In addition to leading in a way that has direct relevance to the mission of the organization, effectively leading in DHS requires skills and approaches that will help leaders to carry out cross-organizational and cross-jurisdictional work. First, DHS leaders must be skilled at working across organizational boundaries and inspiring others based on principles as opposed to solely relying upon command and control or jurisdictional authorities.
As described in the interviews and supported by the Literature Review (Chapter III, particularly in the “meta-leadership” piece by Leonard Marcus, Barry Dorn, and Joseph Henderson), this research argues that a leadership strategy for DHS should be focused on moving the organization beyond the “silo” mode of operation in order to
achieve the required cross-agency and cross-coordination imperatives.189 This was reinforced by a DHS senior leader that is promoting the concept of “network leading” within a key DHS operational component:
There needs to be more joint-focus and more of an integrated product team focus – as it is still very, very hierarchical. And - you need to be able to drive accountability towards capability versus entity.
We’re trying to move from a hierarchical structure to a networked communication structure. What I found fascinating [is that] we are so mired in hierarchical structure – that we could not even get people to think in a networked way…but this is how Al Qaeda communicates – there are cells – they are not hierarchical.
Coined as “meta-leadership” by Marcus, Dorn, and Henderson (or called “network leadership” or “collaboration leadership” in more generic terms), it is the process of leading in a way that connects the efforts of different organizations while providing clear intent and momentum across organizations, whereby shared missions and collective purpose among people and agencies are formed (even if the involved organizations may be performing very different work).190 It is about connecting disparate groups based on shared interests and motivations, and seeking success, synergy, and ultimately “effects” as a combined, joint team.191 As was illustrated in the Literature Review (Chapter III):
These leaders connect with, influence, and integrate the activities of diverse agencies, thereby motivating interaction, enhancing communication, and engendering the sort of cross-organizational confidence necessary for effective terrorism preparedness and emergency response (Howitt and Piangi, 2003)…These meta-leaders achieve “connectivity,” defined here as a seamless web of people, organization, resources, and information that can best catch (detect and report), respond (control and contain), and return to pre-event normal (recover) from a
189 Marcus, Dorn, and Henderson, “Meta-Leadership,” 44. 190 Ibid.
terrorist incident. Connectivity—among agencies, organizations, and people with complementary missions—is one by-product of meta- leadership.192
Authors Leonard Marcus, Barry Dorn, and Joseph Henderson synthesized 10 skills that they deemed critical for “meta-leadership” to occur. This research argues that these skills are critical for DHS leaders to possess and demonstrate so that they can be effective in carrying out their cross-capability and cross-organizational missions.
1. Courage – despite significant resistance, persists in forging the system-
wide mission, focus, and connectivity necessary to build a network of readiness.
2. Curiosity – approaches challenges with a calculated measure of humility
and curiosity.
3. Imagination – envisions what cannot otherwise be seen.
4. Organizational Sensibilities – envisions and constructs complex
networks and capacity to enable critical decision-making connectivity.
5. Persuasion – makes the case for seriously accepting threats and then
promotes a sound strategy and plan to address them.
6. Conflict Management – steps in to resolve emerging differences and
keeps everyone on mission and on track.
7. Crisis Management – prompts a coordination of effort within the
moment of crisis that maximizes the response system’s capacity to reduce mortality and morbidity.
8. Emotional Intelligence – derives steadiness, security, and support from
within themselves.
9. Persistence – brings and maintains ample perseverance by keeping pace
with the flow of surrounding events.
10. Meta-Leadership as a valued effort – understands and values the
importance of social networking and its direct impact upon the effectiveness of their work during an emergency.193
192 Arnold Howitt. and Ronald Pangi, Countering Terrorism: Dimensions of Preparedness
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003) in Marcus, Dorn and Henderson, “Meta Leadership,” 44.
In addition to these 10 meta-leader skills, another critical capability or focus area for DHS leaders is the use of “collaborative communications.” Collaborative communications involve a process or forum whereby diverse, multi-organization participants come together to collectively work through, discuss, anticipate, strategize, and plan for the next terrorist attack, critical infrastructure collapse, or weather event. Through collaborative communications, the leader seeks cohesiveness, synergy, the ability to “connect the dots,” and to most effectively accomplish a multi-faceted, multi- organizational mission by engaging and bringing together diverse participants (from different units or organizations), to collaborate on, plan for, or to strategize about
complementary missions, issues, or capabilities.
