Business “Not” as Usual
The National Incident Management System, Federalism, and Leadership
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6363631 |
|---|---|
| Authors | William Lester (0000-0003-4086-9280, Jacksonville State University), Daniel Krejci (Jacksonville State University) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 67 |
| Issue | s1 |
| Pages | 84-93 |
| Publication date | 2007-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Public Administration Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0033-3352 • E-ISSN: 1540-6210 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00817.x |
| OpenAlex | W1994141656 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 18 |
| References cited | 6 |
Federal, state, and local governments did not work well together to provide an effective response to Hurricane Katrina. Some of this failure can be attributed to the power struggle between the federal and state governments. The National Incident Management System (NIMS) was designed to foster collaboration among governments and their departments and agencies. However, this system largely failed. To overcome this failure, many have proposed centralizing disaster response in the federal government. Centralized control would damage the basic federal structure of our government as the national government appeals to the ever‐present dangers of terrorism and natural disaster to gain permanent primacy in the relationship. The current federal system actually can work better than centralization if leadership and organizational transformation are stressed. The National Incident Management System has many elements in place that can make the federal system of disaster response work if the proper stress on organizational transformation and leadership is applied. If we ignore the systemic issues and simply replace people or re‐assign responsibilities, we may simply fail again in the not too distant future with a different cast of characters. John R. Harrald, director of the Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management, George Washington University U.S. House Committee on Government Reform hearing, September 15, 2005
Business · Crisis management · Emergency management · Federalism · Government (linguistics · Political science · Politics · Public relations · State (computer science · Work (physics · Disaster Management and Resilience · Disaster Response and Management · Engineering · Infrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis · Law · Public Administration
The Incident Command System
Administrative Leadership Theory
Covid-19 and the policy sciences
Stakeholders analysis of Covid-19 management and control
Collaborative emergency management and national emergency management network
Does transformational leadership build resilient public and nonprofit organizations
Prepared for a crisis? Basic elements of crisis management in an organisation
Exploring the role of policy actors in the implementation of social distancing
Modern leadership principles for public administration
Making sense of the U.S. Covid-19 pandemic response
Understanding Multiplexity of Collaborative Emergency Management Networks
Structure and Network Performance
Explaining Intergovernmental Coordination during the Covid-19 Pandemic
Who's to Blame? (Mis) perceptions of the Intergovernmental Response to Disasters
Federalism and the management of the Covid-19 crisis
Kinder, gentler – and crisis-proof? Consensus democracy, inclusive institutions and Covid-19 pandemic performance
Conflict and Collaboration in Wildfire Management
Public Preferences for Disaster Federalism
| Unique citing works | 18 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2008 - 2023 (16) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 17 |