Verdict Pending: Understanding Leadership Role Identity for North Carolina Judges and Lawyers

Abstract

This article examines precursors to leadership practice, specifically through the lens of role identity. The assumption explored is that people are unlikely to engage in the hard work of leadership if they do not see that challenge as part of who they are and what they do, especially collaborative or system-level leadership. Role identity is, then, a critical building block in developing a deeper understanding of leadership intentions and actions especially in collaborative settings. Multiple judicial players, termed here “public service lawyers,” are investigated in this single-state case study that examines individuals’ view of their role and primary focus. Factors are examined that contribute to the construction of role perception. Results reveal that leadership training, the position one holds, and motivational orientation all influence the extent to which public service lawyers develop a view of their role that includes a broader system or collaborative orientation.

Keywords

leadership motivation theory values

Introduction

Scholars and practitioners alike increasingly recognize that no one person, department, organization, government, or sector alone can solve the complex problems that plague society and our communities. Responses to these problems require individuals to think beyond their traditional roles and professional responsibilities. Public servants in particular often must take on new or unconventional leadership opportunities to address critical issues. Public lawyers and judges are not excluded. The judicial system is involved with and impacted by complex societal troubles. Its members are therefore looked to for both formal and, sometimes, informal action to respond to these troubles. Public lawyers and judges play key roles in working directly on individual cases, in interpreting laws that affect entire populations, and in contributing to the governance and leadership of the courthouse and court system. They also serve as vital partners in responding to a range of issues that extend beyond specific cases.

In particular, judicial actors are often front and center with such critical issues facing society as the opioid epidemic, public safety, “school to prison pipeline,” and mental health concerns. Although there is an understanding of the legal responsibility and role for public service lawyers, far less is understood about how these individuals view their leadership roles outside the courtroom, thus the need for investigating public service lawyers’ leadership choices, especially with attention to how they may opt to participate in developing boundary-spanning and collaborative strategies. Better understanding when key players opt to take on more expansive and engaged roles is an important topic not just for judicial actors but for the range of public, nonprofit, and private sector players whose engagement in collaborative efforts is needed. As such, understanding how role identity influences individual leadership choices and engagement presents an opportunity for multiple settings and disciplines.

Leadership scholarship within the field of public administration has often focused on the executive branch, federal agencies, and, recently growing attention has been given to local government leadership and collaborative or networked leadership. The practical importance of leadership for public organizations is well recognized, though scholars acknowledge several obstacles to studying and understanding it, such as whom to study, what variables to use, and how to access respondents (Getha-Taylor, Holmes, Jacobson, Morse, & Sowa, 2011; Van Slyke & Alexander, 2006; Van Wart, 2013a, 2013b). Attention to judicial leadership has been limited. Judicial scholars recognize that roles and capacity among key actors are critical to court and system performance yet not well understood. As Gallas (1987) notes, “Our choices to date have ignored systematic study of a highly relevant unit of analysis: the characteristics of successful trial court leaders and leadership teams” (p. 41).

Khademian (2002) posits that leadership will be most influential “for those organizations operating in complex environments in which the work of the organization is distinctive and difficult to assess as to its values” (p. 45)—a description that fits the ebb and flow of work in the courts. Exploring the impact that leadership can have on the judicial system is important for understanding how system leaders can implement change and thereby influence complex public problems. Previous research into the kinds of leadership problems that exist within the courts includes calls for judicial actors to recognize the need to take on leadership roles and the important part that training can play in the development of one’s leadership skills (Zaffrano, 1993; Zimmerman, 1998). The need for expanded leadership in courts is like that in many other public institutions. Thus, as in other public settings, leadership practices that embrace the collaborative nature of complex public problems are critical for judicial actors. Within this research, the term “public service lawyers” is used to reference judges, district attorneys, and public defenders who all hold positions to administer justice on behalf of the public.

This study examines precursors to leadership practice, specifically through the lens of role identity. The assumption is that people are unlikely to engage in the hard work of leadership if they do not see it as part of their identity or responsibility. Role identity is, then, a critical building block in developing a deeper understanding of leadership intentions and actions. This article adds to the empirical investigation of how individuals self-select for leadership roles by better understanding self and role perception as antecedents to leadership action.

The nexus between the roles that actors set for themselves and their leadership views and capacity is examined through two research questions. First, we examine how public service lawyers both perceive their role and identify their primary focus. How a public service lawyer develops their view of themselves becomes a critical antecedent to how they construct their intended leadership actions especially in collaborative settings like those found in the public sector. Second, we explore what contributes to role perception. These questions add important insight into understanding human capital competencies, skills, and leadership approaches within the judiciary.

This article is presented in four main sections. First, the “Leadership and Role Identity” section provides a brief review of previous scholarship. The study design and data are described in the “Study Design” section, with the main results presented and discussed in the “Findings and Discussion” section. The article concludes with recommendations and a call for future research.

Leadership and Role Identity

In reviewing the literature, we begin by identifying the need for leadership and, specifically, the need for collaborative leadership to solve complex problems. Next, we examine the concept of leadership emergence with a focus on identity formation. An individual’s motivational base is associated with identity creation; thus, a review of motivation research including work on public service motivation (PSM) is presented. Then, we discuss a process model presented by Jacobsen and Andersen (2015) that highlights the linkages between leader intent and employee performance and consider the precursors to their model. Specifically, we review literature on how role identity serves as an antecedent to leadership intent. Finally, elements of the court setting are examined, including exploring how collaborative leadership is needed within this context.

Collaborative Leadership

Leadership is notoriously difficult to identify and measure (Chapman et al., 2016; Ingraham & Getha-Taylor, 2004; Ingraham, Sowa, & Moynihan, 2004) though recent work has progressed our understanding of this concept (Fernandez, Cho, & Perry, 2010; Tummers & Knies, 2016). Despite its measurement challenges, leadership continues to be identified as a critical determinant for employee performance (Fernandez et al., 2010; Hassan & Hatmaker, 2015; Moynihan, Pandey, & Wright, 2012; Tummers & Knies, 2016; Wang, Sui, Luthans, Wang, & Wu, 2014).

Public leaders operate in an increasingly complex landscape (Frederickson, 2007; Getha-Taylor et al., 2011; Hubbard & Paquet, 2010). Much existing research focuses on how leadership in collaborative settings fosters network effectiveness (Burke & Costello, 2005; Kapucu & Van Wart, 2008; Vigoda-Gadot, Shoham, Schwabsky, & Ruvio, 2008). Tummers and Knies (2016) develop a scale for measuring the four public leadership roles that include accountability, rule-following, political loyalty, and governance. As Tummers and Knies note, this final role is less aligned with historical roots of public administration and is more of an emerging need aligned with the shift from “government” to “governance.” The shift of governance from traditional command and control conceptions of leadership toward partnerships and networks—both more focused on collaboration—reflects the diversity of the roles public leaders take on and the competencies needed for success.

Activities that emphasize intermediary roles of engaging diverse stakeholders and interests are reflected in the catalytic (Luke, 1992), collaborative (Bingham & O’Leary, 2008; Chrislip & Larson, 1994; Huxham & Vangen, 2005), and facilitative perspectives of leadership (Svara, 1994). Although the focus on collaborative leadership continues to gain attention, more research on antecedents to collaborative behavior is needed. Davis and Stazyk (2016) provide insight into how important antecedents are for an individual to opt into collaborative leadership activities (e.g., toward networks). Thus, how one orients is a critical step to action. Changing focus from individual job responsibilities to institutional or system issues is the first step to engaging broader leadership activities.

