In recent decades, affective polarization and partisan animosity have risen sharply in the United States. To what extent have these trends affected hiring decisions? I examine partisan biases in hiring by considering the case of school district superintendent appointments: chief executives of local U.S. elementary/secondary education systems. I analyze mixed-methods data on a decade of hiring outcomes in Florida and California from 2009 to 2019. Despite rising polarization, the data consistently show that partisan affiliation is not a primary factor in these hiring decisions. Quantitative analyses reveal no significant relationship between changes in board partisan composition and superintendent hiring outcomes within school districts. I find no relationship between board-level partisan composition and superintendent exits. Qualitative findings show hiring decisions are primarily shaped by evaluations of candidates’ interpersonal skills and competence, even among board members with strong partisan views on other policy issues. Board members discuss a strong commitment to building consensus in their selections. While I cannot rule out very small effects, these results show that school boards do not routinely prioritize applicants from their own political party. This study advances research on affective polarization and social closure by demonstrating the contingent nature of partisan affiliation on decision-making and by providing evidence of a strong respect for professionalism in a critical U.S. public sector setting.
AkhtariMitraMoreiraDianaTruccoLaura. 2022. “Political Turnover, Bureaucratic Turnover, and the Quality of Public Services.” American Economic Review112(2):442–93 (https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20171867).
2.
AnsolabehereStephenHershEitan. 2012. “Validation: What Big Data Reveal about Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate.” Political Analysis20(4):437–59 (https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps023).
AroldBenjamin W.2024. “Evolution vs. Creationism in the Classroom: The Lasting Effects of Science Education.” Quarterly Journal of Economics139(4):2331–75 (https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae019).
5.
AsenRobert. 2015. Democracy, Deliberation, and Education. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
6.
BachTobiasVeitSylvia. 2018. “The Determinants of Promotion to High Public Office in Germany: Partisan Loyalty, Political Craft, or Managerial Competencies?”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28(2):254–69 (https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux041).
7.
BaldassarriDeliaGelmanAndrew. 2008. “Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion.” American Journal of Sociology114(2):408–46 (https://doi.org/10.1086/590649).
8.
BauerMichael W.BeckerStefan. 2020. “Democratic Backsliding, Populism, and Public Administration.” Perspectives on Public Management and Governance3(1):19–31 (https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz026).
9.
BauerMichael W., B.GuyPetersPierreJonYesilkagitKutsalBeckerStefan, eds. 2021. Democratic Backsliding and Public Administration: How Populists in Government Transform State Bureaucracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BeckerGary S.1957. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
BeckerGary S.1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
BellodiLucaMorelliMassimoVannoniMatia. 2024. “A Costly Commitment: Populism, Economic Performance, and the Quality of Bureaucracy.” American Journal of Political Science68(1):193–209 (https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12782).
13.
BelmiPeterRazKellyNealeMargaretThomas-HuntMelissa. 2024. “The Consequences of Revealing First-Generational Status.” Organization Science35(2):667–97 (https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.1682).
14.
BennettW. Lance. 2012. “The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science644(1):20–39 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212451428).
15.
BillingsStephen B.MacartneyHughParkGeunyongSingletonJohn D.2022. “Self-Interest in Public Service: Evidence from School Board Elections.” NBER Working Paper Series No. 29791 (https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4045369).
16.
BinderAmy J.2002. Contentious Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American Public Schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
BishopBill. 2008. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. New York: Mariner Books.
18.
BonicaAdamRosenthalHowardBlackwoodKristyRothmanDavid J.2020. “Ideological Sorting of Physicians in Both Geography and the Workplace.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law45(6):1023–57 (https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-8641555).
19.
BonicaAdamSenMaya. 2017. “The Politics of Selecting the Bench from the Bar: The Legal Profession and Partisan Incentives to Introduce Ideology into Judicial Selection.” Journal of Law and Economics60(4):559–95 (https://doi.org/10.1086/696575).
20.
BonicaAdamSenMaya. 2020. The Judicial Tug of War: How Lawyers, Politicians, and Ideological Incentives Shape the American Judiciary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
BoxellLeviGentzkowMatthewShapiroJesse M.2024. “Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization.” Review of Economics and Statistics106(2):557–65 (https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01160).
22.
BrensingerJordanSotoudehRamina. 2022. “Party, Race, and Neutrality: Investigating the Interdependence of Attitudes toward Social Groups.” American Sociological Review87(6):1049–93 (https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224221135797).
