Remarks by
A. Kathryn Power, M.Ed.
Director

Center for Mental Health Services
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

SAMHSA Spirit of Recovery Conference
“Bringing Out the Best” Effective Leadership Before, During and After a Disaster

May 22, 2006
New Orleans, LA

PowerPoint version

Slide 1/ An Essay on Leadership in Crisis

Unimaginable. Unbelievable. Unforgettable. Times of crisis leave indelible etches on our psyches.

Some fifty years later, I still remember Hurricane Hazel, a deadly and tremendous storm of enormous power that made an enduring impression on my young mind.

I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. My dad, who served in the Navy, told my older sister Mary where we should go if something should happen to him and he didn’t come home.

I remember the nuclear accident on Three Mile Island on the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania. I lived a mere 8 miles away with my two sons and husband.

I remember Hurricane Bob, downing 50% of the telephone poles in my home state that lay in its path. The hurricane became one of the “three B’s” that my Governor became famous for.

I remember the night of the Station Nightclub Fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island, in which 100 people lost their lives. I was the MH/SA authority at the time. Today, four years later, the community and the State are still recovering.

I am forever changed by these events. We are all changed—emotionally, psychologically, physiologically, personally, professionally—each time we go through one of these crises. We rebound…we recover…and we go on…but we are never the same.

Increasingly, we are all experiencing crisis situations…extraordinary situations that go far beyond “routine” emergencies. Over the last few years, the world community has survived unthinkable terrorist attacks…a catastrophic tsunami…devastating earthquakes…and a relentless string of hurricanes that, at the climax, unleashed the wrath of Katrina. 

The tea leaves, the CIA, the economists, and the meteorologists all say it’s not going to get any better.

What does this mean for each of us in our respective leadership roles? It means the pressure is on. The period of disaster we have just come through has made one point abundantly clear: Effective leadership during crisis can make the difference between life and death for both people and organizations.

Slide 2/No greater test

There is no greater test than to lead during times of crisis. Citizens expect governments and public agencies to keep them out of harm’s way.  Journalists who help to shape the crisis in the minds of the public are watching us… carefully.  So are public interest groups, advocates, and others that influence the behavior of the community.  They expect us to provide effective leadership…no matter what.

We know effective leadership under crisis is eminently possible. However, in the book, The Politics of Crisis Management, authors Boin, Hart, Stern, and Sundelius emphatically state that we can prepare for the crises of the future “only if we learn from the variety of experiences we and other leaders have had” in the past.

These last few years have been—as Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Anan, describes—a time of “profound lessons.” We, in behavioral health, have much to learn from the difficult journeys of 9/11, Katrina, Wilma and Rita, the tsunami, terrorist attacks on US embassies around the world, the Oklahoma City bombing, and other crises. As Administrator Curie stated, now is the time for us to take a critical look at the leadership of these relief and response efforts...and build upon the lessons learned.

It’s time for us to look at organizations—inside and outside the circle of public health—that have survived, even flourished, in the wake of disaster...to see what they can teach us about how to better prepare for and respond to crisis situations. It is critical for us to learn how others—from every discipline…in government and the commercial arena—have approached these issues. Behavioral health—which includes mental health and substance use conditions—simply must be at the table as these hard-earned lessons are being shared.

In the Katrina aftermath, we saw a number of stellar examples of organizations that responded well to the behavioral health needs of their employees and the larger community. The Coast Guard stands out for its unique approach to preparedness training…the Marriott Corporation is to be commended for the way it supported its employees…and Bell South exemplifies the effective use of logistics planning…pre-staging every aspect of their response plan before the storms hit.

Many scholars and experts are now analyzing the leadership of our most recent disasters to determine what went right, what went wrong, and what needs to change.  In the aftermath of these kinds of crises, we are compelled to ask questions we have never asked before. This morning, I’d like us to consider, together, some of the key questions that have risen out of the experiences of leaders on the front lines of disaster relief.

In thinking through these questions, and examining how others have handled crisis situations, we can begin to formulate our own answers to what Herman “Dutch” Leonard, from the Kennedy School executive session on Crisis Management, calls the central question: “What do we do when no one knows what to do?”

