Redefining Morally Conscious Decision-Making for the Public Sector: A Theoretical Analysis

• Author: Emily Brandt,Alejandro Rodriguez,Emily Nwakpuda,Karabi Bezboruah
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221105103
• Published date: 01 January 2023
• Date: 01 January 2023
• Subject Matter: Perspectives

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221105103

Administration & Society

2023, Vol. 55(1) 184 –205

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997221105103

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Perspectives

Redefining Morally

Conscious Decision-

Making for the Public

Sector: A Theoretical

Analysis

Emily Brandt1, Alejandro Rodriguez1,

Emily Nwakpuda1, and Karabi Bezboruah1

Abstract

This paper proposes a conceptual definition of morally conscious decision-

making as “cognizant processing of an actor’s core values setting aside self-

interest when presented with a dilemma.” Using moral phenomenology,

Deweyan pragmatism, and piecing together previous works on decision-

making, we develop a definitional framework that makes a case for

specified and refined scopes of our understanding of morality and ethics

in public administration. We then decompartmentalize this framework to

demonstrate the validity, benefits, purpose, and consequences of decision-

making that is morally conscious. We propose critical thinking and

situational awareness as required skills for the application of the proposed

framework. Ultimately, morally conscious decision-making is a way for

public administration to better activate a response to growing demands

for increased accountability and just leadership.

Keywords

morality, leadership, decision-making, ethics

1The University of Texas at Arlington, USA

Corresponding Author:

Emily Brandt, College of Architecture, Planning and Public Affairs, The University of Texas at

Arlington, 601 S Nedderman Drive, Arlington, TX 76013, USA.

Email: Emily.brandt2@mavs.uta.edu

1105103AAS0010.1177/00953997221105103Administration & SocietyBrandt et al.

research-article2022

Brandt et al. 185

Introduction

Public administrators inherently strive to make the right decisions on a regu-

lar basis. The democratic processes of institutions create tensions between

individuals’ moral autonomy and their engagement in habitual unconscious

decision-making practices. The citizenry is to assume that public actors and

organizations will notice the need for informed and conscious decision-mak-

ing demanding far more due diligence of a public official than the traditional

citizen, especially regarding major, impactful, and critical choices requiring

a fair assessment (Reed et al., 2020). The multi-level complexity of this

assumption poses unique challenges for public leadership as their diverse

personal experiences, contexts, and interpersonal processes influence leader-

ship roles, discretionary decisions, overwhelming statistics of professional

burnout, and the reality that some public officials use their position and trust

to pursue their own interests or to undermine the interests of others (Allison

& Cecilione, 2008; Brady, 1983; Hassan, 2019; Witkowski, 2020). This is

especially important post-2020, a year of upheaval and calls for increased

accountability, critical assessment, and public vigilance from street-level

bureaucrats to our highest leaders.

The purpose of this article is to provide a conceptual and exploratory defi-

nition for a morally conscious decision-making framework in public sector

leadership. We argue that critical thinking and situational awareness are

required to use the framework. Its potential impact on organizational culture

would also set the tone for leadership, community, and the trust earned when

matters of the public are executed with integrity. We contribute a cultivated

understanding of morally conscious decision-making apart from self-inter-

ested motives or reflexive reliance on past behavior.

The moral dimension of public administration has a long history with

roots in ancient philosophy and 18th century European societal values, up to

the Minnowbrook conference and ASPA’s Ethical Code of Conduct (Cooper,

1987; Svara, 2014). Even in the absence of formality, administrative ethics

and moral psychology have been relied upon to inform the complexities of

decisions, service delivery, and individual responsibility (Brady, 1983;

Cooper, 2004; Stewart, 1985). As the field moved into new strains of scholar-

ship derived from philosophical and social perspectives, influential thinkers

including Chandler (1983) and Waldo (1980) built on social and philosophi-

cal perspectives to explore the moral emphasis on the administrator’s role

being inseparable from the nature of the work, and to identify more than a

dozen sources of obligation relevant to the conduct of administrators (Reed

et al., 2020). Especially in the last four decades, the moral dimension of pub-

lic administration has grown to highlight the central place of values in the