23.
BrierleySarah. 2021. “Combining Patronage and Merit in Public Sector Recruitment.” Journal of Politics83(1):182–97 (https://doi.org/10.1086/708240).
24.
BrierleySarahLowandeKennethPotterRachel AugustineToralGuillermo. 2023. “Bureaucratic Politics: Blind Spots and Opportunities in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science26(1):271–90 (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-061621-084933).
25.
BruchSarah K.SossJoe. 2018. “Schooling as a Formative Political Experience: Authority Relations and the Education of Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics16(1):36–57 (https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717002195).
26.
BurnettCraig M.PrenticeChristopher R.2018. “An Exploration of How Partisanship Impacts Council-Manager Systems.” Politics and Policy46(3):392–415 (https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12253).
27.
CampbellColinHorowitzJonathan. 2016. “Does College Influence Sociopolitical Attitudes?”Sociology of Education89(1):40–58 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040715617224).
28.
ChaseSusan E.BellColleen S.1990. “Ideology, Discourse, and Gender: How Gatekeepers Talk about Women School Superintendents.” Social Problems37(2):163–77 (https://doi.org/10.2307/800646).
29.
ChavezKojiWeisshaarKatherineCabello-HuttTania. 2022. “Gender and Racial Discrimination in Hiring Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from a Field Experiment of Accountants, 2018–2020.” Work and Occupations49(3):275–315 (https://doi.org/10.1177/07308884221094539).
30.
ChinM. K.HambrickDonald C.TreviñoLinda K.2013. “Political Ideologies of CEOs: The Influence of Executives’ Values on Corporate Social Responsibility.” Administrative Science Quarterly58(2):197–232 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213486984).
31.
ColonnelliEmanueleNetoValdemar PinhoTesoEdoardo. 2020. “Politics at Work.” NBER Working Paper Series No. 30182 (https://doi.org/10.3386/w30182).
32.
ColonnelliEmanuelePremMounuTesoEdoardo. 2020. “Patronage and Selection in Public Sector Organizations.” American Economic Review110(10):3071–99 (https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181491).
33.
CottleMichelle. 2021. “America’s School Board Meetings Are Getting Weird—and Scary.” New York Times, September6.
CrawfordEvan. 2018. “How Nonpartisan Ballot Design Conceals Partisanship: A Survey Experiment of School Board Members in Two States.” Political Research Quarterly71(1):143–56 (https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917725405).
36.
DavisBradley W.BowersAlex J.2019. “Examining the Career Pathways of Educators with Superintendent Certification.” Educational Administration Quarterly55(1):3–41 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18785872).
37.
De Benedictis-KessnerJustinHarveyMatthewJonesDanielWarshawChristopher. 2025. “The Partisanship of Mayors Has No Detectable Effect on Police Spending, Police Employment, Crime, or Arrests.” Science Advances11(3):eadq8052 (https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adq8052).
38.
DellaPostaDanielShiYongrenMacyMichael. 2015. “Why Do Liberals Drink Lattes?” American Journal of Sociology120(5):1473–511 (https://doi.org/10.1086/681254).
39.
DeMatthewsDavidAylwardAlexandraKnightDavidReyesPedro. 2024. “Why Are So Few Latinas Serving as Superintendents? A Call to Action Following a Decade of Minimal Progress.” Journal of Latinos and Education23(5):1942–50 (https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2024.2314486).
40.
DemirTansuReddickChristopher G.2012. “Understanding Shared Roles in Policy and Administration: An Empirical Study of Council-Manager Relations.” Public Administration Review72(4):526–35 (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02551.x).
41.
DiMaggioPaul J.PowellWalter W.1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DonaldsonMorgaen L.MavrogordatoMadelineYoungsPeterDoughertyShaunGhanemReem Al. 2021. “‘Doing the ‘Real’ Work’: How Superintendents’ Sensemaking Shapes Principal Evaluation Policies and Practices in School Districts.” AERA Open7(1):1–16 (https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986177).
44.
DruckmanJames N.KlarSamaraKrupnikovYannaLevenduskyMatthewRyanJohn Barry. 2021. “Affective Polarization, Local Contexts and Public Opinion in America.” Nature Human Behaviour5(1):28–38 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5).
45.
