|
Court administration and management
Papers and reports
Responding to Customers - Planning and service improvement in the Family Court of Australia
By Andrew Phelan, General Manager Corproate Services, Family Court of Australia, Third National Conference Hotel Sofitel Melbourne, Tuesday 20 - Saturday 24 October 1998
Introduction
The Family Court of Australia was created and continues to be shaped by
complex forces in society. It is a product of the legislative processes of the Commonwealth, its functions reflecting both Constitutional parameters and
political forces. In the near-quarter century since the Court's creation, there have been significant changes in Australian society and in prevailing attitudes to
how public funds should be spent. While the Court has also changed, questions have been raised (by governments, the Parliament, those who use the
Court and other groups in society) whether all of the functions and activities of the Court remain relevant, whether the Court should take on new functions and
whether other agencies might provide some of the services provided by the Court. Moreover, as with other Courts and public organisations, the Family Court has
increasingly been examined on its performance.
The Family Court transitioned to self-management from 1989, with increasing
powers over, and accountability for, its resources. As a Commonwealth "running costs agency", the Court now receives cash funds annually under
Appropriation Acts to meet its resource needs in performing its current functions – including paying judge and staff salaries, rent and other expenses and
purchasing assets. However, beyond setting broad functional parameters, Parliament has not, as yet, set output expectations for the Court; this will
change from July 1999, with the move to accrual budgeting. Nevertheless, the Court retains flexibility in deciding its priorities and how it spends the funds provided to it.
While the word may or may not be popularly accepted in the current context,
the Family Court is (in a very real sense) a "business". Be that as it may, the success of any business delivering services will depend on:
- the degree to which it understands its customers;
- the quality of its planning and service culture and the way these coalesce in the governance of the organisation;
- the efficiency and effectiveness of its service delivery processes; and
- the way it manages its resources.
The purpose of this paper is to explain what the Court is doing in the context of
the overall-planning regime introduced this year.
Structure of Court Planning
Planning involves far more than the production of paper or IT-based documents
declaring worthy or even useful intentions. The Court's planning regime recognises the need for:
- a range of strategic processes to help focus the efforts of those who are working in the Court;
- ways to develop and integrate the mechanisms needed to support achievement of the Court's goals (support mechanisms
); and
- ways to ensure commitment to delivering the required outcomes at the operational level (operational components).
The Family Court's planning regime comprises a wide range of activities, all
integrated but operating at and between these different levels.
Strategic elements
At the strategic level, the major current activities are:
- the development and implementation of the Court Strategic Plan and Service Charter;
- the development of a "balanced scorecard" to monitor the Court's performance in terms of the Court's strategic objectives;
- the negotiation of the Court's first Certified Agreement covering all non
-senior executive staff and Australian Workplace Agreements covering key staff.
Support elements
Support mechanisms include the range of policies, strategies and plans,
together with national initiatives and structural changes, needed to translate the Court's strategic intentions into action. Current activities are:
- the implementation of the whole of government accrual budgeting initiative;
- process design and improvement projects, in particular:
- § mapping and improving the Court's core (case management) processes;
- § re-engineering information management (library) services;
- § assessing support and other functions for contracting-out; and
- § investing in new technologies.
- the development of new human resource management/development strategies and action plans;
- the completion of structural changes recommended in various reviews; and
- the adoption of a new resource management regime
Work to commence shortly will include:
- the development of a new IT strategy and plans; and
- the development of a property strategy to inform decisions on where
Court services should be located and how accommodation should be designed and fitted out.
Operational elements
The emerging Court culture will place greater emphasis on teamwork in the
delivery of services. The key element for translating the Court's strategic objectives into better service will be the customer service improvement plan
prepared by each Registry and support unit. Other operational elements are:
- the introduction of a new staff performance management regime under the Certified Agreement; and
- the development of individual development plans.
