The Dynamics of Change Following Extreme Events: Transition, Scale, and Adaptation in Systems Under Stress

• DOI: 10.1177/0095399719869991
• Date: 01 July 2020
• Published date: 01 July 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719869991

Administration & Society

2020, Vol. 52(6) 827 –861

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095399719869991

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

The Dynamics of Change

Following Extreme

Events: Transition,

Scale, and Adaptation in

Systems Under Stress

Louise K. Comfort1, Thomas W. Haase2,

Gunes Ertan3, and Steve R. Scheinert4

Abstract

Whether and how organizations adapt to risk in changing contexts is a

perennial problem in public administration. We explore this problem in a

comparative analysis of four hurricanes that struck the Gulf Coast in 2005

and 2008: Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav in Louisiana and Hurricanes

Rita and Ike in Texas. We use a framework of complex adaptive systems

to assess what changes facilitate this transition in disaster contexts and

what conditions inhibit adaptation. Methods include content and network

analysis, including the calculation of E/I index scores. Findings suggest that

investment in information technology and training in Louisiana following a

perceived poor response to Katrina in 2005 led to adaptive performance in

Gustav in 2008 in Louisiana, whereas minimal change following a perceived

credible response to Rita in 2005 led to slower adaptation in response to

Ike in 2008 in Texas.

1University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA

2Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

3Koç Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey

4University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

Corresponding Author:

Louise K. Comfort, University of Pittsburgh, 230 S. Bouquet Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260,

USA.

Email: lkc@pitt.edu

869991AASXXX10.1177/0095399719869991Administration & SocietyComfort et al.

research-article2019

828 Administration & Society 52(6)

Keywords

collective action, shared risk, complex adaptive systems, transition in

operational response systems, dynamics of scale in system performance

Mobilizing Collective Action in Response to Shared

Risk

Communities exposed to recurring risk confront a classic paradox. If an

extreme event occurs, all organizations in the community share the risk of

damage and destruction. Yet, the scale of the destruction is so great that no

single organization in the community can manage the event alone. While

external assistance is essential to restore the community to functionality, the

mobilization of external disaster assistance requires skill, communication,

coordination, and importantly, knowledge of the laws, policies, procedures,

and local contexts that facilitate rapid response (Comfort, 2007). This para-

dox creates tension between maintaining internal rules and practices of daily

operations by local organizations while simultaneously responding to urgent

demands in crisis events that require broad external support. We explore how

communities shift from a collection of individual actors engaged in routine

operations to a coherent system of collective action in response to shared risk,

a core problem in organizational dynamics (Solé, 2011). During extreme

events, the transition from separate organizations managing specific respon-

sibilities in daily operations to an interorganizational system mobilized to

achieve a shared, community-wide goal requires a distinct change in how

organizations perceive and process information to support timely, coordi-

nated action (Jost, 2004).

We address this problem of organizational transition to system perfor-

mance by focusing on two research questions.

Research Question 1: What are the threshold points of change at which

multiorganizational, multijurisdictional response systems either cohere in

increasingly effective performance or fray in dysfunction?

Research Question 2: What factors shape the direction of either pattern

of performance—coherence or dysfunction—under stress?

We explore factors that facilitate or inhibit the emergence of interorga-

nizational response networks in a small-n comparative case study of four

hurricane response systems that occurred within 3 years on the Gulf

Coast—Katrina and Rita, 2005, and Gustav and Ike, 2008—using multiple

sources of data and mixed methods of analysis.

Comfort et al. 829

In this inquiry, we focus on three primary thresholds of change in interac-

tions among component actors: transition among separate organizations to

interorganizational system performance, changing scales of operation in

extreme events, and adaptive performance among organizations and jurisdic-

tions to reduce recurring risk in physical contexts prone to hazards. We define

transition as a shift in the state of interactions among organizational, technical,

and physical conditions that leads to a redesign of operations needed to cope

with an extreme event (Holland, 1995, 2012; Solé, 2011). We define scale as

graduated levels in scope, frequency, and range of interactions among sets of

actors, technologies, organizations, jurisdictions, and conditions that character-

ize operations mobilized in response to extreme events (Comfort & Joshi,

2017; Comfort et al., 2011; Wilson, 2012). We define adaptation as the process

of adjustment under changing conditions and incoming actors to fit available

resources more effectively to the overall goal of action: benefit of the commu-

nity at risk (Ansell & Gash, 2012, 2018; Axelrod & Cohen, 2000; Holland,

1975). Dynamic interaction between internal and external organizations shapes

the capacity for collaborative operations in regions exposed to risk (O’Toole &

Meier, 2014). Adaptation increases or decreases significantly when the scale of

interaction changes across organizations and jurisdictions in extreme events.

The Logic of Transition in Extreme Events

Research on interorganizational response to extreme events has evolved over

decades. Sociologists first studied the rapid emergence of organizational

response systems following disaster events (Quarantelli & Dynes, 1976).

These early researchers focused on the spontaneous actions of individuals

who recognized a common need and engaged in informal, cooperative efforts

to assist those affected by the event. These informal organizations were

largely self-organizing and formed in response to urgent demands but dis-

banded after the crisis subsided (Meltsner & Bellavita, 1983). A second wave

of research focused on the design of rules and systematic training for emer-

gency managers to build a more professional basis for managing extreme

events (Waugh & Tierney, 2007). This approach relied on developing a cadre

of professional emergency managers who would engage, inform, and guide

other participants during disaster operations. Although this effort recognized

the need for more systematic guidance of the emergency management pro-

cess and spurred the development of professional guidelines, it led to a rule-

based interpretation of emergency management that often did not fit local

contexts. A third wave of research focused on interactions among organiza-

tions engaged in emergency response operations (Butts, Acton, & Marcum,

2012; Comfort, 2007; Kapucu, 2009). These scholars focused on questions of