City and county managers face unique challenges as they navigate the complexities of governance and decision-making. Cognitive biases and heuristics—mental shortcuts that simplify complex decisions—can often distort judgment, leading to flawed reasoning and unintended consequences. This article delves into specific biases like confirmation bias, anchoring, and the framing effect. Using real-world examples, we will examine their impact on municipal decision-making and provide insights into how city/county managers can recognize and address these cognitive tendencies.

Many people, including newly elected officials, believe that all cities operate similarly, regardless of size, with the same challenges and resources. For example, Russell, Kansas, has a population of 4,403, which may lead one to believe they have the same personnel and responsibilities as other Kansas communities of the same size. Doing so is an example of a representative heuristic—assuming the two municipalities with the same population have the same services, demands, and resources, and overlooking other relevant factors such as geographic location, economy, and policies. 

In comparison, Goodland, Kansas, has a population of 4,390, or 13 less than Russell’s. However, they have 56 full-time employees while Russell has 98 full-time employees.¹ Goodland’s annual operating budget for fiscal year 2024 was $16,703,144 while Russell’s is $29,335,490.² There are many reasons for the sharp differences; however, this illustration supports the influence of representative heuristics.

While cognitive biases and fallacies impact city/county managers, governing bodies, and communities regardless of size, this article and the third article in the series will provide examples to illustrate the influence of cognitive bias, logical fallacies, and heuristics from my more than 30 years of public service, including the last 12 as a city manager.

Managing a municipal organization, particularly one providing essential services such as utilities, is a dynamic task with high stakes. Managers oversee operations that impact the lives of every resident, business, and visitor, 24/7, with even minor operational flaws having significant consequences. The interdependent nature of municipal systems means that decisions in one area often have far-reaching effects across the organization, necessitating constant adaptation to meet evolving demands and regulatory requirements. City/county managers contend with the practicalities and complexities of governance. They must rely on effective communication—conveying information and active listening—engaging with information and ensuring understanding without passing premature judgment.

Simultaneously, they must be aware of cognitive biases and logical fallacies that can distort decision-making—their own, the governing body, and residents— thereby undermining public trust. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, where managers, governing body members, and residents seek information that aligns with their beliefs, and the availability heuristic, which biases judgment based on recent or emotionally charged examples, can negatively influence decisions. Logical fallacies, such as ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments, further complicate communication and decision-making, making it harder to reach constructive solutions and building barriers to effective boundary-spanning.

The impact of these biases is not limited to the effectiveness of city/county managers; they also shape how the public perceives and responds to the services provided. In a polarized political climate, where divisions often seep into local governance, biases can lead to decisions that appear unfair or untransparent, contributing to public dissatisfaction. Moreover, cognitive biases such as loss aversion and sunk cost fallacies can lead managers to prioritize avoiding perceived losses over making the best future-oriented choices, while framing effects and anchoring biases can skew how issues are understood and acted upon.

As the environment surrounding municipal governance grows more complex, many city/county managers leave the field, raising critical questions about the profession’s future.³ In the current environment, where divisiveness and an “us versus them” mentality dominate political discourse, managers must focus on the common good. Their role in providing essential services that affect every aspect of community life makes their leadership indispensable. Effective communication, awareness of cognitive biases, fallacies, and heuristics, and an unwavering commitment to impartial decision-making are vital to navigating the challenges of municipal management. Managers must rise above the polarization that pervades all levels of government, ensuring that their communities receive the high-quality services they rely on and deserve.

To mitigate these negative influences, city/county managers must be vigilant about their biases and decision-making processes. They can safeguard against these pitfalls by fostering a culture of transparency, soliciting diverse viewpoints, and relying on objective data to guide decisions. By actively reducing the impact of biases, fallacies, and overreliance on inferential heuristics, managers can improve the quality of governance, enhance public trust, and ensure that the services provided effectively meet community needs and values.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Mayors, city managers, county administrators, and governors are chief executives of governments” who oversee budgets, programs, and the use of resources and represented 9% of the 313,2900 chief executives in the United States in 2023.⁴ Like other top executives, city/county managers work full-time, and many work more than 40 hours per week, including evenings and weekends, as there is no typical day. Technological advances have increased productivity and ensured that managers are digitally tethered to their work and responsibilities. The time pressures associated with city/county management can lead to bad reasoning from cognitive biases, fallacies, and overreliance on inferential heuristics.

