Age Matters: Generational Views on Diversity in School Leadership Promotions in the Republic of Ireland

Abstract

This study examines educators’ perceptions of diversity prioritisation in leadership promotion practices within primary and post-primary schools in the Republic of Ireland, with particular attention to generational differences informed by generational cohort theory. Using a quantitative, cross-sectional design, data were collected via an anonymous online survey (N = 123). Participants, comprising practising teachers and school leaders, rated their agreement with statements relating to the current prioritisation of diversity, the extent to which diversity should be prioritised, and the perceived impact of diversity on leadership effectiveness and school performance. Eight diversity dimensions were examined: age, disability, gender, national origin and culture, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, social class, and religion. Descriptive analyses revealed broad support for diversity in leadership promotions across all age groups, with the strongest endorsement consistently expressed by the youngest cohort (20–29 years), suggesting a possible generational pattern within this exploratory sample. Overall, the findings point toward widespread but uneven support for diversity in leadership, shaped by generational shifts. This study highlights perceived support for more transparent, structured, and diversity-sensitive promotion frameworks within this sample to align practice with evolving professional values.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the prioritisation of diversity in professional advancement has become a central concern across sectors, including education (Yip & Saito, 2023). As schools and educational institutions become increasingly diverse in terms of staff and student populations, the question of how diversity is reflected in leadership and promotional practices has gained prominence (Jantunen et al., 2025). Diversity in this context encompasses a broad range of characteristics as outlined by Chui et al. (2015) including age, disability, gender, national origin and culture, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, social class, and religion. While many organisations have adopted diversity and inclusion policies, the extent to which these are perceived to influence actual promotional decisions within primary and post-primary schools, specifically in the Republic of Ireland, remains contested.

The literature on diversity in leadership highlights the strategic advantage of inclusive representation (Randel et al., 2018). Diverse leadership teams are associated with improved decision-making, greater innovation, and enhanced organisational legitimacy (Zhang, 2024). In educational settings, diverse leadership has been linked to more equitable school cultures and improved outcomes for marginalised student groups (Liu, 2024). However, despite these benefits, research continues to show that underrepresented groups face systemic barriers to advancement (Clark et al., 2024). A growing body of work has examined how diversity is operationalised in hiring and promotion processes (Aryasinghe et al., 2025; Beverly et al., 2025). Much of this literature points to a gap between policy and practice. While diversity statements and equality frameworks are increasingly common, their translation into meaningful action is often inconsistent (Baker & Clegg, 2023). This disconnect can lead to perceptions of performative inclusion, where diversity is promoted rhetorically but not substantively embedded in decision-making structures offering up the illusion of inclusion. Such perceptions can undermine trust in institutional commitments to equity and may contribute to scepticism among staff (De Saint Priest et al., 2024). Perceptions of diversity in promotions are also shaped by generational and cultural factors and have marked differences (Garg & Mahipalan, 2022). Younger professionals, shaped by more socially progressive environments, often expect greater inclusivity and accountability from institutions, while older generations may be more sceptical of diversity initiatives if they see them as clashing with merit-based principles (Blommaert & Coenders, 2024). These generational differences are important to explore, as they can influence organisational culture and the implementation of diversity policies.

In the Republic of Ireland, the issue of diversity in school leadership is particularly complex. Despite increasing globalisation, the country remains relatively homogenous, and the teaching workforce has for many years been largely Irish, female and Catholic (Keane & Heinz, 2015; McMahon, 2017). This study seeks to address this gap by examining how educators perceive the prioritisation of diversity in promotional practices within the Republic of Ireland. Specifically, it explores three key areas: (i) whether various diversity dimensions are currently prioritised in promotions, (ii) whether they should be prioritised, and (iii) whether prioritising them is believed to positively impact school performance and leadership effectiveness. This study investigates whether these perceptions vary across age groups, and whether there is a discrepancy between current practice and aspirational values. By focusing on the views of educators across a range of age cohorts, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of how diversity is conceptualised and valued within the profession. It also provides exploratory evidence that may inform future policy discussions, particularly in relation to leadership pathways and the design of inclusive promotion frameworks. In doing so, it aims to support educational institutions in moving beyond symbolic commitments to diversity and towards practices that are both equitable and effective.

Although diversity and inclusion frameworks have become increasingly central to organisational policy, the mechanisms through which they influence promotional pathways in education remain insufficiently examined. Existing scholarship has highlighted the tension between aspirational equity statements and the realities of institutional culture, in which long-standing norms, informal networks, and inherited structures often shape judgments about merit and leadership suitability (Wang, 2025). In many educational systems, promotional decisions are not solely determined by formal criteria but are mediated by implicit expectations of cultural fit, perceived professional identity, and alignment with dominant institutional values (Bye et al., 2013). These dynamics are particularly salient in contexts where the teaching workforce has historically been homogeneous and where alternative identities, whether related to race, ethnicity, disability, religion, or social class, have had limited visibility in leadership roles.

In the Republic of Ireland, such structural factors intersect with the unique governance arrangements of the school system, where religious patronage, community expectations, and embedded traditions have shaped both recruitment and advancement patterns (Connolly et al., 2023; Keane & Heinz, 2015; McMahon, 2017). While national policy documents (Department for Education, 2025; Department of CEDIY, 2024; Gov.ie, 2023) have increasingly emphasised equality, diversity, and inclusion, scholars argue that the mainstreaming of these principles into leadership development and selection has lagged behind rhetoric, resulting in inconsistent implementation across schools (Hannan et al., 2025a, 2025b). The absence of clear accountability mechanisms or diversity-sensitive promotion criteria may further contribute to uncertainty among educators regarding how diversity is evaluated or prioritised. Moreover, international research suggests that perceptions of fairness and representation in promotion processes have direct implications for organisational climate, staff morale, and retention (Colquitt et al., 2001; Karam et al., 2018). When staff perceive promotional structures as opaque or inequitable, trust in institutional processes can be eroded, potentially impacting collaborative culture and leadership succession (Hannan et al., 2023). Understanding how different demographic groups interpret diversity priorities is therefore critical, particularly in professions that rely on relational practice and collective responsibility, such as teaching and educational leadership.

