Court Leader’s Advantage Podcast Series, December 16th, 2025, Episode
There are strong arguments favoring the selection of court managers based on objective merit-focused criteria criteria. While there is little desire to expand the “merit system” to themanagerial level, hiring and promotion decisions rooted in proven competence and performance can certainly strengthen both leadership quality and institutional integrity. Yet just beneath the surface lies a dilemma courts have wrestled with for decades: what exactly counts as “merit,” and how objective can we really be in a system shaped by politics, personalities, and pressure?
Is managerial hiring grounded on objective criteria even possible in our court system? Can the administrative machinery ever be fully insulated from the political milieu in which courts operate? This tension creates a shadow over the ideal of purely merit-based hiring, as political alignments and institutional loyalties can sometimes weigh as heavily as managerial skill.
Selection based on objective criteria prioritizes quantifiable results, efficiency, budgeting, and project outcomes, yet this focus risks pushing aside intangibles such as empathy, fairness, and cultural awareness. So the question becomes: can we measure what truly matters, or are we only measuring only what is immediately measurable?
Are Merit-Based Decisions Possible?
Consider these six commonly used criteria:
Effective Communication and Interpersonal Competence Determining if a candidate can effectively communicate and demonstrate interpersonal competence is one of the more objective criteria, however, an interview might have to choose between interpersonal competence and say legal, or court operational knowledge. Leading Teams and Analyzing Problems
Leading court teams and analyzing complex problems are vital in court administration, but with few objectivemeasures, an interview panel might favor the candidate who tells the more compelling story.
Education, Certifications, & Professional Development
Degrees and certifications, which show one’s continuing professional development might be the most objectively measured criteria.
Knowledge of the Law, Court Operations, or Technology
Legal, technical, or operational expertise is easier to objectively assess, however candidates outside the court system are at a huge disadvantage compared to internalcandidates.
Fresh Thinking and Innovation
Demonstrations of fresh thinking and innovation in an area outside the courts can be challenging for an interview panel to assess how a candidate might perform in a court environment.
· Loyalty to the Court
Loyalty to the Court can be highly subjective and might not even be discussed during the hiring process.
This month, we are exploring merit selection. Can truly objective, measurable criteria be applied when choosing court management leaders, or is the ideal of merit always just slightly out of reach?
Today’s Panel
Beth Urban Deputy State Court Administratorfor the Unified Judicial System in Pierre, South Dakota
Whitney Blighton Senior Management Analyst for Superior Court, in Vancouver, Washington
Zennell Brown Fairness & Accountability Administrator for the Michigan State Court Administrative Office
Erica Payne-Santiago Deputy Court Administrator and Jury Commissioner for the Prince George’s County Circuit Court in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.
Become part of the Conversation. Submit your comments and questions to CLAPodcast@nacmnet.org
Please take a moment to share this episode on your Facebook or LinkedIn pages. The more people we bring into this dialogue, the stronger our collective understanding of courts and court administration becomes.
