Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

May 20, 2009

A Small Idea About Building One DHS

Filed under: General Homeland Security,Organizational Issues,Strategy — by Christopher Bellavita on May 20, 2009

11slide134567891011112113141516117118a191201211

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

6 Comments »

Comment by Claire B. Rubin

May 21, 2009 @ 6:47 am

Unity sounds good, but in fact the dept. is too big for anyone to fathom. I think employees use the agency designation the way residents cite their neighborhood name.

Comment by Art Botterell

May 21, 2009 @ 7:41 am

Why stop there? Why not just have everyone identify themselves as being from The Government?

Comment by William R. Cumming

May 21, 2009 @ 9:48 am

Issue all civil servants a business card reading “Government Clerk.” All appointees one reading “Just remember I bought my job.”

My question for DHS employees is simple: Do you serve the American people, or only this administration or some special interests–including do you only do the job because of the paycheck or because you think its important–honestly now at least to yourself DHS employee?

Comment by Jason

May 21, 2009 @ 10:33 am

Yeah, here’s a great idea – let’s force every agency within DHS to use only one approved format for their powerpoint briefs – all must be white with the DHS logo and nothing else. That’ll do it!

Actually that’s what DHS did do in 2004, and it really didn’t do much for moral when the bureaucrats force these “great ideas” down. Uniformity is not the answer. Getting more specific descriptors as to what specific aspects of Homeland Security and narrowing down the focus of conferences to discrete topics would help better collaboration and progress.

Comment by Larry Irons

May 21, 2009 @ 10:51 am

A message nicely put Chris!

Comment by Joel

May 22, 2009 @ 11:38 am

As one of those who identifies as from an agency rather than DHS what I would say is that there’s a lot that needs to be done between point A (22 separate agencies) and B (1 department). The original idea seemed to be that by squishing everyone together a happy unified whole would form, but the truth is the missions, agency cultures, and modes of operations are too different for that to happen. I think we would be better served by looking at agencies like HHS (with CDC, NIH, etc) or other agencies that have a core group and also a number of strong, semi-independent branches.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>