Given emerging evidence that social attitudes toward diversity vary across generational cohorts (McLaren & Paterson, 2019; Strauss & Howe, 1991), examining age-based differences within the teaching and educational leadership profession may offer important insights into future cultural trajectories. Younger educators, situated in more pluralistic educational and social environments, may hold expectations for inclusion that differ from those who entered the profession during periods of greater cultural homogeneity. Studies have shown this to be the case, as older cohorts display less tolerable attitudes towards diversity than their younger counterparts (McLaren & Paterson, 2019). These contrasts underline the importance of exploring not only whether diversity is valued, but how consistently and for what reasons across demographic subgroups. The present study therefore addresses a key gap in the Irish and international literature by empirically assessing educators’ perceptions of diversity prioritisation in promotions and examining how these perceptions differ across age cohorts. By situating these findings within broader discussions on educational equity, leadership development, and organisational change, the study contributes to ongoing debates about ensuring fairness and transparency in professional advancement.

1.1. Aims and Objectives

The aim of this study is to examine educators’ perceptions of diversity prioritisation in leadership promotions through the lens of generational cohort theory, which posits that attitudes toward inclusion are shaped by the social and cultural contexts in which cohorts are socialised. Specifically, the study investigates whether educators from different age cohorts within Irish primary and post-primary schools differ in their perceptions of the significance of eight dimensions of diversity (age, disability, gender, national origin and culture, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, social class, and religion) in promotional processes.

The objectives of the study are:

• To examine how educators across different generational cohorts perceive the role of eight diversity dimensions in leadership promotions.
• To assess whether generational cohort membership is associated with differences in the prioritisation of diversity dimensions.
• To explore perceived gaps between current promotional practices and cohort-based expectations regarding diversity prioritisation.
• To investigate whether educators from different age cohorts believe that prioritising diversity in promotions enhances leadership effectiveness and school performance.

1.2. Background

1.2.1. Conceptualising Diversity in Educational Organisations

Diversity has been conceptualised across multiple dimensions, encompassing both visible and invisible characteristics that shape individuals’ experiences within organisations (Harrison et al., 1998). Frameworks commonly distinguish between demographic diversity (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity), cognitive diversity (e.g., perspectives, values, problem-solving styles), and experiential diversity (e.g., socio-economic background, cultural identity). In educational settings, these dimensions intersect with professional identity, role expectations, and institutional culture, influencing not only who participates in leadership but also how leadership is enacted (Spillane et al., 2004). The eight-dimensional framework adopted in this study by Chui et al. (2015)—encompassing age, disability, gender, national origin and culture, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, social class, and religion—informs this study, giving a broad range of diverse dimensions that may be seen within a school setting. Each dimension carries distinct historical and contextual implications. For example, disability inclusion in schools has been shaped by global shifts from medical to social models of disability (Saia, 2023), whereas religious diversity remains deeply influenced by historical patterns of denominational control in education (Heinz et al., 2018; Hyland & Bocking, 2015). Understanding these layered contexts is essential to interpreting how educators perceive diversity in promotional decisions.

1.2.2. Diversity and Promotion Practices in Educational Systems

Promotion and leadership development processes in schools are subject to both formal criteria and informal cultural norms. Research has consistently shown that underrepresented groups often face structural and attitudinal barriers, including stereotyping, exclusion from networks, and reduced access to mentoring and leadership preparation programmes (Akinola & Naidoo, 2024; Hannan et al., 2023; Kruse & Krumm, 2016; Schein et al., 1996). Even when diversity policies are present, their implementation may be uneven, resulting in perceived or actual disparities in access to advancement. Several studies have emphasised the tendency for selection panels to favour candidates perceived as aligned with traditional leadership archetypes, often white, middle-class, and adhering to dominant cultural expectations (Bailes & Guthery, 2020; McMahon, 2017; Murphy, 2020). Such patterns can replicate homogeneity at leadership levels, even within systems that express commitment to inclusion. Additionally, concerns about tokenism and symbolic compliance have emerged in contexts where diversity is emphasised in policy rhetoric but not meaningfully embedded in evaluative frameworks (Hannan et al., 2025b).

1.2.3. Generational Perspectives on Diversity and Inclusion

Generational cohort theory (Strauss & Howe, 1991) posits that social and cultural contexts during formative years shape individuals’ values and attitudes across the life course (Huyler et al., 2024). Recent studies have demonstrated significant generational differences in support for diversity initiatives, with younger cohorts typically expressing greater endorsement of equality-driven reforms and broader conceptions of social inclusion (Muralidharan et al., 2024). These differences can be attributed to increased exposure to multicultural environments, broader access to global media, and shifts in societal norms related to gender, sexuality, race, and disability equality (Wuttaphan, 2018). In professional settings, younger employees often report stronger expectations for transparency, fairness, and organisational accountability regarding diversity practices (Eberhardt, 2017). Conversely, some older workers may interpret diversity initiatives as competing with meritocratic principles or as disruptive to established norms (Hannan et al., 2025b). While such generalisations must be treated with caution, they underscore the importance of examining how attitudes vary across age groups within the teaching profession.

1.2.4. Diversity, Leadership, and School Outcomes

Diverse leadership teams have been linked to a range of positive organisational outcomes, including improved decision-making, increased innovation, enhanced staff engagement, and stronger representation of minority voices (Okatta et al., 2024; Westover, 2025). In schools, leadership diversity has been associated with more equitable and inclusive practices and improved institutional responsiveness to diverse student populations (Grissom & Keiser, 2011). The perceived impact of diversity on leadership effectiveness is therefore an important factor to assess, particularly in systems where leadership pipelines have remained relatively narrow, such as in the Republic of Ireland. Educators’ beliefs about the benefits or risks of diversity in promotion decisions can shape their engagement with diversity initiatives, their trust in organisational processes, and their willingness to pursue leadership roles.

1.2.5. Diversity in the Irish Educational Context

The Irish education system presents a distinct context for examining diversity in promotional practices. Historically, the teacher workforce has been overwhelmingly white, Irish-born, Catholic, and female, reflecting broader demographic trends and long-established pathways into the profession (Keane & Heinz, 2015; McGuire, 2021; McMahon, 2017). Despite increased immigration and social change, diversity among teaching staff, and therefore further along the pipeline, among school leaders, remains limited (CSO, 2022; Khatun, 2024). The governance structure of Irish schools, heavily influenced by denominational patronage, contributes additional complexity (Hyland & Bocking, 2015). Religious ethos plays a formal role in leadership appointments in many schools, potentially shaping how religious diversity is interpreted and valued (Nelson & Stapleton, 2024). Additionally, reports have highlighted ongoing challenges in attracting individuals from diverse backgrounds into teaching and therefore leadership, often due to systemic, financial, and cultural barriers (McGuire, 2021). While policy frameworks increasingly emphasise equality and inclusion, questions remain about how these principles translate into actual promotional decisions (Department of CEDIY, 2024; Gov.ie, 2023). This current study builds on this concern by exploring educators’ perceptions of whether diversity is prioritised in practice, whether it should be, and how such prioritisation might influence school functioning.

2. Materials and Methods

This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design to examine educators’ perceptions of diversity prioritisation in promotional practices within Irish educational settings. The methodological approach was chosen for its capacity to capture trends and attitudinal patterns across a relatively large and geographically dispersed sample of educators. A cross-sectional framework is commonly used in perception-based studies because it enables timely assessment of existing beliefs without requiring longitudinal data collection (Capili, 2021), making it well suited to the exploratory aims of this research.

2.1. Research Design and Rationale

A quantitative survey design was selected to facilitate the systematic measurement of participants’ perceptions across eight diversity dimensions; age, disability, gender, national origin and culture, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, social class, and religion, derived from Chui et al. (2015). Quantitative approaches allow for the generation of comparable numerical data that can be subjected to statistical analysis, enabling detection of patterns across demographic subgroups such as age (Ghanad, 2023). This aligns with the study’s objective of identifying potential generational differences in diversity attitudes. The use of a cross-sectional approach, although limited in terms of causal inference, is appropriate for identifying attitudinal differences at a single time point and is frequently applied in educational and organisational research where perceptions and value orientations are the primary variables of interest (Maier et al., 2023). The design also supports anonymity, which can reduce social desirability bias when dealing with topics such as diversity, equality, and inclusion.

2.2. Sampling Strategy and Recruitment

Participants were recruited through an open call disseminated via social media platforms (X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and BlueSky). Posts invited participation from practising teachers and school leaders (middle and senior) working in the Republic of Ireland and included a publicly accessible anonymous survey link hosted on Qualtrics. Recruitment remained open for one month, during which the survey link was reshared at approximately ten-day intervals by the research team. While participants were not explicitly instructed to forward the survey, informal sharing within professional networks occurred. As participation was voluntary and based on self-selection, the sample cannot be considered statistically representative of the wider Irish teaching workforce; however, this approach is appropriate for exploratory research aimed at capturing a broad range of professional perspectives rather than population generalisability. A total of 123 complete responses were collected. Participants represented a range of age categories (20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and 60–70 years), allowing for comparative analysis across generational cohorts. No identifying information, such as school name, location, or personal identifiers, was collected, in accordance with ethical requirements and to encourage candid responses to potentially sensitive survey items.

2.3. Survey Instrument and Measures

Data were collected through an online questionnaire hosted on Qualtrics, a secure, GDPR-compliant survey platform. The instrument contained Likert-scale items measuring three constructs for each of the eight diversity dimensions: (i) the extent to which the diversity dimension is perceived to be currently prioritised in promotions, (ii) whether it should be prioritised, and (iii) whether prioritising it positively impacts school performance and leadership effectiveness. Respondents rated their agreement on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree), enabling the calculation of mean scores and group comparisons. The use of Likert scales is supported by methodological literature, which recognises their suitability for assessing attitudes, perceptions, and value judgements (Joshi et al., 2015). For the purposes of analysis, Likert responses were treated as interval-level data, consistent with research suggesting that parametric techniques can be appropriately applied when scales contain five or more points and sample sizes are sufficiently large. The survey also included four open-ended items that invited respondents to discuss experiences or concerns related to diversity in promotional practices. Although not analysed qualitatively in depth for this study, these items provided contextual insights that informed the interpretation of quantitative findings

2.4. Data Analysis Procedures

Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS (version 29.0.2.0). Descriptive statistics were first calculated to summarise overall perceptions and identify patterns across age groups. Mean scores for each age category were compared across diversity dimensions, as presented in

Table A1. Views of participants on priority and impact of diversity promotional practices by age category.

		Diversity Dimension(s) Are Prioritised in Promotions			Diversity Dimension(s) Should Be Prioritised in Promotions			Prioritising Diversity Dimension(s) in Promotions Positively Impacts School Performance and Leadership Effectiveness
Diversity Dimension	Age Range	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
Age	20–29	13	2.23 *	1.013	13	2.54 *	1.127	13	2.31 *	1.032
	30–39	34	3.00	1.128	34	3.18	1.167	34	2.82	1.141
	40–49	41	3.20	1.308	41	3.22	1.370	41	2.88	1.077
	50–59	22	3.64	1.177	22	3.09	1.540	22	2.91	1.509
	60–70	13	3.38 **	1.121	13	3.46 **	1.391	13	3.08 **	1.498
Disability	20–29	13	3.08 *	0.862	13	2.69 *	1.377	13	2.23 *	1.013
	30–39	34	3.68	0.843	34	3.12	1.149	34	3.03	1.058
	40–49	41	3.46	1.120	41	2.95	1.448	41	2.90	1.179
	50–59	22	3.77 **	0.973	22	2.95	1.527	22	2.82	1.468
	60–70	13	3.77 **	1.013	13	3.69 **	1.251	13	3.46 **	1.450
Gender	20–29	13	2.54 *	0.967	13	2.54 *	1.330	13	2.38 *	1.261
	30–39	34	3.32 **	1.273	34	2.91	1.357	34	2.74	1.189
	40–49	41	3.27	1.245	41	2.66	1.371	41	2.83	1.202
	50–59	22	3.23	1.110	22	3.14	1.457	22	2.77	1.445
	60–70	13	2.92	1.382	13	3.54 **	1.266	13	3.15 **	1.725
National origin and cultural	20–29	13	2.77 *	0.927	13	2.54 *	1.330	13	2.23 *	1.301
	30–39	34	3.21	1.200	34	3.15	1.158	34	2.88	1.149
	40–49	41	3.44	1.001	41	2.93	1.349	41	2.95	1.182
	50–59	22	3.77 **	0.973	22	3.05	1.527	22	2.82	1.500
	60–70	13	3.38	1.261	13	3.92 **	1.320	13	3.46 **	1.506
Race and ethnic	20–29	13	2.92 *	0.954	13	2.77 *	1.423	13	2.23 *	1.363
	30–39	34	3.65	1.012	34	3.18	1.218	34	2.94	1.099
	40–49	41	3.51	1.075	41	2.95	1.465	41	3.07	1.273
	50–59	22	3.73 **	1.032	22	3.09	1.509	22	2.77	1.510
	60–70	13	3.46	1.198	13	4.08 **	1.382	13	3.46 **	1.506
Sexual Orientation	20–29	13	3.31 *	0.630	13	3.00 *	1.528	13	2.38 *	1.387
	30–39	34	3.68	0.912	34	3.50	1.237	34	3.21	1.175
	40–49	41	3.46	1.098	41	3.32	1.331	41	3.20	1.188
	50–59	22	3.45	0.912	22	3.32	1.393	22	3.14	1.356
	60–70	13	3.77 **	1.363	13	4.08 **	1.115	13	3.69 **	1.377
Social Class	20–29	13	3.31 *	1.032	13	2.54 *	1.330	13	2.08 *	1.188
	30–39	34	3.76	0.890	34	3.56	1.236	34	3.18 **	1.058
	40–49	41	3.49	1.075	41	3.00	1.378	41	2.83	1.243
	50–59	22	3.82 **	0.907	22	3.14	1.490	22	2.95	1.430
	60–70	13	3.62	1.261	13	3.62 **	1.502	13	3.15	1.625
Religious	20–29	13	3.31 *	0.947	13	2.46 *	1.330	13	2.54 *	1.330
	30–39	34	3.62	0.985	34	3.41	1.234	34	3.18	1.167
	40–49	41	3.51	1.098	41	3.34	1.277	41	3.17	1.181
	50–59	22	3.73	1.032	22	3.32	1.524	22	3.27	1.420
	60–70	13	3.77 **	1.092	13	4.23 **	0.927	13	3.77 **	1.363

* denotes the age range with the lowest mean (most agreeable) score; ** denotes the age range with the highest mean (least agreeable) score.

and

Table A2. Differential between mean of existing beliefs and ideal preference.

Diversity Dimension	Mean of Diversity Dimension(S) Are Prioritised in Promotions	STD. Deviation of Diversity Dimension(s) Are Prioritised in Promotions	Mean of Diversity Dimension(S) Should Be Prioritised in Promotions	STD. Deviation of Diversity Dimension(S) Should Be Prioritised in Promotions	Differential Between Mean of Existing Beliefs and Ideal Preference
Age	3.14	1.230	3.14	1.326	0.00
Disability	3.57	0.992	3.05	1.360	0.52
Gender	3.16	1.224	2.89	1.378	0.27
National origin and culture	3.36	1.095	3.07	1.350	0.28
Racial and ethnic	3.52	1.059	3.14	1.416	0.38
Sexual orientation	3.54	1.002	3.41	1.324	0.12
Social Class	3.62	1.012	3.20	1.389	0.42
Religious	3.59	1.032	3.36	1.331	0.23
Mean					0.28

presented in the Appendix A. To examine whether differences across age cohorts were statistically significant, a series of one-way ANOVA tests were conducted. ANOVA is appropriate for comparing means across three or more independent groups and is widely used in educational research examining demographic variations in attitudes (Kim, 2014). Effect sizes (partial η²) were calculated for ANOVAs that reached statistical significance, in line with recommendations for reporting practical significance alongside p-values (Cohen, 1988). Effect sizes were interpreted according to widely accepted benchmarks (small = 0.01, medium = 0.06, large = 0.14). Where ANOVA results indicated significant group differences, Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests were employed to identify which specific age groups differed from one another. Tukey’s test is a conservative approach that reduces the likelihood of Type I error when conducting multiple comparisons.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for the study was granted by the University of Limerick Education and Health Sciences Research Committee (approval code: 2024_12_26_EHS). All participants were provided with a participant information sheet detailing the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation, and the measures taken to protect anonymity and confidentiality. Completion of the survey constituted informed consent. Data were stored securely on password-protected servers, and no personal identifiers were collected. The study complied with GDPR requirements by ensuring that participants could not be traced through IP addresses, metadata, or demographic combinations. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study prior to submitting their responses, but not afterward, due to the anonymous nature of the data. Minimal risk was anticipated, as participation involved reflection on professional perceptions rather than disclosure of personal or sensitive experiences.

