Original Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Explaining the gender gap in 2021, Vol. 49(6) 863–882
ª The Author(s) 2020

school principalship: A tale of Article reuse guidelines:

two sides sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1741143220918258
journals.sagepub.com/home/ema

Miryam Martı́nez Martı́nez, Manuel M Molina-López

and Ruth Mateos de Cabo

Abstract
This study sheds light on the underrepresentation of women as school principals by analysing
which model (organisational or individual) is most identified with the gender differences in the
quality of management found in favour of women principals. To do so, this study presents a model
for the appointment of school heads in a two-sided market: demand and supply. On the demand
side (organisational model), the presence of double standards, with respect to the promotion of
women, would imply that higher bars are set for the evaluation of women. Alternatively, on the
supply side (individual model), a potential lower self-efficacy perception among women could lead
them to self-exclude from managerial positions. In both cases, the findings reveal only highly-skilled
females as principals and a gender gap in principal positions. By using the World Management
Survey (WMS), data indicate that female principals are associated with higher management quality,
which confirms the presence of barriers to female promotion. Exploration of the market side
responsible for these barriers found that only the demand side is significant, which signals the
double-standard argument. This supports the argument that changes in the principal selection
process should be implemented for the maximisation of the available pool of talent.

Keywords
Schools, female leadership, management, human resources, gender bias

Introduction
In Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, the average
number of female teachers in secondary education makes up 68% of the teaching population, but
they hold only 45% of principal positions, as of 2013 (last available data) (OECD, 2016).
Having more male than female principals is not a problem per se, but rather, it is more a
consequence of a problem. Indeed, one could attribute the problem of female underrepresentation

Corresponding author:
Manuel M Molina-López, Universidad San Pablo-CEU, CEU Universities, Business Economics Department, Calle de Julián
Romea, 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain.
Email: [email protected]
864 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

in top school management positions not only to employers’ practices but also to women’s choices.
The scarcity of women in principalship positions is a complex reality, with many contextual factors
and different social and political aspects that can combine to produce unique modes of bias. In an
effort of systematisation, Gabaldon et al. (2016) grouped the principal reasons that prevent women
from reaching leadership positions into demand and supply factors of the principals’ market. On
the demand side, there could be bias that stems from organisational policies that create double
standards in the promotion of women. In their event history analyses, Davis et al. (2017) found that
males are more likely than female counterparts of the same race (or ethnicity) to enter the princi-
palship and do so at a faster rate, suggesting that the selection process may be influenced by
systemic gender biases. In contrast, on the supply side, there could exist internal barriers that lead
women to self-exclude from leadership positions.
The demand-side perspective belongs to the sphere of ‘organisational perspective’ or the
‘discrimination model’, which highlights obstacles within the educational system to women’s full
integration into educational leadership roles. In this model, the organisational structures and
practices in education overtly or subtly discriminate against women in the selection for leadership
positions, which explains why women do not advance, even if they are qualified and ready to do so
(Estler, 1975; Tallerico and Burstyn, 1996).
On the other hand, the supply-side approach corresponds to the ‘individual perspective model’
(Estler, 1975), which looks at the internal barriers of women as the cause of their under-
representation in educational leadership positions. Within this framework, individual barriers can
be grouped into three clusters: gender differences in values and attitudes (e.g. women being less
achievement- and power-oriented); identification of gender-expected roles leading to the imposi-
tion of the ‘appropriate’ leadership behaviour on male models; and family conflicts affecting
women’s professional choices and career paths (Gabaldon et al., 2016; Terjesen et al., 2009).
According to this model, individual attitudes that fall into the psychological orientation domain,
such as poor self-esteem and lack of self-confidence, could act as important internal barriers,
leading women to exclude themselves from school administration positions (Tallerico and Bur-
styn, 1996).
This paper attempts to identify signals of gender bias in a school’s principal promotion process
by examining gender differences in the management quality. If biases in the promotion process are
hindering women’s access to managerial positions, the implication would be that women are
required to be more highly qualified than men to become a principal. As a consequence, women
would perform better than men. The presence of a double standard (i.e. higher bars to evaluate
women) would explain possible gender differences in management quality and, ultimately, the
gender gap among school principals.
An alternative explanation for the lower proportion of female principals with concurrent higher
management quality scores (MQS) could be that women have lower self-efficacy perception. In
this case, not only would fewer women have access to managerial positions, but those who did
have access would have to be more prepared to compensate for their lower self-perception in their
ability to match the competencies and skills required, which, in turn, would lead them to perform
better as managers than their male counterparts. In this regard, Hoff and Mitchell (2008), in their
study of school administrators in Maine, showed that 61.14% of women waited until they met all of
the educational requirements compared to only 5.21% of men – a result attributed to the tendency
of women wanting to be ‘super-prepared’ before applying. Spencer and Kochan (2000) argue that
women with higher levels of education and experience may have raised their confidence in their
knowledge and skills to occupy such positions.
Martı́nez et al.: Explaining the gender gap in school principalship 865

Other causes of self-exclusion from the supply side – such as women seeming to be less power-
oriented than men (Adams and Funk, 2012) or avoiding positions countering their gender self-
schemas (Eddleston et al., 2006) – do not explain the simultaneous gender gap in top school
positions and gender differences in quality management. Therefore, we focused the supply-side
perspective on lower self-efficacy perception.
To explore both sides of the nomination process and their relationships with the lower presence
of women in school principal positions, we looked for gender differences in MQS, utilising data
from the WMS (Bloom et al., 2015). Bloom et al. (2015) found that female principals outper-
formed their male counterparts but without offering any explanation for this phenomenon, as
gender was only a control variable within the scope of their study.
First, the authors constructed a model around the two-sided perspective of the principals’
market (Gabaldon et al., 2016), which explains two stylised and apparently contradictory facts:
the existence of a gender gap in principal positions and a gender gap in favour of women in MQS.
Then, to discover which of the proposed barriers are the most plausible, this study followed
Hallinger et al.’s (2016) recommendations to carry out multivariate studies that advance the
understanding of gender differences in leadership by using moderator effects of gender. Thus,
the present authors interact gender with two factors that are available in the WMS and that
pertain to both theories: a supply-side factor (the principal has a background in science, tech-
nology, engineering, mathematics or business (STEMB)) and a demand-side factor (the school
competition level).
Thus, if the demand side (i.e. double standards in the promotion process) is responsible for the
gender gap in MQS, then school competition will have a moderator effect of the principal’s gender
on management quality, as predicted by Becker’s (1957) theory of discrimination. On the contrary,
if the supply side (self-exclusion due to lower self-efficacy perception) is the main cause, then a
personal factor, such as the principal’s STEMB background, could mitigate their lower self-
confidence in holding such a position, since women who choose a STEMB career tend to have
higher self-efficacy ratings (MacPhee et al., 2013; Nauta, 2004). In this way, this study uses the
STEMB background of the principal as some kind of ‘treatment or therapy’ that segments the pool
of women principals between those with a STEMB background – who, according to the literature,
have higher self-esteem on average – and those without a STEMB background. If the women with
a STEMB background are more similar – in terms of MQS – to their male counterparts than those
without it, this would be a ‘signal’ that women’s self-perception is boosted by the higher confi-
dence linked to STEMB fields. Other aspects that might be related to the choice of a STEMB
degree, such as a higher motivation, would not explain the gender differences in management.
A better understanding of the barriers that women are facing as they try to reach the higher
echelons of educational administration would advance the topic of female representation in school
leadership positions, identify areas for future research and help to build a more equitable and
efficient work environment in the upper ranks of educational administration.

