If you are entrusted with bringing about change, you likely possess the knowledge needed to advance the organization, and you might have a plan—but knowledge is not enough. You have to bring yourself to each interaction in a deeply authentic way. People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.
Doug Conant1
All too often, leadership transitions conjure a sense of uncertainty, fear of change, and shifting organizational priorities. Adages describing changes in executive leadership range from the inspirational to ominous in nature: “passing the torch,” “a change of guard,” “a shakeup at the top,” “cleaning house,” and “a new sheriff in town.”
Navigating the intricate landscape of leadership transitions within organizations, particularly in courts, presents a myriad of challenges and risks. The essence of success lies in effectively managing these transitions, ensuring seamless integration, and aligning strategic agendas.
This article explores the related organizational change dynamics peculiar to the judicial branch, mainly addressing the governance structure and culture of courts. Steps for a smooth, “seamless” transition are outlined, drawing from public- and private-sector publications. That said, our hope is to foster far-reaching strategies, specifically ways to leverage leadership change and to expand the organizational capacity of the court. While this is a tall order, it is incumbent upon us—court management professionals—to facilitate leadership transitions with a positive, forward-looking organizational development mindset.
The suggestions presented here are, in part, based upon our work experience in trial courts and state-level administrative offices of the courts. By way of acknowledgment, some of the ideas are also drawn from an engaging discussion with participants of our educational program “Leadership Transitions: Leveraging Change,” held at the National Association for Court Management’s (NACM) 2024 Annual Conference in New Orleans. Included as a part of the NACM CORE® Champion Program, the content addresses the NACM CORE® Vision Module, encompassing leadership, court governance, and strategic planning.
Risks, Pitfalls, and Stress of Leadership Transition
While our discussion is focused largely on changes in local court presiding judges, the dynamics at play are equally applicable to other executive positions in the judicial branch. In fact, onboarding a new court executive officer or program manager may have more direct bearing on court staff than a change in judicial leadership. From this broad perspective, the cadre of court leadership positions under review in this article includes the following posts:
- Chief justice of the state
- State court administrative directors
- Presiding or chief judges of local courts
- Court administrators and deputy administrators
- Clerks of court
- Chief probation officers
- Chief technology officers
A cursory review of management literature reveals considerable concern over leadership transitions, particularly regarding the risks associated with turbulent changes in executive leadership. Failed or troubled leadership transitions can result in business disruption, loss of staff, reduced productivity, lower profit, and, in some cases, a total collapse of the organization. An examination of private-sector companies concludes that a substantial portion of leadership transitions are unsuccessful or “disappointments”:2
Nearly half of leadership transitions fail. Studies show that two years after executive transitions, anywhere between 27 and 46 percent of them are regarded as failures or disappointments.
The high stakes of leadership transitions are found in both internal operations of an organization and those served by the organization. Surveys of private-sector companies are instructive in this arena. In successful private-sector transitions, it is found that staff teams are likely to meet their three-year performance goals, and there is also significantly reduced risk of staff attrition.3 Conversely, unsuccessful transitions result in markedly reduced staff engagement and lower organizational performance.4
Court culture is also a critical factor, which must be considered within the framework of organizational development and judicial leadership.5 An examination of private-sector companies highlights the critical influence of organizational culture and politics in leadership transitions:6
Leaders rank organizational politics as the main challenge: 68 percent of transitions founder on issues related to politics, culture, and people, and 67 percent of leaders wish they had moved faster to change the culture. These matters aren’t problems only for leaders who come in from the outside: 79 percent of external and 69 percent of internal hires report that implementing culture change is difficult.
Court leadership transitions are further complicated by the formal and arguably dated governance policies unique to the judicial branch. Typically, in other sectors, a change in executive leadership involves departure of the incumbent from the organization and onboarding of a new executive. In courts, however, the outgoing presiding judge often remains on the bench as a “line judge.” In this situation, the outgoing presiding judge may well have a continuing interest in administrative matters of the court, particularly those involving earlier decisions and policies instituted by this judge.
While a former presiding judge’s continuing interest in administrative matters may be helpful in some instances, it can quickly become a source of conflict with the new presiding judge and court administration. In worst-case scenarios, “looking over the shoulder” of the new presiding judge can lead to factions, infighting among the judiciary, and disruption in the administrative work of the court. The court’s sense of esprit de corps is at considerable risk in this troubling, unsustainable scenario.
In other settings, a company’s business plan and policy direction from the board of directors exist to avert the undermining of a new leader. Regrettably, this is not the situation in courts that have no strategic plan or an outdated, unsupported strategic plan. Amid a leadership change, the lack of a “big picture” business plan gives rise to an organizational culture of unclear goals, fleeting priorities, and misalignment of resources vis-à-vis earlier strategic directions.
Another inherent stress point in court leadership is the short duration of presiding-judgeship terms in many jurisdictions. The methods of selecting presiding judges and the duration of terms are established by state constitutions, statutes, or court rules. In many states, the terms are brief—one, two, or three years—with the option of reappointment.7 Such frequent changes in presiding judges, or at least the reoccurring prospect of a leadership change, contribute to an uncertain and potentially unstable court management environment.
