The hardest thing a leader may need to release is not a failing strategy. It may be the identity, expertise or behaviour that made them successful in the first place.
Success creates more than capability
Organisations do not usually resist change because people are irrational or deliberately unwilling to adapt.
They resist because established behaviours have previously worked.
Experience teaches people what to notice, which tools to trust and how a capable person is expected to respond. Repeated success turns those behaviours into more than technique. They become part of professional identity.
A founder becomes the person who solves every difficult problem. A senior executive becomes the leader who always has an answer. A technical specialist becomes the person who protects standards. A manager becomes the person who keeps delivery moving regardless of the pressure placed on the team.
These identities may create considerable success.
They can also make adaptation harder when the environment changes.
The Mann Gulch fire provides a powerful case through which to examine this tension. It is not simply a story about wildfire behaviour or an escape that failed. It is a story about what happens when experienced people face conditions that no longer fit their established understanding of who they are, what they are doing and what successful action should look like.
Experience becomes a liability when it continues supplying confident answers after the environment has changed the question.
A routine mission became something else
On 5 August 1949, a crew of smokejumpers was dispatched to a wildfire in Mann Gulch, a steep drainage leading into the Missouri River in Montana.
Smokejumpers were trained to parachute into remote areas and contain fires before they expanded. Their role demanded physical courage, technical capability, self-reliance and disciplined teamwork.
The assignment initially appeared consistent with that identity. The crew would reach an inaccessible fire quickly, organise its equipment and begin suppression work.
But the conditions changed.
The fire crossed the gulch and accelerated through dry grass. What had been approached as a fire to be fought became a rapidly advancing threat from which the crew needed to escape.
That transition fundamentally changed the task.
The smokejumpers were no longer primarily firefighters moving towards a fire. They were people being pursued by one.
Recognising that distinction required more than situational awareness. It required the crew to abandon the organising assumptions that had guided their arrival, preparation and professional role.
Adaptation begins when people recognise that the work in front of them is no longer the work they prepared to perform.
Six dimensions of Leadership Under Load revealed by Mann Gulch
The environment changed
A suppression assignment became an immediate survival situation as the fire accelerated and cut across the crew’s route.
Experience lost its fit
Knowledge suited to approaching and controlling fire offered fewer useful answers once the crew was being overtaken by it.
Tools carried identity
Firefighting equipment represented capability and purpose, yet carrying it during escape increased the physical load on the crew.
Meaning collapsed
As familiar roles and expectations stopped explaining events, the crew’s ability to interpret the situation collectively weakened.
Innovation looked irrational
Dodge’s escape fire contradicted the crew’s immediate instinct to keep running away from flames and was not understood or adopted.
Coordination fragmented
As time and distance collapsed, the crew stopped functioning as one coherent unit and survival became increasingly individual.
Experience can become a trap
Experience is valuable because it helps people recognise patterns quickly.
A skilled person does not need to reconsider every situation from first principles. Previous exposure helps them identify likely causes, reject poor options and act with greater speed and confidence.
In stable conditions, this is an advantage.
Under rapidly changing conditions, the same efficiency can narrow perception.
People continue interpreting events through a pattern that no longer fits. They do not necessarily ignore evidence. They place that evidence inside the most familiar explanation available to them.
This is why experienced organisations can struggle with disruptive change. Their difficulty is rarely an absence of knowledge. It is that established knowledge has become deeply embedded in how they define competent action.
- A successful founder continues centralising decisions because personal intervention built the business.
- A board continues governing a growing organisation as though it were still an early-stage venture.
- A government agency preserves approval structures created for risks that have since changed.
- A school continues relying on temporary operating arrangements long after the original disruption has passed.
- A technical team keeps optimising an established system when the organisation now requires a different capability.
Experience has not disappeared.
Its relevance has changed.
Expertise should improve judgement, but it must not make the current environment answerable to yesterday’s experience.
Identity determines what action feels possible
Organisational identity is not an abstract cultural concept. It shapes what people notice, how they interpret events and which responses feel legitimate.
People ask, often without articulating it:
- What would someone in my position do?
- What does competence look like here?
- What behaviour will others recognise as leadership?
- What would abandoning this plan say about my judgement?
- Who am I if the expertise that brought me here is no longer useful?
These questions become particularly powerful under pressure because identity supplies stability when circumstances become confusing.
The smokejumpers arrived as people trained to control fire. Their tools, roles and collective purpose reinforced that identity. When escape became the only meaningful objective, the crew needed to move rapidly from the identity of firefighters engaging a threat to people discarding anything that reduced their chance of survival.
That shift sounds straightforward in hindsight.