Obviously, there are a great number of things which the Court is doing to
improve its services. Noting some are covered in the paper by Mr Len Glare, CEO of the Court, I propose to deal here with innovative activities which will give flavour to the whole.
Strategic Planning
The Family Court engaged The Value Creation Group Pty Limited to facilitate
the development of a new Court Strategic Plan. The intention was not simply to produce a new document or plan but to fundamentally review the Court's
approach to those for whom it exists to provide services.
The initial step was to conduct what consultant describes as an Operational Environment Assessment, which consisted of:
- interviews with senior judges and managers;
- focus groups of staff and managers to ascertain qualitative and
quantitative perceptions of existing service delivery (15 of these focus groups have been held, involving around 200 staff of the Court);
- focus groups of family customers, judges and staff to solicit family
perspectives of existing service needs, wants, expectations, values and service delivery gaps (six of these focus groups have been held – in
Brisbane (2), Sydney, Melbourne (2) and Adelaide – involving around 80 customers, 20 judges and Judicial Registrars and 50 staff of the Court);
- focus groups of solicitors and barristers to solicit their perspectives of
existing service needs, wants, expectations, values and service delivery gaps (four of these focus groups have been held – one each for solicitors
and barristers in each of Sydney and Melbourne – involving 25 firms of solicitors, 27 barristers and 60 staff of the Court);
- sessions with judges and staff to analyse the information provided by family and lawyer customers (10 of these have been held); and
- interviews by the consultant with a range of external organisational
representatives who have an interest or association with the Court, including law associations and counselling bodies.
The objectives which the Court set for this Environment Assessment were to:
- survey the needs, values, attitudes and satisfaction levels of the Court's external and internal customers;
- identify any service delivery "gaps" and deficiencies in existing service delivery arrangements;
- identify specific issues, opportunities and/or barriers to the Court progressing;
- identify strategic issues that need to be addressed to ensure a work
environment is created that is conducive to providing high quality customer service and continuous improvement;
- identify strategic issues that need to be addressed to involve all staff and
judges in understanding how their actions relate to the overall success of the Court in achieving a vision of high quality customer service; and
- identify strategic issues that need to be addressed to create an
infrastructure where performance improvement at the individual, team and organisational level is self-evolving.
It is worth elaborating on what occurred in the focus groups with family and
lawyer customers, as the Family Court's actions here are perhaps unique for courts anywhere.
The objectives of these focus groups (which the consultants have designed and
manage under the trademark "Value Creation Workshop") were to:
- determine the factors required for "best in the world" Family Court services through the eyes of the customer;
- determine the relative importance of these factors;
- measure the perceived current performance for each factor identified;
- measure any gaps between customer and judge/staff perceptions;
- identify service "irritants"; and
- determine the relative importance of these irritants.
Customers were selected randomly and the workshops were conducted off
Court premises by The Value Creation Group. A range of technologies and mechanisms were used to create a non-threatening environment in which
perceptions could be shared freely. While results were available for collation in the overall strategic planning process, other major effects were on the
perceptions of customers (who generally valued the opportunity to participate) and on judges/staff, who directly experienced customer feedback.
A concern was that the perceptions and comments of family customers would
be coloured by the results of their contact with the Court. However, the Court's experience confirmed the consultant's predictions that this would not occur.
The results of the Environment Assessment were collated and used in a three
-day residential workshop, involving senior judges and managers and facilitated by the consultant. The result (after fairly intensive discussion and debate) was
an agreed draft for the Court's strategic plan, which appears as Attachment A hereto.
Current activity sees ongoing refinement and input from judges and staff with the
intention of publishing the plan in mid-December.
An important element of the plan will be local customer service improvement
plans – which are intended to reflect national themes in the context of local circumstances and service needs ("think nationally, manage locally"). The
certified agreement reinforces the importance of these plans, by linking pay increases to progress in implementing them. The Court will invest in developing
Registry Managers and other team leaders to enable the customer service improvement plans to be implemented from early in 1999.
