The Gender Paradox in Work Satisfaction and the Protestant Clergy - Statistical Data Included

Sociology of Religion, Spring, 2001 by Elaine M. McDuff

Elaine M. McDuff [*]

Female clergy are more likely than male clergy to serve small, rural churches in declining communities, yet they express a high level of satisfaction with their work, often higher than that of male clergy. Why are female clergy relatively happy with their jobs in spite of poor work conditions? Studies of other occupations have consistently found that while women's work conditions and rewards are inferior to those of men in comparable positions (a situation which should reduce satisfaction), women report being as satisfied or more satisfied with their work (Fry and Greenfield 1980; Mannheim 1983; Phelan and Phelan 1983; Moore 1985; Bokemier and Lacy 1986; Hodson 1989; Phelan 1994). This discrepancy is called the "gender paradox" in work satisfaction.

The purpose of this study is to address female clergy's reports of higher satisfaction, using the five main explanations of the paradox which have been identified and tested (Phelan 1994; Mueller and Wallace 1996); the emphasis is on arguments that involve justice perceptions. Beyond the effects of justice perceptions on satisfaction, gender difference in justice perceptions are of interest in and of themselves, since sources of gender inequality are not likely to be corrected as long as men and women evaluate those inequalities as just and fair (Marx [1848]1964; Smelser 1962). A comprehensive model of sources of satisfaction will be used, as previous studies (Mueller and Wallace 1996) have found that using a properly specified model may eliminate much of the paradox for job satisfaction. The data come from a 1996 national survey of pastors in two Protestant denominations, and show that a gender paradox does exist for clergy job satisfaction. While justice perceptions play a highly significant role in explai ning job satisfaction, they fail to eliminate the gender paradox. A finding which contradicts previous studies is evidence of differences in job values for male and female clergy. It is suggested that future studies include variables that assess the importance of gender-specific job values in producing job satisfaction.

Studies of male and female clergy consistently find a gender gap in pay and benefits. There is also clear evidence that female clergy experience inferior work conditions. They are more likely than men to serve small, rural churches in declining communities, yet they express a high level of satisfaction with their work, often higher than that of male clergy. Why are female clergy relatively happy with their jobs in spite of poor work conditions? Studies of other occupations have consistently found that while women's work conditions and rewards are inferior to those of men in comparable positions (a situation which should reduce satisfaction), women report being as satisfied or more satisfied with their work than men (Fry and Greenfield 1980; Mannheim 1983; Phelan and Phelan 1983; Moore 1985; Bokemeier and Lacy 1986; Hodson 1989; Phelan 1994). This discrepancy is called the "gender paradox" in work satisfaction.

Efforts to explain why the paradox exists have met with limited success (Phelan 1994; Mueller and Wallace 1996). Both Phelan (1994) and Mueller and Wallace (1996) identified and tested five explanations for the paradox: differential job inputs, own-gender referents, differential entitlements, differential job values, and subjective rewards. The first three explanations are based on justice theory (Jasso and Rossi 1977), according to which individuals perceive that justice or injustice exists based on a comparison of their rewards with the rewards of others (Jasso and Rossi 1977; Hegtvedt 1994). As Jasso (1980) points out, the definition of "just reward" (the standard with which one's own rewards are compared to determine justice or injustice) may vary across individuals or groups. Using justice theory to explain women's higher levels of satisfaction in spite of inferior rewards therefore involves testing for a gender difference in the meaning of a "just reward" or in perceptions of justice. While Phelan (1994 ) found no support for justice or equity arguments in her assessment of these explanations for the gender paradox, she used objective rather than subjective measures of justice. The only one of the five explanations tested by Phelan (1994) which received some support was the argument that perceived or "subjective" features of work (which are similar for men and women) have a stronger effect on work satisfaction than objective features of work (which tend to favor men). Mueller and Wallace (1996), on the other hand, used perceptual rather than objective measures of justice, and found that while perceptions of both pay justice and distributive justice have no effect on job satisfaction (a more global measure), they do have an important effect on pay satisfaction (a reward-specific measure), and reduce the gender gap in satisfaction with pay. These findings underscore the importance of using perceptual measures of justice, and support Kalleberg's (1977) argument that it is the subjective (comparative) meanings t hat employees associate with work conditions that determine satisfaction.