Collaborative or networked leadership requires a range of skills and a broader orientation—a transition that may prove challenging for judicial actors given the structure and culture of the judicial system. As McConnell (1991) notes, judges perform complex and technical work. When the complex work is coupled with the fact that they are selected by appointment or popular election and added to the requirement that they ensure independence in judicial decision making (McConnell, 1991), they can find themselves dealing with challenging situations. As compared to their private sector, public service lawyers act with vested authority placed in them as public servants to interpret and apply the laws of the state. What motivates these individuals to assume leadership roles outside of their established responsibilities is a line of inquiry explored in this article.

Leadership Emergence

Given the complexity of leadership, especially in collaborative settings, the need to understand the people, the effect of their actions, and how they have developed needed skills continues. With the acceptance that leadership matters to performance (Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010; Sun & Henderson, 2017), one stream of research looks at understanding how leadership emerges within individuals. How individuals identify as a leader and their self-view as a leader is argued to be a critical first step to understand (Lührmann & Eberl, 2007; Muir, 2014) as it sets the stage to understand the connection between role identification and intentionality.

An influential work concerning intentions describes them as more than desire and belief, but rather as a self-standing mental state (Bratman, 1987). Bratman focuses on future-directed intentions that have the characteristics of stability and control: stability because once a future intention is set, it is unlikely to be reconsidered, and control because intentions can allow us to act directly without needing to consider how to act. Bratman argues that future intentions are beneficial to help coordinate actions; enable the agent and others to plan, act, and organize their affairs based on the expectation of the intent; and extend the influence of deliberations beyond the present. Moreover, intention and perception are linked.

Intentions can help agents become consistent with perceived role identity (Bratman, 1987). When faced with an important future-focused decision, an agent can deliberate and set a direction for action when decision time arrives. Creating this future intention helps the agent remain consistent with their perceived role.

Future intentions can also be helpful when an agent attempts to change role identity (Bratman, 1987). Changing role identity requires deliberative thought and action until the new identity becomes habit. Agents who create future intentions regarding how they will act differently will be more likely to do so because of the stability and control that future intentions possess. In other words, it is easier to plan how we will change and to carry out those plans than to attempt to change on the fly as decisions become necessary in the moment.

So, if intention and self-perception are linked and together formulate how an individual thinks of leadership, then these ideals play a part in how the person behaves. Thus, we assert that identity and role act as antecedents to leadership intention and behaviors. Research in the leadership identity development literature highlights elements influencing identity formation including critical learning events, analytical ability, drive, motives, organizational policies and resources, and leader–member exchange (Dries & Pepermans, 2012; Luria & Berson, 2012; Maurer & London, 2015; Muir, 2014). Individuals have different leadership potential and preferences; for example, Dries and Pepermans (2012) examine leadership potential and find that factors including drive and motivation to lead are critical. Motives to lead relate to emerging leaders as well as leadership assignments and actions (Luria & Berson, 2012). Subsequently, Dries and Pepermans (2012) argue that people have to be oriented toward leadership to have a high potential for its emergence. However, Maurer and London (2015, p. 2) note, “one barrier to leadership success can be the inability to change one’s identity from individual contributor to leader (Bebb, 2009; Bunker, 2008; Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010; Ibarra, Snook, & Ramo, 2008),” raising the relevance of understanding when and if that shift has been made.

Motivation to Engage in Leadership

What motivates a person to begin practicing law may not be the same value or drive needed for leaders within the judicial system or on broader community issues. Motivation research has explored the issue of person–organization fit and mission–organization fit as well as how leadership motives affect leadership emergence (Luria & Berson, 2012; Rainey, 1997). The concept of individual value alignment with organizational values has been identified as a positive predictor of satisfaction and performance. Role-identification, organizational commitment, and satisfaction have been examined in the psychology literature (Rainey, 1997; Staats, 1988) and help us understand the importance of role and value congruence in terms of performance, commitment, and satisfaction (Rainey, 1997; Wittmer, 1991). This raises interesting questions for how these elements influence one’s self-perception and, in turn, leadership approach and behavior.

Questions about the tension between self-interest and the orientation to a broader concern for the public good arise when leadership in the public setting is examined (Getha-Taylor et al., 2011). PSM, a branch of motivational research, is one theoretical framework useful for considering these issues. It offers a lens for viewing the nature of public sector incentives as well as a mechanism to evaluate public servants’ behavior. PSM is most often grounded in the definition developed by Perry and Wise (1990): “[A]n individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (p. 368). This definition suggests that some individuals are instilled with a unique public service ethos attracting them to government service and influencing subsequent job performance (Brewer & Selden, 1998; Crewson, 1997; DiIulio, 1994; Frederickson & Hart, 1985; Kelman, 1998; Perry, 1996; Perry and Wise, 1990; Rainey, 1982; Staats, 1988; Wamsley et al., 1990).

In the past two decades, research into PSM from theoretical, conceptual, and empirical perspectives has advanced (Brewer, Selden, & Facer, 2000; Buchanan, 1975; Gabris & Simo, 1995; Naff & Crum, 1999; Perry, 1997; Perry & Wise, 1990; Rainey, 1982; Wittmer, 1991; Wright, 2001). Extensive comparisons of public and private sector employees yielded rich results that extended the understanding of what PSM is, the pro-social impacts of PSM levels, and antecedents of PSM (Perry, 1997), as well as the behavioral impacts of PSM including fostering positive citizenship behaviors outside of an individual’s organization and increased willingness to sacrifice person’s self-interest to achieve such shared goals (Brewer & Selden, 1998; Houston, 2005; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007a, 2007b; Naff & Crum, 1999). The causes of PSM remain open, though there is a suggestion that there may be an effect via institutional logics (Meyer, Egger-Peitler, Hollerer, & Hammerschmid, 2014).

Researchers have often presented the presumption that PSM impacts attitudes and behaviors, though this warrants additional empirical investigation (Pandey, Wright, & Moynihan, 2008; Wright, 2001). Pandey et al. (2008) find that PSM has a direct and positive effect on interpersonal citizenship behavior in their sample of public sector employees working in a state personnel agency. Moynihan et al. (2012) examine the links between PSM and leadership, but look at them through the lens of how leaders can reinforce and augment effects of PSM on employees’ attraction to the mission. They note that “despite the potential importance of the relationship between mission valence and public service motivation (PSM) it remains understudied” (p. 206).

While examining how leaders foster PSM, this research steps back to consider the relationship between the self-identified roles of leaders and PSM. The assumption is that those with higher levels of PSM are more likely to explore leadership roles and have an interest in increasing their citizenship role to be able to accomplish their altruistic and community-oriented motives which is consistent with previous research on citizenship behavior. As such, it may help to explain why lawyers have decided to focus on broader system issues, though these actors have not been a primary source of previous PSM research. This research contributes to the call for more empirical research on the predictive influence of PSM.

