Women’s underrepresentation in middle and upper management is a well-documented feature of the public sector that threatens performance and legitimacy. Yet, we know far less about the factors most likely to reduce these gender inequalities. In this article, we focus on two well-understood drivers of career advancement in public administration: leadership training and intersectoral mobility. In theory, training in leadership and experience across government levels and policy areas should help both women and men to climb management ranks. We use logistic regression to test this proposition using a representative sample of 1,819 Danish public managers. We find that leadership training disproportionately benefits women, and this helps to level the playing field. However, our analyses show that differences in intersectoral mobility do not explain the gender gap in public sector management.
AckerJ. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.
2.
AckerJ. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20, 441–464.
3.
Administrationsdepartementet. (1983). Nye veje i effektiviseringsarbejdet i den offentlige sektor, translated; new avenues in streamlining the public sector, 2. August 1983. Administrationsdepartementet.
4.
Adusah-KarikariA.OhemengF. L. K. (2014). Representative bureaucracy in the public service? A critical analysis of the challenges confronting women in the civil service of Ghana. International Journal of Public Administration, 37, 568–580.
5.
AguadoN. A.FredericksonH. G. (2012). Gender and careers in city management: A case study of the career paths of one department’s MPA graduates. Journal of Women Politics & Policy, 33, 25–37.
6.
AliS. B.BishuS.AlkadryM. (2018). Why men and women want to leave? Turnover intent among public procurement officers. The Administration Review of Public Administration, 48, 668–684.
7.
AlkadryM. G.TowerL. E. (2011). Covert pay discrimination: How authority predicts pay differences between women and men. Public Administration Review, 71, 740–750.
8.
AndrewsR.Johnston MillerK. (2013). Representative bureaucracy, gender, and policing: The case of domestic violence arrests in England. Public Administration, 91, 998–1014.
9.
AnS.-H. (2019). Employee voluntary and involuntary turnover and organizational performance: Revisiting the hypothesis from classical public administration. International Public Management Journal, 22, 444–469.
10.
AnS. H.MeierK. J.BøllingtoftA.AndersenL. B. (2019). Employee perceived effect of leadership training: Comparing public and private organizations. International Public Management Journal, 22, 2–28.
11.
BaeK. B.LeeD.SohnH. (2019). How to increase participation in telework programs in US federal agencies: Examining the effects of being a female supervisor, supportive leadership, and diversity management. Public Personnel Management, 48, 565–583.
12.
BeyerS. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 960–970.
13.
BosakJ.SczesnyS. (2008). Am I the right candidate? Self-ascribed fit of women and men to a leadership position. Sex Roles, 58, 682–688.
14.
BreenR.Bernt KarlsonK.HolmA. (2021). A note on a reformulation of the KHB method. Sociological Methods & Research, 50, 901–912.
15.
BroL. (2016). Små, store eller måske rettere mellemstore organisationer? En undersøgelse af sammenhængen mellem ledelsesspænd, ledelsesidentitet og brugen af transformationsledelse i danske daginstitutioner. Small, big or rather medium-sized organisations? A study of the relationship between spans of control, leadership identity and the use of transformational leadership in Danish day care institutions. Politica, 48, 158–178.
16.
BrysonJ.SancinoA.BeningtonJ.SørensenE. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19, 640–654.
17.
ChoiS. (2019). Breaking through the glass ceiling: Social capital matters for women’s career success?International Public Management Journal, 22, 295–320.
18.
ChoiS.ParkC.-O. (2014). Glass celing in Korean civil service: Analyzing barriers to women’s career advancement in the Korean government. Public Personnel Management, 43, 118–139.
19.
ChoiY. (2015). Career success factors of women in the public sector: An empirical analysis of the Korean central government. Asian Social Science, 11, 300–311.
20.
ChristensenT.LægreidP. (Eds.). (2007). Transcending new public management: The transformation of public sector reforms. Ashgate.
21.
ConnellR. (2006). Glass ceilings or gendered institutions? Mapping the gender regimes of public sector worksites. Public Administration Review, 66, 837–849.
22.
CotterD. A.HermsenJ. M.OvadiaS.VannemanR. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80, 655–681.
