In last month’s blog post, Measuring DEI (Measuring DEI – Court Leader), I wrote that truly effective DEI efforts have a robust evaluation component to enable us to know whether our DEI efforts are successful.  A key part of evaluation is a measurement framework.  I had a recent discussion of the use of performance metrics that made me realize my blog post did not emphasize enough the human side of performance management.  This is important because too often leaders implement performance metrics that lose sight of the human side of the organization, even to the point of adversely affecting workplace culture and performance.  Why does this happen?  I think a big reason is we use quantitative far more than qualitative metrics because the former are much easier to define and measure.  That being said, let’s explore the human side of a measurement framework.

One of my mentors helped me to understand that “people are the most important resource” in the courts.  Effective leaders always keep that in mind.  High-performing organizations, teams, and individuals do their best when there is widespread commitment to the vision and mission of the work being performed.  This means motivation is high when the intrinsic value of the work is understood and supported by everyone.  Furthermore, high performance is supported by excellent leadership (by everyone, not just management!) that fosters effective communication and a culture of trust.  My colleague Janet Cornell created a series of Court Leader posts that, among other things, highlight the importance of trust, communication, and motivation:

Another great resource about effective leadership is the NACM CORE competencies:  Leadership – NACM Core.  The detailed curriculum of this competency provides excellent material about the human side of leadership.

Unfortunately, too often we lose sight of the human side of leadership.  For example, we implement performance metrics that negatively affect hard-earned positive organizational and team trust by unduly focusing on quantitative measures.  In the area of DEI, this is particularly important because DEI is so human-centered.  Thus, whenever you consider creating DEI metrics it is critical to consider the impact of the measures on the human side of performance management.

Comments about these last two posts about measuring DEI are welcome.  What other factors are important?  What have you tried that worked (or not)?

Published by Norman Meyer (He-Him)

After 38 years as a trial court administrator in the state and federal courts in the U.S., Norman continues to write, teach, and otherwise participate in judicial administration activities world-wide. In particular, he is active in the International Association for Court Administration (IACA) as a past Regional Vice President and Advisory Board member, in the National Association for Court Management (NACM) as a Past President (having received NACM's Award of Merit), and as an Associate of the Justice Speakers Institute. Norman has extensive experience working on international Rule of Law projects, particularly in the Russian Federation, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Albania. Norman is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of New Mexico (Political Science and Russian Studies), and he received the Master of Science in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver College of Law.

Leave a comment