Theory and research questions

Double standard and women’s lower self-efficacy perception
This study observes two stylised facts with regard to gender differences in school principals. First,
there are more male than female school principals. Second, female school principals tend to exhibit
higher MQS, which this paper confirms in a later section.
866 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

Figure 1. Double standard theory.

Given these stylised facts, the authors built a theoretical model around the two-sided perspec-
tive of the principals’ market (Gabaldon et al., 2016), as presented in the introduction, which
corresponds to two models used in the literature to explain women’s underrepresentation in
educational leadership positions (Estler, 1975; Tallerico and Burstyn, 1996). To show how both
theories work, this paper presents them in a formalised way.

On the demand side: Double standard. Figure 1 gives a schematic representation of the existence of
double standards at the appointment stage. Bell-shaped curves represent the distribution of MQS
for both women (top) and men (bottom). The teachers who are promoted would be the ones with
the best MQS, assuming that both women and men are equally qualified (i.e. distributions with
equal means and variances).1 Under this theory, divergences appear because of double standards.
Male candidates are considered for principal positions if their MQSm are above a minimum
standard (Sm), thus: MQSm > Sm , while for women, the minimum standard is higher (Sf > Sm ).
This double standard has two consequences. First, the number of women that satisfy the condition
ðMQSf > Sf Þ is much lower than that of males (MQSm > Sm ). Second, among those female
principals who have overcome the double standard, the average quality management scores will
be higher than those of their male counterparts (E½MQSf =MQSf > Sf  > E½MQSm =MQSm > Sm ).
The presence of double standards of competence would imply that status characteristics (e.g.
gender, ethnicity, socio-economic class) become a basis for stricter standards for people with a
lower status. Although there has been a growth in the proportion of women in middle management
in recent decades, there is still clear evidence of the gender gap in senior positions (Mateos de Cabo
et al., 2019). Regarding leadership in education, Coleman (2005) argues that the expectation that
the maternal role will be extended to the care and education of very young children, as well as
stereotypes about female and male leaders, preserves the headship of the more prestigious parts of
the educational system, such as the secondary schools, as the domain of men. Indeed, the propor-
tion of women principals still lags behind that of women in the teaching force. In the UK, only 38%
of secondary heads were women, out of a teaching force that was composed of 66% females
(Department for Education and Skills, 2018). In the USA, 33% of high school heads are women,
Martı́nez et al.: Explaining the gender gap in school principalship 867

Figure 2. Female lower self-efficacy perception theory.

even though 64% of teachers are females (US Department of Education, 2019). These proportions
are quite similar to those of Portugal, the Netherlands and Finland (OECD, 2016).
Coleman (2005) argue that the feminisation of the profession is related to its status. Therefore,
when teaching becomes a ‘feminine’ occupation, men preserve their dominance and hegemony by
moving to positions of leadership, leaving women as mere teachers. According to this, in the
male-dominated world of the educational management of high schools, women would tend to be
lower-status people (Foschi, 2000). Thus, as predicted by the double standards of competence
perspective, a strict standard for competent ability in settings involving evaluation (e.g. the selec-
tion process for a managerial position) would mean that women would be required to provide more
evidence of competence than their male counterparts to be promoted to higher-echelon positions.
Therefore, the existence of double standards in evaluating men and women could produce more
highly-skilled female than male leaders.
In her study, Foschi (1996) links double standards to gender prejudices (i.e. to gender bias or
discrimination). In the educational field, several studies show the existence of some kind of conscious
or unconscious bias against women in leadership roles. Coleman (2005) – using data from large-scale
surveys of secondary school principals in England – found that at least half of the women perceived
discrimination in relation to appointments. Females were considered generally unsuited to the
demands of a role that was thought to require masculine qualities. In a comparative study between
the UK and Greece, Mitroussi and Mitroussi (2009) found evidence of gender discrimination against
women in terms of opportunities for promotion in the education workplace. More recently, Coronel
et al. (2010a), in their case studies of female principals in Spain, found that women often felt like they
had more to prove than their male colleagues for the same administrative issues. However, women can
also face discrimination and sexism at the early stages of their principal careers, as Dunshea (1998)
showed in a study of female principals beginning their careers in New South Wales, Australia.

On the supply side: Women’s lower self-efficacy perception. Figure 2 gives a schematic representation
of the effect of women’s lower self-efficacy perception as an internal barrier in gender gaps.
Again, teachers with the best MQS are the ones promoted to the position of principal. However,
868 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

in this case, the standard applied is the same (Sf ¼ Sm ). Divergences appear because potential
female candidates who are eligible for promotion (MQSf > Sf ) do not consider themselves to be
qualified for the position offered (low self-efficacy perception). This would mean that those
considering themselves for a top-level position would be ‘tougher’ than men: S 0f > Sf ¼ Sm .
Consequently, this self-imposed penalty produces the same results as the double standard: the
0 0
proportion of women satisfying the condition ðMQS f > S f Þ is much lower than that of men
(MQSm > Sm ). Additionally, among those female principals, the average MQS will be higher
(E½MQSf =MQSf > S 0f  > E½MQSm =MQSm > Sm ).
Women’s higher self-imposed standards, associated with their decisions of whether to apply for top
managerial positions, can come from the fact that women generally judge themselves as being less
suitable than men for many non-traditional occupations. Bandura (1977) has conceptualised self-
efficacy as the expectations one has about one’s abilities to complete a task or tasks related to a specific
goal.
Leadership positions are often believed to require agentic qualities (e.g. speaking assertively,
competing for attention, influencing others) that are usually associated with men. By contrast,
communal qualities (e.g. accepting others’ direction, supporting and soothing others, contributing
to the solution of relational and interpersonal problems) – which are not usually considered
important for leadership success – are associated with women.
Since agentic qualities are the typical qualities needed to succeed as a leader (Eagly and Carli,
2007), the mismatch between the female gender role and the leadership role could raise internal
barriers that would prevent more women from considering themselves to be ready for top positions.
Women could decline to apply for a job or for a promotion if they believe they lack any of the listed
qualifications, while their male counterparts predictably step forward if they possess even a few of
the skills that match the listed requirements (Dickerson and Taylor, 2000). Such insight into self-
efficacy is especially relevant to an understanding of female behaviour, as it relates to the decision
to apply for a leadership position, given the role and gender stereotypes women face that can
threaten their levels of perceived efficacy (Bosak and Sczesny, 2008). This lower self-efficacy
perception, in relation to success in traditionally masculine tasks (i.e. occupying a principal
position), means that not only must women contend with the negative view that others hold of
their competence in traditional male domains, but they also have to contend with their own
negative self-views (Haynes and Heilman, 2013).
This does not mean, however, that the relative absence of women leaders is at the fault of
women, but rather a consequence of women who are actually internalising the prominent values
relating to gender and management (i.e. the ‘think manager-think male’ phenomenon). Indeed,
Schein (2001) examined this phenomenon in the international arena, finding it is a pervasive
phenomenon that exists among men and women.
In the literature on gender and leadership in education, there are several studies that mention, in
varying degrees of explicitness, this perception of lower self-efficacy possessed by women seeking
or actually holding a leadership position. In this regard, the multi-country study conducted by
Cubillo and Brown (2003) refers to women’s lack of confidence and self-esteem as an important
internal barrier to their progress in educational leadership. Helterbran and Rieg (2004) mention the
perceived need to be ‘better qualified’ before applying for a leadership position, as being among
the main barriers for women seeking positions in educational leadership. McGee (2010), exploring
women administrators’ self-imposed barriers in Florida, found that a lack of confidence ranks
fourth in the list of barriers for climbing into leadership positions within the last 10 years and
currently. Mitroussi and Mitroussi (2009) argue that because the work environment is male-
Martı́nez et al.: Explaining the gender gap in school principalship 869

