Emergency management leadership in 2025 faces a test. Proposals to decentralize or dismantle FEMA circulate through Washington. The profession debates its structure, its mandate, and its future. In this environment, influence belongs to those who speak up, not those who wait for direction from above.

Toni Hauser, co-vice chair of the IAEM 2025 conference committee and emergency preparedness supervisor for Minneapolis, frames the moment clearly. The people shaping emergency management today are the ones making their voices heard. Title and position matter less than willingness to engage. For senior leaders accustomed to hierarchical influence, this shift demands attention.

The question is whether you choose to shape what comes next or watch from the sidelines.

Influence No Longer Follows Hierarchy

When asked where influence lives in emergency management today, Hauser rejects traditional answers. State directors and federal leadership hold positions of authority, but authority and influence diverge during periods of transformation.

"The people who are influencing what happens are the people who are speaking up," Hauser states. "It doesn't matter what level you're at or what your day job is, whether you're full-time emergency management director or not. The people who speak up and make their voices heard are the ones people are going to be looking to."

This observation reflects operational reality. Emergency management operates across jurisdictions, disciplines, and organizational types. No single entity controls the profession. During periods of structural debate, those who articulate clear positions and contribute to the conversation define the direction of change.

For senior leaders, this creates both opportunity and obligation. Your experience positions you to speak with credibility. Your operational knowledge provides substance others lack. The question is whether you engage or defer to others.

Hauser's point extends beyond federal policy debates. Local emergency managers working in public health, higher education, or public works face the same choice. You either contribute to professional development and standards or allow others to set the direction.

Federal Reform and the Reality of Tiered Response

Hauser acknowledges the need for change at the federal level while pushing back against proposals for wholesale decentralization. "We can't take everything FEMA has done and pass that off to the locals or even to the states," she explains. "That's not how emergency management is set up to work. It starts at the local level and then goes up, and then we get to all the other stuff we need."

This matters because reform proposals often ignore operational structure. Emergency management relies on tiered response: local capacity first, state support when local resources are exceeded, federal assistance when state capacity is overwhelmed. This model exists because local knowledge drives effective response while specialized capabilities require centralization.

Devolving all federal responsibilities to states and localities sounds appealing in theory. In practice, it transfers costs without transferring capability. Small jurisdictions lack the resources to maintain specialized teams, pre-positioned equipment, and technical expertise for low-frequency, high-consequence events. States face similar constraints across certain mission sets.

The debate should focus on what functions belong at each level. Local jurisdictions own first response and community engagement. States coordinate mutual aid and maintain regional capabilities. Federal entities provide specialized resources, national coordination, and funding mechanisms. Reform should clarify these roles, not collapse them.

Hauser's caution reflects experience. Emergency management functions when each tier performs its role. Structural changes that blur or eliminate these tiers create gaps in capability. Senior leaders must ensure reform proposals account for operational realities, not ideological preferences.

The Cognitive Load Problem

The conversation shifts to an underexamined challenge: cognitive load and context switching in emergency management. Hauser describes the profession as unusually broad, requiring expertise across disparate domains.

The IAEM conference illustrates this breadth. Sessions cover leadership, communications, data integration, artificial intelligence, healthcare coordination, infrastructure planning, risk finance, and community resilience. Emergency managers must understand all of these areas to varying degrees.

"Context switching is the bane of my existence," Hauser notes. "I don't think people understand how much is included in emergency management. You're working on the thing and you get the other thing and you have to pay attention and you try to go back and you're like, where was I?"

Research on context switching shows consistent findings: frequent task switching reduces cognitive performance. Some studies suggest losses equivalent to 20 IQ points during periods of high interruption. For emergency managers juggling grants, mitigation projects, response plans, and training programs, this cost compounds daily.

The IAEM conference addresses this through topic categorization. Organizers ensure session diversity: something for emergency management directors, public health practitioners, higher education coordinators, and public works staff. This breadth reflects professional reality.

For senior leaders, the cognitive load problem demands attention to organizational design. Your teams face constant interruptions and topic shifts. You reduce performance if you ignore this cost. Strategies include:

• Protected time for deep work on complex projects
• Clear prioritization frameworks to reduce unnecessary switching
• Documentation systems to support task resumption after interruptions
• Team specialization where feasible to reduce individual burden

Hauser's observation deserves serious consideration. The profession demands breadth, but breadth without structure creates chaos.

Professional Development as Strategic Positioning

The IAEM 2025 Annual Conference in Louisville (November 14-20) serves multiple functions. Hauser describes it as more than presentations: "It's more of an experience than just a conference. It's meant to be three core days of opportunity to learn and interact with colleagues and friends."

The conference includes 350+ session submissions competing for 75 slots. Breakout sessions cover emerging trends: artificial intelligence, data-driven decision making, and community preparedness. The EMAX expo connects practitioners with vendors, tools, and products. Regional gatherings and caucus meetings build networks beyond formal sessions.

For senior leaders, professional development serves strategic purposes. You calibrate your understanding against peers facing similar challenges. You identify emerging practices before they become requirements. You build relationships across jurisdictions and sectors.

The conference also demonstrates who speaks up and who stays silent. Session proposals reveal which organizations invest in knowledge sharing. Attendance signals commitment to professional growth. Networking during evening events builds influence through relationship, not position.

Hauser highlights speaker liaison support as a differentiator. Conference committee members connect with presenters before the event, review materials, introduce sessions, and moderate discussion. This structure improves quality and provides presenters with organizational support.

The virtual conference option addresses cost and travel barriers. One-day format, recorded sessions, and lower registration make participation accessible. For organizations facing budget constraints, this option maintains professional connection.

Professional development at this level builds strategic positioning. You gain exposure to new approaches, connect with peers, and demonstrate leadership through participation. The question is whether your organization prioritizes this investment or treats it as discretionary spending.

The Choice Ahead

Emergency management faces structural transformation. Federal policy debates, technological change, and expanding mission sets create uncertainty. In this environment, influence belongs to those who engage.

Hauser's perspective is clear: speak up or step aside. The profession needs voices grounded in operational experience, not silence from those who know better. You bring 15+ years of expertise to these conversations. Your experience working across jurisdictions, managing complex incidents, and building organizational capability provides substance others lack.

The IAEM conference represents one venue for engagement. Your participation signals commitment. Your session proposals share knowledge. Your networking builds influence. These actions compound over time.

The alternative is passive observation. You watch others define professional standards, establish best practices, and shape federal policy. Your experience remains unused. Your insights stay within your organization. Your influence diminishes.

This moment demands a decision. Will you speak up and help shape emergency management in 2025 and beyond? Or will you let others set the direction while you manage consequences?

Your answer defines your leadership.