Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Structured leadership development in the judicial system to enhance public service: an executive dissertation evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Structured leadership development in the judicial system to enhance public service: an executive dissertation evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 1
Structured Leadership Development in the Judicial System to Enhance Public Service: An
Executive Dissertation Evaluation Study
by
Estella Chavarin
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2019
Copyright 2019 Estella Chavarin
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 2
DEDICATION
This dissertation study is dedicated to many important people in my life that have molded
me into who I am today, both as an individual and as a leader. To my grandparents Popo and
Nana who through their hard work and dedication to their families gave us better lives for
generations to come. To my mom, Mary, for instilling a strong work ethic, integrity, and the
importance of education in me since I was young. To my dad, Alfonso, for being a quiet but
essential piece to our family. To my sister, Carmen, for being my number one supporter and
protecting me through life. To my former leaders and continued mentors who have truly
demonstrated genuine leadership skills that I have learned from and carried on into my own
career. This is for you.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have to first give my greatest thank you and praise to the Good Lord who put me on this
earth for a purpose or many. It didn’t matter how much I doubted myself, my faith constantly
reminded me that God is good all the time and I was meant to do what I do, no matter what or
who tried to knock me down. While I’m far from perfect, I know that God has begun the good
work in me and will see it through to completion (Philippians 1:6).
To my wonderful parents, Mary and Alfonso, whose prayers and encouragement helped
me continue on in this program through the craziness of work/life balancing. To my beautiful
sister, Carmen, and brother-in-law, Sammy, thank you for the kind words to get me through. To
a great friend, Monica, for her support as she kept me organized when I didn’t even know where
to begin on some days. To Anthony, for secretly bring proud of me even when you were grumpy
that I didn’t have time for you. To my best friend, Joachim, my common sense during my
irrational times. Love you all “mucho!”
To Cathy Harmon, Anaruth Gonzalez, Tricia Penrose, Teresa Risi, and Deirdre
Robertson for believing in me and showing me what it means to be a real, authentic leader who
people will follow anywhere. To Maria Hall, Sonji Hardy, and Nancy Guerra, thank you for
keeping me sane and putting up with my crazy ideas to develop staff and make work better.
Lastly, thank you to my dissertation chair, Dr. Helena Seli, for checking on me when I
needed it and her assistance throughout this process. Thank you to my committee members, Dr.
Maria Ott and Dr. Mark Pearson, whom I have the utmost respect for and am very appreciative
of their support during the entire program. An extra special thanks to my fellow classmate Jerri
Miles for keeping me focused throughout the program and the rest of my Cohort 5 friends for the
support through all our struggles and our celebrations! We did it together! Fight on!
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Table of Contents 4
List of Tables 6
Table of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Introduction to Problem of Practice 9
Organizational Context and Mission 9
Importance of Addressing the Problem 10
Purpose of the Project and Questions 11
Organizational Performance Goal 11
Stakeholder Group of Focus 12
Review of the Literature 13
Court Operations Manager’s Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 19
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of the Court Operations Managers’ Knowledge,
Motivation and the Organizational Context 30
Data Collection and Instrumentation 33
Results and Findings 37
Recommendations for Practice 63
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 5
Conclusion 70
References 72
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria 79
for Interviews and Surveys 79
Appendix B: Protocols 82
Appendix C: Validity and Reliability 92
Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness 93
Appendix E: Ethics 94
Appendix F: Limitations and Delimitations 96
Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 97
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 97
Appendix H: Level 2 Immediate Evaluation Instrument 108
Appendix I: Level 1 Immediate Evaluation Instrument 110
Appendix J: Delayed Evaluation Instrument 112
Appendix K: Data Analysis 113
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Knowledge Influences 23
Table 2: Motivation Influences 26
Table 3: Organizational Influences 30
Table 4: Expectancy Value in Leading Teams 49
Table 5: Self-efficacy in Leading Teams 51
Table 6: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 63
Table 7: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 66
Table 8: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 68
Table G1: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 98
Table G2: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 100
Table G3: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 102
Table G4: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 104
Table G5: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 105
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 7
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual framework. 31
Figure 2. Leadership competencies. 40
Figure 3. How prepared COMs feel in driving results. 45
Figure 4. Possess skills to lead people to excellent public service. 46
Figure 5. What resource can organization provide to help be a leader? 56
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 8
ABSTRACT
There is a deficiency of structured leadership development programs in the judicial system that
leads to a hindrance to public service and innovative change. The Chavez County Superior
Court (pseudonym) (CCSC) is a substantially-sized state trial court system in the United States.
The CCSC employs over a thousand employees and practices a multi-tiered hierarchical
leadership structure. The purpose of this study was to conduct a needs assessment and evaluate
the CCSC’s performance in how well it is developing its Court Operations Managers (COM)
team to demonstrate the competencies necessary to drive results through their staff in order to
effect change for enhanced public service. The quantitative phase of this study yielded 34
respondents to the survey. In the qualitative phase, seven individuals participated in individual
interviews and document analysis of budgetary documents and training records and materials
was conducted. The results and findings of this study showed that the COM group overall has
the foundational knowledge to lead their teams. However, organizational resources and culture
have hindered the COMs’ from understanding the importance of training their staff in a more
global perspective of serving the public in addition to furthering their development as an
organizational leader by providing training and opportunities for professional growth. Through
the recommendations provided in this study, the organization can benefit from developing their
COM team while leveraging the COMs’ current leadership strengths during the massive
organization change currently being experienced.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 9
Introduction to Problem of Practice
A survey conducted by the National Center for State Courts revealed that 51% of
respondents from the general public had only some confidence in state court leadership and 27%
had little to no confidence in state court leadership (Kelleher & Wolak, 2007). In the judicial
system, court management requires a unique balance of experience and education to be
successful in the position. Currently, there is a deficiency of structured leadership development
programs in the judicial system that leads to a hindrance to public service and innovative change.
Hartley and Bates (2006) indicated that there was a deficiency in educational and professional
development programs that could assist court managers in handling issues of serving diverse
populations, preparing for modernized technology, and communicating properly with high-level
officials such as judges and executives from collaborative justice partners. Although some state
courts’ leadership around the nation have acted to address the survey results, the same issues
raised by the public, such as inaccessibility for specific members of the public, accountability of
the court system in general and of judicial officer and staff expertise specifically, still persist
today (DeBoyes, 2013).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Chavez County Superior Court (pseudonym) is a substantially-sized state trial court
system in the United States. State trial courts manage court cases in which witness testimony
and evidence are considered and current statutes applied for a judge or jury to make a decision
on litigation (“Superior Courts,” 2016). According to its website, the Chavez County Superior
Court (CCSC) serves a vast number of community members in multiple courthouses across the
county. Its mission is to serve the community and ensure fairness and efficiencies in the court
system. The CCSC employs over a thousand employees and practices a multi-tiered hierarchical
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 10
leadership structure. About 15% of their workforce holds a leadership position ranging from
first line supervisors up to the executive officer.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to evaluate the organization’s performance in relation to how well it is
developing its leadership to lead people and change within the organization that results in
enhanced service to the public. Leadership in the public sector plays a key role in the
organization’s ability to successfully meet its goals through its employees (Ugaddan & Park,
2017). The trial court system aids the public with settling legal disputes and it is imperative that
organizations develop leaders who commit to developing staff into knowledgeable and motivated
individuals who accurately and speedily process caseloads.
The commitment to service for public sector employees is only as strong as their belief
in their organization’s performance and their experience with transformative leaders toward
innovation (Im, Campbell, & Jeung, 2016). Leaders of an organization must display qualities
that employees can observe and follow. As a result, employees are likely to experience an
increase in motivation to do well, thus, putting forth more conscious effort in public service
(Schwartz, Newman, Cooper, & Eva, 2016). Unfortunately, a study of a government
organization showed that on a five-point scale, employees rated their leadership as 2.11 in the
area of personal leadership, which includes showing subject matter expertise, morality, and
caring about their employees (Eddy, Lorenzet, & Mastrangelo, 2008). It is vital for the justice
system to have incumbents in managerial positions that can lead others in better serving the
public, through the staff’s vested interest in providing exceptional public service and training the
staff in understanding the importance of the work that they do in administering justice to the
community and how it impacts people’s lives every day.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to establish the COMs’ needs to drive results through
their staff to effect change for enhanced public service. The project is presented in the executive
dissertation format. The analysis focused on their knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences related to the leadership skills necessary. There were three primary research questions
that existed for this study.
1. What are the COMs’ knowledge and motivation related to demonstrating the
competencies necessary to drive results through their staff to effect change and enhance
public service?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and COMs’
knowledge and motivation to drive results through their staff to effect change and
enhance public service?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources in driving results through staff to effect change
and enhance public service?
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational performance goal for CCSC for this study is to have 100% of the
leadership team demonstrate the competencies necessary to drive results through their staff in
order to effect change for enhanced public service by December 2019. Driving results is the
organization’s definition of a leadership competency that includes commitment to continuous
improvement and championing change. At the start of the new executive officer’s tenure, the
organization lacked direction, had little resources, and was ripe for process improvement to
efficiently serve the public community’s current needs. Under the executive officer’s direction,
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 12
the organization created a strategic plan to implement modernized technology in order to
improve public access to the court system. Overcoming these obstacles requires having a strong
leadership team equipped with the necessary tools and motivation to guide employees through
these changes. Kelleher and Wolak (2007) posited that inefficient and conflict-laden processes
can cause public confidence in the organization to falter. Should this occur at CCSC, it places
the organization at risk of not fulfilling its mission to ensure fair and speedy access to justice.
Currently, there is no formal comprehensive leadership development program in the organization
in which leaders are required to participate. The executive leadership team has a vested interest
in developing a leadership development program for their supervisory management, midlevel
management, and senior management teams. A past employee satisfaction survey indicated that
improvement was needed in communication, clear goal setting and opportunities to provide
challenging assignments for themselves and their direct reports. As a result, a needs assessment
is required to establish a customized leadership development program that will address the
specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that will bring value to the public
and continuous innovative change to the organization.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
While a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical purposes,
only one stakeholder group was selected for this study: court operations managers. The court
operations managers (COM) are considered midlevel management. The COMs were selected
because they are the only managers from the midlevel management group who lead staff acting
as the first point of communication with the public and thus are the ultimate face of the court.
Alhaqbani, Reed, Savage and Ries (2016) posited that the commitment of middle management is
essential because incumbents in this position act as intermediaries between the vertically
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 13
structured leadership and communicating the strategic goals and mission of the organization to
line staff; if commitment is low or nonexistent, lower levels within the organization will not
successfully implement the organization’s goals of continuous improvement.
To align CCSC’s leadership performance levels with the new strategic plan of
modernizing technology to better serve the public, modifications to CCSC’s management
performance standards and evaluations were recently implemented. The senior executive
management team and the human resources division of CCSC worked collaboratively to create a
new leadership competency framework. This framework consists of three core competencies:
driving for results (champion of change and commitment to continuous improvement), soft skills
or people skills (development of staff, leading others through change), and executive maturity
(performance excellence, alignment of performance with organization’s vision and values).
Therefore, it is important for the COMs to have the necessary leadership skills to drive results
through their staff to effect change for enhanced public service.
Review of the Literature
Leadership in a professional context requires more than managing the operations of a
unit. The development of leaders serving in public organizations requires different competencies
than conventionally expected. The absence of specific leadership development in the public
sector remains prevalent. As reflected in the literature, this issue hinders the ability to shift the
organizational culture and subsequently leads to inefficient staff, ineffective leaders, and the
inability to service the public in ever-changing times.
Hindrance of Traditional Public Organizational Structures
Traditional organizational structures of government agencies tend to be hierarchical in
nature. These hierarchical structures hinder the ability to shift the organizational culture to adapt
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 14
to the modernization of societal expectations. Getha-Taylor and Morse (2013) indicated that just
as leadership must adapt to changing resources, organizational focuses, and statutory
requirements, organizations must ensure their leadership development efforts also mirror these
changes. It is important for organizations to prepare their leadership to changing times,
particularly if they expect their leadership to adapt and support those changing times.
Additionally, unlike traditional hierarchical leadership structures, flattened structures
induce collaborative leadership with the organization (Getha-Taylor & Morse, 2013). In a
hierarchically-structured organization, leadership must follow the chain of command, including
following directives with little input by the leadership in the lower echelons of the organization.
Without hierarchical practices, where the formality of a chain of command can suppress
individuals at lower levels from offering ideas and influential opinions, collaboration can be
valuable to the organization’s success.
Senior and executive management of an organization must take ownership of shifting the
culture and effecting change by communicating true mission and vision of the organization
(Rago, 1996). Communicating the mission and vision to first line and midlevel management
teams is important so that they can also communicate to the organization’s employees and
ultimately ensure the mission is achieved and the vision is fully supported. Making the mission
and vision part of the organization’s culture and including all layers of the organization can shift
the culture in the right direction.
Rago (1996) explained that the lack of infrastructure to support a leadership-oriented
culture provides a barrier to transformative change. Transformation comes when the leadership
is supported in initiating change with their teams. The support can also be established with the
team members also, and thus transformation of the organization’s culture commences.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 15
As such, organizational culture must create a sense of shared commitment in making
decisions and acting upon the organization’s goal of quality public service. To accomplish this,
the executive leadership in a government agency must prepare its leadership at all levels with
skills for sound decision-making and teambuilding, subsequently empowering lower-level
employees with decision-making authority (Dorasamy, 2010; Rago, 1996). Additionally,
Dorasamy (2010) stated that the organization must also create a shared purpose in order to help
align a leader’s decisions with the goals of the organization.
It is important to have the buy-in from the organization’s lower-level management and to
provide them with the sense that they are part of the authority in transitioning the organization’s
culture toward a more enhanced public service environment. The organization must steer their
leadership towards creating a culture that will set an example through their actions focused on
public service (Dorasamy, 2010). Setting the example among their staff can influence and
increase the confidence for them to become involved in the change and also increase the
managers’ confidence in effecting change within the organization.
Implications of Underdeveloped Leaders in Public Service
There are several issues that are evident when leaders at the forefront of an organization
are underdeveloped or display poor leadership skills. Specifically, adapting to changing
expectations of public service is key to implementing change and leading staff toward the culture
shift as well. Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang (2008) explained that inspirational motivation
among government leaders is lacking, primarily due to the rule-following culture of government
agencies. This belief coincides with the previous section that hierarchical public organizations
are a hindrance to shift the culture to meet modern societal expectations.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 16
Public service leaders require skills in transformational leadership to effectively empower
employees and effect positive change. These skills include both the technical and the soft skills
to ensure the know-how as well as methods in which to lead teams. Leaders must learn both
sides of management to be effective in this regard. Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang (2008) further
posited that in government:
Leaders need not only the traditional technical and managerial skills of the past but also
well-honed transformational competencies emphasizing mission articulation, vision, and
inspirational motivation (p. 330).
Additionally, the importance of being a motivating and transformational leader in a
government organization exists because of the service to the public. It is important that leaders
continually motivate their staff as the leadership-follower satisfaction level influences the level
of staff productivity (Trottier et al., 2008). If the staff are satisfied and content with their
respective leaders, that level of satisfaction will aid the organization in better serving the public
and reaching the government organization’s mission and vision.
Moreover, poor leadership skills lead to lack of trust and confidence by employees.
Subsequently, the lack of trust and confidence result in employees’ underperformance in their
job duties to efficiently serve the public. When employees do not trust their leadership, their
work performance tends to decline (Ugaddan & Park, 2017). In addition, Ugaddan and Park
(2017) explained that effective leadership impacts an employee’s level of engagement in their
work duties and, therefore, confidence in leadership is boosted when there is a demonstrated
shared value that shows competence and concern for the greater good. This clearly supports the
ideals of public service in which services are generally offered for the greater good of human
services.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 17
Another concern of underdeveloped leaders is that public service suffers when leaders are
not trained in a contemporary manner to meet the needs of today’s public. As public’s needs and
technological advances change, leadership skills and styles must change to drive the necessary
innovation within the organization to accommodate those needs. According to Getha-Taylor and
Morse (2013), modernized leadership development teaches adult learners about action learning,
such as project management, and peer development like mentorship.
Practicing a collaborative leadership style requires the organization to transition its
culture as well as its training and development initiatives (Getha-Taylor & Morse, 2013). As a
result, the transition will enable the organization’s leaders to make a positive impact. This
transition would include enhancing current leaders’ skills by teaching situation assessment,
group decision-making, and stakeholder analysis. As previously mentioned, expectations of the
modern society are important accommodations that warrant a shift in the way public leaders lead.