2.6. Methodological Limitations

Several methodological limitations must be acknowledged. First, the use of snowball sampling limits the generalisability of findings and may bias the sample toward individuals with stronger views on diversity-related issues. Second, self-report data are susceptible to social desirability bias, although anonymity was expected to mitigate this to some degree. Third, the cross-sectional design captures perceptions at a single moment in time, meaning that attitudes may shift in response to evolving policy, cultural change, or professional experiences. Fourth, because the survey was anonymous and distributed via social media without monetary incentive, no formal bot-detection or identity verification procedures were implemented; aside from screening for implausibly short completion times, the possibility of duplicate or fraudulent responses cannot be fully excluded. Fifth, the sample was also ethnically homogeneous, reflecting the broader demographic profile of the Irish teaching profession, and therefore primarily captures majority-group perceptions of diversity. As a result, the range of perspectives represented is limited, and the findings should be interpreted as a partial snapshot rather than a comprehensive account of diversity attitudes across all educator groups. Finally, the relatively small subgroup sizes warrant cautious interpretation of between-group comparisons. Despite these limitations, the methodology employed is appropriate for the exploratory aims of the study and provides a substantive foundation for understanding educators’ perceptions of diversity in promotional practices.

3. Results

In this section, the results of the descriptive statistics (

Table 1. Demographics of participants.

Demographics	Number of Participants	Percentage (%)
Ethnicity 1
White Irish	118	95.9%
Any other White background	3	2.4%
Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi	1	0.8%
Other	1	0.8%
Age
20–29	13	10.6%
30–39	34	27.6%
40–49	41	33.3%
50–59	22	17.9%
60–70	13	10.6%
Gender
Male	40	32.5%
Female	83	67.5%
School Level
Primary	75	61.0%
Post-primary	48	39.0%
Current Role
Teacher	64	52.0%
Assistant Principal 1	14	39.0%
Assistant Principal 2	15	12.2%
Guidance Counsellor	1	0.8%
Deputy Principal	11	8.9%
Principal	32	26.0%

One participant reported being mixed race and selected two ethnicity boxes.

), mean scores, standard deviation scores, ANOVA outcomes and Post Hoc comparisons will be reported and subdivided by age categories.

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Age-Based Trends

Participants were asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements concerning the prioritisation of eight diversity dimensions in promotional practices: (i) age, (ii) disability, (iii) gender, (iv) national origin and cultural background, (v) racial and ethnic identity, (vi) sexual orientation, (vii) social class, and (viii) religion. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale, where lower scores indicate stronger agreement (1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree).

The descriptive statistics suggest a pattern of moderate to strong support for diversity prioritisation, particularly among the youngest age group (20–29 years). Across all eight diversity dimensions, this cohort reported the lowest mean scores in three key areas: the belief that diversity is currently prioritised in promotions, the belief that diversity should be prioritised in promotions, and the belief that prioritising diversity positively impacts school performance and leadership effectiveness. This trend is illustrated in Table A1 and stands in contrast to the mean scores of other age cohorts (see Table A2), although caution is warranted due to the small cohort size of this demographic.

The strongest agreement recorded across all age groups was from the 20–29 cohort, who rated the statement “Prioritising social class diversity in promotions positively impacts school performance and leadership effectiveness” with a mean of M = 2.08. Other notably low mean scores from this group included M = 2.23 for both racial and ethnic diversity and disability diversity in relation to their positive impact on school performance, M = 2.46 for the belief that religious diversity should be prioritised, and M = 2.23 for the belief that age diversity is currently prioritised in promotional practices. These findings suggest that, within this sample, younger participants expressed more supportive attitudes toward diversity initiatives than older cohorts. Their responses may reflect a progressive orientation and a strong endorsement of equity in professional advancement. However, it is important to note that the 20–29 age group comprised only 13 participants (N = 13), making them the joint-smallest subgroup alongside the 60–70 age group. While their views are compelling and consistent, the limited sample size warrants cautious interpretation. Nonetheless, the strength and uniformity of their responses across all diversity categories indicate a pattern that warrants further investigation in larger and more representative samples.

A further noteworthy finding emerged when comparing participants’ perceptions of current promotional practices with their beliefs about what should be prioritised (Table A1). Across all eight diversity dimensions, except for age, where the difference was zero (M = 0.00), participants consistently indicated that greater emphasis should be placed on diversity than they perceive is currently the case. This positive differential was observed across all other dimensions, with the largest gap found in relation to disability diversity (M = 0.52). The overall mean differential across all dimensions was M = 0.28, indicating a moderate but consistent discrepancy between perceived practice and aspirational values. These results suggest that participants believe diversity is not being prioritised to the extent it should be in promotional decisions. The consistency of this pattern across all diversity categories reinforces the view that there is a perceived shortfall in current practice. The small subgroup sizes substantially limit statistical stability, and any age-based differences should be interpreted as exploratory patterns rather than reliable cohort effects.

3.2. Differences Across Age Groups

To determine whether perceptions of diversity prioritisation varied by age, a series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted (

Table A3. ANOVA tests on participants on priority and impact of diversity promotional practices by age category.

	Diversity Dimension(S) Are Prioritised in Promotions					Diversity Dimension(S) Should Be Prioritised in Promotions					Prioritising Diversity Dimension(s) in Promotions Positively Impacts School Performance and Leadership Effectiveness
Diversity Dimension	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Age	17.736	4	4.434	3.135	0.017 *	6.405	4	1.601	0.907	0.462	4.573	4	1.143	0.763	0.552
	166.915	118	1.415			208.245	118	1.765			176.842	118	1.499
	184.650	122				214.650	122				181.415	122
Disability	5.432	4	1.358	1.397	0.239	7.782	4	1.946	1.053	0.383	10.625	4	2.656	1.787	0.136
	114.731	118	0.972			217.925	118	1.847			175.392	118	1.486
	120.163	122				225.707	122				186.016	122
Gender	7.241	4	1.810	1.217	0.307	10.619	4	2.655	1.417	0.232	4.018	4	1.004	0.584	0.675
	175.507	118	1.487			221.007	118	1.873			203.055	118	1.721
	182.748	122				231.626	122				207.073	122
National origin and cultural	9.356	4	2.339	2.016	0.097	14.188	4	3.547	2.011	0.097	10.163	4	2.541	1.544	0.194
	136.905	118	1.160			208.154	118	1.764			194.243	118	1.646
	146.260	122				222.341	122				204.407	122
Race and ethnic	6.173	4	1.543	1.395	0.240	14.758	4	3.689	1.894	0.116	11.415	4	2.854	1.666	0.162
	130.526	118	1.106			229.893	118	1.948			202.065	118	1.712
	136.699	122				244.650	122				213.480	122
Sexual orientation	2.418	4	0.604	0.593	0.668	8.780	4	2.195	1.263	0.288	11.630	4	2.908	1.840	0.126
	120.168	118	1.018			205.074	118	1.738			186.435	118	1.580
	122.585	122				213.854	122				198.065	122
Social Class	3.560	4	0.890	0.865	0.487	14.036	4	3.509	1.871	0.120	12.513	4	3.128	1.940	0.108
	121.480	118	1.029			221.281	118	1.875			190.316	118	1.613
	125.041	122				235.317	122				202.829	122
Religious	2.140	4	0.535	0.494	0.740	20.494	4	5.124	3.088	0.019 *	10.051	4	2.513	1.589	0.182
	127.714	118	1.082			195.766	118	1.659			186.648	118	1.582
	129.854	122				216.260	122				196.699	122