dominated, women must recurrently prove themselves before they are recognised, which requires
great psychological strength and self-confidence to cope with the pressure. Other research asserts
that women often delay entry into administration to be highly prepared (Hoff and Mitchell, 2008),
and they enter with greater professional preparation than men (Spencer and Kochan, 2000).
Moreover, Hoff and Mitchell (2008) pointed out that this tendency could reveal traditional social
norms for women, such as modesty. These results are in line with the supply-side argument, based
on lower self-efficacy perception.

Research questions
Gender and school management. Different studies have reported gender differences in the way males
and females administrate schools, including transformational versus transactional approaches,
democratic versus autocratic leadership orientation (Eagly et al., 1992; Eagly et al., 2003; Eagly
and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Krüger, 1996, 2008; Pounder and Coleman, 2002) and instruc-
tional leadership (Hallinger, 2011; Hallinger and Murphy, 1985; Krüger, 2008; Shaked et al.,
2019). Given the gender differences in leadership established in the body of education scholarship,
it is not unreasonable to consider the existence of such gender gap differences in the quality of
school management. If the results confirm gender differences, the present authors will try to
uncover their ultimate motivation(s). Therefore, the first research question is:

RQ1: Do female principals present higher MQS than men?

With regard to management quality, following Bloom et al. (2015), this study distinguishes two
types of management qualities: talent management and non-people management. Talent manage-
ment includes practices such as hiring, firing, paying and promoting, while non-people manage-
ment includes operations, monitoring and target setting. Bloom et al. (2015) also found that talent
management scores were notably weaker than non-people management scores, indicating that
these categories should be handled separately. In any case, for both categories, the assumption
is that female principals exhibit higher MQS than men; therefore, we propose the following sub-
research question:

RQ1a: Do female principals present higher non-people MQS than men?

RQ1b: Do female principals present higher talent MQS than men?

If the previous research questions are accepted, the second goal will be to discover whether the
connection comes from the demand side (i.e. double standard) or from the supply side (i.e. female
lower self-efficacy perception). Two moderating factors are chosen: one from the demand side (the
level of competition of the school) and one from the supply side (the principal’s STEMB back-
ground), which, according to the literature, could have a potential impact on the relationship
between principal gender and management quality, as argued in the following sub-sections.

The role of a STEMB background in management quality gender differences. There are potential barriers
to top management positions on the supply side. The literature tends to sort supply-side effects into
three groups of causes: possible gender differences in values and attitudes, identification of gender-
expected roles, and family conflicts (Gabaldón et al., 2016; Terjesen et al., 2009). Within the first
group, a specific female attitude, that is, a lower level of self-efficacy perception than men,
dominates over the rest of the causes of self-exclusion (e.g. practical reasons and lifestyle choices,
870 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

family-work balance) as an explanation for the better female management qualities. Here, it is
worth noting that although these causes of self-exclusion are grouped on the supply-side by the
literature, one could argue that they have their roots in the expectations that society poses on
different gender roles (e.g. places responsibility for families largely on women instead of men).
Thus, women’s lower self-efficacy perception is tested to ascertain whether there is a relation-
ship between women’s higher MQS and the lower proportion of female principals. For this
purpose, the principal’s STEMB background serves as a relevant factor in potentially moderating
the effect of gender on management quality, since, according to the literature, it is a very good
indicator of an individual’s self-confidence. MacPhee et al. (2013) support the evidence that
women with high ratings of self-efficacy are more likely to persist in a STEMB career and are
more self-confident in their ability to fulfil the competencies and skills required (Cech et al., 2011).
Given that this study involved high schools, in which teachers’ degrees represent many diverse
disciplines, including STEMB, a gender gap in principal positions and management quality ulti-
mately caused by women’s lower self-efficacy perception should be mitigated by a STEMB back-
ground (Grogan and Shakeshaft, 2011). Therefore, the authors posit the following research question:

RQ2: Does a STEMB background in female principals attenuate the effect of the female
gender of the principal on the MQS?

The role of school competition in management quality gender differences. If the root cause of the gender
gap was on the demand side (double standard), we could expect that a higher level of competition
among schools (measured by the availability of schools offering education to same age students
within a 30-minute drive from each of them) could reduce the room that schools have to apply
double standards.
There is evidence of negative beliefs about women and leadership among those involved in hiring
school leaders (e.g. school board members, educational search consultants, search committee mem-
bers, practising administrators), preventing women from becoming educational leaders (Grogan,
1999; Skrla et al., 2000). Becker’s (1957) theory of discrimination predicts that these discriminatory
practices would lead to higher costs in terms of loss of efficiency and lower profits. Consequently, in
a perfectly competitive market, the schools that discriminate would not survive in the long term, as
they have poorer management practices. Although this prediction has been criticised because gender
imbalances in organisations are persistent, Heckman (1998) stressed that discrimination will only
disappear completely in the presence of strong competition, and even then, it may take decades to
remove inefficient organisations (i.e. those engaged in discrimination). In less competitive markets,
extra rents allow companies to continue their preconceptions and beliefs; thus, discrimination can be
seen as an affordable option, even when it is inefficient.
Therefore, if the origin of the higher MQS comes from the demand side, we could expect that
there could be a relationship between women principals’ higher MQS and a low level of school
competition, with this gap being attenuated in schools that face high competition levels. Therefore,
the present authors propose the following:

RQ3: Do higher school competition levels lessen the effect of the gender of the principal on
the MQS?

