Michelle del Rosario
Effective Leadership & Management Class - Barbara Miller
Individual Paper
March 14, 2013

The Application of the SCARF Model on the 2011 Re-Organization of SF Court Reporters

I. INTRODUCTION

On Friday, September 30, 2011, the San Francisco Superior Court (SFSC) laid-off a total of sixty-seven (67) employees, including twenty-nine (29) Certified Court Reporters.

The Court started the fiscal year of 2011-2012 with a $13.75 million budget deficit, and had initially mailed out two hundred (200) pink slips in July, representing 41% of it’s staff.

Fortunately, austerity measures (such as extending mandatory furlough days, enforcing voluntary unpaid time off, reducing office hours, and closing civil courtrooms) and very aggressive negotiations with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) resulted in an additional $7.5 million that was used to salvage one hundred thirty-three (133) careers. September 30, 2011 was a devastating day to these sixty-seven (67) employees, and this paper will focus particularly on the effects of this re-organization on the emotions and reactions of the Court Reporters who were directly and indirectly affected.

The SFSC website defines Court Reporters as “guardians of the record”. It is emphasized that not only are they Court employees, but they are also purveyors of transcripts for all interested parties. Their main job duties are providing legislated transcripts of criminal proceedings, and providing appellate transcripts to the California Court of Appeals and to SFSC.

In early February 2013, I distributed about twenty (20) surveys [see attached] to Court Reporters, mostly the ones still employed by SFSC and also a few whom were laid-off from their jobs. I received a total of thirteen (13) responses back, and from those stem the key issues of this paper.

II. SCARF MODEL

SCARF stands for Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness. It is a Management and Leadership model introduced by David Rock in 2008 wherein he asserts that the human brain needs these “five (5) domains of human social experience” just strongly as it’s primal needs for food, water and shelter. And that the lack of one or more of these domains trigger a threat response in our brains, which in turn determine how we negatively we perceive others and how adversely we interact in social settings. Likewise, the perceived presence or increase of these domain/s create a reward response in our brains – which fosters feelings of security, satisfaction, involvement, trust and a sense of belonging.

Status refers to one’s sense of relative importance to others, also known as the “pecking order” in one’s social group. Certainty denotes one’s need to predict the future because of familiarity, routine or patterns. Autonomy concerns one’s sense of control over one’s own environment, also known as “having options”. Relatedness refers to one’s sense of belonging in a social group that also fosters a sense of safety. Lastly, Fairness signifies one’s perception of fair exchanges among people, be it money, information, judgment, etc.

III. SURVEY RESPONSES: SCARF ISSUES

A. LACK OF STATUS

All of the Court Reporters’ responses regarding the issue of status were overwhelmingly negative.

They all expressed dismay that their group was disproportionately laid-off compared to other employee groups. Out of the 67 employees who were let go, 29 were Court Reporters, representing more than 43% of the lay-offs.

Undoubtedly, losing a good source of income was the main reason for their feeling of distress. Some of the respondents who got dismissed had applied for unemployment benefits, a humbling process that decreased their sense of status even further. One respondent even moved to a different state and started his/her career over because of the economic damage felt in his/her family.

Likewise, job seniority was also critically affected by losing the bottom half of their seniority list. This made them feel very insecure in their pecking order in the group.

Most expressed grave feelings of negativity such as “devastation”, “felt like I had no value”, “demoralized”, “powerless” and “disrespected”.

B. LACK OF CERTAINTY

A majority of the respondents replied that losing their long-term job assignments with judges who they have nurtured relationships with for years, was the main cause of their feeling of lack of certainty.

Some of the remaining Court Reporters in the SFSC got redistributed: partly because they had lost their commissioners who were also laid-off, and also because they had lost their courtrooms which were eliminated. But the greater part of their group was able to remain in the same courthouse, albeit a different courtroom in order to fill the vacancies left behind.

The subsequent upheaval of being re-assigned to different courtrooms and/or judges was the main source of uncertainty that was expressed in the survey responses. Some respondents even became “floaters” meaning they had to check with their supervisors everyday in order to find out which courtroom and which building they would be assigned to – a considerably stressful situation.

Moreover, all expressed frustration about the resulting chaos of the re-organization of their assignments. Specifically stated were disorganized work schedules, last-minute assignments to courtrooms, and difficulty in asking for time-off.

Another source of their instability is their suspicion that more lay-offs are imminent, especially with the advent of the Court’s use of Electronic Recording Equipment in creating the official record for criminal cases that are either misdemeanors or infractions.

In early 2012, the Superior Court of San Francisco County spent $39,268.00 to purchase three (3) units of Jefferson Audio Video Systems (JAVS), including “audio/video recorders, audio/video processors, servers and various software”. JAVS was eventually used to create the official record in criminal departments which lacked a Court Reporter. The digital audio recording created by this machine is then transcribed by contractually-hired stenographers, not by SFSC’s Court Reporters. This is a huge cause of consternation, as was expressed by the remaining Court Reporters in their responses.

This ambiguity in their job security has caused a few of them to leave their job in SFSC for other courts that are regarded as more reliable job environments.

In addition, for the respondents that were terminated, losing a steady source of income and health benefits were their main sources of uncertainty.

C. LACK OF AUTONOMY

All of the remaining Court Reporters who responded to my survey conveyed a loss of personal control over their job environment – particularly when it comes to choice of work schedules, offices, job assignments and vacation requests.

A few of the respondents expressed that a more rigid deadline to submit their transcripts was enacted to coincide with the lay-offs in 2011. This is a major cause of stress for these Court Reporters, who feel overburdened by too many transcript requests.

Sometimes, they are also assigned to work in courtrooms away from their offices containing their computers, printers, paper supplies, etc. This leads to their loss of personal time during nights and weekends, because they cannot work on transcripts during their breaks or lunch periods.

Some respondents also describe the feeling of being micro-managed, which considerably reduces their feeling of autonomy and ability to influence the outcome of their job tasks.

Similarly, a certain Court Reporter who no longer works for SFSC stated that he/she is now forced to prepare records for depositions, which constrains him/her to working at home alone for very long hours. This apparently has produced tremendous discontent and frustration in his/her life.

D. LACK OF RELATEDNESS

Aside from the obvious loss of connection to the co-workers they lost, all of the respondents articulated the feeling of a severe loss of connection to the judges that they used to be assigned to.

The group’s sense of camaraderie might also have been significantly damaged as a result of the rift caused by the issue of Real Time Technology (RTT).

RTT refers to the software and a method of transcribing that allows Court Reporters to instantly covert their stenographic notes into English text. This text is displayed on computer monitors or screens in the courtroom. This potentially allows Court Reporters deliver transcripts within hours, even minutes, after court adjourns. According to The National Court Reporters Association, RTT is the “only voice-to-text technology that meets the rigorous demand for accuracy that exists in the legal environment.” In order to be certified nationally as a Real Time writer, Court Reporters must be able to consistently take down testimony at speeds of about two hundred (200) words per minute.

In order to be a Certified Real Time Reporter in California, one must be a Registered Professional Reporter. One must also be able to set-up and operate your own RTT equipment, accurately write Real Time for five (5) minutes at 96% accuracy from a professionally-recorded two-voice Question & Answer material at the speed of 200 wpm, and lastly, convert the file into an ASCII text file that would be displayed in computer screens for judges or attorneys.

Not all SFSC Court Reporters are Certified Real Time Reporters (CRTR). At the date of issuance of the lay-off notices in July 2011, most were considered Qualified Real Time Reporters (QRTR) – which means that they had not taken the formal test described above, but were using RTT in their courtrooms.

Being a CRTR was not a requirement in their contract with SFSC. But apparently, during the turmoil caused by the re-organization, a few of the CRTR’s formed a group to try and push this certification to be mandatory for employment. Most of these CRTR’s claimed that they were in a desperate situation, being in the bottom half of the seniority list. They felt compelled to advocate for the RTT certification in order to preserve their jobs.

Meanwhile, the remainder of the Court Reporters who were not CRTR’s felt like they had been attacked by their own co-workers, and reacted as such. Thus ensued an unpleasant dispute within the SFSC Court Reporter’s Union which brought about a faction during an already tumultuous period.

The result of the union vote was that RTT certification was not made a requirement to be a SFSC Court Reporter, but the damage was already done. A few respondents expressed feelings of ostracism, cold-shouldering, and shunning around the workplace. Most admitted to a sense of distrust and bitterness that prevails to this day.

E. LACK OF FAIRNESS

Most of the respondents referred to their previous answers regarding Status, Certainty, Autonomy and Relatedness to explain their sense of unfairness during the re-organization.

All respondents feel that the Court Reporters were unjustly targeted as a cost-cutting strategy by being replaced by JAVS. Most feel that their years, sometimes decades, of service to SFSC were completely disregarded.

Almost all the Court Reporters who responded to my survey expressed a great deal of dissatisfaction about how the SFSC Administration conducted the lay-offs. One in particular states that “a punitive, non-supportive management style has found it’s way into our once wonderful Court.” Another calls SFSC a “misinformed and unproductive bureaucracy”.
Moreover, most respondents communicated a feeling of being unappreciated. Some even wrote that they believe that SFSC does not give recognition or gratitude for the “efficiency, excellence, dedication and sacrifice” they perform for their jobs.

A few even conveyed a feeling of unfairness coming from their own supervisors, stating that they feel that certain Court Reporters are given preferential treatment in the form of better job assignments (in courtrooms where more transcripts are usually ordered, ensuring more revenue).

Unfortunately, one respondent echoed what most wrote down, “People are afraid to speak up for fear of retribution.”

Noteworthy, certain respondents even suggested that the fact that some of SFSC’s judges should have been laid-off, and not just all the commissioners. There was also some mention of the expensive use of visiting judges who are apparently paid their pension plus “visiting judge pay”, implying even more inequity in how the court’s budget is utilized.

SFSC has fifty-one (51) judges, who as constitutional officers are protected from lay-offs.

IV. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS: SCARF ISSUES

A. HOW TO INCREASE STATUS Most of the Court Reporters who responded to my survey cited changing management style as one of the main ways to increase their feeling of status in the organization.

All expressed a desire to observe more supportive administrators and managers, with better appreciation for their diligence, professionalism and efficiency as workers.

Some also voiced a yearning for more recognition for their group doing more work with lesser bodies. They apparently do not have Performance Evaluations, thus decreasing their sense of self-importance, and giving them a belief that being a good worker is not valued in SFSC.

Lastly, all respondents conveyed a need for better dialogue and collaboration with the administration, which they felt were utterly lacking during the re-organization.

B. HOW TO INCREASE CERTAINTY

All respondents were unanimous that communication is the foremost means to increase their feeling of certainty in the workplace.

Most aspire for more transparency in workplace processes (job assignments, promotions, vacation scheduling, etc.) because they seem to have very little understanding on how or why these things are done. They feel that this lack of transparency creates an environment of ambiguity, confusion and suspicion among them. Some respondents also crave for a more open and honest discussion with management, especially during the re-organization in 2011. Some feel that they were “left in the dark” and “disrespected” because of the insufficiency of exchange of ideas between them and their leaders. Likewise, a few would like to address the residual emotional and social effects of the re-organization with management.

Another specific way they would like to increase certainty in their job is to be given definite work assignments on a day-to-day basis. Most don’t even expect being given weekly assignments, but it seems that knowing where they will be working for the next 2-3 days will greatly help ease their job anxiety. Having as much advance notice as possible regarding changes to their assignments also seem to be an important way to help alleviate the frustration they feel to having to move around many times in a week.

One respondent summarized it as such, “Communication is key to establishing trust, fortifying a sense of purpose and improving morale.”

C. HOW TO INCREASE AUTONOMY

Most of the Court Reporters’ responses to this issue articulate a petition for freedom and control.

Most respondents would like more freedom to work on transcripts, which seem to be another source of distress for them. They are apparently required by California law to file their transcripts within ten (10) court days of the court proceeding, which adds to their stress level as they already feel over-worked ever since the lay-offs.

A few of the respondents also suggested that having the freedom to switch job assignments with other Court Reporters, which they apparently used to do in the past. They claim that this enabled them to have better control of their work schedules since they don’t need to clear it with their supervisors, who are usually too busy or too far-detached from the situation to understand the need for the switch.
D. HOW TO INCREASE RELATEDNESS

Because of the divisiveness caused by the rift between Certified Real Time Reporters (CRTR) and Qualified Real Time Reporters (QRTR) during the re-organization, most respondents feel an urgent need to improve their relationship with each other.

Several proposals that were mentioned in the responses were mandatory team-building exercises and the occasional social event at work (breakfast or luncheon meetings) – both meant to encourage relatedness thru teamwork and socialization.

E. HOW TO INCREASE FAIRNESS

Almost all the respondents conveyed a dismay and disappointment with the insensitive and unjust manner they perceived the lay-offs were conducted. All desire a more honest and objective approach by management concerning their work issues.

Specific examples of what they would like to see are better enforcement of break and lunch periods, increased transparency in job assignments, establishment of support systems for the Court Reporters who got laid-off, and greater sensitivity to the job stress they feel daily.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION

I believe that both Court Reporters and their management would significantly benefit from understanding David Rock’s SCARF model for two reasons. First, recognizing what triggers threat responses in yourself, your colleagues, and your subordinates will enable people to devise interactions in order to minimize these threats. Second, recognizing what activates reward responses in yourself, your colleagues and your subordinates will enable people to effectively use these motivators.

David Rock declares in his papers that social threats can greatly inhibit high-quality perception, critical thinking, cognitive reasoning, creativity, and collaboration with others. And that understanding the SCARF model will significantly improve people’s capacity to recognize and ultimately modify their own and other people’s behavior in social situations.

The 2011 re-organization which virtually cut the Court Reporters’ workforce in half has critically damaged their social standing by triggering threat responses and defensiveness within them.

The remaining Court Reporters who responded to my survey all communicated a deep sense of pessimism regarding their work environment, job expectations and the managerial approach to their issues.

All respondents feel anxious and insecure about their job security, with a few expressing a desire to retire early in order to alleviate this stress (STATUS AND CERTAINTY).

Most also feel concerned about their belief that management has little desire for communicating with their group about issues that affect their job description, performance and satisfaction (CERTAINTY).

Most respondents also feel unjustly micro-managed and overly-controlled in their daily tasks, which results in their feelings of mistrust, apathy and disinterest in their jobs (AUTONOMY).

Some still feel the conflict and divisiveness created by the division on the Real Time Technology issue affecting their interactions with each other (RELATEDNESS).

Moreover, all respondents express distrust of management because of their perception that their group was unreasonably laid-off, and then replaced with machines (FAIRNESS).

An overwhelming sense of negativity and apprehension permeate each survey response I read in the preparation of this paper. However, if the SCARF concept was applied to their problems, I believe that management and the Court Reporters themselves can greatly heal the emotional wounds caused by the re-organization.

Mainly, they must realize that understanding other people’s minds and emotions is crucial to the way our brains process information. Human beings have strong social needs, which in turn are primary motivators for human behavior.

A. STATUS, CERTAINTY AND AUTONOMY

Most people are vulnerable to any change in their social status, thus comparing one’s self to another with a higher status elicits a threat response: Court Reporters mentally comparing themselves to other court staff who were not given pink slips or whose job group was not adversely affected by the lay-offs.

Likewise, the Court Reporters surveyed feel very little clarity about SFSC’s business plans or strategies in the near future, this makes some of them feel apathetic about their job performance and efficiency.

To reduce these threats to status and certainty, management might pay more attention to the Court Reporters, give them acknowledgment for the stress and anxiety the lay-offs have caused within their ranks, and have a more open dialogue with them about the court’s future vision of their job tasks.

Court Reporter supervisors might also benefit from sitting down with the entire group and having a brain-storming meeting about how to more efficiently and fairly allocate job assignments and vacation days to them, as well tackle other issues that need consistency and uniformity.

Likewise, the Court Reporters themselves can request this meeting with management and demand a more open dialogue in order to cultivate an atmosphere of collaboration and respect.

As these problems with consistency and uniformity are addressed, autonomy is also increased because having transparent and steady routines will enable the Court Reporters to be in more in control of their own schedules and job tasks. They might be able to manage their time, resources and energy accordingly – resulting in lesser job stress, increased worker efficiency and improved interest in the over-all betterment of SFSC.

B. RELATEDNESS

I believe that the biggest issue that this paper brought to light is the rift that the re-organization caused within the Court Reporters themselves.

The conflict that arose out their disagreement about Real Time certification made an already unpleasant period worse. Instead of banding together as a group and working towards their common goals, the Court Reporters had to choose sides for their apparent survival in the SFSC workforce.

Only they know how unpleasant it got in their meetings, not much was stated in the survey responses. But thru conversations with some of the respondents, I could gather that this dispute produced a division in their group that is still bitterly felt today.

Management needs to address this issue ASAP if they want the Court Reporters to fully trust and cooperate with each other. Without this trust and cooperation, there can be no empathy. Not addressing this issue might also cause the prevalence of a sense of suspicion and threat from their own colleagues.

One way to do this is foster more social contact among them, whether in formal settings (mandatory team-building exercises and luncheon meetings) or informal ones (group outings to dinner or even a picnic).

C. FAIRNESS

I believe that this issue is the most sensitive portion of this paper, because other court staff were also adversely affected by the lay-offs, not just the Court Reporters.

Obviously, management needs to face the fact that they represented almost half of the terminations and that half of their group is now gone. This triggered a severe threat response in the Court Reporters: they feel “devalued”, “disrespected”, “disgusted” and other more intense emotions that I cannot print.

I have confidence that the main method by which management can help increase their sense of fairness is by establishing clear expectations for most circumstances that may occur in the future.

The Court Reporters’ sense of injustice stem from lack of clear rules, goals and expectations. If their management staff ensure that they increase transparency in their goal-setting and decision-making processes, and especially involve their union in these procedures, I believe that they will slowly but surely begin to feel that there is still integrity and legitimacy in the SFSC system.

SOURCES:

Burack, Ari. “San Francisco Courts Given Emergency Loan.” The Examiner. 09 September 2011. Web. .

Burack, Ari. “San Francisco’s Superior Court Cuts 67 Workers, Services.” The Examiner. 03 October 2011. Web. .

.

.

Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. Report to the Judicial Council, For Business Meeting on: August 31, 2011.

Rock, David (2008). “SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others”. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 78-87. Print.

Rock, David & Cox, Christine Ph. D (2012). “SCARF in 2012: updating the social neuroscience of collaborating with others.” NeuroLeadership Journal, 4, 1-11. Print.

“San Francisco Superior Court Announces Indefinite Extension of Limited Service Days.” Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, News Release, 13 May 2011. Print.

“The San Francisco Superior Court Notifies the AOC of Reduced Clerks’ Office Hours, Closure of 25 Courtrooms Effective October 3, 2011.” Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, News Release, 3 August 2011. Print.

Tartre, Dave. “200 Axed in S.F. Superior Court ‘Dismantling’.” Courthouse News Service. 19 July 2011. Web. .

Thank you for participating in my ANONYMOUS SURVEY
(APPROVED BY RANI EDWARDS & MARILYN SAGE).

I am taking a business class on Change Management at the U.C. Berkeley Extension and have decided to write my paper on “The Application of the SCARF Model on the 2011 Re-Organization of SF Court Reporters”. I believe this survey & subsequent paper would be a significant means of obtaining a better knowledge & understanding of the organizational change enacted in 2011.

Please fill out this form discreetly & during your own personal time, so that we both don’t get in trouble. Please feel free to make blank copies & distribute to other SF Court Reporters. If you would like to discuss this survey with me personally, please sign your name on the bottom so I can contact you. I can provide a copy of the final paper to anybody interested as well. Please return this form to MICHELLE DEL ROSARIO – DEPT. 20 CLERK by FRIDAY, FEB 22, 2013 (mailbox or courtroom).

SCARF stands for STATUS, CERTAINTY, AUTONOMY, RELATEDNESS & FAIRNESS.
This management/leadership model is based on neuroscience that asserts that our brain’s need for these 5 job factors is as strong & essential as our primary needs (food, water, safety, etc.):
- STATUS means your relative importance to others AKA “pecking order” in a social group;
- CERTAINTY means your ability to predict the future because of patterns & familiarity;
- AUTONOMY means your sense of control over your own environment AKA having choices;
- RELATEDNESS means your sense of safety with other people AKA sense of belonging;
- FAIRNESS means your perception of fair exchanges (of money, information, etc.) among people.

Please expound on the following questions (please attach extra pages if needed):
1) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR “STATUS” WAS INCREASED DURING THE RE-ORG(ANIZATION)? 2) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR “STATUS” WAS DECREASED DURING THE RE-ORG?

3) WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY?

4) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR “CERTAINTY” WAS INCREASED DURING THE RE-ORG?

5) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR “CERTAINTY” WAS DECREASED DURING THE RE-ORG?

6) WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY?

7) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR “AUTONOMY” WAS INCREASED DURING THE RE-ORG?

8) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR “AUTONOMY” WAS DECREASED DURING THE RE-ORG?

9) WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY?

10) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR “RELATEDNESS” WAS INCREASED DURING THE RE-ORG?

11) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT YOUR “RELATEDNESS” WAS DECREASED DURING THE RE-ORG?

12) WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY?

13) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT “FAIRNESS” WAS INCREASED DURING THE RE-ORG?

14) HOW DID YOU FEEL THAT “FAIRNESS” WAS DECREASED DURING THE RE-ORG?

15) WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY?

16) ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS?