Perceptions of Chief Justice Leadership on State Supreme Courts with an Eye Toward Gendered Differences

48 VOL. 102 NO. 2

A matter of style

Perceptions of chief justice leadership on state supreme courts with an eye toward gendered differences

BY MIKEL NORRIS & CHARLIE HOLLIS WHITTINGTON JUDICATURE 49

ALTHOUGH MOST RESEARCH ON run, rather than focusing only on the ration, participation, consensus, and COURT LEADERSHIP STILL FOCUSES politics that take place in those insti- empowerment. A traditionally mascu- ON THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE tutions.3 We are particularly interested line leadership style, on the other hand, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, here in discerning if there are differences is characterized by autocracy, and the RESEARCHERS ARE INCREASINGLY in leadership style preferences between seeking out of opportunities to exert INTERESTED IN STATE SUPREME men and women on state high courts. authority over others.5 Past studies have COURTS, AND WITH GOOD REASON. Many bemoan the dearth of women in shown that this form of leadership is State supreme courts provide a more leadership in American politics; how- prevalent in hierarchical organizations diverse institutional setting for under- ever, women have been incredibly that have performance-based cultures, standing court leadership than the U.S. successful in obtaining the position whereas feminine leadership styles are Supreme Court.1 Different states have of state chief justice. Over half of the generally perceived to be more effec- different norms and rules. Some state state chief justiceships were held by tive in flatter organizational structures court systems are consolidated while women as recently as 2014. This fact that emphasize transformation and others are not. Some states give opin- alone should interest scholars and pun- empowerment.6 ion-assignment power to their chief dits who study gender and leadership. Based on our understanding of mas- justices. Some do not. States differ in In this article, we attempt to shed light culine and feminine leadership styles, it how they choose their chief justices and on two specific questions pertaining to would be sound to assess how justices the length of terms they serve. Finally, court leadership. First, what types of themselves regard gender differences in different states choose their panels of leadership styles do state supreme court leadership on state high courts. State justices in different ways. Some state justices themselves think are responsible supreme courts are “flat” organizations courts hear every case en banc, whereas for effective or ineffective court leader- with every justice exercising equal others assign cases to smaller panels of ship? Second, are there any differences authority. While state chief justices justices. These differences and more between male and female state supreme govern their courts, they are consid- make understanding how the justices on court justices regarding what they think ered leaders among peers rather than these courts — and chief justices in par- constitutes effective or ineffective court leaders of subordinates.7 State supreme ticular — believe their courts should be leadership by their chief justices? court judges also have stated in surveys managed interesting and relevant, both Courts — and state courts in partic- presented in previous research that a for scholars and judicial leaders.2 ular — provide an excellent forum for primary task of chief justices is to build The purpose of this analysis is to examining these questions. Research consensus in making their rulings.8 The examine and analyze leadership styles, on gender and leadership has long rec- ability to build consensus is commonly skills, and attributes on state supreme ognized differences in the leadership referred to as a feminine leadership courts. This area of research is grow- styles of men and women across an array trait.9 Without adequate consensus, ing in academic study, as more scholars of academic disciplines. A traditionally courts can fail to maintain themselves — particularly in political science and feminine leadership style is generally as institutions, which could result in public administration — are examin- characterized by interaction.4 It is more conflict with, and retaliation from, the ing how our political institutions are democratic and emphasizes collabo- other branches of government or the 4 Over half of the state chief justiceships were held by women as recently as 2014. 50 VOL. 102 NO. 2