Similarly, a lack of continuous improvement in a public organization to meet the needs of
modernized technology and public accessibility is caused by managers being ill-equipped to
effect change in their organization and with their employees. Public satisfaction drives
leadership to improve the organization’s processes; the interaction of leadership and systems
increases work productivity (Andrews & Boyne, 2010). This is important in effecting change as
leadership, while striving to accommodate the public’s everchanging expectations, must also
motivate and guide staff through to commit towards the change.
Andrews and Boyne (2010) explained that the effects on employee performance include
the organization’s internal structure and business processes. Therefore, if there is an absence of
continuous improvement within the organization, the employees’ performance can fall below an
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 18
expected standard of performance. Continuously adapting and improving business processes for
the public is an essential piece to public leadership.
The Importance of Staff Development
To coincide with the organization’s goals of continuous improvement, collaborative
leadership, and achieving its mission, leaders must also focus on developing their staff. The
organization’s leaders must invest in staff development and promote a commitment to the
organization’s purpose. Staff development is crucial to productivity and commitment to the
organization; it is not merely the leadership’s responsibility in fulfilling the organization’s
purpose.
Specifically, for court employees, integrating the importance of the judicial branch’s
mission and values promotes new employees’ commitment to the organization (Ncube, 2008).
Additionally, Ncube argued that demonstrating how a court employee fits into the purpose of the
organization also helps to tighten the commitment to the court’s purpose; teaching court
employees that being a part of the court community is a great responsibility that serves the needs
of the public. This commitment and understanding of their own role in the organization can lead
to high productivity and staff taking pride in the importance of the work they perform in public
service each day.
Generally, when leaders have the skills and knowledge to properly train and develop their
staff, the organization reaps many benefits. Training and developing employees at all levels
lead to multiple benefits for the organization, including overall increase in organizational
performance, increased employee productivity, and reduced employee turnover which
subsequently leads to cost-savings and effectiveness (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Leaders who
understand the implications of developing their staff or not developing their staff will have the
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 19
ability to understand the importance of staff development in line with their own leadership
development.
In addition, Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) posited that a thorough needs assessment and
knowledge of employee’s existing knowledge and skills help to tailor training to exact needs of
the subject trainees. Furthermore, they indicated that the training received requires transfer of
training to job responsibilities and must be supported by leadership to ensure applicability in job
duties. Thus, it is not merely making training available to staff; it also requires attention post-
training and support from leadership to be able to apply the tools learned in their everyday duties
of serving the public accurately and efficiently.
Court Operations Manager’s Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
It is imperative for the COMs to possess the knowledge and skills to keep the
organization running efficiently toward its mission of providing equal access to justice. As such,
the knowledge and motivation needed in this position relate to the organization’s expectations of
their leaders: championing change and committing to continuous improvement, developing staff
and leading others through a change process, and aligning performance with the organization’s
vision and values. In addition, an organizational culture that fosters appropriate cultural model
and settings influences is needed to support the COMs in demonstrating the knowledge, skills,
and motivation necessary to perform well in their leadership positions.
Knowledge and Skills
Determining the knowledge and skill levels of the managers can help understand their
current knowledge and skill capacity and assess whether they have any gaps. Clark and Estes
(2008) indicated that knowledge and skills are necessary to achieve a performance goal and to
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 20
prepare for problem-solving as issues arise. This literature review will review several knowledge
influences that impact the managers’ ability to perform well in their leadership role.
Knowledge influences. Each knowledge influence can be categorized into knowledge
types. According to Krathwohl (2002), there are four knowledge types: declarative (which
includes factual and conceptual), procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is basic
information that an individual must know to perform well or solve problems in a specific subject
matter; conceptual knowledge is complex information that categorizes extensive information;
procedural knowledge is information on how to do something; and metacognitive knowledge is
knowledge of one’s own cognition (Clark and Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
These four knowledge types are equally important; however, this literature review will
emphasize conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge types within the five
knowledge influences relevant to the managers achieving the stakeholder goal.
Properly training subordinates. Driving results through staff requires managers to
possess the knowledge of how to properly train their subordinates. The managers’ employees
are the face of the organization and directly interact with the public they serve during daily
operations; managers must have the knowledge of how to properly train them in achieving the
mission. This procedural knowledge entails knowing how to train them in a manner that will
offer a working knowledge of completing their duties efficiently and accurately (Clark & Estes,
2008). Training, educating, and developing judicial branch employees can aid in improving
organizational performance and strategically provides the ability to handle a multitude of societal
and judiciary changes (“Education, Training, and Development,” 2017).
The procedural knowledge includes understanding how individuals learn foundational
knowledge that they will utilize regularly (Mayer, 2011). For example, while training others,
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 21
managers must be able to explain processes and policies through the lens of their training
participants in a way that they will retain the information. Kirschner, Kirschner, and Paas (2006)
explained that the cognitive architecture of individuals must be integrated into the method of
training due to the memory and schemas associated with learning. They further illustrate that
limitations of working memory create a cognitive load based on several factors such as the
environment, associated tasks, and the learners themselves that must be considered when
training. The managers should be conscientious about poorly planned training that results in an
extraneous cognitive load and subsequently leads to minimal or no learning (Mayer, 2011).
In addition, it is imperative that the training is transferred to the workplace. Along with
the actual training, to retain the knowledge and skills attained, Aguinis and Kraiger (2009)
asserted that they must be applied to the workplace through a positive work environment and
support, including the opportunity to test out new knowledge in real-life work duties.
Engaging and empowering subordinates. The knowledge of how to engage and
empower their subordinates is also important in driving results through staff to effect change. As
leaders of an organization, managers must learn how to keep subordinates engaged in the
important work that they do each day in administering justice. Grossman and Salas (2011)
maintained that studies reflect the transfer of training solidifies when leaders provide the
opportunity to practice the newly-acquired skills and demonstrate strong support. Furthermore,
they must also learn to empower their subordinates so that they can stay motivated and promote
buy-in for taking ownership of serving the public efficiently.
In this realm, managers must learn how they can change the culture of the organization.
This is important for CCSC as its culture is slowly shifting because of a change in executive
leadership. Shifting the court culture to practice trust and support that leads to motivating and
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 22
engaging the organization’s employees towards a common vision can lead to excellence in the
court’s performance (Burke, 2012).
To become aligned with a new vision and mission for the organization, engaging and
empowering subordinates must become commonplace in the organization. Leaders in the court
environment must be able to empower others, influence others, and ignite the idea of change and
growth for the court; without these skills, the court systems will become ineffective
(“Leadership,” 2017).
Analyzing own leadership skills to spearhead organizational change. Managers need
to analyze their own leadership skills in order to be in the forefront of organizational change.
This metacognitive knowledge is key to taking risks and being confident in one’s existing skills
and knowledge to leading the change the organization needs. Individuals who are aware of their
own cognitive abilities and existing knowledge tend to have enhanced learning experiences
(Baker, 2006). In this respect, court managers who are cognizant of their current ability to lead
others through training and development are able to do so without hesitation. Taking the
knowledge already known to leaders and being reassured that they can test any newfound
knowledge even when there is an increase in failure potential allows the managers to become an
increasingly solid court leader (Griller, 2008).
Table 1 shows the knowledge influences and knowledge types associated with the court
operations managers.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 23
Table 1
Knowledge Influences
Motivation Influences
Employee motivation is an integral part to performance in an organization. Clark and
Estes (2008) described three types of motivation processes that exist in the workplace: active
choice – whether an individual will start goal engagement; persistence – whether to persist on a
goal when distractions are present; and mental effort – the decision of how much effort will go
into accomplishing the goal. Motivation and knowledge go hand in hand in improving
performance; individuals must have the motivation to learn and apply the knowledge (Rueda,
2011). Furthermore, Grossman and Salas (2008) contended that research has proven a
combination of pre-training, post-training, transfer and application positively affect an
individual’s motivation for knowledge and application.
There are various motivational constructs that impact performance and can be made up of
both social and cognitive facets (Pintrich, 2003). An individual can become motivated in five
basic constructs. Motivation can derive from basic interest, self-efficacy in learning, attributions
regarding efforts in learning, goal orientation, and social learning (Mayer, 2011).
Knowledge Influence Knowledge
Type
References
Court operations managers need the
knowledge of how to properly train, engage,
and empower their subordinates to better
serve the public.
Procedural (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Clark &
Estes, 2008; “Education, Training,
and Development, nd; Grossman &
Salas, 2011; Kirschneret al.., 2006;
“Leadership,” 2017; Mayer, 2011;
Sanger, 2008)
Court operations managers need to analyze
their own existing leadership skills to
spearhead organizational change.
Metacognitive
(Baker, 2006; Griller, 2008)
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 24
In CCSC, there are many aspects of employee motivation. For purposes of this literature
review, only two motivation constructs will be discussed: expectancy value theory and self-
efficacy theory. These two theories are beneficial to the organization as it relates to valuing the
movement of the team towards innovation and assisting the managers to see their ability to drive
innovative change and develop their staff toward performance excellence.
Expectancy value theory. Eccles (2006) explained that expectancy value theory
consists of four related learning constructs: intrinsic interest, attainment value, utility value, and
perceived cost of learning engagement. Eccles further indicated that intrinsic interest is the
consolidated belief that individuals are motivated by learning or doing something that they enjoy
and consider to be challenging tasks. In regard to attainment value, Eccles described this as
being motivated by something that individuals self-identify with and, for utility value, being
motivated because something will be advantageous for their goal achievement. In essence, when
a task is of important personal value, the individual will put more effort into learning or
conducting the task (Mayer, 2011).
Court operations managers’ expectancy value. In order for them to drive results
through staff to effect change for enhanced public service, leaders need to value this process.
Pintrich (2003) posited that individuals need to see the value in learning specific tasks in order
for them to be committed to completing these tasks. At CCSC, the managers must collaborate
with the team to reach a goal. If COMs have the motivation to learn to lead a team of employees
to reach individual performance goals and specific department goals, this can benefit the
organization as a whole and ultimately the public it serves. Public service motivation allows for
leaders in public organizations to identify with being of service to others. Within this realm,
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 25
Paarlberg and Lavigna (2010) posited that leaders create value for their employees through
aligning them with the organization’s mission and vision.
Focusing on the task at hand while staying aware of the overall impact to the organization
can help the COMs understand the utility value in staying motivated to achieve the goal.
Furthermore, when the COMs are motivated to achieve these goals, they can influence their
employees to also be motivated in goal attainment. Janssen and Van Yperen (2004) contended
that there is greater exchange between leader and employee in regard to the employee’s job
performance; therefore, the effectiveness of the employee’s job performance also increases.
Self-efficacy theory. According to Pajares (2006), self-efficacy is an individual’s belief
in the level of their capabilities for a given task. These beliefs cause individuals to put forth
more mental effort when they know they will reap the benefits in the end (Mayer, 2011). In
addition, Pajares (2006) claimed that one’s self-efficacy will determine how they will react to a
challenging task; therefore, the more confidence exuded, the more at ease one will be at
accomplishing the task.
Court operations managers’ self-efficacy. Leaders need to feel capable of driving
results through their teams to effect change. As such, the COMs at CCSC must feel confident in
their own ability to lead their team toward the organization’s mission and strategic goals. If the
COMs’ self-efficacy in leading their teams toward organizational performance goals and
ultimate purpose of serving the public increases, then their employees’ self-efficacy in moving
toward the same goal also increases. Hannah, Schaubroeck, and Peng (2016) argued that
transformational leaders challenge their followers toward learning different and more
challenging tasks, thereby increasing their level of self-efficacy and, subsequently, achieving
more complex goals.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 26
Furthermore, in relation to their self-efficacy of leadership development, leaders should
have a reasonable baseline in which they believe their leader efficacy lies. If their level of
efficacy is at either end of the spectrum, then their leadership development will not be as
successful and their motivation to learn not as high (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Leaders
must realize that they have the ability to enhance their leadership skills and are neither beneath
learning something new nor incapable of advancing to the next level.
Table 2 demonstrates the two motivation influences of the COM group in relation to
expectancy value and self-efficacy.
Table 2
Motivation Influences
Theory Motivation Influence References
Expectancy Value Leaders need to value driving their teams
toward innovation and efficient public
service.
(Eccles, 2006; Janssen & Van
Yperen, 2004; Paarlberg &
Lavigna, 2010; Pintrich, 2003)
Self-efficacy Leaders need to feel capable of driving
their teams toward innovation and
efficient public service.
(Hannah et al., 2016; Machida &
Schaubroeck, 2011; Mayer, 2011;
Pajares, 2006)
Organizational Influences
General theory. Culture in an organizational sense has several attributes that define it
within a specific organization. Schein (2004) indicated that organizational culture entails group
identity with something shared and stable and that has an instinctive influence in all the
organization does. With the organization’s culture, there are various models and settings that
create its structure. These organizational influences can dictate the success of an organization in
achieving its performance goals and can aid in identifying performance gaps that are impeding
the organization’s stakeholders’ knowledge and motivation.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 27
Cultural models within an organization are these subconscious ways of thinking about
how something is done or perceived (Gallimore & Goldberg, 2001). These behavioral or
cognitive actions begin to form, thus creating a cultural model within the organization. Cultural
settings can be defined as a shared value that is done collaboratively as part of the norm or is not
performed at all as part of the norm of an organization (Gallimore & Goldberg, 2001). An
organization’s cultural model and settings influence its ability to achieve its performance goal.
In CCSC, an organizational culture exists in which several of its cultural model and
settings influences hinder midlevel managers from demonstrating the knowledge, skills, and
motivation necessary to perform well in their leadership positions. Being that CCSC is a
traditional bureaucratic public organization, there are two cultural models that influence on the
midlevel managers’ performance: authoritarian leadership and unaccountability. In addition, two
cultural settings influence their performance; the two consist of an absence of mentorship to
develop leaders as well as an absence of coaching and opportunities for leadership development.
Culture of authoritarian leadership. At CCSC, there is a traditional culture of
authoritarian leadership in which midlevel managers generally cannot make any decision without
senior or executive management approval. Derecskei (2016) posited that authoritarian leadership
inhibits the employees’ creativity and causes a decline in their motivation. A decline in
motivation and creativity creates a slowdown in innovative change as an organization. In a
public agency, the more hierarchical the organizational structure, the more midlevel managers
are thought of as dispensable during restructuring, and thus, this negatively affects their public
service motivation (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Thus, midlevel managers who are demotivated
can transfer the sentiment to their respective employees. To help shift this cultural model, Rago
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 28
(1996) stated that top leadership must empower lower-level management and employees with
decision-making authority.
Culture of lack of accountability. Another cultural model influence impacting the
organization’s performance is the culture of unaccountability among lower to midlevel
management. The lack of accountability can be correlated to the implications of authoritarian
leadership of the senior and executive management teams. Empowering subordinates in
decision-making is less likely in hierarchical organizations as it may lessen one’s reputation as
an authority figure (Campbell & Campbell, 2011). This includes empowering leaders at the
supervisory or middle management levels.
Additionally, if there is no accountability present at midlevel management, which results
in waiting for direction from senior management and not voluntarily leading staff on their own
volition, subordinates may not respect or have trust in their leadership. When employees do not
trust their leadership, then their public service motivation is weakened (Ugaddan & Park, 2017).
This “domino effect” causes an organization such as CCSC to fall to a level of performance that
requires improvement.
Lack of formal mentorship, coaching, and leadership development. One of the
cultural settings in CCSC is the nonexistence of a formal mentorship and coaching program that
assists in the development of midlevel management in decision making skills and the ability to
feel empowered to lead their teams. In some capacity, midlevel managers are promoted from
line-staff positions and do not have the supervisory experience to prepare them for a
management level role. Getha-Taylor and Morse (2013) argued that modernized leadership
development teaches adult learners about action learning and peer development. Peer
development, or mentorship, is an essential piece to leadership development and real-life
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 29
leadership experiences. They also indicated that leadership should be collaborative in nature and
that it requires transition of the organizational culture and modernized training that will support
it.
At CCSC, without a mentorship program, midlevel managers have to feel their way
through their responsibilities of supervision, project management, change management, and
leadership abilities on their own. Formal mentorship can prove valuable when a leader is paired
with a mentor within the organization as research indicates that there is a higher work motivation
(Bozeman & Feeney, 2009). The tenure of the mentor and knowledge of the inner workings of
the organization contribute to the value of a formal mentorship program.
In addition, the absence of a formal leadership development program inhibits high
performance. The type of performance goals that midlevel managers receive are difficult to
achieve due to lack of mentorship, coaching, and opportunities for leadership development.