In practice, it required people to abandon the very things that represented readiness, expertise and professional value.
Identity shapes decisions by defining which actions still feel consistent with being capable, credible and in control.
The tools we carry are not always physical
Accounts of Mann Gulch have repeatedly returned to the crew’s equipment.
Firefighting tools were essential to the mission for which the smokejumpers had been deployed. Once escape became the priority, those same tools became additional weight.
Foreman Wag Dodge ordered the men to discard their equipment as they attempted to outrun the advancing fire.
The tools offer a powerful organisational metaphor, but it should be handled carefully. It would be too simple to claim that professional identity alone explains why individual firefighters retained equipment for any particular length of time. The crew was operating in confusion, over difficult terrain and under rapidly collapsing time.
The broader lesson remains valuable: organisations frequently continue carrying tools whose original usefulness has changed.
Those tools may include:
- approval structures designed for an earlier scale
- reports nobody now uses to make decisions
- meetings that preserve visibility but no longer improve coordination
- leadership behaviours built around personal intervention
- performance measures tied to an outdated operating model
- systems retained because replacing them would challenge established expertise
- roles whose formal authority no longer matches how work actually moves
These practices may once have created control, quality or speed.
Their history of usefulness makes them harder to release.
Organisations often continue carrying yesterday’s tools because those tools still symbolise competence, even after they stop supporting performance.
Adaptation can feel like failure
Leaders frequently describe adaptation as learning, agility or innovation.
From inside the experience, it may feel very different.
Adaptation can feel like admitting that expertise is no longer enough. It may require abandoning a plan that a leader personally endorsed, releasing authority that previously created results or accepting that the organisation cannot continue delivering in the way it once did.
It can therefore feel like:
- loss of competence
- loss of status
- loss of certainty
- loss of control
- loss of professional identity
This explains why organisations sometimes defend established practices long after evidence suggests they should change.
The debate is not only about whether the new model will work.
It is also about what the new model implies about the people, structures and decisions that produced the old one.
A founder may understand intellectually that delegation is necessary while experiencing it emotionally as withdrawal from the role that made the company possible. An executive may support distributed leadership while continuing to intervene because being the final problem-solver remains central to their sense of value.
Adaptation becomes harder when changing the work also requires people to change the story they tell about their own value.
When the established world stops making sense
Organisational scholar Karl Weick later analysed Mann Gulch as a collapse of sensemaking.
Sensemaking is the process through which people interpret events sufficiently to understand what is happening and decide what to do next. It is not simply individual analysis. It is also social: people build and maintain a shared picture through roles, language, expectations and interaction.
At Mann Gulch, the crew’s established world stopped making sense.
The fire behaved in ways the group had not expected. Their original task became impossible. Their escape route narrowed. Familiar firefighting roles offered little guidance. The time available to interpret these changes collapsed.
When people can no longer reconcile what they are seeing with what they believe should be happening, decision-making becomes harder precisely when speed matters most.
Modern organisations experience less dramatic versions of the same problem:
- A market changes faster than the organisation’s strategy cycle.
- A trusted business model stops producing reliable demand.
- A public institution faces expectations its existing authority structures cannot meet.
- An executive team continues receiving data that contradicts its established narrative.
- A transformation removes the assumptions that previously defined leadership roles.
People may continue performing familiar activity because activity preserves a sense of order.
When reality no longer fits the organisation’s story, people may protect the story because it is the only structure they still understand.
Dodge’s escape fire broke the existing mental model
As the fire accelerated towards the crew, Wag Dodge recognised that they could not outrun it.
He stopped and ignited the grass ahead of him. The smaller fire consumed the available fuel, creating a burned area in which he could lie while the main fire passed around him.
It became known as an escape fire.
The action was innovative because it changed the problem. Dodge could not defeat the approaching fire or outrun it. He instead removed the fuel from a small area and created a place the main fire could not burn in the same way.
But to people already running from flames, following a leader who had deliberately started another fire was not an intuitively credible response.
The escape fire contradicted the crew’s immediate mental model:
- Fire was the threat.
- Distance from fire meant safety.
- Running uphill remained the apparent route of escape.
- Moving towards newly burned ground required stopping when stopping felt impossible.
Dodge’s solution could not be understood simply as a better version of the existing plan. It required a different explanation of the situation.
The correct response may remain invisible when it does not resemble anything the organisation previously recognised as competent action.
Innovation is not useful until people can make sense of it
Leadership discussions often treat innovation as the production of a novel idea.
Mann Gulch highlights a second challenge: other people must understand the idea quickly enough to act on it.