Should we rely on the traditional “command and control” structure or should we adopt a “cultivate and coordinate” approach?

As I pose this question, I am well aware that all of our emergency plans are based on the National Response Plan model—a very disciplined, regulated, predictable, and well-practiced model that has served us well.

But, with the scale and complexity of contemporary disasters, some experts say that it’s time to rethink this approach. Experts at MIT Sloan say that today’s disasters demand that leaders “force themselves out of restrictive command and control hierarchies and build relationships outside their usual networks.” Proponents of this “cultivate and coordinate” approach tout the MIT Sloan model of distributed leadership, explaining that no one person, no one team, no one organization is capable of managing all of the issues related to major calamities. The distributed leadership model recommends “developing productive relationships and networks, visualizing the desired outcome, and inventing ways of working together to realize that vision.”

Management expert and MIT Professor Thomas Kochan says that after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and in our most recent disasters, leadership did not draw together coalitions of critical interests. He states that a pervasive “go it alone” mindset predicted the uncoordinated efforts to prepare for and respond to recent crises. Kochan declares, “Government cannot and need not manage crises of this magnitude alone...it needs to draw on and work in a coordinated fashion with the full range of resources available.” 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service is often touted as being among the most effective in handling crisis management in large part because of its collaborative approach.  In the Forest Service, five federal fire fighting agencies have voluntarily come together to form a seamless organization that operates as a single, coordinated unit…a single entity that reflects each of the agency’s unique areas of expertise.

When an event happens, they are able to set up a center in two hours—which includes an operations group, a planning group, and a working headquarters for field operations.  They will know how many people they’ve deployed, where they are, and set in motion a whole set of organizational and operational processes.

Another MIT professor takes the call for teamwork a step further...promoting the need for innovative collaborative systems. Professor Otto Scharmer believes a critical flaw in some disaster relief situations resulted from responding to today’s issues based on yesterday’s realities. When we are confronted with new challenges, Scharmer says, “we have to invent new solutions...the best way to reinvent is to bring together a broad coalition of individuals with a stake in the outcome.” He says “failure to approach each challenge anew from a multi-stakeholder perspective leads to major breakdowns in the handling of catastrophes.”  It is clear: we have to challenge ourselves to think differently about roles.

Innovative collaboration and pre-incident planning paid off in July 2005 when terrorists struck the London Underground “tube.” Transit officials there had provided specialized training to shopkeepers at businesses near the subway stations, and practiced drills regularly. By doing so, the transit system was able to clear out 3,000 to 4,000 individuals in 3 to 4 minutes.

Who are the true leaders during times of disaster? Is leadership the sole bailiwick of those with title and authority?

Many would say that the kind of leadership Rudy Giuliani demonstrated in the aftermath of 9/11 set a crisis management standard for the world. But, in an article in Working Papers, Scott Webster, Associate Director of the Center for Public Leadership, suggests that such a figurehead advances a “traditional” view of leadership—a view that “equates position with leadership.” Webster believes that it could be problematic to focus on one authority figure as a “lone candle in the wind…the John Wayne moseying into town to set things right.” He explains, “Leadership is a process…not a position. It is collaborative, not individualistic. It involves teamwork, cooperation, the mobilizing of countless resources.”

But, what about the need for formal leadership?

In The Politics of Crisis Management, the authors suggest that while we will see a lot of “situational” leadership during times of crises—that is, leadership activities being performed through a network of responders at all levels—formal leaders “carry a special responsibility for making sure that the tasks of leadership are properly addressed and executed.”

I saw, firsthand, the special role that a formal leader can play during the near-disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. When the accident at the plant led to a partial meltdown of the reactor core, the nearly 500,000 residents of the surrounding counties were understandably concerned. As one of those residents, I can tell you that as the accident unfolded...and each new release of information came from the plant operators’ public relations people...our concerns turned to full-fledged fear. The information the PR people were delivering was less than forthright. While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA each sent their crisis teams to Harrisburg to handle the situation, Governor Dick Thornburg took charge and had a calming effect on the entire community.