As mentioned previously, and considering the two main management quality components
established by Bloom et al. (2015), RQ2 and RQ3 can be divided into two sub-research questions:
Martı́nez et al.: Explaining the gender gap in school principalship 871

RQ2a: Does a STEMB background in female principals attenuate the effect of the female
gender of the principal on the non-people MQS?
RQ2b: Does a STEMB background in female principals attenuate the effect of the female
gender of the principal on talent MQS?
RQ3a: Do higher school competition levels lessen the effect of the gender of the principal on
the non-people MQS?
RQ3b: Do higher school competition levels lessen the effect of the gender of the principal on
talent MQS?

Sample and methodology

This study uses data from the WMS (Bloom et al., 2015). The WMS is a cross-country dataset,
built to measure the quality of management practices in different industries (i.e. education, health-
care, manufacturing and retail), run out of the Centre for Economic Performance of the London
School of Economics. In the education survey of the WMS, interviews with 1800 high school
principals in eight countries (the UK, the USA, Sweden, Canada, Germany, Italy, Brazil and India)
were used to investigate the adoption of 20 basic management practices. All schools offered
education to 15-year-old students and had at least 50 pupils. In all countries, these schools were
part of the secondary or high school education system, except for Sweden, where they are con-
sidered primary schools. The sample includes regular state schools, private schools and autono-
mous government schools.
Data were collected via telephone interviews with school principals. As reflected in the WMS
data, 69% of interviews were conducted in the presence of two interviewers. Open-ended questions
were marked on a scoring grid from 1 (‘worst practice’) to 5 (‘best practice’). When the interview
was over, the team in charge of the research discussed the scores with the primary interviewer to
provide on-going training and calibration.
The management index for each school represents the average of these scores. It includes 20
questions about the following issues: operations (measures teaching methods and student learn-
ing); monitoring (measures how schools track performance and attitudes toward school improve-
ment); target setting (measures how goals are set and whether they are appropriate and openly
communicated) and people management (measures how schools deal with employees, career
progression and attracting and retaining talent) (Bloom et al., 2015).
In addition to information about the quality of management, the WMS survey includes other
types of questions related to personal characteristics of the director (background and tenure), the
school (size, students-to-teacher ratio and ownership) and the environment (number of competi-
tors), which enables us to conduct an analysis in a multivariate framework.
The base model for this study is as follows:
Yi ¼ a þ b  Femalei þ bSTEMB  STEMBi þ bcomp  Competitioni þ G  Controls
þ f  Countryi þ c  Intervieweri þ ni
where Yi is the MQS for each principal and Female is a dummy variable with a value of 1 if the
principal is a woman and 0 if not. STEMB background is a dummy variable that indicates if
the principal has a STEMB degree, and Competitioni represents the school level of competition
(the number of competitors). As the controls, the following set of variables are also present, as
in the work of Bloom et al. (2015): tenure, personnel autonomy, academic autonomy, number of
872 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

Table 1. Means and standard deviation of variables.

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Average management score 1 851 1.00 4.15 2.27 0.61

Non-people factor 1 846 2.71 3.04 0.00 1.00
People factor 1 846 2.78 3.44 0.00 1.00
Female principal 1 851 0.00 1.00 0.44 0.50
Tenure 1 850 1.00 52.00 6.56 6.22
Principal has STEMB background (confirmed) 1 851 0.00 1.00 0.29 0.46
Principal personnel autonomy 1 851 1.00 5.00 2.76 1.67
Principal academic content autonomy 1 847 1.00 5.00 2.89 1.47
Number of pupils 1 851 10.00 5324.00 787.78 633.99
Pupil/teacher ratio 1 851 1.01 187.86 16.45 11.55
Number of competitors 1 844 0.00 1000.00 9.59 28.22
Private, for-profit school 1 851 0.00 1.00 0.07 0.26
Private, not-for-profit school 1 851 0.00 1.00 0.21 0.41
Public school 1 851 0.00 1.00 0.72 0.45
Schools with a regular curriculum 1 851 0.00 1.00 0.92 0.26
Schools with pupil selection based on academic 1 851 0.00 1.00 0.24 0.43
performance
N valid 1834
Academic content autonomy is measured by question: ‘To add a new class – for example, introducing a new language such
as Mandarin – what agreement would you need?’ Personnel autonomy by: ‘To hire a full-time teacher, what agreement would
you need?’ Private not-for-profit schools as schools receiving at least partial funding from the government and with at least
limited autonomy to follow school-specific charters in one of three areas: establishing the curriculum content, selecting
teachers and admitting pupils. In our data, these are escolas de referencia in Brazil, separate schools in Canada, private
ersatzschulen in Germany, private-aided schools in India, friskolor in Sweden, academies, foundations and voluntary-aided
schools in the UK (equivalent to autonomous state schools), and charter and magnet schools in the USA (Bloom et al., 2015).

students, pupil/teacher ratio, school ownership, type of school curriculum (regular versus voca-
tional) and whether the school selects pupils based on academic merit. We also controlled by
country and interview characteristics (the interviewer and interview duration).
Table 1 includes the main descriptors of all the variables used. Principal characteristics included
gender, his or her tenure, whether he or she has a STEMB degree, academic content and personnel
autonomy. The school characteristics considered were: the number of pupils, the pupil/teacher
ratio, the school’s ownership (private for-profit, private not-for-profit or public), if the school has a
regular curriculum versus a technical education and if the school makes its pupil selection based on
academic merit. Finally, we included the school’s number of competitors.
The measure of competition was collected during the survey itself by asking the principal: ‘How
many other schools offering education to 15-year-olds are within a 30-minute drive from your
school?’ (Bloom et al., 2015). This is an accepted indicator for measuring competition, as posed by
Misra et al. (2012), who established the competition influence area of each school within a radius
up to 25 miles.2

Results
First, since the questions included in the WMS education survey consider a wide range of aspects,
the present study explored whether the management index could be decomposed into several
Martı́nez et al.: Explaining the gender gap in school principalship 873

Table 2. KMO and Bartlett’s Test.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.972

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-squared 20715.199
Df. 190
Sig. 0.000

Table 3. Rotated component matrix.