Kramer (2007) explained that action learning aids in solving organizational issues in a group
setting while building self-awareness and learning from others. Action learning is in-the-now,
in-the-know access that can lead to achievement of performance through collaboration with
others in the organization. The CCSC is lacking in this area of preparing their leadership with
the skills and knowledge to meet their assigned goals.
Table 3 reflects the cultural models and setting influences and the organizational
influences for the COM group at CCSC.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 30
Table 3
Organizational Influences
Cultural Model/Setting
Influence
Organizational Influence Reference
Cultural Model Influence:
Court Culture
The court needs to provide
autonomy in decision making for
COMs’ direct area of
responsibility.
(Derecskei, 2016; Moynihan &
Pandy, 2007; Rago, 1996)
Cultural Model Influence:
Court Culture
The COMs need to be held
accountable for their decisions
and actions via empowerment
and clear expectations.
(Campbell & Campbell, 2011;
Ugaddan & Park, 2017)
Cultural Setting Influence:
Resources
COMs need mentorship,
coaching, and opportunities for
formal leadership development
in order to achieve performance
goals.
(Bozeman & Feeney, 2009; Getha-
Taylor & Morse, 2013; Kramer,
2007)
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of the Court Operations Managers’ Knowledge,
Motivation and the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework acts as the foundation to a study, built upon by concepts or
theories that tie into a problem to be studied (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The purpose of a
conceptual framework is to provide a model of what is known about the problem of practice,
including what is known based on prior research and past experiences, what is expected in the
study, and known relationships that are important in the study (Maxwell, 2013). While each
influence in this study has been discussed separately, a relationship exists with one another that
will either hinder or benefit the organization’s performance. The purpose of this study was to
determine how the knowledge and motivation of the COMs is related to successfully leading the
organization. In addition, the impact of the organizational culture and settings to the COMs’
knowledge and motivation was examined in the study.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 31
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1 demonstrates the interactions between the organization’s cultural models and
settings with the COMs’ knowledge and motivation related to the lack of structured leadership in
the judicial system and the hindrance to public service. At CCSC, the cultural models and
settings impede the knowledge and motivation required to effectively lead the organization in
innovative change and service to the public. Figure 1 is reflective in that the knowledge and
motivation of the organization’s leadership is dependent on the organizational influences.
Superior Court
Cultural Settings and Cultural Models
(autonomy in decision making; accountability for
decisions and actions made; mentorship, coaching,
and formal leadership development to achieve
specific performance goals)
By December 2019, 100% of Court Operations Managers will demonstrate the
competencies necessary to drive results through their staff and effect change for
enhanced public service.
Court Operations Manager
Knowledge (how to properly train subordinates,
how to engage and empower subordinates,
analyzing own knowledge and skills), Skills,
Motivation (self-efficacy in guiding teams, value
of driving teams)
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 32
The overwhelming influence of CCSC’s traditional culture and related settings have a
great impact on whether the COMs can effectively achieve their performance goal. The
overarching circle of CCSC’s culture that inhibits autonomy for COMs to make their own
decisions for their unit, contributes to the lack of knowledge and motivation they need to perform
their duties well. When an organization is hierarchical in nature, such as in a traditional
government agency, the structure deters midlevel managers from being able to stretch their
leadership skills and become innovative. Incumbents in public leadership performance can
improve when an organization has a flattened structure allowing leaders to do more problem-
solving and creative-thinking on their own (Getha-Taylor & Morse, 2013). Thus, this could
potentially lead to a better display of polished leadership skills.
Additionally, the circle within the larger organizational influences’ circle represents the
need for knowledge, skills, and motivation within the organization’s culture. Specifically, this
indicates that the COMs’ knowledge to properly train their subordinates as well as engage and
empower them are influenced by the strength of the organizational culture and settings. If the
culture is that of an authoritarian nature, then the COMs will be apprehensive about empowering
their own staff to influence change. Sanger (2008) explained that involving collaboration with
and among employees, allowing them to bring something to the table and to make errors and try
again, will provide for a shift in the organizational culture. This shift in culture ties in to the
leaders’ ability to train and empower their employees.
As a result, when the organization’s culture works positively in tandem with the COMs’
knowledge and motivation, they have the ability and the confidence to achieve their performance
goal of demonstrating the competencies necessary to develop staff and effect change. This, in
turn, leads their teams to provide enhanced service to the public the organization serves.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 33
Ultimately, the organization fares better with empowered employees, skilled leaders, and the
mission to provide equal access to justice for all.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Part of the data collection for this study required quantitative research utilizing a survey
design. The purpose of the survey was to capture data demonstrating the attitudes and opinions
of a specific population (Creswell, 2014), namely, the COM group. Based on the survey results,
a more comprehensive qualitative data collection followed to complete this needs assessment.
For the qualitative research portion of my study, I collected qualitative data utilizing two
methods: conducting interviews and reviewing documents. Creswell (2014) indicated that
qualitative research includes fundamental characteristics such as the researcher being the sole
source of data collection, in a natural setting, utilizing various means of data (interviews,
observations, documents and artifacts). Conducting the two forms of qualitative data collection,
interviews and document analysis, were essential in my study to ensure that various perspectives
were captured and considered. In order to gather sufficient data to address my research questions,
it was important to interview participants to gain insight on the knowledge and motivation as
leaders. Furthermore, collecting and reviewing documents assisted in determining whether,
through allocated resources, the organizational culture supports or hinders leadership
development. Appendix A describes the participating stakeholders and sampling criteria.
Surveys
Creswell (2014) described a cross-sectional survey as a survey that collects data during
one specific timeframe. For this study, a cross-sectional survey was utilized in which data was
collected during a short two-week response period. Surveys were administered through an
online survey link, provided through the respondents’ work email addresses. Sending out the
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 34
survey through the respondents’ work email address was the easiest method to increase the
chance of responses. In addition, this method was the quickest as the work email addresses are
readily available and did not require extra time to acquire.
The target population for the survey was all CCSC employees who hold the title of Court
Operations Manager. The sampling method utilized was a probability sampling. Specifically, a
simple random sample was used in which every person in the target population had the same
opportunity to be selected to take the survey (Pazzaglia, Stanford, & Rodriguez, 2016).
There were 15 items in the survey to complete as reflected in Appendix B. Survey
questions included two demographic questions to determine the differences in data collected
(Irwin & Stafford, 2016). The two demographic questions for this survey considered the length
of time in the COM position and the number of staff the respondent directly oversees. The rest
of the questions were split among the various components of the conceptual framework,
including the knowledge base, motivational standpoint, and the perceived organizational
influences of the respondents. Survey questions were sectioned by the three influences:
knowledge, motivation, and organizational. See Appendix C for a discussion of validity and
reliability of this survey.
Interviews
During the interview phase of the study, I conducted one-on-one interviews with seven
COMs. Interviews were semi-structured in that the questions asked were open-ended, flexible in
the order asked yet sufficiently structured to acquire specific information (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Interviews were held in the participant’s respective office, my work office, or in one of
the organization’s conference rooms, depending on their choosing. Creswell (2014) posited that
qualitative research should be conducted in a natural setting so that the researcher can truly see
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 35
the participants’ behaviors in their element. Due to the busy schedules of the COMs and the
demand for their attention in the workplace, it was not feasible to conduct all the interviews
uninterrupted in their respective offices. While this environment may have been useful to gain a
true sense of the participants’ everyday experiences, I provided them with the option of holding
the interview in a private conference room or my office if they indicated that they will feel more
focused and at ease during the entire interview.
Interviews were conducted after the quantitative survey data was analyzed. The purpose
of the interviews was to gather more detailed data in relation to the development of the COMs
own leadership skills and the contribution of the organization’s culture to their leadership skills.
Patton (2002) indicated that interviewing individuals allows the researcher to gain insight on past
experiences and perspectives that cannot be deduced from mere observation. Interviewing
individuals provided greater insight in the participant’s knowledge and motivation in leading the
organization and its people, in addition to serving the public efficiently through innovation and
dedicated employees. Furthermore, it helped to identify the interaction between the
organization’s culture and the participants’ knowledge and motivation.
Interviews were held prior to completing any other qualitative-type data collection in this
study. Triangulation is a method in which utilizing different data collection methods can help
support the data and that the same conclusion is reached (Maxwell, 2013). The information
gathered from the interviews acted as a precursor to determine what will be specifically
identified and collected during the document analysis to support the claims.
A semi-structured format was utilized for the interview protocol. As Patton (2002)
explained, this format allowed specific questions while still providing the flexibility for probing
or follow-up questioning. The format further permitted the participants to establish a positive
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 36
rapport with the researcher and to be willing to thoroughly impart significant pieces of expertise
and perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
As reflected in Appendix B, the interview began with an introduction highlighting the
focus of the study, confidentiality statement, and a request for permission to record the interview.
The interview then commenced with two main introductory questions, with a subset of six
potential follow-up questions. Subsequently, the heart of the interview contained 10 primary
questions pertaining to the knowledge (three questions), motivation (three questions), and
organizational influences (four questions), with related potential follow-up questions. The
interview ended with an opportunity for the participant to ask questions and a researcher closing
statement. Appendix D elaborates on the credibility and trustworthiness of these interviews.
Documents and Artifacts
For this study, specific documents were reviewed to collect additional data that could
further identify the influences between organizational culture and the COMs’ knowledge and
motivation. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) posited that documents and artifacts are useful in
qualitative research due to its inability to be altered because of the researcher being present. The
information retrieved through documents and artifacts are static and their authenticity cannot be
skewed by the researcher.
Budgetary documents are an appropriate source in gaining perspective on the
organization’s commitment to training and development. During this study, an information
request was made to the Chief Finance Officer for budgetary documents for the last five years
that reflect funding earmarked for training and development. Where available as a separate line
item, information regarding specific allocation for leadership development was captured.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 37
Additionally, trainer curriculum, training participant guides, and participant enrollment
size for leadership development courses that were offered internally within the organization for
the last five years were reviewed. The request was made to the Chief Human Resources Officer
who oversees the organizational development unit. Curriculum and participant guides were
reviewed for specific topics and competencies addressed in the training and enrollment records
were assessed to determine participant ratio to COM population.
Results and Findings
The findings for this study are comprised of data from a survey, individual interviews, and
document analysis. The explanatory sequential research design was utilized; therefore, the
survey was distributed and the data collected prior to the qualitative phase of the study being
initiated. The survey was initially sent out to all the individuals holding the title of Court
Operations Manager (COM) of which there were 34 participants who completed the survey. Of
the 34 participants, about 56% of them had up to five years of service as a COM and 54% had
more than five years as a COM.
During the qualitative phase of the study, seven COMs volunteered to be interviewed
individually. The participants of this interview phase had an average 21 years of service as an
employee of the organization, with experience as a COM ranging from one year to 20 years. To
maintain confidentiality of the interview participants, no further demographics are provided.
Analysis of relevant and available documents was also conducted. The analysis included
review of budgetary documents for professional development as well as training curriculum and
class enrollment of internal leadership classes. The review of documents did not achieve the
level of detail desired for this study as outlined throughout this section.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 38
Conducting a needs assessment of this organization is crucial to help identify the gaps in the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of the COMs that may prevent them from
demonstrating the competencies necessary to drive results through their staff in order to effect
change for enhanced public service. Leadership competencies include driving for results, people
skills, and executive maturity. This section will describe, based on the data, the results and
findings related to COMs’ knowledge and motivation to demonstrate the necessary competencies
to drive results through their staff. In addition, the findings will also show the organization’s
culture and contextual influences that interact with the COMs’ knowledge and motivation.
Procedural and Metacognitive Knowledge Influences
For this study, two knowledge influences were assessed for the COM group: procedural and
metacognitive. For procedural knowledge, this study assessed whether the COM group had the
procedural knowledge to know how to train their employees properly to achieve the
organization’s mission of serving the public. In addition, assessment of whether procedural
knowledge was present for COMs to know how to engage and empower them to effect change
for the organization’s mission of serving the public. Lastly, this study assessed the COMs’
metacognitive knowledge in whether they knew how to analyze their own leadership skills to
remain in the forefront of organizational change.
Court operations managers have a general knowledge of properly training their teams.
One of the crucial abilities of a leader is to properly train subordinates to achieve the goals of a
unit and mission of an organization. Training and development are key to increasing
performance and achieving a goal or vision (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Clark & Estes, 2008). In
order to properly train subordinates, the COMs must know how to do so effectively.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 39
Quantitative results from survey responses. Question 3 of the survey asked survey
respondents if they had taken a formal leadership program in the last three years. Out of 34
respondents, 47% answered affirmatively that they had taken a leadership program within the
organization and 6% took it on their own outside of the organization. Of the respondents who
completed a formal leadership program, only 44% indicated that their working relationship with
their direct reports positively changed. These results can reflect that either a) the formal
leadership program was not effective or b) the COMs did not apply the knowledge and
techniques they learned during the training program. About 47% indicated that they had not
taken a formal leadership program in the last three years.
When asked in Question 5 of the survey that if the organization would offer a new
leadership class, which topics would best be suited for addressing development needs, almost
half or more of the respondents selected all the topics suggested in the survey. Figure 2 reflects
the leadership competencies addressed and the percentage of participants that selected each
competency. In addition, topics offered by the respondents included motivational performance,
roles and responsibilities, finance planning, and effective and persuasive communication.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 40
Figure 2. Leadership competencies.
The top three competencies that received the most interest from respondents were staff
development, collaborative leadership, and coaching. These three competencies can be related to
more of a soft-skills skillset in which working with people and leading people become evident.
Leaders must have both the technical and the transformation side of management in order to be
effective in implementing change (Trottier et al., 2008). Soft skills can also be correlated with
the knowledge of how to engage and empower staff and, additionally, in the metacognitive
knowledge of analyzing one’s own skillset, which will be discussed later in this section.
Qualitative findings from individual interviews. Correspondingly, the individual
interviews conducted after the survey data was collected demonstrated that the participants had a
general knowledge of how to properly train staff for changing and new procedures or new
technology. Understanding that not everyone grasps information or learns a new procedure the
same way is an important piece to knowing how to properly train staff. When asked how she
helped to develop staff to prepare for a major change, one participant responded:
53%
68%
47%
62%
47%
44%
71%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Strategic Planning
Coaching
Project Management
Collaborative Leadership
Change Management
Reengineering
Staff Development
Vision, values, performance
Question 5: If the court offered a new leadership class, the following topics
or competencies would be best suited to further the development of all
leadership levels within the organization
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 41
There’s a saying that says, “It takes three to seven times that you have to present
information before it’s actually understood.” I understand that with the people. Some
people get it in three and some people get it in seven. A lot of it is a lot of repeat.
Another participant similarly responded in how he handles this with staff during a change:
So accepting the fact that while change may come easy to me, I can’t have the same
expectation for everybody else, therefore I should be patient, I should be willing to work
with the people around me, to help them transition through this change. Even little
change…give them the resources, give them the tools, and then be there, be present…
Other techniques mentioned by three of the participants were providing tools they called
“sandboxes” in which staff could experience and get familiarized with the new systems and
procedures before they are implemented. In addition, all participants mentioned the importance
of constant communication of the impending changes with their staff to ensure that the staff were
prepared and up-to-date on vital information. One of the participants indicated that he
“believe[s] in consistency” while another participant said that she has “consistent conversations
about it, consistently discussing it…” Another participant expressed the importance of having
different methods of communicating, such as video conferencing, presentations, and email
distribution.
While the participants appeared to have the knowledge on how to properly train
subordinates on impending changes, only one participant discussed how she trains her staff on a
broader scale. Instead of focusing on training them on one or two specific aspects of an
impending change, the participant indicated:
[I work] with people individually to help strengthen what may be challenges or gaps…
[there may be] different styles…the multi-generational aspect…people from different
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 42
backgrounds…the ethical piece is important to me as well. That’s one of the things I
think we could maybe be better about, maybe even with our specs and how we train
people, to remind people, because people have a different view but we’re working for the
taxpayers and their money.
Through her response, she demonstrated her ability to focus on the broader picture of preparing
her staff to achieve the overall mission of the organization: serving the public.
Overall results and findings. Both survey and interview findings showed that the COMs
have the basic knowledge to train their subordinates. However, based on the responses of the
interview participants, it appeared that the majority of the COM’s knowledge and focus was on
process-related training. Except for one interview participant, it was not evident that the COMs
trained their staff on a full range of items. For example, Mimi emphasized that to develop staff,
“it’s important to cross train employees” and strives to “keep them abreast of procedural
changes.” This finding supports the survey respondents’ desire for enhanced professional skills
such as strategic planning, change management, project management, business process
reengineering, and vision, values and performance.