I compare Thornburg’s style to that of Franklin Roosevelt, who had a gift for telling people the truth about the Depression and the War, and letting them know the danger, but also the possibilities within the crisis. Thornburg and Roosevelt are leaders from whom we can learn a great deal.

Should we focus our efforts on being effective disaster managers or anticipators?

The “inventor” of systems dynamics, MIT Sloan Professor Jay Forrester, says “almost every disaster arises out of a systemic set of policies that created or at least contributed to the disaster.”  Disaster arises, he says, “from failure to internalize and act on one of Murphy’s Law’s...if something can go wrong it will.” People, politics, and the press, he says, are “more excited about the hero who copes with a disaster than the people who quietly prevent it...but it is the anticipators who deserve credit for disasters averted.”

While no amount of planning could have completely prepared the community for the thunderous blast that shattered Oklahoma City—physically and emotionally—on April 19, 1995, Sheryl R. McLain, of the Oklahoma Hospital Association, says the most important lesson learned in the Oklahoma City bombing is the value of preparedness. She says, “Never underestimate the importance of having disaster preparedness plans in place which are practiced regularly via mock disaster drills.” The key to a successful community response, she maintains, “is the need to coordinate all community agencies’ disaster preparedness plans before a community-wide disaster occurs.”

What about unforeseen challenges?

The Kennedy School’s Leonard says, crisis emergencies “invalidate the scripts we’ve made in advance and as a consequence, in the face of novelty, we need improvisation.  We need to rapidly invent and improvise our way through the situation. We can prepare for specific emergencies…but whatever you have prepared for, there will be things that you haven’t.” Leonard’s view is that we have to be ready “both for what we know might happen and for what we never imagined could happen.”

When Hurricane Katrina hit, the Mayor of the small town of D’Iberville, Mississippi, instantly responded. In the hours and days after the devastating storm struck this town of only 8,000 residents, the Mayor organized the D’Iberville Volunteers Foundation, instantaneously creating...and executing...a vision to bring relief to those in need. The early relief effort included the establishment of a volunteer center to direct and coordinate disaster recovery efforts; soliciting and distributing food and other essential materials; and conducting a needs assessment for each home in the City. In the months following Katrina, the Foundation has established fundraising projects to offset the cost of its endeavors, which has allowed it to move forward with the assessment of damages, repair, and rebuilding, and the creation and operation of a Volunteer Village to house and feed volunteers from outside the Gulf Coast area. To date, more than 400 D’Iberville homes have been completed…and more than 400 others are being repaired or rebuilt. This is how we should meet unforeseen challenges: head on!

What about follow-up?  What is the role of the leader in the days, weeks, and months after a disaster?

Disaster leadership is a process...not an event. While it is tempting to see a crisis as a short term event, disaster leadership plays out over the long run. 

Ambassador Prudence Bushnell’s experience when the American Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, was bombed in August 1998, provides an unparalleled example of leadership over the long run.

A truck loaded with explosives was detonated at the back of the Embassy. More than 200 were killed and more than 5,000 were injured.  The Ambassador was knocked unconscious by the force of the blast. But, after regaining consciousness, she made her way down 21 flights of stairs in pitch darkness to see the extent of the damage to her Embassy.  And then, she carried on. Led by the Ambassador, the Embassy's staff stayed on after the bombing to rebuild, take care of its injured, and mourn the death of friends.

An article in the October 4, 2004 issue of Government ExecutiveMagazine, spotlighted the Ambassador’s “courage in crisis”—

The bombing survivors have characterized her as the glue that held them together. She and her staff never closed the embassy. They moved to temporary quarters, where she hung a quotation "to remind people of how [she] viewed their efforts”…The passage reads, "Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, 'I will try again tomorrow.' "

The Nairobi Embassy bombing set off a process which, at many levels, is still ongoing.  Leadership in crisis requires this kind of long-term stamina.

From this dire experience, the Ambassador drew three leadership lessons, which I’d like to share with you today.