* denotes that the results are statistically significant.

). The results indicated that most diversity dimensions did not differ significantly across age groups, suggesting a broad consistency in attitudes. Effect sizes (partial η²) are reported in-text, where relevant, rather than in the tables to avoid duplication, and are interpreted using Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks, where 0.01 represents a small effect, 0.06 a medium effect, and 0.14 a large effect. Two dimensions did show statistically significant variation. Perceptions of age diversity prioritisation differed significantly across age groups (F(4, 118) = 3.135, p = 0.017, partial η² = 0.096, indicating a medium effect size). This suggests that some age cohorts may feel more strongly about the importance of age inclusion in promotions, potentially reflecting generational experiences or expectations. Beliefs about the impact of religious diversity and how it should be prioritised in schools also varied significantly (F(4, 118) = 3.088, p = 0.019, partial η² = 0.095, again reflecting a medium effect size.). This may be contextual, particularly within the Republic of Ireland, where many schools remain under the patronage of religious institutions such as the Catholic Church or Church of Ireland. All other ANOVA tests yielded non-significant results (p > 0.05), indicating that for most diversity dimensions, perceptions were consistent across age groups.

3.3. Post Hoc Comparisons

To further explore the significant ANOVA results, Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests were conducted to identify specific group differences (

Table A4. Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests.

Statement	Group 1	Group 2	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.
Religious diversities should be prioritised in promotions	20–29	60–70	−1.769 *	0.505	0.006 *
Age diversities are prioritised in promotions	20–29	50–59	−1.406 *	0.416	0.009 *
National origin and cultural diversities are prioritised in promotions	20–29	50–59	−1.003	0.377	0.066
National origin and cultural promotions should be prioritised in promotions	20–29	60–70	−1.385	0.521	0.067
Prioritising social class diversity in promotions positively impacts school performance and leadership	20–29	30–39	−1.100	0.414	0.067
Prioritising sexual orientation diversity in promotions positively impacts school performance and leadership	20–29	60–70	−1.308	0.493	0.068

* denotes that the results are statistically significant.

). Two pairwise comparisons were statistically significant. One comparison showed a significant difference in how age groups view the impact of age diversity on leadership and school performance. While this does not indicate a preference for younger or more experienced leaders, it does suggest that age diversity should be prioritised (p = 0.009). Another comparison revealed a meaningful difference in how participants believe religious diversity should be prioritised in promotions. This supports the earlier ANOVA finding and suggests that at least one age group differs significantly in its level of agreement (p = 0.006). All other pairwise comparisons were non-significant (p > 0.05), indicating that most age groups did not differ meaningfully in their responses. However, any result that yielded a p-value < 0.07 has been included for indicative purposes, to show which comparisons were near the conventional threshold for statistical significance.

3.4. Summary of Results

Overall, the findings indicate moderate to strong support for prioritising diversity in leadership promotions across all age groups, with the youngest cohort in this exploratory sample expressing the most supportive attitudes. Participants consistently reported that diversity should be prioritised to a greater extent than they believe is currently the case, suggesting a perceived gap between existing practice and aspirational values. Statistical analyses showed that attitudes were broadly consistent across age groups, with significant differences emerging only for perceptions of age diversity and religious diversity, both with medium effect sizes. These patterns should be interpreted cautiously due to small subgroup sizes, but they highlight areas where generational differences may warrant further investigation in larger and more representative samples.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study provide a nuanced picture of how educators in the Republic of Ireland perceive the prioritisation of diversity in promotional practices, revealing both areas of strong support for inclusion and persistent concerns about gaps between policy rhetoric and lived practice. Consistent with international literature, the data indicate that the youngest cohort of respondents (aged 20–29) expressed the strongest endorsement across all eight diversity dimensions and all three evaluative categories: current prioritisation, ideal prioritisation, and perceived positive impact on school performance. As previously stated, however, the reader must be cautious when interpreting these results due to the small sample size of this cohort (N = 13), this study is intended for exploratory purposes only. As shown in Table A1 and Table A2, their mean scores were consistently the lowest, demonstrating robust agreement with diversity-driven promotional frameworks. This pattern aligns with wider research suggesting that younger generations tend to exhibit greater openness toward diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and are more likely to view such practices as aligned with workplace fairness and modern organisational values (Muralidharan et al., 2024; Wuttaphan, 2018).