A Model of Emergence

The literature has focused on the outcomes and characteristics necessary to lead in changing environments. However, extant studies presuppose leadership has been developed within an organization and as a de facto truth, which individuals accept and take on leadership roles, the underlying idea being that there is a process model in place. In fact, Jacobsen and Andersen (2015) present a process model of leadership practices that examines the link between a leader’s intended leadership effect and the employee’s performance that they base on work by Wright and Nishii (2007). The first step in their model is intended practices. While the step of intended practices is critical, the question remains what leads to intent in the first place. These preceding steps—the antecedents—are the focus of exploration for this research.

The premise of this study, then, is that the factors leading a public service lawyer to engage in intended leadership practices are part of that person’s role identity. If leadership is defined by the actions taken by leaders (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass & Riggio, 2006), the implication is that the intent to act in a leadership capacity is likely to have an impact. If role is a basis for one’s self-concept, it is then a critical factor in the decision to accept the responsibilities to engage in leadership.

Maurer and London (2015, p. 11) suggest “role identity is defining oneself in relation to a role. Role identity has substantial effects on the way people think and perform as well as the goals they pursue (Leary & Tangney, 2003).” Thus, we suggest two antecedent steps to Jacobsen and Andersen’s model: first, an individual’s self-constructed identity as a leader, and next, how they perceive their role within the system in which they may opt to act (See Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Antecedents to leadership intent.

Role Identity and the Courts

Role identity is particularly important in a technical setting such as the courts, where “leadership responsibilities” are unlikely to be designated as a formal job responsibility. Public officials who see themselves as leaders with an impact on the system itself accept this role as part of who they are and what they should be doing. Those who see themselves as leaders are then more likely to engage in larger issues as well as consider engaging in broader networks to address these issues.

For example, a judge could spend all day in the courtroom trying multiple cases of substance abuse, focusing only on the crimes committed without considering interventions that address the underlying substance abuse issues. As an alternative, the judge may recognize that in their role as a judge, they can engage social services, law enforcement, and others to explore how this problem can be addressed more holistically to create change that may result in a healthier, more productive citizen. Such actions are what have resulted in the creation of therapeutic or problem-solving courts. The court officials can use their powers in conjunction with these other community and professional resources to address not only the criminal activity but also the underlying problem. Such broad scale change requires an organization that recognizes the value of strong leadership and allows the actors within to execute decisions based on their perception of what is right for both the individuals and the institution. In the above example, such scenarios require collaborative leadership.

The culture of the court system is oriented toward autonomy and self-interest (Durham & Becker, 2013). The very nature of selecting judges and some public service lawyers through a third party (e.g., the voters, the legislature, or the governor) encourages them to operate in individual silos and to lack a sense of organizational identity (Lefever, 2009). This context makes individual action and orientation the norm. As a result, those that are motivated to engage in broader issues are working outside the “default” role. Public sector lawyers and judges need to opt in to work that focuses on collective or system-level goals as the common goals. Judicial scholars have called for additional research that moves away from legal-skill development to examining how actors can steward and protect the judicial branch (Sharp, 2008; Wice, 1995). The judicial context makes a focus on individual cases and law a natural orientation, and yet to make broader district or system change, an orientation toward system issues and collaboration would be a necessary initial transition of focus to encourage alternative actions and engagement.

A call for more research in the judicial context is aligned with a number of scholars examining similar phenomena in public administration. Institutional logics—described as “frames of reference that condition actors’ choices for sense-making, the vocabulary they use to motivate action, and their sense of self and identity” (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012, p. 2)—is one way to understand specific motivational choices in public settings, including underlying concepts of PSM (Meyer et al., 2014).

Study Design

This research focuses on understanding how a range of public service lawyers view their leadership role and identity. As such, it is also based on the premise that leadership is not isolated to positions with designated leadership responsibility, but that leadership is a choice of individuals throughout the organization. As McConnell (1991) notes, “Each judge, no matter how specialized or narrow may be his [or her] view of [the] task, is in fact a part of the executive structure” (p. 712). This exploratory case study of the North Carolina judicial system allows for an intensive analysis of a full set of actors within one unified court system. A single-state design provides for a similar context and system structure in terms of the general political, physical, and administrative elements.

North Carolina, like 26 other states in the United States, has a unified court system. While each court maintains its own calendar and operations, all are centrally administrated through the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The AOC is charged with supporting the infrastructure and technology needs of all courts as well as the administration and finance of the system. Generally, judges have limited formal administrative and managerial responsibilities with only a small percentage of judges having designated administrative responsibilities. The Senior Resident Superior Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge are identified as having statutorily imposed administrative responsibilities.

An online survey was administered to public service lawyers across the system in the fall of 2013. All judges in the trial courts, at both the superior and the district level, were included in the respondent group, as were all chief public defenders and all elected district attorneys. Confidentiality was promised to participants to minimize social desirability bias in the responses. For a population of elected judicial officials, the ability to provide confidentiality was an important design consideration given the nature of their work and the pressures on them for reelection.

At the time of the survey, the state judicial system comprised 112 superior court judges, 270 district court judges, 44 elected district attorneys, and 21 chief public defenders. Of the potential total population (N = 446), 209 respondents submitted a usable survey. The survey included both closed and open-ended questions designed to gain information on a range of issues related to the participants’ perspectives on leadership, their role, motivation, and background experiences with leadership training. Response rates by population are presented in Table 1.¹

Table 1.

Population Characteristics.

Respondent categories	Public service lawyers in North Carolina	Percentage of population	Responded	Response rate^a
Superior Court Judges	112	25	69	62%
District Court Judges	270	61	86	32%
District Attorneys	44	10	39	89%
Public Defenders	21	5	14	67%
No Response	NA	NA	1	NA
Total	447		209	47%

Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

Respondents indicated a high level of experience within the judicial system. The majority (approximately 60%) have spent at least 5 years in their current position while almost one third reported 10 years or more service in their current role.² Relatively few (16%) have less than 2 years service in their role with the North Carolina courts. Most (63%) had prior experience serving in another position within the judicial system. The responding participants were overwhelmingly male (72%), with women more proportionally represented in the group of district court judges (48%) than in any other category. Finally, most respondents were 46 years old or older. These characteristics are reflective of the North Carolina judicial system.

Measures

To examine the presumed necessary first step for leadership emergence and actions to take place, respondents were asked to identify and prioritize the key focus of their work. The culture of the courts presupposes a focus on individual action and makes shifting role priority to collective efforts or system concerns a significant transition for many. Therefore, as a proxy for role identity, respondents were asked to indicate what they prioritized in their work on a continuum that represents their primary activities from deciding/trying cases (1) to improving court efficiency (6) (the specific question was “In your role you must balance legal practice and management. This question asks you to gauge your feelings on what you prioritize in your work”). The average score of 2.70 demonstrated a trend toward the middle.

A range of independent variables are considered for their influence on perceived role identity. To better understand how an individual sees their focus and primary identity, respondents were asked to rank order a number of items that they believed best matched their focus.

The choices provided were:

My focus is on justice for my individual clients/cases.

I want to be seen as a leader that makes justice better throughout the system.

My focus is on ensuring equal justice for all.

Carrying out the task of implementing the law effectively is my priority.

Of the four options provided, two were focused more on individual cases or legal administration (“My focus is on justice for my individual clients/cases” and “Carrying out the task of implementing the law effectively is my priority”) while two focused on broader system issues or concerns (“I want to be seen as a leader the makes justice better throughout the system” and “My focus is on ensuring equal justice for all”).

