Leadership Decisions of Hurricane Katrina

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation 

Leadership Decisions of Hurricane Katrina

Smith, M. & Gaviria, M. (2016). The Storm. FRONTLINE. Retrieved 25 October 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/storm/

In United States, hurricane Katrina was the most deadly hurricane ever. In estimate, it killed 1,833 people while leaving a million of others homeless. During this Hurricane, it is evident that the government failed to do what it was required in preparing for the worst and reacting to the crisis. The response of the government can be criticized due to lack of preparation and mismanagement in the relief effort in its response to the disaster and after its aftermath. 

Specifically, FEMA delayed to respond to the flooding. The criticism is prompted by the televised images of frustrated and visibly shaken political leaders. Another factor for the criticism is the residents who remained in New Orleans without shelter, food and water, and death of some citizens due to exhaustion, thirst and violence after the storm. There was also criticism on the treatment of people who were evacuated to Superdome and other registered facilities. Criticism of journalists, activists, politicians and pundits are all directed to tle federal, local and state governments. 

It is obvious that Hurricane Katrina was enormously destructive and powerful act of nature. Certainly, it was not caused by the government but the failure of the government to prepare and respond to the act. Their failure led to human suffering and destruction of property. The failure is a sad and stunning act. According to the article, the government was indifferent especially to the socially disadvantaged-poor and the blacks. The local government was waiting for FEMA to respond. They failed to receive the response from FEMA because they did not use the proper path. It took them five days for the troops to arrive at the sight. 

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin failed in implementing his food plan and ordered shelters for residents as a last resort without provisions of sanitary conditions, security, water or food. Nagin major failure is when he delayed his order for emergency evacuation until a day less to the landfall (Sylves, 2006). This caused hundreds of deaths of victims who by that time had no means to get out of the city. Mayor Nigan also failed to provide the school buses which were just parked. He responds to this by stating that there were no enough drivers and lack of insurance liabilities. The buses were seen packed at Superdome instead of evacuating the trapped victims.

The second observation is the failure of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Its failure occurred due to its poor coordination with other response organizations and slow response in the efforts. FEMA deliberately slowed the response process while putting their efforts to ensure all the relief workers and assistance were well coordinated. During the interview, Mr. Brown stated that he knew about the disaster on the first day. This is against the previous press reports where he had stated that he had no idea of the flooding. He also explains that the governor and other local government did not use the right protocol in asking for help.

Miller (2009) explains that it is ironical how FEMA indicated their unawareness of the situation while everything was being aired. FEMA also interfered with Astor Hotel’s’ plans on hiring ten buses that were to evacuate 500 guests to higher grounds. FEMA also made things worse when they turned back Wal-Mart trucks loaded with water. They also prevented the Coast guard from delivering 1,000 diesel gallons. The aircraft operators also explained that FEMA waved off several evacuations attempts stating that the rescuers were unqualified. FEMA is also suspected to have removed patient’s identification bracelets transferred or evacuated FEMA ID bracelets making hospital personnel to lose track of the evacuated patients (Skinner & Hodges, 2006). 

Michael Brown the FEMA director stated that he was unaware there were refugees in Convention Center until September 1 (Benoit, 2012). Michael Brown failed in his leadership when he stated during CNN interview that he did not know of the disaster. After being pressed, he stated that he learnt about the situation from media. CNN’s journalist Soledad O’Brien probed Brown on why it took the five days to take food and water to the starving crowd in Convectional Centre while in tsunami they took within three days. However, Michael Brown explained that he had limited authority in ordering federal agencies to work until after 36 hours of Katrina happenings after he was designated to be “principal federal official” by Chertoff.

Another issue was the pre-disaster reporting. The nation’s news media portrayed the disaster as any other possibility. The media had increased their warning about the catastrophe but majority of the residents remained in the city. According to Sylves (2006), the local government failed during this process as they could have insisted the residents to evacuate. There were published warning concerning evacuations of the city along with the dire storm of warning and its predicted intensity. If the residents and the government took heed of these warning, they would be preparation before and to the response of the disaster. 

