Made2Measure

This post is based on a December 9, 2008, presentation to a seminar of Michigan Chief Judges and Court Administrators sponsored by the Michigan Judicial Institute, at the Michigan Hall of Justice Conference Center in Lansing, Michigan. It is an updated and expanded version of the Made2Measure post, Eight Reasons Not to Measure Court Performance , April 5, 2006. It is not sufficient simply to proclaim the benefits of court performance measurement – accountability, transparency, focus, attention, understanding, control, predictability, influence, and strategy development -- and expect acceptance and effective implementation. Performance measurement, like any tool, has shortcomings and introduces disruptions of the status quo that should not be dismissed or ignored. These shortcomings and disruptions can be minimized and even eliminated, however, when they are identified, clearly understood, thoroughly and candidly explored, and addressed in specific terms. Unfortunately, they are o...

Micromanage , v.t., - to manage or control with excessive attention to minor details. The October 21 Made2Measure post ( Employee Engagement: Managing the Millennial Generation in the Workforce ), explored how the employee engagement survey developed by the National Center for State Courts and CourtMetrics, for both trial courts (see CourTools Measure 9 ) and for appellate courts (see Measure 7 at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddc3k4gt_14cpvjn2c2 ), can help court managers engage “millennials” – a new crop of young people in the work force who were born between 1980 and 2001. This post explores how the survey may help to reverse the negative effects of micromanagement. The survey uses a self-administered questionnaire to assess the engagement of the court's workforce and the quality of the relationships among its employees, especially those between managers and subordinates. It asks respondents to rate their agreement with each of 20 statements on a five-point scale from “strong...