Organizational Structure and the Department of Homeland Security

Abstract

The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002 as a response to September 11. The goal of the creation of the new department was to centralize all decision-making authority under the rubric of homeland security, ensuring a common mission and philosophy for all the departments that come under the rubric of the Department of Homeland Security. The organizational structure of the DHS perfectly reflects its overall mission, goals, and culture.
Introduction
Created in the aftermath of September 11, with the goal of centralizing national security procedures and protocols for maximum efficiency, the Department of Homeland Security comprises several previously independent or disparate government organizations. The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is “to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards,” (DHS “Our Mission,” 2016). For example, customs and border security are housed under the rubric of the Department of Homeland Security, as is the Coast Guard and the Secret Service. All of the core organizations under the guidance of the Department of Homeland Security can then have a cohesive mission upon which to base their unique policies, agendas, and protocols. The Department of Homeland Security bases its organizational structure on strong centralization, departmentalization, specialization, authority, and unity of command.
Centralization
The Department of Homeland Security epitomizes the concept of centralization in organizations, as it projects an “overarching vision” onto its various departments (DHS “Our Mission,” 2016). The history of the Department of Homeland Security reveals how it was a cabinet department “designed to consolidate U.S. defenses against terrorist attack and to better coordinate counterterrorism intelligence,” (Council on Foreign Relations, 2006). Although the cluster of federal agencies that are grouped under the DHS now seem to perform vastly different duties, their main mission now defers to matters of domestic defense. Centralization helps to promote the mission of the Department of Homeland Security because of the need to coordinate efforts in the interests of national defense.
Seven main agencies fall under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (DHS “Organizational Chart,” n.d.). Although FEMA botched its response to Hurricane Katrina, the centralization of these various government agencies does generally promote the DHS vision of being dedicated to the ideals of national security (Council on Foreign Relations, 2006). The Department of Homeland Security lists five central visions that are shared by all of its main agencies. Those five central visions include preventing terrorism by enhancing security, securing borders, enforcing immigration laws, safeguarding cyberspace, and ensuring resilience to disasters (DHS, “Our Mission,” 2016).
Departmentalization and Work Specialization
Also integral to the organizational structure of the Department of Homeland Security is departmentalization. Before the Department of Homeland Security was formed, the agencies that comprise it were self-contained government departments. Each department also has its own subdivisions, creating a classic bureaucratic organizational structure. Now that the Department of Homeland Security amalgamated several disparate agencies, its departmentalization strategy helps to retain the independence of each agency without sacrificing the core vision of preserving national security. The complex, five-part mission of the DHS requires strong departmentalization because otherwise, it would be impossible to effectively address things like border security, natural disaster response, and cyberterrorism all at the same time. Departmentalization ensures that each area of specialization, such as intelligence analysis or coast guard patrolling, is in the hands of respectively trained professionals. In other words, the Department of Homeland Security has a “functional structure,” in which departments are grouped by their functions (“Outline Organizational Structure and Design”).
Just as the Department of Homeland Security has a functional structure, its individual departments demonstrate the concept of work specialization. Work specialization ensures division of labor, that each person has a specific and well-defined task and role. The Department of Homeland Security (n.d.) points out its jobs “jrange from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector,” (“About Us”). The work specialization parallels departmentalization on the macro level, which is why the Department of Homeland Security is designed to function not organically but mechanistically. Generally, the division of labor and departmentalization reflect the mission and goals of the DHS. Occasionally, the DHS is retrained by a lack of creativity due to its rigid organizational structure, though. As Wise (2006) points out, the poor response to Katrina revealed the tendency for departments to resist change.
Authority and Unity of Command
As with all bureaucratic organizational structures, the related concepts of unity of command and authority are firmly entrenched in to the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS organizational chart reveals the formalized authority embedded in each official position from the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, to departmental chiefs of each individual agency. With official authority, each person in a position of leadership answers to a superior even as they delegate tasks to their subordinates. Authority depends on a culture of respect, with each person responsible for following orders in the interests of promoting the ultimate organizational goals of the DHS. Moreover, the organizational chart of the Department of Homeland Security clearly outlines the roles and functions of each position, no matter where it falls on the hierarchy. As important as maintaining authority is to the effective operations within each DHS agency, it is also important to develop a “new, more effective system of contingent coordination, one that flexibly develops and matches government's capacity to new and unpredictable problems,” (Kettl, 2003). The DHS needs to become a learning organization, and it can do so while still maintaining unity of command.
The benefits of both authority and unity of command include role clarity. In fact, centralizing homeland security powers and resources enhances the ability for senior managers, secretaries, and policy advisors to collaborate with each other on a broader level before they determine how DHS resources should be disseminated. Decisions need to be made first at the upper level of the organizational structure, and then specific tasks delegated to the appropriate departmental heads. Official titles and positions confer authority, making it so that each member of the organization answers to one and only one manager to prevent confusion. Ideally, unity of command prevents miscommunications and political conflicts within the agencies.
Size, Technology, Environment
The Department of Homeland Security boasts more than 240,000 employees, a size that reflects its mechanistic, centralized, and hierarchical organizational structure. Without departmentalization or unity of command, it would be impossible to imagine coordinating the jobs of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Technology enhances the efficacy of the Department of Homeland Security and its subsidiaries but may be a notable point of weakness. Because of the diversity of departments in the DHS, no centralized software or IT system is feasible except for basic communications technologies. Privacy and encryption of important documents also preclude technological unity, one of the core weaknesses of the DHS (Kettl, 2003). The DHS is also built on the concept of environmental insecurity. Homeland security is by definition about anticipating risks and responding to them in a world in which threats can come at any time, from anywhere. Becoming a learning organization that is more responsive to change and risk will help the DHS achieve its core and overarching goals of coordinating national security resources and responses.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In spite of its inherent weaknesses in terms of rigidity, resistance to change, and fragmentation, the Department of Homeland Security has an organizational structure that coincides with its overall mission and goals. Its operational strategies are based on a high level of centralization, departmentalization, and models of bureaucratic authority. Division of labor helps ensure role clarity, while unity of command helps maintain stability.
To ensure that the Department of Homeland Security continues to protect the American people from different types of internal and external threats, it is important for the DHS to become more of a learning organization that can respond to crises more effectively. Centralization helps to coordinate otherwise disparate endeavors. However, a more empowering model of leadership would help individuals collaborate on creative problem solving to come up with solutions that are not restricted to those that emerge in a top-down bureaucracy. A more collaborative work environment can be created at the micro level within each department, while still retaining the core structure and values of the DHS.




References

Council on Foreign Relations (2006). Department of homeland security
Department of Homeland Security (n.d.). About DHS. Retrieved online: https://www.dhs.gov/about-dhs
Department of Homeland Security (2016). Our mission. Retrieved online: https://www.dhs.gov/our-missionhttps://www.dhs.gov/our-mission
Department of Homeland Security (n.d.). Organizational chart. Retrieved online: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Public%20Org%20Charts%202017.08.15.pdf
Kettl, D.F. (2003). Contingent coordination. The American Review of Public Administration 33(3):253-277.
“Outline Organizational Structure and Design,” (n.d.). Retrieved online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjlx4yh8dLWAhUP7GMKHWmWCn8QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bhsu.edu%2FPortals%2F78%2FBADM%2520360%2520Ch.%25208%2520(Not%2520Texts).ppt&usg=AOvVaw2PVbcoiRCE5WLeUMnMD3hr
Wise, C.R. (2006). Organizing for homeland security after Katrina. Public Administration Review 66(3): 302-318.




1