Components

1 2

Performance review 0.779 0.208

Performance tracking 0.773 0.193
Performance dialogue 0.760 0.263
Target balance 0.739 0.235
Time horizon of targets 0.705 0.320
Continuous improvement 0.705 0.298
Target interconnection 0.701 0.321
Data-driven planning and student transition 0.693 0.301
Target stretch 0.685 0.348
Adopting educational best practices 0.673 0.316
Standardization of instructional planning processes 0.617 0.182
Personalization of instruction and learning 0.616 0.407
Consequence management 0.610 0.396
Clarity and comparability of targets 0.562 0.465
Managing talent 0.265 0.729
Retaining talent 0.092 0.715
Promoting high performers 0.308 0.685
Removing poor performers 0.280 0.658
Creating a distinctive employee value position 0.504 0.592
Rewarding high performers 0.308 0.549

components. Therefore, a principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on the 20 manage-
ment practice questions with orthogonal rotation (varimax). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO)
measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis: KMO ¼ 0.97. All KMO values for
individual items were greater than 0.95, which is well above the acceptable limit of 0.5. Bartlett’s
sphericity test w2(190) ¼ 20715.19, p < 0.001, indicating that correlations between questions were
sufficiently large for the PCA (see Table 2). Two components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s
criterion of 1 and, in combination, explained 56.22% of the variance; therefore, this is the number
of components retained in the final analysis. Table 3 shows the factor loadings after rotation. The
questions that cluster on the same components suggest that Component 1 represents a non-people
MQS, and Component 2 represents a talent MQS.
Subsequently, the present authors ran three different regression models: one to explain the
average MQS (Table 4), as well as one for each of the two factors: the non-people factor (Table
5) and the talent factor (Table 6). In all tables, Column 1 estimates the basic model in a multivariate
874 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

Table 4. Regression on average management.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

VARIABLES B SE B b B SE B b B SE B B

Female principal 0.085 0.022 3.91 *** 0.093 0.026 3.61 *** 0.162 0.042 3.87 ***
Principal Tenure (Ln) 0.015 0.012 1.27 0.015 0.012 1.29 0.016 0.012 1.34
Principal has STEM background 0.053 0.022 2.38 ** 0.063 0.028 2.22 ** 0.054 0.022 2.44 **
(confirmed)
Principal personnel autonomy 0.032 0.011 2.99 *** 0.032 0.011 2.96 *** 0.032 0.011 2.98 ***
Principal academic content 0.018 0.010 1.75 * 0.018 0.010 1.75 * 0.019 0.010 1.89 *
autonomy
Number of pupils (Ln) 0.102 0.016 6.50 *** 0.102 0.016 6.50 *** 0.102 0.016 6.51 ***
Pupil/teacher ratio (Ln) 0.108 0.030 3.60 *** 0.109 0.030 3.63 *** 0.111 0.030 3.71 ***
Number of competitors (Ln) 0.022 0.012 1.75 * 0.023 0.012 1.85 * 0.041 0.015 2.74 ***
Private, for profit school 0.060 0.052 1.16 0.059 0.052 1.14 0.064 0.052 1.23
Private, not for profit school 0.089 0.035 2.55 ** 0.088 0.035 2.53 ** 0.088 0.035 2.54 ***
Schools with a regular curriculum 0.112 0.041 2.70 *** 0.113 0.041 2.72 *** 0.116 0.041 2.80 ***
Schools with pupil selection 0.000 0.045 0.01 0.000 0.045 0.01 0.002 0.045 0.04
based on academics
Female x STEMB 0.025 0.046 0.54
Female x Number of competitors 0.045 0.021 2.16 **
Observations 1711 1711 1711
Interviewer FE Yes Yes Yes
Country FE Yes Yes Yes
F-stat 36.94 36.32 36.48
pval 0 0 0
R squared 0.569 0.569 0.57

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1

Controls for all models include interviewer- and country-fixed effects as well as the duration of the interview. We have
excluded observations where the interviewee is not the principal/head teacher/headmaster in order to obtain a
homogeneous sample.

framework, whereas Columns 2 and 3 interact ‘female’ with the moderating factors presented in
research questions RQ2 and RQ3: the principal’s STEMB background and the school competition
level, respectively.
For the regression on the average MQS, the principal’s STEMB background, principal’s per-
sonnel autonomy, number of pupils, private not-for-profit schools (with public schools being the
reference category) and schools with a regular curriculum are positively associated with the MQS,
whereas the pupil/teacher ratio is negatively associated with this score. These results are consistent
for all the models. The positive and highly significant coefficient for the female variable strongly
supports RQ1, in line with the work of Bloom et al. (2015).
RQ2 and RQ3 identify the factors that moderate the influence of gender on management quality
to try to determine whether the cause of the gender gap in MQS comes from individual or
organisational barriers. There was no evidence supporting RQ2, since the principal’s STEMB
background does not seem to significantly moderate the effect of the female variable on the
average MQS. By contrast, the interaction between ‘female’ and number of competitors is negative
and significant. This finding is consistent with gender differences in MQS in schools displaying
double standards through the appointment stage (demand side).
Martı́nez et al.: Explaining the gender gap in school principalship 875

Table 5. Regression on non-people management factor.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

VARIABLES B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b

Female principal 0.135 0.042 3.23*** 0.117 0.050 2.35 ** 0.182 0.081 2.25 **
Principal Tenure (Ln) 0.026 0.023 1.13 0.025 0.023 1.09 0.026 0.023 1.12
Principal has STEM background 0.091 0.043 2.12 ** 0.069 0.054 1.26 0.092 0.043 2.15 **
(confirmed)
Principal personnel autonomy 0.003 0.021 0.16 0.003 0.021 0.17 0.003 0.021 0.16
Principal academic content 0.008 0.020 0.38 0.008 0.020 0.39 0.008 0.020 0.39
autonomy
Number of pupils (Ln) 0.141 0.030 4.65 *** 0.141 0.030 4.66 *** 0.141 0.030 4.65 ***
Pupil/teacher ratio (Ln) 0.125 0.058 2.16 ** 0.125 0.058 2.16 ** 0.127 0.058 2.19 **
Number of competitors (Ln) 0.041 0.024 1.72 * 0.041 0.024 1.75 * 0.052 0.029 1.80 *
Private, for profit school 0.404 0.100 4.04 *** 0.402 0.100 4.02 *** 0.401 0.100 4.01 ***
Private, not for profit school 0.180 0.067 2.69 *** 0.178 0.067 2.66 *** 0.182 0.067 2.71 ***
Schools with a regular curriculum 0.206 0.079 2.61 *** 0.204 0.080 2.56 ** 0.208 0.080 2.61 ***
Schools with pupil selection based 0.087 0.087 0.99 0.095 0.087 1.09 0.095 0.087 1.09
on academics
Female x STEMB 0.060 0.088 0.68
Female x Number of competitors 0.027 0.040 0.66
Observations 1707 1,707 1707
Interviewer FE Yes Yes Yes
Country FE Yes Yes Yes
F-stat 19.65 19.14 19.15
pval 0 0 0
R squared 0.411 0.411 0.411