public.10 Too much dissensus among vey, a 9.7 percent response rate. Justices justices can sow discord, weaken prec- What types of from 31 different states responded to the edent, confuse the interpretation of the leadership styles survey. A list of states from which the law, and lead to more appeals.11 Since do state supreme surveys were returned, as well as other justices already know this, it is inter- descriptive information about the sur- esting to consider whether male and court justices think vey respondents, are presented in Table female justices on state high courts seek are responsible 1. Forty of the respondents were male, to adopt feminine leadership styles in for effective or and 18 of the respondents were female. their chief justices more generally, and Twenty-three of the justices were either consensus-building skills in particu- ineffective court currently serving or previously served lar. To be sure, no uniform method of leadership? as chief justice of their court, for a total leadership ensures the interests of a state Are there any of 117 years of service as chief justice supreme court or a state court system are differences between among the respondents. protected. However, fostering inter- and Although the survey asked questions intra-court cooperation and consensus male and female on a variety of subjects, the questions appears to be key to effectively promot- state supreme court specifically addressed in the analysis are ing and protecting the interests of the justices regarding the following: courts in state politics. Consensus helps courts achieve their interests.12 what they think A: In your opinion, what are the three This study aims to broaden our constitutes effective most important duties/responsibilities of understanding of whether state supreme or ineffective court being your court’s chief justice? courts are more amenable to a mas- B: In your opinion, what are the three culine or feminine leadership style by leadership by their most important skills necessary to be an examining what the justices themselves chief justices? effective leader as a chief justice? perceive the leadership qualities of their C: In your opinion, what leadership chief justices to be. Next, we attempt to characteristics have you observed that answer whether masculine or feminine have led to your chief justice being an inef- leadership styles in state chief justices justice’s gender, we constructed a survey fective leader? are desirable by examining what the questionnaire that was mailed to a total D: In your opinion, are chief justices justices themselves think are the most of 587 current and former state supreme important duties and responsibilities of court justices in all 50 states. We fol- their chief justices and what these jus- lowed up with telephone calls to each Table 1: STATES PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY tices think are the most important skills court approximately two weeks after Arizona New Hampshire necessary for a chief justice to possess in the surveys were received. Justices were Arkansas New York order to achieve these goals. assured complete confidentiality and California North Dakota anonymity in their responses and were Florida Ohio Georgia Oregon THE STUDY instructed to not answer any question Hawaii Pennsylvania In order to study state supreme court they thought would breach confidential- Idaho Rhode Island justices’ perceptions of the types of ity. Those justices who were interviewed Indiana South Carolina organization their chief justices lead, via telephone were asked questions from Iowa Tennessee whether leadership styles convention- the survey instrument and given the Kentucky Texas ally attributed to women or men may opportunity to answer follow-up, open- Maine Utah Maryland Vermont be more successful on state supreme ended questions related to the questions Michigan Washington courts, whether state supreme court jus- in the survey. Phone conversations aver- Minnesota West Virginia tices themselves value the leadership aged between 35 minutes to an hour Mississippi Wyoming Missouri qualities that the literature attributes in length. Conversations were tran- to them, and whether there are differ- scribed after each interview. Fifty-eight Note: Number of participants from each state and judicial ences in preferences depending on the responses were gathered from the sur- status not reported to maintain confidentiality JUDICATURE 51

in a better position than other justices to chief justice presides over a unified or THE DUTIES OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE foster consensus on their court? non-unified court system. Chief justices Figure 1 provides a graphical inter- Because we know so little about in unified court systems are responsible pretation of what the justices in the leadership styles and their effectiveness for the central administration of their survey volunteered as the most import- on state supreme courts — let alone state’s entire court system, whereas chief ant duties and responsibilities of state whether gendered leadership styles are justices in non-unified systems do not supreme court chief justices. The jus- more or less effective on state supreme have to handle the central administra- tices in this survey overwhelmingly courts — this study is mostly explor- tion of state courts. This distinction is agreed that the most important duty of atory. Although literature on gendered important because unified court systems their chief justices was to administer the leadership posits that different genders are hierarchical in form. State supreme business of their courts. Nearly one third exhibit different leadership styles, we courts in non-unified courts are not.14 — 31.5 percent — of the answers to are content to simply explore what the Chief justices who sit atop a judicial hier- the question about the most important justices themselves have to say about archy in unified court systems should, duties and responsibilities of the chief how their courts are led. While it may be according to the extant literature, be justice pertain to effective court admin- possible to statistically model the effects more amenable to a masculine leadership istration. This holds true regardless of of masculine and feminine leadership style. Other important powers — such whether the chief justice is responsible styles on state supreme courts, this type as the ability to assign opinions, for for administering just the state supreme of analysis would not tell us whether example — could possibly affect what court or the entire state court system. the justices think — either explicitly leadership skills different justices think a In describing the duty of the chief jus- 4 or implicitly — that certain leader- chief justice should have.15 We choose to ship qualities are more or less desirable look at differences between unified and in their chief justices. We believe that non-unified courts specifically because Table 2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALE & the best way to discern what the justices one is hierarchical and one is not, and FEMALE STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: themselves think of leadership on state therefore each could be assumed to DUTIES OF THE STATE CHIEF JUSTICE 13 16 supreme courts is to ask them. align with a different leadership style. Proportion Proportion Since the duties and responsibilities Thirty-six of our respondents work or Male Female of state chief justices vary widely from have worked on unified courts. Twenty- ALL JUSTICES state to state, we have decided to perform two of our respondents work or have Vision .014 .116 our analyses by accounting for whether a worked on non-unified courts. Consensus .112 .021 Promptly Deciding Cases .063 0 FIGURE 1: MOST IMPORTANT CHIEF JUSTICE DUTIES AS IDENTIFIED BY CURRENT Budget .056 .128 AND FORMER STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES SOURCE: AUTHORS’ DATA UNIFIED COURTS ONLY 50 47 Consensus .158 .023 45 Vision .026 .116 39 total 40 Budget .039 .140 male 35 Promptly 30 28 female Deciding Cases .066 0 26 25 20 20 NON-UNIFIED COURTS ONLY 20 18 19 16 17 Collegiality .045 .25 15 14 15 12 13 11 12 10 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 6 7 Notes: 1. Values represent the number of responses per gen- 5 5 4 5 5 3 2 2 der category divided by total responses. For example, 16 of 0 0 143 responses by male justices indicated consensus building as an important duty (16/143 = .112). 2. Variables listed in order of greatest to least statistical difference between genders using difference of proportions tests. 3. Only vari- vision budget ables with statistically significant differences are shown.