Court operations managers generally know how to empower and engage their staff.
Engaging and empowering staff to drive change within the organization can help the staff
understand the important work they contribute to public service. As previously mentioned and
demonstrated in Figure 2 above, survey participants presented a desire for further training on soft
skills such as coaching, staff development and teambuilding, and collaborative leadership.
Responses from interview questions prompted additional insight from the COMs.
Qualitative findings from individual interviews. During the individual interviews, it was
apparent that all participants took the time to focus on empowering and engaging staff by
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 43
working together with them. For example, when asked what strategies he practiced with his staff
to ensure he effects change to enhance public service, Jacob responded:
Ultimately my success will come from their success. So I empower them, I ask them
questions, I engage them, I will even assign certain projects, I will try to identify the
individuals that may be better at one things or others…it’s really about engaging, being
interactive, asking questions…understanding and identifying them as a resource.
Furthermore, Mary acknowledged the benefit of empowering staff when she allowed one of her
staff members to assist on a project and to complete it how the staff member chose. Because of
that, they uncovered a discrepancy that they would not have otherwise found. When asked if she
is open to suggestions from staff to improve processes, Mary responded that she supports any
suggestions that are appropriate for the occasion.
Empowering staff also helps build their self-confidence and therefore keeps them
engaged to perform efficiently and reach a common goal. Isabel indicated that she keeps her
staff engaged in improving archaic processes and “it’s like everybody having a voice…it’s their
idea to move toward a change.” Likewise, Jacob shared that he tells his team that “we’re doing
things. We’re making change, but you’re doing it. You’re helping me.”
In addition, Sammy also works to engage his staff by “finding out what the employee
wants and kind of working with them on how to get there.” He looks at the employee’s skillset,
motivation, and aspirations to establish a plan with them. Alfonso said that after taking a well-
known leadership course, his key takeaway was how to engage with people. He said that “being
a leader is far more to me about the relationship you have with each individual person than
anything else.” In addition, he believes that “people thrive on challenge” and it’s important to
figure out “how staff can spread out to maximize their work product, while empowering them.”
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 44
Lastly, Mimi explained that her first years in her COM role were different than how she
leads her team now. She indicated that after having attended several leadership courses outside
of the organization, she now strives to address the people side of management. Admitting that
was “one of the areas that I wasn’t as adept in as I like to think, that I’ve made some
changes…and understand the value in that,” she further explained that having worked in the
same organization that was extremely hierarchical, she did not realize how important it was to
place “more emphasis on the team orientation.” Mimi stated that it has been “really rewarding
for me” because as a new manager years ago, she “was just uneducated about that part of it.”
She is now proud to say that those external leadership courses have attributed significantly to the
progress she has made as a leader in the organization.
Overall results and findings. As Ugaddan and Park (2017) explained, effective
leadership involves engaging staff in their work and instills a shared value in the employees.
Overall, findings showed that the COMs were on target with their knowledge to empower and
engage staff. It appears that, based on the survey responses, COMs may further benefit from
learning formal methods in empowering and engaging staff.
Court operations managers have a desire to learn and grown on their own. It is
imperative that the COMs continually analyze their own ability to leading change amongst their
team and within the organization. As the culture of an organization shifts periodically, or at full
speed as is the current case in this specific organization, COMs must also be willing to grow and
enhance their leadership skills when needed. Overall, the COMs have a genuine desire to learn
and grow in their leadership positions.
Quantitative results from survey responses. For the quantitative phase, questions
regarding metacognitive knowledge were included in the survey. Question 6 asked survey
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 45
participants how prepared they felt to drive results through their staff and effect change in their
organization. As reflected in Figure 3, of the 34 respondents, 29% answered “extremely
prepared,” 59% answered “somewhat prepared,” and 12% answered “not sure.” When asked in
Question 7 whether they possess the skills to lead people to excellent public service in their unit,
47% responded “strongly agree,” another 47% responded “agree,” and 6% responded “neither
agree nor disagree.”
Figure 3. How prepared COMs feel in driving results.
29%
59%
12%
0% 0%
Question 6: How prepared do you feel to drive results through your
staff and effect change in your organization?
Extremely prepared Somewhat prepared Not sure Somewhat unprepared Not at all prepared
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 46
Figure 4. Possess skills to lead people to excellent public service.
The quantitative findings demonstrated some conflicting data in two of the survey questions
posted. As reflected in Figure 3, 71% of survey respondents indicated that they feel either
somewhat prepared or not sure if they are prepared to drive results through their staff and effect
change in the organization. On the other hand, 94% responded that they either agree or strongly
agree that they have the skills to lead people to excellent public service. The results may have
been caused by either a) a misunderstanding of the question; b) the COMs do not correlate the
two aspects of effecting change in the organization with leading people to excellent public
service; or c) not believing that they can implement transformative change.
Qualitative findings from individual interviews. During the qualitative phase, the seven
participants interviewed provided insight on how they continuously analyze their own leadership
skills. When asked the reason behind their desire to become a leader in the organization, most
participants responded that they needed something more challenging and they had a desire to
continually grow and learn. Jacob said that he thought being in a leadership position would
“challenge me, allow me to learn new things, and be part of the change…” When she believed
47%
47%
6%
0%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Question 7: I possess the skills to lead people to excellent public
service in my unit
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 47
that she had gone as far as she could in her current position, Mary indicated that “…I had pretty
good judgment skills. I figured management would be the next step for me.” Two other
participants had the same sentiment; one indicated that he desired to be more challenged and thus
wanted to promote to a management position.
In regard to how they prepared for a leadership position, a combination of observation of
other leaders’ behavior and getting educated on leadership techniques through external means
were commonly mentioned among all interview participants. Jacob responded that he
appreciates receiving feedback and in working with “people much higher than me, lower than
me, same level, I really absorbed a lot of information and shaped myself in the way I want to
be…” Carmen shared that she observes how people react to certain situations and says that “I
pull from that, then I say, ‘I won’t do that. I will do that.’”
In addition, continuous development is practiced by reading leadership books to align
themselves with leadership techniques. Mary said that she has several “go-to” leadership books
and Alfonso indicated that he frequently reads and enjoys self-help books. Six of the seven
participants either pursued or are pursuing a formal college degree and three participants
mentioned that their higher education has solidified their ability and desire to be in a leadership
position in the organization.
Overall results and findings. Overall, findings revealed that the COMs have the
metacognitive knowledge to analyze their own leadership skills. Baker (2006) indicated that
being aware of one’s own cognitive abilities aids in having quality learning experiences. As
such, the COMs can benefit from continuous leadership development and training to continue in
peak performance.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 48
Expectancy Value and Self-Efficacy Motivation Influences
This study sought to assess two motivation influences for the COMs: expectancy value
and self-efficacy theories. Expectancy value occurs when individuals understand the value or
accomplishing a specific task (Pintrich, 2003). Self-efficacy is the belief of one’s abilities to
perform a particular task (Pajares, 2006). The assessment of whether these two motivation
influences impacted the COMs’ abilities to drive results to effect change was completed.
Court operations managers have a true desire to leverage strengths of team to meet
a vision. The expectancy value of the COMs was demonstrated in both the survey results and
the findings from the individual interviews. The COMs understand the importance and the value
of their responsibilities in leading staff. Based on both results and findings, the COMs showed
commitment to leveraging strengths of their teams.
Quantitative results from survey responses. Survey results for the area of expectancy
value demonstrated that overall, participants understood the value of leading staff toward
innovative and effective public service. As shown in Table 4, 100% of the participants either
agreed or strongly agreed with two questions regarding the value of leading staff. Question 8
asked participants if it was important to the COM that their staff understands the importance of
the work of public service and Question 9 asked whether the COM enjoyed leading their staff
toward innovative change to ensure public service. The results clearly showed that the COMs
responding to these survey questions understand the value in leading staff through change. In
Question 11, when asked if the COMs made it a high priority to develop staff because they value
developing their staff’s professional skills, 85% said they strongly agree, 9% said they agree, and
6% said they neither agree nor disagree.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 49
Table 4
Expectancy Value in Leading Teams
N= Strongly
Agree
Agree Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Q8: It is important to me that I
ensure my staff understands
the importance of the work
they do for the public.
34 79% 21% -- -- --
Q9: I enjoy leading my direct
reports toward innovative
change to ensure that they are
providing professionalism,
courtesy and quick service to
the public
33 79% 21% -- -- --
Q11: I make it a high priority
to develop my own staff
because I value enhancing
their professional skills.
33 85% 9% 6%
Qualitative findings from individual interviews. The participants during the interviews
generally indicated an understanding of the value in guiding teams toward innovative change and
excellent public service. Four of the seven participants specifically indicated that they felt it was
important to provide their staff with the “why” of the change being implemented so as to provide
them with the opportunity to be committed to the change. Mary indicated that she believes doing
the work of a leader well includes helping her team have a reason to do their job well. In part,
she stated that it is important that she makes her team feel “valued…that they’re contributing”
and that she strives to “give people a reason to be here, and a reason to stay here.”
Additionally, Isabel shared that one of her favorite aspects of being leader is developing
her staff individually. Isabel said that as she focuses on developing her team, it helps to “meet
the needs of the court to accomplish our mission” and assists the staff in maintaining the vision
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 50
of “providing justice to that [particular] customer.” She also indicated that she would like all her
staff to “have a voice” so that they continue to learn from each other. Alfonso responded in a
similar manner. He shared his belief that regardless of length of service or one’s title in the
organization, all members of the organization should have their opinions and ideas considered.
Further related to this mindset, Carmen shared that the key to guiding teams is leveraging
strengths. She indicated that her team takes the time to brainstorm on ideas, regardless if the
ideas sound far-fetched and unrealistic.
Overall results and findings. Overall, the survey results show that the COMs understand
the value in developing their staff’s professional skills. Coupled with the responses of the
interview participants so similar, it can be deduced that the COMs motivation in leading teams
by understanding the value in doing so, is very present in the way they lead their teams.
Furthermore, it appears that with their direct team, the COMs understand the benefit of
collaborating with their direct teams. The collaboration and seeing the value with staff can
strengthen their commitment to the organization if they have leaders that display these necessary
qualities (Im, Campbell, & Jeung, 2016).
Court operations managers demonstrated a high confidence level in being a change
agent. Self-efficacy in leading teams is imperative in the organization to effect change
efficiently. The COMs need to believe that they can implement the change required to enhance
public service. For this study, the focus of self-efficacy was in regards to leading their respective
teams.
Quantitative results from survey responses. Two questions in the survey were related to
self-efficacy in leading teams (see Table 5). When asked in Question 10 if they felt confident in
their ability to implement a process improvement initiative in their respective unit, 94% either
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 51
strongly agreed or agreed and 6% neither agreed nor disagreed. However, when asked in
Question 12 whether they are able to provide an adequate amount of decision-making authority
to their direct reports in order to keep them engaged and empowered, only 21% strongly agreed,
61% agreed, 9% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 9% disagreed.
Table 5
Self-efficacy in Leading Teams
N= Strongly
Agree
Agree Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Q10: I feel confident in my
ability to implement a process
improvement initiative in my
unit.
34 47% 47% 6% -- --
Q12: I am able to provide an
adequate amount of decision-
making authority to my direct
reports in order to keep them
engaged and empowered.
33
21%
61%
9%
9%
--
Qualitative findings from individual interviews. During the interview phase, overall, the
seven COMs who participated felt that they had the ability to lead their teams. In each interview,
there was an apparent self-confidence in being a change agent within the organization; however,
there was no strong support demonstrating that the specific knowledge in how to do this
according to the three competencies that court leaders are expected to perform well in. Four out
of the seven participants could not define all three competencies of driving results, executive
maturity, and leading people. One participant had to be reminded what the leadership
competencies were. When prompted or provided with the definitions, only general responses
were given which demonstrated that participants lacked a specific understanding of what is
expected of them to perform successfully in these competencies. This can be contributed to the
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 52
organization’s lack of training for their leadership when the new competencies were
implemented; this will be further discussed in the next section.
The COMs’ self-efficacy to lead teams is apparent through their responses. Isabel
indicates that she has a “very collaborative style” and is able to be flexible with the employees
she works with. Sammy stated that he became a leader because he wanted “to be one of those
folks who helps propel the change, not just be a part of it.” Similarly, Alfonso acknowledged
that he wanted to become a leader in the organization because “there are a lot of inefficiencies
that I saw and a lot of changes that I wanted to make” and he could only accomplish this if he
“was going to put myself in a position of either great influence or the decision making.”
Although most COMs’ displayed a sense of high self-efficacy in leading teams, this self-
efficacy slightly diminished when asked about the level of decision-making authority they were
allowed in implementing change. Corresponding to the decline in agreement in Question 12 of
the survey (refer to Table 5), interview responses also showed that the organization did not allow
as much autonomy in decision making as the COMs would hope.
One interview participant acknowledged that she grew up in court culture with leadership
that was more directive rather than collaborative. She felt that this caused her to continue
practicing that leadership style; she would let her staff know that only management makes the
decisions. Alfonso confessed that, while his direct administrator gave him great autonomy to run
his unit how he preferred, he understands that the organization as a whole does not regularly
practice giving autonomy to its leadership. He stated that he would not “mind if I was included
in some of these decisions that are made, but that’s just not reality.”
Overall results and findings. While the results and findings generally revealed that the
COMs had a high level of self-efficacy in leading their teams, there were two organizational
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 53
influences that prevented the COMs from maintaining that level of self-efficacy: a low level of
decision-making authority provided by the organization and a low standard of leadership
development. The results and findings of this section are directly impacted by these
organizational influences discussed in the next section. As a result, an issue of overconfidence
leads to the assumption of having the necessary skills (Clark & Estes, 2008), and therefore,
impacts the COMs’ motivation to lead their teams.
Organizational Culture and Context Influences
The organization’s culture and context can have direct impact on an employee’s
knowledge and motivation. In this study, findings demonstrated that the COMs’ knowledge and
motivation to drive results through their staff to effect change and enhance public service were
significantly impacted by the organization’s culture and context. Through the survey results and
the interviews, the responses supported the findings that the organization can benefit from
improving in this area by shifting the culture and providing additional resources to develop their
COMs into performing their best in their respective positions. Two cultural models in the
organization attribute to the stifling of the COMs performance: lack of autonomy and
accountability due to the hierarchical nature of the organization. Two cultural settings are
prevalent in the organization, as well: the lack of a mentorship/coaching program and the desire
of the COMs for a more influential leadership development program.
Traditional hierarchical organizational culture causes lack of transparency and
autonomy, leading to lack of accountability for court operations managers. The organization
appears to practice a formal hierarchical structure with many levels of management. A
hierarchical structure causes a barrier for transparency and provides for communication
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 54
breakdowns. In addition, with little autonomy for midlevel managers to make decisions, it is
easy for the COMs to not be accountable in their positions.
Quantitative results from survey responses. Survey responses in regard to autonomy
revealed that 41% of responding participants felt that generally they can make most of the
decisions on their own unless it impacts other units or judicial officers. A slight increase to 44%
of respondents felt that they have to run decisions by their superiors when those decisions would
impact the respondents’ entire unit. About 12% of the respondents indicated that they had to run
every decision by their superior.
Qualitative findings from individual interviews. Despite this result, as noted above in the
self-efficacy section, the COMs appeared to have been less confident in their authority to make a
decision with their team, and therefore, that organizational culture stifles the COMs
accountability of enhancing public service. For example, during the interview, several
participants shared that the organization does not always provide the “why” or the “how,” which
is of particular importance during a major transition in the organization. One participant said
that “why I’m doing it is important to me, because sometimes we don’t get the why, we just do it
because we have to.” Another participant said that while the vision of the change has been
communicated, there has not been much in regards to actually preparing the COMs in leading
their staff through change and essentially teaching them how the organizational changes also
cause a change to the performance expectations for the COMs.
Sammy said “I don’t think there’s been a formal process of that change” and indicated
that the actual job description has not changed formally, yet with “the new criteria for the self-
assessments and such, that’s the closest the court has come to formalizing what the job is now
versus what it was a decade ago.” Sammy’s comment demonstrates that the organization may
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 55
not be holding the COMs accountable in their responsibilities if not all COMs are prepared in
performing to their new leadership competencies as the organization’s culture changes. This is
also evident in the comments made by other interview participants in which they indicate that
change is happening so quickly, yet they are not provided with that communication in a timely
manner to help the COMs and their impacted staff the opportunity to adapt.
