Practically all of them state that the way of leading the Directorate is different in a man than in a woman. Women see themselves exercising leader...

Practically all of them state that the way of leading the Directorate is different in a man than in a woman. Women see themselves exercising leadership in a very different way from how they see men. They feel that their leadership, their daily exercise of leadership, is more related to human relationships, to the creation of a center climate; while they consider that men are more distant from this aspect. Concerns are different and the ways of approaching them are different. When we leave those meetings, we talk to each other about the common problems we have and I see that they seem to be colder, because they do not take the problems so much on the affective side, they see them more as a professional problem, which is very good for them because it affects their personal life little. Women internalize them more, make them more personal, and that has a great impact on a personal level (...), you talk to other colleagues, directors, about the problems you have in the center and they are very similar to theirs. The phrase "that happens in all schools", maybe it comforts him, but not me. Maybe we give it more thought, try to get along with everyone - that's a mistake that this director of women told me - and that's impossible, bad, it must have upset him, the next day, how are you?...". There are different feelings. (B.C. de GDB) I believe that personal relationships are better with women; and men are colder. (B.C. de GDB). I even go further when these topics are discussed, because the image we have of women has nothing to do with that of men: for a man, being on the management team is prestige, social status. RD (SGT). In some way, there is a different style between men and women. While men impose more respect, women maintain a more dialogical style. It is curious how people react, both parents, colleagues, and students, when they see a man or a woman as director. In front of the man, they keep quiet because they consider that the director will put things firm and very clear, while if they meet a woman they know that she will be much more dialogical and they can tell her the issues (HVR). Although it is true that women face problems differently than men do, since we get more involved in the problems and try to give them a quick and effective solution, while men try to let the situations pass hoping that the problem will have a solution. It is a matter of character when facing problem resolution in management. It is also true that when they are in charge, there are more frictions and disputes with some colleagues and especially with the parents, but I do not think that this would change much because of being a man (HVR). The interviewed men also perceive differences in the way men and women exercise leadership. The way and the style that she had to command (that woman) was not the same as other colleagues who have been there. How could I differentiate it... well probably in the following way: In male colleagues, I observe a kind of fidelity to a series of theocratic models. Theological. Of power. So that I never saw in the woman that desire to exercise power from that theocratic point of view, let's say (LHE). But in some way, the interviewed men perceive that the hierarchical and authoritarian style of leadership is what women expect from them. I expected to be seen as a coordinator of a series of people, of teams, where my obligation was to exercise in each of those places, those commissions and those groups and to direct towards final objectives the debate and the decisions (...). What I observed from the beginning is that they looked at me as if to say what are you asking for (...). Faced with a conflict..., you do not need to dictate the law. You say it, that's enough. It was rather the hope that the director would point and say (LHE). It is for this reason that men continue to value in women the hierarchical and individualistic exercise traditional in the male conception of leadership. It is valued to "take on the role of a man", to have a "strong character"... as a way to "earn respect". They almost have to take on the role of a man so that everyone else sees that they have a strong character and also because it is true that a woman with a strong character or a man with a strong character is needed to deal with everything that is in a center (LCF, man). The pusillanimous man can get ahead and the woman cannot. The woman cannot (LCF, man). There were many moments when I think there was too much delegation. Too much delegation. And I think this is the reason why in the event of a man and a woman presenting themselves, they are more inclined to choose a man (LHE). It is also verified that the interviewed directors consider these characteristics to be positively valued by male colleagues and to a large extent by women in the centers. Even some of the women interviewed clearly express that they prefer centers whose directors are men, perhaps for reasons of efficiency or because they think they know how to avoid the smallness or daily frictions, typical of coexistence, while women feel trapped in them. More than for the gifts of intelligence, which I am sure can be equal, perhaps because of that character, or of the people, as if a man... I don't know... is not so..., does not descend to those trivialities that often happen or that.... (BDR). Third "category": Leadership as a conquest of power. Faced with a conception of leadership as a way to achieve power, social prestige and recognition, most women ensure that the reasons they have had to access management positions are essentially related to a clear intention to promote changes in their educational centers. In fact, on some occasions, they show that they expressly combat those "despotic" forms of exercising management positions. It is the opportunity to do things as I wanted (VML). What I wanted to achieve is that it was a center open to parents and the neighborhood, that it was a cultural reference in the neighborhood (VML). The way of working before was quite dark and undemocratic. I came from areas where that did not happen, which gave me a different style and conception of the Center, another way of functioning (LEA). I discovered that from the management position many things can be done, much more than as a teacher, you have responsibilities but it means professional achievements, you can create a good work environment, give participation, you do not stay in your educational work, but it extends to the entire school: You can improve social relationships, know programs, involve the center in new programs (AE). I thought that things could be done differently, that the center could function differently and I wanted to do everything possible for it to be that way (ME). I believe there is greater involvement. I believe we are more willing when we say yes to a position of this type, we say yes to the position and we present ourselves and make a project..., then there is much more need to really manage and do what you are thinking of doing, that is to say... I, from the male management models that I know, there may be a proposed objective that arises, okay, great, if it does not work out, we move on to something else, well..., this does not work out, let's try something else, however, I believe that in the female model there is greater insistence if this does not work out, to ask ourselves why it does not work out, and what we have to change to maintain that objective, because I believe that once you decide that that is important, you have to look for the causes so that it is not carried out. And here I see more intensity in seeking the result of that objective, at any level (LET). In the case of this position specifically, in this case, well, I had been as a user participating in some courses at the Teachers' Center and it seemed to me that it was an interesting job, but I also thought that it was done a little disorganized by the Teachers' Center itself, so I brought