DickinsonH.SullivanH. (2014). Towards a general theory of collaborative performance: The importance of efficacy and agency. Public Administration, 92, 161–177.
25.
D’AgostinoM. J. (2015). The difference that women make: Government performance and women-led agencies. Administration & Society, 47, 532–548.
26.
EaglyA. H.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797.
27.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
28.
EmersonK.NabatchiT.BaloghS. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 1–29.
29.
EvansM.EdwardsM.BurmesterB.MayD. (2014). ‘Not yet 50/50’ - barriers to the progress of senior women in the Australian public service. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 73, 501–510.
30.
FeeneyM. K.StritchJ. M. (2019). Family-friendly policies, gender, and work–life balance in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39, 422–448.
31.
FinkelM.HughesM. M.HillJ. (2021). Gender equality in public administration. UNDP and University of Pittsburgh.
32.
FunkK. (2019). If the shoe fits: Gender role congruity and evaluations of public managers. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2(1), 10.
33.
Getha-TaylorH.MorseR. S. (2013). Collaborative leadership development for local government officials: Exploring competencies and program impact. Public Administrative Quarterly, 37, 71–102.
34.
GormanE.KmecJ. (2009). Hierarchical rank and women’s organizational mobility: Glass ceilings in corporate law firms. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1428–1474.
35.
GramH.GrønC. H. (2020). One of the boys? Gender similarities and differences in human capital among senior civil servants in denmark. Scandinavian Political Studies, 43, 241–263.
36.
GremmenI.AkkermanA.BenschopY. (2013). Does where you stand depend on how you behave? Networking behavior as an alternative explanation for gender differences in network structure. Journal of Management & Organization, 19, 297–313.
37.
GrønC. H.BroL. L.AndersenL. B. (2020). Public managers’ leadership identity: Concept, causes, and consequences. Public Management Review, 22, 1696–1716.
38.
GuyM. E. (Ed.). (1992). Women and men of the states: Public administrators at the state level. M. E. Sharpe.
39.
GuyM. E.NewmanM. A. (2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64, 289–298.
40.
HooblerJ. M.LemmonG.WayneS. J. (2014). Women’s managerial aspirations: An organizational development perspective. Journal of Management, 40, 703–730.
41.
HooblerJ. M.WayneS. J.LemmonG. (2009). Bosses’ perceptions of family-work conflict and women’s promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 939–957.
42.
IbarraH. (1997). Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 91–102.
43.
JacobsenC. B.AndersenL. B.BøllingtoftA.EriksenT. L. M. (2021). Can leadership training improve organizational effectiveness? Evidence from a randomized field experiment on transformational and transactional leadership. Public Administration Review, early viewhttps://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13356
44.
KarkR.van DijkD. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500–528.
45.
KellyR. M.NewmanM. (2001). The gendered bureaucracy: Agency mission, equality of opportunity, and representative bureaucracies. Women & Politics, 22, 1–33.
46.
KerrB.MillerW.ReidM. (2002). Sex-based occupational segregation in U.S. State bureaucracies, 1987-97. Public Administration Review, 62, 412–423.
47.
KimC.-K. (2003). Women in the Korean civil service. International Journal of Public Administration, 26, 61–78.
48.
KuzhabekovaA.JanenovaS.AlmukhambetovaA. (2018). Analyzing the experiences of female leaders in civil service in Kazakhstan: Trapped between economic pressure to earn and traditional family role expectations. International Journal of Public Administration, 41, 1290–1301.
LemayL. (2009). The practice of collective and strategic leadership in the public sector. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14, 1–19.
52.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Press Publication, StataCorp LP.
53.
LynessK. S.HeilmanM. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785.
54.
MarantoR.TeodoroM. P.CarrollK.ChengA. (2019). Gendered ambition: Men’s and women’s career advancement in public administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 49, 469–481.
55.
MaumeD. J. (2004). Is the glass ceiling a unique form of inequality?: Evidence from a random-effects model of managerial attainment. Work and Occupations, 31, 250–274.
56.
McDanielA.BuchmannC. (2015). Gender inequality and educational attainment. In Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource. John Wiley & Sons.
57.
McGurkP. (2009). Developing ‘middle leaders’ in the public services?: The realities of management and leadership development for public managers. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22, 464–477.