Managers rely on information from sources that frequently change based on the subject, such as residents, governing body members, staff, websites, television, regulatory agencies, and experts. Communication consists of more than just the source and receiver. Communication is a process that involves the source, receiver, message, channel, feedback, noise, goals, and context. The dynamic nature of the profession’s environment and time constraints can lead to poor evaluation of information by not paying attention to or understanding each component. For example, as a city manager, I have found myself listening to sources of information passively, such as newscasts or legislative hearings, listening to respond, not understanding, or thinking of something else. In each of these examples, I failed to correctly translate the message/information into some meaning and observe nonverbal clues, which can lead me to understand the message or its context and fall into a cognitive bias trap.

When our attention is on point for the matter, the manager must evaluate the evidence, assumptions, or reasons before drawing an inference, that is, making a judgment or decision. An inference is a process we use to conclude assumptions or premises. At the same time, an argument is not a process but one or more premises and a conclusion—we draw our inference from the premises and conclusion of an argument.⁶ Arguments are often used for problem-solving, such as operational issues, persuasion, policy recommendations, and evaluation.

When reasoning, managers are vulnerable to biases. However, if they understand how biases work and the influence they may have, they can work to minimize their impact on critical thinking. For example, when evaluating arguments, managers must ask themselves three questions: “Are the premises plausible, has relevant information been omitted, and how strongly, if at all, do the premises support the conclusion?”⁷ The city/county manager is vulnerable to flawed, fallacious reasoning from cognitive biases without answering these three questions.

The Hidden Influence of Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias: Favoring Familiar Beliefs Over Objective Analysis

Confirmation bias occurs when we search for, interpret, or remember information that supports our existing beliefs while ignoring or downplaying information that contradicts our beliefs.⁸ A city/county manager who does not correctly evaluate an argument may favor information that confirms existing beliefs, leading to only accepting arguments that fit preconceptions while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Smaller communities often face limited financial resources, lacking the substantial tax base, sales tax revenue, or user fees that larger communities have. This creates intense competition for funding across various departments and projects. For instance, imagine the governing body of a small community debating how to allocate its limited resources: Should they replace outdated park equipment or invest in a new road to facilitate potential future housing developments? The governing body turns to John, the city manager in our example, for a recommendation.

John has long believed that parks are essential to a community’s quality of life, and he typically supports investments that directly benefit children, such as park improvements. A housing developer presents data showing that a new road would lessen developers’ costs, stimulating much-needed housing development in the city. He has seen this occur in other small Kansas communities. Meanwhile, the public works director provides information suggesting the new road could bypass an aging, no-longer-functional road. This approach would allow the city to find funding to either remove and close the non-functional road or find grants to pay to fully rehabilitate the non-functional road, which is estimated to be a multi-million-dollar endeavor.

However, instead of objectively evaluating both proposals, John focuses on finding information that aligns with his pre-existing belief in the importance of parks. He overlooks or downplays the data from the housing developer and public works director. This behavior reflects confirmation bias, where John selectively gathers and interprets information that supports his views. As a result, John’s recommendation may not fully consider the city’s long-term needs and may not be the most beneficial choice.

Anchoring and Adjustment: The Weight of First Impressions

One common cognitive bias is anchoring, which occurs when we place disproportionate weight on the first piece of information we encounter, often called the “anchor,” when making decisions—regardless of whether that information is relevant or misleading. City/county managers must frequently convert qualitative judgments into quantitative decisions when allocating funds for public services or infrastructure projects. As noted by Southworth and Swoyer, “We can fall prey to an anchoring bias any time examples or numbers are used to provide a frame of reference.”⁹ In these situations, the manager might receive information that, if not properly evaluated, could lead to the risk of relying too heavily on the first piece of information presented, with insufficient adjustment as new data emerges. For instance, if the first data point is inflated, subsequent evaluations of other data may be skewed by that initial figure.

