Crisis Leadership of the Bush Presidency: Advisory Capacity and Presidential Performance in the Acute Stages of the 9/11 and Katrina Crises

Abstract

This paper examines the operation of the presidential advisory system during the 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina crises in order to explain the marked differences in presidential crisis leadership performance during the acute phase of both crises. It first presents a conceptual framework for the systematic study of "crisis advisory configurations" around presidents, based on an integrated review of the advisory systems and crisis management literatures. Second, the framework is applied to George W. Bush's performance in three crucial crisis leadership task domains-sense making, decision making, and meaning making. The article concludes by identifying key challenges of building crisis management capacity around heads of government such as the U.S. president. "There is no longer such a thing as strategy; only crisis management," U.S.

“Shaping history” or “Riding the wave”?: President Bush's influence on the public opinion of terrorism, homeland security, & crime

“…From the hastily organized press conference that Tuesday morning to his farewell address after eight years in office (cited above), President Bush continually highlighted his administration's initiatives regarding terrorism and homeland security, and, to a lesser degree, crime. Although the events of the most tragic terrorist attack on American soil assuredly influenced the president's actions, President Bush in turn attempted to influence the opinions of both the public and Congress that changes in American policies related to terrorism, homeland security, and crime were necessary (Bloch-Elkon, 2007;Hart, Tindall, & Brown, 2009). Exactly how much influence the president had in light of these most highly visible events is not clear.…”

Crisis Politics in Authoritarian Regimes: How Crises Catalyse Changes under the State–Society Interactive Framework

“…The central government, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the United States, which always intervenes during crises is a typical example of the domination of elites in decision‐making. The identification of the level of a crisis (either local or national crisis) may alter the level of centralization and the outcomes of crisis decisions (‘t Hart et al., ).…”

“…On the other hand, viewing crisis management as a pattern means focusing on the different measures available in crisis management. For instance, 't Hart et al (2009) highlight the importance of advisory configurations on the performance of leaders in crisis. They further suggest that the advisory body should be empowered with three capacities: analytical capacity, which shapes the sense-making of leaders; managerial capacity, which facilitates leaders' decision-making; and, communicative capacity, which strengthens leaders' meaning-making process.…”

Introducing Performativity to Crisis Management Theory: An Illustration from the 2003 French Heat Wave Crisis Response

“…First of all, we challenge an implicit but widely shared view that crisis response is reliant on individuals' ability to eventually overcome issues related to information transmission and sensemaking. A majority of studies account for the crisis responders' efforts to share a unified interpretation of the situation, or to defend their own meaning (Hart, Tindall, & Brown, ). Ambiguity can fuel sensemaking in crisis response (Landgren, ) and interactions that carry with them multiple meanings are essential to support organizational cohesion.…”