Leadership Transitions: Leveraging Organizational Change
Despite the inherent risks and challenges associated with leadership transitions, leveraging organizational change presents opportunities for success. Court leaders should, where appropriate, use their experiences to enhance a successful leadership transition, including:
- Comprehensive knowledge of the organization
- Sound organizational relationships
- Track record of success within the organization
- An understanding of the demands of a new leader
- Separate body of knowledge and expertise
Keys to Success with the New Leader
Effective leadership transitions require a holistic approach encompassing an array of personal, professional, and organizational considerations. Those include:
- Trust and Rapport—Be reliable, accountable, and demonstrate competence in your role. Communicate, communicate, communicate!
- Support and Align—Demonstrate support for the leader’s vision and goals. Align your own priorities and activities to demonstrate solidarity.
- Educate and Inform—Help the new leader navigate the organizational culture, structure, and politics.
- Plan and Implement—Encourage both short- and long-term planning. Identify opportunities to plan and means to achieve success.
- Facilitate Decision-Making—Whether formal or informal, clarify roles through “decision-charting” exercises.
- Negotiate your Role—This can appear daunting and unnerving but focus on the task not the authority. Alleviate the unknown of your respective roles by clarifying expectations and demands of each other.
- Communication Plan—Develop a plan that ensures timely dissemination of information, is deployed in a manner that engenders credibility, builds trust and confidence among employees, and supports the organization’s mission, vision, and values.
- Vision and Direction—Whether jointly or individually, articulate a clear vision for the organization under the new leadership.
- Understand and Integrate—Assist the new leader in navigating and understanding the organizational culture, structure, and politics.
- Build Relationships—Assist the new leader in building relationships with key internal leaders and external stakeholders. Facilitate meetings, briefings, etc., and assume an active role in fostering open, collaborative relationships necessary for success of the organization.
- Manage Resistance and Conflict—Change in leadership can often bring resistance and cause conflict from within and external to the organization. Don’t ignore but be open to understanding the causes and assisting the new leader in actively addressing conflict.
- Strategic Planning—Building on the vision and direction, the organization needs to have a clear road map of where it is headed. Encourage the new leader to undertake the strategic-planning process, allowing employees to easily understand priorities, goals, and the steps in which to achieve them.
Practical Tips for Onboarding: Smooth Leadership Transitions
An international consulting firm, Deloitte, has explored the importance of “first impressions” and onboarding of new executive-level leaders. Deloitte offers the following suggestions to make such transitions as smooth as possible, while also building trust and credibility for the new leader:8
- Convey a positive first impression, because initial impressions can quickly reverberate through a funder community or board
- Authentically communicate that the stakeholder is important and that their perspective matters
- Set the right tone, balancing respect for past work with an enthusiasm for future directions
- Establish a plan for following up, because the first meeting is just the beginning of building a new relationship
Other practical suggestions involve early identification and inclusion of upcoming court leaders. Future leaders can often be “spotted” in the organization, given their active participation in committee work and court improvement efforts. The incumbent presiding judge and court administration team should cultivate good working relations with future leaders through regular briefings, active engagement in planning, site visits to other courts, and opportunities for professional development.
The astute court management team will also consider “small p” judicial politics in preparation for leadership transitions. From our experience, courts without a widely embraced strategic plan and mature succession planning will often experience a “pendulum swing” with a change of judge. For example, the incoming presiding judge may wish to refocus the court on fundamental case management, whereas the incumbent presiding judge is mainly interested in expanding court access. While these kinds of alternating priorities are manageable, it is vital for the court management team to establish trusting work relationships with the full bench and court staff. An agile court management team recognizes the imperative to support the whole bench, while working closely with leadership judges at any given point. As Professor Ernest Friesen was noted to state during a consulting engagement: “Stay in with the outs, as the outs will someday be in.”
Closing Thoughts
Given the critical nature of court leadership transitions, it would be helpful to embark on some court-specific survey work and further study in this area. Our “war stories” and experiences are instructive, but the actual results of court leadership transitions are mainly the subject of conjecture. We welcome input from NACM members and the court management field, including dialogue with past, present, and future judicial leaders.
In this exploration, our hope is for an informed paradigm shift in court leadership transitions. Building on the foregoing principles, we envision an advance from “two ships passing in the night” to a seamless “passing of the gavel.” The leveraging of fully aligned leadership transitions holds the promise of enhanced judicial branch services.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Raymond L. Billotte is the judicial branch administrator for the Judicial Branch of Arizona in Maricopa County, Phoenix, and former NACM board member. Marcus W. Reinkensmeyer is the deputy director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Arizona Supreme Court, and a past NACM president.
- Our thanks to the court administrators, clerks of court, state court administrative office staff, and others for their thoughtful insights and ideas discussed during this new, interactive educational program.
- McKinsey and Company, “Successfully Transitioning to New Leadership Roles,” May 23, 2018, accessed Apr. 27, 2024.
- Kruti Bharucha and Nitika Dial, “Corporate Finance: The Cost of Poor Leadership Transitions,” CEB Blogs, CEB Global, October 29, 2013.
- Ibid.
- Brian J. Ostrom and Roger A. Hanson, “Understanding and Diagnosing Court Culture,” National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Va., accessed July 28, 2024.
- McKinsey & Company, supra note 2.
- National Center for State Courts, State Court Organization, State Court Statistics Project, accessed July 28, 2024.
- Dana O’Donovan and Jarasa Kanok, “It’s Time for a Real Talk about Leadership Transitions,” Deloitte, April 6, 2022, accessed on May 1, 2024.