leadership consensus supervision collegiality Source: Authors' Data court admin SOP relations deciding cases public relations

state court admin 52 VOL. 102 NO. 2

tice to manage either the supreme court opinions about which types of duties cess as being a more important duty of or the state court system, respondents and responsibilities are most important chief justices than did their male coun- commonly used words such as “set the for a chief justice to accomplish. Table 2 terparts (z = -1.64, p ≤ .05). tone” and “preside.” Several justices said lists the duties specified by the justices The duties and responsibilities to a chief justice should preside over several in the survey, in order of the greatest which male and female justices assign aspects of the judicial process, including differences between male and female similar levels of importance tended to deliberation, oral argument, and judicial respondents. When the justices’ answers be those that were inherent to the job conferences; opinion assignment and are pooled, the duty of “providing the of chief justice and aligned well with writing; and interacting with the pub- court with a vision” exhibits the great- the literature on task management and lic and other branches of government. est difference between male and female social leadership: public relations, court Chief justices were also expected to justices (z = -2.97, p ≤ .01), with female administration, system administration, effectively administer the operations of justices ranking vision as a more import- and fostering collegiality. An interest- the lower states courts. Related respon- ant leadership quality than male justices ing change occurred, however, when we sibilities included staffing, budgets did. The next two important differences divided the survey responses based on and finance, organization, and public concern creating consensus (z = 1.89, p whether or not the respondent operated relations with other branches of govern- ≤ .05) and efficiently deciding cases (z = in a unified court system. Whereas male ment, the state bar association, and the 1.77, p ≤ .05), respectively. More male justices on unified courts viewed colle- public. These responses provide strong justices than female justices ranked giality to be more important (though evidence to support the contention that consensus-building as an important not statistically more so), female justices being an effective state chief justice — responsibility of chief justices. Based on on non-unified courts viewed the need just like being an effective Chief Justice literature about gendered leadership, we for chief justices to foster collegiality on of the United States Supreme Court — might have expected consensus-build- their courts to be much more important requires effective task management and ing to be considered more important by than did their male counterparts. social leadership. female justices.17 Along with forming a A final comparison of the perceived Next, we examined whether male vision for their courts, female justices importance of a chief justice’s duties was and female respondents had different ranked managing the budgetary pro- made by consolidating the several duties and responsibilities mentioned by the justices into Figure 2: MOST IMPORTANT SKILLS OF CHIEF JUSTICE AS IDENTIFIED BY CURRENT AND FORMER two categories. One cat- STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES SOURCE: AUTHORS’ DATA egory represents duties involving the internal 20 19 19 operation of the courts, 18 total and the second variable 16 15 15 male represents duties chief 14 13 12 12 female justices perform outside 12 11 10 10 10 the court. Comparing 10 9 9 8 8 the differences between 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 male and female respon- 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 dents’ answers on these 4 3 3 3 two variables produced 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 interesting and consis- 0 tent results. Male justices were much more likely to will prioritize the importance fairness respect patience hard work of internal court oper- collegiality consensus leadership intelligence

listening skills ations than were their planning/vision delegation skills female counterparts, interpersonal skills organizational skill administrative ability communication skills regardless of whether JUDICATURE 53

they were in a unified or non-unified Finally, when the duties and respon- to be an important leadership skill and court system (z = 1.94, p ≤ .05). Female sibilities were categorized as either not just a duty the chief justice needs justices, on the other hand, particularly internal or external duties and responsi- to perform. Consensus-building was not those in unified court systems, consis- bilities, other obvious differences arose. only considered an end for chief justices, tently emphasized the importance of a Male justices quite clearly believed that but also a means to an end. chief justice’s duties and responsibilities focusing on the internal operations of the Table 3 lists the skills justices outside the court (z = -2.03, p ≤ .05). court was a more important responsibil- thought a chief justice should have, in This means that, while male and female ity, while female justices clearly believed order of the greatest differences between justices may similarly prioritize some of that the most important work for state male and female respondents. Again, we the chief justice’s duties, female justices chief justices was to focus on maintaining have pooled all answers and separated appear to place much more importance relations with external actors. them based on whether the respondent on what a chief justice does outside the served in a unified or non-unified court court — particularly in regard to rela- THE SKILLS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE system. Per the pooled responses in tionships the chief justice develops with Figure 2 provides a graphical interpre- Table 3, organizational skills, the ability external political or legal actors. tation of what the justices in the survey to make good decisions, decisiveness, Several conclusions can be reached thought were the most important skills and consistency were the leadership based on this analysis. First, it is appar- a state chief justice needed in order to skills with the greatest variation among ent that both male and female justices be a successful leader. The skills speci- male and female justices’ responses. agreed on the importance of several fied by the justices are more numerous Female justices thought leadership was of the chief justice’s leadership tasks. than the duties identified as important a more important skill than did their 4 Among them were court administration, for the chief justice to perform. Still, public relations, and fostering collegi- there are some notable patterns in the ality. Administering courts — whether skills male and female justices thought Table 3. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE & FEMALE NECESSARY unified or non-unified — was the most were important for a state chief justice STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: SKILLS TO BE EFFECTIVE CHIEF JUSTICE cited duty of the chief justice, and there to have. Proportion Proportion were no substantial differences of opin- Despite the diversity of opinions Male Female ion between the male and female justices expressed in the survey, leadership capa- ALL JUSTICES on the importance of this duty. Public bility, consensus-building, interpersonal Organizational Skills .014 .06 relations also fit into this category of skills, and administrative ability were Hard Work .049 0 responsibilities. Both male and female perceived as being the most important Collegiality .049 0 respondents recognized it as an import- skills of an effective chief justice, with Leadership .077 .14 ant component of a chief justice’s job. 11.6 percent of the respondents recog- Interpersonal Skills .063 .12 Second, male and female justices nizing “leadership ability” as the most diverged on the importance of some important skill to have. The responses UNIFIED COURTS ONLY duties and tasks. For example, male jus- showed many ways to interpret leader- Leadership .05 .154 tices thought chief justices should build ship as a requisite skill. Although the Hard Work .063 0 Preparation & Planning .038 .103 consensus and “properly” decide cas- term “leadership ability” was mentioned 18 Respect .025 .077 es. Female justices thought providing by some justices, other descriptions of a vision for the court and concentrat- leadership ability included: “leading by NON-UNIFIED COURTS ONLY ing on the court’s budget were more inspiring others”; “leadership is know- Organizational Skills 0 .182 important duties. These findings are ing when to fight, when not to fight, and unique. While deciding cases could be not being afraid to fight. Upholding the 1. Values represent the number of responses per gender linked to a masculine leadership style, dignity of the office by not backing away category divided by total responses. For example, 7 of and providing a vision to a feminine from confrontation”; “political skills to 143 responses by male justices indicated hard work as an important skill (7/143 = .049). 2. Variables listed in order leadership style, it is interesting that deal with the other branches, and with of greatest to least statistical difference between genders consensus-building was preferred by administration”; and “leading by not using difference of proportions tests. 3. Only variables with male justices. This difference warrants using a heavy hand.” Interestingly, con- statistically significant differences are shown. further consideration. sensus-building was considered by many Source: Authors' Data 54 VOL. 102 NO. 2