DruckmanJames N.KlarSamaraKrupnikovYannaLevenduskyMatthewRyanJohn Barry. 2024. Partisan Hostility and American Democracy: Explaining Political Divisions and When They Matter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
FerrerJoshuaGeynIgorThompsonDaniel M.2024. “How Partisan Is Local Election Administration?”American Political Science Review118(2):956–71 (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000631).
48.
FieldhouseEdwardGreenJaneEvansGeoffreyMellonJonathanProsserChristopherSchmittHermannVan Der EijkCees. 2019. Electoral Shocks: The Volatile Voter in a Turbulent World. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
FinkelEli J.BailChristopher A.CikaraMinaDittoPeter H.IyengarShantoKlarSamaraMasonLilliana, et al. 2020. “Political Sectarianism in America.” Science370(6516):533–36 (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715).
50.
FordMichaelIhrkeDouglas. 2020. “Uncontested: Electoral Competition in American School Board Elections.” Journal of Educational Administration58(6):661–75 (https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2019-0020).
51.
FosVyacheslavKempfElisabethTsoutsouraMargarita. 2022. “The Political Polarization of Corporate America.” NBER Working Paper Series No. 30183 (https://doi.org/10.3386/w30183).
52.
FrumkinPeterGalaskiewiczJoseph. 2004. “Institutional Isomorphism and Public Sector Organizations.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(3):283–307 (https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh028).
53.
GiftKarenGiftThomas. 2015. “Does Politics Influence Hiring? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment.” Political Behavior37(3):653–75 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9286-0).
54.
GreenErica L.2021. “Black Lives Matter, She Wrote. Then ‘Everything Just Imploded.’” New York Times, October.
55.
GrossmannMattReckhowSarahStrunkKatharine O.TurnerMeg. 2021. “All States Close but Red Districts Reopen: The Politics of In-Person Schooling during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Educational Researcher50(9):637–48 (https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211048840).
56.
HallMatthew E. K.SolomonBrittany C.VoelkelJan G.StagnaroMichael N.ChuJames Y.WillerRobb. 2025. “Durably Reducing Partisan Animosity through Multiple Scalable Treatments.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America122(19):e2424414122 (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2424414122).
57.
HasanShariqueKumarAnuj. 2019. “Digitization and Divergence: Online School Ratings and Segregation in America.” SSRN Working Paper (https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3265316).
HershEitan D.GoldenbergMatthew N.2016. “Democratic and Republican Physicians Provide Different Care on Politicized Health Issues.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America113(42):11811–16 (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606609113).
60.
HessFrederick M.MeeksOlivia. 2010. “School Boards Circa 2010: Governance in the Accountability Era.” National School Boards Association.
61.
HoboltSara B.LeeperThomas J.TilleyJames. 2021. “Divided by the Vote: Affective Polarization in the Wake of the Brexit Referendum.” British Journal of Political Science51(4):1476–93 (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000125).
62.
HochschildJennifer L.ScovronickNathan. 2004. The American Dream and the Public Schools. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
63.
HolmanMiryaJohnsonRebeccaSimkoTyler. 2025. “Measuring Conflict in Local Politics.” EdWorkingPaper:24–1102 (https://doi.org/10.26300/04NA-G720).
64.
Houston, DavidM.2021. “Polarization and the Politics of Education: What Moves Partisan Opinion?”Educational Policy35(4):566–89 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818823745).
65.
HoustonDavid M.2024. “Polarization, Partisan Sorting, and the Politics of Education.” American Educational Research Journal61(3):508–40.
66.
IyengarShantoLelkesYphtachLevenduskyMatthewMalhotraNeilWestwoodSean J.2019. “The Origins and Consequences of Affective Polarization in the United States.” Annual Review of Political Science22(1):129–46 (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034).
67.
IyengarShantoSoodGauravLelkesYphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly76(3):405–31 (https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038).
68.
IyengarShantoWestwoodSean J.2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science59(3):690–707 (https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152).
69.
JohnsonSusan Moore. 1996. Leading to Change: The Challenge of the New Superintendency. New York: Jossey-Bass.
70.
KamlerEstelle. 2009. “Decade of Difference (1995–2005): An Examination of the Superintendent Search Consultants Process on Long Island.” Educational Administration Quarterly45(1):115–44 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08327547).
71.
KanterRosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
72.
KerrisseyJasmineWilkersonTiambaMeyersNathan. 2021. “The Political and Civic Lives of Public Sector Workers: Unions and ‘Public Service Motivation.’” Sociological Forum36(1):92–110 (https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12663).
73.
KhuranaRakesh. 2002. Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
KitchensKarinGoldbergMegan. 2024. “Partisanship and Professionalization: School Board Decision-Making in the Midst of a Pandemic.” Urban Affairs Review60(5):1439–75 (https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874241227792).
76.
KleinAlyson. 2017. “Survey: Educators’ Political Leanings, Who They Voted For, Where They Stand on Key Issues.” EdWeek, December12.
77.
KleinCameronDeRouinRenée E.SalasEduardo. 2006. “Uncovering Workplace Interpersonal Skills: A Review, Framework, and Research Agenda.” Pp. 79–126 in International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 21, edited by HodgkinsonG. P.FordJ. K.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.
78.
LaurisonDanielFriedmanSam. 2019. The Class Ceiling: Why It Pays to Be Privileged. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press.
79.
LeithwoodKenneth. 2010. “Characteristics of School Districts That Are Exceptionally Effective in Closing the Achievement Gap.” Leadership and Policy in Schools9(3):245–91 (https://doi.org/10.1080/15700761003731500).
80.
LermanAmy E.SadinMeredith L.2016. “Stereotyping or Projection? How White and Black Voters Estimate Black Candidates’ Ideology.” Political Psychology37(2):147–63.
81.
Lewis-McCoyR. L’Heureux. 2014. Inequality in the Promised Land: Race, Resources and Suburban Schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
MarbleWilliamNallClayton. 2021. “Where Self-Interest Trumps Ideology: Liberal Homeowners and Local Opposition to Housing Development.” Journal of Politics83(4):1747–63 (https://doi.org/10.1086/711717).
85.
MasonLilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
86.
MazurStanisław. 2021. “Public Administration in Poland in the Times of Populist Drift.” Pp. 100–126 in Democratic Backsliding and Public Administration: How Populists in Government Transform State Bureaucracies, edited by BauerM. W.PetersB. G.PierreJ.YesilkagitK.BeckerS.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
87.
MeyerJohn W.RowanBrian. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology83(2):340–63 (https://doi.org/10.1086/226550).
88.
MilesMatthew B.HubermanMichael A.SaldañaJohnny. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
89.
MillerDouglas L.ShenhavNa’amaGroszMichel Z.2018. “Selection into Identification in Fixed Effects Models, with Application to Head Start.” NBER Working Paper Series No. 26174 (https://doi.org/10.3386/w26174).
90.
MountfordMeredith. 2004. “Motives and Power of School Board Members: Implications for School Board–Superintendent Relationships.” Educational Administration Quarterly40(5):704–41 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X04268843).
NicholsTom. 2017. The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
93.
PacewiczJosh. 2015. “Playing the Neoliberal Game: Why Community Leaders Left Party Politics to Partisan Activists.” American Journal of Sociology121(3):826–81 (https://doi.org/10.1086/682884).
94.
PacewiczJosh. 2016. Partisans and Partners: The Politics of the Post-Keynesian Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
95.
PagerDevahShepherdHana. 2008. “The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets.” Annual Review of Sociology34(1):181–209 (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131740).
PichlerS.BeenenG.2014. “Toward the Development of a Model and a Measure of Managerial Interpersonal Skills.” Pp. 11–30 in Leader Interpersonal and Influence Skills: The Soft Skills of Leadership, edited by RiggioR. E.TanS. J.New York: Taylor & Francis.
98.
PierskallaJan H.SacksAudrey. 2020. “Personnel Politics: Elections, Clientelistic Competition and Teacher Hiring in Indonesia.” British Journal of Political Science50(4):1283–305 (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000601).
99.
RauchJames E.EvansPeter B.2000. “Bureaucratic Structure and Bureaucratic Performance in Less Developed Countries.” Journal of Public Economics75(1):49–71.
100.
RenzulliLinda A.RoscignoVincent J.2005. “Charter School Policy, Implementation, and Diffusion across the United States.” Sociology of Education78(4):344–65 (https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070507800404).
101.
RiveraLauren A.2012. “Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms.” American Sociological Review77(6):999–1022 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412463213).
102.
RiveraLauren A.2015a. “Go with Your Gut: Emotion and Evaluation in Job Interviews.” American Journal of Sociology120(5):1339–89 (https://doi.org/10.1086/681214).
103.
RiveraLauren A.2015b. Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
104.
