On Decision-Making, and Oliver Wendell Holmes
As Americans, we live in a democratic society marked by conflict and debate – under a government designed to encourage dissent. The founders believed that such a system would ensure that change would be measured rather than rushed; thoughtful as opposed to impulsive. Often, our system seems to stymie change as leaders promote opposing ideologies as if they represent scientific truths.
Yet decisions must be made, and we count on our leaders to make them intelligently. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once commented that each case that comes to court has “a unique fact situation.” The judge as decision-maker faces numerous “imperatives:” to “find the just result in this particular case,” to find the result that will be consistent with decisions made in similar cases, and at the same time, that will be most beneficial to society as a whole when generalized across similar cases in the future. He believed that the judge also confronts less talked about, but equally compelling imperatives: to “secure an outcome most congenial to the judge’s own politics,” and sometimes, to “bend legal doctrine so that it will conform better to changes in social standards and conditions.” Of course, he acknowledged the imperative to “punish the wicked” and “excuse the good.”
In his candid explanation of the politics involved in any decision, Holmes asserted that one "meta-imperative" hovered above all the others: to not let it appear that any one of the lesser imperatives played too much into the final decision at the expense of any of the others.
Holmes’ observations should remind leaders that making decisions on behalf of others is not as simple as applying one essential principle to a circumstance, and determining an outcome. There are many variables that should influence our leaders' decisions.
This need to consider multiple variables means that decision-making is complex. It should also give us caution that variables can be manipulated (i.e. decision-makers can choose the variable they want to employ to secure the outcome they want in a given situation), a warning to all leaders to watch that their own politics do not interfere with their ability to make wise decisions.
If Holmes was right , our leaders should rely on something more than personal preference or ideology. According to Holmes, that "something” is EXPERIENCE.