Consistent with Meyer et al.’s (2014) claims of a relationship between institutional logics and PSM, in this analysis, we included PSM measures. Given the conceptual underpinnings of PSM focused on service to a greater good and greater causes, we propose that increased levels of PSM will lead to prioritization of system concerns compared with individual case concerns. Five items adapted from Perry (1996) were used to measure PSM within this study. These items capture the dimensions of commitment to public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice that were identified by Perry (1996) and are associated with a focus on the appeal to the altruistic aspects of public service. These measures have been used extensively in previous research (Alonso & Lewis, 2001; Brewer & Selden, 1998; Kim, 2005; Pandey et al., 2008; Wright & Pandey, 2008).³ A Cronbach’s alpha was run on the calculated index PSM score and was within appropriate limits (the alpha score was .790).

Leadership training and development often includes content related to participants’ self-awareness and issues related to context, in addition to development of other competencies. We propose that participation in previous leadership training will increase the likelihood that a person creates a self-perception or self-identity related to actions for larger system issues. To measure this, we included questions on whether the respondent received previous training.

The willingness to take on additional challenges or move into roles that have new requirements can be predicated on one’s sense of having the needed skills in place to respond to current issues. As such, we examine the extent that respondents view themselves having the requisite skills to respond to the challenges they currently face. The proposition is that the more they believe that they have the current skills they need, the more likely they will move to a focus on broader leadership roles. In addition, baseline and background factors were included, such as view of self as leader. Although leadership behavior can emerge in times of need from individuals who may not identify themselves to be a leader, one who already identifies as a leader is more likely to take leadership actions with intention. In addition, a general belief in the importance of leadership for the district serves to indicate an appreciation for the need for leadership actions within this setting. If, for example, one was to feel that leadership should only be exerted through the AOC and is not needed at the district level, one would be unlikely to embrace leadership as part of one’s role.

Personal characteristics have consistently been found to be important in leadership research. For example, Jacobsen and Andersen (2015) note the importance of gender and age:

Two important biographical characteristics are gender and age. Regarding gender, several studies find that, compared with their employees, male leaders rate their own leadership behavior higher than female leaders (e.g., Brutus, Fleenor, & McCauley, 1999; Moshavi, Brown, & Dodd, 2003; Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2008). Leader ratings of leadership tend to increase with age (Brutus, Fleenor, & McCauley, 1999; Ostroff, Atwater, & Feinberg, 2004), but Moshavi, Brown, and Dodd (2003) find that employees also rate older leaders higher. (p. 831)

This research includes age, gender, and title in the analysis.

This analysis is conducted using descriptive statistics and an ordinary least squares regression. Factors related to organizational culture, environment, or policies are not included in the analysis and rather are controlled for through a one-state case study design. As will be noted later, this is an area in need of future research.

Findings and Discussion

In this section, we begin by examining how public service lawyers perceive their focus and the role they identify with most. Next, we examine factors that contribute to the construction of role preference and role identity. The section concludes with an analysis of predicators of role identity.

Role Perception

Respondents were asked to reflect on how they prioritize the work they do. Their self-identification along a continuum, from deciding/trying cases to improving court efficiency, is used as a proxy for role identity in this study. In all positions, included in the sample, individuals have responsibility for a variety of items and where they spend their time may fluctuate, still what one indicates as a primary or prioritized role is telling. The mean score for respondents falls in the middle with a slight orientation to individual cases (2.70).

The National Association for Court Managers (NACM) identified Purposes and Responsibilities of Courts as the first in the series of 10 core competencies. They note, “Effective court leaders have a passion for justice and courts as institutions.” This focus on leadership of justice and the courts align with a focus on court efficiency. The focus on the individual administration of justice represented on the continuum by deciding/trying cases was selected by 19.8% of the sample, while only 2.5% selected the furthest point on the other side of the continuum which focused more on system issues (See Figure 2). While the focus on cases is the starting point for most public service lawyers, another possible influence is that resource constraints of an overburdened court system may force public service lawyers to focus their attention, and self-perception, on business of adjudicating cases rather than to consider how to improve process and systems operations for efficiency gains.

Figure 2.

Percentage reporting scores on continuum.

Although the aggregate of the sample finds over half of the sample was at or one position from the end of the continuum, greater variation is seen when looking at the responses by position (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Mean role identity score by respondent type.

District Attorneys and Chief Public Defenders are the furthest on the continuum toward the broader issue of court efficiency while Resident Superior Court Judge and Special Superior Court Judge were the furthest toward the issue of deciding cases. Senior Resident Superior Court Judges, Chief District Court Judges, and District Court Judges were closer to the middle, but still on the side of deciding cases.

Although public service judges spend time on broader issues, these scores may align with the concept that the main focus for judges is on the courtroom and the cases in front of them, while public defenders and district attorneys are running offices and, in many ways, serving in more of an executive position. In these roles, Chief Public Defenders and Elected District Attorneys are more likely to think about, and confront, system issues. In the judicial system, like many public sector settings (and the rise of collaborative leadership research), problems often require multiple actors to come together to create change, and as such, it is important to understand that this can be made more challenging because of the varied focus of key actors. In other words, if critical judicial executive actors do not see their role as one that focuses on the system, they may not opt in to initiatives and leadership roles to engage in such broader-focused activities.

In addition to indicating how they prioritize their work on a continuum, respondents were asked to rank order statements associated with roles they engage in, as an additional means to understand the focus they adopt. This question expands an understanding of how they conceptualize themselves and their role. Ensuring equal justice for all was selected by 72% of respondents as a top priority while only 32.8% ranked implementing the law effectively as a top priority. These respondents viewed themselves as having a primary focus on providing citizens equal justice, implying a broader focus on access to the system than technical practices used to administer it. Most (53%) view themselves as having a focus on individual clients as the next most important consideration in their work. Again, the implication is that these public service lawyers prioritize their role as preserving the institutional anchors of the court system by providing justice to those who are involved with it (See Table 2).

Table 2.

Priority Focus (n = 236).

	Justice for my individual clients/cases	Makes justice better throughout the system	Ensuring equal justice for all	Implementing the law effectively
First Selection	28.1	18.2	41.1	12.5
Second Selection	25.0	23.4	31.3	20.3
Third Selection	22.9	22.4	18.8	35.9
Fourth Selection	24.0	35.9	8.9	31.3

Antecedents to Role Identity

Given the variation in the roles individuals identify with and prioritize, the question becomes why and what factors affect role perception. We examine a number of factors that are seen as important in the creation of role identity.

Motivation

We focus on the formative influences on an individual’s tendency toward public service and leadership. Creating a positive impact motivates many people, including a large portion of those who participated in this study. PSM allows for a means to investigate what pushes an individual to act and as such is explored here for its explanatory power regarding how public service lawyers formulate role identity. Respondents in this sample demonstrated relatively high levels of PSM (an average of 21.47 out of 25) compared with other samples of public sector employees (Pandey et al., 2008).

Judges in the Superior Courts, with general trial jurisdiction, had the highest PSM scores across the respondent group. These judges have broader responsibilities across multiple districts and are responsible for adjudicating all felony cases, criminal cases for trial de novo, and civil cases in excess of US$10,000. In comparison, the Senior Superior Court Judges, who have the most continuous service as a Resident Superior Court Judge, are tasked with scheduling cases, dealing with motions from other counties, providing rules on calendaring in civil cases, mediating settlement conferences, and other technical work assigned to judges. These respondents had the lowest PSM scores in the sample. Even so, overall PSM scores had very little variation.

