Individual responsibility is a major theme of contemporary politics. Is it possible to expect too much of central and local government in times of crisis?
Introduction
Individual responsibility forms one of the most crucial themes in contemporary politics because it invokes careful establishment and evaluation of different institutions, strong focus and objectivity, and high level precision that make it easy to address crisis and prevent their resilience. Crisis as recent authors point out must be considered part of the key issues leaders would encounter at one time or another and that creates heroes and villains with catalytic speed. It is the view of this paper that no, it is not possible to expect too much of central and local governments during the times of crisis. As a result, this essay provides an in-depth analysis of contemporary positioning and leadership visioning in crisis times, the need to invoke high professionalism and their access to resources and information. Using key crisis in the world, leadership authority is further analyzed in making key decisions while the role of communication and terminating crisis is further brought to focus. The paper concludes by outlining models that central and local governments should employ during crisis.
Leadership positioning and visioning
(i) Establishment and requirements of a leader
According to Coombs and Holladay (2010, p. 39), leadership must be viewed in the context of a leader’s ability to manage key situations that define their roles and therefore achieving their objectives. The contemporary world is however taking this consideration further by seeking to establish clearer definition of a leader to pre-assess their capacity to deliver various objectives. According to situational leadership theories, a leader must be able to integrate his knowledge in predicting possible issues and disasters before they happen. In the last two United States presidential elections, Suresh (2009, p. 49) brings out the critical evaluation of leaders through public debates and personal preferences that sheds light on their ability to address various disasters. Suresh (2009, p. 61) continues to say that President George Bush was re-elected in the year 2002 due to his strong emphasis on addressing terrorism. With everybody accepting that terrorism was a threat which could hit them like it happened on September 9/11, Jaques (2007, pp. 147-148) argues that subsequent leaders had to be defined on such a baseline.
The current Obama administration as Lewis (2010, p. 128) reports has been established on the platform of facilitating change of the models that preceded it. In this case, the government creates a new force with which to look at issues and establishing new solutions. This is evident from president Obama’s recent action of assuming full responsibility and instituting major changes following the attempt to bomb Southwest Airlines in December 2009. While it was largely expected that the president would point his finger at the respective authorities, he took many by surprise when he indicated to the public that it was indeed his personal responsibility and that security of the people was bestowed on him. This positioning has therefore created a baseline which junior administrators have to strongly adhere to. Contemporary politics to concur with Lewis (2010, p. 130) is therefore undergoing a critical evolution where response will be largely determined on effectiveness of the assumed strategies as opposed to shifting blames on others.
(ii) The link of leadership operations and crisis management
Governance as Arjen (2005, p. 51) explains calls for administrations to create a strong link between immediate authorities and the expected results. In an event of crisis, authors appear in agreement that hope must be created through establishing the correct strategies for addressing it. Central governments remain the key authority that is entrusted by the society to manage all emerging issues. Therefore, central and local governments must use the normalcy period to create critical units that seek to address specific crisis when they occur. A local authority must always equip itself with firefighting systems that can respond to such cases in their jurisdiction with both speed and effectiveness. During the 1982 Tylenol Crisis in Chicago, Arjen (2005, p. 53) reports that the local government was so swift in responding to the public by facilitating communication, withdrawing similar chemicals from retailer’s shelves, and providing alternatives to the consumers. Though the crisis resulted from external tampering of medicine in the retailer’s shelves, Iwan (2008, p. 124) explains that Johnson and Johnson Company assumed full responsibility which amounted to massive losses. By offering the correct leadership during the period of crisis, both leaders and followers operate in harmony and therefore easily managed the crisis.
Invoking analytical consideration and professionalism
(i) Use of key institutions to prepare, analyze and address disasters
From his definition of leadership, Lynette, Beverley and Glendon (2010, p. 264-265) bring out the role of analysis and professionalism in various operations for easier coordination and crisis management. There is need to understand that leadership in governments cannot be perfect but must be run on critical analysis of prevailing situations. How should this analysis be carried out to facilitate individual responsibility? Harvard Business School (2004, p. 102) and Barton (2007, p. 88) indicate that governments are made up of different institutions which addresses various issues. By extension, each institution is charged with responsibilities of creating structures that can address crisis whenever they occur. In the recent oil leak crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, the government strongly addressed the whole situation from The United States Energy Information Administration unit. How exactly was the whole problem addressed? With the immense magnitude of the problem, Guttman, Netter and Tapper (2010) explain that the issue was diagnosed not just during the session of occurrence, but from the time when the decision for offshore oil exploration was established. Addressing such problems must be conclusive to support and defend the earlier decision for oil exploration.
