What kind of leadership does FEMA need?

September 9th, 2005

Posted by: admin

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?

3 Responses to “What kind of leadership does FEMA need?”

    1
  1. Harold Brooks Says:

    I think one of the issues is that Presidents and their staves have some areas that they put high priority on, and others that just have to be filled. In his autobiography, Bill Clinton talked about how the reaction of people he talked to in Florida about FEMA’s response to Andrew in 1992 convinced him that FEMA was a very important appointment. I don’t remember the exact words but he said something along the lines of how most people don’t pay much attention to the government’s preparation and response plans for disasters, but if a disaster happens, it becomes the one thing that the affected people remember.

    I don’t think FEMA has been a priority except for Clinton and the choice of James Lee Witt. The person who I had hoped who get picked originally by President Bush for that job (and would be great to get now, if he’s willing to consider it) is Craig Fugate, the EM director in Florida. His career looks a lot like Witt, he’s well-respected in the community, and he was appointed by the President’s brother to be the state EM director.

    There are people out there, but the selecting officials have to think it’s important to get someone good in the position. If Katrina hadn’t happened, we might well have skated through without the lack of expertise being exposed.

  2. 2
  3. Dylan Otto Krider Says:

    I think it’s more than an issue of patronage. Patronage is inevitable to some extent. What I see here is more ideological: a view of what the Federal government’s job is. I don’t think this government thinks FEMA is something the government should be involved in. As we have seen time and again, agencies that conservatives don’t believe in but are politically impossible to dismantle get used instead for PR or to reward contributors (as science is). For a sense of how many in the party view FEMA, look at the following from the 2000 Texas Republican platform:

    Civil Defense – America had a strong, grassroots-based civilian defense system with county level volunteers and local leadership from the World War I era until the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Now local civil defense coordinators have been replaced with federally-controlled emergency management coordinators. The priority has changed from “defending” the citizens in an emergency to “managing” the citizens. The Party supports the restoration of our civil defense system. A non-partisan effort should be made to organize communication and emergency response training for citizens to assist in times of emergency, and the local county government should appoint a civilian defense coordinator. Elected county officials should be in charge of decisions affecting the local community.
    http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/10/14423/9876

    Those in positions of power would rather see disaster relief handled by the states or contracted out and done by private entities. As with science, they think disaster relief should be limited to the private sector. What we see is a government that doesn’t believe in governing in many areas. It shouldn’t suprise it when they bungle in those areas.

  4. 3
  5. James Annan Says:

    “Is this a problem of the ‘right’ scientific information not getting to the right people, e.g. President Bush and his staff?”

    Of course it isn’t. They make their own reality, remember.

    “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?”

    You can take the horse’s ass to the fountain of knowledge (or vice-versa) but you can’t make him drink.