Job satisfaction in the judiciary

Author(s): Sharyn Roach Anleu and Kathy Mack

Source: Work, Employment & Society , OCTOBER 2014, Vol. 28, No. 5 (OCTOBER 2014),
pp. 683-701
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24442074

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Work, Employment & Society

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Article y
Id
Work, employment and society
2014, Vol. 28(5) 683-701
Job satisfaction in the ) The Author(s) 2013
Keprints ana permissions:

judiciary sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1 177/09500170135001 I I

wes.sagepub.com

(DSAGE
Sharyn Roach Anleu
Flinders University,Australia

Kathy Mack
Flinders University,Australia

Abstract
This article examines job satisfaction among judicial officers in Australia. Increasing numb
women have entered the judiciary and their job satisfaction is a key route to understandin
experiences of this elite role. This paper applies concepts of job satisfaction to the judic
investigates gender differences. Data from two national surveys demonstrate that wom
men across the Australian judiciary express very high levels of overall job satisfaction,
areas of dissatisfaction exist, in particular regarding work-life balance. Gender difference
appear to be direct, but mediated by other characteristics which are gender-related. B
these findings demonstrate that a full understanding of job satisfaction now requires atte
family/domestic demands and commitments and the workplace context, as well as to the i
nature of the work and the extrinsic characteristics of the job.

Keywords
gender, job satisfaction, judiciary, work-life balance

Introduction

Job satisfaction is a valuable avenue for investigating women's and men's experien
their occupations and workplaces (Brown et al., 2012; Firebaugh and Harley,
Kalleberg, 1977). It may affect recruitment, performance, morale, employee well-
stress and retention (Maslach et al., 2001; Zapf et al., 2001). More importantly, jo
isfaction (or dissatisfaction) can pinpoint gender and other inequalities or discrim
in occupations (Dinovitzer and Garth, 2007; Hull, 1999). Such disparities can be m
by the apparent gender equality shown by increasing proportions of women ent

Corresponding author:
Sharyn Roach Anleu, School of Social and Policy Studies, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide,
5001, Australia.
Email: judicial.research@flinders.edu.au

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 684 Work, employment and society 28(5)

higher level, traditionally male professions such as the judi

job satisfaction have not considered the judiciary (Dinovit
cussions of job satisfaction among judges have not tended t
Hora, 2009; Darbyshire, 2011; Norris et al., 2011; Ryan et al
Roach Anleu and Mack, 2009).
This article fills that gap. Drawing on data from nationw
women judicial officers in Australia, it examines their exp
with judging as a professional occupation. We argue that a
satisfaction requires direct attention to the nexus between
and domestic commitments, as well as to the nature or qu
demands of both spheres are not usually equally distribut
(Crompton, 2002; Crompton et al., 2005; Schneider, 2012),
section between paid work and family and domestic comm
plete understanding of men's and women's job satisfaction.
The article first outlines the structure of the judiciary in
its distinctiveness as a profession. Data from two nationw
judiciary identify the attitudes of women and men judicial o
of their work. Their job satisfaction is investigated in lig
tions, including the core distinction between the intrinsic
extrinsic qualities of jobs (Firebaugh and Harley, 1995;
Rose, 2003). Cutting across these dimensions is satisfaction
professional jobs and their domestic life and associated dem

The judiciary
Australia is a federal system, with national courts and a sepa
the six states and two territories. There are approximately
Commonwealth courts, 400 state and territory judges and 4
1000 judicial officers, organized into over 25 different cou
'judiciary' and 'judicial officer' refer to all members of th
terms 'magistrate' and 'judge' distinguish members of the
first instance or lower courts (magistrates) from those wh
(judges). Unlike the lay magistrates in England and Wales,
paid judicial officers, typically full-time, with legal qualifi
legally mandated retirement age, ranging from 65 to 72 y
2008).
In Australia, magistrates and judges are appointed from the legal profession.
Magistrates usually come from the ranks of solicitors, while judges more often come
from the Bar. Appointment to the bench is usually seen as the pinnacle of a legal career.
Magistrates have become professionalized as independent judicial officers over the past
50 years, fully separate from previous public service structures. Nonetheless, differences
in salary, superannuation, leave entitlements, mandatory retirement ages, and removal
provisions still exist between magistrates and judges and vary by state, territory or
Commonwealth jurisdiction (Mack and Roach Anleu, 2006). In general, independent
remuneration tribunals set judicial officers' salaries. Typically, magistrates' salaries are

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roach Anleu and Mack 685

pegged as a percentage (e.g. 67

ple, in 2012 in South Australi
annum compared with AU$280
contrasts with the average an
AU$72,436 (Australian Bureau
The judiciary is structured di
legal profession. There is little
ent relationship; no formal care
within a court or from one cour
all members of a court (with a
officers within a particular cou
tunities for specialization. Mo
any judicial officer appointed
work assigned to it (Mack et
Traditionally and culturally t
2002; Thornton, 1996). Noneth
an opportunity to overcome th
professional status and income
2008; Seron and Ferris, 1995;
her appointment to the bench

It has exceeded my expectations.

women get paid equal pay for wo
in original]