For instance, the fact that information is received through downward communication in
which at times may be incomplete, late, or ambiguous also presents an issue for the COMs to be
accountable for implementing those changes. At times, participants admitted that they receive
information from their colleagues instead of their superiors and oftentimes, they are left filling in
missing pieces. One participant said that “transparency is important and I think that being able
to trust those who you report to is huge.” Allowing the COMs the autonomy to lead their teams
results in a greater accountability for them to succeed and perform to expectation.
Overall results and findings. The CCSC can improve on their communication with their
management teams regarding new expectations of leadership competencies and the mission,
vision, and goals of the organization. The organization can improve its transparency with the
COM team. In addition, CCSC does not provide sufficient autonomy for the COMs to continue
their professional growth in contributing towards the organization’s goals.
Internal professional development lacks post-training support and direct superior
coaching. The results and findings in this area demonstrated that the professional development
training provided within the organization’s training unit did not have the post-training support
required to maintain the skills learned. Furthermore, participation in the internal professional
development training offered was not required In addition, the COMs believed that their direct
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 56
superiors could better contribute to the COMs’ professional development through regular
coaching.
Quantitative results from survey responses. When asked if the organization provides
resources so the COMs are equipped me with the leadership skills they need to lead people and
effect change, 55% responded with “agree,” 21% responded with “neither agree nor disagree”
and 24% indicated “disagree.” Question 15 asked the survey participants what resources the
organization could provide to help them in the COMs’ leadership role. Responses are reflected in
Figure 5.
Figure 5. What resource can organization provide to help be a leader?
Three custom responses were submitted; however, one response was not related to anything
within the study and has been omitted. One custom response was “open communication with less
favoritism” and the second was “[c]urrently, it’s not whether one has leadership abilities; it’s not
what you know but who you know.”
0%
44%
35%
74%
38%
44%
50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Question 15: What resources can the organization provide
to help you as a leader?
Coaching/Mentoring Program Formal LDP More Autonomy
Manager's Toolbox More tools on BPR Better Communication
Nothing
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 57
Qualitative findings from individual interviews. In the area of leadership development,
further discussion was held with the interview participants regarding both formal leadership
development courses and leadership development efforts by superiors or the organization as a
whole. While overall, the interview participants felt that the organization did an adequate job in
providing leadership development courses, most felt that improvement is needed in this area for
various reasons. In addition, some interview participants shared their belief that their superiors
could put more effort in guiding, coaching, and setting clear expectations to further develop them
in their COM roles.
The organization of study offers leadership development courses, including a leadership
program consisting of several courses that, if all taken, carries a certificate of completion. The
interview participants revealed, however, that while the courses were informative, they did little
to assist in the application of the concepts learned in the daily duties of a manager. Several of
the participants opined that there were no analytics to measure the success of the courses and no
post-participation accountability that the leadership concepts taught in the courses were utilized
to improve an individual’s leadership skills. Jacob felt that the organization can approve in this
area:
We can have these classes all day long, all year long, but what are people getting from it?
Are they honest in their feedback [to the training unit]…we have leadership courses
coming up, but how do you measure success on that? [I] think leadership has to decide on
the quality of training that we receive, where it is coming from, the level of training that
we’re receiving…are we just fooling ourselves by saying we did it? Are we just putting a
checkmark in a box just to say we complied?
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 58
Sammy said that “I don’t think the court, to be honest, has done much in the way of formal
training or formal development” and that “you just kind of have to go with what you know and
hope you make the right decision...” When asked about the leadership program the organization
does offer, he replied that it was good for all in a management position, however, he would like
to see an ongoing training opportunity. He does not want to just say he completed the class and
that is it. Sammy mentioned that when he did take the leadership program, it was prior to a new
court executive officer and now expectations and responsibilities have changed; Sammy thinks
that continuing the developmental process for leadership is warranted. He further suggested that
the organization offer a follow-up course to the leadership program and making the program
mandatory for both new and seasoned managers would benefit the organization.
Another participant felt that the leadership program was not beneficial at all:
[I] don’t know if I changed a whole lot from the classes. They’re too fragmented, they’re
too spaced out. It was difficult…the days that they could spare you, you miss days
because of other commitments, and you have to make itu p when they offer that series
again.
When asked how the organization has prepared managers to transition to a culture of better
serving the public, Alfonso replied “I don’t know if the organization has really prepared me for
that…I don’t think there was a lot of support for that. Not of influence.” Relatedly, when asked
what the organization does to enhance the leadership skills of their leaders, Isabel shared that “I
don’t think necessarily that there’s a lot in that direction.” Carmen similarly explained that the
organization has not done an adequate job of preparing its management:
They need to take the reins [on developing managers], but when it comes to technical
things, I just kind of teach myself…but it probably shouldn’t be that way, and I don’t
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 59
know how many other people maybe don’t have the tools or the ability to do that…and I
think that’s where we could have some more support.
Mimi also included her sentiment in making the leadership program mandatory. She thought
that if she been told to participate in the leadership program as a new manager, it would likely
have taught her a different approach to leading staff and her staff’s thoughts about her tough
persona may have been different. Now that she has attended external leadership courses, she
indicated that she understands now why leading in a collaborative manner would have enhanced
her leadership skills.
An added desire of leadership development appeared to stem with the COMs’ direct
administrator helping them in the development itself. Attending leadership courses is one
method in which to enhance leadership skills; however, it also takes a superior to make available
opportunities for the COMs to grow and learn. Jacob believes that means his superior should
take the time in identifying first what each of their managers are seeking to learn, what they
should learn, and what opportunities are available to get them there, such as a challenging
assignment or leading a special project. He indicated that he believes the organization will “get
to a place where we can finally know where to obtain…they [will] provide those resources to us,
and the tools, and enable us to be better leaders.”
Furthermore, Isabel recalled that as a new manager, she signed up for the leadership
program as soon as the announcement came out. When asked if her administrator required her to
take the program as a new manager, she responded “I wasn’t discouraged, but I don’t remember
being specifically encouraged, either.” In speaking of how she was developed as a new manager,
Isabel spoke of a monthly meeting attended by all COMs that she felt was helpful in learning the
happenings of the organization. However, she shared that she was never initially informed of
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 60
this meeting until she had been in her COM role for a few months. When she finally discovered
it and asked her administrator if she could attend, she was allowed to go only every other month
and missed important updates the month she was not able to attend.
Qualitative findings from document analysis. Document analysis for this study
consisted of a request for documents related to financial records for training courses, a request
for leadership course materials, and a request for training records for internal leadership
development courses. The documents received were not as valuable to the study as originally
desired due to the lack of specificity in the financial records and the incomplete training records
provided. However, the minimal information that was reviewed showed that the organization is
lacking in its focus of leadership development.
A review of the organization’s last five years of financial records, specifically for
leadership development training, showed that the organization only recently in FY 17/18
invested significantly in manager development. This investment was through the acquisition of
training services from an external training vendor and included individuals in management roles
outside of the COM title. In the four years prior to FY 17/18, no manager-specific leadership
development was reflected in the budget.
A review of training records for internal leadership courses did not result in any
significant findings. The training records provided only consisted of sign-in sheets for various
leadership courses as the organization’s training unit does not have an electronic learning
management system or records system. Only partial course sign-in sheets were obtained for the
years of 2015 and 2017; the sign-in sheets for 2016 were not available electronically and the
training unit had difficulty locating them in paper form. The number of COMs that attended the
various leadership courses offered internally was difficult to ascertain as some sign-in sheets
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 61
only had names and not titles or may have had titles and the course name did not appear relevant
to actual leadership development.
A review of the training workbooks for specific leadership courses offered internally did
reveal any significant findings. In reviewing actual content of the course workbooks, the courses
appeared to be rudimentary and best suited for first line supervisory management instead of for
the COMs’ midlevel management position. Furthermore, these materials did not coincide with
the training records as the course titles were different and did not appear to match.
Court operations managers wholeheartedly desire a formal mentorship and
coaching program to support them in everyday issues. Mentoring and coaching individuals
are essential to developing them in any aspect of interest. For the COMs that participated in the
interviews, 100% of them thought that having a formal mentorship and coaching program would
greatly benefit both new and seasoned COMs and ultimately benefit the organization with
successful leadership. Sammy supported the idea of a formal mentorship program and felt that it
would help the organization as a whole:
And I really think that’s something that I want to see the court pursue more. I know
they’ve talked about it, but I’ve never seen a formal mentoring program…formalized,
more of a structured relationship, because I think it benefits both the mentor and the
mentee, because the other thing I always say…I’m never too old to learn. And I’ve been
in this for 20 years, but it doesn’t mean that somebody doesn’t have a perspective that I
haven’t heard before and that I would find useful.
Three of the COMs interviewed said that a mentorship and coaching program would be very
helpful to have COMs matched up with someone outside of their chain of command. Because
their superiors are extremely busy, they feel as if they would bother them if they asked them
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 62
questions. Additionally, they felt that having a mentor and coach that was not their superior
would allow them to be more comfortable in sharing their issues and seeking assistance in
overcoming obstacles.
Summary of Results and Findings
Overall, the study revealed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
affect the COM’s ability to demonstrate the competencies necessary to drive results through their
staff in order to effect change for enhanced public service. Based on the study, it is known that
the COMs have a desire to learn and grow (metacognitive), yet the organization’s internal
professional development lacks follow up or an expectation of post-training application to job
duties as well as support or expectation to attend the leadership courses made available. The
study also showed that the COMs generally take the time to empower and engage staff by
working together with them (procedural). However, while the COMs provide their team with
tools and support (procedural), they appear to lack a big-picture awareness of how their
leadership skills have a direct impact to the organization and the public they serve.
Additionally, the study revealed that the COMs have a true desire to leverage strengths of
their team to meet the organization’s vision (expectancy value). They appeared to be motivated
to achieve formal education or external training when they felt it would assist them in their
leadership roles. While the COMs held a high confidence in being a change agent (self-
efficacy), they had little to no support from the organization in how to do so for the newly-
implemented leadership competencies. Furthermore, the COMs uncertainty in having the
authority to be a change agent hinders their self-efficacy in moving change.
The COMs felt that an improved support for offering beneficial leadership development
courses or an entire program would help enhance their leadership skills. In addition, COMs
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 63
desired a formal mentorship and coaching program to assist them with everyday issues and
networking. Lastly, the organization’s traditional hierarchical culture appears to have caused
lack of transparency, lack of autonomy, and lack of accountability amongst the COM group. The
recommendations made in the next section will help to close the COMs’ knowledge, motivation,
and organizational gaps to ensure they demonstrate the competencies necessary to drive results
through their staff in order to effect change for enhanced public service.
Recommendations for Practice
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. For this study, there were two knowledge gaps discovered during the data
collection and analysis that remain necessary to address: procedural knowledge and
metacognitive knowledge. Recommendations for these influences include providing a job aid
and education. Table 6 demonstrates a summary of the knowledge influences and related
recommendations.
Table 6
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Court operations managers
need the knowledge of how
to properly train, engage, and
empower their subordinates
to better serve the public. (P)
To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating them,
and know when to apply
what they have learned
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Provide a job aid to court operations
managers on how to provide staff
with fulfilling assignments that
provide a big-picture responsibility
in accomplishing enhanced public
service and empower staff in
providing ideas to achieve
challenging tasks.
Court operations managers
need to analyze their own
existing leadership skills to
spearhead organizational
change. (M)
The use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates
learning (Baker, 2006).
Provide court operations managers
education that enables them to
analyze their own existing
leadership skills to spearhead
organizational change.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 64
Expand the procedural knowledge to train staff on a global scale. The data analysis
of the COMs’ procedural knowledge showed that there was a gap in the COMs knowledge of
training their staff in a broader perspective other than training them on proper procedure of
business processes. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) indicated that individuals must obtain
essential skills, practice integrating the skills, and know when to apply them in order to develop
mastery in those skills. As a result, teaching those skills and encouraging the use of them will
assist in gaining knowledge. The recommendation for this knowledge is to provide the COMs
with a job aid that will show them how to provide staff with fulfilling assignments that provide a
more global responsibility in accomplishing enhanced public service and empower staff to
provide ideas for achieving challenging tasks.
Grossman and Salas (2011) indicated that learning how to empower subordinates can
cause them to become more motivated and it will also provide buy-in for taking ownership of the
work that they do. Job aids can assist the leaders in showing their subordinates the importance of
the job that they do. Specifically, leaders can teach their subordinates that being a part of the
court community is a great responsibility that serves the needs of the public (Ncube, 2008). In
addition, Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) implied that training and developing employees increases
productivity and overall organizational performance.
Continuous leadership development will ensure self-analysis of leadership skills.
The COMs generally assessed their own existing leadership skills within their internal teams;
however, the COMs need to assess their own existing leadership skills to spearhead
organizational change in a broader sense. Baker (2006) posited that the use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates learning. As such, educating individuals to reflect on their abilities is
important. The recommendation is to provide court operations managers with continuous
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 65
leadership development education that enables them to analyze their own existing leadership
skills to spearhead organizational change.
Baker (2006) indicated that when one is aware of their own abilities and existing
knowledge, they tend to have better learning experiences. This is very beneficial to
organizational change as the leaders can learn more and subsequently allow their subordinates to
grow more in their capacity. Griller (2008) posited that taking the knowledge already know to
the leaders and reassuring that they can test newfound knowledge even at the risk of increased
failure allows them to become an increasingly solid leader. Therefore, it is recommended that
court operations managers receive education that enables them to analyze their own existing
leadership skills to spearhead organizational change.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. For this study, two motivation gaps were identified during the data
collection and analysis: expectancy value and self-efficacy. Recommendations for these
influences include providing opportunities for leading a process improvement initiative and
incorporating coaching and feedback on a regular basis. Table 7 demonstrates a summary of the
motivation influences and related recommendations.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 66
Table 7
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Leaders need to value
driving their teams
toward innovation and
efficient public service
(EV).
Higher expectations for
success and perceptions of
confidence can positively
influence learning and
motivation (Eccles, 2006)
Provide opportunities to successfully
lead a business process engineering
effort in the COM’s respective unit
Leaders need to feel
capable of driving their
teams toward
innovation and efficient
public service (SE).
Feedback and modeling
increases self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006)
Incorporate regular coaching to provide
targeted instruction, practice and
immediate on-the- job feedback with
time for personal reflection sessions to
assess goal milestone achievements.
Provide opportunities to lead business process reengineering efforts. Although the
COMs demonstrated a sense of valuing their teams, they would benefit from challenging
assignments to continue leading their teams toward great public service and innovation. Eccles
(2006) indicated that higher expectations for success and perceptions of confidence can
positively influence learning and motivation. In an effort to create these higher expectations and
perceptions of confidence, opportunities to experience them must be available. Therefore, the
recommendation is to provide opportunities for the court operations manager to successfully lead
a business process engineering effort in the COM’s respective unit.
Individuals need to see the value in specific tasks in order for them to be committed to
completing them (Pintrich, 2003). In relation to this, Paarlberg and Lavigna (2010) argued that
leaders create value for their employees through aligning them with the mission and vision of
their organization. Therefore, if court operations managers are provided with an opportunity to
lead a business process reengineering effort in their respective unit, aligned with the
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 67
organization’s mission, and realize successful results, they can see the value of innovation and
the positive impact to the public it serves.
Provide regular feedback and coaching to increase the COMs’ self-efficacy. While
the COMs generally had a high level of self-efficacy in leading their teams, their self-efficacy
could be further elevated through feedback and coaching from their direct administrators.
Pajares (2006) posited that feedback and modeling increases self-efficacy. These components
can be carried out through regular feedback from superiors and modeling through coaching and
mentoring. The recommendation is to incorporate regular coaching to the individual interactions
or meetings with the COMs’ superiors. This will allow their superiors to provide targeted
instruction, allow the COMs time to practice and allow immediate on-the-job feedback with time
for personal reflection sessions that aid in a regular assessment of achievements of goal
milestones.
According to Mayer (2011), an individual’s higher level of self-efficacy allows them to
put forth more mental effort because they know they will reap the benefits in the end.
Additionally, Hannah, Schaubroeck, and Peng (2016) indicated that when introduced to more
challenging tasks, the level of one’s self-efficacy increases, and thereby, the achievement of
more complex goals are realized. As such, the recommendation to provide coaching and regular
feedback to the court operations managers regarding goal statuses can help to increase self-
efficacy and, therefore, can create more initiative of the court operations managers to lead their
teams through challenging innovation.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. For this study, the data collection and subsequent analysis revealed that
there are three organizational gaps, two cultural models and one cultural setting, that hinder the
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 68
COMs’ ability to meet the goal of demonstrating the competencies necessary. Recommendations
for these influences include providing clear expectations, providing a goal and allowing
autonomy in action planning, and solicit feedback on coaching and mentorship opportunities.