Dodge’s escape fire was potentially life-saving, but it had no established place within the crew’s shared experience or training. Under severe time pressure, there was almost no opportunity to explain the logic, establish confidence or rehearse the response.
This distinction matters inside organisations.
A leader may develop a valid strategic response, but the organisation cannot execute it if people do not understand:
- what has changed
- why the existing model no longer works
- how the new response addresses the changed conditions
- what they must stop doing
- what success now looks like
Telling people to adapt is not the same as rebuilding shared understanding.
Under ordinary conditions, leaders have time to explain, test and reinforce a changed model. Under crisis conditions, that work must already be supported by trust, practice and the organisation’s willingness to treat unfamiliar ideas seriously.
Innovation under pressure depends not only on generating a new answer, but on helping others release the old answer quickly enough to use it.
Leadership authority can collapse with the shared story
Formal authority does not disappear merely because conditions become difficult.
Its practical influence can.
People follow leadership partly because the leader’s instructions fit a credible understanding of the situation. When events no longer make sense, authority must help rebuild that understanding.
At Mann Gulch, Dodge’s actions moved beyond what the crew recognised. He was still the foreman, but rank alone could not make the unfamiliar escape fire immediately understandable.
Modern leaders can encounter the same fracture. A title remains intact while the explanation supporting the leader’s direction loses credibility.
This often happens when:
- leaders announce a major change without acknowledging what has made the old model unviable
- people are asked to abandon established practices without a coherent alternative
- executives continue projecting certainty after staff can see that assumptions have failed
- new priorities contradict previous instructions without being reconciled
- formal authority attempts to substitute for shared understanding
Under load, leadership cannot rely on position alone. It must help people understand which reality they are now operating within.
Authority tells people who holds responsibility. Sensemaking helps them understand why following that responsibility still makes sense.
Organisations fragment when shared meaning disappears
Teams do not function only because people occupy defined roles.
They function because members share enough understanding to coordinate those roles. They recognise what others are doing, interpret signals similarly and adjust their actions in relation to the group.
As the Mann Gulch crew’s situation became more extreme, its capacity to function as a coherent unit weakened. Time collapsed, the physical distance between individuals grew and the original organising purpose no longer offered a viable course of action.
This illustrates an important feature of leadership load.
When shared meaning breaks down, responsibility does not automatically become more distributed. It often becomes more isolated.
People make individual decisions using incomplete information. Coordination is replaced by parallel reaction. The organisation may still exist formally, but its members are no longer acting as one operational system.
In workplaces, this can look like:
- departments protecting their own measures during organisational disruption
- managers inventing local responses because enterprise direction is unclear
- staff relying on informal relationships after formal escalation loses credibility
- leaders issuing more instructions while common understanding continues to decline
- individuals focusing on self-protection because collective priorities no longer appear reliable
An organisation can retain its structure while losing the shared meaning that allows the structure to function.
Where identity rigidity appears in modern organisations
The indispensable founder
The founder remains the principal decision-maker because personal intervention created the organisation’s early success.
The expert executive
A technically accomplished leader continues solving operational problems instead of building a system that can solve them without executive intervention.
The protective board
Directors maintain detailed operational control because close involvement once protected a smaller or less mature organisation.
The heroic team
Staff continue absorbing unsustainable workloads because reliability and sacrifice have become central to the team’s identity.
The proven process
Established workflows remain protected because they previously produced quality, even though scale or technology has changed.
The transformation leader
A leader becomes attached to the change program itself and struggles to recognise when the transformation now requires a different approach.
What modern leaders should examine
Identity-related constraints are difficult to identify because they often appear as commitment, experience and professionalism.
Leaders therefore need to examine not only what the organisation is doing, but what those behaviours represent to the people performing them.
What tools are we still carrying?
Identify structures, reports, meetings and behaviours that retain symbolic value but no longer support the current task.
Which strengths have become constraints?
Examine capabilities that produced earlier success but now reduce delegation, experimentation or responsiveness.
What has the environment changed?
Separate the organisation’s enduring purpose from the operating assumptions, models and methods built around previous conditions.
What would adaptation require us to lose?
Consider which forms of status, control, certainty or expertise people may feel are threatened by the necessary change.
Can unfamiliar solutions gain credibility?
Test whether ideas that contradict established practice can be considered before a crisis makes adaptation unavoidable.
Can we rebuild meaning together?
Ensure change is supported by a coherent explanation of what has shifted, what remains important and what people are now being asked to do.
Adaptive leadership requires identity flexibility
Adaptive leadership is often presented as the capacity to change plans.
Plans are usually easier to change than identities.