Strong pressure was evident from Obama administration on the British Petroleum to come up with fast solutions that are workable. By looking at the extent of damage in the whole Gulf of Mexico, one agrees with Friederike and Juliana (2010, p. 117) that it is not expecting too much from the central government by insisting that it should clean up the region and meet the hefty losses that people incurred. As a representative of the people, the government’s push for effective compensation indicates the centrality of its concerns and responsibility to the people. Further more; emphasis by the central government that this disaster will be used to prevent further disasters invokes an even greater sense of responsibility.
(ii) Articulating professionalism in disaster management
The prime role of governments and leaders is creating systems that are driven by professionalism and therefore creating a guarantee for services delivery. Jaques (2007, pp. 155-157) conclusion concurs with Babuska and Groen (2010, p. 93) view who applaud the United States administrations over the years for emphasizing on professionalism. As a result, claiming that demands by the people for excellent and high quality actions that avert disasters to be asking too much is indeed an understatement. Babuska and Groen (2010, p. 104) continue to ask; if citizen’s demand for better services from their governments is too much, who should they turn to? As indicated earlier, governance is about decision making, but decision’s validity must be leveraged with application of professionalism. Following the terrorist attack of World Trade Center in New York on September 11th 2001, the government came out strongly to create a highly elaborate model that has seen great reduction of possibility for similar terror attacks in the nation (Friederike and Juliana, 2010, p. 119). Government strongly mobilized its resources as efforts were directed on addressing and containing the situation. Professionally, about 200 units such as The New York Police Department, The New York Fire Department and The Emergency Services Units among others were deployed in record time to assist with rescue and recovery). However, these events could not be considered adequate because the exact causes/s of problem remained unsolved; more legislative policies were long overdue.
Though Suresh (2009, p. 56) reports of possible slow response by the United States and Louisiana local government to the Katrina Disasters, he agrees that the magnitude of the disaster was indeed very immense. However, the citizens were not asking too much taking into consideration the massive suffering they encountered during the unexpected floods and destructions. It is critical that natural disasters such as hurricanes and rough weathers are professionally predicted to give ample warning and reducing the overall accrued damages. As evidenced by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) great precision in predicting latter hurricanes and rough weathers, Stefan and Wüstemann (2010, p. 279) argue that people of Louisiana have a cause to cite laxity and lack of pro-activity in addressing the Katrina hurricane disasters. Professionalism must characterize all stages of crisis management to facilitate objectivity in addressing the disaster.
Creating effective and prompt communication during crisis
(i) Crisis communication
Ulmer, Sellnow and Seeger (2006, pp. 91-92) and Workplace Law Group (2010, p. 81) appear to concur that crises in the society should be viewed from the point of view of effective administration. Notably, period of crisis harbors one of the greatest tensions to both the affected and a nation at large. Structural-functional systems theory sees the central leadership as the focal point in determining how a disaster is addressed up to the healing session. Coombs and Holladay (2010, p. 44) and Schumaker (2010, p. 45) noted that though governments may be correct in the models they employ to address crises, lack of effective communication creates a major vacuum that may negate the whole process. Creating effective communication systems during a crisis is important for the following reasons.
First, Stefan and Wüstemann (2010, p. 284) note that both the government and its people move in the same tide which ease their operations. In 1993, The Pepsi Crisis was effectively reduced and ultimately addressed through effective communication. The tampering where syringes were placed on different cans of the company’s products created a major scare in the whole nation. With the company’s management being confident that this tampering was not originating from the production process, the government cooperated with the company in bringing to the public factual information on the disaster; a factor that made the community maintain their confidence on Pepsi Company’s products without significance drop in sales.