Judicial selection processes, which appear to exclude or systematically disadvantage

women, are the subject of considerable discussion and criticism, especially from legal
academics in the United Kingdom and Europe (Feenan, 2008; Malleson, 2006, 2009;
Schultz and Shaw, 2003) and political scientists in the United States (Collins et al., 2010;
Kenney, 2013). In recent decades, increasing numbers of women have been appointed to
the bench. For example, in Australia 17 per cent of the judiciary were female in 2001; by
2013 this had increased to 33 per cent (Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration,
2013). This change is similar across the common law world, as is a general, but not uni
versal, pattern for larger proportions of women to be located in the lower rather than the
higher courts (Mack and Roach Anleu, 2012).
The judiciary has not been examined thoroughly in the work and employment litera
ture, though there is some empirical research regarding women judicial officers' experi
ences of their work (Martin, 1990; Thornton, 1996) alongside judicial biographies and
autobiographies (Hale and Hunter, 2008). There has been little attention to the question
of job satisfaction as the concept has developed in the work and employment literature.

Job satisfaction
An important measure of women's and men's experiences, orientation and commitment
to their paid work is job satisfaction. Two enduring findings are that most people express

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 686 Work, employment and society 28(5)

high levels of overall job satisfaction (Firebaugh and Har

ences in pay, conditions and authority, women are just as
more so (Clark, 1997; Crosby, 1982; Hodson, 1989). Recen
nine in 10 men and women report overall job satisfaction
Studies identifying several dimensions of job satisfactio
items, have produced equivocal findings regarding gender
1999; Hull, 1999). Some survey research finds that wome
with job setting, the social importance of work and opport
statistical differences on these dimensions (Dinovitze
Swanson, 2009). A recurring finding is that women are l
between their work and family lives, and their exit rate fro
that of men (Sommerlad, 2002; Webley and Duff, 2007).
of occupations distils the subtle ways professional and w
works and mentoring arrangements inhibit women's adva
tion and reproduce inequalities in the face of equal em
valuing diversity (Ashley, 2010; Dex et al., 2008; Roth, 20
The judiciary is an instructive case in which to consider
There are reasons to expect that women judicial officers
ally similar to that of their male counterparts as well as r
Men and women at the same court level undertake the sam
same formal legal authority and receive the same salary
opportunities in the judiciary for gender stratification, at
fessions and organizations (Ridgeway, 2009). This is not t
men) may have experienced discrimination and inequality
into the judiciary, or that more subtle, gendered experie
(Feenan, 2008; Hunter, 2002). The point is that, once appo
usual markers of workplace gender disparity exist.
The most apparent gender difference in the judiciary is
In occupations where men are numerically dominant, wo
be lower (Lundquist, 2008). In addition, some socio-legal s
tion of judicial office as masculine and a prevailing constr
subverting the fraternal values of the legal culture (Rackl
symbolism and imagery of the judiciary point to 'the eve
as male' that underscores its masculine nature and th
women and disavowal of the feminine (Thornton, 19
Resnik and Curtis, 2011).
Understanding gender and job satisfaction in the judiciar
multidimensionality of job satisfaction. In his important
reiterates the core distinction between 'the extrinsic, mat
jobs and the intrinsic, qualitative, or expressive aspects of
original). Extrinsic aspects include pay, benefits, security
which are amenable to rational calculation and instrument
cover the nature of the work itself, scope for initiative a
ing human relations and affective dimensions, which eli
assessment.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roach Anleu and Mack 687

However, looking at jobs and w

characteristics reduces the cap
and unpaid family or domestic
that does not adequately accom
to particular intrinsic and extr
is organizationally structured.
practices, routines, informal n
ture. These can impact differ
related consequences affecting
1980; Brown et al., 2012; Wha
Rose recognizes that variable
well-being are important for j
related to gender differences
hints at the lack of closure in
article goes further by going
measures men's and women's
findings in relation to several
ily into intrinsic or extrinsic
categorization. These findings
ing family or domestic deman
for men and women in the jud

The research

The findings presented here derive from two nationwide mail surveys of the Aust
judiciary using a questionnaire developed, pilot-tested and administered by
authors. One survey was directed towards judges in the higher courts, another to
trates presiding in the lower courts. Rather than selecting a random sample, a s
questionnaire was mailed to every judge and magistrate.
The National Survey of Australian Judges was sent to all 566 judges througho
Australia in March 2007 with a response rate of 55 per cent. Strategies to in
response rates included personally addressed correspondence, provision of full inf
tion about the purposes and nature of the questionnaire and how the findings wo
used, expressions of support from key individuals such as the head of the relevant
and professional organizations, and the inclusion of a pre-paid, addressed return
lope. To guarantee anonymity no tracking mechanism was used; the authors do not
the identity of the judicial officers who returned the surveys, or who declined. T
low-up letters to all judges who had been sent a survey expressed thanks for thos
had returned the survey and reminded others of the value of its completion and r
The judges who responded are generally representative of the judges as a whole, in
of gender, time on the bench and level of court. In particular, women comprise 2
cent of respondents to the judicial survey; at the time women constituted 24 per c
judges. (Representativeness in terms of age cannot be calculated fully, as complete
of birth data for judges is not available. The only means to obtain information on
of birth are incomplete publicly available sources such as Who's Who in Australia.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
688 Work, employment and society 28(5)