While the "proof will be in the pudding", perceptions at this point in time are that
the strategic planning process has provided the Court with a new sense of energy and focus and renewed commitment to developing innovative and cost
-effective ways to improve services to those whom it is here to serve.
A parallel and related process has seen the Court develop its Service Charter
through consultations with around 2,000 people (judges, staff, customers and legal and community groups). While a draft appears on the Court's website (it
will be launched formally and published by the Chief Justice in late-November 1998.
Activities to Support the Court's Strategic Plan
Reference has already been made to the range of whole-of-Court activities
underway to convert strategic intentions into action. I will focus here on those key activities intended to improve processes, comprising:
- mapping and improving the Court's core (case management) service processes;
- re-engineering information management (library) services;
- assessing support and other functions for contracting-out; and
- investing in new technologies.
Proposals for a new resource management strategy for the Court will also be outlined.
Process Mapping
The Family Court operates under Case Management Guidelines, which define
litigation pathways and the actions required at key parts of the processes. However, there are variations in resources, practices and performance between
Registries of the Court with consequent impacts on service, including delays.
To support the Court's new National Strategic Themes of "tailoring services to
the needs of families and children" and "designing work practices to make best use of resources", the Court has engaged KPMG Management Consulting to
map and compare the processes in two of its major Registries (Melbourne and Brisbane), review processes in Sydney and Parramatta and advise on
opportunities to improve Court processes. Full terms of engagement are to:
- map the Registry processes in Brisbane and Melbourne;
- compare the efficiency and effectiveness of Registry processes with internal benchmarks;
- identify key drivers that influence elapsed time, backlogs and delays for Registry processes;
- model the registry processes in a way that allows drivers and parameters to be modified and processes to be simulated; and
- report on the efficiency and effectiveness of registry processes and identify opportunities for redesign of Registry processes.
The consultancy has been under way for about six weeks and a report is due in
early-November 1998. Relevant judges and staff have been consulted and the consultants have observed and analysed work practices in the Registries. A
model to simulate processes has been built and is being populated with relevant information from the Court.
Early indications are that the consultancy will identify opportunities to improve Court business in five broad areas:
1. reaching consent between parties earlier in the process;
2. providing more judicial time for hearing matters;
3. assisting the unrepresented more effectively;
4. improving the system support facilities for staff; and
5. introducing effective management information.
The advice and model will inform debate in the Court about better practices, help
identify cost effective process improvement projects and allow simulation of options for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery processes.
Library Services
To support the Court's National Strategic Themes of "working together to meet
our customers' needs" and "designing work practices to make best use of resources", the Court has engaged a group of library and IT experts in a consultancy led by Ernst and Young to:
- identify user needs for library (information management) services;
- analyse and recommend preferred means of delivering those services;
- recommend functions and roles of Court library service providers and related processes; and
- perform a full costing of existing services and proposals.
Included in the scope of the consultancy is the Court's website (www.familycourt.gov.au) and use of the internet.
The consultants will report in late-November 1998. The advice will inform
decisions in the Court about budget priorities, structures, the extent of contracting-out and processes.
Contracting Out
Competitive tendering and contracting can be a means to achieving better
quality and/or lower cost services. Commonwealth policy, good resource management and the Court's National Strategic Themes support assessing the
Court's non-judicial processes to see whether they can be delivered better under contract.
The Court has contracted out its internal audit function, a contract having been
signed with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu this week. The contractual arrangements offer a far wider range of services, at higher quality and lower cost, than
previously provided by salaried staff of the Court. The core work of the internal auditors will cover the Court's audit plan (general and IT) and fraud risk
assessment plan, both prepared under a consultancy with KPMG earlier this year. However, beyond this, they will conduct efficiency audits and process improvement reviews of a number of functions.
A priority task of the internal auditors is to review current human resource and
financial processes in the Court to inform decisions by the Court whether to upgrade existing systems and retain current processing functions, replace
existing systems and retain current processing functions or contract for the provision of human resource and/or financial services. Decisions in this area will
need to be made by the end of 1998, to allow an orderly transition to Court control by July 1999 of payroll and funds management functions previously
performed by the Department of Finance and Administration.
The Housley group were contracted recently to advise on options for outsourcing
data and voice communication networks used by the Court. The Court requires more capability and economy in this area and the consultancy will assess
options for the establishment of call centres for improved delivery of services to Court customers. More general outsourcing of IT functions will be pursued in 1999.
The Court is also reviewing its contracts covering property (Knight Frank Price
Waterhouse) and travel (Ansett) preparatory to testing the market next year.
Investing in New Technologies
Improved IT is essential if the Court is to realise its potential in service delivery.
IT will represent the major area of investment by the Court in 1998/99 – representing around 5% of recurrent funding.
The major IT improvement activities proposed for this financial year are:
1. the request for tender for a new case management support system (released last week);
2. development and implementation of the case management system;;
3. completion of the LAN/WAN in all Registries, including completion of cabling;
4. network restructure;
5. introduction of new software (Windows95, Microsoft Office 97 and Lotus Notes;
6. appropriate training;
7. purchase of new and replacement hardware, notably workstations (around 400) and servers;
8. introduction of the Judicial Benchbook and related applications;
9. completion of the Defended Hearing Statistics system and its extension to Duty List Statistics; and
10. commencement of a project to develop the next generation Court IT plan.
Existing limited video facilities are being upgraded and trials of newer equipment
, for use in both Court and administrative environments, are about to start.
In addition, whole-of-government developments on outsourcing IT will impact on
Court IT activities in the period, while the Court has had to take appropriate steps to ensure "Year 2000" issues are addressed.
Resource Management
Resource management refers to the organisation, direction and control of
available resources to achieve defined outcomes. In the case of Commonwealth budget-funded agencies, there are Constitutional rules governing the source of
funds and treatment of revenues, with fairly strong, traditional accountability lines from Chief Executives to Parliament for efficient and effective resource
(cash) expenditure, compliance with Commonwealth laws and policies and control of funds. There is now emerging accountability on Chief Executives for
the delivery of outputs efficiently and effectively, with concomitant shift in the basis for accounting for costs and revenues to an accrual basis.
Best practice resource management will comprise a comprehensive and cohesive set of management practices which are both:
- supportive of the strategic directions of the Court; and
- integrated within the core processes through which the Court operates its business.
For Commonwealth budget funded agencies there are therefore imperatives for
their resource management regimes to show clear links between Parliamentary expectations in the delivery of outputs, actual appropriations and organisational
performance in the delivery of those outcomes. These imply the need for agencies to have strategies which embrace:
- establishment of the output (volume and quality) basis for which they receive funding;
- development, maintenance and use of information on (full, accrual) costs and values created in the delivery of outputs;
- responsibility for the management of resources; and
- accountability to Parliament and other stakeholders for the agency's performance in the delivery of outputs.
Where volumes of outputs are driven by external forces, a needs-based resource
model should be included in the basis for funding. While Chief Executives will retain the flexibility to move resources between components of their agency to
meet overall output expectations, agencies will need to have processes to demonstrate efficient and effective use of resources in each output category and in total.
Organisations are increasingly focusing on output-driven management of
resources against predefined and agreed performance measures and targets for time, cost and quality. Commonwealth budget-funded agencies must embrace
this change in focus as part of the move to accrual budgeting. To achieve this focus and fully understand organisational impacts, resource models are being
integrated into appropriate budgeting and costing models of organisations within refocused strategic planning processes.
The critical step in moving to effective resource management is transforming the
Court so its culture embraces best practice rather than being constrained by existing practices and mindsets.
This can be expressed in the following steps:
- "assessing and defining the vision" – the strategic plan is critical as it will set the overall direction of the Court. Once this is established and
agreed the processes which support the plan can be defined. If the strategic plan is not firmly entrenched within the Court there is a high risk
that the processes which underpin it will be inefficient or focus on achieving the wrong outputs. This situation does not promote effective resource management.
- process design and evaluation – core Court processes should be based on, and appropriately reflect, the strategic plan. The process
design and evaluation must ensure that value added content of operations is maximised and that non-value added activities are minimised. In some
instances this means complete redefinition and redesign of current core processes based on the guiding principles agreed as part of the strategic
plan, best practice information and outcomes desired by the Court. In this stage key drivers of the process would be defined to understand how
and where cost/resource requirements could be impacted by changes.
- determining resource requirements – a third step in the approach to maximising resource management capabilities is to identify infrastructure
requirements other than staffing necessary to support the new processes and build a resourcing model to quantify human resource needs. In this
phase a model would be built which captures information about critical activities of the core processes.
- achieving continuous improvement in resource management – once
resource requirements are determined from the model, outcomes achieved with the defined resources must be monitored to ensure performance levels are achieved.
§ This implies useful means of capturing and using relevant management information preferably automated.
§ It also requires appropriate incentives to reward performance
rather than simply monitoring costs. Key performance indicators must be defined to measure performance and output on which funding can be based.
§ With result-oriented measures (covering a balance of measures),
the emphasis will be on the organisation being the service provider rather than a resource consumer and the incentive would be to improve performance including overall resource management.
Funding based on output measures rather than workload projections will promote the idea of providing value for money.
As discussed above, the Court is moving quickly to develop a strategic plan
which will inform the definition of outputs to be agreed with government (through DoFA) as the basis for recurrent funding through appropriations. While
indicative outputs have been declared for 1999/2000, it is likely that completion of the strategic plan will force a rethink of the basis on which the Court will seek recurrent funding.
Critical factors must exist for costing and budgeting models to deliver true value as resource management tools for the Court:
- core processes must be appropriately defined and reflect the Court's
customer service strategy (see the previous section on the KPMG consultancy);
- cost drivers must be understood by the Court and information against those drivers collected; and
- performance objectives must be established and understood for the business operations.
Best practice organisations often approach the development of these critical factors in three phases:
- positioning – understanding the current position of the organisation by identifying:
§ areas of best and worst practice;
§ areas of over and under funding; and
§ critical success factors of the organisation;
- transformation – process re-engineering, rationalisation of services, business rules and service channels, identification and implementation of
enabling technology and reshaping behaviour;
- continuous improvement – implementation of measurements and control systems (accountability and key performance indicators),
development of service culture, implementation of incentive based reward system.
The purpose of the Court engaging KPMG to map core processes in Melbourne
and Brisbane is to obtain a better understanding of current processes, resource utilisation rates and causes and effects – hence, to inform debate about
efficiency and effectiveness of processes and allow some internal benchmarks to be established. Importantly, it could be seen as a threshold step towards
transforming processes and establishing baselines for that purpose.
There also needs to be a parallel process through which the Court visibly moves
to maximise the deployment of resources into customer service (true outputs). This process of agreeing priorities for resource deployment in the Court would essentially mean:
- all people working in the Court recognising the productivity pressures on the Court (an internal communications issue):
§ better customer service;
§ rewarding and investing in staff;
§ meeting efficiency dividends; and
§ investing in the Court's future;
- corporate agreement to deploy resources into the maximisation of
customer service. This would embrace strategies to reduce (or perhaps get better value from) overheads (management and "back office") and
internal service costs, using external benchmarks and competitive tendering and contracting;
- corporately agreeing a menu of tools for improving productivity at the unit
level, while allowing discretion where it matters to deploy resources at the local level to meet customer needs (through customer service improvement plans);
- agreeing a priority list of mission critical projects requiring corporate
investment (such as major infrastructure developments) under business case arrangements;
- agreeing "productivity dividends" needed at all levels to generate funds to invest in mission critical projects; and
- formally aligning budgets with priorities.