Table 8 demonstrates a summary of the organizational influences and related recommendations.
Table 8
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization Influence
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
The court needs to provide
autonomy in decision-
making for court
operations managers’
direct area of
responsibility. (CM)
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders are
trustworthy, and in turn, trust their
team. The most visible
demonstration of trust by a leader is
accountable autonomy.
Students who believe they have
more personal control of their
own learning and behavior are more
likely to do well and
achieve at a higher level" (Pintrich
2003, p. 673) than those
who do not.
Set a specific court-wide or
unit-specific goal and
allow the court operations
managers to formulate their
own plan of action,
implementation processes,
and post-implementation
assessment without
dictating the “how.”
The court operations
managers need to be held
accountable for their
decisions and actions via
empowerment and clear
expectations. (CM)
Accountability is increased when
individual roles and expectations are
aligned with organizational goals
and mission. Incentives and rewards
systems need to reflect this
relationship.
Design of incentive structure
and use of incentives are more
important than the types of
incentives used (Elmore,
2002).
Create clear expectations
for court operations
managers to follow when
striving toward achieving
organization goals and
aligning the performance
merit system with the
actual performance of the
court operations manager.
Court operations managers
need mentorship, coaching,
and opportunities for
formal leadership
Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders ensure that
employees have the resources
needed to achieve the organization’s
Conduct an assessment of
interest for a formal
mentorship and/or
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 69
development in order to
achieve performance goals.
(CS))
goals. Insuring staff’s resource
needs are being met is correlated
with increased student learning
outcomes (Waters, Marzano &
McNulty, 2003).
coaching program within
the organization.
Allow the COMs to create their own plans of action when goal setting to allow
autonomy and build accountability. The data showed that the organization can improve in the
area of allowing the COMs more autonomy in making decisions for their unit and, therefore,
having more accountability. Organizational effectiveness increases when leaders are
trustworthy, and in turn, trust their team. The most visible demonstration of trust by a leader is
accountable autonomy. “Students who believe they have more personal control of their own
learning and behavior are more likely to do well and achieve at a higher level" (Pintrich 2003, p.
673) than those who do not. Therefore, the recommendation is to set a specific court-wide or
unit-specific goal and allow the court operations managers to formulate their own plan of action,
implementation processes, and post-implementation assessment without dictating the “how.”
Top leadership must empower lower-level managers with decision-making authority
(Rago, 1996). Dorsamy (2010) indicated that organizations must prepare its leadership with
skills such as decision making and teambuilding and, additionally, it must create a shared
purpose in order to help align a leader’s decisions with the goals of the organization. Allowing
autonomous decision making in one specific goal will help nurture leaders into sound decision
makers.
Provide formal mentorship and leadership development programs. The data analysis
showed that the COMs have a high desire for a formal mentorship and coaching program in
addition to more valuable leadership training. The leadership training includes learning about
the new leadership competencies to help them become more accountable to those performance
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 70
expectations and the organization’s mission and vision. Organizational effectiveness increases
when leaders ensure that employees have the resources needed to achieve the organization’s
goals. Ensuring resource needs are being met is correlated with increased student learning
outcomes (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). It is recommended to conduct an assessment of
interest for a formal mentorship and/or coaching program within the organization.
Bozeman and Feeney (2009) indicated that mentorship leads to a higher work motivation
and provides value to the organization. The study conducted by Chun and Yun (2012)
determined that mentorships aided in the mentee’s increase of self-efficacy and increased job
satisfaction. This led to a stronger organizational commitment, further resulting in potential
career advancement. Through this study, the mentors also seemed to have benefitted from being
a mentor, and their leadership influences were also strengthened. As such, the study reflects the
positive outcomes of sponsoring a mentorship program that can lead to achieving the
organization’s goals through both the mentor and the mentee’s development. Appendix G
provides a more detailed integrated implementation and evaluation plan utilizing the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to conduct a needs assessment and evaluate the CCSC’s
performance in how well it is developing its Court Operations Managers team to demonstrate the
competencies necessary to drive results through their staff in order to effect change for enhanced
public service. Through the data collection and analysis, it has been shown that the COM group
overall has the foundational knowledge to lead their teams. However, organizational resources
and culture have hindered the COMs’ from understanding the importance of training their staff in
a more global perspective of serving the public in addition to furthering their development as an
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 71
organizational leader by providing training and opportunities for professional growth. Through
the recommendations provided in this study, the organization can benefit from developing their
COM team while leveraging the COMs’ current leadership strengths during the massive
organization change currently being experienced.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 72
References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451–474.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Alhaqbani, A., Reed, D. M., Savage, B. M., & Ries, J. (2016). The impact of middle
management commitment on improvement initiatives in public organisations. Business
Process Management Journal, 22(5), 924-938. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1809938830?accountid=14749
Andrews, R., & Boyne, G. (2010). Capacity, leadership, and organizational performance: Testing
the black box model of public management. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 443-
454. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/40606402
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/
Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. (2009). Public management mentoring: What affects
outcomes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 19(2), 427-
452. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/29738952
Burke, K.S. (2012). Leadership without fear. Future Trends in State Courts. Retrieved from
http://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cgibin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1
881
Campbell, D. J., & Campbell, K. M. (2011). Impact of decision-making empowerment on
attributions of leadership. Military Psychology, 23(2), 154-179.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1080/08995605.2011.550231
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 73
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
DeBoyes, Z. M. (2013). Public trust: Past, present, future. The Judges' Journal, 52(2), 8-12.
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1353021648?accountid=14749.
Derecskei, A. (2016). How do leadership styles influence the creativity of employees? Society
and Economy, 38(1), 103-118.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1556/204.2016.38.1.7
Dorasamy, N. (2010). Enhancing an ethical culture through purpose -directed leadership for
improved public service delivery: A case for South Africa. African Journal of Business
Management, 4(1), 56-63. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
663906542?accountid=14749
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Eddy, E. R., Lorenzet, S. J., & Mastrangelo, A. (2008). Personal and professional leadership in a
government agency. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(5), 412-426.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/01437730810887021.
Education, Training, and Development (n.d.). Retrieved on May 5, 2017 from
https://nacmnet.org/CCCG/education.html.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 74
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1),
45 –56.
Getha-Taylor, H. & Morse, R. (2013). Collaborative leadership development for local
government officials: Exploring competencies and program impact. Public
Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 71-102. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/24371989.
Griller, G. (2008). New dimensions in court leadership. Future Trends in State Courts 2008.
Retrieved from http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-
bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/ctadmin&CISOPTR=1282.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Hannah, S. T., Schaubroeck, J. M., & Peng, A. C. (2016). Transforming followers’ value
internalization and role self-efficacy: Dual processes promoting performance and peer
norm-enforcement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 252-266.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/apl0000038 Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1696237825?accountid=14749
Hartley, R. E., & Bates, K. (2006). Meeting the challenge of educating court
managers. Judicature, 90(2), 81-88. Retrieved from
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 75
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/274738278?accountid=14749.
Im, T., Campbell, J. W., & Jeong, J. (2016). Commitment intensity in public organizations:
Performance, innovation, leadership, and PSM. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 36(3), 219-239.
Irwin, C. W., & Stafford E. T. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Collaborative survey
development (part 1 of 3) (REL 2016-163). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. (2004). Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-
member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. The
Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368-384. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/20159587
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kelleher, C. A., & Wolak, J. (2007). Explaining public confidence in the branches of state.
Political Research Quarterly, 60(4), 707-721. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/215330296?accountid=14749
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 76
Kramer, R. (2007). How might action learning be used to develop the emotional intelligence and
leadership capacity of public administrators? Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(2),
205-242. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/40212728
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
“Leadership” (n.d.). Retrieved on May 5, 2017 from https://nacmnet.org/CCCG/leadership.html.
Machida, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2011). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in leader
development. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 459-468.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1177/1548051811404419 Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/912100128?accountid=14749
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). How learning works. In Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service
motivation. Public Administration Review,67(1), 40-53. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/4624539
Ncube, E. (2008). Maricopa County Trial Courts New Employee Orientation: Assimilating New
Employees and Promoting Court Mission and Values. The Justice System Journal, 29(1),
105-110. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/27977380
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 77
Paarlberg, L., & Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational Leadership and Public Service
Motivation: Driving Individual and Organizational Performance. Public Administration
Review, 70(5), 710-718. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/40802368
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (REL 2016-160). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Rago, W. (1996). Struggles in Transformation: A Study in TQM, Leadership, and Organizational
Culture in a Government Agency. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 227-234.
doi:10.2307/976445
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 78
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sanger, M. (2008). Getting to the roots of change: Performance management and organizational
culture. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(4), 621-653. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/20447701
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein,
(Ed.), Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed., pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
Schwarz, G., Newman, A., Cooper, B., & Eva, N. (2016). Servant leadership and follower job
performance: The mediating effect of public service motivation. Public
Administration, 94(4), 1025-1041.
Superior Courts (n.d.). Superior Courts. Retrieved on October 7, 2016 from
http://www.courts.ca.gov/superiorcourts.htm.
Trottier, T., Wart, M. V., & Wang, X. (2008). Examining the nature and significance of
leadership in government organizations. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 319-333.
Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/197
181513?accountid=14749
Ugaddan, R. G., & Park, S. M. (2017). Quality of leadership and public service
motivation. International Journal of Public Sector Management,30(3), 270-285.
doi:10.1108/ijpsm-08-2016-0133
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 79
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria
for Interviews and Surveys
For this study, the stakeholder population of focus was organizational leaders that hold
the title of Court Operations Manager (COM). The COMs are considered midlevel management
and are responsible for managing clerk’s office functions and/or courtroom operations for a
single unit, litigation type, or an operations support unit. They may or may not have subordinate
supervisors in their direct chain of command.
Due to the mixed methods design of this study, there was no additional criteria for the
quantitative research other than holding the specific title previously noted. For the qualitative
research, the additional desired criteria for these participants was the length of service in the
current position and with the organization. The additional criteria for the qualitative research
assisted in analyzing potential differences in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences caused by the length of time employed by the organization and/or the years of
experience as a leader in the organization.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Current classification held. The participants held the classification of Court Operations
Manager (COM). This classification is a midlevel management position and consists of
managers whose employees have the most public interaction than other employees of midlevel
manager classifications. Thus, their leadership skills were more readily demonstrated in how
their leadership impacts service to the public.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Survey sampling was used in the quantitative portion of this study. The sampling
strategy in this respect was a census sampling, in which all individuals in a population have an
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 80
equal opportunity to be selected and are invited to participate (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
Based on recommendations by Fink (2013), this study’s goal was to have an adequate response
rate of at least 70%.
The sampling size was important because the survey was part of the beginning of the data
collection process as part of an explanatory sequential approach in which the quantitative
research was conducted prior to moving on to the qualitative research (Creswell, 2014). The
COM position was chosen because this level of management possesses the most public contact
under their general oversight. Total population participation assisted in the next phase of the
research: qualitative data collection.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Certain criteria were identified to determine the sample population for the interview
portion of this study. In an effort to gain an adequate sample population that can demonstrate
any differences in participants’ knowledge, motivation and organizational influences, a couple of
factors were considered. In addition, given the significant size of the organization, gaining a
broad range of participants from various locations provided insight on organizational influences
as well.
Years of experience as a COM. In order to gain insight of different perspectives based
on years of experience as a leader in the CCSC organization, the desired ratio of interview
participants was 50% having been a manager for five years or longer and 50% having been a
manager for less than two years. While desirable, this study continued without issue when less
than the desired percentage was received in either category.
Open to share in a confidential setting. Participants agreed to open discussion on an
individual, confidential basis to the best of their ability, regardless if information they shared
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 81
viewed the organization negatively or positively. If commitment was absent, then the study
could have been skewed as the participants may not have been completely honest, thus
hampering the results.
Assigned location (courthouse and unit). In order to gain insight of different
circumstances that potentially stem from working at a different courthouse or managing a clerk’s
office versus a courtroom, participants were not all from a single courthouse location. In
addition, this study strove to interview a third of the participants who manage solely a clerk’s
office, a third who manage solely courtrooms, and a third who dually manage both a clerk’s
office and courtrooms. While desirable, this study continued without issue when less than the
desired percentage was received in the three categories.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
When conducting the qualitative research portion of this study, individual interviews
were conducted. The sampling had a nested sequential relationship with the same population as
the quantitative data collection. Johnson and Christensen (2015) indicated that in a mixed
sample design, a nested relationship pulls study participants from one phase of the study and
utilizes them in another phase at a reduced number. Since the qualitative data collection was
completed after the quantitative data collection, a nested sequential relationship was developed.
The sample size for the interview portion of this study was seven COMs, which was
representative of about 7% of the COM population in the organization. The sample size for the
interviews allowed for varied insight into leadership.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 82
Appendix B: Protocols
Survey Instrument
A needs assessment is being conducted to determine the feasibility of more structured leadership
development in Chavez County Superior Court and the value it would bring to the organization’s
mission of efficiently serving the public. The survey will cover your perspective on your
knowledge as a leader, your motivation in being a leader, and the organizational model and
settings that impact how you are as a leader. While it is encouraged that the survey is completed
in its entirety, please note that you are not required to answer all questions on this survey and
can answer only the ones you feel most comfortable with. Your responses to this survey are
anonymous. Thank you for your participation!
Demographic Information
1. How long have you been in the position of Court Operations Manager in CCSC?
a. Less than one year
b. One to five years
c. More than five years but less than 10 years
d. 10 years or more
2. How many staff in your unit do you directly oversee (including supervisory level)?
a. Less than 10
b. 10 to 20
c. 21 to 30
d. 31 to 40
e. 41 or more
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 83
Knowledge as a Leader
3. Have you completed a formal leadership program in the past three years?
a. Yes, through the organization
b. Yes, on my own outside of the organization
c. No, I have not completed a formal leadership program
4. Since participating in a recent leadership class or program, my working relationship with
my direct employees has positively changed.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
f. N/A, I haven’t participated in a recent leadership class or program
5. If the court offered a new leadership class, the following topics or competencies would be
best suited to further the development of all leadership levels within the organization
(select all that apply):
a. Strategic planning
b. Coaching employees
c. Project management
d. Collaborative leadership
e. Change management
f. Business process reengineering
g. Staff development and building teams
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 84
h. Vision, values, performance excellence
i. Other: _____________________
6. How prepared do you feel to drive results through your staff and effect change in your
organization?
a. Extremely prepared
b. Somewhat prepared
c. Not sure
d. Somewhat unprepared
e. Not at all prepared
7. I possess the skills to lead people to excellent public service in my unit.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
Motivation as a Leader
8. It is important to me that I ensure my staff understands the importance of the work they
do for the public.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 85
9. I enjoy leading my direct reports toward innovative change to ensure that they are
providing professionalism, courtesy and quick service to the public.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
10. I feel confident in my ability to implement a process improvement initiative in my unit.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
11. I make it a high priority to develop my own staff because I value enhancing their
professional skills.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
12. I am able to provide an adequate amount of decision-making authority to my direct
reports in order to keep them engaged and empowered.
a. Strongly agree
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 86
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
Organizational Support for a Leader
13. Which best describes your ability to make decisions for your unit autonomously?
a. I can make most decisions by myself unless there is major impact to other units
and/or judicial officers
b. I have to run decisions that impact my entire unit by my administrator first
c. I have to run almost all decisions by my administrator first
d. I have no autonomy as I cannot take any action at all unless the specific directive
comes from my administrator
14. The organization emphasizes leadership development by providing resources to equip me
with the leadership skills I need to lead people and effect change.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neither agree nor disagree
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
15. What resources can the organization provide to help you as a leader (select all that
apply)?
a. Nothing, I have everything I need to be a leader
b. Better communication
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 87
c. More tools on process improvement
d. A manager’s toolbox with policies, procedures, and guide books
e. More autonomy as a leader
f. Formal leadership development program
g. Coaching and/or mentoring program
h. Other: _______________
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 88
Interview Protocol
I. Introduction (Appreciation, Purpose, Line of Inquiry, Plan, Confidentiality, Reciprocity,
Consent to Participate, Permission to Record):
I would like to first begin with expressing my gratitude for agreeing to participate in my study.
Thank you taking some time out of your extremely busy schedule to meet with me and answer
some questions. This interview will take about an hour, although we have allocated an hour and
half for some cushion on time.
I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at USC and am conducting a study on leadership
development in the judicial system. I am focusing on the value of leadership development to
effecting innovative change and improving service to the public.