male counterparts (z = -1.77, p ≤ .05), tion, empathy, humility, ethics, time were ethics, preparation, and respect. It while male justices thought collegial- management, respect, and interpersonal is notable that these skills reflect per- ity, hard work, patience, and the ability skills were more favored by female jus- sonal character traits. It could be that to delegate were more important (z = tices than male justices. These skills are although these chief justices are charged 1.60, p ≤ .10 for both collegiality and very commonly associated with a fem- with administering these court systems, hard work). These skills are an inter- inine leadership style. Skills such as they are also symbolic representatives esting mix and do not fit neatly with intelligence, will, and energy are regu- of these courts. Therefore, the justices expectations of masculine and feminine larly attributed to masculine leadership hoped that their chief justices embody leadership styles. It could be that jus- styles, but were not among the most the best personal traits that judges and tices are suggesting that these skills are noted skills by the justices — male or staff themselves aspire to have. necessary for chief justices because they female — in the survey. It could be that An examination of responses from do not have them themselves; however, the results of this survey would be more justices in non-unified courts shows that there is no evidence of this in this sur- robust and significant if the sample size more female than male justices valued vey, and that theory would need to be were larger. organizational and time-management explored in future research. Differences between male and female skills, decisiveness, and humility in a It is interesting to note the skills justices changed when examining only chief justice. No skills stood out among where there was little difference between justices in unified court systems. In this the male justices’ responses as being male and female respondents in the analysis, leadership traits associated with more or less important when compared pooled analysis. For example, there was a masculine leadership style — nota- to female justices’ responses. little disagreement about the impor- bly hard work and delegation — rose tance of the ability to plan, the need for in importance for male justices. Female WHAT MAKES FOR AN intelligence, willpower, communica- leadership traits, too, became important INEFFECTUAL CHIEF JUSTICE? tion skills, and the value of humility in to female justices in unified court sys- Figure 3 provides a graphical inter- order for a chief justice to be a successful tems. Some notable skills important to pretation of the justices’ perceptions leader. But skills such as communica- female justices in unified court systems of the personal characteristics that

Figure 3: PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS DETRIMENTAL TO PERFORMANCE AS CHIEF JUSTICE Table 4: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND AS IDENTIFIED BY CURRENT AND FORMER STATE SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICES FEMALE STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES: SOURCE: AUTHORS’ DATA DETRIMENTAL LEADERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS

total Proportion Proportion 12 Male Female 10 10 10 male ALL JUSTICES 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 female Thin Skin .030 .111 8 7 7 No Enthusiasm .119 .028 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 Heavy Handed .060 .139 4 4 44 44 4 4 4 4 3 3 UNIFIED COURTS ONLY 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 Can't Build 0 Consensus .108 .032 No Vision .108 .032

ego

no vision 1. Values represent the number of responses per gender category divided by total responses. For example, 2 of 67 poor listener thin-skinned lacks empathy/ responses by male justices indicated thin skin as detrimen- heavy-handed lacks enthusiasm lacks decisiveness poor delegation/ respect for others tal to leadership (2/67 = .030). 2. Variables listed in order micro-management administrative skills of greatest to least statistical difference between genders lacks organizational/ can’t build consensus using difference of proportions tests. 3. Only variables lacks communication skills with statistically significant differences are shown. Source:

