Ambiguous authority is both a constraint and an opportunity, depending on how the holder chooses to read it.
The Gap Between Authority Granted and Authority Exercised
Mandates in institutional contexts are rarely precisely defined. The job description, the terms of reference, the delegation of authority — these documents describe the formal contours of a role's authority but leave significant interpretive latitude in their application to specific situations. The range of legitimate action within any formal mandate is almost always wider than the most conservative reading of that mandate, and almost always narrower than the most expansive reading. Where within that range the holder chooses to operate is a consequential choice.
The underdefined mandate is simultaneously a constraint and an opportunity. It is a constraint because its ambiguity creates exposure: actions taken at the expansive edge of an underdefined mandate can be challenged as exceeding authority, and the outcome of that challenge depends on factors — institutional politics, the relationship between the challenged actor and the challenging one, the precedents available — that have nothing to do with the merits of the action itself. It is an opportunity because its ambiguity creates space: actions that might be explicitly prohibited under a precisely defined mandate are possible under an underdefined one, as long as the holder is willing to defend a reasonable interpretation of their authority that encompasses the action.
Reading Ambiguity Expansively
Expansive reading of an underdefined mandate is appropriate when three conditions are met. First, the action being contemplated is genuinely within the spirit of the mandate — consistent with the institution's understanding of what the role is for, even if not explicitly enumerated in the mandate's letter. Second, the expected benefit of the action justifies the exposure to challenge. Third, the holder has the institutional standing — the track record, the relationships, the credibility — to successfully defend an expansive interpretation if challenged.
When these conditions are not met, conservative reading is more appropriate. The holder who reads their mandate expansively without the standing to defend that reading creates a situation where they have taken consequential action and will lose the challenge when it comes, potentially undermining not just the specific action but their credibility for future expansive readings.
Creating Definitional Precedent
The most powerful use of an underdefined mandate is to create definitional precedent through successful action at the expansive edge. When an expansive reading is acted on successfully — when the action produces value and the resulting challenge either does not materialize or is successfully defended — the precedent establishes that the expansive reading is within the mandate's scope. The next action at that edge is easier to defend because precedent exists. Over time, the mandate is effectively expanded through the accumulation of successful expansive actions, even without any formal amendment to the mandate document.
An underdefined mandate is not a limit — it is a question. The holder's answer to that question, expressed through action, defines the mandate more reliably than the document does.
Discussion