Post on 04-Jan-2016
World Bank
Understanding and Changing Court Culture
Brian Ostrom, Ph.D.Charles Ostrom, Ph.D.
Matthew Kleiman, Ph.D.
National Center for State CourtsMay 7, 2008
Context of American State Courts
• American state trial courts loosely organized
• Decentralization and autonomy in decision making hallmark features
• Most judges work with considerable discretionary authority
• In most states, judges are retained by popular election
• Substantial authority over their own courtroom staff
• Presiding judge seldom has formal powers
Most understudied institution in US
Planned Organizational Change
• ¾ of such efforts fail
• Most interesting about failure is reason why:
Neglect of organization’s culture
• Failure to change culture doomed other kinds of organizational change
Organizational Culture
When we think of the manifestation of values in organizations, it is culture we are thinking of. Simply put, culture is the set of values and assumptions that underlie the statement:
“This is how we do things around here.”
Robert Quinn
Apparent Culture
•Formal structure
•Official rules
•Lines of authority
Below the Surface
•Informal organization
•Unwritten rules
•Unofficial networks
•History
Approach
• Learn from success in private sector studies
• Compare and contrast key values
• Two dimensions—solidarity and sociability
• Fourfold typology of court culture
o Communal
o Networked
o Autonomous
o Hierarchical
• Relate to key work areas
• Link to court performance
Dimensions of Culture
• Solidarity – the degree to which a court has clearly understood shared goals, mutual interests, and common tasks
• Sociability – the degree to which people work together and cooperate in a cordial fashion
Meaningful Areas of Work
• Case Management Style: ”What is done”
• Judicial and Court Staff Relations: “Who does it”
• Change Management: “How to change”
• Courthouse Leadership: “Why do it”
Case Management StyleCurrent Preferred
I
There is general agreement on performance goals, but centralized judicial and administrative staff leadership is downplayed and creativity is encouraged. As a result, there are alternative acceptable ways for individual judges to apply court rules, policies, and procedures.
20 40
II
Judicial expectations concerning the timing of key procedural events come from a working policy built on the deliberate involvement and planning of the entire bench. Follow through on established goals is championed and encouraged by a presiding (or administrative) judge.
5 10
IIIThere is limited discussion and agreement on the importance of court wide performance goals. Individual judges are relatively free to make their own determinations on when key procedural events are to be completed.
70 10
IV
Judges are committed to the use of case flow management (e.g., early case control, case coordination, and firm trial dates) with the support of administrative and courtroom staff. Written court rules and procedures are applied uniformly by judges.
5 40
Total 100 100
Autonomous
Communal Networked
Hierarchy
10
20
30
10
20
30
Sociability
Solidarity
40
40
District 1 – Case Management
CURRENTCommunal Networked Autonomous Hierarchy Position
District 1 20 10 40 30 DC10 20 40 30 DJ20 35 10 35 JC
Average 17 22 30 32
Dominant Case Management
Interpreting Culture Profiles
• Type of culture that dominate each work area
• Strength of culture that dominates
• Congruence of perspective
• Comparison with other courts
• Discrepancies between current and preferred
Autonomous
Communal Networked
10
Sociability
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
40
30
20
10
Hierarchical
Ostrom CountyCase Management Style
• Strongly autonomous
• Individual judicial discretion
• Relatively free to make own determinations about how key events are completed
• Comfortable fashioning own approach
• Individual “fiefdoms”
Current
Preferred
Ostrom CountyCase Management Style
Autonomous
Communal Networked
Solidarity
10
Sociability
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
40
30
20
10
Hierarchical Autonomous
Communal Networked
Solidarity
10
Sociability
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
40
30
20
10
Hierarchical
Judges Administrators
Achieving Preferred Outcome
• Clarify expectations over what is to occur at each hearing
• Clarify preparation expected of counsel
• Implement firm & reliable schedules
• Establish continuance policy
• Systematic court-wide attention to resources (e.g., managing jury resources)
• New procedures (e.g., video arraignment)
Change Management
• Making changes in planned and managed or systematic fashion
• Defining and implementing procedures and/or technologies to deal with changes in the court environment
• Centralized change a challenge because each judge exercises wide scope of latitude in choice of practices and procedures
Ostrom CountyChange Management
Autonomous
Communal Networked
Solidarity
10
Sociability
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
40
30
20
10
Hierarchical Autonomous
Communal Networked
Solidarity
10
Sociability
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
40
30
20
10
Hierarchical
Judges Administrators
Current
Preferred
The “Engineer” and the “Psychologist”Change Management -- Preferred
Autonomous
Communal Networked
Solidarity
10
Sociability
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
40
30
20
10
Hierarchical
JudgesAdministrators
Human focus on change
System focus on change
Convergence over time?
Change: More Solidarity
Autonomous
Communal Networked
10
Sociability
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
40
30
20
10
Hierarchical
JudgesAdministrators
Networked
• Innovation, inclusion, and coordination among bench to build collaborative work environment
• Ensure accessibility
• Procedural fairness
Hierarchical
• Establish case scheduling and continuance policy to ensure court prepared to hear all scheduled cases
• Develop functional management reports
Achieving More Solidarity
• Overcome “separate fiefdoms”• Develop effective PJ & court exec team• Trust, communication, and interpersonal
skills• Build capacity to show effectiveness• Set meaningful performance goals
o Accesso Fairnesso Timeliness
• Mechanism for accountability
• Linked to Key Principles
• Balanced
• Measurable
• Sustainable
• Focused on outcomes
• A feasible few
Performance Management
What are the criteria for a good set of performance indicators?
Things that matter
What can be measured
CourTools
CourTools – The 10 Core Measures
Patterns in Desired Change
• Decrease Autonomous aspects of culture
• More solidarity when it comes to managing cases and managing change
• More solidarity and sociability for judge-staff relations
• More Communal courthouse leadership
Courts do not desire a single culture type
Culture of High Performance Courts
Comprehensive foundation of organizing concepts and operational indicators
• Determine condition of the present situation
• Evaluate alternative ways of doing business
• Choose best path forward
• Communicate institutional achievement to justice system partners, executive and legislative partners, and the public