ignorant of job responsibilities Authors' Data JUDICATURE 55

make chief justices ineffectual lead- “fight” for their own courts in order to ers. The characteristics that stood out be effective leaders, and that they had There was little were typically associated with ineffec- to be able to remain strong in the face disagreement tual leadership in other organizational of harsh opinions and criticisms. It is about the importance contexts: no enthusiasm, poor delega- possible that justices believed that if a tion skills, micromanagement, lack of chief justice had a “thin skin,” he or she of the ability to respect for his or her colleagues, a big would not be willing or able to success- plan, the need for ego, heavy-handedness, and a lack of fully fight for the courts they represent intelligence, communication skills. A lack of enthu- in a political arena: willpower, siasm was the most-cited characteristic Justice 23: [The chief justice] needs to of an ineffectual chief justice (12 percent have competent political skills — almost communication of responses). adversarial. skills, and the A comparison of male and female Justice 34: [The chief justice] must be value of humility justices’ responses about ineffectual courageous. leadership reveals similar views toward Justice 36: They have to be an effective in order for a chief these characteristics. T-tests of all types advocate for the state court system — par- justice to be a of ineffectual leadership show that there ticularly in budget negotiations. successful leader. is very little difference between male Justice 55: Courage is necessary. Ego, and female justices’ conclusions that political favoritism and fear, poor insight poor delegation skills and microman- and self-promotion, arrogance and an agement, ego, lack of organizational or inability to entertain others’ points of and female justices agreed that a lack of administrative ability, and lack of com- view. [These] characteristics lead to enthusiasm was detrimental to chief jus- munication skills result in ineffectual failure. tice leadership. Second, female justices leadership among chief justices. noted that a lack of respect for others, Table 4 lists the characteristics of The characteristics and skills that from others, and for the court system as ineffectual leadership in order of the the male justices identified as contrib- a whole was detrimental to leadership of greatest differences between male uting to ineffective leadership are also the state court system. In the words of and female respondents. These char- interesting. First, consensus-building one female justice, “[N]ot exhibiting a acteristics are also broken down for emerged again as a skill that male jus- greater level of self-sacrifice is detrimen- unified and non-unified court systems. tices thought was essential to effective tal [to leadership]. Respect and belief in Having a thin skin, lack of enthusiasm, chief justice leadership. The results are the institution are key.” In the words of heavy-handedness, an inability to gener- telling. These justices also thought it another justice: ate consensus, and a lack of vision were was detrimental to leadership if consen- “Having served under three chiefs, considered ineffectual leadership char- sus cannot be achieved. This contrasts the commonalities and differences are acteristics. Female justices were more with responses about vision. Female jus- striking. When faced with import- likely than male justices to think that tices said vision was a very important ant issues (e.g., legislative relations), heavy-handedness and a thin skin were leadership trait for chief justices; male two would come to the court and say detrimental to effective leadership. justices said it is detrimental to court ‘“We have a problem and I’d like to Heavy-handedness in leadership clearly leadership if chief justices do not have hear your ideas about how to address conflicts with a female leadership style. vision. it.”’ The other would say ‘“We have At first glance, it is interesting that Again, several characteristics emerge a problem and I’m going to tell you there would be a difference between the when we look only at unified courts. Male what to do about it.”’ The dictator views of male and female justices with justices still considered the inability to took all the credit for everything that regard to how much having a thin skin foster consensus and formulate a vision went well and blamed others if things affects a chief justice’s ability to lead. to be detrimental. Female justices still didn’t go well. The other two were However, many female justices made thought heavy-handedness and having good listeners, thoughtful and diplo- statements throughout their surveys a thin skin were detrimental. However, matic, gaining our respect no matter indicating that chief justices needed to two new factors emerged. First, male how the situation turned out.” 4 56 VOL. 102 NO. 2