Challenges for the Leader of an Interagency Team

According to Interagency collaboration (2009), coordination of joint interagency is important but challenging due to cultural differences among team members and lack of focused and clear performance measures. The real challenge in the government sector is not the multi-lateral exercise nor is it large-scale high-level but the day to day realities while working across the boundaries with the goal of achieving outcomes. This creates the root of many obstacles, frustrations and problems experienced by teams. The three challenges facing interagency are limited resources of systems of care partners, it is time consuming and staffs turn into key positions.

Collaboration is a developmental process that takes time and requires collaborative efforts. A community that is developing such a system is required to allow sufficient time while establishing structural elements like formal interagency agreements, formal collaborative groups at the service and supervisory level and cross-agency governance. It is therefore important for communities to have enough time in identifying secure funds that are flexible, collaborative-specific staff and development of commitment in problem solving and group decision making. It takes time for information to travel, assimilated and in arriving in to a decision from one agency to the other. Deepening and maintaining partnership requires progressive renewal of common goals commitment.

Another challenge is having limited resource in a system. One of the significant challenge in interagency is time constraints and lack of resources and funding. Nationwide, local and state agencies are facing limited human resource budget which in some instances is compounded by State budget deficits. In many instances, funds are restricted and siloed to particular services. Regardless of personal perspective on the benefits of a team or working together, limited funds and resources hastens the challenges at all interagency levels while building collaboration. 

Lack of proper coordination is another challenge facing interagency. Communication system may be poor, leading to barriers in the system. Another issue occurs when key individuals transfer, retire or resign they take with them valuable experiences, interpersonal relationship, institutional knowledge and credibility. Frontline staff turnover is a significant challenge in maintaining interagency collaboration. Having new personnel in collaboration system creates a new developmental process before the partners creates a relationship. Interagency is an important aspect that requires intelligent leaders who are willing to work in harmony with each other. 

Significant Issues for an IA Leader

Leaders in an interagency system are required to work in harmony, to achieve interagency effectiveness; they are required to share information, legal or regulatory challenges and politics.

Information Sharing

Multiple agencies are required to join the dots. Poor interagency collaboration and communication is contributing to the government failures that are surrounding 9/11 like the Hurricane Katrina (Interagency collaboration, 2009). Despite the need of having a collaborative system in agencies, few leaders are trained to do so. Generally, the acceptance of information sharing has been deficit at local, state and federal. Information sharing can be made more promising by using the six-region information network. This network is known as Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) (Interagency collaboration, 2009). There exists a gap of information sharing in the Federal government because managers are used to working with command-and-control leadership model. This gap can be bridged by teaching individual leadership skill. 

Regulatory Challenges

There are increased pressures in many agencies concerning interagency programs. Several policy issues and challenges influence the interagency policies. Some challenges may limit the sharing of information between agencies. Another issue caused by legal systems is the processes taken before issuance of something or before making a decision. These legal policies may affect interagency either positively or negatively depending with the requirements an time. 

Personalities In Interagency 

Personality affects all aspects of the performance of a person and the way they reacts to their job situations. Not all personalities are suited for all jobs so it is important to recognize personality traits among leaders especially in interagency collaboration. Good interpersonal skills are important and most challenging aspects of effective interagency collaborations. Personality traits will influence what leaders say, what they do, what they mean to say, what the others hear and how they interpret the message. Personalities affect personal communication style which influences the success or failure of interagency collaboration.

References

Benoit, P. (2012). Hurricane Katrina. New York: Children’s Press.

Interagency collaboration. (2009). [Washington, D.C.].

Miller, D. (2009). Disaster response. Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Skinner, R. & Hodges, M. (2006). A performance review of FEMA’s disaster management activities in response to Hurricane Katrina. [Washington, D.C.]: Dept. of Homeland Security, Office of Inspections and Special Reviews.

Smith, M. & Gaviria, M. (2016). The Storm. FRONTLINE. Retrieved 25 October 2016, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/storm/

Sylves, R. (2006). President Bush and Hurricane Katrina: A Presidential Leadership Study. The ANNALS Of The American Academy Of Political And Social Science, 604(1), 26-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716205286066