In conversations about gender and leadership in education, the idea of a “confidence gap” is often presented as a key reason why fewer women progress into senior roles.

Yet this explanation, while convenient, raises important questions about whether confidence is truly the issue or whether something more complex is at play.

What is the confidence gap?

The idea that women may hesitate to apply unless fully qualified with the comparison often made with male applicants who apply knowing they don’t meet all of the job description. The confidence gap is therefore typically used to describe a perceived tendency for women to underestimate their readiness for leadership positions.

The issue here is by coining it the “confidence” gap, the fault lies purely with the individuals, and not the system. Confidence does not exist in isolation; it is shaped by experience, environment, and expectations. Framing the issue primarily as a lack of confidence may oversimplify what is, in reality, a multifaceted challenge.

“Confidence” is therefore an oversimplification, and reducing this issue to confidence alone risks overlooking the broader structures and expectations that shape decision-making.

Unrealistic Expectations?

What may appear to be a confidence gap can often be better understood as a rational response to structural and cultural factors within the profession.

Leadership roles in education are frequently characterised by high levels of accountability, long working hours, and limited flexibility. For many, the decision not to apply for such roles is not about lacking belief in their ability, but about making a considered judgement regarding workload, sustainability, and personal circumstances.

These tensions are particularly visible with the “pipeline” into leadership - why do we have an abundance of women in teaching but a shortage in leadership?

Perhaps it is the enduring expectations about leadership behaviour that continue to influence who feels able to step forward.

Gendered Leadership Models?

Traditional models of leadership often prioritise visibility, decisiveness, authority and constant availability, traits historically associated with more masculine leadership styles. I know in my own leadership journey, I am proud that I lead by my values of humility, integrity, honesty and kindness.

If I am late because my 5 year old just could not put his shoes on after asking him 3 times, it’s OK with me that I apologise to my team and make a lighthearted joke about parenting - I don’t need to put on a front, I don’t need to hide that some days I am a parent first and a leader second.

If I need to have a difficult conversation with someone, I will always do it with kindness, I am not trying to be overly authoritative or dominating.

Neither of these examples are a lack of confidence or a weakness in my leadership.

The Language Issue

The language often used within leadership job advertisements can reflect a similar theme, which can subtly influence who feels encouraged to apply:

“the language we use at work does indeed encode gendered expectations in ways that may not be obvious to employers or employees. These gendered expectations feed into who we hire, how we assess people and who we promote – and may play a role in holding some people back.” (BBC, 2021).

Rather than asking why women lack confidence, we might instead ask how leadership roles are structured and perceived, and whether they are genuinely accessible and appealing to a diverse range of professionals when advertised.

This shift in perspective moves the focus away from “fixing” individuals and towards examining systems, cultures, and practices.

If schools are serious about developing diverse and sustainable leadership, it may be time to re-examine not only how leaders are selected, but how leadership itself is defined.

Laura Gatward

References

The coded language that holds women back at work, BBC, 2021