Discretionary Decision Making – The Art in Public Administration

By Patrick S. Malone
June 17, 2024

The debate of public administration as a science is one we all remember from reading Wilson, Dahl, Waldo, Simon and so many others. At the risk of sparking debate among the theorists in the field, it would be safe to say that public administration is clearly grounded in multiple sciences—organizational science, behavioral science, political science, administrative science and the list goes on. Evidence-based inquiry, systemic analysis and assessments, the use of quantitative models and the like, are an important part of the practice of public administration. But what about the art?

Robert Dahl, in his seminal article The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems wrote that one of the primary difficulties in arguing the science behind public administration was that it failed to include normative considerations. Notably, he wrote that ‘science cannot construct a bridge across the great gap from is to ought.’  The word ought in this passage is the one that clearly suggests the art behind public administration. Ought lends itself to uncertainty and inconsistency. Ought allows leeway in the decisions public administrators take. And ought is the bridge, to borrow from Dahl’s text, to the human beings to which public servants attend. This is where the art of public administration comes in.

Interestingly, it might have been Mary Parker Follett who first introduced some of the ideas of what the art of public administration truly entails—a connection to human beings. Follett and other behavioralists of her time suggested the importance of considering people as part of the delivery of public service. The human element, engagement, diversity and lifelong learning all found a place in their assessments of what the field of public administration should be.

Crucial to the art of public administration is the discretionary leeway that civil servants have in implementing policy and enforcing regulations. Quite simply, discretion draws on the professional judgment of the public manager in determining which of two or more possible courses of action would be the best option. In statutory language, the words may or shall open the door to discretionary decision making. They are unbounded by the restrictive nature of bureaucracies. They allow movement beyond standard operating procedures, and toward the unique human needs of any given situation. May and shall become the fertile ground in which civil servants do what they ought to do.  

But discretion comes with its share of challenges as well.  Certainly, keeping one’s moral and ethical lens clear when making discretionary decisions is a must. By definition, discretionary decision-making, with all of its benefits, can also open the door to inconsistent application of the intent of public policy. Indeed, Wallace Sayre warned ‘the fundamental problem in a democracy is responsibility to popular control; the responsibility and responsiveness of the administrative agencies and the bureaucracies to the elected officials (the chief executives, the legislators) is of central importance in a government based increasingly on the exercise of discretionary power by the agencies of administration.’ 

Discretionary decision-making is an art. And as with any art, it is possible to use the wrong medium, be too bold with your lines, use too much or too little color, or be too abstract. Public servants are bound to ensure the discretionary decisions that they make are exercised on reasonable grounds, after considering relevant data. Of course, when practicing the art of discretionary decision-making, it is crucial to comply with existing legislation and ensure that the decision withstands the scrutiny of procedural review.  Decisions must be in concert with the purpose and mission of the organization.  And as always, take a fourth person perspective when taking such decisions. Look at yourself looking at the decision that you are about to take, and consider all of the relevant biases and baggage that you carry in order to avoid any conflict of interest.

We’re not alone. Science versus art is a question that modern medicine has struggled with for eons. Is the medical treatment of a patient an art or a science? Those who argue for the perspective of art make the point that physicians must step beyond the bounds of traditional scientific boundaries in order to consider their patient as a whole—mind, body and soul. In a similar vein, the traditional boundaries of public administration—mechanization, bureaucracy and formal organizational aspects of work—bound public administrators in the same way science bounds a practicing physician. As civil servants, let’s make the best use of the art of discretionary decision-making as our way of reaching the mind, body and soul of the citizens we serve.  

---

Author:  Patrick S. Malone is the Director, Key Executive Leadership Programs at American University.  He is a frequent guest lecturer and author on leadership and organizational dynamics in the public service.  His co-authored book, “Leading with Love and Laughter – A Practical Guide to Letting Go and Getting Real” (Berrett-Koehler Publishing) was released in Spring 2021. His new co-authored book “Leading in Small Moments” is targeted for publication in Fall 2025. Follow him at sutchmalone.com

(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...