Consider a scenario in which City A has endured decades of cyclic droughts that have adversely affected its growth and residents’ quality of life. After a three-year drought cycle, the governing body instructs the city manager to begin a significant water source development project, which will require navigating two regulatory processes before construction can begin. Initially, the city manager receives an estimate from an engineering firm that designing, building, and placing the city’s new pipeline into operation will cost $24 million. However, as the regulatory process progresses, the manager receives updated data, which suggests a more accurate cost of $16 million. Southworth and Swoyer explain that first impressions can provide an anchor and contribute to the strength of the primacy effect, which helps explain how the manager might anchor their thinking to the initial estimate despite the availability of more accurate information.¹⁰

In this case, the city manager could fall victim to anchoring and adjustment bias. This could manifest in two ways: by failing to adjust from the original anchor of $24 million and by overestimating the project’s priority due to the context of the cyclic droughts. The manager might anchor decision-making around the initial $24 million estimate, even though more reliable information is available. Sticking to the initial figure without adjusting as the project evolves could lead to several issues. For example, the city might submit grant applications requesting more money than is necessary, reducing the likelihood of securing the required funding. The manager may also become less open to exploring alternative water sources or design options simply because they are anchored to the original budget estimate. Additionally, the manager might overlook more minor, critical infrastructure needs, focusing solely on the $24 million project and not adjusting to the new data. This could result in the city manager holding valuable and unnecessary resources for the large project while ignoring the broader infrastructure needs of the city.

As illustrated, numerous studies support the susceptibility to anchoring and examine its impact in various decision-making contexts. Berthet points out that judges and jurors often rely on a numerical point of reference when awarding damages, adjusting their judgment based on that number.¹¹ However, the adjustments are typically insufficient and biased toward the anchor. Similarly, confirmation bias can exacerbate anchoring and adjustment bias by preventing individuals from testing or challenging their initial assumptions, reinforcing flawed decision-making processes.

The Framing Effect: The Power of Presentation in Decision-Making

“[The] framing effects occur when the way we word or conceptualize alternatives influences which alternative people prefer.”¹² People—customers, governing body members, and regulatory agencies—tend to respond differently to choices depending on whether they are presented as a loss or gain. According to Kahneman and Tversky, “When making risky decisions, people prefer sure gains over more risky ones, whereas they prefer risky losses over sure ones.”¹³

A practical example of framing effects is capital expenditure options for a municipal electric utility to improve reliability. The city manager of City A must decide between two costly and long-term projects: upgrading the existing electric distribution infrastructure or obtaining the city’s interconnection to the electric grid, reducing reliance on a third-party provider they are currently connected to. Both options will require multi-million-dollar investments and several years to complete in phases, but how the city manager frames these alternatives can significantly influence the decision-making process.

Consider the following scenario: The city electric utility has faced ongoing reliability issues, leading to frequent outages and customer complaints. The city manager must choose between two primary options: upgrading and rebuilding the existing electric distribution system to improve reliability and meet future demand or obtaining a direct interconnection to the electric grid, which would involve bypassing the third-party provider and taking control of the city’s electric supply from the grid. Both options are critical, costly, and long-term investments. However, the framing of each alternative can influence the perceptions of stakeholders, including the city council, residents, and other key decision-makers.

The city manager might present the distribution system upgrade option to the council and community by emphasizing the immediate, tangible benefits of providing a safer, more reliable distribution system, reducing the frequency of outages, and enhancing the overall efficiency of our infrastructure. This investment will prevent costly disruptions, ensure grid stability for the foreseeable future, and protect the public’s access to essential services. This framing emphasizes the reliability and safety of the upgrade, focusing on maintaining current stability and ensuring the city’s energy needs are met without the risks associated with a new system.

Alternatively, the manager might frame the interconnection option as a strategic move for long-term independence by obtaining its direct interconnection to the electric grid; the city will reduce its reliance on a third-party provider, gaining complete control over our power supply, improving the city’s ability to respond quickly to emergencies, eliminate the monthly access charge, and ensure the city’s access to the integrated market are met without relying on external entities positioning the city for future growth and independence. This framing highlights the control, independence, and potential cost savings associated with owning the interconnection, appealing to stakeholders focused on the city’s autonomy and long-term goals.

In contrast, the city manager might frame the distribution system upgrade negatively by stating that investing is pouring millions into a system that may not meet future demands from residential, commercial, and industrial growth or the rise in electric vehicle charging stations. Adaptation to meet load growth will require additional investment of millions of dollars. Here, the manager paints the distribution network upgrade as a less desirable solution.

On the other hand, the city manager could frame the direct interconnection option negatively, stating that while the city obtaining its interconnection to the electric grid seems appealing, it is a substantial financial risk. A multi-million-dollar investment and years of construction, all while managing complex regulatory hurdles, potential delays, and an aging distribution system. The costs of such a project could far outweigh the benefits, and there is no guarantee that we will achieve the level of reliability we anticipate, nor will it address the aging distribution system. By focusing on the risks and complexities, this framing emphasizes the potential negative consequences of taking on the responsibility of an interconnection, deterring decision-makers from supporting it.

How the city manager frames these options—either in terms of gains or losses—will heavily influence how the council and other stakeholders perceive the decisions. If the distribution upgrade is framed as a safer, more reliable investment, the city council may lean toward maintaining the current system, prioritizing stability over the risks associated with a new interconnection. However, if the interconnection option is framed as a strategic move for long-term independence and cost savings, the council might favor it despite the high initial costs and potential construction delays.

Conversely, framing the distribution upgrade as an outdated, costly solution or the interconnection as a risky financial burden could lead the city to reject these options, even though they may be the best solutions for long-term energy security and reliability.

The city manager must be cautious about how framing can influence decisions. Whether presenting the options described or other recommendations, the manager should strive to show balance, considering the city’s immediate needs, long-term strategy through its comprehensive development plan, and the financial implications of each option presented. It is crucial to avoid letting framing effects cloud judgment and ensure that the decision is based on an objective assessment of what will best serve the city’s residents and infrastructure in the future.

Having identified some common cognitive biases that shape decision-making, the third article in the series will focus on the logical pitfalls and mental shortcuts that can further complicate governance—like ad hominem attacks and illegitimate appeals to emotion—and explore strategies for city managers to improve reasoning, foster critical thinking, and build resilient, inclusive communities.

JON QUINDAY, ICMA-CM, is interim city manager of Abilene, Kansas, USA.

Endnotes and Resources

¹ League of Kansas Municipalities. (2024, July 16). City of Goodland - League of Kansas municipalities. League of Kansas Municipalities.

² Kansas Department of Administration. (n.d.). Municipal Budget and revenue neutral rate summary report. Municipal Services. https://admin.ks.gov/offices/accounts-reports/local-government/municipal-services/municipal-budgets/categories/79baff43403847ceae21129857c4033d

³ Gould, R., Benest, F., & Perkins, J. (2024, June 28). When to stay and when to go. Public Management Magazine article. https://icma.org/articles/pm-magazine/when-stay-and-when-go

⁴ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2024, August 29). Top executives. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/top-executives.htm#tab-1

⁵ Barber, D. M. (1988). Newly promoted city managers. Public Administration Review, 48 (3), 694–699. https://doi.org/10.2307/976248

⁶ Southworth, J., & Swoyer, C. (2020). Critical reasoning: A user’s Manual, V.4.0. Philosophy Open Educational Resources, 1–669. https://doi.org/10.58809/qgvo1509

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Berthet, V. (2022). The impact of cognitive biases on professionals’ decision-making: A review of four occupational areas. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802439

¹² Ibid, note 4.

¹³ Ibid, note 9.