In a similar episode, Johnson and Johnson created strong communication networks with the help of local government of Chicago after tampering of its shelves Tylenol capsules. Notably, the tampering as Lynette et al (2010, p. 268) report was very dangerous as Tylenol capsule in selected shops was replaced with cyanide that was in quantities possible to kill an individual in less tan five minutes after consumption. Throughout the city of Chicago, people were warned using public addresses not to use Tylenol capsules and indeed to return any remains they could be holding. The government further informed the people on key progresses of the disaster like removal of the remaining quantities from shelves, major investigations and key compensations for those hurt from the lethal chemical consumption (Amanda, Cristina and Mumford, 2010, p. 454). Though the company incurred major losses for a problem that never originated from its production processes, it was very essential to the public. Citizens remain the most important focus and therefore, institutions must carry their operations with profit as the second important factor of consideration.
(ii) Credibility and change facilitation
McDonnell et al (2010, p. 156) report that crises in the society must be seen as part of expected occurrences, but must be addressed to generate clear response systems to reduce possibility of related disasters occurring. The public must therefore not remain at the losing end as leaders seek to gather political mileages from various situations. Communication with the public reduces the chances of speculation and possible use of propaganda by leaders to the public. From the continuous communication after the recent BP Oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, Tasman (2010) and Guttman et al (2010) explain that attempts to belittle the efforts being employed could easily have been amplified. However, constant address by the president and emphasis on efficacy of the process created hope to people in the region the nation as a whole. With the government as the servant to people, it is accountable to them and must create the needed harmony through communication during crisis.
In their view, Byran and Habibul (2010, pp. 89-91) argue that effective communication between a government and people provides the best link and understanding for both parties and therefore giving the established emergency response teams to address the situation. At this point it is important for one to agree that crises are very different and happen at different magnitudes; for instance, the oil leak at great depth in the Gulf of Mexico. Consequently, communication makes it possible to initiate new concepts, incorporate new assistance and even change strategies to assume more effective ones. Through some scholars are opposed to this consideration, the view underrates the importance of public and creates a possible room for speculation. Efforts by the government and British Petroleum Company made the public give room for testing of one technology after another one until the leaking section was effectively capped (Workplace Law Group, 2010, p. 86).
Administration’s greater access to information and resources
According to political theory, decision making assumed by central and local governments to address differing issues must be acceptable and viable. With contemporary politics being established on the platform of higher level democracy, McDonnell et al (2010, p. 159) report that managerial models are equally assume a high profile consideration. It is indeed this critical factor of acceptability that makes governments and individuals assume high responsibility towards their electorate. To begin with, the central government has the best access to information that can facilitate correct decision making. Unlike individual people and institutions, central and local governments are able to commence conclusive studies locally and nationally aimed at designing the best possible means of addressing disasters. As indicated earlier, citizen’s choice of their political leaders is based on expectations of their proposed developmental ideologies. In departments such as Health, Defense, and even Agriculture among others, accessing information facilitates greater appreciation of complexity and the overall interdependence in designing the best solutions.
OECD (2010, p. 69) brings out the notion of information sharing in preparation and addressing major crisis by governments and varied authorities. As the most supreme authorities, central governments have the capacity to seek information assistance for preparing or addressing various crises when they occur. From this empowerment, citizens cannot be accused of wanting too much from them. In the year 1998, Kenya sought information and technical assistance from international community to address the Al-Qaida bomb attack in its capital Nairobi (Ulmer et al, 2006, pp. 74-75). Therefore, leaders in a government are expected to have key solutions and alternatives based on gathered information. Though seemingly an ideal situation, Ulmer et al (2006, pp. 81) continue to say that gathered information must reflect the local setting to maximize their efficacy.
Governments wield authority and ratify final decisions
A major characteristic of governments in the society is authority and decision making in preparation and addressing crises. The rational choice theory postulates that actions assumed in any decision must be driven from the demand of maximizing the resulting good. However, Marcus and Hundelman (2009, p. 93) argue that often, it has been impossible to assess actions assumed as structures and involved personnel are thrown into a state of confusion. Marcus and Hundelman (2009, p. 96) add that by wielding central authority, governments are able to mobilize critical resources at the local level. For instance, it is possible deviate or create immediate response unit from the departments of defense, health or even police in addressing a given disaster.
No effort should be spared by the governments in making sure that response is indeed prompt and effective. Globally, all nations strongly responded to the recent global economic crises by injecting additional finances to prevent major companies from collapsing. United States mobilized US $ 700 Billion bailout plan which came at a time the economic crisis was threatening major businesses and industries in the nation. To the citizens, the Obama administration was obligated to protecting their investments and most importantly, their jobs. For an individual whose company or employment is at risk of getting lost, OECD (2010, p. 86) and Marcus and Hundelman (2009, p. 41) explain that it would not be asking too much from the administration to give them a future.
During the Exxon oil spill disaster, Borodzicz (2005, p. 19) reports that the government failed to invoke its authority effectively; a factor that led to thousand deaths of sea tattles, water birds and fish. The damage caused to blockage of salmon spawning runs was very dangerous; however, it could have been stopped. During the times of crisis, governments must invoke this authority and make effective decisions that slow an eventually halts the crisis.
Terminating crisis in an acceptable models
The single role of governments in the society during crises is to address the problem in the most effective method possible. Similar to the procedures employed during the crisis, Lynette et al (2010, p. 269-270) note the importance of preparing for post crises session. Governments should establish strong accountability models that seek to create an example towards latter models of crisis management. Often, governments have assumed that by addressing the core of any disaster, the whole problem is gone. However, this is incorrect. Dezenhall and Weber (2007, p. 72) cite the need for three key considerations in terminating crisis without causing unnecessary tensions and pressure. First, a responsive monitoring process should be established to flatten all possible ripples created by the crisis. Then, a holistic report informing the people on methods employed and their levels of efficiency would further be essential to justify them. Finally, governments should reconcile the effects of a crisis by facilitating resilience of citizens to their normal lifestyles.
While the above three closing considerations have often lacked especially in developing countries, contemporary politics cannot be considered effective in their absence. Dezenhall and Weber (2007, 75) argue that it would be incomplete to encourage people to move away from a flooded region without leveraging their sustainable lifestyles. Currently, the United States government is working with the British Petroleum Company to compensate all the people who were affected by the recent Gulf of Mexico oil leak. Notably, while some crisis such as weather driven are out of human control, Coombs and Holladay (2010, p. 31) argue that creating mechanisms to empower the people withdraws the burden from the government with speed.
Major criticism of this school of thought
Critiques of this view cite the prevailing situations which at times extend beyond what human beings are able to handle. Iwan (2008, p. 126) brings out the limitation of resources availability to governments and administrations which often curtail their capacity to act effectively. During the recent global economic crisis, the magnitude of the problem shook both international and local administrations. Both the president and his administration were unclear of what exact measures they were to take especially when the recession exceeded the predicted time. Though this consideration is indeed correct, the critiques appear to overlook the contingency factors that indicate there is no correct model of addressing any crisis. At any single moment, governments must create a highly responsive system which employs the best human capability of the time.
Further critiques argue that it is possible to expect too much from governments and local governments citing the view in this paper to be highly idealistic. Over the years as Coombs (2006, p. 47-52) laments that people consider their leaders as if they not human. Combs (2006, p. 69) therefore argues that leaders must be seen as part of the natural system and therefore subject to errors. Similar to the first critique, this view fails to appreciate that disasters cause key sufferings, loss of properties and ultimately slows down the overall economic growth. The view in this paper that it is not possible to expect too much from local leaders is indeed within the boundaries of human capabilities. It is generally agreeable in this paper that even the assumed methods such as during the September 11th terrorist attack in New York, was not indeed perfect. However, they were conclusive and operated within the precincts of the then government’s best ability.
Conclusion
This paper concludes by supporting the thesis statement, “individual responsibility forms one of the most crucial themes in contemporary politics because it invokes careful establishment and evaluation of different institutions, strong focus and objectivity, and high level precision that make it easy to address crisis and prevent their resilience.” Contemporary politics emphasis on individual responsibility came out as a critical and important element in centering focus on people. Leadership and positioning in the discussion emerged as an important platform towards assumption of effective leaders on the basis of their qualities which further strengthen the existing governance. Then, professionalism and careful analysis of a crisis was found to be very important in strengthening and leveraging crisis management to maintain objectivity. Effective communication and greater access to information by governments form essential pillars that generate harmony in decision making and flow of information which greatly mitigate possible speculation and maintain objectivity. Finally, closing a disaster was established as an important factor that facilitates resilience of people to their normal lives.
However, the critiques of the view in this paper equally have a strong case and therefore the need to consider them by employing the following recommendations. Governments should seek create stronger relationships with their subjects to understand them better especially during the times of crises. Then, strong analytical models should be established to focus on disasters and crises onset in facilitating adequate preparations and addressing them with speed. Finally, there is need to create permanent crisis response units that can be called within short notices to address crises whenever they occur avoid extensive loss of life and disruptions in the society.
References list
Amanda, S., Cristina, L. and Mumford, M. 2010. Leader vision formation and forecasting: The effects of forecasting extent, resources, and timeframe. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3)439-456.
Arjen, B.2005. The politics of crisis management: public leadership under pressure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Babuska, R. and Groen, F. 2010. Interactive Collaborative Information Systems. Boston: Springer.
Barton, L. 2007. Crisis leadership now: A real-world guide to preparing for threats, disaster, sabotage, and scandal. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Borodzicz, E. 2005. Risk, Crisis and Security Management. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Byran, T. and Habibul, H. 2010. Globalization East and West. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Coombs, T. and Holladay, J. 2010. The Handbook of Crisis Communication. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Coombs, W. 2006. Code Red in the Boardroom: Crisis Management as Organizational DNA. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dezenhall, E. and Weber, J. (2007). Damage control: Why everything you know about crisis management is wrong. New York: Sage..
Friederike, S. & Juliana, R. 2010. The social construction of crises in governmental and corporate communications: An inter-organizational and inter-systemic analysis. Public Relations Review, 36(2)112-119.
Guttman, M., Netter, S. and Tapper, T. 2010. President Obama Warns Don’t Celebrate Ending Oil Leak Yet. American Broadcasting Corporation. 16th July, 2010.
Harvard Business School, 2004. Crisis Management: Master the Skills to Prevent Disasters. PublisherHarvard Business Press.
Iwan, J. 2008. Predicting a recovery date from the economic crisis of 2008. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 44(3)122-129.
Jaques, T. 2007. Issue management and crisis management: An integrated, non-linear, relational construct. Public Relations Review, 33(2)147-157.
Lewis, A. 2010. The credit crunch: Ideological, psychological and epistemological perspectives. Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(2)127-131.
Lynette, M., Beverley, S. and Glendon, I. 2010. Stakeholder reactions to company crisis communication and causes. Public Relations Review, 36(3)263-271.
Marcus, E. and Hundelman, H. 2009. Politics in a Changing World: A Comparative Introduction to Political Science. (Edition5).Washington: Cengage Learning.
McDonnell, A., Lamare, R., Gunnigle, P. and Lavelle, J. 2010. Developing tomorrow’s leaders—Evidence of global talent management in multinational enterprises. Journal of World Business, 45(2)150-160.
OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010. OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies OECD Reviews of Risk Management Policies: Italy 2010: Review of the Italian National Civil Protection System. Yew York: OECD Publishing.
Richard, T. and Mumford, D. 2010. Leader cognition: Improving leader performance through causal analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1)1-19.
Schumaker, P. 2010. The Political Theory Reader. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Stefan, M. & Wüstemann, H. 2010. Public governance of information asymmetries: The gap between reality and economic theory. Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(2)278-285.
Suresh, G. 2009. Crisis Management: Master the Skills to Prevent Disasters. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Macmilan.
Tasman, T. 2010. Gulf oil spill: BP cuts pipe, clearing way for cap. Los Angeles Times, 3rd June, 2010.
Ulmer, R., Sellnow, T. and Seeger, M. 2006. Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Workplace Law Group, 2010. Premises, Health and Safety Handbook 2010.New York: Workplace Law Group.