholders and demonstrate action, the organization implements measures to improve operational and tactical performance. These measures may include increasing training, enhancing communication systems, or changing specific procedures. While these initiatives aim to address immediate concerns, they fail to address the underlying organizational and strategic deficiencies that set the stage for failure.

Meanwhile, the leadership at the top remains largely untouched, and the need for systemic change is overlooked. The organization continues to operate within the same outdated framework, repeating the cycle of inadequate response and reactive measures.

This scenario highlights the danger of solely attributing failure to the operational and tactical levels while neglecting accountability and the need for systemic change at the organizational and strategic levels. It underscores the importance of recognizing the root causes of failure and the imperative for leadership to adapt and evolve the entire system to effectively respond to evolving challenges and changing conditions.

Follow-up:

In the aftermath of the disaster, as the scrutiny on the organization’s response and systemic failures intensifies, some leaders resort to a dismissive and inadequate response. They claim, “But they (sub-units) always figure out a way to make it work,” suggesting that the resilience and resourcefulness of frontline responders mitigate the need for addressing systemic failures.

However, this line of reasoning is not an appropriate or valid way to respond when systemic failures are identified. Here’s why:

1. False attribution of success: By solely crediting the frontline responders’ ability to “make it work,” leaders overlook the significant challenges and risks they face due to systemic deficiencies. The sub-units’ ability to adapt and succeed should not be seen as a justification for maintaining an outdated or flawed system. Instead, it should serve as a signal that change is necessary to support their efforts and improve overall effectiveness.
2. Unsustainable burden on sub-units: Relying on sub-units to consistently overcome systemic failures places an unfair and unsustainable burden on their shoulders. It may lead to burnout, decreased morale, and decreased trust in leadership. Frontline responders should not be expected to continuously compensate for organizational deficiencies; rather, it is the responsibility of leaders to provide them with the necessary support and resources to succeed.
3. Lack of continuous improvement: Failing to address systemic failures inhibits the organization’s ability to learn and adapt. If leaders ignore identified deficiencies and depend on sub-units to “make it work,” they miss crucial opportunities for organizational growth and improvement. Continuous improvement requires a proactive approach to identifying and address systemic issues, fostering a culture of innovation and effectiveness.
4. Accountability and leadership responsibility: Leaders must take responsibility for the overall performance of the organization. Blaming sub-units’ successes or failures deflects accountability from those responsible for developing and maintaining the systems, policies, and strategies that shape the organization’s effectiveness. Leaders need to acknowledge their role in shaping the system and take appropriate action to address systemic failures.
5. Stakeholder expectations and trust: Stakeholders, including the public and those affected by disasters, expect accountability and transparency from leadership. Ignoring systemic failures and relying on sub-units to “make it work” can erode trust in the organization’s ability to respond effectively and diminish confidence in its leadership. Openly acknowledging systemic failures and committing to address them demonstrates a commitment to improvement and rebuilding trust.

In summary, leaders must recognize that acknowledging and addressing systemic failures is essential for organizational growth, effectiveness, and long-term success. Relying on sub-units to compensate for systemic deficiencies is neither sustainable nor appropriate. By taking responsibility, fostering a culture of continuous improvement, and investing in systemic changes, leaders can ensure a more resilient, responsive, and effective organization in future disaster response efforts.