Realistic Public Administration: Revisiting Amelioration
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Thomas E. Poulin, PhD
January 4, 2019
When working with public administrators at any level, or when
listening to the concerns of our communities, we often hear the sentiment that
all problems should be fully addressed, as if public administrators at any
level, in any setting, in any community across the globe, have complete control
over outcomes — but this is not so. There will always exist factors beyond our
control, beyond our influence, which are confounding parts of any wicked
problem – factors which cannot be erased. Public administrators must, from time
to time, remind themselves of the limits they face, focusing their efforts on
the achievable.
Otto Von Bismark once noted, “politics is the art of the
possible.” He was suggesting there will always be some constraints on what a
public leader may do. This idea was expounded upon during the Minnowbrook
conferences — a series of conferences of scholars and practitioners focusing on
public administration. They discussed the concept in terms of amelioration. Amelioration means an
improvement – a striving to do better, combined with a recognition that it will
never be possible to achieve a perfect outcome that is acceptable to all. We
all face unlimited problems with limited resources. We may find constraints of
laws and regulations. We may find them in terms of political support and
funding. We may find them based upon organizational rules. Whatever the
resource—power, funding, staffing, support—we have to understand we will never
be able to address all of our problems. The existing problems are complex, and
they continue to evolve, joined by emergent problems every day.
This may sound negative, but consider this; Those focusing on
amelioration suggested two take-aways, upon which all public administrators should
reflect:
First, do not become frustrated if you do not achieve a perfect
outcome – it is by far the most likely outcome. Instead, keep focused on making
incremental changes on an on-going basis, either fixing what is broken or
making what is strong better, but recognize that, at some point, your limited
resources might be better used elsewhere than trying to achieve those last few
percentage points to perfection.
Second, be wary of seeming to overpromise to your followers within
the organization or to those in the community. We will do our best. We will
strive for excellence, but, in some areas, the potential for a perfect outcome
is very limited.
Reflecting upon these two points can support the development of a
more realistic, more objective view of the challenges faced by public
administrators. People with a more realistic view of extant challenges are more
likely to engage, and more likely to assess organizations accurately on their
accomplishments, as opposed to their inability to achieve an unreachable ideal.
For example, in disaster mitigation, we can minimize or reduce risk, but we can
never fully eliminate it – we need to do what we can, improving as much as we
can, using our limited resources to their greatest potential. It is an ideal we
should strive for, but, in doing so, we recognize it is and will remain an
unending task, which is why, as public sector leaders, we should be developing
the capacities of those who will be taking up the burden when we transition our
of our current role or organization. That means having an objective view of
what can be done, and what cannot. Leaders do what they can to build the future
– they always will.
Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, is a core faculty member
of Capella University’s public administration programs. Prior to that, he
served in local government for over thirty years. He may be reached
at [email protected].
Realistic Public Administration: Revisiting Amelioration
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By Thomas E. Poulin, PhD
January 4, 2019
When working with public administrators at any level, or when listening to the concerns of our communities, we often hear the sentiment that all problems should be fully addressed, as if public administrators at any level, in any setting, in any community across the globe, have complete control over outcomes — but this is not so. There will always exist factors beyond our control, beyond our influence, which are confounding parts of any wicked problem – factors which cannot be erased. Public administrators must, from time to time, remind themselves of the limits they face, focusing their efforts on the achievable.
Otto Von Bismark once noted, “politics is the art of the possible.” He was suggesting there will always be some constraints on what a public leader may do. This idea was expounded upon during the Minnowbrook conferences — a series of conferences of scholars and practitioners focusing on public administration. They discussed the concept in terms of amelioration. Amelioration means an improvement – a striving to do better, combined with a recognition that it will never be possible to achieve a perfect outcome that is acceptable to all. We all face unlimited problems with limited resources. We may find constraints of laws and regulations. We may find them in terms of political support and funding. We may find them based upon organizational rules. Whatever the resource—power, funding, staffing, support—we have to understand we will never be able to address all of our problems. The existing problems are complex, and they continue to evolve, joined by emergent problems every day.
This may sound negative, but consider this; Those focusing on amelioration suggested two take-aways, upon which all public administrators should reflect:
Reflecting upon these two points can support the development of a more realistic, more objective view of the challenges faced by public administrators. People with a more realistic view of extant challenges are more likely to engage, and more likely to assess organizations accurately on their accomplishments, as opposed to their inability to achieve an unreachable ideal. For example, in disaster mitigation, we can minimize or reduce risk, but we can never fully eliminate it – we need to do what we can, improving as much as we can, using our limited resources to their greatest potential. It is an ideal we should strive for, but, in doing so, we recognize it is and will remain an unending task, which is why, as public sector leaders, we should be developing the capacities of those who will be taking up the burden when we transition our of our current role or organization. That means having an objective view of what can be done, and what cannot. Leaders do what they can to build the future – they always will.
Author: Thomas E. Poulin, PhD, is a core faculty member of Capella University’s public administration programs. Prior to that, he served in local government for over thirty years. He may be reached at [email protected].
Follow Us!