Collaborative communications provide a forum or a mechanism for the continual flow of information that is conveyed and organized by way of joint, integrated teams that are networked together to meet the needs of a particular mission, threat, or issue (often called “collaboratives”). Leaders of these integrated teams seek to collectively drive progress and accountability towards capability, mission, or outcome as opposed to an organizational “box.” Communication is networked in nature, knowledge and capability- based, and less hierarchical or organization-specific. The value of collaboratives is derived from the synergy that results when more people are brought “to the table,” facilitated by network or “meta-leaders,” as presented in the literature:
They are able to legitimately and effectively reach beyond their scope of authority and responsibility, and in the process, [the leaders] are able to generate linkages of purpose and activity that amplify their outcomes and impact (Heifetz, 1994). They leverage information and resources across agencies, extending what any unit alone could accomplish, by reducing inter-agency friction and creating a synergy of progress (Phillips and Loy, 2003).194
Relying upon collaboratives does not necessarily require participating entities to be reorganized into different organizational structures. Using collaboratives is more so a function of leaders espousing and encouraging their workforce to proactively engage in
194 Ronald Heifetz, Leadership without Easy Answers (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, 1994); Donald Phillips and James Loy, Character in Action: The U.S. Coast Guard on
collaborative, joint processes. However, networked communications do require methods, rules, or protocols that are efficient and flexible, and not slowed by bureaucracy, policy, organizational silo, or turf. For communications to be truly collaborative, they must regularly involve the stakeholders or organizations that have equities to the mission or situation, and they must be capability, team, stakeholder, and mission-oriented. This is a needed focus area for DHS leaders, as was reinforced by a senior state official, “Solutions need to be designed collectively…not passing out flyers and then saying that “coordination with the state and locals has been done.” That is where we are today.”
This form of dynamic, capability-based, and communications-centric leadership has the potential to help leaders to better reveal and harness the aspect of innovation and ideas that are critically-needed to meet homeland security’s challenges. As was a key finding from the interviews of non-DHS executives, core to their success in leading has been centered on finding ways to continually embrace the knowledge, ideas, and innovations from across their workforce – not just the “top brass in the corner.” Collaborative communications involve more people, encourage more cross-talk, and increase the chances for the workforce to be directly engaged in solving their critical issues. In other words, developing “real solutions” are not typically a function of rank or position power, as is emphasized in this previously-cited interview excerpt:
Innovation is huge in the success of any organization and related to that is locating the most impactful intelligence in the organization – and it does not follow rank – so one of the key skills is understanding who can really help on this, and who has the good ideas. Often, this flips an organization on its head in traditional terms because it is often the kid speaking broken English – the Indian kid who is a summer intern with you who knows more about how to solve this problem than the brass in the corner. So, the organizations now – have to be in many ways – very fluid.
For leaders to be network-focused and for communications and collaboratives to be functional in DHS, component organizations and DHS professionals need to have clarity of their organizational and individual roles and responsibilities with respect to 1) how they integrate into DHS; and 2) how their organizational and individual mission meets their stakeholders’ needs (i.e., how their individual and collective actions contribute to the “brand promise” or to the “effects” they seek to deliver or achieve).
For DHS leaders to perform as leaders in this capacity, they must have the requisite support (or “top cover” in common DHS vernacular) from their respective DHS leaders. In DHS, it does seem to necessitate a leadership mandate, supported by concepts of engagement, to provide the organizational comfort for command and control silos to operate outside of their natural span of control. This form of communication increases the risk for silos, adds a little chaos, and requires exceptional communications skills as an offset for the performance benefits derived from cross-talking, collaborative organizations.
DHS leaders must also have willing participants or collaborators from across the organization. This needs to be very intentional and leader-driven, as spontaneous success is not guaranteed. If certain organizations in DHS are told to “live and die” by the laws of their chain of command, then such network, meta, or collaboration leaders will not get far when eliciting their support or participation. Without a strong leadership mandate, the leaders within the network who are committed to a command and control form of operation may opt to sit back and mitigate their personal risk by helping the process to fail (i.e., “see —I told you so!!!!”).