When There is No Right Answer:  Managing Tradeoffs in an Era of Wicked Problems

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Tanya Settles
March 27, 2026

Local government leaders are increasingly asked to make decisions where there is no clearly “right” answer. There are only competing priorities that cannot all be satisfied at once. In these moments, the challenge is not a lack of expertise or effort. It is the presence of value tradeoffs.

Many of today’s most pressing issues are what have long been described as “wicked problems”—complex and contested challenges with no single definition or solution. These problems are not new, but the way we understand and approach them is changing.

Local governments are experiencing a broad paradigm shift away from models centered on control, compliance and efficiency and toward approaches that emphasize public value, collaboration and adaptability. Traditional models of public administration were designed for stability. They assume problems can be clearly defined, solutions identified and implemented and performance measured against established standards. But in environments defined by complexity and uncertainty, those assumptions no longer hold. Instead, governance increasingly involves navigating competing values across multiple systems rather than delivering singular solutions.

Not Right vs. Wrong, But Right vs. Right

Public value theory reframes the role of government as creating outcomes that are valuable, legitimate and sustainable. In practice, this requires grappling with value pluralism, where different stakeholders prioritize outcomes that often conflict. Consider a familiar tension where leaders responding to unsheltered homelessness face pressure to act quickly in response to visible human need. At the same time, public institutions require financial oversight, transparency and careful stewardship of resources. The tension is not between action and inaction. It is between acting quickly and acting accountably.

Similarly, in public safety, communities expect responsive and effective policing while also demanding fairness, transparency and legitimacy. Efforts to strengthen one dimension may create pressure on another. These are not failures of leadership. They are features of governing in a public value paradigm. Public value is not something that can simply be delivered as a service or output. Instead, it is continuously negotiated and co-created among governments, communities and partners.

Why Leaders Struggle with Tradeoffs

This is where the tension originates. Leaders who stay in their lane, follow policy, ensure controls are in place and act as good stewards of public resources are not always well prepared to address wicked problems. Traditional methods, especially those connected to accountability, are designed to ensure consistency, compliance and risk management. This approach works for resolving simple challenges but is less effective in complex situations.

Consequently, leaders may feel less confident about how to approach wicked problems. In situations involving multiple government entities, nongovernmental partners and community members, each bringing different values, traditional methods can break down. A good example is achieving urban housing stability. Effective management requires co-creating solutions with government agencies, community advocates and partners, people experiencing houselessness and the broader community.

Each of these groups introduces competing values that must be navigated in real time and under pressure. Leaders may interpret these tradeoffs as execution failures and respond by tightening controls or accelerating implementation. These efforts nearly always fail in the long run and may intensify the underlying tension rather than resolve it.

Managing Tradeoffs as a Core Leadership Function

 If value tradeoffs are inherent to modern governance, then managing them is not a secondary skill. It is a core leadership function. This starts with making tradeoffs visible. Naming competing values, rather than allowing them to remain implicit, builds shared understanding and credibility. Addressing wicked problems requires intentional risk management, pairing flexibility with clear guardrails rather than unchecked discretion. It also calls for adaptive oversight, including real-time monitoring and iterative evaluation that align with the pace of decision-making. Transparency and documentation are equally important, ensuring that decisions and the tradeoffs behind them are visible and understandable to stakeholders.

Managing tradeoffs also requires a willingness to learn through experience and rebalance over time. Changing course is not a failure. It reflects a collaborative and co-produced process that strengthens and refines approaches as conditions evolve.

Leading in a New Paradigm

The shift underway in public administration is not simply about new tools or strategies, but about a different understanding of what governance requires. In a public value paradigm, leadership is not defined by the ability to produce clear answers. Instead, it is defined by the ability to navigate challenges where no single solution exists. This does not replace accountability. It deepens it. In an era of wicked problems, the measure of effective governance is not whether tradeoffs occur. It is whether they are made deliberately, transparently and in service of the public good.

---

Author: Tanya Settles is the CEO of Paradigm Public Affairs, LLC. Tanya’s areas of work include relationship building between local governments and communities, restorative justice, and policy and program strategy and evaluation. Tanya can be reached at [email protected]. The opinions in this column and any mistakes are hers alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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