The Adaptive Regime Matrix
Model leadership systems as resilient networks, not brittle stacks
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 95%
Pape rejects the image of a regime as a Jenga tower whose removal of one critical block causes total collapse. He proposes a matrix: an adaptive network of institutions, armed groups, factions, and potential successors that fills vacancies with what remains. The practical implication is to analyse the post-removal system before treating leadership removal as an outcome. Map who survives, which factions gain leverage, how a successor earns legitimacy, and whether the shock changes the balance between moderates and hardliners. In Pape's Iran example, he argues that killing the supreme leader also removed alternatives and eliminated a leader who had issued religious edicts against nuclear weapons. The framework therefore evaluates node removal by the incentives and capabilities it creates, not by the prominence of the removed person.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO
Core principles
- 01Complex regimes behave like networks rather than Jenga towers
- 02Removing a node redistributes power instead of guaranteeing collapse
- 03Succession incentives can reward harder-line behavior
- 04Replacement quality matters more than removal precision
- 05Leadership legitimacy shapes post-shock actions
How to run it
- 1
Replace the tower with a network
Draw the system as connected institutions, factions, security forces, and successors. Remove the assumption that one visible leader holds every relationship together.
Pro tip Include informal power centres, not only formal titles.
Watch out A leader-centric chart can hide the system's capacity to regenerate.
- 2
Remove the node on paper
Simulate the leader's absence without assuming collapse. Identify which functions stop, which transfer automatically, and which actors compete to absorb them.
Pro tip Run the simulation for several plausible successors rather than one preferred replacement.
Watch out The most visible vacancy may not be the most important change.
- 3
Recalculate faction power
Assess who remains and which guardrails, rivals, or moderating actors disappeared with the leader. Determine whether the surviving coalition shifts toward harder or softer positions.
Pro tip Track simultaneous removals because they can unintentionally clear a successor's path.
Watch out Removing alternatives can make an unwanted successor more likely.
- 4
Model the legitimacy test
Ask what the new leader must do to prove authority to allies, institutions, and rivals. Consider whether restraint would be read as weakness and retaliation as competence.
Pro tip Separate the successor's private preferences from the behaviour their position rewards.
Watch out A successor may escalate to survive politically even if escalation is materially costly.
- 5
Judge the new system
Compare the post-shock network with the original one for resilience, aggression, control, and predictability. Base the intervention decision on that comparison rather than the removal event alone.
Pro tip Define what a better replacement system would look like before acting.
Watch out Successful removal can still produce a worse strategic environment.
In the wild
Pape claims that the removed supreme leader had issued two religious edicts opposing nuclear weapons, while the successor had not. He also argues that other potential replacements were killed, increasing the son's path to power and tying him to more aggressive security factions. In the matrix model, the intervention did not simply remove the top block; it changed which surviving actors could fill the network's central positions.
→ Pape assesses the adapted regime as potentially harder and more inclined to retaliate.
A board removes a chief executive from a troubled company. Instead of assuming the change fixes performance, it maps the executives, investors, operating teams, and incentives that remain. The leading successor must quickly establish credibility, making a dramatic plan more likely than cautious continuity.
→ The board evaluates the behaviour the succession system rewards before appointing the replacement.
Common mistakes
Using the Jenga assumption
Treating a complex system as a brittle stack encourages the unsupported belief that one removal will trigger collapse.
Choosing the successor after acting
If succession is not modelled beforehand, the surviving network chooses from whoever remains, not from the intervener's ideal candidates.
Ignoring legitimacy incentives
A new leader may need visible retaliation or a dramatic plan to consolidate authority, even when restraint would seem rational from outside.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for analysing succession, decapitation strategies, restructures, and shocks to leader-centred systems.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when an organization truly depends on one irreplaceable operator and lacks functioning institutions or successors.
From the transcript
“The Iranian regime is more like a matrix.”
“The adaptive system adapts and fills in the holes.”
“you're not really taking these pieces out, you're rearranging them”
From the episode
The Iran War Expert: I Simulated The Iran War for 20 Years. Here’s What Happens Next