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 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 Style

Autonomous CommunalNetworked Hierarchy Sociability Solidarity 40 District 1 – 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 CommunalNetworked 10 Sociability Hierarchical Ostrom County Case 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 County Case Management Style Autonomous CommunalNetworked Solidarity 10 Sociability Hierarchical Autonomous CommunalNetworked Solidarity 10 Sociability 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 County Change Management Autonomous CommunalNetworked Solidarity 10 Sociability Hierarchical Autonomous CommunalNetworked Solidarity 10 Sociability Hierarchical Judges Administrators Current Preferred

The “Engineer” and the “Psychologist” Change Management -- Preferred Judges Administrators Human focus on change System focus on change Convergence over time?

Change: More Solidarity Autonomous CommunalNetworked 10 Sociability Hierarchical Judges Administrators 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 oAccess oFairness oTimeliness 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