Differences among male and female court systems. Here, the results align justices’ responses about enthusiasm Whereas male more closely with expectations in the also emerge in non-unified courts. justices believed literature pertaining to how differ- Female justices also saw the lack of that chief justices ent leadership styles fit within certain communication and listening skills as types of organizations. Although lead- more detrimental to the success of a were ineffective ership and organizational abilities were chief justice than did their male col- when they could viewed by most justices as essential leagues. These skills closely align with a not generate skills, female justices highlighted emo- female leadership style. Female justices consensus and tional skills such as empathy, humility, also thought that having a big ego was and respect, while male justices focused more detrimental to chief justice lead- provide a vision on more concrete leadership skills such ership than did the male respondents. for their courts, as hard work and decisiveness. Future Often, these leadership weaknesses female justices research on court leadership needs to were thought to be interconnected. For pay close attention to differences in example, when talking about detri- believed that leading unified versus non-unified mental leadership qualities, one female heavy-handedness court systems. Dividing courts in this justice on a non-unified court stated, and a lack of respect way is not a paramount consideration “[T]he weaker ones tend to be overbear- for this paper; however, the differences ing, overconfident, and poor listeners.” for others on in results that occurred because of this the court led to consideration should be explored more CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ineffective leadership. thoroughly. What duties and responsibilities do Finally, both male and female justices state supreme court justices think are agreed about the attributes of ineffec- necessary for a state chief justice to tive chief justices. Both male and female accomplish in order to be an effective deal with a court’s internal operations, justices agreed that a lack of enthusi- leader? What leadership skills should while female justices emphasized vision asm, poor organizational and leadership a chief justice exhibit or not exhibit and a belief that a chief justice should skills, and a lack of delegation skills in order to be an effective leader of his focus on relationships with exter- and communication skills were detri- or her court? Do male and female jus- nal actors who may influence a court’s mental to leadership. Still, there were tices differ in what they think are the environment. This last difference is differences between the genders here, necessary responsibilities and skills of intriguing and warrants further research. too. Whereas male justices believed successful state supreme court leaders? Another interesting result is the degree that chief justices were ineffective when This paper provides insight into these to which male justices emphasized con- they could not generate consensus and questions by examining the answers sensus and collegiality when compared provide a vision for their courts, female to an original survey given by state to female justices. More research should justices believed that heavy-handedness supreme court justices themselves. be devoted to understanding whether and a lack of respect for others on the Based on the answers to the survey, or not male chief justices actually fos- court led to ineffective leadership. it is reasonable to conclude that many ter greater consensus than their female These results reveal both similarities duties and tasks are thought to be inher- counterparts. and differences of opinion as to what ent in the position of chief justice. For There are similarities between makes chief justices effective leaders of example, all justices surveyed believed male and female justices regarding their courts. While a main goal of this proper court administration to be their perceptions of the skills neces- paper is to analyze gendered differences among a chief justice’s foremost respon- sary to effectively lead as a chief justice in leadership style preferences, we hope sibilities. However, differences among — especially when the results were that this analysis provides insight for all male and female respondents emerged pooled. However, interesting differences as to what constitutes effective leader- with regard to how that administration emerged when the answers were bro- ship on state supreme courts. should take place. Male justices empha- ken down based on whether the justices sized the need to foster consensus and operated within unified or non-unified JUDICATURE 57