Similarly, the 2007 National Survey of Australian M

trates throughout Australia, with a response rate of
response rates mirrored those adopted for the judg
responded appear generally representative of the magi
der, age and time on the bench. Approximately one-thi
magistrates' survey were women; at the time 31 per c
The two surveys are substantially the same, with som
different work in the different levels of court (e.g. appe
lower courts). The response rates are especially robust
judiciary 'a hard to reach group' (Cowan et al., 200
(Dobbin et al., 2001: 287) and describe 'judicial hostilit
2011: 3). The surveys cover a range of topics relating
ground and education, everyday work, job satisfaction
include a mix of closed- and open-ended questions.
A range of individual and workplace or organization
satisfaction. A large body of research considers the re
satisfaction, but other factors may have more explanat
pation or profession (Miller, 1980). We investigate the
teristics such as gender, age, time on the bench and judic
We also include measures of respondents' perceptions
work tasks and self-reported work patterns, including
9 am and after 5 pm Monday-Friday) and perceptions
Table 1 for a complete list of key variables.) Note that
some ways, an individual characteristic (a person is ei
also a proxy for differences in workplace resources, de
Magistrates sit alone without juries in city, suburban, r
High volumes of criminal cases, mostly resolved by gu
work. While there are fewer cases in the higher courts
reflecting more serious or complex matters or better-r
erable judgment writing demands, which have to be un
One of the difficulties in understanding women's e
disentangling the effects of age (generation), time on
court (lower or higher). Women judicial officers tend
compared to 59 for men) and more recently appointed
than their male colleagues. Larger proportions of wom
than on higher courts (25%) (Mack and Roach Anleu,
bench differences between men and women are statist
Fewer women compared with men have a current spo
proportion of women (65%) than men (20%) report ha
time work, and this is statistically significant (p < 0.0
as 'breadwinner' with few domestic and family commit
men in the judiciary, but not women (Warren, 2007). M
but women's children are younger, due in part to wom
cycle. This is especially the case for magistrates. For
judicial officers might be generational rather than ge
structure. To assess the relative significance of gender
are included in the analysis, as discussed below.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roach Anleu and Mack 689

Table I. Descriptive data for ind

Characteristic Ment Wome

All judicial officers

Number 391 158

Percentage 71 % 29%
Magistrates
Number 161 81

Percentage 67% 33%

Judges
Number 230 77

Percentage 75% 25%

Average age (years) 59 52
Average age at first appointment (years) 47.7 44.0
Average years on bench
Judges 10.6 9.0
Magistrates 12.8 7.1
Whole judiciary 11.5 8.0
Age of judicial officer3***
38-46 2% 18%
47-61 62% 74%
62-75 36% 8%

Time on bench (
0-5 29% 39%
6-13 33% 43%
14+ 38% 18%
Marital statusc**

Married or partnered 93% 80%

No current partner 7% 20%
Age of children6***
Youngest child 17 years or younger 26% 41 %
Only has children 18 years and older 62% 27%
No children 12% 32%

Household income (AU

$225,000 or less 14% 26%
$225,001-$325,000 68% 64%
$325,001 or more 18% 10%
Spouse/partner in paid worke***
Full-time 20% 65%
Part-time 33% 14%
Not in paid employment 47% 21 %
Judicial functions (since current appointment)
Stayed the same 28% 30%
Increased 58% 56%
Some increased, some decreased 10% 10%
Decreased 4% 4%

(Continued)

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
690 Work, employment and society 28(5)

Table I. (Continued)

Characteristic Ment Wome

Non-judicial functions (since cu

Stayed the same 37% 22%
Increased 49% 67%
Some increased, some decreased 5% 4%
Decreased 9% 7%
Feel rushed«**

Always feel rushed 17% 47%

Sometimes feel rushed 68% 51 %
Rarely feel rushed 15% 2%
Work outside regular hours (before 9 a
Every day 50% 50%
A few times a week or once a week 34% 35%
Less than once a week or never 16% 15%

Job interferes with family

Always 4% 8%
Often 28% 38%
Sometimes 53% 46%

Hardly ever 14% 7%

Never 1% 1%

Family interfere
Always I % 2%
Often 6% 8%
Sometimes 41% 53%
Hardly ever 43% 30%
Never 9% 7%