Today, I am not here as an employee of this organization to make a professional assessment or
judgment of your performance as a leader. I would like to emphasize that today I am only here
as a researcher collecting data for my study. The information you share with me will be placed
into my study as part of the data collection. In addition, this interview is completely confidential
and your name or responses will not be disclosed to anyone or anywhere outside the scope of this
study and will be known only to me specifically for this data collection. While I may choose to
utilize a direct quote from you in my study, I will not provide your name specifically and will
make the best effort possible to remove any potential identifying data information. I will gladly
provide you with a copy of my final product upon request.
During the interview, I will be utilizing a recording device to assist me in capturing all of your
responses accurately and completely. This recording will not be shared with anyone outside the
scope of this project. The recording will be transferred to my password-protected files on a
cloud file storage account and deleted from the recording device immediately upon transfer. The
recording will then be destroyed after two years from the date my dissertation defense is
approved.
With that, do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If not, I would like
your permission to begin the interview. May I also have your permission to record this
conversation?
II. Setting the Stage (Developing Rapport and Priming the Mind, Demographic items of
interest (e.g. position, role, etc.))
This is Estella Chavarin and today is [date] at [time]. I am speaking with [name] and [name],
is it correct that I have your permission to record our conversation today?
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you.
• First, could you tell me how long you have worked in the organization?
o How long have you been in your current role as Court Operations Manager?
o How many employees are within your chain of command?
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 89
o Do you currently manage solely a case processing unit, courtroom operations unit,
or both?
• Generally, what does being a leader in a large organization mean to you?
o Can you please share a little bit of about the reasoning behind your desire to
become a leader in the organization?
o How did it come about that you became a leader in this organization?
o How have you prepared for your current leadership role in this organization?
III. Heart of the Interview (Interview Questions are directly tied to Research Questions):
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about formal leadership development classes that you
have attended in the last three years.
1. Describe your recent experience participating in a leadership development class or
program.
a. What was the class or program called?
b. When did you attend this class or program?
c. What were your key takeaways in regard to leadership skills in general?
d. What were your key takeaways in learning how to effect change?
e. What were your key takeaways in how to develop staff within the organization?
2. Other than the key takeaways discussed previously, describe what you have specifically
changed since participating in the class that you think has improved your leadership
skills?
3. The recent changes to the organization’s leadership competencies include driving results,
people skills, and executive maturity. As a manager, describe what you would do or are
currently doing to ensure you are aligning your performance to these three competencies.
I’d like to ask you some questions about your leadership style specifically.
4. Specifically, on the subject of driving results, behavioral anchors within this competency
include championing change, obtaining results through others, and commitment to
continuous improvement. What are some strategies you can or already do practice with
your staff to ensure you effect change to enhance public service in your respective unit?
a. What strategies do you utilize with your staff that effect change in the
organization as a whole?
b. Describe your beliefs, philosophy, or practices that you adhere to in order to lead
by example in the context of enhancing public service.
5. Tell me about a specific approach, or approaches, you use to support your employees in
effecting change, such as streamlining a process or transitioning to an electronic case
management or document management system in your respective unit.
a. How do you communicate the impending change if the change comes from
executive management or a legislative change?
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 90
b. Does the manner in which you communicate change if the impending change is
coming directly from you?
c. How do you support your employees if they make the suggestion for change?
6. How, if at all, do you develop your employees to handle a major shift in the
organization’s culture?
a. Please provide a recent example of when this occurred and the action you took.
b. Please provide an example, if any, of a time where you would have done
something differently to ensure your employees were better prepared for a major
shift in culture?
Now we’re going to switch gears and talk about the organization as a whole.
7. What, if anything, do you think aids/enables/supports you in performing your leadership
responsibilities?
a. What, if anything, do you feel the organization can provide that will further
aid/enable/support you?
8. How does your direct boss communicate his/her expectations and organizational
performance goals to you?
a. Describe how this communication can be made more efficient or clearer.
b. How do you think the organization’s or your boss’s communication method
influences the way you communicate down to your chain of command?
9. What types of opportunities does the organization offer to enhance leadership skills for
leaders of all ranks?
a. In regard to professional development training, how do you think requiring them
to be mandatory classes for new leaders would be beneficial to the organization?
b. If formal mentorship and/or formal coaching opportunities were offered in the
organization, how do you think these opportunities would benefit both new and
seasoned leaders in the organization?
10. Describe the degree to which the organization has prepared you to transition to a culture
of continuous improvement to better serve the public.
a. What type of communication has the organization practiced in sharing its strategic
plan to modernize technology and improve public service?
b. What type of expectations has the organization set out for its leadership to rise to
the occasion of massive organizational change?
c. What is the frequency in the organization’s communication to its leadership in
regard to the progress of achieving its goals?
IV. Closing Question (Anything else to add)
This concludes the formal questions. Is there anything else that you would like to add that we
have not already covered?
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 91
V. Closing (thank you and follow-up option):
Again, thank you very much for spending the time to provide your thoughts and answering my
questions. They will be a tremendous contribution to my study! If I find myself with a follow-
up question, may I have your permission to contact you? If so, what is your preferred method of
contact (phone, email, in-person)?
VI. Post interview summary and reflection
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 92
Appendix C: Validity and Reliability
Internal consistency reliability will be beneficial to establish for the survey questions.
Salkind (2017) explained that internal consistency reliability is used to determine if all items
represent one sole construct. Since the purpose of this survey was to help determine the overall
and specific needs for structured leadership development, comparison of the items on the survey
to confirm its reliability will be conducted.
In addition, validity of the survey items was required to ensure that the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that make up the conceptual framework are accurately
measured. For these survey items, content validity was determined. Content validity verifies
that the items in the survey cover all items that the survey attempts to measure (Salkind, 2017);
that is, the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. In this regard, assistance from
a member of the organization’s senior leadership was requested to act as the subject matter
expert validating the content of the survey items.
Pazzaglia, Stafford, and Rodriguez (2016) discussed the confidence level of survey
responses that researchers can select for their sample size. The confidence level chosen for the
survey is a 95% confidence level with a five percent margin of error. This allows for non-
responsiveness and strives for at least 70 responses from the 100-person sample size. Given that
the quantitative data collected from this survey was not the sole source of the study and was only
to be used to move forward with the qualitative portion of the data collection, it is not necessary
that the confidence level is more than 95%.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 93
Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness are crucial elements to a research study. In qualitative
research, Maxwell (2013) emphasized the need to check one’s research study against the two
potential threats of researcher bias and reactivity, or the researcher influence on the study’s
setting or participants. A validity test was conducted as described in Appendix C to ensure this
study remains in line and as free of bias and reactivity as possible. Three types of checkpoints to
ensure the credibility of the study include triangulation, member checks, and sufficient
engagement in the data collecting process (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
For this study, the triangulation process was conducted as data collection occurred
through various methods: a survey, interviews, and document review. Secondly, member checks
were conducted that required a subsequent contact or interview with previous participants once
the initial data collection was completed (Maxwell, 2013). Interview participants were provided
with a copy of their interview transcript for verification and confirmation. At that time,
participants were invited to modify their responses to ensure accuracy. The invitation to modify
as desired or add more information to their responses assisted with validating primary findings
and ensuring proper interpretation of the data. While not all interview participants responded to
the invitation to review and comment on their respective transcript, no participant requested to
modify or add anything to their interview responses. Lastly, qualitative research conducted for
this study was efficient in gathering various perspectives that may differ in initial findings so that
confidence in the data collected was received (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This entire study has
been validated and that the utmost credibility and trustworthiness are demonstrated throughout.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 94
Appendix E: Ethics
While conducting qualitative research, it is imperative that the researcher’s behavior
during the research remains ethical and with careful regard for the research participants. For this
study, individual interviews were utilized as part of the data-gathering process and verbal
consent to record the interviews was requested of each participant prior to the interview.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) posited that collaborative and interactive data collection
increases the risk of ethical issues arising. The stakeholder group of interest in this study is
considered a subordinate position as I hold a position equivalent to their superiors. My desire for
this study was to extract as much honest and viable data as possible to receive sustainable results
to consider recommendations for the problem of practice, despite the possible hesitation that
participants may feel being interviewed by an indirect superior. During this study, I held myself
to high ethical standards as described in this section and, additionally, refrained from
interviewing managers who directly report to me.
Rubin and Rubin (2012) indicated that ethical behavior of the researcher includes
providing respect, honoring promises, and doing no harm, among others. For my study, this
included emphasizing that any information provided in the course of the interviews would
remain confidential and known only to the researcher and research colleagues. This entails
nondisclosure of specific units or court locations in which the subjects work, so that
confidentiality of the subjects’ responses cannot be determined by this detail. I disclosed and
gained permission to record the individual interviews utilizing an audio recorder. The recordings
were transferred to password-protected files on a cloud file storage account and deleted from the
recording device immediately upon transfer. The recordings will then be destroyed after two
years from the date the dissertation defense is approved.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 95
In addition, I explicitly shared at the onset of the conversation, and through the informed
consent, that although I am considered their superior in the organization, their honest responses
would not be shared with their direct administrator, would not affect their official annual
performance evaluations nor would I use their responses against them in any future career
opportunities in which I would potentially participate on the interview panel. None of the study
participants were my direct reports at the time of the interviews.
I have one particular bias that I needed to specifically address during this study. First, my
own personal observations over the past three years in the organization have led me to believe
that the hierarchy of the organization has contributed to poor leadership among midlevel
management. I had to set aside this perception during my interviews as I aimed to provide every
participant with an equal opportunity in order to collect data that proves both my observation and
the opposite. For me to establish a good relationship with the participants, I needed to prepare
myself to not pass judgment and remain respectful to the participants’ responses and/or attitudes
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
At the end of the data collection, I sent a copy of the recorded interview transcript to each
respective interview participant and offered to provide the results of the study should they desire
to obtain a copy. I feel that I remained transparent throughout the study and thereafter for my
participants’ needs.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 96
Appendix F: Limitations and Delimitations
There were numerous limitations to this research study that could not be controlled.
First, the responses of the participants in both the quantitative and qualitative phases of the study
had no guarantee of transparency and honesty. In respect to the qualitative phase, I could
potentially face the limitation of any given percentage of participants not being sufficiently
detailed in their responses during the interviews. If that percentage is high, I may have difficulty
in conducting a thorough analysis.
In addition, the number of responses in the survey as well as the number of volunteers to
participate in the interview process were contingent upon the willingness of the targeted
population. One of the reasons may have been that my position in the organization is at the
reporting level of the target population. Although I do not directly manage them, there may have
been some hesitancy to participate or be completely honest in responses.
Moreover, there are delimitations to my study as well. I did not choose the entire
midlevel management population of the organization due to the extensive size of the
organization. Instead, I chose the Court Operations Manager classification as they have, or their
employees have, the most public contact than other midlevel management classifications. Also, I
excluded the Records Manager classification because all incumbents in this classification
reported directly to me at the time of the study. Another delimitation was the conceptual
framework that I chose. While leadership is an integral part of any organization, because I work
in a government organization serving the public, it is important that we serve the public well. To
do this, the organization’s leadership should have a focus on continuous improvement and
offering the best service to the public as possible.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 97
Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation and evaluation framework was developed by utilizing the New
World Kirkpatrick Model. This model consists of the four levels of training evaluation
originally presented as the Kirkpatrick Model and later modified to accommodate modern times,
now known as the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick further established that the four levels are to be presented in reverse
order: a) Level Four: Results; b) Level Three: Behavior; c) Level Two: Learning; and d) Level
One: Reaction. The authors posited that by starting with the end in mind, namely the results,
then the focus would remain on the most important: the outcomes. Leading indicators assisted in
assessing whether or not behaviors were aligned with reaching the target goals and outcomes.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of the CCSC is to serve the community through fair and efficient resolution
of court cases. There is a deficiency in structured leadership development in the judicial system
that hinders public service and innovative change. One of the goals of CCSC is to ensure 100%
of its leadership team demonstrates the competencies necessary to drive results through their
staff to effect change for enhanced public service by December 2019. The achievement of this
goal is important because the organization has a mission of efficiently resolving legal disputes
and also has created a strategic plan to enhance public services that meet the modern needs of the
public.
This study assessed the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in which
the stakeholders holding the title of Court Operations Managers are hindered from possessing the
leadership skills needed to drive results through their staff to effect change for enhanced public
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 98
service. The proposed solutions of providing job aids, professional education, opportunities for
empowerment in leading initiatives, mentoring, coaching and feedback, and setting clear
performance expectations that are achievable will allow the court’s leadership to drive the
culture toward innovative change and superior public service.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table G1 demonstrates the leading indicators that reflect the COMs’ achievement of their
performance goals. Both internal and external outcomes will be measured by various methods.
For internal outcomes, documenting and tracking of process improvement requests and changes
will be measured, and for external outcomes, surveys and assessments will be conducted.
Table G1
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
Internal Outcomes
COMs are skilled in
recognizing and initiating
a business process
improvement.
The number of initiative
requests submitted to executive
management for consideration
Document and track the number
of business process
improvement requests made to
modernize technology and/or
the number of “quick wins”
reported to executive
management
COMs are applying the
knowledge of the
leadership program in
regard to creating a high-
performance team
The decrease in complaints
and/or formal grievances in the
COM’s respective unit
Comparison of HR record
statistics of the number of
complaints and/or formal
grievances filed in the COM’s
respective unit
COMs are empowering
staff to solicit process
improvement
recommendations to
promote buy-in and
confidence in leadership
The number of initiative
requests submitted during a
business process reengineering
effort in COM’s respective unit.
Document and track the number
of suggestions received by staff
and response as to which will be
adopted.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 99
COMs will reiterate the
importance of public
service and the work that
is being conducted by
court employees
The number of times public
service exercises or reflections
are on the regular staff meeting
agendas
Recordkeeping of meeting
agendas and a survey to staff in
regard to what they have learned
and will commit to work
towards.
COMs will work toward
improving general public
service in their respective
area to reduce or eliminate
public dissatisfaction.
The decrease in complaints from
the public due to enhanced
professionalism or modernized
technological practices that
provide the public with
efficiencies.
Comparison of public
information office’s tracking of
public complaints from one year
prior to leadership program to
one year after leadership
program.
External Outcomes
Satisfied public who do
not have to repeatedly
report to the court for the
same issue
A decrease in the number of
complaints from the public and a
decrease in the number of times
a member of the public has to
come to court to resolve the
same issue.
A public survey conducted
immediately upon the members
of the public leaving the
courthouse regarding level of
satisfaction, purpose of visit,
etc.
Strengthened working
relationship with court
justice partners
A decrease in the number of
complaints and/or meetings set
by justice partners to address
court staff-related issues
A survey distributed to the
justice partners in the level of
satisfaction of court operations
processes
Enhanced technology
providing more online
and/or self-service
functionality for added
convenience and
accessibility for the public
A decrease in the number of
“foot traffic” in which the public
does not have to physically
come to the courthouse to obtain
information or conduct certain
court requirements (i.e., pay
their fines).
Assessment of how many
members of the public were
assisted in person for specific
activities in comparison to how
many members of the public
conducted the same activities
online or in a self-service
capacity
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. There are several critical behaviors that the COMs must follow in
order to demonstrate the ability to achieve the desirable outcomes, both internal and external.
The first critical behavior is focusing on the big picture in creating efficiencies for the
organization to better serve the public by observing processes and assessing impact to the public.
The second critical behavior is creating and carrying out a plan of action to empower and train
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 100
staff members to adopt the process improvement and sharing the why behind the change. The
third critical behavior is to take the initiative in making recommendations to the executives of
what is needed to successfully implement organizational change to improve public services. The
fourth critical behavior is to incorporate efforts of educational spotlights and reflection exercises
to emphasis to their staff how to best serve the public and what it means to be a public servant in
the justice system. Table G2 further demonstrates the critical behavior, methods of
measurements and timing of each.
Table G2
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metrics
Methods
Timing
1. Focusing on the big
picture in creating
efficiencies for the
organization to better
serve the public by
observing processes
and assessing impact
to the public.
The number of
suggestions
documented in
improving unit
processes that
eliminate backlogs,
shortens customer
wait time, and/or
shortens processing
time.
Observing daily
processes of the COM’s
respective unit,
including public contact
areas and back office
functions.
At the onset, once a
week until all
functions of the unit
have been observed
and assessed.
2. Creating and
carrying out a plan of
action to empower
and train staff
members to adopt the
process improvement
and sharing the why
behind the change
2a. The number of
quick wins that were
carried out
Tracking documentation
on plan of action,
progress, and
implementation dates
for all process
improvement, including
quick wins.