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1

The estimated regression models explain the non-people factor score (Table 6). The positive
and significant coefficient for the female variable in all models indicate that female principals are
associated with higher non-people MQS (this confirms RQ1a). With respect to the supply side,
which may have generated this effect, the present authors studied the moderating effects stated by
RQ2a (STEMB background) and RQ3a (school competition). Due to the absence of significance,
neither interactions were supported.
Finally, the present authors estimated regression models on the talent management factor (Table
6). With regard to RQ1b, the positive and highly significant coefficient for the female variable in
all models suggests that women principals are better than their male counterparts when managing
talent in schools.
Moving to the moderating effect of the STEMB background and the school competition level,
the results are quite similar to those found for the regressions on the average MQS; thus, RQ3b is
confirmed. The interaction between the female variable and number of competitors is negative and
highly significant, again pointing to the demand side as the most plausible cause of gender
differences in talent management, and ultimately in principalship positions. In regard to RQ2b,
there was only a marginal interaction between the female variable and STEMB background, which
does not provide enough evidence to support this research question.
In sum, Table 7 shows research questions that were confirmed by analysis of the results. These
results seem to indicate that the gender differences found in MQS – and ultimately, the gender gap
in principalship – may come from the demand side at the organisational level, which produces
876 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

Table 6. Regression on talent management factor.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

VARIABLES B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b

Female principal 0.058 0.022 2.64 *** 0.081 0.026 3.12 *** 0.161 0.042 3.83 **
Principal Tenure (Ln) 0.008 0.012 0.67 0.008 0.012 0.67 0.009 0.012 0.75
Principal has STEM background 0.044 0.023 1.91 ** 0.074 0.029 2.55 ** 0.046 0.023 2.00 **
(confirmed)
Principal personnel autonomy 0.050 0.011 4.55 *** 0.051 0.011 4.64 *** 0.050 0.011 4.55 ***
Principal academic content 0.034 0.010 3.40 *** 0.033 0.010 3.30 *** 0.035 0.010 3.50 ***
autonomy
Number of pupils (Ln) 0.092 0.016 5.75 *** 0.092 0.016 5.75 *** 0.093 0.016 5.81 ***
Pupil/teacher ratio (Ln) 0.108 0.030 3.60 *** 0.108 0.030 3.60 *** 0.112 0.030 3.73 ***
Number of competitors (Ln) 0.018 0.012 1.50 0.019 0.012 1.58 0.043 0.015 2.87 ***
Private, for profit school 0.327 0.052 6.29 *** 0.325 0.052 6.25 *** 0.332 0.052 6.38 ***
Private, not for profit school 0.250 0.035 7.14 *** 0.248 0.035 7.09 *** 0.248 0.035 7.09 ***
Schools with a regular curriculum 0.065 0.042 1.55 0.068 0.042 1.62 0.070 0.042 1.67 *
Schools with pupil selection based 0.037 0.046 0.80 0.038 0.046 0.83 0.035 0.045 0.78
on academics
Female x STEMB 0.077 0.046 1.67 *
Female x Number of competitors 0.061 0.021 2.90 ***
Observations 1707 1707 1707
Interviewer FE Yes Yes Yes
Country FE Yes Yes Yes
F-stat 37.13 36.59 36.80
pval 0 0 0
R squared 0.570 0.571 0.572

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1

double-standard practices against women in education. These practices seem to be lessened by

high competition levels, as opposed to the supply side, which operates at the individual level.

Discussion
In this paper, the present authors have developed a theoretical framework that simultaneously
encompasses two stylised facts regarding school principals: gender imbalance in principal posi-
tions and a positive gender gap in quality management. Previous theories only explain the reduced
proportion of women principals and ignore the higher quality of women’s management, thereby
losing half of the picture. Thus, this study used an approach that explains the appointment of school
heads from two perspectives: the demand side (double standards at the appointment stage) and the
supply side (lower self-efficacy perceptions).
To empirically test this model, the present authors have designed a strategy that uses interaction
terms to disentangle the demand side from the supply side. This strategy consists of checking
whether it is an individual factor (STEMB background) or an organisational factor (school com-
petition) moderating the effect of gender on MQS. To avoid biased generalisations from analysis of
certain contexts, the present authors used an international survey that includes six OECD countries
(the UK, the USA, Sweden, Canada, Germany and Italy) and two non-OECD countries (Brazil and
India) to test both alternatives. The estimated models show that the most plausible explanation for
the gender differences in MQS in schools seems to come from the demand side, since only school
Martı́nez et al.: Explaining the gender gap in school principalship 877

Table 7. Research Questions and results.

Research Questions Result Reason

RQ1 Do female principals present higher MQS than men? Confirmed Double standard/lower
self-efficacy perception
RQ1a Do female principals present higher non-people MQS than men? Confirmed Double standard/lower
self-efficacy perception
RQ1b Do female principals present higher talent MQS than men? Confirmed Double standard/lower
self-efficacy perception
RQ2 Does a STEMB background in female principals attenuate the effect Not confirmed
of the female gender of the principal on the MQS?

RQ2a Does a STEMB background in female principals attenuate the effect Not confirmed
of the female gender of the principal on the non-people MQS?

RQ2b Does a STEMB background in female principals attenuate the effect Not confirmed
of the female gender of the principal on talent MQS?
RQ3 Do higher school competition levels lessen the effect of the gender of Confirmed Demand-side cause
the principal on the MQS? (potential double
standard)
RQ3a Do higher school competition levels lessen the effect of the gender of Not confirmed
the principal on the non-people MQS?
RQ3b Do higher school competition levels lessen the effect of the gender of Confirmed Demand-side cause
the principal on talent MQS? (potential double
standard)

competition plays a moderating role, while internal barriers at the individual level do not play a
significant role. Thus, the positive gap in MQS is attenuated in schools that face high competition
levels.
Regarding the type of organisational barriers that hinder the development of women in schools,
Coronel et al. (2010b) showed that in Spain, certain features of the management culture, which was
perceived as heavily masculine, were among the principal factors barring women from accession to
leadership positions. In a similar vein, in the UK, Moreau et al. (2005) demonstrated that a
significant barrier is that women’s interrupted work patterns continue to be perceived as abnormal
or deficient, since it departs from the ‘masculine’, dominant, linear career pathway. Hutchings
(2002) highlighted that women’s underrepresentation at senior management levels tends to self-
perpetuate gender segregation among principals, since it reduces their power and influence over
policy in schools and produces a lack of women role models, which creates an environment in
which women are less likely to have received encouragement to pursue leadership positions.
McGee (2010) found politics and old-boys’ networks as important barriers that women adminis-
trators commonly encountered in their upward career paths. Coleman (2002) also records overt
sexist comments from governors, who play a key role in the appointment and promotion processes.
The lack of priority given to gender issues in teacher training, and in education in general, may be
related to the presence of bias in selection and appointment procedures (Coffey and Acker, 1991).
The main policy implication of our results – in regard to education management – is that efforts
should be made to implement strategies and policies to support women’s advancement in educa-
tion. In this regard, programs aimed at eliminating, or at least reducing, the double standard in the
evaluation of women should be implemented for a better use of the available talent pool. Skrla et al.
(2000) suggest that individuals involved in hiring new principals in schools (e.g. school board
878 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

members, educational search consultants, search committee members and practising administra-
tors) should receive training on gender issues to increase their awareness of the possible presence
of bias in the hiring and promotion processes. A blind selection process could also help to eliminate
gender bias. Nevertheless, given the impact that gender-based stereotypes may have on uncon-
scious recruitment (Keller, 1999; Shepard, 1999), Young and McLeod (2001) request practising
administrators to consciously recruit talented women into administration (i.e. to request a target). A
halfway solution between soft measures, such as awareness campaigns, and stronger actions, like
an explicit gender target, would be the inclusion of more than one woman in the pool of finalists for
the principal position (Johnson et al., 2016). When more than one woman is in the final pool, the
status quo among the final candidates changes, and the decision makers actually consider hiring a
woman candidate (which is commonly referred to as the ‘get two in the pool effect’).