RiveraLauren A.2017. “When Two Bodies Are (Not) a Problem: Gender and Relationship Status Discrimination in Academic Hiring.” American Sociological Review82(6):1111–38 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417739294).
RiveraLauren A.TilcsikAndrás. 2016. “Class Advantage, Commitment Penalty: The Gendered Effect of Social Class Signals in an Elite Labor Market.” American Sociological Review81(6):1097–131 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416668154).
107.
RoscignoVincent J.GarciaLisette M.Bobbitt-ZeherDonna. 2007. “Social Closure and Processes of Race/Sex Employment Discrimination.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science609(1):16–48 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206294898).
108.
RothJonathanSant’AnnaPedro H. C.BilinskiAlyssaPoeJohn. 2023. “What’s Trending in Difference-in-Differences? A Synthesis of the Recent Econometrics Literature.” Journal of Econometrics235(2):2218–44 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2023.03.008).
109.
RothPhilip L.ThatcherJason B.BobkoPhilipMatthewsKevin D.EllingsonJill E.GoldbergCaren B.2020. “Political Affiliation and Employment Screening Decisions: The Role of Similarity and Identification Processes.” Journal of Applied Psychology105(5):472–86 (https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000422).
ShorBorisMcCartyNolan. 2011. “The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures.” American Political Science Review105(3):530–51 (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000153).
112.
SingerJeremyMarshJulie A.Menefee-LibeyDavidAlonsoJacobBradleyDwuanaTracyHanora. 2023. “The Politics of School Reopening during COVID-19: A Multiple Case Study of Five Urban Districts in the 2020–21 School Year.” Educational Administration Quarterly59(3):542–93 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X231168397).
113.
SpenkuchJörg L.TesoEdoardoXuGuo. 2023. “Ideology and Performance in Public Organizations.” Econometrica91(4):1171–203 (https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA20355).
StevensMitchell L.2007. Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
116.
StrobelBastianVeitSylvia. 2021. “Incomplete Democratization, System Transformation, and the Civil Service: A Case Study on the Weimar Republic and the Nazi Regime in Germany.” Pp. 22–46 in Democratic Backsliding and Public Administration: How Populists in Government Transform State Bureaucracies, edited by BauerM. W.PetersB. G.PierreJ.YesilkagitK.BeckerS.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ThompsonDaniel M.2020. “How Partisan Is Local Law Enforcement? Evidence from Sheriff Cooperation with Immigration Authorities.” American Political Science Review114(1):222–36 (https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000613).
119.
TillyCharles. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
120.
TimonedaJoan C.2021. “Estimating Group Fixed Effects in Panel Data with a Binary Dependent Variable: How the LPM Outperforms Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” Social Science Research93:102486 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102486).
121.
Tomaskovic-DeveyDonaldAvent-HoltDustin. 2019. “Social Closure.” Pp. 134–61 in Relational Inequalities: An Organizational Approach. New York: Oxford University Press (https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190624422.003.0006).
122.
Tomaskovic-DeveyDonaldStainbackKevin. 2007. “Discrimination and Desegregation: Equal Opportunity Progress in U.S. Private Sector Workplaces since the Civil Rights Act.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science609(1):49–84 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206294809).
WeisshaarKatherineChavezKojiHuttTania. 2024. “Hiring Discrimination under Pressures to Diversify: Gender, Race, and Diversity Commodification across Job Transitions in Software Engineering.” American Sociological Review89(3):584–613 (https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224241245706).
126.
WhiteRachel S.2023. “Ceilings Made of Glass and Leaving En Masse? Examining Superintendent Gender Gaps and Turnover over Time across the United States.” Educational Researcher52(5):272–85 (https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231163139).
127.
YavorskyJill E.2019. “Uneven Patterns of Inequality: An Audit Analysis of Hiring-Related Practices by Gendered and Classed Contexts.” Social Forces98(2):461–92 (https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy123).
128.
ZatzLaura Y.HershEitanGudzuneKimberly A.ThorndikeAnne N.GoldenbergMatthewBleichSara N.2020. “Physicians’ Political Party Affiliation and Clinical Management of Obesity.” Clinical Obesity10(5) (https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12396).
129.
ZhangYahong. 2014. “The City Manager’s Role in Policy-Making: A Perspective Beyond Substitution and Collaboration Models.” American Review of Public Administration44(3):358–72 (https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012467494).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
