It’s a warm afternoon in Los Angeles. People are dancing, volunteers are passing out water and snacks, and the LAPD is scrolling through their phones, having lunch off of car trunks, maybe on a break while their neighbors exercise their First Amendment right.
It’s a cool afternoon in Los Angeles when an unprovoked officer fires a rubber bullet at an international reporter, self-driving taxis are set on fire, and highways are shut down.
When police release tear gas, workers from a local Salvadoran restaurant use milk to soothe the burning eyes of deputies.
This is protest in America: a tapestry of community care, coordination, and empathy amongst the thud of boots, sirens, and helicopters. Amid the peaceful crowds, some isolated incidents have turned destructive, and tensions flare as the federal government deploys troops into the city without coordination with state or local officials. Which raises a fundamental question: What kind of strategy actually works in the name of resolution toward peace, and not quieting the voices and concerns of those protesting?
Clayton Christensen’s theory of strategy offers a compelling framework for understanding this moment. As he explained, organizations—and by extension, institutions—typically operate through one of two kinds of strategy: deliberate or emergent.
Strategy, misapplied
Deliberate strategies are planned, top-down responses best suited to problems with clear causes and predictable outcomes. For these strategies to succeed, three conditions must be met:
- The plan must address all the critical details necessary for success and be understood by those executing it.
- The strategy must make sense not only to the architects but also to the people it affects.
- The strategy must face minimal disruption from outside forces.
By contrast, emergent strategies arise when problems are too complex to be solved by central plans. They evolve through trial, feedback, and adaptation, often led by people closest to the problem: those on the ground. Once refined and proven, emergent strategies can mature into deliberate ones.
Protesting is emergent because the safeguarding of peaceful protesting, regardless of state or federal leadership at the time, is never without the possibility of disruption from outside forces. Protests evolve and adapt, and when peaceful protests lead to a compromise or resolution between two parties this is also an emergent strategy.
Right now, Los Angeles may be experiencing the consequences of a misapplied deliberate strategy: a federal crackdown imposed without a deep understanding of local dynamics, without consent or cooperation from city officials, and amid rapidly shifting public sentiment. History shows that responding to grassroots protest movements with rigid, top-down strategies often backfires. Instead, emergent and adaptive approaches are more likely to deliver durable progress.
Lessons from the past
We’ve seen the effects of both successful emergent strategies and ineffective deliberate strategies before.
In 2006, millions of people across the US, particularly Latino communities, marched for immigrant rights. In Los Angeles, the demonstrations were peaceful, massive, and locally coordinated. Community leaders, church groups, small businesses, and students mobilized to push for reform. The scale of the movement reframed national conversations about immigration legislation because protestors effectively demonstrated the political and economic influence of immigrant communities.
Similarly, the Chicano movement of the 1960s and ‘70s, marked by student walkouts, labor strikes, and anti-war protests, was rooted in local leadership and a deep understanding of lived struggles. Though progress was slow and partial, these emergent strategies helped shift public consciousness and laid the groundwork for change. Advocacy, tough negotiations, mass mobilizations, and education ultimately led to labor reforms, bicultural school programs, and more Mexican-American elected officials.
In contrast, history also reminds us of what happens when force is the first response. In 1931, federal agents carried out immigration raids at La Placita, in the heart of L.A., detaining and deporting thousands, including many US citizens. The result? Decades of distrust and trauma. And in 1970, journalist Rubén Salazar was killed by police during the Chicano Moratorium protest—an incident that turned a peaceful anti-war march into a flashpoint of public outrage and deepened community alienation.
These examples show us two paths: escalation through rigid and deliberate actions, or progress through patient, engaging, and emergent approaches.
What’s happening now and the case for emergent strategy
At the moment, often peaceful protestors are asserting their rights while local leaders seek to preserve order through communication and containment, not confrontation. Yet the federal government’s decision to send military personnel into the city reflects a deliberate strategy focused on restoring control, not resolving the cause.
What we’re seeing, once again, is a rigid strategy trying to manage what can only be shaped through emergent means.
Effective strategies for navigating unrest require trust, flexibility, and humility. They arise from listening, not commanding. They take shape through feedback, not force. And they recognize that lasting solutions must be co-created with the people closest to the pain.
This doesn’t mean there’s no place for deliberate strategy. But applying deliberate strategy to peaceful, fluid, emotional, and multifaceted protests will at best be ineffective, and at worst, continuously catalyze violence.
What kind of society do we want to build—one that silences discomfort, or one that adapts and evolves through it? History suggests that when institutions and individuals listen, engage, and follow the lead of local wisdom, real progress becomes possible.
In times like these, the right strategy becomes more than just a management tool.