While overall scores fell within a small range, variation was observed within dimensions of the PSM scale (see Table 3). Table 3 presents the five measures elements with the combined total score (the total scores are calculated as a combined score of the dimensions). Across job type, the importance of meaningful public service was high (the average score was 4.8 on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). These public service lawyers were less likely to indicate strong support for making enormous sacrifices for the good of society; even so, this dimension is important to many of them (note: on this dimension, 3 on the scale represents neither agree nor disagree while 4 is agree).

Table 3.

PSM Scores by Respondent Type.

Respondent categories	PSM Score (n = 207)	Importance of meaningful public service (n = 208)	Reminded by daily events of how dependent we are on one another (n = 207)	Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements (n = 207)	I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society (n = 207)	I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even if it means I will be ridiculed (n = 207)
Senior Superior Court Judges	20.40	4.53	4.13	4.07	3.57	4.10
Resident Superior Court Judge	22.56	4.46	4.96	4.58	4.00	4.54
Special Superior Court Judge	22.38	4.85	4.62	4.54	4.08	4.31
Chief District Court Judge	20.53	4.71	4.29	4.00	3.59	3.94
District Court Judge	21.18	4.78	4.19	4.28	3.71	4.21
District Attorneys	22.10	4.92	4.18	4.38	4.13	4.49
Chief Public Defenders	21.71	4.80	4.36	4.00	3.71	4.71
Total	21.47	4.80	4.26	4.28	3.82	4.30

Note. PSM = public service motivation.

When looking at role orientation and how it relates to motivation levels, a statistically significant positive relationship was found for those prioritizing “equal justice for all” and PSM scores (a correlation of .213, p = .003). While there was not a statistically significant correlation between PSM and role identity (as measured on the role priority continuum), the relationship is in the expected direction with increased levels of PSM related to increased orientation to system efficiency. In looking at the variables that make up the PSM measures, there is a statistically significant correlation between role identity and one’s agreement that they would make enormous sacrifices for the good of society (.179, p = .011). For those within the judicial system, it appears that identifying with a role focused on ensuring equal justice for all may be tapping into the normative motives captured in the PSM research. Increasingly, PSM has been a central construct and theory employed to better understand the public workforce. Through its application here, we are now able to understand it as a dependent variable and able to apply the theoretical model to explain person–role fit rather than person–organization fit in a priori studies.

Leadership perception and preparation

An anticipated antecedent to leadership is whether or not individuals view themselves as a leader, as this perceptional issue has a direct impact on the choices and actions of leaders (Senge, 1990 ). Overwhelmingly, North Carolina public service lawyers (85%) identify themselves as leaders in their judicial districts. Consistent with their positional roles within the system, Senior Resident Superior Court Judges (92%) and Chief District Court Judges (94%) were most likely to self-identify as a leader.

For those that view themselves as a leader in their district, this concept correlates with the perception that leadership training would benefit their district (.160, p = .038) and that leadership skills and management skills are important to the judicial system (.325, p = .000, and .193, p = .012). These relationships begin to demonstrate that elements that influence one’s self-constructed identity have a relationship with perceptions of self and perception of the system. One’s view of self as leader is also correlated with the belief that they have the skills needed to respond to their leadership challenges (.310, p = .000) as well as a broader system focus (.239, p = .002), and the percentage of the week spent on administrative functions (.256, p = .001). Thus, one’s self-perception as a leader is related to the view one takes on a range of personal and organizational elements and challenges and as such may in turn influence the projects and work they select to engage in.

While having the self-conceptualization as a leader can be a necessary step to readiness or willingness to take leadership actions, one can easily imagine someone who is a self-proclaimed leader but lacks the needed skills to be effective. Developing the appropriate skill set is necessary in both practice and creating a feeling of readiness to act. Only a third of respondents (29%) indicated strong agreement that they have the skills necessary to respond to current leadership challenges they face. While the nature of the problems identified by these public service lawyers varies substantially, district court judges were the most likely to feel that they lack the necessary leadership skills, whereas public defenders constituted the only group in which all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they have the requisite skills to respond. Women in this study rated themselves lower in terms of having the skills to respond to leadership challenges and their perception of themselves as a leader. Gender research has often found that women rate themselves lower than male respondents (Lenney, 1977; Shipman & Kay, 2009). A difference of means test indicates a statistically significant difference between men and women on their agreement that they possess the skills needed to respond to leadership challenges they face.

One might assume that the time spent on administrative and management activities would change how a person views their role including the way leadership plays into the work. Respondents were asked to report the percentage of the week spent on administrative and/or management tasks. District Attorney and Public Defender Offices have more traditional office structures and responsibilities. It is not surprising, then, that they spend the highest percentage of time on administrative or management functions (68% and 62%, respectfully). Senior Resident Superior Court Judges (27% time) and Chief District Court Judges (31% time) have additional administrative responsibilities as part of their role and as such spend more time on administration and management then other judges in these courts. Time spent on administrative and management activities was correlated with the respondent identifying themselves as a leader (.256, p = .001), with agreement that they have the needed skills to respond to management challenge they face (.237, p = .002), and having the needed leadership skills (.138, p = .073). Time spent on administrative responsibilities was positively correlated with the perceived importance of leadership skills for individuals in the judicial system (.196, p = .011) as well as with the concept of role identification from deciding cases to system improvement (.533, p = .000). More exposure to administrative work appears to be an important contextual factor that relates to how public service lawyers see themselves, their ability to respond, and perspective on leadership needs overall.

Training and development intends to prepare participants with the needed skills, competencies, and framework to respond to both their current work deficits and to develop to be able to respond to future responsibilities (Getha-Taylor, Fowles, Silvia, & Merritt, 2015). In an open-ended question on how training has impacted them, respondents indicated a range of ways that training had influenced their behaviors. Many respondents highlighted that training aided them in gaining a broader systems perspective. This benefit was noted across varied positions in the sample. One respondent (a public defender) noted that training “creates a better understanding of how other court actors fit in the system.” Another respondent (a district attorney) echoed this sentiment, “Each of us has their own small part to play in the system and should never lose sight of it.” Consistent with this perspective, a district court judge noted, “My leadership training allows me to view everything I do from not just the standpoint of those actually in the courtroom, but also, the standpoint of the other stakeholders that are affected by the courts even though they may not be in the courts.” Collectively, these responses underscore the development of a perspective outside the focused technical work of administering the law and on broader issues of needed collaborative action. Creating this perspective influences how an individual sees their role identity.

When asked to rate the impact of leadership training on their ability to contribute positively to the justice system overall, the average score was 3.33, on a scale of none (1) to a lot (4). Thus, those with training see themselves primed for larger roles within the court system.

Predicting Role Identity

A regression analysis was used to further explore the factors that contribute to role perception for public service lawyers in North Carolina. The model examines the contribution of a range of factors on how a respondent categorizes their role (focused on individual cases or a broader systems perspective). While the model only explains about 30% of the variation, it highlights important influencing factors (results follow in Table 4).

Table 4.

Regression Results Deciding/Trying Cases: Improving Court Efficiency.

