The Washington Post’s Spencer Hsu reports that “Five of eight top Federal Emergency Management Agency officials came to their posts with virtually no experience in handling disasters and now lead an agency whose ranks of seasoned crisis managers have thinned dramatically since the Sept. 11, 2001.” The Post continues, “Patronage appointments to the crisis-response agency are nothing new to Washington administrations. But inexperience in FEMA’s top ranks is emerging as a key concern of local, state and federal leaders as investigators begin to sift through what the government has admitted was a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.”

Before this report becomes another dividing line between ‘Bush bashers’ and ‘Bush defenders’, we need to take a close look at what kind of leadership is necessary to run an emergency agency and whether political patronage has a place in such agencies. My answer is that both experienced emergency responders and political appointees are necessary, but ideally, those top leaders should be both.

First question: does emergency response require ‘different’ leadership skills than, say, leadership of other departments such as USDA, HUD, EPA, etc.? I argue yes. A large component of effective leadership (some may say all) is making good decisions. A lot of decision making at agencies occurs in the framework of formal processes: identify the problem, gather information, allow for public comment, explore options, make decision, etc. Obviously the process is not perfect, linear or surgical as some who read this will be quick to note. My point, however, is that there tends to be an unfolding of the decision process that is radically different from the decision making process, hence leadership, required in emergency and emergency response situations, particularly on a temporal scale. Decision making process become truncated, intelligence may be incomplete, and multiple problems demand solutions almost simultaneously. The importance of situational leadership (well articulate by Hershey) and the leaders’ ability to make decisions given the requirements of the particular emergency context cannot be overstated. Effective leadership in ‘crisis’ situations often requires years of training and experience to hone those qualities that separate capable leaders from those who are out of their league.

Second question: does political patronage have a place in emergency response agencies? Yes, it does. The Washington Post quotes Richard A. Andrews, former emergency services director for the state of California and a member of the president’s Homeland Security Advisory Council says, “You need people in there who have both experience and the confidence of the president, who are able to fight and articulate what FEMA’s mission and role is, and who understand how emergency management works.” Political leadership and influence inside the Beltway is obviously important. Also, political appointments are as much a part of Washington as summer humidity and the practice won’t be going away anytime soon.

Third: Must the President choose between one who is an experienced emergency response leader and one who possesses those leadership skills necessary to succeed inside the Beltway? Absolutely not, nor should he. Political connection and emergency response leadership are not mutually exclusive qualities. James Witt, former FEMA director, embodies those qualities. The emergency response community has a talented pool of people from across the country from which to select such people. But with President Bush’s appointments to FEMA (at least the five mentioned in the Post article), he clearly placed the value of political patronage over the operational requirements of an agency that requires leadership skills that most managers and bureaucrats just don’t have. In the aftermath of Katrina, President Bush has an opportunity to make changes in FEMA’s leadership cadre, and indeed he should.

So what does this have to do with science policy? Researchers, practitioners, and private training companies are familiar with the unique qualities required of an emergency response leader. Why then did President Bush forego appointing more qualified people to FEMA in lieu of political patronage? Is this a problem of the ‘right’ scientific information not getting to the right people, e.g. President Bush and his staff? And if it is, how do we as researchers ensure that we get the right information about important leadership qualities to the right people in the future?