Quick wins can be
carried out within
the first three
months of BPR
initiative;
2b. The number of
process improvement
initiatives that were
recommended and
approved by executive
management
Lengthier process
improvement
changes can have a
commitment to
implement within
six months to one
year
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 101
3. Take the initiative
in making
recommendations to
the executives of what
is needed to
successfully
implement
organizational change
to improve public
services
The percentage of
suggestions approved
by executive
management
Have a process in which
requests can be
submitted requesting
resources and/or funding
for process
improvement.
Subsequently, hold
biweekly meetings with
administrators/executive
management to vet
through each request
Daily ongoing to
submit requests;
biweekly for
senior/executive
management to
meet and review,
prioritize, and
approve requests.
4. Incorporate efforts
of educational
spotlights and
reflection exercises to
emphasis to their staff
how to best serve the
public and what it
means to be a public
servant in the justice
system.
The number of times
the COMs have
formally presented
educational spotlights
and reflection
exercises during staff
meetings
Set aside 30 minutes
during staff meetings to
conduct these spotlights
or reflection
During regular
monthly or quarterly
staff meetings
Required drivers. It is important that the COMs and the organization are prepared and
willing to support the critical behaviors needed to achieve the performance goals. Reinforcement
of what is learned through post-training reflection and a post-mentorship follow up is required to
solidify knowledge gained. Encouragement by providing feedback as well as opportunities to
share experiences demonstrates support for the effort. Rewards through performance-based
merit increases and reciprocating mentorship opportunities are also important to support the
critical behaviors. Lastly, monitoring progress through regular checkpoints keeps the new skills
acquired in the forefront. Table G3 describes the required drivers, timing, and which critical
behaviors are supported for each method.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 102
Table G3
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Facilitate post-training
reflection session in which
progress is shared in regard to
the established plan of action
Three months after completion
of the leadership program
1,2,3,4
Require post-training mentor
and coach follow-up session
One month after completion of
the leadership program, and
quarterly thereafter for one
year
1,2,3,4
Encouraging
Provide feedback and
acknowledgment of progress
by senior and executive
management
On a quarterly basis, for all
COMs court-wide
1,2,3
Provide opportunities to share
in successful implementation
of process improvements
and/or building a high-
performance team
On a monthly basis, at the
court-wide communication
meetings
1,2,3,4
Rewarding
Select a COM that has
demonstrated applying the
leadership skills learned to
enhance COM’s respective
unit to become a mentor to a
participant in the subsequent
leadership development
program cohort.
At least six months to one year
after the COM successfully
completed the leadership
program and demonstrated
change in his/her respective
unit.
1,2,3,4
Create a merit-based
performance system for a job
well done
Immediately assess the
concept of a merit-based
performance system for
COMs that demonstrate high
performance
1,2,3,4
Monitoring
Conduct regular checkpoints
or briefing sessions and
assessing progress with action
plan created.
Biweekly or monthly,
depending on complexity of
plan, with the COM’s
administrator.
1,2,3,4
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 103
Organizational support. The organization must support the stakeholders’ critical
behaviors by allocating resources and funding to the effort of developing their leadership. The
organization must make it a priority to develop the leadership program curriculum and create a
mentorship and coaching list to match up respective seasoned mentors and coaches with
participants of the leadership program. In addition, the organization must be committed post-
training to move the business process improvement initiatives recommended by the COMs
forward and not remain stagnant. Furthermore, the direct administrators of the COMs must also
remain engaged and constantly follow up with the COMs on their progress toward achieving the
goals they set for themselves during the leadership program. The organization, through the
aforementioned actions, must remain engaged, committed, and visible in the effort to develop
their leaders for the benefit of creating efficiencies and thereby providing excellent public
service.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. After implementation of the recommended solutions, the COMs will be
able to complete the following:
1. Lead a team through organizational change (P).
2. Work with their teams to empower team members in sharing and implementing their own
ideas to enhance public service (M).
3. Create an action plan and project timeline on a specific business process improvement
initiative (EV).
4. Participate in coaching sessions that also incorporate reflection time (SE).
5. Participate in a survey expressing interest in a mentoring program. (CM).
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 104
Program. The program being recommended is a three- to six-month program in which
participants will come together biweekly in person to learn about the leadership competency
framework in which the organization has developed as part of their leadership performance
expectations. A half-day training for each competency will be provided. In addition, during the
program, the participants will be assigned both a coach and a mentor to help them through a
business process improvement initiative, team-building goals, or to talk through specific issues
that the participants are facing in their respective units.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Court operations managers must
demonstrate the leadership skills necessary to effect change to enhance public service. As a
result, they must perform in a way that shows they have the knowledge, self-confidence, and
commitment to effect change and enhance public service. Table G4 reflects the activities and
timing that evaluate the components of their learning.
Table G4
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Methods or Activities Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through reviews after each
leadership competency module
During the biweekly training, after each
leadership competency is reviewed, through a
written self-assessment/quiz
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Review of the action plan and timeline
regarding the business process improvement
of choice with table partners
During the biweekly training with partners
sitting at same table
Discussion with mentor and coach upon
reviewing plan of action
During mentor/coach session
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Survey assessment post-training after each
module
During each biweekly in-person training
Presentation by participant upon completion
of the program
The last official day of the leadership program
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 105
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussion with mentor and coach regarding
individual progress in program
Halfway point through the program
Reflection exercise re knowledge learned and
confidence in applying the tools to the job
Halfway point through the program and again
at the completion of the program
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Create a post-training plan of action listing all
competencies learned and goals related to
each with timeline
At the end of each competency training, fill in
the section for that competency, with goals and
targeted completion date
Presentation by each participant sharing
experience, future goals in applying the
training, and self-reflection
At the completion of the program
Assignment of accountability partners post-
development program
Accountability partners to be group table
partners or any other participant in which the
individual networked and developed a rapport
with during the program
Level 1: Reaction
The participants’ reaction to training programs must result positively. As such, the
training must promote engagement during the training, stay relevant for the participant, and
satisfy the participant’s purpose for attending the training. Table G5 demonstrates the method in
which engagement, relevance, and satisfaction will be measured and the timing for each.
Table G5
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Active participation in the biweekly trainings during
breakout sessions in which the participants are actively
communicating and sharing
Every biweekly training
Attendance at the biweekly training Every biweekly training
Regularly meeting with mentor and coach to discuss
and document progress of goal attainment.
At least biweekly, preferably weekly
Relevance
Audience response survey integrated in PowerPoint
presentation
After each biweekly training
Short online survey re coaching and mentorship
components
At the end of each month, if a three-month
program; bimonthly if a six-month program
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 106
Customer Satisfaction
Course evaluation At the completion of the program
Coaching/mentorship evaluation At the completion of the program
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Data will be collected directly
after learning modules are presented as well as directly after the program. Each category for
Level 1 and Level 2 differ in that evaluation must be conducted directly after certain modules are
completed within the program and other category data will be collected immediately following
the completion of the program. For both Levels 1 and 2, there will be a combination of surveys,
action plan monitoring, behavior observation, knowledge checks, and presentations, depending
on the current stage of the program. Appendix H demonstrates the evaluation methods that will
be used for category Level 1; Appendix I reflects the evaluation methods to be used for Level 2.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. A survey will be distributed
to the participants three months after the completion of the program. Survey instrument will
include evaluation of all four levels in the Kirkpatrick Model (see Appendix J for survey
instrument). Additionally, six months after the completion of the program, interviews will be
conducted with at least 10% of the participant group. Interview protocols will include questions
that will evaluate all four levels of results, behavior, learning, and reaction. A follow-up post-
program refresher class may also be considered.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 outcome goal is to have all court operations managers demonstrate the
leadership skills necessary to lead people through innovative change and enhance public service.
In accordance with the requirements of the program, progress reports can be provided for each
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 107
participant to their direct administrator during the program. Furthermore, the participants are
expected to create an action plan during the program; this action plan is discussed with the
participants’ coach and mentor. Action plans demonstrate progress and can be posted in a shared
document space for the direct administrator to review. During the knowledge checks after each
training module, the data from the anonymous audience response questions system will be
recorded and the results charts posted in a shared document space. For the post-program
completion data analysis, a dashboard can be created for each participant in measuring the
progress of each of their action plans, including a business process reengineering effort and what
resource or cost savings it brought to the organization (see Appendix K for dashboard prototype).
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was used to plan, implement, and evaluate the court
operations managers’ abilities to demonstrate the competencies necessary to effect change to
enhance public service. The New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for the reverse of the original
model in that determining the desired results is the first step (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
For this study, it was important to utilize this framework in identifying the critical behaviors
needed to get to the desired results.
Establishing desired outcomes, both internal and external, then determining critical
behaviors to reach these outcomes, were essential pieces. As a result of identifying the most
crucial steps, the subsequent planning of learning and ultimately the participant reaction was a
valuable process. Through this model, a well laid-out plan could be created that results in
expected desirable outcomes.
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 108
Appendix H: Level 2 Immediate Evaluation Instrument
Level 2 Assessment: Immediate Evaluation
Declarative Knowledge
Knowledge checks through reviews after each
leadership competency module
[Knowledge check questions will depend on
leadership module being reviewed]
General question for each module: Are you
prepared with the knowledge to practice these
leadership competencies in the workplace?
Procedural Skills
Review of the action plan and timeline
regarding the business process improvement
of choice with table partners
How do the action plan and timeline meet the
desired goal’s success?
Discussion with mentor and coach upon
reviewing plan of action
What knowledge about the leadership
competencies are demonstrated in this action
plan?
Attitude
Survey assessment post-training after each
module
I am excited to apply these skills to my
everyday leadership practices.
(Strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor
disagree, disagree, strongly disagree)
Presentation by participant upon completion
of the program
What has changed in your leadership
philosophy after having been through this
leadership program?
Confidence
Discussion with mentor and coach regarding
individual progress in program
How do you feel about your leadership skills
post training? workplace?
Reflection exercise regarding knowledge
learned and confidence in applying the tools
to the job
What has changed your mindset in the way
you will lead your team?
Commitment
Create a post-training plan of action listing all
competencies learned and goals related to
each with timeline
What will you do differently in the workplace
for each leadership competency?
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 109
Presentation by each participant sharing
experience, future goals in applying the
training, and self-reflection
PowerPoint presentation or scripted speech.
What was your experience like, what are you
going to do differently, what have you learned
about your own leadership skills coming into
the program and leaving the program?
Assignment of accountability partners post-
development program
How will you make use of an accountability
partner for the next six months?
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 110
Appendix I: Level 1 Immediate Evaluation Instrument
Level 1 Assessment: Immediate Evaluation
Engagement
Active participation in the biweekly
trainings during breakout sessions in
which the participants are actively
communicating and sharing.
Observations by training facilitator and a survey
review by participants.
There was active participation in breakout sessions at
my table.
(Likert scale)
All participated, not everyone participated, I was the
main speaker.
Attendance at the biweekly training Recorded attendance by training facilitator and a
survey review by participants.
I attended the biweekly training:
(Likert scale)
I attended all biweekly trainings, I missed one or two
trainings, I missed three or more trainings
Regularly meet with mentor and coach
to discuss and document progress of
goal attainment.
Tracking of appointments by mentor/coach and
survey question to participant.
I met regularly with my mentor and coach during the
program:
(Likert scale)
Weekly, Biweekly, Monthly, As Needed, No I didn’t
meet regularly with my mentor/coach
Relevance
Audience response survey integrated
in PowerPoint presentation
Collective results compiled through anonymous
audience response survey integrated into PPT.
Short online survey re coaching and
mentorship components
The coaching and mentoring I received during this
program aided in increasing my leadership skills I
learned during the program.
(Likert scale)
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 111
Strongly Agree, Agree, Neither Agree Nor Disagree,
Disagree, Strongly Disagree
Customer Satisfaction
Course Evaluation The entire leadership program has been beneficial in
enhancing my leadership skills in the workplace.
(Likert scale)
Yes, definitely; somewhat; not really; not at all
Coaching/mentorship Evaluation The coaching and mentorship component of the
leadership program made a difference in being able
to associate the skills I learned with my everyday
leadership issues.
(Likert scale)
Strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree,
disagree, strongly disagree
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 112
Appendix J: Delayed Evaluation Instrument
L1: Reaction I implemented many techniques I learned from the
program into my daily leadership activities.
(Likert scale)
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree
L2: Learning I have applied what I’ve learned to effect change
in my unit.
(Likert scale)
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree
L3: Behavior I coordinate with my administrator to submit
suggestions for process improvement and request
resources to achieve efficiencies.
(Likert scale)
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree
L4: Results I have led monthly educational spotlights for my
staff to reinforce the importance of the work we
do as public servants.
(Likert scale)
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree
STRUCTURED LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN JUDICIAL SYSTEM 113
Appendix K: Data Analysis
Participant
Name
Leadership
Program
Phase
BPR
Initiative
BPR
Initiative
Progress
Cost-
Savings to
Org
(anticipate
d or real)
Staff
Savings to
Org
(anticipated
or real)
Post-
Reflection
Completed
COM A 2
nd
Month Automation
of XXX
10% Anticipated
$5,000/yea
r
Anticipated
1FTE
Not started
COM B Final Month Consolidatio
n of XXX
75% Realized
$100,000
ttl
Realized
10FTE
Not started
COM C 1
st
Month Destruction
of XXX
0% Anticipated
$2,500/mth
Anticipated
.5FTE
Pending
October
Graduation
Date
35%
20%
15%
10%
20%
COM Leadership Program Participation
COMs - Not Yet Started
COMs - 100% Completion
COMs - 1st Month
COMs - 2nd Month
COMs - 3rd Month
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
There is a deficiency of structured leadership development programs in the judicial system that leads to a hindrance to public service and innovative change. The Chavez County Superior Court (pseudonym) (CCSC) is a substantially-sized state trial court system in the United States. The CCSC employs over a thousand employees and practices a multi-tiered hierarchical leadership structure. The purpose of this study was to conduct a needs assessment and evaluate the CCSC’s performance in how well it is developing its Court Operations Managers (COM) team to demonstrate the competencies necessary to drive results through their staff in order to effect change for enhanced public service. The quantitative phase of this study yielded 34 respondents to the survey. In the qualitative phase, seven individuals participated in individual interviews and document analysis of budgetary documents and training records and materials was conducted. The results and findings of this study showed that the COM group overall has the foundational knowledge to lead their teams. However, organizational resources and culture have hindered the COMs’ from understanding the importance of training their staff in a more global perspective of serving the public in addition to furthering their development as an organizational leader by providing training and opportunities for professional growth. Through the recommendations provided in this study, the organization can benefit from developing their COM team while leveraging the COMs’ current leadership strengths during the massive organization change currently being experienced.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Manager leadership skills in the context of a new business strategy initiative: an evaluative study
PDF
The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study
PDF
An evaluative study of accountability and transparency in local government: an executive dissertation
PDF
Reaching the mission through employee engagement and service orientation in a zoological setting: an evaluation study
PDF
Customer satisfaction with information technology service quality in higher education: an evaluation study
PDF
Developing and retaining employees: exploring talent management initiatives for enlisted women
PDF
Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study
PDF
Maximizing leadership development in the U.S. Army: an evaluation study
PDF
Managers’ learning transfer from the leadership challenge training to work setting: an evaluation study
PDF
Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study
PDF
The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study
PDF
Lack of diversity in leadership: An organizational problem
PDF
An evaluative study on implementing customer relationship management software through the perspective of first level managers
PDF
Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study
PDF
Developing socially intelligent leaders through field education: an evaluation study of behavioral competency education methods
PDF
Anti-bias training in community colleges: an exploratory study
PDF
Preparing millennial students for a multigenerational workforce: an innovation study
PDF
The integration of medicine and compassionate care: an evaluation study
PDF
Line staff and their influence on youth in expanded learning programs: an evaluation model
PDF
Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Chavarin, Estella
(author)
Core Title
Structured leadership development in the judicial system to enhance public service: an executive dissertation evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
02/20/2019
Defense Date
12/20/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
leadership,leadership development,OAI-PMH Harvest,public service leadership,structured leadership development,trial court leadership
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Seli, Helena (
committee chair
), Ott, Maria (
committee member
), Pearson, Mark (
committee member
)
Creator Email
chavarin3@gmail.com,echavari@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-125606
Unique identifier
UC11676915
Identifier
etd-ChavarinEs-7097.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-125606 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ChavarinEs-7097.pdf
Dmrecord
125606
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Chavarin, Estella
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
leadership development
public service leadership
structured leadership development
trial court leadership