58.
MeeseE.OrtmeierP. J. (2004). Leadership, ethics, and policing: Challenges for the 21st century. Prentice Hall.
59.
MeierK. J.FunkK. D. (2017). Women and public administration in a comparative perspective: The case of representation in Brazilian local governments. Administration & Society, 49, 121–142.
60.
MetzI.TharenouP. (2001). Women’s career advancement: The relative contribution of human and social capital. Group & Organization Management, 26, 312–342.
61.
MiscenkoD.GuenterH.DayD. V. (2017). Am I a leader? Examining leader identity development over time. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 605–620.
62.
MoynihanD. P.LanduytN. (2008). Explaining turnover intention in state government: Examining the roles of gender, life cycle, and loyalty. Public Administration Review, 28, 120–143.
63.
NaffK. C. (1994). Through the glass ceiling: Prospects for the advancement of women in the federal civil service. Public Administration Review, 54, 507–514.
64.
NasserS. (2018). Boxed women in public administration - between glass ceilings and glass walls: A study of women’s participation in public administration in the Arab States. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 19, 152–171.
65.
NoonanM. C. (2001). The impact of domestic work on men’s and women’s wages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1134–1145.
66.
OngsakulR.ResurreccionB.SajorE. (2012). Normalizing masculinities in water bureaucracy in Thailand. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 577–586.
67.
OpstrupN.VilladsenA. R. (2015). The right mix? Gender diversity in top management teams and financial performance. Public Administration Review, 75, 291–301.
68.
OraziD. C.TurriniA.ValottiG. (2013). Public sector leadership: New perspectives for research and practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79, 486–504.
69.
PollittC. (2003). The essential public manager. Open University Press.
70.
Regeringen. (2019). En offentlig sektor rustet til fremtiden. Ledelse og kompetencer i den offentlige sektor. Translated; a public sector equipped for the future. Leadership and skills in the public sector. Retrieved February 11, 2020, https://fm.dk/publikationer/2019/en-offentlig-sektor-rustet-til-fremtiden
71.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G.LavenaC. F. (2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 537–551.
72.
RosetteA. S.TostL. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 221–235.
73.
RøvikK. A. (2007). Trender og translasjoner: Ideer som former det 21. Århundrets organisasjon. Translated; trends and translations: Ideas that shape the 21st century organization. Universitetsforlaget.
74.
RøvikK. A. (2016). Knowledge transfer as translation: Review and elements of an instrumental theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18, 290–310.
75.
SeidleB.FernandezS.PerryJ. L. (2016). Do leadership training and development make a difference in the public sector? A panel study. Public Administration Review, 76, 603–613.
76.
SmithA. E.MonaghanK. R. (2013). Some ceilings have more cracks: Representative bureaucracy in federal regulatory agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 50–71.
77.
SmithR. A. (2002). Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 509–542.
78.
TharenouP.LatimerS.ConroyD. (1994). How do you make it to the top? An examination of influences on women’s and men’s managerial advancement. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 899–931.
79.
TowerL. E.AlkadryM. G. (2008). The social costs of career success for women. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28, 144–165.
80.
TurbanS.WuD.ZhangL. (2019). When gender diversity makes firms more productive. Harvard Business Review, February 11, 2019.
Van VelsorE.TaylorS.LeslieJ. B. (1993). An examination of the relationships among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 32, 249–263.
83.
WagleR.PillayS.WrightW. (2017). Examining Nepalese forestry governance from gender perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 40, 205–225.
84.
WilkinsV. M.KeiserL. R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 87–102.
85.
WilliamsP. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80, 103–124.
86.
WoodG. (2008). Gender stereotypical attitudes: Past, present, and future influences on women’s career advancement. Equal Opportunities International, 27, 613–628.
87.
WynenJ.OpdeBeeckS.HondeghemA. (2013). Interorganizational mobility within the U.S. Federal government: Examining the effect of individual and organizational factors. Public Administration Review, 73, 869–881.
88.
YuH. H. (2018). Gender and public agency hiring: An exploratory analysis of recruitment practices in federal law enforcement. Public Personnel Management, 47, 247–264.
89.
YuklG. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India.
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.