Constant	−0.0656 (1.565)
Motivation base
PSM	0.071* (0.038)
Most representative—I want to be seen as a leader that makes justice better throughout the system	0.188** (0.087)
Leadership preparation and perspective
I have the skills needed to respond to the leadership challenges I face	0.008 (0.178)
I have the skills needed to respond to the management challenges I face	−0.095 (0.175)
I would describe myself as a leader in my judicial district	0.035 (0.134)
Leadership training received during your career	0.632** (0.273)
Management training received during your career	−0.379 (0.258)
Leadership skills are important for individuals in the judicial system	−0.246 (0.230)
Personal characteristics
Gender (1 male, 2 female)	0.147 (0.259)
Age	−0.034 (0.120)
Judge/Non-Judge	−1.637*** (0.260)
Judge holds a position with designated administrative responsibility	0.367 (0.276)
R ²	.646
Adjusted R²	.364
F	7.866
N	147

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. PSM = public service motivation.

p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .001.

The public service lawyers in this sample with higher levels of PSM and those who see themselves as wanting to make justice better for the system prioritize working on court efficiency over the more individualized focus on trying/deciding cases. Thus, they are taking on a broader view of their role. The relationship between motivation and role helps to support the construct of PSM as a concept that taps into intrinsic drivers that can have positive behavioral impacts. The PSM scholarship has called for additional research that examines behavior implication, and the connection found in this study indicates support for PSM impacting choices made.

Lawyers in a non-judge role (District Attorneys or Public Defenders) prioritize the broader approach; results for this variable are statistically significant. These individuals on average spend a larger percentage of their time on administrative responsibilities (time spent on administrative activities was not included in the final model as it is highly correlated with the non-judge role as well as with the administrative judge roles). Results indicate that individuals who had received leadership training during their careers also are more likely to characterize their role as focused less on individual cases and more on system concerns.

Other factors tested in the model were not found to be statistically significant yet still offer some interesting relationships for future consideration. For example, the direction of the relationship on gender would indicate that women and younger lawyers view their roles in terms of a broader focus. Previous research on women has often highlighted their increased likelihood to engage in collaborative action (Jacobson, Kelleher, & Bowling, 2010; Johnson, 2017; Rosenthal, 1998). The low percentage of women within the sample may be contributing to the lack of statistical significance. The relationship for judges with administrative responsibility is in the expected, positive, direction, but is not statistically significant for this sample; this may also be due to the small percentage of administrative judges within the population studied. Overall, the model presented explains some of the variation, but there is still room for improvements to better understand what contributes to role perception.

Limitations

The model indicates support for understanding role identity formation within the courts, but more research is needed. This study is not without limitations, including the focus on a one-state case study. A focused case study offers some advantages even though it limits the population being investigated as well as the generalizability of the results. In addition, this research attempts to map out what influences self-perception as an antecedent to purposeful leadership action and would benefit from more refined measures of this concept and more in-depth case studies to further develop an understanding of how individuals conceptualize these concepts. We recognize that the dependent variable is not as comprehensive or multi-faceted as desired. Respondents were asked about their primary focus as a proxy of leadership orientation. This proxy measure is only one variable and taps into the notion of perceived role through a narrow lens. Personal trait data and district descriptive data were not available—both would have helped further develop and deepen the model of contributing factors. Future research would benefit from adding variables related to the organizational environment, organizational culture, the nature of a public service lawyers’ district dynamics (this would help to further explore the link between leader–member exchange research and role perception), the general operating environment, and the current perception of leadership skills by others. This work is preliminary and exploratory, yet the model indicates that relevant motivational factors in particular appear to influence role identification and help to explain why one may switch from the individual contributor to a broader focus that would presuppose more leadership action.

Conclusion

The NACM note, “Courts exist to do justice, to guarantee liberty, to enhance social order, to resolve disputes, to maintain rule of law, to provide for equal protection, and to ensure due process of law. They exist so that the equality of individuals and the government is reality rather than empty rhetoric.” Within the next decade, 54% of the respondents in this sample plan to leave their posts, suggesting a significant turnover in these positions is on the horizon. With 20% of Senior Resident Superior Court Judges and 25% of Chief District Court Judges leaving the judicial system within the next 2 years or less, a significant potential for new leadership will be available if public service lawyers see these responsibilities as part of their role and, in turn, take action. When considering these departures, preparation of successors is a natural concern. Sharp (2008) draws attention to the need outside of the legal and technical issues and notes, “The challenge to the new judge is not only to master the skills to handle cases but also to develop the insight to steward and protect this branch of government” (p. 100). The question of how one sees one’s role is important in this call for moving beyond handling cases to serving as stewards and leaders in addressing some of the intractable problems that communities and society face. This exploratory study examines just such a question through investigating how public service lawyers perceive their role and primary focus and what contributes to role perception with the intent of better understanding when and how public service lawyers will engage in broader leadership actions.

These questions add important insight into understanding the human capital competencies, skills, and leadership approaches within the judiciary. We find that while many public service lawyers view themselves as leaders within their districts, the orientation toward their role is more variant in terms of how they view and prioritize their role. When these individuals view their identity as including broader leadership responsibilities, the presumption is that public service lawyers could exercise leadership to help solve some of the difficult problems that government faces (e.g., by providing for greater collaboration between government entities or by innovating to tackle bias or to overcome inefficiencies in the system). While there are times that the involvement of public service lawyers could serve as critical actors and stakeholders for public problems, there are other issues that their involvement would not be necessary or even helpful. The role of having a judicial actor involved can change community dynamics and engagement both positively and negatively. Questions about when and how to best engage different stakeholders, including judges and attorneys, plague those working on broader issues that our communities face and continue to benefit from further empirical investigation. This research begins to explore the necessary first step to engagement of public service lawyers in such issues by exploring the elements that influence role identity with the realization that involvement, needed or not, is unlikely to occur if someone does not see such broader engagement as part of who they are and what they should do.

PSM, leadership training, and the nature of one’s position impact role perception. While PSM may be imbedded within those lawyers who opt to take on public-focused work rather than select to use their legal training in other means, there is still potential to further develop PSM within this population and, in turn, associated citizenship behaviors. The connection to training received underscores the impact that training can have, not just in skill development but also in shaping how people view issues and the role they see for themselves in responding to such issues. For a population with high technical training, developing a broader focus, perspective, and role orientation can be a significant shift, yet if the court actors are to be involved in working in broader groups to help solve such problems, these public service lawyers will need to see their role more broadly. The issue of role identity and leadership expands beyond the sample presented in this study and offers an important area for future leadership research across a range of actors.

“Successful organizations—including court organizations, who have an especially difficult task of transcending a traditional culture that favors precedence over innovation and future consequences—must jump ahead of the curve, anticipate the future, and set directions into unfamiliar territory” (Keilitz, 1995, p. 323). Collaborative leadership and management focused on broader system change may be “unfamiliar territory” for attorneys trained with a focus on the law and trying cases. Various scholars suggest that the presence or absence of leadership “increasingly will define organizational success or failure” (Keilitz, 1995, p. 324). The courts are institutional pillars of democracy. A needed first step is self-identification consistent with an expanded role and associated responsibilities. Public service lawyers may opt into such broader roles while at other times they are prescribed to them. For example, recent North Carolina legislation directs the Director of the AOC to “prescribe policies and procedures for chief district court judges to establish school-justice partnership with local law enforcement agencies, local boards of education, and local school administration” (N.C.G.S. §7A-343). The work of serving as a leader in a network of players to address such concerns takes engaging a leadership role and employing skills beyond the law and beyond the courtroom.