An organisation may update its strategy while leaving every underlying leadership behaviour untouched. Decision rights remain concentrated. Executives continue solving the same problems. Teams keep carrying the same informal obligations. New language is placed around an unchanged operating model.
Genuine adaptation asks deeper questions:
- Who do leaders believe they must be for the organisation?
- Which behaviours make them feel useful?
- What does the organisation reward as evidence of commitment?
- Which forms of expertise are protected beyond their current usefulness?
- What would become possible if people could release those identities safely?
Identity flexibility does not mean discarding experience or abandoning standards whenever conditions become difficult.
It means holding expertise strongly enough to use it, but lightly enough to recognise when the situation requires something else.
Adaptive leaders retain their purpose without requiring every future success to validate the identity that produced their past success.
The lesson is not that experience should be abandoned
Mann Gulch should not be used to suggest that expertise, equipment, hierarchy or established procedures are inherently restrictive.
Wildland firefighting depends on training, discipline, reliable tools and coordinated command. Modern safety practices have developed precisely because experience can be converted into stronger preparation.
Nor should the tragedy be reduced to a simple claim that the firefighters failed to follow an innovative leader. They were confronted by extreme conditions, rapidly moving fire and almost no time in which to interpret an unfamiliar survival method.
The organisational value of the case lies elsewhere.
Experience must remain open to revision. Leadership must help people reinterpret changing conditions. Teams must be able to release established roles when those roles no longer support the immediate purpose.
The goal is not to become less experienced.
It is to prevent experience from becoming the boundary of what the organisation can imagine.
Expertise is most resilient when it includes the capacity to recognise the limits of its own relevance.
The Leadership Under Load lesson
Mann Gulch reminds us that pressure does more than test capability.
It tests identity.
When conditions change rapidly, people do not respond using information alone. They respond through established roles, previous experience, trusted tools and assumptions about what competent action should look like.
Those foundations often support effective performance.
They can also make an unfamiliar but necessary response harder to recognise, communicate and adopt.
Leadership Under Load therefore asks whether an organisation can distinguish its enduring purpose from the particular identity through which that purpose has previously been delivered.
Can the founder remain committed without remaining indispensable?
Can the expert lead without personally solving every problem?
Can a team preserve its standards without preserving every established method?
Can leaders release the tools that once represented competence when those tools no longer support the conditions in front of them?
Leadership Under Load asks whether we are still carrying the tools that made us successful—or using the tools the current environment now requires.
Where the Leadership Load Diagnostic fits
The Leadership Load Diagnostic helps organisations identify where leadership roles, decision structures and established behaviours have become too dependent on identities formed under earlier conditions.
It examines where past strengths may now be concentrating authority, limiting adaptation, preserving outdated workflows or requiring the same people to continue carrying responsibilities the wider system should absorb.
The objective is not to discard institutional knowledge or weaken experienced leadership.
It is to separate the capability the organisation still needs from the dependency, behaviour or structure through which that capability has historically been expressed.
Related Leadership Under Load insights
Frequently asked questions
What happened in the Mann Gulch fire?
On 5 August 1949, a crew of smokejumpers and a local fire guard were overtaken by a rapidly accelerating wildfire in Mann Gulch, Montana. Thirteen firefighters died. Foreman Wag Dodge survived in an escape fire, while Walter Rumsey and Robert Sallee escaped through a rocky opening near the ridge.
What was Wag Dodge’s escape fire?
Dodge deliberately ignited grass ahead of the approaching wildfire. After the smaller fire consumed the available fuel, he entered the burned area and lay down while the main fire passed around it. The method later became known as an escape fire.
What does Mann Gulch teach us about leadership?
Mann Gulch demonstrates how rapidly changing conditions can make established expertise, roles and assumptions less useful. It highlights the need for leaders to rebuild shared understanding, communicate unfamiliar responses and help people release methods that no longer fit the situation.
What is organisational sensemaking?
Organisational sensemaking is the process through which people interpret changing or ambiguous circumstances sufficiently to understand what is happening and coordinate what they should do next.
How does professional identity affect decision-making?
Professional identity shapes what people notice, which responses feel credible and how they define competent behaviour. Under changing conditions, people may continue using familiar methods because abandoning them feels like abandoning expertise, control or professional value.
How can leaders encourage adaptation?
Leaders can support adaptation by clearly explaining what has changed, separating enduring purpose from established methods, making it safe to question professional assumptions and helping people understand how their capability remains valuable within a new operating model.
Sometimes survival depends on releasing the identity that once created success.
Resilient organisations do not discard experience. They remain capable of recognising when experience no longer fits, rebuilding shared understanding and choosing the response the current environment requires.