4.1. Generational Differences and Cultural Change

The generational differences observed in this study resonate with generational cohort theory, which argues that social attitudes shift as younger cohorts with more pluralistic formative experiences enter the workforce (Sarıkaya et al., 2024). Younger educators in Ireland have been socialised in a period characterised by growing multiculturalism, greater visibility of LGBTQIA+ communities, significant public discourse on gender rights, and other diversity drives. This contrasts with the experiences of older educators who entered the profession during periods of greater cultural and religious homogeneity. It is therefore unsurprising that the ANOVA results identified differences across age groups for perceptions related to age diversity and religious diversity prioritisation (F(4, 118) = 3.135, p = 0.017; F(4, 118) = 3.088, p = 0.019) within different sections of the survey. These findings suggest that age cohorts vary not only in the extent of their support for specific forms of diversity but also in the emphasis they place on how such dimensions should influence promotional decisions. The stronger support expressed by younger educators may indicate a potential direction of attitudinal change, though this should not be interpreted as predictive given the exploratory sample size. Literature suggests that leadership cohorts heavily influence institutional norms, recruitment practices, and policy interpretation (Bhardwaj, 2022; Mey et al., 2021). Thus, as value orientations shift over time, diversity may become a more explicit and integrated component of promotional frameworks. This potential cultural shift is especially noteworthy given the historical homogeneity of the Irish teaching profession and leadership tier (McMahon, 2017).

4.2. Discrepancies Between Perceived and Ideal Practice

Across nearly all diversity dimensions, participants expressed a belief that diversity should be prioritised to a greater extent than they believe is currently the case, with disability showing the largest discrepancy (M = 0.52) as presented in Table A2. This gap echoes findings in international contexts where diversity policy adoption is often more advanced than the perceived implementation of such policies (Klinksiek, 2024). The prominence of disability as an area of concern is particularly notable given global calls for more inclusive workplaces and the persistent underrepresentation of individuals with disabilities in leadership roles (Casey, 2020; McGrotty, 2021). It may also reflect educators’ awareness of broader inclusion policies related to students, which contrasts with comparatively slower progress in staff recruitment and advancement. The presence of this discrepancy across all but one dimension suggests a more systemic perception: educators believe diversity is broadly underprioritised within promotional processes. This aligns with critiques of performative allyship, where organisations adopt surface-level diversity rhetoric without embedding meaningful accountability structures or altering entrenched evaluative norms (Kutlaca & Radke, 2022). When educators perceive diversity statements as symbolic rather than substantive, trust in institutional fairness can be undermined. Such perceptions may discourage some educators, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds, from pursuing leadership opportunities, thereby perpetuating homogeneity.

4.3. The Role of Religious Diversity in the Irish Context

The significant differences in how religious diversity should be prioritised, particularly between the youngest (20–29) and oldest (60–70) groups (p = 0.006), must be considered within the unique governance structure of Irish education, despite the relatively small subsets (both N = 13). Religious patronage plays a central role in school ethos, leadership expectations, and even eligibility for certain positions (Heinz et al., 2018; Hyland & Bocking, 2015; Nelson & Stapleton, 2024). While many younger educators have been educated in a more secular or religiously pluralistic context, older educators may have spent much of their careers in strongly denominational environments. These different experiences may inform how religious diversity is interpreted, whether as a core aspect of cultural identity deserving recognition or as a potential source of tension within ethos-based leadership models. The findings thus highlight the need for clearer national guidance on how religious diversity should be understood within promotion structures, especially in settings where ethos is formally embedded.

4.4. Implications for Leadership, Inclusion, and School Performance

Participants across all age groups expressed general agreement that diversity in promotions positively impacts school performance and leadership effectiveness (Table A1). This aligns with substantial research linking leadership diversity to enhanced decision-making, improved organisational legitimacy, and more equitable school cultures (Okatta et al., 2024). In educational contexts, diverse leadership teams have been associated with greater responsiveness to marginalised student groups, improved staff morale, and stronger community trust (Grissom et al., 2021; Grissom & Keiser, 2011; Grissom et al., 2015). The positive perceptions documented in this study suggest that educators recognise these potential benefits, even if they differ on the degree to which diversity should influence promotions.

4.5. Tensions Between Meritocracy and Inclusion

A recurring theme in diversity scholarship is the perceived tension between meritocracy and inclusion, particularly among those who fear that diversity initiatives may compromise fairness (Castilla & Benard, 2010; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Dover et al., 2016; Hannan et al., 2025b). While such concerns were not explicitly measured in the present study, they are reflected in the variability across age groups and in the post hoc comparisons, indicating significant differences in how religious and age diversity should inform promotions. Ensuring that diversity is conceptualised as an enhancement of merit, rather than as a watering down of it, is crucial. Research indicates that clearly articulated diversity criteria, structured selection processes, and explicit evaluation rubrics can help reconcile these tensions by making the rationale for promotional decisions transparent and defensible (Bohnet et al., 2016; Castilla, 2015).

4.6. Integration with Existing Literature

The overall findings are consistent with international evidence demonstrating that support for diversity in leadership is widespread but unevenly distributed across demographic groups and organisational contexts (Dover et al., 2016; Kaiser et al., 2022; Kaiser et al., 2013; Ng & Sears, 2017). They also align with Irish research documenting gaps between policy commitments to inclusion and the operational realities of school leadership pathways (Department of CEDIY, 2024; Gov.ie, 2023; Hannan et al., 2023). By quantitatively demonstrating generational differences and perceived practice–priority gaps across multiple dimensions, this study adds empirical weight to concerns that diversity initiatives within Irish educational leadership remain underdeveloped and insufficiently embedded.

4.7. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The ethnic homogeneity of the sample, consistent with the wider Irish teaching workforce, means the findings largely reflect majority-group perceptions and cannot fully represent the experiences of ethnically minoritised educators. As with all self-report, cross-sectional studies, the findings must be interpreted with caution. Snowball sampling introduces self-selection bias, and the small sample sizes within the youngest and oldest age groups limit the generalisability of between-group comparisons. Future research should incorporate qualitative interviews to explore the reasons underpinning differential perceptions. Longitudinal studies examining how perceptions change as younger cohorts enter leadership roles would also provide valuable insight. Additionally, intersectional analyses considering how age interacts with gender, ethnicity, disability, and class could deepen understanding of how diversity shapes experiences of career progression.

4.8. Policy Recommendations

The following recommendations are speculative and based on perceived patterns within this exploratory dataset rather than representative evidence of the wider profession. The findings of this study highlight support for greater diversity in promotional practices and a perceived gap between current and ideal implementation. To address these concerns, several practical and policy-level actions are recommended.

4.8.1. Practical Recommendations

• Embed Diversity Competencies in Promotion Criteria

Embedding diversity competencies within promotion criteria would align leadership selection with research showing that inclusive leadership practices are associated with improved organisational climate and equitable decision-making (Grissom & Keiser, 2011; Okatta et al., 2024). The present findings indicate that participants broadly believe prioritising diversity positively impacts school performance, suggesting professional support for evaluating leadership through an inclusion lens. Formal recognition of inclusion-related skills as part of professional merit may therefore enhance both perceived fairness and institutional legitimacy in promotional processes.

2.

Standardise and Structure Selection Processes

Standardised and structured selection processes are widely recognised as mechanisms for reducing bias and increasing transparency in professional advancement (Bohnet et al., 2016; Castilla, 2015). Participants in this study perceived a gap between current practice and aspirational diversity priorities, reinforcing the importance of procedural clarity. Consistent scoring rubrics, structured interviews, and explicit evaluation frameworks can help ensure that diversity considerations are applied systematically rather than informally, strengthening trust in institutional decision-making.

3.

Diversify Selection Panels

Diversifying selection panels can mitigate homogeneity effects and broaden the interpretive lens through which leadership potential is assessed (Bailes & Guthery, 2020; Murphy, 2020). Research demonstrates that decision-making bodies dominated by similar demographic profiles are more likely to reproduce existing patterns of leadership representation. Given participants’ perception that diversity is underprioritised, panel diversification represents a practical intervention that signals institutional commitment to fairness while expanding evaluative perspectives.

4.

Strengthen Leadership Development Supports

Targeted leadership development supports for underrepresented educators address structural barriers documented in international and Irish research (Hannan et al., 2023; Kruse & Krumm, 2016). Mentoring and professional learning opportunities can expand access to informal networks and preparatory experiences that often influence advancement. The perceived discrepancy between current and ideal diversity prioritisation in this study suggests that educators recognise the need for systemic support structures that enable broader participation in leadership pathways.

4.8.2. Policy-Level Recommendations

• Develop National Guidance on Diversity in Promotions

National-level guidance on diversity in promotional frameworks would provide consistency across schools and reduce ambiguity in implementation. Existing policy rhetoric emphasises inclusion, yet participants perceive uneven translation into practice (Department of CEDIY, 2024; Gov.ie, 2023). Clear standards supported by departmental and patron bodies could align institutional procedures with national equity commitments while preserving contextual flexibility.

2.

Clarify the Role of Religious Ethos in Leadership Appointments

Clarifying how religious ethos intersects with equality commitments is particularly important within the Irish governance context, where denominational structures continue to shape schools and indeed how they are run and by whom (Heinz et al., 2018; Hyland & Bocking, 2015). Policy clarification could reduce uncertainty while balancing institutional identity with contemporary inclusion standards.

3.

Increase Access to Leadership Pathways

Expanding access to teaching and therefore leadership pathways through funding and targeted supports addresses long-standing inequities in recruitment and advancement (Keane & Heinz, 2015; McGuire, 2021). Structural barriers related to socio-economic background and representation continue to narrow the leadership pipeline. Participants’ belief that diversity is underprioritised reinforces the need for proactive measures that broaden opportunity rather than relying on passive progression.

4.

Monitor and Report Leadership Diversity

System-level monitoring of leadership diversity would enhance accountability and enable evidence-based policy evaluation (Colquitt et al., 2001; Karam et al., 2018). Transparency in representation data can inform targeted interventions and support long-term planning. Given participants’ perception of a shortfall between ideal and actual practice, routine reporting would provide a measurable framework for tracking progress.

5. Conclusions

This study provides important insights into educators’ perceptions of diversity within promotional practices in Irish education. The results highlight endorsement of diversity as a positive and necessary element of school leadership, particularly among the youngest cohort of educators, whose attitudes reflect broader societal shifts toward inclusion and pluralism. Despite the limited number of participants within this cohort (N = 13), the findings could suggest that as younger teachers progress into leadership positions, there is an emerging pattern of receptiveness to diversity-focused reforms within this exploratory sample.

At the same time, the observed discrepancies between current and ideal levels of diversity prioritisation across nearly all dimensions point to persistent gaps in implementation. The pronounced differential in relation to the various diversity dimensions indicates that educators recognise both the importance of diversity and the insufficiency of current practices. These perceptions align with critiques in the literature that highlight a pattern of performative inclusion, where commitments to diversity are symbolically present but structurally underdeveloped (Dasborough, 2024; Kutlaca & Radke, 2022). Such gaps risk undermining staff confidence in the fairness and transparency of promotional structures and may deter individuals from underrepresented backgrounds from pursuing leadership roles.

Differences across age cohorts regarding religious and age diversity further underscore the necessity of contextual analysis. Ireland’s distinctive educational governance, shaped by denominational patronage and historical demographic patterns, continues to influence how diversity is understood and operationalised. As the workforce diversifies and societal expectations shift, tension between traditional structures and contemporary inclusivity norms may intensify unless policy clarity and leadership support are strengthened.

Overall, the study suggests areas where institutional and systemic reforms may warrant further investigation that move beyond rhetorical commitments to embed diversity meaningfully within leadership pathways. Implementing structured, transparent, and accountable promotional frameworks, supported by targeted professional development, bias-reducing procedures, and national-level standards, would help align practice with values and create leadership teams that better reflect the communities they serve. Future research should further explore the lived experiences of underrepresented educators, investigate intersectional dimensions of leadership access, and track the long-term effects of policy interventions. By addressing the gaps identified in this study, the education system can make substantive progress toward inclusive, equitable, and forward-looking leadership structures.