These processes would be facilitated by the introduction of appropriate financial
and human resource management information systems. This is another reason why priority is being given to the development of a business case canvassing
various options to enable the delivery of proper management tools and relevant information to managers and staff – including complete outsourcing of the end-to
-end provision of these support processes . Such systems would also facilitate the process of accounting back to Parliament and other stakeholders for the use of funds and the delivery of outcomes.
Finally, any resource management strategy must ensure that within the Court
there is a management-practices framework which promotes innovation and process improvement, develops and maintains management skills and ensures
managers have appropriate levels of authority and responsibility over resources. In this context, the Certified Agreement, AWAs, the framework of formal
financial and personnel delegations and the structure of internal budgets, among several others, form critical components of the resource management strategy.
To sum up
There is an extraordinary number of activities underway in the Family Court, all
intended to build on the Court's commitment to service. The intention, broadly put, is to design and implement services better tailored to the needs of the
Australian community. The driving and integrating element is the new strategic plan, with a range of supporting activities (chosen for their achieveability,
necessity and usefulness) carefully coordinated to ensure their timings inform decisions on Court direction and how increasingly scarce resources should be deployed.
Attachment A
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN
August 1998
- Operational Themes
- Key Customer Results
- Key Actions
- 1 Our Leadership Model
- 2 Unbreakable Rules in the Court
1. OUR PURPOSE:
SOLVING FAMILY DISPUTES
2. OUR VISION – (What We Want to Be Known For):
- Putting children and families first in the design and delivery of services
- Cost-effective dispute resolution for separated families
- Being a world leader in the development of innovative services for families in conflict
- Promoting functional family relationships after separation
3. OUR DRIVING FORCE – (Customer):
Our Customers
Our Primary Customers
- Families
4. OUR BUSINESS LOGIC:
Customer Logic
FCA focuses its services on families who are going through separation and
develops alliances with community organisations to ensure families in need can access these services.
Value Creation Logic
FCA demonstrates leadership in family dispute resolution by developing services
with features and functions to engender trust and peace of mind within families.
Development Logic
FCA will develop as an organisation by being able to communicate the value
added benefits of its services that respond to changes in society.
Operational Logic
FCA will deliver the above logics by adopting a passion (zeal) for service
excellence that requires the organisation to continuously tailor services to the needs of families.
5. OUR NATIONAL STRATEGIC THEMES:
- Tailoring Services to the needs of families and children.
- Community confidence and understanding.
- Strategic thinking and discussion.
- Working together to meet our customers' needs.
- Designing work practices to make best use of resources.
6. OUR KEY RESULT AREAS (KRAs):
KRA 1: Strategic themes reflected in everyone's role/job
KRA 2: An effective integrated management process
KRA 3: Customer-driven IT improvements
KRA 4: Everyone involved in understanding customers
7. OUR STRATEGIES:
Key Result Area Strategies
KRA 1: Strategic Themes Reflected in everyone's role/job
Strategy 1.1: Put in place a process for staff to learn of and reflect on the draft strategic plan and to have strategic
discussions about it.
Timeline: Commence August 1998
Conclude by 20 November, 1998
Responsibility: Chief Justice )
Chief Executive Officer ) via delegations
Strategy 1.2: In consultation with staff devise a range of mechanisms to continually and consistently emphasise
strategic themes.
Timeline: 1 April, 1999
Review annually
Responsibility: Chief Justice /Judge Administrators
CEO/General Manager Client Services
Strategy 1.3: Build a framework to use the strategic plan in decision making at all levels of the Court.
Timeline: By commencement of operation of strategic plan.
Responsibility: Chief Justice
Chief Executive Officer
Principal Registrar
General Manager Corporate Services
General Manager Client Services
General Adviser Dispute Resolution
Strategy 1.4: Design and implement a process to get feedback from staff on how the services provided by them
support the strategic plan.
Timeline: Implement by 1 April, 1999
Evaluate by 30 June, 1999 and review annually thereafter.
Responsibility: Chief Justice
General Manager Corporate Services
Key Result Area Strategies
KRA 2 An Effective Integrated Management Process
Strategy 2.1: Clarify judicial independence in relation to the management of the Court:
- conduct a process of consultation to achieve understanding of roles;
- four streams working together as one partnership to be the guiding principle for the management of the Court.
Strategy 2.2: Develop a written protocol for the guidance of
working relationships between Judges and Managers which:
respects and recognises each stream's area of responsibility;
recognises that the Judge Administrator has responsibility for all Judicial matters;
accepts that the referral of all Operational and Judicial
matters to the Judge Administrator should be through the Area Manager;
accepts that the Registry Manager is the first point of
contact for all operational matters in the Registry.
Strategy 2.3: Review the role of CJCC to ensure that its ongoing function supports the Strategic Plan.
- describe the CJCC members' responsibility to the Chief Justice in relation to:
- strategic directions (based on customer driven recommendations);
- building partnerships with external organisations; and
- operational performance in core activities.
- clarify the decision making role of the CEO and the place of Senior Manager Meetings in relation to CJCC; and
- describe the decision making hierarchy at each level of the Court.
Key Result Area Strategies
KRA 3 Customer-driven IT Improvements
Strategy 3.1 All staff to have computer access for information and communication by 1.7.99.
Strategy 3.2 All counter staff at the point of customer
contact will have the information necessary to deal with the customer efficiently by end 1999.
Strategy 3.3 Identify the types of information and develop
processes including responsibilities for improved access to information via the home page by end 1998.
Key Result Area Strategies
KRA 4 Everyone Involved in Understanding Customers
Strategy 4.1 Design systems for staff to understand customers – being feedback systems which:
involve staff and customers in their design;
bring customers into contact with staff;
are timely and cost-effective;
protect the privacy and safety of customers and staff and
avoid the need for disqualification of judicial officers;
take advantage of formal research and input from experts;
take advantage of the normal business contact with customers;
encourage staff and customers to give and get feedback; and
encourage innovations in feedback mechanisms.
Timeline: By January 1999.
Responsibility: General Manager Client Services
General Manager Corporate Services
8. BUSINESS UNITS:
9. FCA'S LEADERSHIP MODEL ELEMENTS AND BEHAVIOURS:
|
1 Vision and Values
|
- Our leaders monitor and interpret the environment
- Our leaders communicate the vision and values
- Our leaders give consistent messages
|
|
2 Direction
|
- Our leaders clearly state the aims and objectives
- Our leaders set priorities
- Our leaders assign responsibilities
|
|
3 Taking People With You
|
- Our leaders listen to me
- Our leaders support me in fair weather and foul
- Our leaders recognise my contributions
|
|
4 Setting the Example
|
- Our leaders never break the "never-ever" rules
- Our leaders demonstrate trust and confidence in staff
- Our leaders treat others as they expect to be treated themselves
|
|
5 Empowering Others To Act
|
- Our leaders delegate clearly and courteously
- Our leaders are mentors
- Our leaders give feedback
|
|
6 Persistence
|
- Our leaders reinforce the message
- Our leaders evaluate results
- Our leaders follow through
|
|
10. UNBREAKABLE RULES:
1 Never make an unauthorised disclosure of confidential or private
information or otherwise violate a customer's trust.
2 Never be partisan towards any customer of the Court.
3 Never discriminate on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, religion,
sexual preference or physical or other disabilities.
4 Never undermine the Court or your colleagues.
|
|
Disclaimer The views expressed in the papers and reports provided this section
of the site are those of the Author. The Family Court of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views of a
particular author or authenticate the accuracy of the information provided. The use a reader makes of the information
provided in these papers is the reader's sole responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|