EFFECTS OF STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP ON PERFORMANCE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA

Abstract

The research sought to determine the effects brought about by strategic leadership models on organizational performance in the Judiciary system in Kenya; brought about by the structural adjustment through devolution in Kenya; a case study of Supreme Court of Kenya. The said Court considered the highest court in the Kenyan land after the promulgation of the constitution 2010. It was formed under article 163 (1) of the laws of Kenya (Constitution, 2010). The court being the sole arbitration institution in matters that have continued to shape the destiny of Kenya as a nation has lately attracted interests from diverse quarters not only from the legal fraternity but also from the central government, county governments, the political class, business community as well as the citizens of Kenya (Monthly Law Review, 2012). Strategic leadership, being an area that continues to evolve and has gained recognition globally in organizational development. With organizations going through change due to interactions brought about by dynamism of external environment in which they are operating, courts are no exemption. This resultants in the need to merge leadership and strategy (Abell, 2006; Lear, 2012). When it comes to performance which is also given attention in this study; increasing notice ability has been given emphasis by top cadre management due to its impact on organizational well being. Therefore, this study is at par with current thinking in leadership and strategy in relation to organizational performance.

The main aim of the research was to determine effects of strategic leadership on the performance at the Supreme Court of Kenya. The five research objectives of the study included: (a) to identify the components of strategic leadership at the Supreme Court of Kenya; (b) to establish whether strategic leadership enhanced timely decision making at the Supreme Court of Kenya; (c) to analyze the contribution of strategic leadership in augmenting devolution through rendering advisory opinions with respect to any matter concerning County Government; (d) to investigate how adoption of strategic leadership has affected confidence levels of stakeholders on mandated jurisdictions of the Supreme Court of Kenya; and (e) to assess the effects of strategic leadership in providing authoritative and impartial interpretation of the Constitution.

A review on the relevant available secondary literature was carried out on key aspects, mainly strategic leadership, organizational performance and Court system with a focus on the Supreme Court of Kenya. The study used the case study design and utilizes quantitative and qualitative data as its primary source of information, together with information from secondary sources. The target population was 65. A sample of 22 was used comprising of top level management, middle level management, supervisors and administrative staff; was randomly selected using systematic sampling method. The data collected was analyzed by statistical package for social science (SPSS) and the same presented in tables and bar graphs for clarity. Finally, a report entailing the summary of findings, discussions and recommendation was compiled at the end of the study.

On the findings, organizational structure and human-ware (competences) are the main components of strategic leadership at Supreme Court. Majority of the respondents were affirmative that indeed timely decision making has been the main pillar of performance indicator at the supreme court of Kenya. More so, all the respondents supported the view that strategic leadership contribute immensely to the augmenting devolution through rendering advisory opinions to County Governments. Majority of the respondents were of the opinion that only to a small extent does the Supreme Court positively affect confidence level of stakeholders regarding mandated jurisdictions. In other words, the Court has done too little in solving this phenomenon on enhancing confidence levels of stakeholders. It is of great interest in this study to note that majority of the respondents are not fully convinced that the Court is providing authoritative and impartial interpretation of the constitution.