Limitations and future research

One limitation comes from the cross-sectional nature of the data. To ensure causality, longitudinal
studies would be preferable. Indeed, from longitudinal data, one could investigate the possible
interaction between the presence of double standards on the employer side and a lower self-
efficacy perception on the female side, which are commonly treated as independent. In this regard,
Brands and Fernandez-Mateo (2017) theorise (and show) that past recruitment rejection leads
women to self-exclude from other positions. In a similar way, double standards applied to women
by a current or past recruiters could trigger a lower self-efficacy perception, causing them to self-
exclude from competing for top management jobs. This could perpetuate gender disadvantage for
women in access to principalship.
Additionally, the data of this study are secondary. This means that the study was limited by the
design of the WMS and the original questionnaire. Therefore, the action capacity was quite limited,
as the schools sampled were anonymous and incapable of being matched with any other database.
Furthermore, it was not possible to collect additional information on other alternative moderating
variables. In this regard, the present authors were able to investigate the possible moderating effect
of alternative factors from both sides of the principal’s market on the gender impact on MQS to
check the robustness of the results. For example, a possible moderator variable on the supply side
would be female principals that hold a master’s degree or a PhD, this would be expected to have a
similar effect as the STEMB background on enhancing female self-efficacy perception. Also, a
previous female school principal that acts as a role model could also help to mitigate the possible
lower self-efficacy perception of female teachers. On the demand side, it would be interesting to
check whether the gender of the individuals involved in hiring new principals has any influence on
the double standards applied to the evaluation of female candidates.
Finally, secondary data from a survey that is not specifically designed to investigate barriers
hindering women’s access to management positions only allows us to find signs of such barriers
through gender differences in MQS. Thus, to distinguish the ultimate cause that explains these
differences, future research would require additional primary data to complement and confirm the
results of this study. It could be useful to carry out in-depth interviews with the pool of candidates
to discover their feelings about why they are not being promoted. An experimental design would
allow for a comparison of the self-evaluations of female candidates to their actual skills, in relation
to performing a leadership task in school, which could then be compared to their male counterparts
to test their lower self-efficacy perceptions. On the demand side, Implicit Association Tests (IATs)
on the individuals involved in hiring new principals to ascertain whether there is implicit
Martı́nez et al.: Explaining the gender gap in school principalship 879

discrimination against women could be a possibility. Another potential experimental design would
be to screen identical curricula assigned to a male and a female name, to discover whether there is
explicit discrimination (Bertrand et al., 2005).

Acknowledgements
We thank Daniela Scur, Alison Cook, Siri Terjesen and Ricardo Gimeno, as well as the different assistants at
the I Workshop on Female Leadership in Madrid, the VI Workshop on Talent Management in Barcelona and
EURAM2018 in Reykjavik for their helpful comments.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article: This research has received financial support from the Spanish Government (Project
IþDþi FEM2017-83006-R, funded by AEI/FEDER, UE) and CEU-Mutua Madrileña Chair: 060516-
USPMM-02/17.

ORCID iD
Manuel M Molina-López https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9207-5901

Notes
1. Similar outcomes arise even with divergences in the underlined distribution of management scores.
2. Most of the studies measure competition between schools with geographic factors, being the availability of
schools in a determined area or school district, with the most common one in the literature of economics of
education (Bukowska and Siwuiska-Gorzelak, 2011; Gibbons et al., 2008).

References
Adams RB and Funk P (2012) Beyond the glass ceiling: does gender matter? Management Science 58(2):
219–235.
Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Becker GS (1957) The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bertrand M, Chugh D and Mullainathan S (2005) Implicit discrimination. American Economic Review 95(2):
94–98.
Bloom N, Lemos R, Sadun R and Van Reenen J (2015) Does management matter in schools? The Economic
Journal 125(584): 647–674.
Bosak J and Sczesny S (2008) Am i the right candidate? self-ascribed fit of men and women to a leadership
position. Sex Roles 58(910): 682688.
Brands RA and Fernandez-Mateo I (2017) Leaning out: how negative recruitment experiences shape
women’s decisions to compete for executive roles. Administrative Science Quarterly 62(3): 405–442.
Bukowska G and Siwińska-Gorzelak J (2011) School competition and the quality of education: introducing
market incentives into public services. Economics of Transition 19(1): 151–177.
Cech E, Rubineau B, Silbey S and Seron C (2011) Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in
engineering. American Sociological Review 76(5): 641–666.
880 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

Coffey AJ and Acker S (1991) Girlies on the warpath: addressing gender in initial teacher education. Gender
and Education 3(3): 249–261.
Coleman M (2002) Women as Headteachers: Striking the Balance. London: Trentham Books.
Coleman M (2005) Gender and secondary school leadership. International Studies in Educational Adminis-
tration 33(2): 320.
Coronel JM, Moreno E and Carrasco MJ (2010a) Beyond obstacles and problems: women principals in spain
leading change in their schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education 13(2): 141162.
Coronel JM, Moreno E and Carrasco MJ (2010b) Work–family conflicts and the organizational work culture
as barriers to women educational managers. Gender, Work & Organization 17(2): 219–239.
Cubillo L and Brown M (2003) Women into educational leadership and management: international differ-
ences? Journal of Educational Administration 41(3): 278291.
Davis BW, Gooden MA and Bowers AJ (2017) Pathways to the principalship: an event history analysis of the
careers of teachers with principal certification. American Educational Research Journal 54(2): 207–240.
Department for Education and Skills (2018) school leadership in england 2010 to 2016: characteristics and
trends. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach
ment_data/file/725118/Leadership_Analysis_2018.pdf (accessed April 2019).
Dickerson A and Taylor MA (2000) Self-limiting behavior in women: self-esteem and self-efficacy as
predictors. Group & Organization Management 25(2): 191210.
Dunshea G (1998) Beginning principals and the issue of gender in rural and regional areas. Asiapacific
Journal of Teacher Education 26(3): 203–216.
Eagly AH and Carli LL (2007) Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review 85(9): 62.
Eagly AH and Johannesen-Schmidt MC (2001) The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social
Issues 57(4): 781–797.
Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC and Van Engen ML (2003) Transformational, transactional, and laissez-
faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin 129(4): 569–591.
Eagly AH, Karau SJ and Johnson BT (1992) Gender and leadership style among school principals: a meta-
analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly 28(1): 76–102.
Eddleston KA, Veiga JF and Powell GN (2006) Explaining sex differences in managerial career satisfier
preferences: the role of gender self-schema. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(2): 437–445.
Estler SE (1975) Women as leaders in public education. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1(2):
363386.
Foschi M (1996) Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly 59(3):
237254.
Foschi M (2000) Double standards for competence: theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology 26(1):
2142.
Gabaldon P, De Anca C, Mateos de Cabo R and Gimeno R (2016) Searching for women on boards: an
analysis from the supply and demand perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review 24(3):
37185.
Gibbons S, Machin S and Silva O (2008) Choice, competition and pupil achievement. Journal of the Eur-
opean Economic Association 6(4): 912–947.
Grogan M (1999) Equity/equality issues of gender, race, and class. Educational Administration Quarterly
35(4): 518536.
Grogan M and Shakeshaft C (2011) Women and Educational Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hallinger P (2011) A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the principal instructional management
rating scale: a lens on methodological progress in educational leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly 47(2): 271–306.
Martı́nez et al.: Explaining the gender gap in school principalship 881

