Nagin Good Example Of Effective Management?Essay Preview: Nagin Good Example Of Effective Management?Report this essayIn the life of a manager one faces many hurdles and numerous pressures. One such hurdle is how to handle the unexpected or a crisis situation. In our study of crisis situations we have chosen to review the leadership exhibited by Mayor Giuliani after 9/11 to that of Mayor Nagin of New Orleans after hurricane Katrina.
Mayor Giuliani in his early career worked his way up through our nations legal system. Eventually in 1983 he was appointed as U.S. Attorney General for the Southern District of New York. Later during 1993 he ran for the position of mayor for New York City. At this time New York faced mounting crime, unemployment, and piling trash in its streets. The citizens had coined the city “unmanageable” moral was low. Giuliani after winning the election started with something small and noticeable to let the people know he meant business. He needed to get the ball rolling so he aimed at ridding the city of “squeegee men”; who were panhandlers that held up traffic and harassed drivers. This we feel is an important attribute of Giuliani who once said, “Aim to solve a problem small enough that its easily understood and yields an unambiguous solution” (Giuliani 12). By doing something attainable he set a goal that could be readily accomplished and as such invoked confidence in the public. As Giuliani later noted, “When we solved the problem quickly and decisively, we changed perceptions about what the citys leaders could accomplish” (Giuliani 12). An important aspect was the speed and thoroughness of his actions on the squeegee men. If he had been slow to act or only diluted the problem then people would feel he as though he had a strong mouth but weak hands.
Giuliani also throughout his incumbency acted as a public figure. After being elected he started a weekly-call-in show on WABC as a way of being in touch with his people. In addition to this he made many TV appearances on shows such as David Letterman and even did comedic skits on the show. He is quoted as saying, “The people who work for you, those who look to you for answers, the media, even your rivals have a right to know how you see the world” (Giuliani 12). He consistently tried to be in touch with the public and accomplish goals. In our opinion his past performance provides insight into his actions during and after 9/11.
After the attacks on 9/11 America was in a state of shock, fear, and uncertainty. New York was in an extremely trying time in its history. Giuliani did not break his composure; instead he remained steadfast and calm. He stood as a bastion of hope for the city, remaining in the publics view at all times. Giuliani once said, “To be a leader you have to get your ideas into the hearts and minds of other people,Even more important is to be there when things go wrong – thats when people need leaders the most” (Use your fear, says Giuliani 14). He stood shoulder to shoulder with the families who suffered losses of loved ones as opposed to distancing himself from the duties at hand. We feel this is indicative and exemplary of one of the important aspects of crisis management, which is being visible and putting the people before business.
Also we discovered that Giuliani and his staff had been fastidious in there preparation for crises. While they never foresaw the attacks they had prepared and practiced how to react to a wide variety of crises. Giuliani once gave advice saying, “The great advantage of relentless preparation is that it prepares you not only for those disasters you anticipate, but for those you don
” (Giuliani 12). While the crises was uncertain Rudys preparedness allowed for him and his staff to react in a planned, unified, and coherent manner to the terror attacks. It allowed for numerous decisions to be made in an orderly fashion as opposed to what might have happened if preparation was poor. For example had no steps been made towards a crises plan then the whole system would have failed, people would not have known whom to turn to in order to get things done. All these steps are essential; there must be a means of effective communication, and a specified crises management team and spokesperson set in place.
Finally, Giuliani was open with the situation. He did not hide facts, instead he let the public in on the details, “Giuliani in his public statements mirrored the emotions of New Yorkers at the time: shock, sadness, anger, resolution to rebuild, and the desire for justice to be done to those responsible” (Wikipedia). We think that because of this he earned the respect of the public and in addition to respect their trust. Giulianis calm and focused demeanor helped galvanize the people of New York City and keep everyone centered on rebuilding. Yet, he did all this while allowing for a period of remorse, a period in which he partook openly. He led not as a magnate, but as a common person of the people. Timing is everything, and Giuliani knew when it was time to get to work. Acting in the manner he did gave people time to grieve, and encouraged them to seek resolve in rebuilding their City. Its this delicate blend that we feel earned Giuliani the coveted title of “Prince of New York City”.
Now we turn our analysis to another mayor and a completely different disaster. This crisis involves the devastating affects of hurricane Katrina upon New Orleans. The mayor of New Orleans is Ray Nagin. Mayor Nagin prior to his public office was a vice president and general manager of Cox Communications. He had no previous political experience and was considered to be a long shot in the candidacy race of 2002. He won favor of his constituents by favoring an anti-corruption campaign in New Orleans. He even went so far as to arrest his own cousin who was involved in some of the citys corruption. He specifically targeted the Taxicab Bureau and Utilities Department. It was clear from Nagins beginnings as mayor that he was an outspoken and no-nonsense leader.
In preparationfor Katrina steps were taking to ready the city and its residents. Upon receiving word from the National hurricane center of Katrinas increasing power Nagin advised through August 26th-27th that citizens keep an eye on the storm. He eventually issued a voluntary evacuation. In one interveiw about the evacuations Nagin described the process, “activated essential staff, and asked that each department head begin to prepare their staff for a possible evacuation, with some to stay to provide necessary services during and after the storm if it came our way” (Nagin). He refrained from issuing a mandatory evacution because of concerns about the liability the city would incurr for closing hotels and buisnesses. By
1) The evacuation of the remaining residents was taken over by a government-run building that in turn was given notice to leave to meet FEMA’s request for assistance. Since the evacuation of a single family was an inconvenience and a violation of the civil liberties of all citizens, his concern is not to provide an emergency relief effort, but to secure services to those that could not return for their families (Nagin, 2007.)^ According to the Nagin family’s accounts, the building was not used in the process of evacuation, a fact confirmed by the owner, who was able to determine that they would all be able to recover their home and home, their families’ belongings, and their business. One of the families was a woman who had a minor child in the front yard of the building when the building was taken over. (Tolmich, 2004, p. 3). This individual has no legal standing to be in charge of their home because the building was only for a week (Tolmich, 2004, p. 2).^ They had a previous property in the city that they were renting out, but for safety reasons the building was moved back in to a lower level to accommodate the increased building population, and their home was rented out. This person has no recourse, and the building could become uninhabitable because of the increased population.^ One of the family reported that the building’s occupants were afraid the building would collapse, and had threatened to break windows (Zebelch).^ During the evacuation Nagin went into the building with numerous family members. They took down their furniture and appliances due to the increased flood risk that the building posed to the surrounding communities.^ This person has to do their job; he is not required to provide assistance to those that need it as a civil right.^ As an evacuation is being issued, he must seek the advice of the Department of Homeland Security and its law enforcement to ensure compliance with FEMA.^ The Nagin family was moved to the basement to comply with the emergency preparedness protocol in the building. ^^ Since evacuations are taking place within a given community, and even in some places the same residents have different health and safety standards, it is critical that the city and the Nagin Community Council (or Department of Health) do not impose new regulations on such evacuations.^ This directive may also be issued to all city residents within the state, as it appears from their names and addresses on their official records that they are in the area at these times. ^^ The City of New Orleans Emergency Management Agency (NYEREA) on Wednesday announced the following on its website: “We have not identified any other significant city-wide emergency responders or persons to assist the New Orleans community with building, or other important facilities, but instead have urged residents to take action on their own. In addition, the NYCEREA is working closely with the Mayor, State