Studying leadership could provide important insights into judicial system outcomes and how they are achieved, “[j]udicial administration researchers must aim at learning not only what is; we must also attempt to ascertain what can and should be done about it” (Gallas, 1987, p. 40). This research provides empirical evidence to help us begin to understand how public service lawyers view their roles and the elements that impact the construction of their role perception. Respondents in this study consistently identified themselves as leaders, but more research is needed to flesh out what that means in practice. Given that this research focuses on self-assessment and self-reported levels of success, the addition of standardized measures and perception of the impact of leadership from the point of view of others within the system will provide important additional data to more fully understand this topic.

Recognition of the need for additional leadership development may be a critical first step in any effort to change or modify behavior and is a critical step in an individual becoming more open to engaging broader issues for their district or the system. Questions remain concerning how to reinforce and ensure the positive impact of leadership efforts. This preliminary assessment indicates that, even in an environment characterized by a nontraditional organizational structure, training can provide opportunities to elicit broader system perspectives that can benefit all actors working within the system. This is consistent with and reinforces current inter-jurisdictional research (Frederickson, 2007) showing that addressing complex problems within a public setting requires a systems or collaborative approach. Judicial actors play critical roles within their communities, and seeing their role as collaborative leaders can be a challenging transition. If the judicial system is going to have in place leaders who are capable of responding to the complex challenges of the next decade, more effort and more research are needed to help us understand these critical actors and how to help them engage more effectively.

Alexander Hamilton argued that because of the courts’ pervasiveness, the administration of justice “contributes, more than any other circumstance, to impressing upon the minds of the people affection, esteem, and reverence towards the government” (Wheeler, 1998, p. 2). If Hamilton was right that the view of good government is critically influenced by the courts, and if court actors are critical players in solving social problems, then the need for more empirical and systematic investigation of critical public management topics within this setting is also critical to both practice and theory development. Like many public institutions, the courts are faced with challenging times. Those within the judicial system will continue to confront challenging internal and external issues requiring complex, often collaborative, skills to respond. Further research to more fully understand this population, their motivation, perspectives, skills, and needs could offer important insights for this population as well as to the broader fields of leadership, public management, and human capital management. In addition, further research into the impact of role perception, identity creation, and intended action on additional samples will help further develop the logic model to understand how leaders develop and act to improve organizational performance.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research benefited from the unwavering commitment that Judge James Hardin has for the judicial system. His thesis on judicial leadership needs served to catalyze our thinking on this topic as does his example of passion and service to the judicial system.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Willow S. Jacobson is an associate professor of Public Administration and Government at the School of Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research interests include Human Capital Management, leadership, and organizational performance. Her work has appeared in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration Review, and the Review of Public Personnel Administration.

Sharon R. Paynter serves as the assistant vice chancellor for Community Engagement at East Carolina University and associate professor of Political Science. She joined East Carolina University in 2009 after completing a postdoctoral fellowship in Public Policy at Brown University. She earned a PhD in Public Administration from North Carolina State University (2008). Her research has been published in journals including the Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, State and Local Government Review, and Policy Studies Journal.

References

Alonso

Lewis

(2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the federal sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363-380.

Avolio

Bass

Jung

(1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Bass

Riggio

(2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bebb

S. S.

(2009). The structure of role transition: A phenomenological study of successful executives from five countries. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 4, 223-243.

Bingham

O’Leary

(2008). Big ideas in collaborative public management. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Bratman

M. E.

(1987). Intentions, plan, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Re-issued CSLI Publications, 1999)

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

(1998). Whistleblowers in the federal civil service: New evidence of the public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 413-440.

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

Facer

II . (2000). Individual conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60, 254-264.

Brutus

Fleenor

McCauley

C. D.

(1999). Demographic and personality predictors of congruence in multi-source ratings. Journal of Management Development, 18, 417-435.

10.

Buchanan

II . (1975). Red-tape and the service ethic: Some unexpected differences between public and private managers. Administration and Society, 6, 423-444.

11.

Bunker

K. A.

(2008). Responses to change: Helping people manage transition. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

12.

Burke

B. F.

Costello

B. C.

(2005). The human side of managing for results. American Review of Public Administration, 35, 270-286.

13.

Chapman

Getha-Taylor

Holmes

M. H.

Jacobson

W. S.

Morse

R. S.

Sowa

J. E.

(2016). How public service leadership is studied: An examination of a quarter century of scholarship. Public Administration, 94, 111-128.

14.

Chrislip

Larson

(1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

15.

Crewson

P. E.

(1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 499-518.

16.

Davis

Stazyk

(2016). Examining the links between senior managers’ engagement in networked environments and goal and role ambiguity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 413-447.

17.

DiIulio

J. J.

(1994). Principled agents: The cultural bases of behavior in a federal government bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 277-318.

18.

Dries

Pepermans

(2012). How to identify leadership potential: Development and testing of a consensus model. Human Resource Management, 51, 361-385.

19.

Durham

C. M.

Becker

D. J.

(2013). A case for court governance principles. National Center for State Courts. Retrieved from http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-Experts/Court-leadership/Harvard-Executive-Session/A-Case-for-Court-Governance-Principles.aspx

20.

Fernandez

Cho

Perry

(2010). Exploring the link between integrated leadership and public sector performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 308-323.

21.

Frederickson

(2007, March 26). Bureaucrats without borders: Public management and the end of geography. Donald Stone Lecture presented at the American Society for Public Administration Conference, Washington, DC.

22.

Frederickson

H. G.

Hart

K. D.

(1985). The public service and the patriotism of benevolence. Public Administration Review, 45, 547-553.

23.

Gabris

G. T.

Simo

(1995). Public sector motivation as an independent variable affecting career decisions. Public Personnel Management, 24(1), 33-51.

24.

Gallas

(1987). Judicial leadership excellence: A research prospectus. Justice System Journal, 12, 40-41.

25.

Getha-Taylor

Fowles

Silvia

Merritt

C. C.

(2015). Considering the effects of time on leadership development: A local government training evaluation. Public Personnel Management, 44, 295-316.

26.

Getha-Taylor

Holmes

M. H.

Jacobson

W. S.

Morse

R. S.

Sowa

J. E.

(2011). Focusing the public service leadership lens: Research propositions and questions in the Minnowbrook tradition. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 1), i83-i97.

27.

Hassan

Hatmaker

(2015). Leadership and performance of public employees: Effects of the quality and characteristics of manager-employee relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 1127-1155.

28.

Houston

D. J.

2005. “Walking the walk” of public service motivation: Public employees and charitable gifts of time, blood, and money.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 67-86.

29.

Hubbard

Paquet

(2010). The black hole of public administration. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa Press.

30.

Huxham

Vangen

(2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Ibarra

Barbulescu

(2010). Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions. The Academy of Management Review, 35, 135-154.

32.

Ibarra

Snook

Ramo

L. G.

(2008). Nitin NohriaRakesh Khurana. Identity-based leader development. In Handbook of leadership theory and practice. Brighton, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

33.

Ingraham

P. W.

Getha-Taylor

(2004). Leadership in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24, 95-112.

34.

Ingraham

P. W.

Sowa

J. E.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2004). Linking dimensions of public sector leadership to performance. In Ingraham

Patricia W.

Lynn

Laurence E.

Jr . (Eds), The art of governance (pp. 152-170). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press.

35.

Jacobsen

Andersen

(2015). Is leadership in the eye of the beholder? A study of intended and perceived leadership practices and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 75, 829-841. doi:10.1111/puar.12380

36.

Jacobson

W. S.

Kelleher

C. A.

Bowling

J. C.

(2010). A woman’s touch? Gendered networks in state administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 477-504.

37.

Johnson

(2017). A gender analysis of women in public-private-voluntary sector “partnerships.” Public Administration, 95, 140-159.

38.

Kapucu

Van Wart

(2008). Making matters worse: An anatomy of leadership failures in managing catastrophic events. Administration & Society, 40, 711-740.

39.

Keilitz

(1995). The development of tomorrow’s leaders in judicial administration. The Justice System Journal, 17, 323-337.

40.

Kelman

(1998). Let me introduce you to the next-generation public servant. Federal Computer Week, 12, 21.

41.

Khademian

(2002). Working with culture; How the job gets done in public programs. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

42.

Kim

(2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 245-261.

43.

Leary

M. R.

Tangney

J. P.

(2003). Handbook of self and identity. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

44.

Lefever Dale

. (2009). The integration of judicial independence and judicial administration: The role of collegiality in court governance. The Court Manager, 24(2), 5-12

45.

Lenney

(1977). Women’s self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 84(1), 1-13.

46.

Lührmann

Eberl

(2007). Leadership and identity construction: Reframing the leader-follower interaction from an identity theory perspective. Leadership, 3, 115-127.

47.

Luke

J. S.

(1992). Managing interconnectedness: The new challenge for public administration. In Public management in an interconnected world (pp. 13-32). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

48.

Luria

Berson

(2012). How do leadership motives affect informal and formal leadership emergence? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 995-1015.

49.

Maurer

London

(2015). From individual contributor to leader: A role identity shift framework for leader development within innovative organizations. Journal of Management, 2(10), 1-27.

50.

McConnell

E. B.

(1991). Court management: The judge’s role and responsibility. The Justice System Journal, 15, 710-721.

51.

Meyer

R. E.

Egger-Peitler

Hollerer

M. A.

Hammerschmid

(2014). Of bureaucrats and passionate public managers; Institutional logics, executive identities, and public service motivation. Public Administration, 92, 861-885.

52.

Moshavi

Brown

Dodd

N. G.

(2003). Leader self-awareness and its relationship to subordinate attitudes and performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 407-418.

53.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2007a). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67, 40-53.

54.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2007b). Finding workable levers over work motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Administration & Society, 39, 803-832.

55.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

Wright

B. E.

(2012). Setting the table: How transformational leadership fosters performance information use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 143-164.

56.

Muir

(2014). Mentoring and leader identity development: A case study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25, 349-379.

57.

Naff

K. C.

Crum

(1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5-16.

58.

The National Association for Court Managers (NACM). (2017). Purposes and responsibilities of the court. Retrieved from https://nacmnet.org/cccg/cccg_1_corecompetency_purposes.html

59.

North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). (2014, March). New employees orientation. NC Judicial Branch New Employee Orientation. Retrieved from http://www.nccourts.org/neo/

60.

Ostroff

Atwater

Feinberg

(2004). Understanding self-other agreement: A look at rater and ratee characteristics, context, and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 57, 333-375.

61.

Paarlberg

L. E.

Lavigna

(2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving individual and organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70, 710-718.

62.

Pandey

S. K.

Wright

B. E.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2008). Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 89-108.

63.

Perry

J. L.

(1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.

64.

Perry

J. L.

(1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 181-197.

65.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373.

66.

Rainey

H. G.

(1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers. American Review of Public Administration, 16, 288-302.

67.

Rainey

H. G.

(1997). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

68.

Rosenthal

(1998). When women Lead: Integrative Leadership in state legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

69.

Senge

P. M.

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Publishing, Random House Inc.

70.

Sharp

(2008). Judicial formation: A step beyond education or training for new judges. Justice System Journal, 29, 100-104.

71.

Shipman

Kay

(2009). Womenomics. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

72.

Staats

A. W.

(1988). Skinner’s theory and the emotion-behavior relationship: Incipient change with major implications. American Psychologist, 43, 747-748.

73.

Sun

Henderson

A. C.

(2017). Transformational leadership and organizational processes: Influencing public performance. Public Administration Review, 77, 554-565.

74.

Svara

(1994). Facilitative leadership in government: Lessons from mayors and chairspersons. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

75.

Thornton

P. H.

Ocasio

Lounsbury

(2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

76.

Tummers

Knies

(2016). Measuring public leadership: Developing scales for four key public leadership roles. Public Administration, 94, 433-451.

77.

Van Slyke

Alexander

R. W

. (2006). Public service leadership: Opportunities for clarity and coherence. American Review of Public Administration, 36, 362-374.

78.

Van Wart

. (2013a). Administrative leadership theory: A reassessment after 10 years. Public Administration, 91, 521-543.

79.

Van Wart

. (2013b). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of leaders. Public Administration Review, 73, 553-565.

80.

Vigoda-Gadot

Shoham

Schwabsky

Ruvio

(2008). Public Sector Innovation for Europe: A multinational eight-country exploration of citizens’ perspectives. Public Administration, 86, 307-329.

81.

Visser

B. A.

Ashton

M. C.

Vernon

P. A.

(2008). What makes you think you’re so smart? Measured abilities, personality, and sex differences in relation to self-estimates of multiple intelligences. Journal of Individual Differences, 29(1), 35-44.

82.

Wamsley

G. L.

Bacher

R. N.

Goodsell

C. T.

Kronenberg

P. S.

Rohr

J. A.

Stivers

C. M.

Wolf

J. F.

(1990). Refounding public administration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

83.

Wang

Sui

Luthans

Wang

(2014). Impact of authentic leadership on performance: Role of followers’ positive psychological capital and relational processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 5-21.

84.

Wheeler

(1998). Empirical research and the politics of judicial administration: Creating the Federal Judicial Center. Law and Contemporary Problems, 51(3), 31-53.

85.

Wice

(1995). Court reform and judicial leadership: A theoretical discussion. Justice System Journal, 17, 309-321.

86.

Wittmer

(1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward preferences among government, hybrid sector, and business managers. Public Productivity and Management Review, 14, 369-383.

87.

Wright

B. E.

(2001). Public-sector work motivation: A review of the current literature and a revised conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 559-586.

88.

Wright

B. E.

Pandey

S. K.

(2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person—Organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society, 40, 502-521.

89.

Wright

P. M.

Nishii

L. H.

(2007). Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: Integrating multiple levels of analysis (CAHRS Working Paper #07-03). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/468

90.

Zaffrano

M. A.

(1993). A call to leadership. Justice System Journal, 15, 628-639.

91.

Zimmerman

I. M.

(1998). Presiding judges in state, federal courts need leadership skills (State-Federal Judicial Observer, No. 16). Retrieved from https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/observ16.pdf