Gender disparities in top-level academic positions are persistent. However, whether bias in recruitment plays a role in producing these disparities remains unclear. This study examines the role of bias in academic recruitment by conducting a large-scale survey experiment among faculty in Economics, Law, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology from universities in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The faculty respondents rated CVs of hypothetical candidates—who were randomly assigned either a male or a female name—for a permanent position as an Associate Professor in their discipline. The results show that, despite the underrepresentation of women in all fields, the female candidates were viewed as both more competent and more hireable compared to their male counterparts. Having children or a stronger CV do not change the overall result. Consequently, biased evaluations of equally qualified candidates to Associate Professor positions do not seem to be the key explanation of the persistent gender gap in academia in the Nordic region.

This article examines whether age, work-related, and family-related predictors explain differences in the academic advancement of women and men in Iceland. Survey data were analyzed by binary logistic regression. The findings put that women climb the academic career ladder at a slower pace than men. This finding puts one of the widely known excuses for the underrepresentation of women in full professor positions into jeopardy, namely that this is because of family responsibilities. Work-related variables explain some of the gender differences. The study shows that as promotion is slower among women, even if family-related variables are not negatively affecting the odds, the academic pipeline is leaking despite Iceland's reputation for being at the forefront where gender equality issues are concerned.

High levels of women in politics and paid work, together with the availability of paid parental leave and public child care, make the gender imbalance in business leadership in Iceland all the more confounding. This study analyzes business leaders’ attitudes toward gender and leadership positions after a gender quota law for company boards was implemented in 2013. We explore support for gender quotas and whether it is related to how respondents explain women's underrepresentation in leadership positions. A questionnaire was sent to 1,349 managers in the 250 largest companies in Iceland. Our findings indicate that women are more supportive of gender quotas than men. The way in which the respondents explain the underrepresentation of women as top managers is strongly related to their support for gender quotas. Those who believe that women are structurally disadvantaged are more likely to support gender quotas than those who adhere to individual explanations. Furthermore, male dominance at higher company levels is related to negative views on gender quotas, whereas this does not apply at lower levels. The research emphasizes the impact of business leaders on the recruitment of women to business leadership positions and, at the same time, has implications for policy interventions.