1 See Peverill Squire, Measuring the Res. & Theory 185, 185 – 96 (2016). Male and Female Leaders in 27 Countries, 40 J. Professionalization of U.S. State Courts of Last 4 We recognize that these are general classi- Int. Bus. Stud. 1396, 1396 – 1405 (2009). Resort, 8 St. Pol. & Pol’y Q. 223, 223 – 38 fications, and that male leaders can and do 10 See Brett E. Boyea & Victoria Farrar-Myers, (2008); David Hughes, Teena Wilhelm & exhibit female leadership styles, and vice versa. Leadership and Election Litigation in State Supreme Richard Vining, Jr., Deliberation Rules and However, the literature on gender and leader- Courts, 43 St. & Loc. Gov. Rev. 17, 17 – 31 Opinion Assignment Procedures in State Supreme ship style shows that these types of leadership (2011); Amanda Ross Edwards & Elisha Carol Courts: A Replication, 36 J. Sys. J. 395, 395 – characteristics are typical of leadership style Savchak, Why are State Judges Among Us? Public 410 (2015). differences between the genders. Service and Self-Presentation, 100 Judicature 2 See Mikel A. Norris & Holley J. Tankersley, 5 See Alice H. Eagly & Blair T. Johnson, Gender 21, 21 – 29 (2016). Women Rule: Gendered Leadership and State and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis, 108 11 See Charles H. Sheldon, The Incidence and Supreme Court Chief Justice Selection, 39 J. Psych. Bull. 233, 233 – 56 (1990); Alice H. Structure of Dissensus on State Supreme Courts, in Women, Pol. & Pol’y. 104, 104 – 25 (2018). Eagly, Mona G. Makhijani & Bruce Klonsky, Supreme Court Decision Making: New 3 See Joseph Daniel Ura & Carla M. Flink, Gender and the Evaluation of Leaders: A Meta- Institutionalist Approaches 115, 115– Managing the Supreme Court: The Chief Justice, Analysis, 111 Psych. Bull. 3, 3 – 22 (1992); 34 (Cornell Clayton & Howard Gilman, eds., Management, and Consensus, 26 J. Pub. Admin Sarah Burke & Karen M. Collins, Gender 1999). Differences in Leadership Styles and Management 12 See Boyea & Farrar-Myers, supra note 10; Laura MIKEL NORRIS is Skills, 16 Women Mgmt. Rev. 244, 244 – 56 Langer, Jody McMullen, Nicholas Ray & (2001); Christina L. Boyd, She’ll Settle It?, 1 J. Daniel Stratton, Recruitment of Chief Justices on assistant professor L. & Cts. 193, 193 – 219 (2013). of politics at Coastal States Supreme Courts: A Choice between Institutional 6 See Paul C. Nutt, Strategic Decisions Made by and Personal Goals, 65 J. Pol. 656, 656 – 75 Carolina University. Top Executives and Middle Managers with Data (2003); Laura Langer & Teena Wilhelm, The His research inter- and Process Dominant Styles, 27 J. Mgmt Stud. Ideology of State Supreme Court Chief Justices, 89 ests include state 173, 173 – 94 (1990); Janice Yoder, Making Judicature 78, 78 – 86 (2005). and federal judicial Leadership Work More Effectively for Women, 57 J. 13 See Swanson, supra note 8. Soc. Issues 815, 815 – 28 (2001). selection, and the effect of gender 14 See Sally Holewa, Court Reform: The North 7 on judicial selection, judicial deci- See Christina L. Boyd, She’ll Settle It?, 1 J. L. & Dakota Experience, 30 J. Sys J. 91, 91 – 110 sion making, and judicial leadership. Cts. 193, 193 – 219 (2013). (2009); William Raftery, Unification and 8 See Rick A. Swanson, Judicial Perceptions of “Bragency:” A Century of Court Organization CHARLIE HOLLIS Consensual Norms on State Supreme Courts, 91 and Reorganization, 96 Judicature 6, 6 – 12 WHITTINGTON Judicature 186, 186 – 96 (2008). Several (2013). is a graduate stu- reviewers noted that the term “consensus” can 15 See Hughes, Wilhelm & Vining, supra note 1 dent at Georgetown have different meanings in different judicial (2015). contexts. It was also noted that consensus con- 16 See Victor E. Flango, Court Unification and the University’s ceptualized as unanimous decision making can Quality of State Supreme Courts, 16 J. Sys. J. 33, McCourt School of have adverse consequences (for example, when 33 – 55 (1994); Victor E. Flango & David B. Public Policy. His a court unanimously makes a decision that is Rottman, Measuring Trial Court Consolidation, out of step with the law). In these instances, research focuses on social identity 14 J. Sys. J. 65, 65 – 74 (1992). and public leadership, and gender dissent can be meritorious and valuable. The 17 See Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & van Engen, and sexual minority policy issues. authors readily agree with this sentiment. However, it needs to be noted that we asked supra note 9 (2003); Paris, Howell, Dorfman & Charlie is the Director of Research the justices in this survey to conceptualize Hanges, supra note 9 (2009). and Publications for the McCourt consensus as unanimous decision making. 18 “Properly” deciding cases was not a pre-de- School’s LGBTQ Policy Initiative. Although some justices noted that unanimous fined selection for the justices in the survey. An earlier version of this paper decision making is not always desirable, and Those who stated cases should be decided was presented at the 2016 Annual that their courts do not discourage dissenting properly were typically referring to the chief opinions. Almost all respondents stated that Meeting of the American Political justice making sure that the court was not judicial consensus is still believed by the mem- decided cases on improper grounds, or answer- Science Association, Philadelphia, bers of their court to be an aspirational goal. ing questions that were not asked of the court. Pa. Funding for this project was made 9 See Alice H. Eagly, Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidt Many also stated that proper decision making available through the Professional & Marloes L. van Engen, Transformational, included making sure all internal court proce- Enhancement Grant program spon- Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: dures for case decision making were followed. sored by the Office of the Provost, A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women and Men, Coastal Carolina University. 129 Psych. Bull. 569, 569 – 91 (2003); Lori D. Paris, Jon P. Howell, Peter W. Dorfman & Paul J. Hanges, Preferred Leadership Prototypes of