Recruitment and Selection of

Article
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Recruitment and selection of 2023, Vol. 51(1) 6–29
ª The Author(s) 2020
principals: A systematic review Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1741143220969694
journals.sagepub.com/home/ema
Se Woong Lee and Xinyi Mao
Abstract
School principals play an invaluable role in schools’, teachers’, and students’ success; therefore, it is
of particular importance that we learn, through empirical research, about the factors related to
recruiting and selecting school principals. This study critically reviewed 64 empirical literature
studies that were published in the United States over the past 2 decades on the topic of principal
recruitment and selection. The present study examined the characteristics of the individuals who
apply and are selected to join the principal workforce, as well as the characteristics of the schools
and/or districts that attract potential candidates. The topics identified in the review are gender,
race, qualifications, and intrinsic motivation at the individual level, as well as school locale, student
characteristics, financial incentives, working conditions, superintendents, and hiring practices at the
organizational level. Though hiring is a two-way interactive process, the literature to date has paid
little attention to the process and practices that lead to recruiting and hiring effective school
leaders. This paper concludes with a discussion about the trends that are recognizable in the
existing work on principal recruitment and selection, and the practice and policy implications of the
study’s review.
Keywords
School principal, recruitment, selection, application, hiring
Introduction
Studies have documented the positive influence that school principals have on students’ academic
experiences and achievements (Clark et al., 2009; Daniëls et al., 2019). As confirmed in the
literature, qualified, effective principals are particularly important in schools that serve high
concentrations of low-income students, low-performing students, and students of color (Béteille
et al., 2012; Goldsmith, 2004).
In the United States, many states and districts are committed to hiring and recruiting highly
qualified school leaders; however, doing so is becoming increasingly challenging (Pounder and
Merrill, 2001). Increasing numbers of principals are leaving the profession (Snodgrass Rangel,
Corresponding author:
Xinyi Mao, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of Missouri Columbia, 202 Hill Hall,
Columbia, MO 65211, US.
Email: xinyi.mao@mail.missouri.edu
Lee and Mao: Recruitment and selection of principals 7
2018), and fewer new principals are joining it (Haller and Hunt, 2016). In particular, schools with a
high concentration of disadvantaged students––from low-income households, ethnic groups, and
remote areas––find it difficult to recruit qualified principals (Loeb et al., 2010). Additionally,
while schools are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse (DeAngelis and O’Connor, 2012),
fewer racial/ethnic minority educators are entering and remaining in the principal labor force
(Loeb et al., 2010). In 2018, nearly half of the students enrolled in public schools were identified
as nonwhite, and as projected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), this number
is expected to increase to 56% in 2029 (NCES, 2020). However, educator demographics remain
stagnantly White; as of 2012, the percentage of Black school principals had not changed signif-
icantly since 1988 (Hill et al., 2016). Furthermore, in 2018, about 80% of public school educators
were still identified as White (Will, 2020). Due to globalization and the immigration trend in recent
years, many countries are experiencing similar struggles and challenges. For instance, studies in
Australia (Tu, 2019), the Netherlands (Weiner, 2016), and the United Kingdom (UK) (Joseph-
Salisbury, 2020) have also noticed expanding diverse student bodies every year, but the educator
demographics have been shown to be disproportionally White.
Notably, we have more individuals with principal certification than open positions for them to
fill (Roza, 2003; Zepeda et al., 2012); nonetheless, school districts still experience challenges in
terms of recruiting suitable candidates (Doyle and Locke, 2014). This raises questions about why
individuals with certification are hesitant to apply for principalships, and what factors are related to
principal recruitment and selection. While there has been literature on the factors that contribute to
individuals’ decisions to advance to principalship that can help us understand and build sound
policy on this issue, no meta-analytic or systematic review research has been conducted to shed
light on the matter. In fact, as Papa and Baxter (2005) mentioned in their paper, “There are not
enough studies providing systematic, policy-relevant information about the career choices of
school leaders and prospective school leaders on which to base some important policy decisions”
(p. 217). This underscores the urgent need for a systematic review on this topic.
To strengthen principalship and contribute to the literature, this study conducted systematic
reviews of 2 decades of empirical literature on principal recruitment and selection published in the
United States. First, we identified the characteristics of individuals who applied and were selected
for principalships, and the individual factors that influenced such decisions. Second, we examined
the characteristics of organizations that recruited and selected individuals for employment as
principals; additionally, we explored the organizational factors that encouraged and discouraged
applicants to advance to principalship. Since strengthening principalship will require understand-
ing not only those factors associated with applicants’ decisions to advance to principalships, but
also how applicants are being selected, we have reviewed the literature on the principal selection
process as well. Specifically, we reviewed the last 20 years of literature on studies that addressed
principal recruitment and selection in order to strengthen the principalship pipeline and serve as a
guide to help formulate policies for recruiting high-quality school leaders.
It is important to note that in alignment with the theory of supply and demand (Donitsa-Schmidt
and Zuzovsky, 2014; Sutcher et al., 2019), we use recruitment in general to refer to studies that
have examined the factors motivating educators to advance or inhibiting them from advancing to
principal positions in schools (Farley-Ripple et al., 2012). We use the term selection broadly to
indicate how superintendents or districts screen, assess, and hire the most suitable candidates for
principal positions (Palmer, 2016). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to
examine, evaluate, and review the literature regarding principal recruitment and selection in the
United States.
8 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 51(1)
International interest in principal recruitment and selection

Recruiting and selecting talented school principals is of great interest to education leaders and
policymakers around the world (Busby, 2019). In fact, as part of their efforts to better serve
students and ensure the success of their schools, many nations or economies across the globe––
Australia (Bezzina, 2012), the Netherlands (Krüger et al., 2005), Singapore (Walker et al., 2003),
Hong Kong (Kwan and Walker, 2009), Kenya and Tanzania (Onguko et al., 2008)––have docu-
mented shortages of qualified applicants as well as the challenges leaders face in recruiting the
most appropriate candidates for vacant positions. Scholars in Australia have raised concerns that,
although the number of applicants for principal positions in Australia has increased over time,
disadvantaged school districts continue to experience severe principal shortages (Barty et al.,
2005). Educators in the UK have had difficulty attracting and recruiting school leaders, even as
student numbers have increased (Busby, 2019). Unfortunately, the principal shortage situation has
not yet been improved; some nations have deemed the dearth of school leaders an “emergency”
and described school principals as “a disappearing species” (Bolton, 2019; Dougan, 2017).
Observable patterns in and the nature of principal recruitment and selection often differ based
on specific educational systems’ structures, fragmented school funding, or qualification require-
ments across nations. For instance, in South Korea and China, where education systems are highly
centralized, principals are recruited and selected by states or by the province rather than by
individual schools, which can create distinctive patterns in terms of principal sorting, recruitment,
and selection issues (Kim et al., 2014). Furthermore, unlike in the United States, where credential-
ing is mostly mandatory, Australia does not often have mandatory credentials for their principals.
This has led to research that has been primarily focused on supporting newly appointed school
principals (Ärlestig et al., 2016).
While principals’ importance and, by extension, the necessity of taking an interest in how they
are prepared and selected have been acknowledged worldwide, significant variation is evident
across countries. Therefore, to foster meaningful conversations on the issue of principal recruit-
ment and selection, we set the scope of this review to a single country: the United States. This not
only allowed for valuable insights into principal recruitment and selection in the United States, it
also provides an opportunity for other countries to critically reflect on the important features within
their own educational systems and processes, which, with respect to principals, may have previ-
ously been taken for granted (Blömeke and Paine, 2008).
Conceptual framework
To understand the factors related to principal recruitment and selection, we built a conceptual
framework based on the existing literature on educational leadership and management (EDLM)
research (Castillo and Hallinger, 2018; Hallinger, 2018; Kılınç and Gümüş, 2020). The EDLM
framework centers on how education leaders perform their roles in fostering productive change and
improvement in schools (Hallinger and Kovacevic, 2019; Oplatka and Arar, 2017). Applying this
framework allowed us to capture both the practices of educational leaders and the contexts of their
organizations in order to link the EDLM knowledge base more explicitly to educational field
practices. In particular, the research has mentioned that personal- and context-related antecedents
are two categories that need to be differentiated when reviewing their influences on leadership and
management (Hallinger, 2018). In this study, personal antecedents, such as gender, race, and
qualifications, are categorized as individual factors that relate to persons’ assumption of principal
positions. In other words, these are factors that, on an individual level, are associated with
educators’ motivations to apply for principal positions and their likelihood of being hired.
Context-related antecedents, such as school locale and working conditions, are grouped under
organizational factors that focus on what attracts educators to ascend or inhibits them from
advancing to principalships, and how schools or districts select candidates to fill principal posi-
tions. The present study involved a systematic review that aimed to integrate previous research
results in order to gain a better understanding of the factors, both individual and organizational,
that are related to the principal labor market.
Methods
This paper reviews the literature on principal recruitment in K-12 general education within the
United States. Several procedures were followed to ensure a high-quality literature review. The
selections were made on the basis of the four general criteria followed by Guarino et al. (2006): (a)
relevance, (b) scholarship (c), empirical, and (d) quality.
First, to identify the relevance of the literature, this review focused on studies that shed light on
issues regarding principal recruitment in the United States. We acknowledged the impact that No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act still exerts and the accountability movement that it has brought to
education (Mitani, 2018, 2019). Thus, we started our search from 2001 when the NCLB Act was
passed. We expanded our search to the late 1990s but were only able to find a handful of studies.
We also examined whether there were any different trends or findings in the last 10 years compared
with the last 20 years and found no noticeable difference. Thus, we decided to use a 20-year period
to ensure the holistic inclusion of the most relevant research. Specifically, we restricted the search
period from January 1998 to December 2018, that is, to a roughly 20-year period.
Second, the review considered scholarly studies. In other words, we limited our review of
research endeavors to peer-reviewed journals and publications. As a result, this review excludes
reports, working papers, conference proposals, dissertations, or opinions that appeared in non-
peer-reviewed journals, newspapers, and other publications.
Third, the review focused on empirical studies—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.
Non-empirical studies were excluded because they offer little or no evidence in support of the
research questions this study sought to explore and answer.
Fourth, to ensure that we reviewed only quality studies, we adhered to the American Educa-
tional Research Association (AERA) standards for reporting research: clear problem formulation,
a review of relevant scholarship, transparent description of purpose, design, data collection, data
analysis, and so on (Council of the American Educational Research Association, 2006).
Search strategy
The study accessed five online databases (EBSCOhost, ERIC, JSTOR, Econlit, and EBSCO full
text) to identify literature on principal applications, mobility, and recruitment, using combinations
of the following keywords: principal* application, principal* recruitment, principal* selection,
principal* hiring, school leader* recruiting, school leader* recruitment, principalship*, principal*
career, administrator* recruitment. During the initial process, we found 3083 studies. Among
them, we found 285 duplicate studies and many unrelated studies, a large portion of which were
in science journals. These papers were captured in the initial search because of the term
“principal,” although its meaning differs in this context from that used in education. For instance,
in one psychological research journal, the authors refer to the application of principal component
analysis in multivariate data (Hunter and Takane, 2002); such studies are clearly unrelated to
school principal career paths. Although three of the articles fell within the scope of this study
based on their titles, they were excluded because, despite our efforts to contact the editor and/or
author(s), we were unable to obtain the full text versions for review.
After removing the duplicate papers, we narrowed our selection to 107 studies. We further
narrowed our list based on titles and abstracts, and 85 articles remained. First, we reviewed each
article and decided whether it met the inclusion criteria. We then marked it either as “included for
final review” or “excluded.” We read every abstract, and whenever we had insufficient information
to determine inclusion in the study, we obtained a full copy of the paper for review. Of the 85
original studies, 46 were excluded because they did not meet AERA standards or were outside of
our research scope. Most of the excluded papers were vague concerning the principal labor market
(e.g., many discussed educational leadership in general instead of recruitment or selection issues).
Snowball sampling was then used to search each article’s references for additional papers. Articles
with terms such as “tapping” or “pipeline,” for instance, were not captured by the search, but we
were able to add them later during the snowball process. The final result of the search process
yielded 64 peer-reviewed articles, which the researchers read and reviewed. Figure 1 presents an
overview of the selection procedure.
There are two additional points worth mentioning. One is that, even after implementing the four
criteria, there remained some variation in terms of the rigorous studies that we discuss in this paper.
The second point is that because of the abovementioned search strategy and selection criteria, it is
necessary to consider publication bias; we recognize that there are valuable, insightful books,
reports, and conference papers that can help us understand the recruitment of school principals,
but they will not be discussed here.
Results
In this section, we categorize the literature into two themes: (a) individual factors, such as the
principal’s gender, race, qualifications, and intrinsic motivation; and (b) organizational factors,
such as school locale, student characteristics, financial incentives, working conditions, superinten-
dents, and the hiring practices of school districts. For each theme, we started with a brief intro-
duction of all the included studies; we then reviewed each study’s findings. It is important to note
that the language used to identify racial/ethnic groups varies across studies. To acknowledge these
linguistic nuances, we mirrored the language used in each study. Moreover, most quantitative
studies used the principal’s demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, ethnicity/race, etc.) as con-
trols rather than as pertinent factors. Therefore, if a study used gender as a control variable only and
focused on the relationship between principals’ working conditions and recruitment, then it was
discussed in detail in the section on working conditions but not in the section on gender. In
addition, a single article may examine multiple aspects related to individual or organizational
factors. For example, Bass (2006) addressed both school locale and working conditions related to
principal recruitment and selection. Such papers were grouped into multiple categories. All the
included articles were divided into two categories, as shown in Table 1. A summary of the included
studies’ methodologies, participants, and relevant findings can be found in the Online Appendix,
Table A.1.
Studies identified through

database searching
Identification
(n=3,083)
Records after duplicates

and unrelated research
removed (n=107)
Articles remaining after

screened by title and
abstract (n=85)
Screening
Articles remaining after Articles excluded (n=46);

screened by full text 1. Not meeting the AERA
(n=39) standards (n=29)
2. Not meeting our inclusive
criteria (n=17)
Snowball sampling
(n=25)
Included
Final Sample (n=64)
Figure 1. Study selection process.
Individual factors
Gender. Among the 13 selected studies that examined gender, three found that some school districts
prefer male principals over female ones (Davis et al., 2017; Joy, 1998; Wallin, 2005), three cited
family commitment as an inhibitor to female educators’ advancement to principalships (Browne-
Ferrigno, 2003; Hoff et al., 2006; Méndez-Morse et al., 2015), and two documented that female
Table 1. Overview of studies by categories.
Category Author(s) and year
Individual factors (37)

Gender (13) Browne-Ferrigno (2003); Davis et al. (2017); Eckman (2002); Fuller et al.
(2018); Hoff et al. (2006); Joy (1998); Kruse and Krumm (2016); McGee
(2010); Méndez-Morse et al. (2015); Mertz (2006); Spencer and Kochan
(2000); Wallin (2005); Young and McLeod (2001)
Race (11) Crawford and Fuller (2017); Cushing and Kerrins (2004); Davis et al. (2017);
DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012); Enomoto et al. (2000); Fernandez et al.
(2015); Jean-Marie (2013); Loder (2005); Méndez-Morse (2004); Myung
et al. (2011); Méndez-Morse et al. (2015)
Qualifications (9) Browne-Ferrigno (2003); DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012); DiPaola and
Tschannen-Moran (2003); Hoff et al. (2006); Howley et al. (2005); Hoang
(2009); Joy (1998); Myung et al. (2011); Winter et al. (2002)
Intrinsic motivation (13) Bass (2006); Beach and Keiser (2011); Black et al. (2014); DeAngelis and
O’Connor (2012); Hancock et al. (2006); Moore (2000); Parylo et al.
(2012); Pounder and Merrill (2001); Stone-Johnson (2014); Winter et al.
(2004); Winter et al. (2007); Winter et al. (2002); Young and McLeod
(2001)
Organizational factors (35)
School locale (5) Cushing and Kerrins (2004); Pijanowski and Brady (2009); Versland (2013);
Whitaker (2003); Wood et al. (2013)
Student characteristics (5) Bass (2006); Hancock et al. (2006); Loeb et al. (2010); Papa (2007); Winter
and Morgenthal (2002)
Financial incentives (12) Cooley and Shen (2000); DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2003); Hancock
et al. (2006); Joy (1998); Newton et al. (2003); Papa and Baxter (2005);
Pijanowski and Brady (2009); Pijanowski et al. (2009); Pounder and Merrill
(2001); Shen et al. (1999); Winter et al. (2002); Wood et al. (2013)
Working conditions (8) Bass (2006); Cooley and Shen (2000); DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2003);
Eckman (2004); Farley-Ripple et al. (2012); Newton and Zeitoun (2003);
Pounder and Merrill (2001); Shen et al. (2004)
Superintendents (8) Cruzeiro and Boone (2009); Fuller et al. (2018); Hooker (2000); Palmer et al.
(2016); Palmer and Mullooly (2015); Rammer (2007); Young and Young
(2010); Young et al. (2011)
Hiring practices (5) Palmer (2018); Richardson et al. (2016); Schlueter and Walker (2008); Winter
and Jaeger (2004); Winter et al. (1998)
Note. Studies that have more than one research question or examine multiple factors are grouped under multiple
categories.
educators, though mainly later in their careers, use these additional years to build on their skills
(Kruse and Krumm, 2016; McGee, 2010). Although three studies noted that the number of female
principals is increasing (Fuller et al., 2018; Mertz, 2006; Spencer and Kochan, 2000), five men-
tioned that there is still a lack of appropriate role models for female school leaders (Eckman, 2002;
Hoff et al., 2006; Kruse and Krumm, 2016; McGee, 2010; Young and McLeod, 2001).
In particular, Joy (1998) found that female teachers are less likely to be promoted, even after
controlling for their credentials and their desire to secure promotions. The same trends were
observed in rural school districts in Texas, where Wallin (2005) found that school districts
generally prefer male candidates for principalships, and the expectations with regard to principal
positions remain biased against females. Davis and colleagues (2017) documented a similar
finding to the effect that administratively certified male teachers are 20% more likely than their
female counterparts to become principals. The authors further concluded that the challenges and
barriers facing females’ transitions to principalship are substantial, and this was especially true for
females of color.
In addition, scholars have noted that one of the most cited reasons for female educators’
reluctance to seek administrative roles is family commitments. Specifically, female teachers in
a principal preparation program expressed uncertainty about assuming principal positions due to
concerns related to children and family responsibilities (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003). When Hoff et al.
(2006) asked about barriers to moving into school leadership roles, female educators indicated that
they would wait for family responsibilities to lighten before applying for an administrative posi-
tion. Méndez-Morse and colleagues (2015) similarly found that achieving a healthy work–family
balance is often cited as the biggest challenge for female principals.
Recently, McGee (2010) found that, although females tend to assume leadership positions later
in their careers, they are more likely to use the intervening time to gain leadership experience and
complete advanced degrees, which helps them to feel more confident about advancing to an
administrative role. Similarly, Kruse and Krumm (2016) interviewed four first-time female prin-
cipals and found that, although family commitments delayed female educators’ principalships, the
participants felt more confident moving into administration since the additional years had allowed
them to earn advanced degrees, gain additional classroom experience, and upgrade their admin-
istrative skills.
Despite such challenges and barriers, Mertz (2006) documented a steady increase in female
principals across all school levels from 1972 to 2002, especially at the elementary school level,
where the percentage of female principals increased from 54% to 74% in that period. A similar
increasing trend with respect to female principals has also been seen in Texas (Fuller et al., 2018)
and Alabama (Spencer and Kochan, 2000).
While the number of female school leaders has indeed increased in recent decades, a lack of
appropriate role models or mentors is frequently cited as an inhibiting factor. In fact, as one female
leader in Florida said, “I really think women do not move into administration because they are not
mentored or encouraged” (McGee, 2010, p. 16). McGee (2010) further illustrated that, compared
with male educators, female educators experience additional challenges in terms of establishing
social connections and accessing social support because they do not typically fit into the “good old
boys” network. Hoff and colleagues (2006) mentioned that when most female principals first
assumed administrative positions, they did not have a mentor nor did they receive professional
support. This is echoed by Kruse and Krumm (2016), who confirmed that, while it is crucial for
potential female principals to have strong mentors and support systems, such opportunities are rare.
Teachers in educational administration programs (Young and McLeod, 2001) and female high
school principals (Eckman, 2002) both frequently mentioned the importance of administrative role
models and other forms of support for female educators’ entrance into educational administration.
Race. Among the 11 studies that focused on race, six documented that minority educators are still
disadvantaged compared with their White peers (Crawford and Fuller, 2017; Cushing and Kerrins,
2004; Davis et al., 2017; DeAngelis and O’Connor, 2012; Loder, 2005; Myung et al., 2011), and
five concluded that female minority educators are exceptionally challenged (Enomoto et al., 2000;
Fernandez et al., 2015; Jean-Marie, 2013; Méndez-Morse, 2004; Méndez-Morse et al., 2015).
Although the structural barriers to principalship that face minorities, especially female mino-
rities, have gradually been eliminated since the civil rights movement (Loder, 2005), minorities
remain underrepresented in education, particularly in administrative positions (Myung et al.,
2011). DeAngelis and O’Connor (2012) found that where nonwhite educators with principal
certifications are more likely than their White peers to apply for administrative positions, only
57% of nonwhite applicants received job offers compared with 80% of White applicants over the
same period. Using 20 years of administration data from Texas, Crawford and Fuller (2017) also
found that Latin educators are 14% less likely to be hired as school principals than White educa-
tors. Davis et al. (2017) found similar results where White teachers have significantly higher odds
of becoming principals compared with Black and Latin teachers. Even more challenging is that
principals are more likely to tap (an informal recruitment mechanism by which teachers become
principals) teachers who are the same race as themselves or who are representative of their school’s
ethnic composition (Myung et al., 2011). This aligns with Cushing and Kerrins’s (2004) finding
that minority applicants are less likely to apply for administrative positions due to a lack of
encouragement and support.
Scholars have further articulated that applying for administrative positions can be particularly
challenging for female minority educators. Enomoto and her colleagues (2000) found that being
both a female and a member of a minority amounts to double jeopardy for an educator. Jean-Marie
(2013) interviewed two female African American principals and found that both had experienced
inequities in their pursuit of principalships. Fernandez and colleagues (2015) also illustrated that
Latin principals encountered difficulties when trying to “break into” the male-dominated educa-
tional leadership field. The Latin participants in their study further expressed that they would have
benefited from having a mentoring program or networking support. Not surprisingly, a recent
article based on a national survey of Latin school leaders found that mentors and role models exert
a significant influence on their career choices with regard to becoming school leaders (Méndez-
Morse et al., 2015). Unfortunately, studies have documented that there are very few opportunities
for female minorities to receive mentorship (Enomoto et al., 2000; Méndez-Morse, 2004).
Qualifications. Among the nine studies that examined qualifications, three scrutinized the impor-
tance of advanced degrees (DeAngelis and O’Connor, 2012; DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2003;
Joy, 1998), five emphasized leadership skills and experience (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; DeAngelis
and O’Connor, 2012; Hoang, 2009; Hoff et al., 2006; Myung et al., 2011), and four highlighted the
importance of an applicant’s age (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003; DeAngelis and O’Connor, 2012;
Howley et al., 2005; Winter et al., 2002).
Among potential candidates, schools tend to favor or hire those with an advanced degree. Joy
(1998) and DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2003) have argued that graduate school education can
significantly enhance an educator’s probability of being promoted to principalship. DeAngelis and
O’Connor (2012) also confirmed that applicants with a master’s degree or higher are more likely to
receive job offers than those without such degrees.
In addition, teachers with formal or informal leadership experience are more likely to apply for
principal positions (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003) and/or receive administrative job offers (DeAngelis
and O’Connor, 2012), and they report feeling better equipped to assume such a position (Myung
et al., 2011). For some female educators, having adequate leadership experience and completing
preparation programs served as stepping stones before they applied for principal positions (Hoff
et al., 2006). One study noted that superintendents viewed hiring alternatively licensed principals
as a viable plan as long as the candidates had exemplary leadership skills and successful leadership
experiences, and could demonstrate their commitment to the community (Hoang, 2009).
Lastly, research has found that younger applicants expressed greater uncertainty about seeking
principal positions than older colleagues because they believed they lacked the necessary experi-
ence required to assume the role of principal (Browne-Ferrigno, 2003). Despite this anxiety,
studies have also shown that younger candidates are more motivated to apply for principal posi-
tions (Howley et al., 2005), and they have a better chance of receiving administrative job offers
than older applicants (DeAngelis and O’Connor, 2012). In addition, as older applicants approach
retirement age, they are less likely to pursue principal positions (Winter et al., 2002).
Intrinsic motivation. Among the 13 studies that explored intrinsic motivation, 10 have consistently
found that teachers were motivated to enter principalships because of their desire to make a
difference in education (Bass, 2006; Beach and Keiser, 2011; Black et al., 2014; DeAngelis and
O’Connor, 2012; Hancock et al., 2006; Moore, 2000; Parylo et al., 2012; Pounder and Merrill,
2001; Winter et al., 2007; Young and McLeod, 2001), two mentioned self-confidence (Winter
et al., 2004; Winter et al., 2002), and one mentioned that generation (Stone-Johnson, 2014) also has
an influence on individuals’ motivation to assume principalships.
Across the range of demographic characteristics, educators who applied for principal vacancies
cited a desire to make a difference in education, positively impact students, and take on a personal
and professional challenge as reasons for pursuing the role (Bass, 2006; Beach and Keiser, 2011;
Moore, 2000; Parylo et al., 2012; Pounder and Merrill, 2001; Young and McLeod, 2001).
Researchers who analyzed survey data from educators in North Carolina (Hancock et al., 2006),
Kentucky (Winter et al., 2007), Illinois (DeAngelis and O’Connor, 2012), and Minnesota (Black
et al., 2014) confirmed this with similar findings.
Some other scholars found that prospective applicants with a high degree of confidence in their
ability to perform well as principals showed a greater interest in principalship than those who self-
reported low levels of confidence (Winter et al., 2004; Winter et al., 2002). However, one study
pointed out that such intrinsic motivation may change or differ with generations. Specifically,
Generation X teachers (those born between 1961 and 1981) may have no intention of applying for
school principalship because, unlike older generations, they favor a work–life balance, together
with freedom, flexibility, and independence (Stone-Johnson, 2014).
Organizational factors
Student characteristics. Among the five studies that focused on student characteristics, three showed
that prospective applicants tend to consider school-level student demographics and student per-
formance when applying for vacancies (Loeb et al., 2010; Papa, 2007; Winter and Morgenthal,
2002), while two documented that the student performance factor tends to be particularly strong in
the current milieu of standardized test pressure (Bass, 2006; Hancock et al., 2016).
As Winter and Morgenthal (2002) mentioned, high-performing schools are more likely to
attract potential applicants, whereas low-performing schools are disadvantaged in terms of recruit-
ing principals. Papa (2007) also found that principals are more likely to work in schools with low
enrollment numbers and a lower percentage of nonwhite students, while avoiding schools that are
populated by students with limited English proficiency. This is echoed by Loeb et al. (2010), who
found that principals who work in failing schools or schools with a high percentage of English
language learners are more likely to apply to what they believe to be more desirable schools (i.e.,
fewer poor, minority, and low-achieving students).
Additionally, Bass (2006) found that respondents perceived the pressures related to standar-
dized test scores as a leading barrier to principalship. Practitioners also confirmed that increased
accountability for standardized tests is a major inhibitor for applicants considering leadership
positions (Hancock et al., 2016).
School locale. Among the five studies that addressed school locale, two noted that small, rural
schools face more challenges in terms of recruiting and selecting principals (Pijanowski and Brady,
2009; Whitaker, 2003), two mentioned that rural schools attract potential principals through
specific principal preparation programs (Versland, 2013; Wood et al., 2013), and one mentioned
that minority educators prefer to work near their neighborhoods (Cushing and Kerrins, 2004).
In particular, superintendents from small, rural school districts tend to rate the principal short-
age as more extreme than those from large urban districts (Whitaker, 2003). Pijanowski and Brady
(2009) found that small, rural school districts often encounter difficulties in recruiting and retain-
ing principals because, compared with larger school districts, they have fewer monetary incentives
to attract and motivate prospective candidates.
To address the staffing issue, some rural schools attract potential principals through principal
preparation programs. Specifically, based on a survey of 40 rural superintendents, Wood and
colleagues (2013) confirmed that the Grow Your Own (GYO) program is the most common
method that is used for recruiting administrators in Midwest rural schools. In their study, rural
superintendents indicated that geographic isolation is the most challenging factor in recruiting
administrators. Although GYO programs have helped to fill principal vacancies in rural schools,
Versland (2013) stressed that rural principals suffered a loss of self-efficacy due to an inadequate
recruitment process, social isolation, changing relationships with former colleagues, and a lack of
mentoring support. Still another study found that, when applying for administrative positions,
minority educators prefer to work near their neighborhoods because they believe that neighbor-
hood schools offer a more supportive environment than schools that are far from home (Cushing
and Kerrins, 2004).
Financial incentives. Among the 12 studies that focused on principals’ salaries, five cited financial
benefits as an important factor that educators consider when deciding whether to assume or remain
in principal positions (Joy, 1998; Newton et al., 2003; Pijanowski et al., 2009; Pounder and Merrill,
2001; Shen et al., 1999; Winter et al., 2002), three noted that principals’ salaries varied consider-
ably across schools and school districts (Pijanowski and Brady, 2009; Pijanowski et al., 2009;
Wood et al., 2013), and four argued that the current average salary cannot adequately compensate
principals for their working hours and responsibilities (Cooley and Shen, 2000; DiPaola and
Tschannen-Moran, 2003; Hancock et al., 2006; Papa and Baxter, 2005).
As Joy (1998) mentioned, applicants who expect a larger wage gap between their current
position and the administrative position are more likely to desire a promotion; however, individ-
uals who enter principalships for the monetary benefits are more likely to leave when the benefits
are no longer available (Shen et al., 1999). Another study found that the salary increase that is
concomitant with a teacher becoming a principal can increase an individual’s perceived satisfac-
tion with principalship, which incentivizes individuals to apply for principal jobs (Winter et al.,
2002). Pounder and Merrill (2001) also mentioned that salary and benefits, second only to the
desire to achieve in and improve education, had the strongest positive relationship with the
desirability of principalship. Newton and his colleagues (2003) found that many educators make
career decisions based on extrinsic rewards, such as salary, indicating that, for educators, the
extrinsically rewarding aspect is no less important than their intrinsic motivation when deciding
whether to assume principal positions. More recently, superintendents in Arkansas also confirmed
that raising the level of compensation is the most effective way to attract potential principal
candidates (Pijanowski et al., 2009).
It is worth reiterating that principals’ salaries vary considerably across schools and school
districts. Pijanowski and Brady (2009) found a significant wage gap between large, urban schools
and small, rural schools––a disparity that hinders recruitment in small, rural districts because they
have less financial incentive to motivate teachers to enter administration. Furthermore, compared
with superintendents from smaller districts, those in larger school districts consistently see salary
as crucial for attracting talented school leaders (Pijanowski et al., 2009). Unfortunately, because
larger districts can pay more and are therefore more likely to attract talented candidates, small
districts near urban areas lag behind in terms of salary competition (Wood et al., 2013).
Although principals’ salaries are higher than teachers’, principals are still not adequately com-
pensated for their extended working hours and responsibilities. In fact, Cooley and Shen (2000)
have shown that, after accounting for principals’ extended working hours, urban principals’ daily
compensation rate is sometimes lower than teachers’. Similarly, Papa and Baxter (2005) found
that, after accounting for the two additional months a principal works, the average salary that is
paid to principals with 6–10 years of experience is less than the average salary that is paid to
teachers with 20 years of experience within the same district. A modest salary increase that is not
commensurate with the growing expectations of the principal position was rated as an inhibitive
factor for becoming a principal in Virginia (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2003) and North
Carolina (Hancock et al., 2006).
Working conditions. Among the eight studies that explored the working conditions beyond salary,
five cited long working hours as an influential factor (Bass, 2006; DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran,
2003; Eckman, 2004; Newton and Zeitoun, 2003; Pounder and Merrill, 2001), while three empha-
sized the importance of relationships among colleagues (Cooley and Shen, 2000; Farley-Ripple
et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2004).
As Pounder and Merrill (2001) argued, the time demand of principalship, such as evening and
weekend work, is the position’s top-ranked unattractive work feature. In particular, DiPaola and
Tschannen-Moran (2003) found that across all school levels, from elementary to high school,
around 84% of participants reported working more than 50 hours per week, while around 12%
worked more than 65 hours per week. The researchers further found that stress and long hours, as
perceived by the majority of principals, were the primary barriers inhibiting teachers from pursuing
principalships. Newton and Zeitoun (2003) confirmed that the long working hours constituted a
deterrent in terms of pursuing principalship. Another study, based on data from three Midwestern
states, noted that balancing time between family/home and the profession hinders high school
principal recruitment (Eckman, 2004). Educators in principal preparation programs also described
the poor working conditions of principalship as stressful, and this is the top inhibitor to assuming
principalship (Bass, 2006).
Furthermore, scholars have found that working relationships with colleagues and community
stakeholders are other influential factors in principal recruitment. Farley-Ripple et al. (2012) found
that poor working relationships can deter participants from seeking administrative positions, while
positive working relationships, interacting with students, and strong district support can attract
practitioners to the administrative workforce. Similarly, two studies have found that the relation-
ship between principals and education stakeholders is a significant factor influencing prospective
principals (Cooley and Shen, 2000; Shen et al., 2004).
Superintendents. Among the eight studies that delved into superintendents’ perspectives, five men-
tioned that superintendents’ perceptions of principal candidates were subject to cognitive or
implicit bias (Fuller et al., 2018; Palmer et al., 2016; Palmer and Mullooly, 2015; Young and
Young, 2010; Young et al., 2011), two illustrated the importance of fit between applicants and the
community (Cruzeiro and Boone, 2009; Hooker, 2000), and one noted the importance of appli-
cants’ communication skills (Rammer, 2007).
At the screening stage, as Young and Young (2010) pointed out, female superintendents were
found to be more neutral in terms of race, while male superintendents viewed Hispanic applicants
as less qualified than non-Hispanic applicants, even after controlling for credentials and experi-
ence. Fuller et al. (2018) found that at the hiring stage, schools in districts with a female super-
intendent are more likely to hire female principals compared with schools in districts with a male
superintendent. Moreover, Young et al. (2011) found that although applicants may be equally
qualified, superintendents may view their qualifications differently depending on the characteris-
tics of the school’s student body. Having asked principals to recount their recruitment experiences,
Palmer and Mullooly (2015) found that around one-third of their study’s participants mentioned
experiencing a non-merit-based selection process in which they identified their relationship with
the hiring committee as the most important factor. Moreover, Palmer et al. (2016) found that,
although superintendents agreed with the attributes involved in principal selection overall, there is
a lack of congruence among superintendents when hiring principals in practice.
In addition, researchers have demonstrated that superintendents intend to hire candidates who
portray a sense of fit with the community (Cruzeiro and Boone, 2009; Hooker, 2000) and have
good communication skills (Rammer, 2007). However, Rammer (2007) also noted a lack of
systematic means for determining whether applicants had strong communication skills as a hiring
challenge.
Hiring practices. Among the five studies that investigated hiring practices, two used simulation
processes to examine whether delegating principal selection to individuals such as teachers and
parents can improve the principal recruitment process (Winter et al., 1998; Winter and Jaeger,
2004), while three discussed the job advertisement and hiring criteria in principal recruitment and
selection (Palmer, 2018; Richardson et al., 2016; Schlueter and Walker, 2008).
Winter et al. (1998) found that teachers prefer principal candidates with whom they share a
dominant work value, such as fairness, honesty, and concern for others. Additionally, elementary
and middle school teachers prefer principals with more instructional leadership styles, while high
school teachers lean toward principals with management skills. In a similar roleplay study, Winter
and Jaeger (2004) found that participants were able to assign higher ratings to the most experienced
principal candidates, compared with the least experienced candidates, but they failed to distinguish
moderately experienced candidates. The authors concluded that school council members who are
not well-trained to select principal candidates may not be able to identify optimal candidates for
the position.
One study indicated that the difficulty in hiring school principals might be due to a lack of
clarity and specification in the job advertisements (Richardson et al., 2016). Richardson et al.
(2016) argued that some job advertisements failed to mention specific needs stemming from a
particular school’s characteristics, such as technology-related expertise, inquiry- and project-based

learning, and online instruction, and this discrepancy resulted in applicants who were poor fits for
the positions. Moreover, Schlueter and Walker (2008) found that among the districts that use
written criteria when hiring, only 21% showed a match between the criteria and the district’s need
to hire a principal who can create and sustain positive changes. Finally, Palmer (2018) surveyed
221 public school principals in California and found that the participants noted leadership, the
ability to build relationships, and experience as the top three hiring criteria.
Discussion
Considering the vital roles that school principals play, studies have recognized the importance of
staffing schools with talented, qualified leaders (Coelli and Green, 2012; Pepper, 2010). This
systematic review of 64 studies on principal recruitment and selection provides policy-relevant
information regarding the factors that encourage or discourage applicants to advance to principal-
ship and offers information about how applicants are selected. In this section, we present the main
interpretation of the findings and discuss the implications for practice and policy.
Interpretation of the findings

Studies have examined the motivations and qualifications of individuals who apply for and assume
principalships and found that an intrinsic motivation to make a difference in education is one of the
main reasons persons become or seek to become principals (Bass, 2006; Stone-Johnson, 2014); it
was also found that schools tend to prefer applicants who have leadership experience (DeAngelis
and O’Connor, 2012) and advanced degrees (Joy, 1998). Among the studies that have examined
the characteristics of individuals who apply for and assume principalships, many have focused on
the underrepresentation of female and minority educators in principal positions (Davis et al., 2017;
Myung et al., 2011). In fact, studies have documented the barriers and challenges, such as gender
stereotyping, discrimination, and bias, that female and minority educators face on their pathways to
principalship (Enomoto et al., 2000; Méndez-Morse et al., 2015). These barriers have a consider-
able impact on individual decisions to pursue principalship (McGee, 2010). While most studies
have confirmed that mentorship can provide women and minority educators with the necessary
support and encouragement to enter principalship, it has also been noted that such opportunities are
rare (Eckman, 2002; Méndez-Morse et al., 2015).
One major gap that surfaced in the review of individual characteristics is the lack of attention
that is given to the minority principal pipeline. Among the studies that were reviewed, only a
handful examined the recruitment and selection of minority school leaders, and we were unable to
find even a single empirical study on Asian American or Native American educators. In fact,
although it has been 2 decades since former United States Secretary of Education Richard Riley
stated, in 1998, that “Our teachers should look like America,” the demographics of the current
educator workforce in the United States have failed to mirror the nation’s student population
(Grissom et al., 2017). Only 20% of principals are identified as people of color (US Department
of Education, 2016), and minority teachers are less likely to become principals than their numbers
warrant (DeAngelis and O’Connor, 2012). Unfortunately, we found no empirical studies that
specifically focused on the pipeline to principalship for male minority educators in the last 2
decades. Moreover, although educators have consistently suggested that mentoring and encour-
agement are key motivators for helping female and minority educators join principalship (Eckman,
2002; Enomoto et al., 2000; Méndez-Morse, 2004), research has indicated, equally consistently,
that such opportunities are rare (Kruse and Krumm, 2016; McGee, 2010), thus making it more
difficult for minority educators to advance to leadership roles in schools.
Among organizational factors, salary was certainly an important factor for prospective princi-
pals. Teachers with administrative certification stated that salary influenced their decision to
pursue an administrative position (Pijanowski et al., 2009). Unfortunately, research on school
principals’ salaries has been largely descriptive and correlational. Although the principal salary
schedule has changed, and principals’ salaries have increased in the past 2 decades (Granados,
2020; Herszenhorn, 2007), research has found that school principals’ compensation level is still not
commensurate with the time, effort, and skills that are required of school leaders (Levin et al.,
2019; Papa and Baxter, 2005). While some districts across the country have tried to recruit and
retain talented principals by increasing their salaries (Levin, 2018), the efficacy of this strategy
remains unknown. Moreover, considering the fact that salary gaps between principals and teachers
differ by district—with some districts having noticeable salary gaps, while others show negligible
differences (Pijanowski and Brady, 2009)––our findings suggest that salary alone is not sufficient
to recruit talented principals. Therefore, it is unsurprising that studies have suggested that non-
pecuniary working conditions, such as the time commitment and the workload, significantly affect
prospective principals’ decisions to apply for principalships (Moore, 2000; Pounder and Miller,
2001). In fact, given principals’ growing accountability to multiple stakeholders (Lynch, 2012),
their increasing stress levels (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2003), and higher probabilities of
burnout (Federici and Skaalvik, 2012), principals see working conditions as the central determin-
ing issue for whether they remain as principals, and, for the same reasons, prospective candidates
are prompted to wonder whether they should apply at all (Bass, 2006).
Lastly, understanding principalship requires not only knowledge of the factors associated with
applicants’ decisions to advance to principal positions, but also information about how applicants
are selected. A few studies have examined hiring criteria and found that superintendents value
attributes such as communication skills and commitment when hiring principals (Cruzeiro and
Boone, 2009; Rammer, 2007). Nonetheless, these studies have also acknowledged that super-
intendents rarely have the means to systematically assess these skills, nor do they know how to
determine whether a candidate possesses such talent. What is more disturbing is the fact that, while
it is important to find qualified, effective principals who are the right “fit” for the job (Hooker,
2000), a candidate’s “fit” can be interpreted with bias, which is believed to have contributed to the
underrepresentation of women and minority educators in principalships (Palmer et al., 2016;
Rammer, 2007). Furthermore, studies have found that superintendents hold biases, both explicit
and implicit, and this has led to hiring decisions that are unrelated to job performance and are based
instead on individuals’ gender or race (Fuller et al., 2018; Young and Young, 2010). For example,
although female educators have taken on nearly two-thirds of all assistant principal positions in
Texas, there is still a systematic delay in female assistant principals’ promotion to principalship in
high schools (Bailes and Guthery, 2020). Unfortunately, we have noted that very little scholarly
attention has been paid to hiring practices, which makes it difficult to understand how super-
intendents select candidates or arrive at hiring decisions. In other words, while we have searched
for empirical evidence to guide best practices, we do not know enough to determine which
practices are effective in recruiting aspiring leaders nor have we been able to make any significant
conclusions as to the most effective ways to hire and select individuals that are well-suited for
principalship.
While this study’s findings may not reflect the principal recruitment and selection situations in
all countries, our review of the existing literature in the United States offers valuable insights for
educational leaders across various nations. Regardless of individual countries’ educational systems
and contexts, schools worldwide have experienced difficulties filling their principal positions
(Brooking et al., 2003). In order to better understand this issue, more research examining the
principal pipeline is needed, and meta-analytic and integrated reviews that can help us understand
trends are imperative because not only will they allow us to conceptualize this important topic, the
results they can produce will also contribute to building sound policies that impact the recruitment
and selection of school principals who are well-positioned and well-prepared to help teachers and
students succeed.
Implications of the findings

The first implication of this study arises from the lack of attention to minority principals. Although
a growing body of research has documented the positive impact minority school leaders exert on
students’ academic achievement (Whiting, 2009) and behavior (Driessen, 2015), and the recruit-
ment of minority teachers (Grissom and Keiser, 2011), as well as minority principals’ ability to
create a sense of belonging for and motivate minority students (Goldsmith, 2004), little is known
about what encourages or discourages minority educators from assuming leadership roles. While
policies such as Minnesota’s Men Teach (Nelson, 2002) and South Carolina’s Call Me MISTER
(Wood, 2018) were introduced to increase the number of male minority educators, the literature
was not able to shed light on the minority educator’s principal pipeline. Thus, we encourage
scholars to continue researching this topic to help education stakeholders better understand minor-
ity educators’ pathways to principalship. More importantly, to diversify the administration pipe-
line, a more deliberate, intentional policy is needed. Education leaders must provide systematic
mentoring opportunities to strengthen the principal pipeline, specifically by removing the burden
on individual educators to find their own mentors and social networks. By cultivating a culture in
which multiple stakeholder groups are involved in tapping efforts (DeAngelis and O’Connor,
2012), we may ensure that more female and minority educators advance to administrative
positions.
Similarly, this review suggests that such mentorship and social networks can help ameliorate
the underrepresentation of women in principalships. While women’s underrepresentation is not
new, mentorship and professional opportunities for women are still rare. Fortunately, some school
districts have launched new initiatives such as More Than a Power Lunch to increase networking,
coaching, and peer-to-peer mentoring for female educators and encourage them to take on lead-
ership roles (Superville, 2016); Women’s Initiative has also been developed in New York as a
means to help female educators reduce some of the social barriers they face in their attempts to
secure leadership positions in school districts (Ramaswamy, 2020). Such opportunities can demys-
tify the responsibilities and challenges that are concomitant with assuming the role of principal and
offer professional support to colleagues who have an interest in leadership. Considering the fact
that “Personal choices are never made in a vacuum” (Hill et al., 2016, p.15), more policy efforts are
needed to correct women’s underrepresentation in education.
A third implication arises from the findings related to principals’ working conditions. Empirical
evidence has shown that higher salaries can help reduce principal turnover rates (Papa, 2007;
Pijanowski and Brady, 2009). However, as teacher labor market research has proved, a simple
blanket pay raise does not guarantee that schools will hire effective teachers (Belfield, 2005) or
significantly improve teaching performance (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2011). Therefore, given
principals’ expanding roles and challenges, their salaries deserve greater attention from policy-
makers and researchers, if the development of effective, sustainable policies is desired. Moreover,
our findings suggest that salary is not the only influential aspect for attracting and recruiting
talented principals. Other aspects of working conditions, such as long working hours, not only
hinder principals from being effective school leaders (Newton and Zeitoun, 2003), they also
negatively affect prospective principals who view it as an unattractive attribute of principalship
(Pounder and Merrill, 2001). Fortunately, compared with individual and other organizational
factors, working conditions are more responsive to policy influences (Ladd, 2011). Policymakers,
especially at the district level, have the power and the responsibility to improve principals’
working conditions and relieve them of the tasks that distract them from their primary duties. In
so doing, districts may not only recruit and retain talented school leaders, but also help principals to
be more effective leaders.
The last implication stems from the lack of attention that the literature has paid to principal
selection. Hiring is a two-way interactive process in which all parties decide whether to continue
the process (Herriot, 2002). While superintendents are chiefly responsible for selecting and hiring
principals, research on how they differentiate one applicant from another is thin. Over the last
60 years, the demand side of principal selection has seldom been the focus of education research
(Palmer, 2016); educators often see the principal recruitment process as unsystematic (Turnbull
et al., 2016). Thus, we encourage further research to shed more light on hiring practices and
procedures, such as how superintendents frame the principal position, how perceptions and biases
influence the hiring process, and what kinds of hiring practices (i.e., the language that is used in job
postings or the interview process) hinder applicants from applying for leadership positions
(Clifford, 2010). By doing so, we can create an efficient, effective, and equitable hiring system
and set of procedures, which, in turn, will help both teachers and students achieve their potential.
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Se Woong Lee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9272-0130
Xinyi Mao https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1476-3079
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Ärlestig H, Day C and Johansson O (2016) International school principal research. In: Ärlestig H, Day C and
Johansson O (eds) A Decade of Research on School Principalship: Cases from 24 Countries. Cham:
Springer, pp. 1–9.
Bailes LP and Guthery S (2020) Held down and held back: systematically delayed principal promotions by
race and gender. AERA Open Epub ahead of print 8 June 2020. DOI: 10.1177/2332858420929298.
Barty K, Thomson P, Blackmore J and Sachs J (2005) Unpacking the issues: researching the shortage of
school principals in two states in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher 32(3): 1–18.
Bass TS (2006) To be or not to be: issues influencing educators’ decisions to enter the principalship. AASA
Journal of Scholarship and Practice 2(4): 19–30.
Beach G and Keiser KA (2011) To be or not to be . . . a school leader: motivators of educational administration
candidates. NCPEA Education Leadership Review 12(3): 5–18.
Belfield CR (2005) The teacher labor market in the US: challenges and reforms. Educational Review 57(2):
175–191.
Béteille T, Kalogrides D and Loeb S (2012) Stepping stones: principal career paths and school outcomes.
Social Science Research 41(4): 904–919.
Bezzina M (2012) It’s a long way to the top: informing leadership development programs for aspiring
principals. Leading and Managing 18(1): 19–30.
Black WR, Martin G and Danzig A (2014) Pathways for performance recruitment and selection, university
preparation, licensure, and professional development for school principals. NCPEA Education Leadership
Review 15(2): 1–13.
Blömeke S and Paine L (2008) Getting the fish out of the water: considering benefits and problems of doing
research on teacher education at an international level. Teaching and Teacher Education 24(8):
2027–2037.
Bolton R (2019) School principals are a disappearing species. Australian Financial Review 1 September.
Brooking K, Collins G, Court M and O’Neill J (2003) Getting below the surface of the principal recruitment
‘crisis’ in New Zealand primary schools. Australian Journal of Education 47(2): 146–158.
Browne-Ferrigno T (2003) Becoming a principal: role conception, initial socialization, role-identity trans-
formation, purposeful engagement. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(4): 468–503.
Busby E (2019) Number of schools failing to recruit senior leaders ‘rises to record high.’ The Independent 3
May.
Castillo FA and Hallinger P (2018) Systematic review of research on educational leadership and manage-
ment in Latin America, 1991–2017. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(2):
207–225.
Clark D, Martorell P and Rockoff J (2009) School Principals and School Performance. National Center for
Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Working Paper 38, December.
Clifford M (2010) Hiring Quality School Leaders: Challenges and Emerging Practices. Report, Learning
Point Associates, IL, U.S., February.
Coelli M and Green DA (2012) Leadership effects: school principals and student outcomes. Economics of
Education Review 31(1): 92–109.
Cooley VE and Shen J (2000) Factors influencing applying for the urban principalship. Education & Urban
Society 32(4): 443–454.
Council of the American Educational Research Association (2006) Standards for reporting on empirical social
science research in AERA publications: AMERICAN Educational Research Association. Educational
Researcher 35(6): 33–40.
Crawford ER and Fuller EJ (2017) A dream attained or deferred? Examination of production and placement of
Latino administrators. Urban Education 52(10): 1167–1203.
Cruzeiro PA and Boone M (2009) Rural and small school principal candidates: perspectives of hiring super-
intendents. Rural Educator 31(1): 1–9.
Cushing KS and Kerrins JA (2004) Simple but incorrect solutions to complex problems. Educational Lead-
ership and Administration 16: 11–21.
Daniëls E, Hondeghem A and Dochy F (2019) A review on leadership and leadership development in
educational settings. Educational Research Review 27: 110–125.
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.
DeAngelis KJ and O’Connor NK (2012) Examining the pipeline into educational administration: an analysis
of applications and job offers. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(3): 468–505.
DiPaola M and Tschannen-Moran M (2003) The principalship at a crossroads: a study of the conditions and
concerns of principals. NASSP Bulletin 87(634): 43–65.
Donitsa-Schmidt S and Zuzovsky R (2014) Teacher supply and demand: the school level perspective.
American Journal of Educational Research 2(6): 420–429.
Dougan P (2017) “Critical” principal shortage spawns new course in school leadership. New Zealand Herald
15 February.
Doyle D and Locke G (2014) Lacking Leaders: The Challenges of Principal Recruitment, Selection, and
Placement. Report, Thomas B Fordham Institute, Washington D.C., U.S., June.
Driessen G (2015) Teacher ethnicity, student ethnicity, and student outcomes. Intercultural Education 26(3):
179–191.
Eckman E (2002) Women high school principals: perspectives on role conflict, role commitment and job
satisfaction. Journal of School Leadership 12(1): 57–77.
Eckman EW (2004) Similarities and differences in role conflict, role commitment, and job satisfaction for
female and male high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(3): 366–387.
Enomoto EK, Gardiner ME and Grogan M (2000) Notes to Athene: mentoring relationships for women of
color. Urban Education 35(5): 567–583.
Farley-Ripple EN, Raffel JA and Welch JC (2012) Administrator career paths and decision processes. Journal
of Educational Administration 50(6): 788–816.
Federici RA and Skaalvik EM (2012) Principal self-efficacy: relations with burnout, job satisfaction and
motivation to quit. Social Psychology of Education 15(3): 295–320.
Fernandez R, Bustamante RM, Combs JP and Martinez-Garcia C (2015) Career experiences of Latino/a
secondary principals in suburban school districts. International Journal of Educational Leadership Pre-
paration 10(1): 60–76.
Fuller EJ, Pendola A and LeMay M (2018) Who should be our leader? Examining female representation in the
principalship across geographic locales in Texas public schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education
34(4): 1–21.
Goldsmith PA (2004) Schools’ racial mix, students’ optimism, and the Black-White and Latino-White
achievement gaps. Sociology of Education 77(2): 121–147.
Granados A (2020) What’s happened with principals in the last 5 years. EducationNC 6 January.
Grissom JA and Keiser LR (2011) A supervisor like me: Race, representation, and the satisfaction and
turnover decisions of public sector employees. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30(3):
557–580.
Grissom JA, Rodriguez LA and Kern EC (2017) Teacher and principal diversity and the representation of
students of color in gifted programs: evidence from national data. The Elementary School Journal 117(3):
396–422.
Guarino CM, Santibañez L and Daley GA (2006) Teacher recruitment and retention: a review of the recent
empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 76(2): 173–208.
Haller A and Hunt E (2016) Statewide Data on supply and Demand of Principals after Policy Changes to
Principal Preparation in Illinois. Report, Center for the Study of Education Policy, U.S., March.
Hallinger P (2018) Surfacing a hidden literature: a systematic review of research on educational leadership
and management in Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(3): 362–384.
Hallinger P and Kovačević J (2019) Science mapping the knowledge base in educational leadership and
management: a longitudinal bibliometric analysis, 1960 to 2018. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership Epub ahead of print 19 September 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1741143219859002.
Hancock DR, Black T and Bird JJ (2006) A study of factors that influence teachers to become school
administrators. Journal of Educational Research 6(1): 91–105.
Hanushek EA and Woessmann L (2011) Overview of the symposium on performance pay for teachers.
Economics of Education Review 30(3): 391–393.
Herriot P (2002) Selection and self: selection as a social process. European Journal of Work and Organiza-
tional Psychology 11(4): 385–402.
Herszenhorn DM (2007) Bloomberg reaches deal with principals. The New York Times 24 April.
Hill J, Ottem R and DeRoche J (2016) Trends in Public and Private School Principal Demographics and
Qualifications: 1987-88 to 2011-12. National Center for Education Statistics. Report no. 2016-189, April.
U.S.: U.S. Department of Education.
Hoang T (2009) Variation in the willingness of superintendents to recommend hiring alternatively licensed
principals. Educational Research and Reviews 4(10): 498–514.
Hoff DL, Menard C and Tuell J (2006) Where are the women in school administration? Issues of access,
acculturation, advancement, advocacy. Journal of Women in Educational Leadership 4(1): 53–60.
Hooker KO (2000) Superintendents’ perspectives on the recruitment and selection of building level admin-
istrators. Planning & Changing 31(3/4): 182–205.
Howley A, Andrianaivo S and Perry J (2005) The pain outweighs the gain: why teachers don’t want to become
principals. Teachers College Record 107(4): 757–782.
Hunter MA and Takane Y (2002) Constrained principal component analysis: various applications. Journal of
Educational & Behavioral Statistics 27(2): 105–145.
Jean-Marie G (2013) The subtlety of age, gender, and race barriers: a case study of early career African
American female principals. Journal of School Leadership 23(4): 615–639.
Joseph-Salisbury R (2020) Race and racism in English secondary schools. Report, Runnymede, London, U.K.,
June.
Joy L (1998) Why are women underrepresented in public school administration? An empirical test of
promotion discrimination. Economics of Education Review 17(2): 193–204.
Kılınç AÇ and Gümüş S (2020) What do we know about novice school principals? A systematic review of
existing international literature. Educational Management Administration & Leadership Epub ahead of
print 4 February 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1741143219898483.
Kim E, Lee C, Rah M, Park S and Park I (2014) Who should become a superintendent? An analysis of
stakeholders’ perceptions in South Korea. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy 11(2): 227–244.
Krüger ML, van Eck E and Vermeulen A (2005) Why principals leave: risk factors for premature departure in
the Netherlands compared for women and men. School Leadership & Management 25(3): 241–261.
Kruse RA and Krumm BL (2016) Becoming a principal: Access factors for females. Rural Educator 37(2): 28–38.
Kwan P and Walker A (2009) Are we looking through the same lens? Principal recruitment and selection.
International Journal of Educational Research 48(1): 51–61.
Ladd HF (2011) Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: how predictive of planned and actual
teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33(2): 235–261.
Levin K (2018) Principal salary data sheds light on Vitti’s first year — and his plans for the next. Chalkbeat 10
December.
Levin S, Bradley K and Scott C (2019) Principal Turnover: Insights from Current Principals. Learning Policy
Institute July.
Loder TL (2005) On deferred dreams, callings, and revolving doors of opportunity: African American
women’s reflections on becoming principals. Urban Review 37(3): 243–265.
Loeb S, Kalogrides D and Horng EL (2010) Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals
across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 32(2): 205–229.
Lynch JM (2012) Responsibilities of today’s principal: implications for principal preparation programs and
principal certification policies. Rural Special Education Quarterly 31(2): 40–47.
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. Forum on Public Policy Online 2010(2):
1–22.
Méndez-Morse S (2004) Constructing mentors: Latina educational leaders’ role models and mentors. Edu-
cational Administration Quarterly 40(4): 561–590.
Méndez-Morse S, Murakami ET, Byrne-Jiménez M and Hernandez F (2015) “Mujeres” in the principal’s
office: Latina school leaders. Journal of Latinos and Education 14(3): 171–187.
Mertz NT (2006) The promise of Title IX: longitudinal study of gender in urban school administration, 1972
to 2002. Urban Education 41(6): 544–559.
Mitani H (2018) Principals’ working conditions, job stress, and turnover behaviors under NCLB account-
ability pressure. Educational Administration Quarterly 54(5): 822–862.
Mitani H (2019) Principal turnover under No Child Left Behind accountability pressure. Teachers College
Record 121(2): 1–44.
Moore DH (2000) The vanishing principals: perceptions of graduate students in two university leadership
programs. Journal of the Intermountain Center for Education Effectiveness 1(1): 11–14.
Myung J, Loeb S and Horng E (2011) Tapping the principal pipeline: Identifying talent for future school
leadership in the absence of formal succession management programs. Educational Administration Quar-
terly 47(5): 695–727.
National Center for Education Statistics (2020) Racial/Ethnic enrollment in public schools: The condition of
education. Report, U.S. Department of Education. May.
Nelson BG (2002) The importance of men teachers: And reasons why there are so few. Report, Men Teach,
MN, U.S., November.
Newton RM and Zeitoun P (2003) Recruitment attributes and the principalship. Planning & Changing 34(1/
2): 58–69.
Newton RM, Giesen J, Freeman J, Bishop H and Zeitoun P (2003) Assessing the reactions of men and women
to attributes of the principalship. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(4): 468–503.
Onguko B, Abdalla M and Webber CF (2008) Mapping principal preparation in Kenya and Tanzania. Journal
of Educational Administration 46(6): 715–726.
Oplatka I and Arar K (2017) Context and implications document for: the research on educational leadership
and management in the Arab world since the 1990s: a systematic review. Review of Education 5(3):
308–310.
Palmer B (2016) Principal selection: a national study of selection criteria and procedures. AASA Journal of
Scholarship & Practice 13(3): 6–22.
Palmer B (2018) It’s time to upgrade to principal selection 2.0. NASSP Bulletin 102(3): 204–213.
Palmer B and Mullooly J (2015) Principal selection and school district hiring cultures: Fair or foul? Journal of
Education & Social Policy 2(2): 26–37.
Palmer B, Kelly J and Mullooly J (2016) What should be done with “fit” in principal selection? CLEARvoz
Journal 3(1): 26–38.
Papa F (2007) Why do principals change schools? A multivariate analysis of principal retention. Leadership
and Policy in Schools 6(3): 267–290.
Papa F and Baxter IA (2005) Dispelling the myths and confirming the truths of the imminent shortage of
principals: the case of New York State. Planning and Changing 36(3/4): 217–234.
Parylo O, Zepeda SJ and Bengtson E (2012) Career paths in educational leadership: examining principals’
narratives. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 58(4): 565–599.
Pepper K (2010) Effective principals skillfully balance leadership styles to facilitate student success: a focus
for the reauthorization of ESEA. Planning and Changing 41(1/2): 42–56.
Pijanowski JC and Brady KP (2009) The influence of salary in attracting and retaining school leaders.
Education and Urban Society 42(1): 25–41.
Pijanowski JC, Hewitt PM and Brady KP (2009) Superintendents’ perceptions of the principal shortage.
NASSP Bulletin 93(2): 85–95.
Pounder DG and Merrill RJ (2001) Job desirability of the high school principalship: a job choice theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly 37(1): 27–57.
Ramaswamy SV (2020) School superintendents are overwhelmingly male. What’s holding women back from
the top job? USA TODAY 20 February.
Rammer RA (2007) Call to action for superintendents: change the way you hire principals. The Journal of
Educational Research 101(2):67–76.
Richardson JW, Watts DS, Hollis E and McLeod S (2016) Are changing school needs reflected in principal
job ads? NASSP Bulletin 100(1): 71–92.
Roza M (2003) A matter of definition: Is there truly a shortage of school principals? Report, Center on
Reinventing Public Education. WA, U.S. January.
Schlueter K and Walker J (2008) Selection of school leaders: a critical component for change. NASSP Bulletin
92(1): 5–18.
Shen J, Cooley VE and Ruhl-Smith CD (1999) Entering and leaving school administrative positions. Inter-
national Journal of Leadership in Education 2(4): 353–367.
Shen J, Cooley VE and Wegenke GL (2004) Perspectives on factors influencing application for the principal-
ship: a comparative study of teachers, principals and superintendents. International Journal of Leadership
in Education 7(1): 57–70.
Snodgrass Rangel V (2018) A review of the literature on principal turnover. Review of Educational Research
88(1): 87–124.
Spencer WA and Kochan FK (2000) Gender related differences in career patterns of principals in Alabama: a
statewide study. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(9): 1–18.
Stone-Johnson C (2014) Not cut out to be an administrator: generations, change, and the career transition from
teacher to principal. Education and Urban Society 46(5): 606–625.
Superville DR (2016) Superintendent group launches initiative to boost women in education leadership.
Education Week 28 April.
Sutcher L, Darling-Hammond L and Carver-Thomas D (2019) Understanding teacher shortages: an analysis
of teacher supply and demand in the United States. Education Policy Analysis Archives 27(35): 1–40.
Tu J (2019) Were all your teachers white? I’ve often been the only one who looks like my students. The
Guardian 7 April.
Turnbull BJ, Anderson LM, Riley DL, MacFarlane JR and Aladjem DK (2016) The principal pipeline
initiative in action. Report, RAND Education: The Wallance Foundation, NY, U.S., October.
Versland TM (2013) Principal efficacy: implications for rural “Grow Your Own” leadership programs. Rural
Educator 35(1): 13–22.
Walker A, Stott K and Cheng YC (2003) Principal supply and quality demands: a tale of two Asia-Pacific city
states. Australian Journal of Education 47(2): 197–208.
Wallin DC (2005) Shining lonely stars? Career patterns of rural Texas female administrators. Journal of
Women in Educational Leadership 3(4): 255–272.
Weiner MF (2016) Racialized classroom practices in a diverse Amsterdam primary school: the silen-
cing, disparagement, and discipline of students of color. Race Ethnicity and Education 19(6):
1351–1367.
Whitaker KS (2003) Superintendent perceptions of quantity and quality of principal candidates. Journal of
Educational Leadership 13(2): 159–180.
Whiting G (2009) Gifted Black males: understanding and decreasing barriers to achievement and identity.
Roeper Review 31(4): 224–233.
Will M (2020) Still mostly white and female: new federal data on the teaching profession. Education Week 14
April.
Winter PA and Jaeger MG (2004) Principal selection decisions made by teachers: the influence of principal
candidate experience. Journal of School Leadership 14(4): 411–433.
Winter PA and Morgenthal JR (2002) Principal recruitment in a reform environment: effects of school
achievement and school level on applicant attraction to the job. Educational Administration Quarterly
38(3): 319–340.
Winter PA, McCabe DH and Newton RM (1998) Principal selection decisions made by teachers: the
influence of work values, principal job attributes, and school level. Journal of School Leadership
8(3): 251–279.
Winter PA, Rinehart JS and Muñoz MA (2002) Principal recruitment: an empirical evaluation of a school
district’s internal pool of principal certified personnel. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education
16(2): 129–141.
Winter PA, Rinehart JS, Keedy JL and Bjork LG (2004) Recruiting certified personnel to be principals:
a statewide assessment of potential job applicants. Planning and Changing 35(1/2): 85–107.
Winter PA, Rinehart JS, Keedy JL and Bjork LG (2007) Principal recruitment: assessing job pursuit
intentions among educators enrolled in principal certification programs. Journal of School Leadership
17(1): 28–53.
Wood JN, Finch K and Mirecki RM (2013) If we get you, how can we keep you? Problems with recruiting and
retaining rural administrators. Rural Educator 34(2): 1–13.
Wood L (2018) Call Me MISTER’s goal is to attract more minority men to teaching. Aiken Standard 9 April.
Young IP and Young KH (2010) Perceptions of female and male superintendents for a middle school
principalship as moderated by sex and national origin of applicants. Leadership and Policy in Schools
9(4): 441–461.
Young IP, Young KH and Oto T (2011) Superintendents’ assessment of Hispanic, Latino, and White job
candidates for a high school principalship: effects of cultural subdivisions and student characteristics.
Leadership and Policy in Schools 10(2): 207–233.
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): 462–502.
Zepeda S, Bengtson E and Parylo O (2012) Examining the planning and management of principal succession.
Journal of Educational Administration 50(2): 136–158.
Author biographies
Se Woong Lee is an assistant professor of education in the Department of Educational Leadership
and Policy Analysis at the University of Missouri at Columbia. His research focuses on educator
quality, educator evaluation, and the educator labor market, with an emphasis on social inequality.
Xinyi Mao is a PhD student of education in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy
Analysis at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Her research interest focuses on principal
leadership and the impacts of school leaders on teachers and student outcomes.

Recruitment and Selection of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recruitment and Selection of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

principals: A systematic review Article reuse guidelines:

Se Woong Lee and Xinyi Mao

International interest in principal recruitment and selection

Studies identified through

Records after duplicates

Articles remaining after

Articles remaining after Articles excluded (n=46);

Final Sample (n=64)

Figure 1. Study selection process.

Table 1. Overview of studies by categories.

Category Author(s) and year

Individual factors (37)

particular school’s characteristics, such as technology-related expertise, inquiry- and project-based

Interpretation of the findings

Implications of the findings

Declaration of conflicting interests

You might also like