The success of any human pursuit is dependent on the laid down plan and the organization ability. This is the same for public organization that are charged with the mandate to plan for the whole community, nation or globe. It is upon this premise that the organization theory was developed to help link and explain concepts necessary for organization success. Every theory gives a skeleton leaving room for people to fill with flesh to suit their objective. Before the development of theories, management was done absurdly adopting the method that proved to bear most results. However, with the development of models and theories, it is inexcusable for any organization to develop policies that have no legal or theoretical backing. (Ott, Shafritz, & Jang, 2011). In fact, in science, some people have compared action committed without any theoretical reason with commission of witchcraft.

In the same vein, the modern models of management should have a theoretical backing. The department of Homeland Security and the Federal Management of Emergency (FEMA) has come to the spotlight recently because of the manner they responded to the Hurricane Katrina that hit US in 2005. Some reports described the FEMA response to the disaster as catastrophic while the congress and most emergency strategist poked holes in the structure of Department of Homeland Security blaming it for the poor response. In this paper, I will apply the organization theory in the management of public affairs and suggest how FEMA should be structured to make it more effective and efficient.

To start with, the management of any public agency should be structured manner to operate like a non-hierarchical organization structure. This manner of organization makes the structure flexible to the environment and is more accommodating. This structure maintains the bureaucratic structures like line management but operates as a system (Tompkins, 2005). In the contemporary society, this form of organization management has gained root in most nongovernmental organizations skyrocketing the production in those organizations. I would, therefore, suggest such manner of organization in the department of homeland security and particularly in the FEMA that deals with disaster management.

Following lessons learnt during the 2005 hurricane tragedy, FEMA should have include in its structure organs that are dedicated to research and formulation of policies to guide on disaster preparedness for different forms of disasters. Rather than waiting for tragedies to happen then respond, proper preparation would help FEMA to respond at the right time and would save the nation resources in a big way. FEMA was established to fight natural disasters, but Katrina exposed the ineptitude of this important agency (Dowty, May, Wallace & Beech, 2011). While many would point fingers on the local and federal administration, FEMA should be given total autonomy through clear lines of management which would help prevent the incident shown during that infamous moment of Katrina – people getting stranded without food or water before the governor gave a directive to evacuate. In my opinion, such directive would have come earlier if FEMA and a clear chain of command with adequate autonomy and independence in decision making.

In conclusion, any state agency that fails to provide appropriate structures of administration is bound to fail at a given time. Nevertheless, proper structures founded on clear models and supported by the appropriate theory can stand any calamity. This is most important in public office administration where the life of the country or state can be compromised the slightest of mistakes.