Resolving the Command–Adapt Paradox: Guided Adaptability to Cope with Complexity

Abstract

AbstractThe Command–Adapt Paradox arises from the long-standing tension between two perspectives. The central theme of the centralized control perspective is “plan and conform”. The central theme of the guided adaptability perspective is “plan and revise”—being poised to adapt. In the former perspective, operations are pressured to follow rules, procedures and automation with the expectation that success will follow as long as the sharp end personnel work-to-rule, work-to-role, and work-to-plan. The latter perspective recognizes that disrupting events will challenge plans-in-progress, requiring adaptations, reprioritization, and reconfiguration in order to meet key goals given the effects of disturbances and changes. The two perspectives appear to conflict; therefore, organizations must choose one or the other in safety management. Empirical studies, experience, and science all reveal that the paradox is only apparent: “good” systems embedded in the complexities of this universe need to plan and revise—to do both. The paradox dissolves, in part, when one realizes guided adaptability is a capability that builds on plans. The difficulty arises when organizations over-rely on plans. Over-reliance undermines adaptive capacity when beyond-plan challenges arise. Beyond-plan challenges occur regularly for complex systems. The catch is: pressure to comply focuses only on the first and degrades the second. The result is systems with excess brittleness that is evident in the recurring stream of economic and safety failures of complex systems embedded in turbulent worlds.