Attendance at
Yes 95% 98%
No 5% 2%

Notes: tPerce
lower than t
adding up to
Sig. (2-sided
Pearson Chi-

Job satisf

The surve
items tap
their level
my life'. T
gree and s
responden
excerpts u

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roach Anleu and Mack 691

and edited only to preserve an

satisfaction with various aspec
asa judge/magistrate, please in
of your work'. A list of 25 spe
add others. The responses' cate
and very dissatisfied.
The first and second types o
tion while the third allows a more nuanced examination of satisfaction and the differ
ent dimensions of a job. Following Rose's injunction to distinguish between the job
and the work, we sought to identify any clustering of the 25 specific aspects (variables)
of judicial work into identifiable factors or components that might reflect the intrinsic
extrinsic divide (Kalleberg, 1977). However, not all dimensions of judicial work are
easily classifiable as either extrinsic or intrinsic; they may combine both qualities and
be arranged along a continuum, or be neither (Roach Anleu and Mack, 2009; also see
Gallie et al., 2012). Using principal components analysis (PCA) we extracted four
components that have eigenvalues greater than or equal to one, the recommended
SPSS cut-off (de Vaus, 2002: 138). In the Varimax rotation the cut-off for the loaded
variables was 0.40.
Sixteen of the 25 variables loaded into four distinct components: (1) Intrinsic quali
ties of work, content of work, intellectual challenge, overall work, diversity of work and
level of responsibility, which may relate to opportunity for initiative; (2) Extrinsic quali
ties of job\ salary, benefits, occupational prestige; (3) Workplace-organizational context:
technical support, polices and administration, scope for improving the court system,
court facilities and continuing education; and (4) Work-life balance: compatibility with
family responsibilities, compatibility with lifestyle and horns.
These four components' scores explain 64 per cent of the variance in the measures of
job satisfaction. The elements in Components 1 and 2 easily map onto the intrinsic/
extrinsic divide. Attributes that form Component 3 - workplace-organizational context
- are not clearly extrinsic or intrinsic; they are extrinsic to the individuals' work because
they are located within an organization, but they are distinct from the job as defined in
the employment contract, and so are not strictly extrinsic.
The elements in work-life balance reflect the nexus between paid work and domestic
and household commitments, and include hours. Hours can be considered an intrinsic
quality of the work as well as an extrinsic quality of a job, not fitting comfortably in
either category. Rose excluded hours from his job satisfaction analysis, stating that
'hours worked may be considered more often as indicating intrinsic priorities, but this is
far from being always the case' (2003: 513, emphasis removed). Hours of work for judi
cial officers are not pre-defined or predictable, and time cuts across work, family and
leisure domains. Distinctions between the job and other aspects of life may fade when
work tasks spill into evenings, weekends and periods of leave. It is likely, then that hours
of work might capture gender-related differences in job satisfaction. For these reasons,
'hours' is retained in the present analysis.
Several variables did not load onto any components: recognition of work, chances of
progression, geographical location, supervisors, control over amount of work, control
over manner of work, working relationships with court staff, working relationships with

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 692 Work, employment and society 28(5)

other judges/magistrates, importance to society of work. Tw

that did not load onto the components - control over the amo
manner of work - relate to professional autonomy, often a
and having an influence on job satisfaction (Roach Anleu a
they do not easily align with extrinsic or intrinsic compone
for initiative' which Rose (2003) considers to be an intrinsi
relation to these two aspects are discussed below.

Findings
Judicial officers in Australia - men and women, magistrates and judges - express very
high levels of work satisfaction. There is little variation. Nine in ten (92%) judicial
officers are satisfied, including very satisfied with their overall work (88% women
and 94% men). These proportions are very similar to findings for Australians in gen
eral (FaHCSIA, 2011). Four in five men (82%) and women (79%) judicial officers
agree (including strongly agree) that 'My work is a major source of satisfaction in my
life'. Similar proportions agree that 'My daily work is varied and interesting' and
'Work has lived up to my expectations'. Even with the benefit of hindsight, most
(86% of men and 83% of women) would definitely become a judge or magistrate
again.
Several open-ended survey comments illustrate these relatively high levels of overall
satisfaction with judicial work. A female judge states:

I like the change from barrister to judge and find being a judge rewarding and satisfying. It is
still new, and I look forward to getting more experience and doing it better, and more easily. I
have a long way to go before retirement and see this as providing both challenge and satisfaction
for many years to come.

A male magistrate highlights engagement with people as important for job satisfaction:

I like my work. It satisfies my interest in people and assisting the community. I enjoy discovering
where people are at and crafting my communications and orders to meet their situation. I made
the right career decision for my temprement [sic] and character and skills. It has proven to be a
satisfying way of using my communication and legal skills.

As Rose (2005) cautions, such high levels of job satisfaction may be influenced more by
the intrinsic nature of judicial work than by other, especially extrinsic, characteristics of
the job. The principal components analysis (described above) confirms this. Component
1 (Intrinsic) contributes 22 per cent to the total variance (64%) while Component 2
(Extrinsic) contributes only 11 per cent. The contributions of work-life balance (16%)
and workplace-organizational context are very similar (15%). Table 2 confirms this as
five indicators load onto Component 1, which has the highest average loading, while the
three variables loading onto Component 2 have the lowest average, with Components 3
and 4 in the middle.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roach Anleu and Mack 693

Table 2. Job satisfaction compon

Satisfaction with current Component

position
I Intrinsic 2 Extrinsic 3 Workplace
qualities of qualities of organizational
work work context

Content of work .834

Intellectual challenge .827

Overall work .758

Diversity of the work .742

Level of responsibility .668
Salary .771
Benefits .759

Occupational prestige .510

Technical support .742
Scope for improving the .725
court system
Policies and administration .705

Continuing education .690

Court facilities .604

Compatibility with lifestyle .865

Compatibility with family .853
responsibilities
Hours .777

Notes: t Extra
Rotation Meth
than .40 supp

To investig
component
fied in Tab
of the mod
the largest
has ap-valu
final parsim
One impor
direct effe
judges and
most succe
4: Work-lif
work-life n
gross house
Time on th
satisfaction

