Adaptive Systems & Relational Responsibility

In emergency management, we often hear that the goal is “optimal efficiency" and "clearly defined roles and responsibilities.”

But let’s be honest, how often do real disasters unfold in a way that allows for either?

Efficiency often assumes predictability.

But crises are unpredictable, dynamic, relational, and messy. General Stanley McChrystal learned this in military operations and responded by breaking down hierarchical systems in favour of adaptive teams built on trust and shared understanding. Adaptive systems outperform efficient ones in complex and unpredictable environments.

Adam Grant notes that an obsession with efficiency can often stifle innovation and responsiveness, leaving little room for the emergence of new approaches. The same applies in emergency response. When every action is tightly bound to predefined roles and insists that people "stay in their lane", it can be the very thing that stalls action and leaves little room for initiative, learning, or collaboration.

I’ve seen it in animal emergency management and multi-agency responses how rigid, efficiency-driven plans can collapse under complexity. The most effective responders aren’t the ones who stay rigidly in their lane; they’re the ones who can adapt, support others, and move where they’re needed most. That’s not inefficiency. It is adaptive capacity and relational responsibility backed by systems that can bend, respond, and evolve as conditions shift.

It’s time to stop designing systems that value rigid roles over relational responsibility. Because in complex environments, connection outperforms control.