• First, is the importance of a clear mission all can understand - in this case, caring for those in need and restoring American embassy services.
• Second, is the importance of putting the right team in place in key jobs, as she had worked to do long before the attack.
• Third, it is essential to have a "practiced leader," someone who has had deep enough experience to know how to handle crisis and who is not afraid to delegate, or share power.

Slide 3/Critical Tasks of Leadership

For example, the authors of The Politics of Crisis Management identity five critical tasks of crisis leadership that provide a conceptual structure for examining the tasks of leadership during each phase of disaster—

Sense making – In the acute crisis phase, leaders must appraise the threat and decide what the crisis is all about. Leaders must recognize from often vague and contradictory sets of signals that something out of the ordinary is happening. Leaders have to “distill the cogent signals from the noise of crisis.” Leaders have to make sense of them.

Decision making – Crises force leaders to confront decisions they don’t face on a daily basis. Crisis decision making is about making hard calls which involve tough value tradeoffs and often major political risks. The management of crises requires coordination of the many different groups involved in the implementation of crisis decisions. And, the authors remind us, “The question of who is in charge in a crisis can arouse great passions!”

Meaning making – The Politics of Crisis Management explains that when something extraordinary happens, leaders are expected to turn mountains of raw data into a coherent picture of the situation. Leaders must give meaning to the unfolding crisis in such a way that their efforts to manage it are enhanced. And remember: leaders are not the only ones trying to frame the crisis. News organizations and others are doing their own interpretation. “Among this cacophony of voices and sentiments,” the authors say, leaders must “achieve and maintain some degree of control over the images of the crisis that circulate in the public domain.”

Terminating – The authors describe another critical leadership task…the need to determine the point at which the state of emergency is over so that the process of returning to normal can begin. Leaders have to make an accurate and balanced assessment of the need to keep the crisis infrastructure in place. And, then, there is the issue of accountability. “Leaders have to render account for what has happened and gain acceptance for this account.” Coping with the processes of crisis accountability is a difficult and critical task of leadership.

Learning – A final strategic leadership task in crisis management is lesson drawing. Lesson drawing is one of the most underdeveloped aspects of crisis management. In the real world, it can be difficult to determine exactly what went wrong and what should be adapted to prevent a similar crisis. Different, and often contradictory, lessons are learned by different groups and organizations. This paradox is one of the difficult dilemmas of leadership that must be addressed.

Slide 4/Leadership following catastrophe

There is not one set of “best practices” that can be uniformly applied to leadership during a crisis. Ambassador Bushnell describes a series of practical lessons she learned while taking care of the people she led in Nairobi. I think these lessons have a lot of relevance for the work we are all called to do during disasters. She advises—

• Remember you are dealing with a process; not an event;
• Recreate normalcy;
• Redirect priorities; set and celebrate achievable goals, however small;
• Use rituals to allow individuals a chance to heal;

Slide 5/Leadership following catastrophe, cont.

• Resurrect community, carefully integrating those who replace absent colleagues and tending to the families of those who were lost;
• Avoid the “we” and “they” phenomenon;
• Pay attention to behavioral cues and reach out;
• Hold yourself to the tone and behaviors you seek in others;
• Listen, if you want to be heard; and
• Take care of yourself…so that you can take care of your people.

The most important pearl of wisdom we can take away from Ambassador Bushnell’s experience...and all of the experiences I have described today...is this: “disasters and terrorism strike the innocent who do not deserve what has happened or the pain that ensues. Neither do they deserve to have their difficulties compounded by organizations, practices, or leaders who do not know what to do.”

She is right. The lessons are out there. As leaders, it is up to us to use them. Our leadership roles assign a tremendous responsibility to each of us. These roles constantly test us for our level of commitment to what we believe in. There is no greater test. But, I know we are up to the challenge. We are public servants. Responding to the needs of others…giving our all to build resilience and facilitate recovery in those we serve…and inspiring others to act similarly…is what we do best. Success will come as we demonstrate a never-ending commitment to act on our beliefs until we achieve our goals. I believe this is how we can…and must…exercise our leadership. Thank you very much.