I
Ecologists have for years studied social-ecological systems, like ecosystems and landscapes; at the same time organization theorists have investigated socio-technical systems, like electricity grids and other critical infrastructures. Because some of the latter are grounded in some of the former (think watersheds and hydro-power), it’s not surprising that conceptual understanding in these different disciplines overlap. In particular, it’s a fairly easy matter to find each highlighting social complexity and system interconnectivities (see Sources for a sample).
What is more surprising, in my view, are key differences, “key” in the sense that their respective policy and management implications differ so. I know far more about critical infrastructures than I do about ecosystems, but I have published about the latter and continue to read relevant literature. What follows are, I believe, well-informed observations, but I welcome correction of these opinions.
Finally, the two major differences identified should not be interpreted as challenging or disparageing the huge overlap between the social-ecological and socio-technical literatures with which I am familiar. A focus on overlaps and their implications for policy and management awaits a longer venue.
II
Ecologists frequently talk about tipping points in systems that have not been (or could not be) managed properly. The human-dominated ecosystem flips from one state into another (and anyone who doubts this is happening hasn’t been following the climate emergency). The new state can and often looks little like the immediately preceding one.
It is also common to talk about large critical infrastructures (again, think of large water supplies) “flipping into systemwide failure,” where operations during systemwide failure look nothing like “normal” that preceded it. But organization theorists are just as interested in the drift of operators away from shared situational awareness and common operating picture of their system that may precipitate outright failure later on. I do not know of any comparable ecological literature on real-time ecologists, e.g., working in the field on ecological restoration or ecosystem design projects, who drift over time from better practices identified across a run of diverse cases in their respective fields.
That focus on real time also differs between the social-ecological and socio-technical. The difference ironically stems from a common assumption shared by both: namely, the respective systems are no longer (if they ever were) stationary: They are dynamic and fast changing. Some ecologists take the lesson to be that the options horizon is necessarily the longer term over which to be more adaptable and flexible. Some organization theorists, in contrast, take the lesson to be that if you can manage more reliably and safely in real time, right now when it matters, why believe those who say they can do better over the longer-term? Again, there may be a track record about which I do not know of staff and consulting ecologists who have been brought into infrastructure control rooms or their immediate wraparound support units in order to provide real-time advice.
III
So what?
It’s inconceivable to me that the two different approaches, each of which share common assumptions about really-existing complexity and interdependencies and each of which promotes interdisciplinary research and boundary work, don’t collaborate more. It is no longer useful for ecologists to refer to critical infrastructures as “engineered” systems when manifestly they are socio-technical throughout and where that “socio” continues to considerably overlap with the “social” in social-ecological.
Nor is it useful for organization theorists to ignore that the mandate of critical infrastructures is to square as much of the circle of service reliability and ecological restoration, at least in real time. And given the priority both disciplines assign to variation and diversity—called requisite variety in organization theory and response diversity in ecology—you’d expect far more cross-references than I have found to date.
So too would you think that given the shared emphasis on “transformation”—long-term regime transformation from the ecological side, real-time transformation of high input variability into low and stable output from the organizational side—there would be more interchange, especially when the center of analytic and normative attention shifts to capacious (essentially contested?) concepts like “governance,” as it now often does in both approaches.
Sources.
Allen, C. R., A. Garmestani, T. Eason, D. G. Angeler, W. Chuang, J. H. Garcia, L. Gunderson, and C. Folke (2025). “Disastrous consequences: shortcomings of resiliency strategies for coping with accelerating environmental change.” Ecology and Society 30(4):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-16668-300421
Ashby, R, (1952). Design for a Brain. Chapman and Hall, London.
Langston, J. D., A. Sanders, R. A. Riggs, S. A. Afiff, R. Astuti, A. K. Boedhihartono, S. Chakori, B. Dwisatrio, C. Griffin, N. J. Grigg, H. Kurniasih, C. Margules, J. F. McCarthy, D. S. Mendham, C. Múnera-Roldán, R. D. Prasti Harianson, J. A. Sayer, D. Susilawati, M. van Noordwijk, and S. M. Whitten (2025). “Landscape transition science: relational praxis for continuous learning.”
Ecology and Society 30(4):53. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-16725-300453
Pettersen, K., and P. Schulman (2016). “Drift, adaptation, resilience and reliability: Toward an
empirical clarification.” Safety Science 117: 2–9.
Roe, E. (2023). When Complex is as Simple as it Gets: Guide for Recasting Policy and Management in the Anthropocene. IDS Working Paper 589, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, DOI: 10.19088/IDS.2023.025
Roe, E., and P. Schulman (2008). High Reliability Management: Operating on the Edge. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
————————————– (2016). Reliability and Risk. Stanford University Press, Stanford CA.
Roe, E., and Michel J.G. van Eeten (2001). “Threshold-Based Resource Management: A Framework for Comprehensive Ecosystem Management.” Environmental Management 27 (2).
—————————————————— (2002) “Reconciling Ecosystem Rehabilitation and Service Reliability Mandates in Large Technical Systems: Findings and Implications of Three Major US Ecosystem Management Initiatives for Managing Human-Dominated Aquatic–Terrestrial Ecosystems” Ecosystems, 5 (6): 509–528.
Schick, E., M. Döring, J. Knieling, B. M. W. Ratter, J. Pein, and K. Dähnke (2025). “Turning the tide in estuary governance through collaboration? A systematic review, meta-synthesis, and conceptual framework.” Ecology and Society 30(4):6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-16321-300406
van Eeten, M. J. G., and E. Roe (2002). Ecology, Engineering and Management: Reconciling Ecological Rehabilitation and Service Reliability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, B., A.-S. Crepin, M. Nyström, J. M. Anderies, E. Andersson, T. Elmqvist, C. Queiroz, S. Barrett, E. Bennett, J. C.Cardenas, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin III, A. de Zeeuw, J. Fischer, C. Folke, S. Levin, K. Nyborg, S. Polasky, K. Segerson, K. Seto, M. Scheffer, J. F. Shogren, A. Tavoni, J. van den Bergh, E. U. Weber, and J. R. Vincent. (2023). “Response diversity as a sustainability strategy.” Nature Sustainability 6:621-629. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01048-7
Weick, K, (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA.
WHEN COMPLEX IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS 