THE SURVEY IS BASED ON INTERVIEWS WITH 20 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AND COMPLEMENTARY RESEARCH ON ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES AND RULEMAKING PROCEDURES. THE LIMITED DATA BASE DOES NOT SUPPORT DETAILED ANALYSIS, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO HOW CHIEF JUSTICES AND STATE SUPREME COURTS PERCEIVE AND CARRY OUT THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS OF COURT SYSTEMS, ARE GROWING MORE INFLUENTIAL AS COURTS MOVE AWAY FROM THE COLLEGIAL STYLE TOWARD INDIVIDUAL LEADERSHIP. LITTLE, IF ANY, ATTENTION HAS BEEN PAID TO ASSISTING CHIEF JUSTICES TO DEVELOP ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITIES COMMENSURATE WITH THEIR INCREASED RESPONSIBILITIES. THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF THE CHIEF JUSTICES AND THE FULL COURTS ARE NOT CLEAR. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DELEGATED ADMINISTRATIVE POWER EXERCISED BY STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS IS INCREASING AS STATE COURT SYSTEMS BECOME MORE UNIFIED AND TURN TO CENTRALIZED FINANCING. WHETHER A STATE JUDICIAL LEADERSHIP REGULARLY PROMULGATES ADMINISTRATIVE RULES SEEMS TO BEAR LITTLE RELATION TO THE DEGREE OF ADMINISTRATIVE POWER EXERCISED BY THE SUPREME COURT OR CHIEF JUSTICE. AMONG THE MOST FREQUENT SUBJECT AREAS OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONMAKING ARE TRIAL COURT UNIFICATION, COURT FINANCING, PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, AND COURTHOUSE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT. MOST STATE SUPREME COURTS CONSIDER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AT THEIR REGULAR WEEKLY OR MONTHLY JUDICIAL OPINION CONFERENCES AND RESOLVE ISSUES BY FORMAL VOTE RESULTING IN THE ISSUANCE OF A RULE OR ORDER. IMPLEMENTATION AND FOLLOWUP, WHERE CONSIDERED BY THE COURTS AT ALL, ARE REGARDED AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR. A PROPOSED PROGRAM POINTS TO IMPROVED ORIENTATION FOR INCOMING CHIEF JUSTICES WITH REGARD TO ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS. FOOTNOTES, TABLES, AND AN APPENDIX POINTING TO FUTURE POLICY CHANGES ARE PROVIDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LWM)