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 694 Work, employment and society 28(5)

c
<D

~ o
I V Q
f c E * — T — ro -x- xf
fS ro ro CO t O CO
O J2 O On (N ro lo lo xj
.492* ^ r
-.231* r -1.814***i-.543*** .250*
-.334*** r r-.484* .266*** .307

§ =.

c c
0 04
W c

s g. + * * *

1I On
On
+ m — r*.
"T
O ro
On
ro
h*

£s3 _ 359*** .I99+ -,043+ -.371*** -.397* -.777** .610** .091

cr Oj
y ^ o
» L a

£ o
g E h- on
On ir>
£ o Si .459** 342***

« c
3- <"
cr c
u -* 2
'"•2 9
.£ 5 E t s.
h > °
sO LO 3
.074 .047
On <N oJ
/Work-life ofwrkofwrkoganiztonalconteU.
IntriscqualitesExtrinscqualitesWorkplacec x balnce (CompnetI)P(Compnet2)ß(Compnet3)ß(Compnet4)ß -.256* .197* -.501*** .204
96** -.25 * .345* -.284**I .243 -.252* >.10 sup res ed.

g
E
uj
c
>*» <u
C 0 >
(14 CD

ai E
E c" «■*
£ X x. E c
£
w om
0 <yij -*
O 2
C
.52 c" E -o C T3 CJ g_
Q

2
WJ
04 w04
E
,L
v
w
1
_,
s
c:
§
—
E t-i n3
4-> h: nJ rt ;?! 04
c
04
E 3 E * 2 I
i_
L. <u E « 1? £ o 73
ji ="Oc"d3o0
04
3 o"*5
xf ^ I «E 1 J2- £ i o g f -S. .1
U

«
04SS 8 .E">s -§08. 3
J§ 1 *_ IX:§ s
0 U
u c

.— ^ rt N^. c m
Q_ >, ~ ^ XI "i3 XI DO ^ fl, "S > O -0 TJ
to w ll> U (1) « 1 P, ~ to br
*-> ,- c
nc^jt_ 13 i- = < a» i-t
0

is 2 I -s-g^efs-sso s fe I a
-C 0
04 *£3

se g § f | >21 s e B = a ! | g £ 5 a 8
(/) u
3 c
0
-C

•3 27.?^«4.8-S8£t§*^8llll£«t£l .2
to
to
u

^ E 6-13^ 14^and over 2 62-75^ — 00 o wSomeincreasd,somedcreasd^ <Afewtimesawekor nceaweJ

Increased Someincreas d,somed creas d k Les thanonceawekornevr 0) Always
0
L. < ^ <Always O IHardly everE 0 y Often Often
Table3.Linear gesiona lysi:nfluecsonjbsatifcon mponets. Judicalof icertype(judgesormagistraes) Time on bench (years) Age (years) <Gros hO
ousehold income O
Judicalfunctions(ince urentemployment)
3
^Nonjudicalfunctions(ince urent mployment) Z
Work outside regular hours £Feel rushed i£
Job interfer s with family l£Family interfer s with job <
Atendaceatprofesionaldevlopment vents(during past year) Constant Adjusted R Square for Model Notes:*p<.10,*p<.05,*p<.01,* p<.01;Betaswher p-value

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roach Anleu and Mack 695

officers spend on the bench, t

work. Gender is significantly
effects are mediated by this v
the component score by 0.5 u
This may indicate that over
54-year-old male judge who h
routinization:

I am content to remain a judge but believe that a change injudicial position from time to time
is attractive to avoid staleness or possibly boredom with repetitive work. A change in jurisdiction
[e.g. from civil to criminal law] or work type [e.g. from trials to appeals] from time to time is
desirable if possible.

Infrequently working outside regular hours and a perception that the job often interferes
with family also predict less satisfaction with intrinsic qualities of work. These qualities
may also indicate some level of disengagement with the nature of the work as a judicial
officer.
Being on the bench for 6-13 years, working outside regular hours at least a few times
per week and reporting some increase and some decrease in judicial functions are posi
tively related to greater satisfaction with extrinsic qualities of work (the standardized
scores increase by 0.20 and 0.46 respectively). This could indicate an assessment that the
compensation and benefits appropriately reflect the work demands and input.
There is a significant relationship between judicial officer type and workplace
organizational context: magistrates are less satisfied than judges with this dimension
of their work. In comparison with judges, magistrates courts tend to have less clerical
or administrative support for their daily work, face legal practitioners who are less
well-prepared or experienced, and undertake very large numbers of cases (Mack and
Roach Anleu, 2007). Although women have been appointed across the court structure,
the largest proportions of female judicial officers are in the magistrates courts and
they will experience these workplace conditions more frequently than those in the
higher courts.
Judicial officers who report increases in judicial functions are less satisfied with
workplace context. Larger proportions of these judicial officers are magistrates. This
may signal insufficient resources to cope adequately with the growth in work.
While control over the amount or manner of work did not load onto any of the com
ponents, they are key aspects of professional workplace organization. Over one-third
of female judicial officers (36%) are dissatisfied with control over the amount of work
compared with just over one in five of their male colleagues (23%). A quarter of the
women (26%) are dissatisfied with control over the manner of work, in contrast to only
one in 10 (11%) of the men. These findings might suggest that autonomy at work is
experienced differently by at least some women judicial officers, especially women
magistrates. Control over amount or manner of work affects capacity to demarcate
work and non-work time, which may also relate to gendered experiences of work-life
balance.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 696 Work, employment and society 28(5)

The most successful model (based on the adjusted R2 goo

to work-life balance. Always feeling rushed, and the expe
always or often interfering with family, decreases satis
larger proportion of women judicial officers (47%), comp
parts (17%), report always feeling rushed, and this differ
(p < 0.005). Similarly, nearly half of women experience the
family life (46% of women compared with 32% of men).
direct, but mediated by other variables. Some of the ope
pockets of dissatisfaction, which also appear to be experi
magistrate states:

The most difficult aspect of the job is the lack of flexibility

annual leave). The inflexible approach of the Chief Magistrate's
especially having children. Women are being encouraged into j
lag in understanding that requires a different approach to the
at home. Also, greater no. [number] of holidays is required giv

A female judge points to lack of time and flexibility:

I thought I would have more time for judgment writing and fo

date and preparing for the next case. The workload is very h
meet family needs than when I was at the Bar.

Attendance at professional development events also rel

work-life balance. Such events often occur in the evening
travel which can be disruptive to family and domestic life

Discussion and conclusions

The present study finds that women and men in the judiciary, like most peopl
occupations, are very satisfied with their work. Overall, few direct gender diffe
found. This finding is not particularly unexpected, as the usual markers of gen
inequality - differences in pay, authority, responsibilities and opportunities fo
enhancement - are not present in the judiciary. To some extent, this reinfor
research that identifies occupational settings where gender differences are le
(Ridgeway, 2009).
However, it is not correct to conclude that the experiences of men and wom
judiciary, including their job satisfaction, are identical and not gendered. Some
that affect satisfaction with aspects of work are indirectly gender-related. Longer
the bench seems to reduce satisfaction with intrinsic qualities of work, perhap
ing some routinization of work. As women are more recent appointees, they
likely to experience such routinization and so are more satisfied with intrinsic
of work. Magistrates are less satisfied than judges with their workplace-orga
context. As larger proportions of magistrates are women, it follows that women
may experience less satisfaction with this component than men.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roach Anleu and Mack 697

This research discloses con

work-life balance. Judicial of
often or always interferes w
Most, but not all, of these ju
appear to be direct or statisti
other characteristics which
tions also suggest some gende
of men and women judicial of
mostly female magistrates, w
while being very satisfied wi
judicial work.
Identifying these gendered o
conceptualizing job satisfaction
extrinsic job characteristics wh
inadequate. The intrinsic qualit
accommodate gender-related d
tion. While the work-life bala
satisfaction as intrinsic qualiti
ties of the job. When work-
related dissatisfaction becom
accorded more research attention.
There are many ways in which judicial officers' family and domestic demands inter
face with work commitments. Factors usually regarded as outside the immediate context
of work, such as household structure, the domestic division of labour and care responsi
bilities, might affect judicial job satisfaction. Particular courts or courthouse settings,
occupational cultures and local practices might differentially affect job satisfaction for
men and women.
This analysis demonstrates that elements previously treated as outside the job or
work - as part of 'life' or designated as the private sphere - are more closely related to
actual job satisfaction than some conventional factors. Elaboration of domestic and care
responsibilities enables greater refinement in the concept of job satisfaction itself, as
will explicit attention to time as a domain which cuts across work, family and leisure.
Most importantly, a concept of job satisfaction developed when professions were over
whelmingly male no longer suffices for occupations whose gender composition is
changing.

Acknowledgement
We are grateful to Russell Brewer, Carolyn Corkindale, Colleen deLaine, Elizabeth Edwards, Ruth
Harris, Katrina Hartman, Julie Henderson, John Horrocks, Lilian Jacobs, Leigh Kennedy, Lisa
Kennedy, Mary McKenna, Rose Polkinghorne, Wendy Reimens, Mavis Sansom, Chia-Lung Tai,
Jordan Tutton, Carla Welsh, Rae Wood and David Wootton for research and administrative assis
tance over the course of the Project. All phases of this research involving human subjects have
been approved by the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee of Flinders University.
We appreciate the helpful comments from Mary Holmes and Carroll Seron.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 698 Work, employment and society 28(5)

Funding
This research was initially funded by a University-Industry Research Collaborative Grant in 2001
with Flinders University and the Association of Australian Magistrates (AAM) as the partners and
also received financial support from the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA).
From 2002 until 2005 it was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project
Grant (LP210306) with AAM and all Chief Magistrates and their courts as industry partners with
support from Flinders University as the host institution. From 2006 the research was funded by an
ARC Discovery Project Grant (DP 0665198) and from 2010 it is funded by ARC DP1096888.

References

Ashley L (2010) Making a difference? The use (and abuse) of diversity management at th
elite law firms. Work, Employment and Society 24(4): 711-27.
Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (2013) Gender Statistics: Judges and M
trates. Available at: http://www.aija.org.au/index.php/gender-statistics
Australian Bureau of Statisics (2012) Average Weekly Earnings, Australia. Cat. No. 6302.0
berra: ABS.

