Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
Leadership and Hurricane Katrina
Christopher Tucker
Western University of Health Sciences
HSCI 5204
October 23, 2010
1
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
2
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction…………………………………………………………………...…………..3
Synopsis of the Presentation………………………………………………………3
Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………7
Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina……...…………………………………7
Reactions and Observations…………………………………………………….………..13
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………13
References……………………………………………………………………..…………15
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
3
Introduction
Synopsis of Presentation
Before the establishment of FEMA communities claimed that federal response
was inadequate.
In 1979 FEMA was founded in response to numerous disasters in the 1960s and 1970s.
After the agency was founded the amount of disasters the country endured dropped
significantly and therefore this branch of government was treated with less importance.
George Bush began appointing individuals with no experience in disaster management.
It appeared as though Bush selected people for positions in power based on platonic
relationships rather than skills and or experience. Hurricane Andrew tested the ability of
FEMA during this period and FEMA did not intervene for many days. It was attributed
to miscommunication where the government claimed that select cities in Florida were not
flooded so aid was not necessary. Once individuals in the middle of the disaster were
televised the nation responded and so did FEMA shortly thereafter. As with Katrina
government officials went on television claiming that they had acted as promptly as
possible and delay was attributed to lack of communication from local government.
James Witt was appointed director of FEMA by Bill Clinton in 1993 after the nation had
been harshly criticizing what FEMA was at the time. Witt had direct experience in
disaster management and changed the structure in FEMA resulting in less bureaucracy.
His goal was to provide prevention to communities in case of disaster and was able to get
federal funding to do so. He found that money and lives were saved post disaster as a
direct result from federal financial aid. New Orleans did not participate in his prevention
plan although they were prone to flooding. Witt left the organization when George W.
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
4
Bush was elected president. The new director of FEMA appointed by George W. Bush
was Allbaugh. He told congress that FEMA was oversized and essentially did not need
as much funding even though Witt’s program for prevention had just helped Seattle after
a large earthquake. Shortly after taking his position in FEMA, Allbaugh appointed his
friend Michael Brown as general council (Smith, 2005).
After the restructuring of FEMA officials a terrorist attack ensued on September
11, 2001. FEMA was on site quickly and efficiently, essentially handling the disaster
appropriately. After the attack president Bush began what he called the Department of
Homeland Security which required numerous branches of government to communicate
with one another in response to crisis. FEMA was reduced to a sub-department of
Homeland Security. Allbaugh admitted that FEMA lost its ability to function efficiently
after the installment of Homeland Security. After the shift multiple employees decided to
leave the agency including Allbaugh. Resources were taken from FEMA and allocated to
other agencies in Homeland Security creating a higher level of bureaucracy. Michael
Brown claims that one key factor as to why FEMA was unable to respond effectively
after the reorganization of government was lack of funds while other officials don‘t
believe this to be true. Brown in turn was ready to leave FEMA near the time of Katrina
(Smith, 2005).
FEMA funded a program set out to model the impact of a hurricane hitting New
Orleans. The model proposed was extremely precise in predicting the impact of
hurricane Katrina. The exercise predicted that 100,000 people would be left without aid.
Funding was cut from the program before all the results could be determined. As a result
of the exercise, premature decisions were made in regards to how a hurricane would be
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
5
handled even though many aspects of intervention were not determined from the
program. Medical aid and transportation were just two aspects not addressed in the final
decisions. Once Katrina was approaching the states it was understood that the
communities were unprepared. Reports from the mock hurricane program were handed
out to emergency planning agencies just before the storm hit but as aforementioned the
report lacked critical emergency planning information. It was acknowledged that
evacuation is a very difficult task and preparation is very important. Michael Brown
claims during an interview that evacuation is a state responsibility yet documents show
that it is a shared responsibility. FEMA is required to help evacuate potential victims
(Smith, 2005).
In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit the states. PBS program Frontline
investigated many of the questions that still remained in regards to how government
handled the response to the natural disaster. When the storm hit the city of New Orleans
there was a lack of needed response to aid the victims for many days. The national guard
and police headquarters were flooded rendering their response impossible. The elevated
water destroyed the cities communication systems making it difficult for residents to even
contact authorities for help. Outside of the community’s inability to contact the
authorities the government had poor communication among its own agencies also
contributing to the delayed response to the situation. Mayor Nagin was in charge of
preparing the community for emergencies and evacuation yet the transport vehicles were
covered in water due to their placement on low ground and there was not enough food or
water stocked in the shelters. Government officials went on television assuring the
country that they were doing everything they could do in response to the disaster. The
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
6
FEMA director Michael Brown admitted that he mislead the public in order to avoid
panic. FEMA exists to offer aid when local governments are overwhelmed yet Brown
claimed that FEMA only helps when the state permits. He also claims that officials in the
state were not directly asking for their help yet documents exist showing the states need
for assistance. President George W. Bush gave a speech to the nation six days after
Katrina hit New Orleans asserting his disapproval of how the government handled the
response. Essentially every branch of government was blaming another branch for the
poor response (Smith, 2005).
It has been asked whether or not the government should insist on implementing
evacuation standards to assist in circumstances such as Katrina. On the other hand, some
government officials argue that distribution of power is vital and it is the local
governments duty to set these evacuation standards. Governor Blanco claims that
portable network is needed for efficient response to a crisis such as Katrina.
Interoperability refers to the ability of first responders to communicate with one another
and is widely accepted as crucial yet very few cities have it. Clearly with a lack of first
responders to communicate with each other an effective rescue and aid is more difficult
to obtain. Again the question is posed whether or not the government should implement
this communication system. It is still contended that standards are imposed in various
areas such as highways and airports so imposing another standard is not out of the
question. The government has given funds to local agencies for disaster preparation but
these funds are not monitored in terms of how they are spent. It is understood that when
the government gives out money they have the right to dictate how it is spent. Brown
admits that his biggest mistake was not ordering enough man power to tend to the crisis.
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
7
After Katrina, Bush promptly assured the nation that lessons were learned from the
disaster and in the future more federal authority would be necessary yet in October 2005,
Bush removed the responsibility of preparedness from FEMA (Smith, 2005).
Discussion
Lessons Learned from Katrina
Since Katrina there have been 34 lessons learned as stated by the White House.
The bulk of these lessons reduce to the problems of community preparedness and better
communication among government officials and agencies (Menzel, 2006). Claims of
lack of leadership at all levels of government have been made during responses to
disasters and emergencies. It has been contend that collaboration is essential in
emergency management because many different agencies deal with different aspects of
disaster. Since the terrorist attack on 9/11 emergency management has become more
complex. Post-disaster efforts have become a more prevalent focus compared to predisaster planning. Essentially the mission was changed to include skills that were
previously not asked of these agencies (Waugh Jr. & Strelb, 2006).
The failure of FEMA after Katrina sparked questions in regard to where FEMA
should lie in the governmental hierarchy and whether or not FEMA could be repaired to
efficiently respond to disasters. It has been noted that plans made in preparation for a
disaster rarely work as predicted and this creates new challenges for disaster managers.
The development of nongovernmental organizations prepared to respond to such
circumstances is important to effectively handle disasters. It has been noted that
unexpected resources are needed so preplanning is always subject to change and no one
organization can handle the complexities of a disaster. It is important for communities to
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
8
work together in preparation for any disaster by allowing these nongovernmental
organization s to obtain valuable resources such as buildings that can act as a refuge or
needed services such as psychological counseling. The amount of resources available
during any given disaster will dictate the efficiency and effectiveness of the response.
Katrina is a great example of a response that lacked adequate resource to cope with the
situation. The community without a doubt will be the first to deal with a disaster because
emergency response may take anywhere from hours to days to arrive. It is with this in
mind that makes it important for local government officials to educate and plan for these
events. Local governments also need to collaborate with federal agencies to ensure
proper action. During the 9/11 attacks it can be seen how important efficient
collaboration among nongovernmental and governmental organizations is. When the
towers fell local businesses offered support by supplying search and rescue equipment,
televisions and massage therapists in rest areas. Clearly these resources being readily
available significantly aided in the efficient management of this disaster. However it has
been noted that cultural issues may arise among organizations attempting to participate in
disaster relief and a common language and cooperation is vital to interoperability (Waugh
Jr. & Strelb, 2006).
Some of the problems emergency management faces are getting
multiorganizational, intergovernmental and intersectoral response to work in concert.
Katrina was not the first disaster that was handled poorly due to poor orchestration
among these facets (Waugh Jr. & Strelb, 2006). During Hurricane Katrina it was an
existing policy for the federal government to offer aid but within the policy there were no
clear guidelines as to who would be in charge. Without knowledge of who is in charge
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
9
confusion can ensue and render a response inefficient (Menzel, 2006). It became
apparent over 20 years ago that for emergency management programs interpersonal skills
are more important than technical skills. Validity in this conjecture can be seen in
effective disaster response situations where a central emergency operations center was set
up maintaining communication among all the necessary parties involved with disaster
relief. In these cases the emergency management directors main role was coordinating
while the organizations below this level were basically only required to act. When Witt
became director of FEMA he recognized this and acted on it making FEMA more or less
a supporter of other organizations rather than sending in other government agencies to
help. FEMA began participating in overseeing regulatory standards such as building
safety to ensure communities were prepared for disaster. Communication was not limited
to agencies and organizations handling a crisis but also to the general public and those
families effected. Avoiding panic in the public can be quelled by constantly updating the
people with relevant information as opposed to misleading the public and or lying
(Waugh Jr. & Strelb, 2006). During the SARS outbreak, families effected were not
offered proper information about the disease adding to the widespread panic. This may
have been avoided if proper research had been done generating adequate information for
these families. Hospitals were isolated in treatment of the outbreak but programs and
communications were offered to lessen the stress for these people. This in turn boosted
morale and rendered the efforts more effective. It was concluded in this situation that the
more prepared the staff in these situations are the better they will be able to handle a
future outbreak (Hawryluck, 2005).
It was found that from a leadership perspective in these types of circumstances it
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
10
is important to acquire as much information as possible and share the information
regardless of how complete the data is. It is with this in mind that in 2006 Donald Kettl
stated that poor leadership resulted in the ineffective response to Katrina. He contended
that leadership should have been the focus in FEMA reform as opposed to the
reorganization that took place. Specifically the leaders involved were accused of not
having imagination and initiative. During Katrina, leaders failed to apply previously
existing models and data to the disaster in a proper or effective way. They also failed to
act promptly even though such data already existed (Waugh Jr. & Strelb, 2006). This also
illustrates the problems that lie between planning and implementing. Although this data
was at hand, workshops were not implemented until July 2005 and these workshops were
minimally informative potentially due to lack of thoroughness in the final planning report
(Menzel, 2006). It has also been contended that leaders in a public administration such as
FEMA need to build interpersonal relationships to be most effective. These leaders
should always keep in mind the emotional impact their decisions will have on the public
and lead from that stand point (Newman et al., 2009).
Because so many aspects of organizational response and resource are needed in
times of crisis, it is important that a leader be flexible because as aforementioned no
amount of planning can perfectly predict a disaster and efforts will need to be adapted
along the way. This adaptation can be done more effectively with a higher level of
interoperability. Following 9/11 the federal government was assumed to be primarily
responsible for disaster response yet the responsibility still was mostly on local and state
governments (Waugh, 2006). The Bush administration insisted on following protocol
which is in contrast to what is known about effective leadership in a disaster situation
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
11
(Boin et al., 2010). After the installment of Homeland Security disaster management
became more centralized which results in extra time being spent making decisions rather
than acting on them. This can be seen through conversations held between state and local
authorities with FEMA and the time taken to make a decision about what to do during
Katrina. Very few problems were seen with FEMA and the collaboration with
nongovernmental organizations during 9/11 and the few problems that did exist involved
charities after the attack. These problems were resolved within a few weeks of surfacing.
During Katrina interoperability was low and essentially instilled a lack of trust in leaders
involved. Since the 1990s the efforts made by FEMA to maintain efficient
communication among state and local authorities has declined. Programs to train
officials in emergency management have been installed where these programs stress the
importance of interpersonal skills. Leaders with exemplary interpersonal skills have been
found most effective in public leadership situations (Newman et al., 2009). It is
important to note that leaders in these situations will be dealing with others that are not
trained and need the skills to delegate and direct said others (Waugh Jr. & Strelb, 2006).
It has been noted that the public prefer a leader in times of crisis be a hands on leader as
opposed to what happened in Katrina where leaders inefficiently acted through numerous
agencies rendering the response weak (Boin et al., 2010).
Effective emergency management requires that all government officials whether
they be local, state or federal, be educated on all aspects of how to handle a crisis. It is
also vital to know how to best handle recovery after a disaster has struck. Because it is
understood that disasters create complex situations with lives at stake not one leader can
bare the responsibility of making decisions. This is why collaboration and
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
12
communication paired with education is extremely important. During the 1990s FEMA
aimed to save lives, reduce damage and leave individuals satisfied and realized that this
could not be done alone. This lead FEMA to attach to numerous nongovernmental
organizations and during these years FEMA was seen to operate at a desired level. In
terms of authority and resources FEMA still has little which underscores the importance
for ongoing collaboration. It is not always the case that nongovernmental organizations
will collaborate with the federal government which points to the importance of state and
local officials to collaborate as well. Any disaster will elicit quick response where better
collaboration and preparedness at all levels will result in the most effective and efficient
response. Communities will act as they feel necessary aside from government policy
which makes it important for leaders to utilize these resources in efforts to better the
situation at hand. In essence no centralized authority will be as effective as collaboration
among all involved. With an understanding of how complex disaster management can be
it is important to select leaders that are trained appropriately. Creating a power hierarchy
is not necessarily effective where it causes more confusion and delay in making
decisions. This resulted in one of the most efficient time periods for FEMA but after
9/11 changes were made that altered this efficient approach (Waugh Jr. & Strelb, 2006).
This was learned from the SARS outbreak as well. It has been contended that leaders
should not act from a position of power and competition but should use all the resources
available to best solve the crisis. Essentially power in these situations should be spread
out to other appropriate organizations and their leaders. James Lee Witt is noted as a
transformational leader where he restructured FEMA and focused on building morale and
competence. Resources should be established as readily available and in surplus
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
13
(Hawryluck, 2005).
Reactions and Observations
Clearly there was a deficiency in communication and response to Katrina but
what leadership qualities were absent and should be present in the future is still a valid
question. As mentioned above leaders must be flexible in times of crisis (Waugh Jr. &
Strelb, 2006). Leaders should actively seek out information and assert their role in
managing said crises. It is important to note that leaders that are seen as visionaries can
serve these situations better but in some cases a leader of this nature may spend too much
time delegating a final decision when action is needed promptly. To respond more
effectively it is important to prepare the communities for response as well. There is no
national standard for disaster management programs at a community level and it has been
proposed that changing this will result in optimal response (Menzel, 2006). It is also
important that a leader takes responsibility for his or her own actions rather than blame
others for poor decision making. During George W. Bush’s presidency he slowly over
time was accused of blaming others for poor decisions. This is perhaps because direct
presidential involvement in decision making was an exception rather than policy. It is
partially if not entirely due to this fact that when Katrina took place the Bush
administration was blamed. Bush’s stance on staying true to protocol in the end took the
blame off of him but clearly did not aid in the situation (Boin et al., 2010). Being an
adaptable leader seems to be the most effective approach in emergency management in
situations such as Hurricane Katrina (Menzel, 2006).
Conclusion
During times of crisis such as Hurricane Katrina, leaders involved need to be
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
14
flexible. This is due to the fact that disasters come quickly and devastatingly. No
preplanning can fully predict every aspect of disaster so leaders need to be able to make
quick decisions. It is also important that leaders make themselves as accessible as
possible not only so the public views them as being hands on but also to obtain as much
up to date information as possible. Maintaining communication with all parties involved
and passing along all information available is crucial to an effective recovery from a
disaster. To avoid delays in decision making it seems important to assert the hierarchy of
authority and leaders need to take hold of their position and act accordingly (Newman et
al., 2009; Waugh Jr. & Strelb, 2006). After Katrina, FEMA devised a new mission and
vision. They learned the lessons of being unprepared and under budget and plan on
making appropriate corrections so that FEMA can act as the public would expect for the
future (FEMA).
Running head: LEADERSHIP AND HURRICANE KATRINA
15
References
Boin, A., Hart, P. T., McConnell, A., Preston, T. (2010). Leadership style, crisis response
and blame management: the case of hurricane katrina. Public Administration,
88(3), 706-723.
Menzel, D. C. (2006). The katrina aftermath: a failure of federalism or leadership?.
Public Administration Review, 66(6), 808-812.
Newman, M. A., Guy, M. E., Mastracci, S. H. (2009). Beyond congnition: affective
leadership and emotional labor. Public Administraion Review, 69(1), 6-20.
Paulison, D. (2007, March). Before the house appropriations committee subcommittee on
homeland security [oral statement]. Retrieved from
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/speeches/031308_paulison_oral_testimony.pdf
Smith, M. (Writer). (2005). Frontline: the storm [DVD]. New York: Public Broadcasting
Service.
Waugh Jr., W. L., Strelb, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective
emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66, 131-140.