Friendships in the Workplace Good for Court Performance

People who have a best friend at work are seven times (yes, that’s seven times) more likely to be engaged and committed to their jobs, writes Tom Rath in his new book Vital Friends: The People You Can’t Afford to Live Without (Gallup Press, 2006). They get more done in less time, are more innovative, and more likely to share new ideas. Moreover, employee satisfaction jumps by 50% and doubles the chance that employees will have favorable impressions about their pay when they have close friendships. “When we asked people if they would rather have a best friend at work or a 10% pay raise, having a friend clearly won,” writes Rath, who heads the Gallup’s Organization’s Workplace Research and Leadership practice, and based his findings on more than five million interviews and other research done by Gallup.

The lesson for courts and court organizations is that they should make their workplaces more “friend-friendly.” However, Gallup found that many managers and leaders frown on workplace friendships. Nearly one-third of the 80,000 interviewed by Gallup agreed with the statement “familiarity breeds contempt.” For courts, where attitudes are shaped by legal and political principles of impartiality and independence, the notion that work life should be separate from non-work life is probably more prevalent than in the private sector. Courts discourage workplace friendships at their peril. Friendships in the courts do much more than provide a forum for bellyaches about the boss – they foster collaboration and connections, increase motivation, and give people a boost.

A much broader lesson is that courts should pay more attention to their most valuable resource – its workforce. Committed and loyal employees have a direct positive impact on a court’s overall performance. Performance measures that focus on employee engagement, motivation, and commitment can help courts pay attention to the health and capacity of their workforces. “Someone in the court cares about me as a person,” is an item in the Court Employee Satisfaction Survey, one of 10 performance measures of the National Center for State Courts’ CourTools. Paying attention to responses to this item and other in the survey enables courts to evaluate the origins (e.g., units, departments and locations) of “exception” conditions – both superior and inferior – and to identify the root causes of problems and quickly fix them. Courts throughout the country – including the Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix, the San Joaquin County Superior Court and the San Mateo County Superior Court in California, the Lubbock County Judicial Branch in Texas, and the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio -- increasingly are using Measure 9 of the CourTools, the 20-item Court Employee Satisfaction Survey, to make improvements in their programs and services and to change the they way they do business.

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

Copyright CourtMetrics 2006. All rights reserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more