Australian Government Attorney-General's Department (2010) Judicial Appointments: Ensur

ing a Strong and Independent Judiciary Through a Transparent Process. Available at: http://
www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/Courts/Documents/JudicialApptsEnsuringastrongandindepen
dentjudiciarythroughatransparentprocess.pdf
Baron JN and Bielby WT (1980) Bringing the firms back in: Stratification, segmentation, and the
organization of work. American Sociological Review 45(5): 737-65.
Brown A, Charlwood A and Spencer DA (2012) Not all that it might seem: Why job satisfaction
is worth studying despite it being a poor summary measure of job quality. Work, Employment
and Society 26(6): 1007-18.
Cameron AC and Trivedi PK (2005) Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Campos J, Ericsson NR and Hendry DF (2005) General-to-Specific Modeling. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Chase DJ and Hora PF (2009) The best seat in the house: The court assignment and judicial satis
faction. Family Court Review 47(2): 209-38.
Chiu C (1998) Do professional women have lower job satisfaction than professional men? Law
yers as a case study. Sex Roles 38(7): 521-37.
Chiu C and Leicht K (1999) When does feminization increase equality? The case of lawyers. Law
and Society Review 33(3): 557-93.
Clark AE ( 1997) Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so happy at work? Labour Econom
ics 4(4): 341-72.
Collins PMJ, Manning KL and Carp RA (2010) Gender, critical mass, and judicial decision mak
ing. Law and Policy 32(2): 260-81.
Cowan D, Blandy S, Hitchings E, Hunter C and Nixon J (2006) District judges and possession
proceedings. Journal of Law and Society 33(4): 547-71.
Crompton R (2002) Employment, flexible working and the family. British Journal of Sociology
53(4): 537-58.
Crompton R, Brockmann M and Lyonette C (2005) Attitudes, women's employment and the
domestic division of labour. Work, Employment and Society 19(2): 213-33.
Crosby F (1982) Relative Deprivation and Working Women. New York: Oxford University Press.
Darbyshire P (2011) Sitting in Judgment: The Working Lives of Judges. Oxford and Portland, OR:
Hart Publishing.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roach Anleu and Mack 699

de Vaus D (2002) Analyzing S

tions.

Dex S, Ward K and Joshi H (2008) Gender differences in occupational wage mobility in the 1958
cohort. Work, Employment and Society 22(2): 263-80.
Dinovitzer R and Garth BG (2007) Lawyer satisfaction in the process of structuring legal careers.
Law and Society Review 41(1): 1-50.
Dinovitzer R, Garth BG, Sander R, Sterling J and Wilder GZ (2004) After the JD: First Results of
a National Study of Legal Careers. A Joint Project of the NALP Foundation for Law Career
Research and Education and the American Bar Foundation.

Dobbin SA, Gatowski SI, Ginsburg GP, Merlino MI, Dahir V and Richardson JT (2001) Surveying
difficult populations: Lessons learned from a national survey of state trial court judges. Justice
System Journal 22: 287-307.
FaHCSIA (2011) The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey,
Wave 10. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research.
Faulconbridge J and Muzio D (2008) Organizational professionalism in globalizing law firms.
Work, Employment and Society 22(1): 7-25.
Feenan D (2008) Women judges: Gendering judging, justifying diversity. Journal of Law and
Society 35(4): 490-519.
Firebaugh G and Harley B (1995) Trends in job satisfaction in the United States by race, gender
and type of occupation. Research in the Sociology of Work 5: 87-104.
Gallie D, Felstead A and Green F (2012) Job preferences and the intrinsic quality of work: The
changing attitudes of British employees 1992-2006. Work, Employment and Society 26(5):
806-21.

Gustafson P (2006) Work-related travel, gender and family obligations. Work, Employment and
Society 20(3): 513-30.
Hale B and Hunter R (2008) A conversation with Baroness Hale. Feminist Legal Studies 16:
237—48.

Hodson R (1989) Gender differences in job satisfaction: Why aren't women more dissatisfied?
Sociological Quarterly 30(3): 385-99.
Hull KE (1999) The paradox of the contented female lawyer. Law and Society Review 33(3):
687-702.

Hunter R (2002) Talking up equality: Women barristers and the denial of discrimination. Fe
Legal Studies 10: 113-30.
Kalleberg A (1977) Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. America
logical Review 42(1): 124—43.
Kenney SJ (2013) Gender and Justice: Why Women in the Judiciary Really Matter. New Yo
Abingdon: Routledge.
Lester LH (1993) A parsimonious consumption function for Australia: 1964 to 1990. Aus
Economic Papers 32(61): 320-35.
Lundquist JH (2008) Ethnic and gender satisfaction in the military: The effect of a merito
institution. American Sociological Review 73(3): 477-96.
Mack K and Roach Anleu S (2006) The security of tenure of Australian magistrates. Mel
University Law Review 30: 370-98.
Mack K and Roach Anleu S (2007) 'Getting through the list': Judgecraf! and legitimacy
lower courts. Social and Legal Studies 16(3): 341-61.
Mack K and Roach Anleu S (2012) Entering the Australian judiciary: Gender and court hiera
Law and Policy 34(3): 313—47.
Mack K, Wallace A and Roach Anleu S (2012) Judicial Workload: Time, Tasks and Work
isation. Melbourne: Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 700 Work, employment and society 28(5)

Malleson K (2006) The new Judicial Appointments Commission

in new bottles? In: Malleson K and Russell PH (eds) Appointin
Power: Critical Perspectives from Around the World. Toront
39-55.
Malleson K (2009) Diversity in the judiciary: The case for positive action. Journal of Law and
Society 36(3): 376-402.
Martin E (1990) Men and women on the bench: Vive la difference. Judicature 73(4): 204-9.
Maslach C, Schaufeli WB and Leiter MP (2001) Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52:
397-422.

Miller J (1980) Individual and occupational determinants of job satisfaction: A focus on gender
differences. Sociology of Work and Occupations 7(3): 337-66.
Monahan J and Swanson J (2009) Lawyers at mid-career: A 20-year longitudinal study of job and
life satisfaction. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 6(3): 451-83.
Moran LJ (2009) Judging pictures: A case study of portraits of the Chief Justices, Supreme Court
of New South Wales. International Journal of Law in Context 5(3): 295-314.
Norris DM, Commons ML, Miller PM, Adams KM and Gutheil TG (2011) A pilot study of job
satisfaction in Massachusetts judges. Journal of Psychiatry and Law 39(2): 321-37.
Rackley E (2002) Representations of the (woman) judge: Hercules, the little mermaid, and the vain
and naked emperor. Legal Studies 22(4): 602-24.
Rackley E (2006) Difference in the House of Lords. Social and Legal Studies 15: 163-85.
Remuneration Tribunal SA (2012) Determination of the Remuneration Tribunal: Members of the
judiciary, members of the Industrial Relations Commission, the State Coroner, Commissioners
of the Environment, Resources and Development Court, No. 7 of 2012. Available at: http://
www.remtribunal.sa.gov.au/determinations/judiciary/DT-07%20of%202012%20-%20signed.
pdf
Resnik J and Curtis DE (2011) Representing Justice: Invention, Controversy, and Rights in City
states and Democratic Courtrooms. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ridgeway CL (2009) Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender and
Society 23(2): 145-60.
Roach Anleu S and Mack K (2008) The professionalization of Australian magistrates: Autonomy,
credentials and prestige. Journal of Sociology 44(2): 185-203.
Roach Anleu S and Mack K (2009) Gender, judging and job satisfaction. Feminist Legal Studies
17(1): 79-99.
Rose M (2003) Good deal, bad deal? Job satisfaction in occupations. Work, Employment and
Society 17(3): 503-27.
Rose M (2005) Job satisfaction in Britain: Coping with complexity. British Journal of Industrial
Relations 43(3): 455-67.
Roth L (2006) Selling Women Short: Gender Inequality on Wall Street. Princeton: Princeton Uni
versity Press.
Ryan JP, Ashman A, Sales BD and Shane-DuBow S (1980) American Trial Judges: Their Work
Styles and Performance. New York: Free Press.
Schneider D (2012) Gender deviance and household work: The role of occupation. American Jour
nal of Sociology 117(4): 1029-72.
Schultz U and Shaw G (eds) (2003) Women in the World's Legal Professions. Onati International
Series in Law and Society. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
Seron C and Ferris K (1995) Negotiating professionalism: The gendered social capital of flexible
time. Work and Occupations 22(1): 22—47.
Sommerlad H (2002) Women solicitors in a fractured profession: Intersections of gender and
professionalism in England and Wales. International Journal of the Legal Profession 9(3):
213-34.

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Roach Anleu and Mack 701

Thornton M (1996) Dissonance an

University Press.
Warren T (2007) Conceptualizing
317-36.

Webley L and Duff L (2007) Women solicitors as a barometer for problems within the legal
fession - time to put values before profits? Journal of Law and Society 34(3): 374—402.
Wharton AS, Rotolo T and Bird SR (2000) Social context at work: A multilevel analysis of
satisfaction. Sociological Forum 15(1): 65-90.
Zapf D, Seifert C, Schmutte B, Mertini H and Holz M (2001) Emotion work and job stressors an
their effects on bumout. Psychology and Health 16: 527—45.

Sharyn Roach Anleu, BA, MA Tas, LI B Adel, PhD Conn is Matthew Flinders Distinguis
Professor of Sociology at Flinders University, Adelaide and a Fellow of the Australian Academy
the Social Sciences in Australia. With Kathy Mack, she is currently engaged in socio-legal rese
into the Australian Judiciary and their courts. She has contributed to the Masters Programme at t
International Institute for the Sociology of Law, Onati, Spain. Contact: judicial.research@flind
edu.au, website: http://www.flinders.edu.au/law/judicialresearch/

Kathy Mack, BA Rice, JD Stanford, LLM Adel is Emerita Professor of Law, Flinders Law Scho
She is the author of a monograph, book chapters and articles on ADR, and articles on legal ed
tion and evidence. With Professor of Sociology Sharyn Roach Anleu, she has conducted empiri
research involving plea negotiations. Since 2000, they have been engaged in a major socio-l
study of the Australian judiciary. Contact: judicial.research@flinders.edu.au, website: http://ww
flinders.edu.au/law/judicialresearch/

Date submitted April 2012

Date accepted May 2013

This content downloaded from

180.179.211.47 on Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:28:49 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms