World Bank Understanding and Changing Court Culture Brian Ostrom, Ph.D. Charles Ostrom, Ph.D. Matthew Kleiman, Ph.D. National Center for State Courts May.

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