Hallinger P and Murphy JF (1985) Assessing the instructional leadership behavior of principals. Elementary
School Journal 86(2): 217–248.
Hallinger P, Dongyu L and Wang WC (2016) Gender differences in instructional leadership: a meta-analytic
review of studies using the principal instructional management rating scale. Educational Administration
Quarterly 52(4): 567–601.
Haynes MC and Heilman ME (2013) It had to be you (not me)! women’s attributional rationalization of their
contribution to successful joint work outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39(7):
95669.
Heckman J (1998) Detecting discrimination. Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(2): 101116.
Helterbran VR and Rieg SA (2004) Women as school principals: what is the challenge? Journal of Women in
Educational Leadership 2(1): 1322.
Hoff DL and Mitchell SN (2008) In search of leaders: gender factors in school administration. Advancing
Women in Leadership Journal 27(2): 1–19.
Hutchings M (2002) A representative profession? Gender issues. In: Johnson M and Hallgarten J (eds) From
Victims of Change to Agents of Change: the Future of the Teaching Profession. London: IPPR, pp.
125–149.
Johnson SK, Hekman DR and Chan ET (2016) If there’s only one woman in your candidate pool, there’s
statistically no chance she’ll be hired. Harvard Business Review 26(04).
Keller B (1999) Women superintendents: few and far between. Education Week 19(11): 1.
Krüger ML (1996) Gender issues in school headship: quality versus power? European Journal of Education
31(4): 447–461.
Krüger ML (2008) School leadership, sex and gender: welcome to difference. International Journal of
Leadership in Education 11(2): 155–168.
MacPhee D, Farro S and Canetto SS (2013) Academic self-efficacy and performance of underrepresented
STEM majors: gender, ethnic, and social class patterns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 13(1):
347369.
Mateos de Cabo R, Terjesen S, Escot L and Gimeno R (2019) Do ‘soft law’ board gender quotas work?
Evidence from a natural experiment. European Management Journal 37(5): 611–624.
McGee JM (2010) To climb or not to climb: the probing of self-imposed barriers that delay or deny
career aspirations to be an administrator in a public school system. In Forum on Public Policy
Online, Oxford.
Misra K, Grimes PW and Rogers KE (2012) Does competition improve public school efficiency? A spatial
analysis. Economics of Education Review 31(6): 1177–1190.
Mitroussi A and Mitroussi K (2009) Female educational leadership in the UK and Greece. Gender in
Management: An International Journal 24(7): 505522.
Moreau MP, Osgood J and Halsall A (2005) The career progression of women teachers in England: a study of
barriers to promotion and career development. Report for Institute for Policy Studies in Education.
London: London Metropolitan University.
Nauta MM (2004) Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationships between personality factors and career
interests. Journal of Career Assessment 12(4): 381394.
OECD (2016) Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pounder J and Coleman M (2002) Women—better leaders than men? In general and educational management
it still “all depends.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 23(3): 122–133.
Schein VE (2001) A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of
Social Issues 57(4): 675–688.
882 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(6)

Shaked H, Gross Z and Glanz J (2019) Between venus and mars: sources of gender differences in instructional
leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 47(2): 291–309.
Shepard IS (1999) Persistence of graduate students in educational administration in seeking and securing
positions: a gender difference exists. Paper Presented at the AASA National Conference on Education,
New Orleans, LA.
Skrla L, Reyes P and Scheurich JJ (2000) Sexism, silence, and solutions: women superintendents speak up and
speak out. Educational Administration Quarterly 36(1): 4475.
Spencer WA and Kochan FK (2000) Gender related differences in career patterns of principals in alabama.
Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(9): 1–18.
Tallerico M and Burstyn J (1996) Retaining women in the superintendency: the location matters. Educational
Administration Quarterly 32(1_Suppl.): 642664.
Terjesen S, Sealy R and Singh V (2009) Women directors on corporate boards: a review and research agenda.
Corporate Governance: An International Review 17(3): 320–337.
US Department of Education (2019) Characteristics of Public and Private and Secondary School Principals
in the United States. Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences.
Young MD and McLeod S (2001) Flukes, opportunities, and planned interventions: factors affecting women’s
decisions to become school administrators. Educational Administration Quarterly 37(4): 462502.

Author biographies
Miryam Martı́nez Martı́nez is an Assistant Professor in Marketing Research at Universidad San
Pablo-CEU, CEU Universities in Madrid, Spain. She is the author of several peer-reviewed
scholarly publications in leading journals such as, Sex Roles. A Journal of Research. Her research
interests include female leadership and online retail.

Manuel M Molina-López is an Assistant Professor in Business Economics at Universidad San

Pablo-CEU, CEU Universities in Madrid, Spain and head of the International Degree in Business
Management at the University. He has been a visiting researcher at Teachers College, Columbia
University and at the American University. His research interests include economics of education,
educational leadership and female leadership, having published several peer-reviewed publications
in these fields.

Ruth Mateos de Cabo is an Associate Professor in Marketing Research at Universidad San Pablo-
CEU, CEU Universities in Madrid, Spain. She is head of the line of research on Women Leadership
of the USPCEU-Mutua Madrileña Chair. She is author of several peer-reviewed scholarly publi-
cations in leading journals such as Journal of Business Ethics, Corporate Governance: An Inter-
national Review, European Management Journal, Economics Letters, Sex Roles. A Journal of
Research and Tourism Management. Her research has been featured in leading media outlets,
including The Economist and BBC World News. She received the 2016 best paper award from the
Harold S. Geneen Institute of Corporate Governance at Bentley University for best paper published
in CGIR.