Hubbry Logo
Glass cliffGlass cliffMain
Open search
Glass cliff
Community hub
Glass cliff
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Glass cliff
Glass cliff
Glass cliff
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The glass cliff is a phenomenon described by psychologists Michelle K. Ryan and S. Alexander Haslam, in which women are more likely to break the "glass ceiling" (i.e. achieve leadership roles in business and government) during periods of crisis or downturn when the risk of failure is highest.[1][2] Other research has expanded the definition of the glass cliff phenomenon to include racial and ethnic minority groups.[3]

Origins

[edit]

The term was coined in 2005 by British professors Michelle K. Ryan and Alexander Haslam of the University of Exeter, United Kingdom. In a study, Ryan and Haslam examined the performance of FTSE 100 companies before and after the appointment of new board members, and found that companies that appointed women to their boards were likelier than others to have experienced consistently bad performance in the preceding five months.[4] This work eventually developed into the identification of a phenomenon known as the glass cliff – analogous to the concept of a glass ceiling, but implying the inability to perceive the dangers of the cliff's transparent edge rather than the false promise of elevated organizational positions which can be "seen" through a ceiling of glass but which are actually unattainable. Since the term originated, its use has expanded beyond the corporate world to also encompass politics and other domains.

Overview

[edit]

Ryan and Haslam's research showed that once women break through the glass ceiling and take on positions of leadership, they often have experiences that are different from those of their male counterparts. More specifically, women are more likely to occupy positions that are precarious and thus have a higher risk of failure—either because they are appointed to lead organizations (or organizational units) that are in crisis or because they are not given the resources and support needed for success.[5][6]

Extending the metaphor of the glass ceiling, Ryan and Haslam evoked the notion of the "glass cliff" to refer to a danger which involves exposure to risk of falling but which is not readily apparent.[5] CEO tenure is typically shorter at companies which are struggling, compared to those which are stable.[7]

Evidence of the glass cliff phenomenon has been documented in the field of law. A 2006 study found law students were much likelier to assign a high-risk case to a female lead counsel rather than a male one.[8] A 2010 study found undergraduate students in British political science likelier to select a male politician to run for a safe seat in a by-election, and much likelier to select a female candidate when the seat was described as hard to get.[9] A 2014 analysis of US Fortune 500 leadership found that firms with weak performance were likely to promote women into CEO positions over white men.[10]

Additional studies have found that women are likely to be primed as candidates in hard-to-win districts.[11] Specifically in the United Kingdom, women of the Conservative Party are more likely selected by party elites to run in less winnable seats than conservative men, though they performed worse than men in elections. This occurs both with experienced and inexperienced women candidates, and those with both conventional and nonconventional political backgrounds, indicating a glass cliff phenomenon as opposed to any other explanation.[11] Though the Conservative Party has begun to incorporate equality guarantee strategies, women candidates are still often specifically posed as candidates in hard to win districts.[12]

In contrast, a 2007 study of corporate performance preceding CEO appointments showed that "corporate performance preceding CEO appointments tends to favor females, implying that females (males) are appointed to the CEO position largely at times when the firm is in relatively better (worse) financial health".[13]

Explanation

[edit]

Many theories have been advanced to explain the existence of the glass cliff.

University of Houston psychology professor Kristin J. Anderson says companies may offer glass cliff positions to women because they consider women "more expendable and better scapegoats." She says the organizations that offer women tough jobs believe they win either way: if the woman succeeds, the company is better off. If she fails, the company is no worse off, she can be blamed, the company gets credit for having been egalitarian and progressive, and can return to its prior practice of appointing men.[14]

Haslam and Ryan's initial studies indicate that people believe women are better-suited to lead stressed, unhappy companies because they are felt to be more nurturing, creative, and intuitive.[15] These researchers argue that female leaders are not necessarily expected to improve the situation, but are seen as good people managers who can take the blame for organizational failure.[16]

Haslam has shown that women executives are likelier than men to accept glass cliff positions because they do not have access to the high-quality information and support that would ordinarily warn executives away.[17] Additional research has indicated that women and other minorities view risky job offers as the only chance they are likely to get.[7]

A 2007 study found that female news consumers in the United Kingdom were likelier than male ones to accept that the glass cliff exists and is dangerous and unfair to women executives. Female study participants attributed the existence of the glass cliff to a lack of other opportunities for women executives, sexism, and men's in-group favoritism. Male study participants said that women are less suited than men to difficult leadership roles or strategic decision-making, or that the glass cliff is unrelated to gender.[18]

Additional research has suggested that women see precarious glass cliff opportunities as the only chances for advancement. While men may view the same opportunities as risky, women candidates might be more willing to accept these positions out of necessity for career advancement purposes.[19] Additionally, women are more likely than men to maintain their positions at any level during times of crisis, making them more readily available for advancement opportunities during times of crisis than male counterparts.[20]

Women with traditionally feminine traits are sought out in times of crisis due to a perceived ability to better handle employee issues.[21] Stereotypically feminine traits, including creativity, helpfulness and awareness of emotion are all associated with better being able to handle failure. Though these traits generally diminish the desirability of women for leadership positions, in times of crisis they are viewed as valuable assets that aid in leadership changes.[22] These skill sets offer opportunities for non-traditional leadership styles, viewed favorably in times of crisis.[23]

Glass cliff situations are likely only to arise under certain conditions, in which women leaders have access to resources they view as favorable to leaders. Research has indicated that in times of crisis, women view leadership positions with a greater amount of social resources more positively than they do positions lacking in social resources. However, they view positions lacking financial resources equally as positively as those with a wide range of social resources.[19]

Glass cliff for racial and ethnic minority leaders

[edit]

The glass cliff concept has also been used to describe employment discrimination experienced by leaders who are members of minorities or disabled.[3]

Research analyzing the head coaches of NCAA sports teams found that men of racial and ethnic minority groups were promoted to higher leadership positions in times of crisis. Within historically Black colleges and universities, minority leaders were more often appointed than white leaders under all circumstances, but in other universities, minority leaders were appointed to leadership positions primarily in times of crisis. These leaders are also likely to suffer from high visibility, scrutiny and performance pressures that their white counterparts do not receive. The study also found evidence for the savior effect, the idea that organizations will look for "saviors", usually white, when minority leaders are unable to deliver high-quality performance results in times of crisis.[3]

President Barack Obama taking the oath of office in January 2009

Outside of the NCAA, this has occurred in the political sphere. Often times, the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the first African American president of the United States, during the 2008 financial crisis is viewed as evidence of the glass cliff phenomenon for racial and ethnic minority groups.[24]

In British politics, research has indicated that the Conservative Party sent Black and minority ethnic candidates to contest parliamentary seats that are harder to win than other candidates, indicating similar findings other research on the political glass cliff for women candidates. This phenomenon is specific, however, to the Conservative Party, which has traditionally promoted anti-immigration sentiments that may contribute to this.[12] The rise of Rishi Sunak as the United Kingdom's first prime minister of South Asian heritage, following scandals that brought down two prime ministers within a year, was described as an example of the glass cliff effect.[25]

Minority women face a duplicated glass cliff, being affected by both their gender and race.[26] Black women are often given unsustainable amounts of work in higher positions, creating barriers in their careers. It has additionally been argued Black women may be promoted to leadership positions due to outdated stereotypes related to masculine traits Black women are perceived to have.[27] In addition to struggles related to leadership, Black women are also likely to face an added weight of microaggressions and increased questioning of qualifications.[28]

Implications for women and minority group executives

[edit]

Glass cliff positions risk hurting the women executives' reputations and career prospects because, when a company does poorly, people tend to blame its leadership without taking into account situational or contextual variables.[4] Additionally, women who are appointed to glass cliff positions may be subject to increased criticism from shareholders, who may lack confidence in their leadership. In contrast, Men who assume leadership in times of crisis are less likely to experience this backlash, and suffer fewer reputation based consequences.[4] Researchers have found that female leaders find it harder than male ones to get second chances once they have failed due to having fewer mentors and sponsors and less access to a protective "old boys' network".[29]

The glass cliff phenomenon adds to the breadth of work on why women are less likely than men to succeed in leadership positions across a wide range of opportunities, from local school districts to the corporate sphere.[21] As a method of descriptive representation, women who see women leaders disposed of as a result of glass cliff leadership may be less likely to see themselves in positions of power, and be less likely to express interest in career advancement.

However, some researchers argue that companies in bad situations offer more opportunities for power and influence compared with companies that are stable.[17]

A study examining glass cliff effects on women leaders in Turkey, a country which has high levels of femininity, found that the preference for female candidates was higher in times of good performance than in times of poor performance.[30] Additional research has affirmed this finding in other countries.[22]

Examples

[edit]

News media have described the following as examples of the glass cliff.

Political examples

[edit]

Corporate and business examples

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Glass cliff

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The glass cliff is a concept in organizational positing that women are more likely than men to be promoted into leadership roles amid organizational crises or declining performance, thereby facing heightened risks of failure and scrutiny. Coined in 2005 by psychologists Michelle K. Ryan and S. Alexander Haslam, the term draws an analogy to the —referring to invisible barriers to women's advancement—but emphasizes precarious timing rather than outright exclusion. Initial empirical support came from archival analyses of FTSE 100 companies and experimental studies, where participants preferred female candidates for leadership in simulated failing firms, attributing this to stereotypes of women as adept at "turning around" troubled entities through communal traits like empathy. Subsequent research extended the idea to politics, legal firms, and underrepresented groups beyond gender, with a 2020 meta-analysis of 29 studies affirming a small but consistent pattern across contexts, particularly where diversity pressures intersect with poor performance. However, the phenomenon's robustness remains contested, as multiple replications—especially in European corporate data—have found no disproportionate negative trends preceding appointments, suggesting selection effects may stem from availability biases or broader issues rather than targeted placements. Critics argue that early evidence, often from small samples or U.K.-centric business media prompts, overstates , with factors like self-selection into high-risk roles or measurement inconsistencies undermining claims of systemic . This debate underscores challenges in attributing outcomes to absent rigorous controls for firm-specific risks and individual competencies, highlighting the need for over correlational patterns.

Definition and Conceptual Origins

Core Definition

The glass cliff refers to the observed tendency for women to be appointed to roles, particularly in corporate or organizational settings, at times of impending or poor performance, where the positions involve elevated risks of failure and scrutiny. This phenomenon posits that while women may surmount barriers to advancement akin to the , such promotions often occur into precarious situations characterized by declining financial metrics, such as falling stock prices or market share erosion, rather than stable or prosperous contexts. The term was coined by psychologists Michelle K. Ryan and S. Alexander Haslam in a 2005 study analyzing appointments to the boards of FTSE 100 companies, which found that female directors were overrepresented in firms experiencing recent share price drops compared to those with gains. Proponents of the argue it extends beyond mere coincidence, suggesting underlying dynamics where decision-makers perceive women as better suited—or more expendable—for turnaround efforts, potentially due to associating females with communal traits like nurturing or consensus-building in turbulent times. Archival data from the original research indicated that, between 1999 and 2004, women comprised a higher proportion of new board appointments in underperforming companies, with statistical analysis controlling for factors like company size and sector. Experimental paradigms have replicated this pattern, showing participants selecting female candidates preferentially for hypothetical CEO roles in simulated failing organizations over male counterparts. The glass cliff has been documented across contexts including and nonprofits, though primarily in Western corporate environments, with the core implication that such appointments heighten the likelihood of attribution to female leaders if recovery fails, amplifying disparities in leadership outcomes. A decade-long review of subsequent studies affirmed the pattern in both real-world appointments and lab settings, though it emphasized variability by industry and national context.

Historical Development of the Term

The term "glass cliff" was coined by psychologists Michelle K. Ryan and S. Alexander Haslam of the in the early 2000s, drawing from observations of women being appointed to leadership roles in underperforming organizations. The concept originated from Ryan's reading of a 2003 article in The Times of , which highlighted the disproportionate presence of female directors on the boards of FTSE 100 companies experiencing financial declines, prompting empirical investigation into whether such appointments reflected precarious positioning rather than merit-based advancement. Ryan and Haslam formalized the term in their 2005 peer-reviewed paper published in the British Journal of Management, titled "The Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women are Over-Represented in Precarious Positions." In this study, they analyzed archival data from FTSE 100 firms, finding that newly appointed female directors were more likely than male counterparts to join boards during periods of poor stock performance and organizational instability, with women over-represented by a factor of approximately 2:1 in such scenarios. They supplemented this with experimental evidence from mock recruitment scenarios, where participants favored female candidates for in failing companies, attributing the pattern to associating women with communal traits suited to contexts. Following the 2005 , the term gained traction in academic and media discourse, with Ryan and Haslam extending their research to sectors like and legal professions, while other scholars began replicating or critiquing the findings. By 2007, they had outlined dynamics in precarious appointments, emphasizing think-leader-think-crisis associations, though subsequent reviews noted mixed empirical support for the effect's universality. The phrase entered broader management literature, often contrasted with the metaphor, but its adoption reflected ongoing debates over causal mechanisms rather than unqualified acceptance.

Theoretical Explanations

Bias and Stereotype-Based Theories

Bias and stereotype-based theories propose that the glass cliff emerges from entrenched gender and associated biases that shape evaluations of fit. Central to these explanations is the "think crisis–think " hypothesis, which posits a contextual reversal of the prevailing "think manager–think male" association. In stable or successful organizations, is stereotyped as requiring agentic traits like and , typically ascribed to men, rendering women a poorer perceived fit. However, in scenarios—particularly those involving organizational decline—stereotypes shift, linking with communal traits such as , , and interpersonal sensitivity, which are more readily associated with women. This stereotype variation has been experimentally demonstrated through studies examining trait ascriptions to managers. For instance, participants described hypothetical unsuccessful company leaders using significantly more feminine traits (e.g., helpfulness, ) than masculine ones, with interclass correlations showing a negative association between men and failing managers (ICC = -.63), but a prescriptive ideal for leaders favoring feminine attributes (11 feminine vs. 6 masculine traits). Such perceptions lead selectors to favor women for precarious roles, as their stereotyped qualities align with demands for managing internal or stakeholder relations during downturns, rather than driving performance recovery per se. Role congruity theory further elucidates this dynamic, arguing that prejudice against female leaders stems from perceived incongruence between women's communal gender roles and the agentic demands of leadership. In glass cliff situations, crises temporarily mitigate this incongruity by emphasizing relational repair over aggressive expansion, making women appear more congruent and thus viable candidates—though still exposed to heightened risk if undervalue their agentic capabilities. Empirical support includes selection experiments where women received higher appointment rates in relational crises (51.8%) compared to non-crisis contexts (37.4%), mediated by the elevated relevance of communal behaviors (M = 5.60 for relational vs. M = 4.81 for financial crises). These theories also incorporate bias elements, such as the scapegoat hypothesis, where women, as underrepresented "outsiders," are appointed to absorb blame for inevitable failures without threatening ingroup male networks. However, stereotype-driven explanations dominate, with evidence indicating that crisis type modulates effects: relational crises amplify communal preferences (50% selection for stereotypically female leaders), while financial crises weaken them (27.2%), yet still yield glass cliff patterns due to residual bias toward change-signaling via gender divergence. Overall, these frameworks highlight how stereotypes, rather than meritocratic assessment, cue biased selections, though they assume selector perceptions align with broader cultural biases often critiqued for lacking universality across diverse decision-making contexts.

Signaling and Organizational Dynamics

In organizational crises, signaling posits that appointments to roles serve as signals to external stakeholders, such as investors and markets, indicating that the firm is undertaking substantive changes to address poor performance. Under this framework, the glass cliff arises when women are selected for such roles because their acts as a credible, low-cost signal of deviation from prior male-dominated strategies that contributed to the downturn; unlike internal male candidates who might be seen as continuous with failing , female appointees symbolize novelty and without requiring structural overhauls like divestitures or layoffs. This signaling is particularly effective in high-visibility crises, where media scrutiny amplifies the need for perceivable shifts, as empirical models integrating Spence's (1973) economic signaling demonstrate that firms in spotlighted distress prefer female over male or ethnic minority leaders to convey proactive recovery efforts. However, the 's boundary conditions highlight that this effect depends on the signaler's attributes, such as the absence of prior entrenchment in the firm's errors, making women's outsider status in executive networks a key enabler. Organizational dynamics further elucidate the glass cliff through internal mechanisms where boards, facing performance pressures, leverage gender diversity as a tool to manage stakeholder expectations and internal accountability. In precarious positions, the appointment of women can diffuse blame from incumbent leadership, aligning with causal dynamics where crises prompt risk-transfer to atypical candidates who bear higher scrutiny and failure attribution due to stereotype incongruence with traditional authority roles. This is reinforced by empirical analyses showing that such dynamics are not merely prejudicial but strategically rational within firms, as diversity signals mitigate stock price volatility post-appointment by appeasing demands for inclusivity amid turmoil, though without addressing underlying operational flaws. Critically, these patterns persist across sectors, with data from FTSE 100 firms indicating that crisis timing correlates with elevated female board placements to stabilize governance perceptions, yet often at the cost of appointee tenure stability. From a causal realist perspective, these signaling and dynamic explanations challenge bias-centric views by emphasizing verifiable market reactions—such as positive abnormal returns following CEO announcements in distressed firms—as evidence of perceived efficacy, rather than inherent . Nonetheless, replications underscore contingencies: the signal loses potency in low-scrutiny crises or when ethnic minorities are considered, suggesting gender's unique signaling value stems from entrenched demographic imbalances in pipelines, not universal . This framework thus integrates first-principles of in organizations, where observable traits like gender reduce uncertainty for uninformed observers more efficiently than unobservable competencies during acute instability.

Empirical Evidence

Studies Indicating a Glass Cliff Effect

The seminal empirical investigation into the glass cliff was conducted by Michelle K. Ryan and Alexander Haslam, who analyzed board appointments among FTSE 100 companies in the during 2003. Their archival data revealed that firms appointing female directors had experienced an average share price decline of 40% over the six months prior to the appointment, compared to just 12% for firms appointing male directors, indicating women were disproportionately selected for leadership roles amid organizational decline. Complementing this, Ryan and Haslam's experimental studies presented participants with scenarios of underperforming versus thriving companies and found a preference for female candidates to lead the former, suggesting implicit biases associating women with . Subsequent research extended these findings to experimental paradigms across contexts. For instance, participants in controlled studies consistently rated women as more suitable for precarious positions, such as turning around failing , attributing this to stereotypes of women as communal and adept at nurturing recovery, whereas men were favored for stable or growth-oriented roles. In the legal sector, archival analysis of high-profile cases showed women lawyers were overrepresented in high-risk litigation with low success probabilities, mirroring corporate patterns where female appointees inherited disproportionate volatility. A 2021 meta-analysis of 22 archival studies synthesized evidence from corporate, political, and public sectors, confirming a small but statistically significant glass cliff effect, with effect sizes varying by domain—stronger in (Cohen's d ≈ 0.20) than in or nonprofits. This aggregation highlighted consistent patterns where underrepresented groups, particularly women, faced elevated appointment risks during performance downturns, though the magnitude diminished in analyses controlling for firm size and industry. Experimental replications within the meta-analysis further supported causality, as manipulated crisis conditions increased female selection rates by 15-25% relative to non-crisis baselines. Domain-specific studies reinforced these trends; for example, of IMF programs in 85 countries from 1980 to 2019 found ministers were 2.5 times more likely to be appointed during economic crises, with such appointments correlating to prior GDP contractions exceeding 5%. Similarly, in U.S. municipal simulations, candidates were preferred for mayoral roles in fiscally distressed cities, with selection probabilities rising 30% under simulated budget shortfalls. These findings, drawn from diverse methodologies, collectively indicate the glass cliff as a recurrent in leadership selection under adversity.

Counter-Evidence and Failed Replications

A study examining board appointments in 233 large listed firms across and the from 2005 to 2015 found no evidence supporting the glass cliff hypothesis. Performance trends in metrics and returns were not more negative prior to the appointment of female executives compared to male executives. Researchers utilized matching procedures to pair appointments, regressions for , and instrumental variable methods to mitigate endogeneity from unobserved firm characteristics. In the higher education sector, an analysis of 166 female CEOs and 166 matched male counterparts at private U.S. colleges and universities hired during the 2014-2015 revealed no statistically significant glass cliff effect. Pre-appointment , measured via the Department of Education's Financial Responsibility Composite Score averaged over three years before hire, showed no greater for institutions led by women. The ex post facto design drew from Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System records, controlling for institutional type via Carnegie classification. More recent research on U.S. corporate CEO selections similarly detected no clear pattern of women being appointed during periods of organizational , contradicting the core claim of the phenomenon. A aggregating field studies across domains reported mixed results, with effect sizes varying by context and some investigations yielding null findings, underscoring challenges in replication. These outcomes suggest that observed differences in appointments may stem from selection biases or data artifacts rather than systematic .

Alternative Perspectives

Selection During Crises as Rational Choice

One alternative explanation posits that the appointment of women to leadership roles during organizational crises represents a deliberate, rational strategy by decision-makers to convey signals of substantive change to external stakeholders, such as investors. Under signaling theory, gender serves as a salient, observable cue that differentiates the appointee from entrenched male-dominated leadership patterns, thereby credibly indicating a departure from the status quo and commitment to reforms. A large-scale analysis of 26,156 U.S. executive appointments from 2000 to 2016 demonstrated that firms in crisis elevated the probability of female appointments by 2.6 percentage points, with such moves often framed in press releases as emblematic of transformation efforts. This approach is rational insofar as it leverages low-cost visibility to potentially enhance investor confidence, mitigate stock price declines, and facilitate access to resources, particularly when prior female representation is absent or investor scrutiny is intense. Such selections may also stem from pragmatic assessments of required competencies in turnaround scenarios, where collaborative, stakeholder-oriented styles—sometimes stereotypically associated with women—are deemed advantageous for navigating downturns involving internal consensus-building or external relations. Proponents argue this reflects causal realism in organizational dynamics: crises demand disruptors or outsiders untainted by prior failures, and underrepresented groups like women may offer novel perspectives or face fewer internal rivals due to pipeline constraints, making their elevation a calculated rather than . Empirical support for this view emerges from contexts where gender diversity correlates with resilience; for instance, boards facing pressures may rationally prioritize candidates perceived as adept at empathetic over continuity. However, these attributions require scrutiny, as they can intersect with unverified , though data indicate no inherent detriment in such roles compared to counterparts in similar straits. Countervailing evidence further undermines discriminatory interpretations by revealing the glass cliff pattern as potentially overstated or context-specific. A study examining 233 large listed firms in and the from 2005 to found no statistically significant difference in negative pre-appointment performance trajectories between and executives, employing matching procedures, panel analyses, and instrumental variables to control for selection es. Similarly, recent analyses of CEO appointments indicate women are not disproportionately assigned to struggling firms relative to men, challenging the universality of crisis-linked promotions and suggesting appointments align more with meritocratic or availability-based rationales than gendered peril. In essence, rational choice frameworks emphasize that boards optimize for survival by selecting agents suited—or symbolically positioned—to catalyze recovery, with as one facet among competence, networks, and timing, rather than a vector of . This perspective highlights how overlooking such incentives risks conflating with causation in appointment .

Confounding Factors in Appointment Data

Studies examining appointment data for the glass cliff often rely on archival records of firm performance metrics, such as stock returns or profitability, preceding leadership changes, but these analyses are susceptible to variables that may explain observed patterns without invoking discriminatory selection. One key confound is self-selection, where women exhibit greater willingness to accept precarious roles compared to men, potentially driven by perceptions of undervaluation in stable positions or overconfidence in turnaround potential. Experimental and survey evidence indicates that female candidates rate risky scenarios more favorably, suggesting that appointment data reflecting women's choices could mimic biased promotion without external imposition. Another confounding factor arises from sample selection and measurement artifacts in performance indicators. Declines in firm performance, often proxied by recent stock price drops, can lag actual operational issues or coincide with broader market volatility, creating spurious correlations with gender if datasets underrepresent certain firm types or fail to control for industry-specific cycles. For instance, analyses of U.S. corporate CEOs from 1996 to found no significant association between prior firm risk and female appointments after adjusting for firm size, governance structures, and temporal trends, implying that raw data patterns may stem from unmodeled heterogeneity rather than systematic . Similarly, educational and nonprofit sector studies report null effects for female leaders in high-risk contexts, highlighting how contextual variability confounds cross-sector generalizations. Endogeneity in organizational dynamics further complicates causal inference, as crises may prompt diversity initiatives or symbolic signaling—such as appointing women to demonstrate commitment to change—independent of stereotypes, yet these are often conflated in observational . Boards facing shareholder pressure might prioritize visible reforms during downturns, elevating available female candidates without regard to gender-specific , a process evidenced in FTSE 100 appointments where quotas amplified precarious selections but not uniquely for women. Failure to instrument for such endogenous policies or board composition can inflate apparent glass cliff effects, as longitudinal controls reveal appointments align more with competency pipelines than gendered . These confounds underscore the need for rigorous econometric approaches, such as propensity score matching or fixed-effects models, to isolate gender effects from correlated predictors like executive availability or economic shocks, with recent meta-analyses showing attenuated or absent glass cliff patterns after such adjustments.

Notable Examples

Corporate Appointments

Marissa Mayer was appointed CEO of Yahoo! on July 16, 2012, amid the company's prolonged decline, including falling market share, multiple leadership changes in prior years, and a failure to compete effectively with rivals like Google. Under her tenure, Yahoo pursued acquisitions and restructuring efforts, but the core business continued to erode, culminating in its sale to Verizon in 2017 for $4.8 billion and Mayer's departure with a $23 million severance package. Mary Barra became CEO of General Motors on January 15, 2014, shortly before a major safety scandal involving faulty ignition switches—linked to at least 13 deaths—emerged publicly, exacerbating the company's post-bankruptcy recovery challenges from 2009. Barra oversaw massive recalls affecting over 30 million vehicles, fired 15 involved employees, and implemented cultural and operational reforms; GM's stock rose significantly during her leadership, and she received acclaim for steering the company through the crisis. Sue Gove was named CEO of in October 2022 as the retailer teetered on the brink of , with declining sales, heavy debt, and store closures amid e-commerce shifts. The company filed for Chapter 11 in April 2023, leading to and the end of Gove's tenure. Stephanie Linnartz assumed the CEO role at in late 2022 to address stagnating revenue, inventory issues, and competitive pressures in the apparel sector. She departed after one year in April 2024, with the company reporting ongoing challenges despite some strategic pivots. These cases illustrate appointments to roles with elevated risks, though outcomes differ: some leaders navigated crises successfully, while others faced organizational collapse, highlighting the precarious nature of such positions without implying causation from gender alone.

Political Leadership Cases

Theresa May was selected as leader of the Conservative Party and appointed Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on July 13, 2016, immediately following David Cameron's resignation after the Brexit referendum on June 23, 2016, in which 51.9% of voters opted to leave the European Union, plunging the nation into political uncertainty and economic volatility. The appointment occurred amid party infighting, a devalued pound, and warnings of recession, positioning May to negotiate the UK's exit despite lacking a clear mandate from the referendum campaign she had opposed. Her tenure ended in resignation on May 24, 2019, after three failed attempts to pass a withdrawal agreement in Parliament, highlighting the high-risk context of her elevation. Margaret Thatcher assumed the role of Prime Minister on May 4, 1979, after winning the general election amid Britain's "Winter of Discontent," marked by widespread strikes, 1.5 million unemployed, and inflation exceeding 13%, conditions that had eroded public confidence in the prior Labour government. Although elected rather than appointed mid-crisis, her rise is cited in analyses of the glass cliff as occurring during acute national decline, with Thatcher implementing austerity measures that initially deepened recession—GDP fell 2.5% in 1980—before eventual recovery. This case illustrates how female leaders may inherit entrenched crises, facing amplified scrutiny for reforms like privatization and union curbs that contributed to her 11-year tenure but also polarized outcomes. In , was elected leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) on April 22, 2018, after the party secured its lowest federal election result in history at 20.5% in September 2017, prompting the resignation of previous co-leaders amid coalition instability with Angela Merkel's CDU. Nahles's selection during this nadir aimed to stabilize the party, but she resigned in September 2019 following poor election performance (15.8%) and internal dissent, underscoring the precarious timing of her appointment in a context of declining membership and voter support. Dilma Rousseff's presidency in , beginning January 1, 2011, followed her election amid lingering global effects, with GDP growth slowing from 7.5% in 2010; however, her on August 31, 2016, for fiscal maneuvers amid (GDP contracted 3.8% in 2015) and scandals, is sometimes framed in glass cliff discussions as exemplifying post-appointment failure under inherited or exacerbated turmoil. Yet, her initial ascent via election rather than crisis appointment differentiates it from purer glass cliff instances, with critics attributing downturns to policy choices like expansionary spending rather than solely structural risks. These cases, drawn from European and Latin American contexts, reflect patterns where female politicians ascend during institutional or electoral lows, often with limited support structures, though outcomes vary and causal links to gender-specific selection remain debated in empirical studies favoring contextual over stereotypical explanations.

Evidence from Other Sectors

In educational leadership, particularly at the K-12 level, analyses of gender disparities indicate a potential glass cliff effect, with women ascending to principal or headteacher roles in schools facing higher risks of failure, such as poor performance metrics or resource shortages, more frequently than men. A 2023 study examining leadership trajectories in education found that female leaders in top positions often inherit more volatile institutional conditions, suggesting appointments timed with organizational downturns rather than stability. However, targeted empirical investigations, such as a review of U.S. charter school CEO appointments using the Department of Education's FRCS database across multiple datasets, detected no statistically significant patterns of elevated financial distress preceding female hires compared to male ones, challenging the universality of the phenomenon in this subdomain. In higher education, the glass cliff manifests in university presidencies, where women are disproportionately selected amid crises like declining enrollments, funding cuts, or governance scandals, amplifying scrutiny and failure risks. Research on European higher education institutions from 2010 onward observed an uptick in female appointments to rector or president roles during periods of redefined demands and institutional instability, potentially reflecting biased perceptions of women as suitable for "" missions. U.S.-focused analyses similarly highlight how boards appoint women to turnaround presidencies with inadequate transition support, exacerbating outcomes due to entrenched biases against female authority in academic settings. Evidence in healthcare leadership remains limited and primarily tied to broader barriers rather than cliffs, with one Indonesian study of hospital executives noting persistent underrepresentation of women in top roles but without isolating -timing effects. In sports leagues, anecdotal and observational reports describe women coaches or executives assuming roles in underperforming teams or organizations during slumps, though rigorous quantitative studies confirming disproportionate appointments are scarce. Overall, while suggestive patterns emerge in and academia, replications across these sectors yield mixed results, underscoring the need for context-specific controls beyond .

Criticisms and Debates

Methodological Limitations

Studies supporting the glass cliff phenomenon often rely on archival data analyses that fail to adequately control for confounding variables, such as candidates' prior qualifications, experience, or firm-specific factors like and structures, leading to potential endogeneity where unobserved heterogeneity drives appointment patterns rather than -specific . This ex post facto approach limits , as designs cannot rule out reverse —such as diversity initiatives influencing perceived firm risk—or omitted variables that correlate with both gender and precariousness. Experimental designs exhibit inconsistencies based on ; meta-analyses reveal a small glass cliff effect in between-participants studies (Hedges' g = 0.32), where participants evaluate separate male and female candidates, but no significant effect in within-participants designs (g = 0.07), where the same participants assess both genders, suggesting demand characteristics or implicit comparisons may inflate effects in looser designs. Archival studies show high heterogeneity (I² = 87%), with effects varying by domain—absent in and but present in and nonprofits—and overall small magnitudes (g = 0.07), indicating the is not robust across contexts and potentially overstated due to selective domain focus or small sample sizes that reduce statistical power. Measurement of "precarious" positions poses further challenges, as proxies like stock declines or financial composites capture economic risk but overlook qualitative factors such as institutional crises or reputational hazards, potentially misclassifying appointments and undermining cross-study comparability. Limited cross-cultural and longitudinal data exacerbate generalizability issues, with effects moderated by national levels and appearing weaker in quota-heavy environments, while the scarcity of mixed-methods hinders deeper causal exploration beyond correlations. These limitations contribute to replication failures in large-scale datasets from regions like and the , where no glass cliff pattern emerges, highlighting risks of overreliance on context-specific or underpowered evidence.

Overemphasis on Gender Over Competence

Critics of the glass cliff theory argue that it sometimes masks instances where diversity imperatives lead organizations to prioritize gender representation over demonstrated competence, particularly in high-stakes crisis situations where appointing a female leader serves as a visible signal of commitment to inclusion or change. This perspective holds that DEI policies and quotas can pressure boards to select women to fulfill numerical targets or public relations goals, even when more qualified candidates—regardless of gender—are available, thereby increasing the risk of failure and reinforcing perceptions of underqualification. For instance, external hires for turnaround roles may favor gender diversity to deflect criticism of prior male leadership failures, sidelining rigorous competence evaluations in favor of symbolic gestures. Empirical examples illustrate this dynamic. Norway's 2003 mandate for 40% female board representation in public limited companies accelerated women's appointments but initially filled seats with directors averaging fewer years of prior board experience than incumbents, correlating with a 2-3% drop in ratios for affected firms in the quota's early years, suggesting short-term value erosion from competence mismatches. Similarly, analyses of board quota implementations in have noted that rushed gender balancing often elevates less seasoned professionals to meet compliance deadlines, potentially exacerbating organizational vulnerabilities during downturns rather than resolving them. These cases imply that when targets override meritocratic selection, appointed leaders face amplified scrutiny, with failures attributed to individual shortcomings rather than systemic hiring flaws. Challenging the victimhood of the glass cliff, studies in non-quota environments find limited or no of systematic overrepresentation in precarious roles, indicating that where such patterns emerge, they may stem from affirmative efforts rather than innate . A analysis of 233 large listed firms in and the from 2005-2013 revealed no significant performance differences preceding versus male CEO appointments, undermining claims of a universal cliff and highlighting competence as the primary driver in merit-based systems. Commentators further contend that overreliance on as a proxy for fresh perspectives ignores causal factors like limitations or policy-induced mismatches, perpetuating cycles where diverse hires are set up for disproportionate blame. This view emphasizes that true leadership efficacy demands prioritizing verifiable skills—such as financial acumen or track records—over demographic checkboxes to avoid self-fulfilling prophecies of underperformance.

Broader Implications

Outcomes for Appointed Leaders

Empirical research on the performance and tenure of leaders appointed to glass cliff positions reveals mixed results, with no consistent evidence that women systematically underperform or fail at higher rates than men in comparable roles. A 2020 meta-analysis of 28 archival studies found a small overall glass cliff effect (Hedges' g = 0.07), but this was absent in management domains (g = -0.02), indicating that corporate appointments do not reliably follow the pattern and outcomes may similarly vary by sector. In domains like education and politics, where the effect is stronger (g = 0.24 and 0.08, respectively), leaders inherit declining performance metrics, elevating baseline risks of stagnation or further deterioration independent of gender. However, post-appointment data do not substantiate claims of gendered incompetence; instead, causal factors such as inherited crises and external market conditions dominate failure attributions. Corporate studies further undermine narratives of inevitable downfall for female appointees. An of 10,348 CEOs (526 women) in U.S. companies from 1998 to 2022 concluded that women are not disproportionately appointed to struggling firms and show no elevated likelihood of leading failures compared to men, with appointments correlating more with improving . Survival analyses of CEO tenure similarly yield conflicting findings: one examination of U.K. firms found female CEOs 40% less likely to experience turnover post-appointment than males, contradicting expectations of heightened vulnerability. Yet, other highlights greater performance sensitivity in evaluations, where poor results prompt faster exits for women (e.g., higher turnover-performance correlation coefficients), potentially amplifying perceived risks in precarious starts. Broader outcomes include elevated scrutiny and reputational costs, particularly if turnarounds falter, as failures in high-visibility glass cliff roles can reinforce without equivalent scrutiny of prior male . In non-corporate sectors, such as nonprofits (g = 0.49 effect), appointed leaders face structural deficits that hinder recovery, leading to shorter average tenures—though aggregate data on success rates (e.g., recovery metrics) remain sparse and domain-contingent. These patterns suggest that while glass cliff appointments entail objective hazards from crisis inheritance, differential outcomes stem more from evaluative biases than inherent deficits, with empirical support for the latter lacking robustness.

Relevance to Diversity Policies

Diversity policies, including and targets for representation in , intersect with the glass cliff by potentially accelerating appointments of women to roles in underperforming organizations seeking to meet diversity mandates swiftly. Empirical analysis of 258 board appointments in German listed companies from 2003 to 2020 revealed that women were more likely to be appointed following declines before the 2015 announcement (Stage 1: 2003–2010) and after its enforcement (Stage 3: 2016–2020), but less so during the interim announcement period (Stage 2: 2011–2015), indicating quotas may temporarily disrupt but not eradicate the pattern. This dynamic implies that diversity initiatives can inadvertently reinforce precarious placements if not paired with transparency about organizational conditions or merit-based safeguards, as quota pressures may prioritize numerical compliance over contextual stability. Experimental evidence from the same study, involving 476 participants, supported reduced "signal clarity" of crisis appointments during the quota announcement phase, yet the glass cliff persisted long-term, underscoring the need for ongoing policy measures beyond quotas alone. Debates persist on whether the glass cliff undermines diversity goals, with some critiques highlighting limited empirical foundations, such as a 2005 study of 19 female FTSE 100 board appointments where firm performance improved post-appointment, challenging narratives of inevitable failure. Additional research suggests women may excel in crisis leadership, potentially aligning glass cliff opportunities with effective diversity outcomes rather than viewing them as discriminatory traps.

References

  1. https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/133819606/ContentServer.pdf
  2. https://giwl.anu.edu.au/files/2024-11/British%2520J%2520of%2520Management%2520-%25202005%2520-%2520Ryan%2520-%2520The%2520Glass%2520Cliff%2520%2520Evidence%2520that%2520Women%2520are%2520Over%25E2%2580%2590Represented%2520in%2520Precarious%2520Leadership.pdf
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104898431500123X
  4. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-53290-001
  5. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/context/wmjowl/article/1073/viewcontent/jowl13_no3_p775_ashby_and_ryan_and_haslam.pdf
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104898431630073X
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1048984324000821
  8. https://hrdailyadvisor.com/2021/07/08/why-glass-cliff-may-not-be-real/
  9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279400699_The_Glass_Cliff_Exploring_the_Dynamics_Surrounding_the_Appointment_of_Women_to_Precarious_Leadership_Positions
  11. https://www.vogue.com/article/what-is-the-glass-cliff
  12. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/12/glass-ceiling-cliff-women-leadership-fix/
  13. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-06147-001
  14. https://www.strategian.com/fulltext/Bongiorno2011.pdf
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7924740/
  16. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01492063211067518
  17. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01902725241289366
  18. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-38397-006
  19. https://d-nb.info/1278870865/34
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32700940/
  21. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6765.12660
  22. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2023.1199756/full
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104898431630073X
  24. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1381162.pdf
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343178704_The_who_when_and_why_of_the_glass_cliff_phenomenon_A_meta-analysis_of_appointments_to_precarious_leadership_positions
  26. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2025/01/13/glass-cliff-for-female-ceos-study-reveals-mixed-evidence/
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327778815_The_paradox_of_being_on_the_glass_cliff_Why_do_women_accept_risky_leadership_positions
  28. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8551.12208
  29. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12557?af=R
  30. https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-mayer-severance-20170317-story.html
  31. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2014/05/28/exclusive-inside-mary-barras-urgent-mission-to-fix-gm/
  32. https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/is-mary-barra-standing-on-a-glass-cliff
  33. https://time.com/3429651/mary-barras-bumpy-ride-at-the-wheel-of-gm/
  34. https://www.automotivehalloffame.org/honoree/mary-barra/
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/business/bed-bath-beyond-ceo.html
  36. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/business/glass-cliff-effect.html
  37. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/business/under-armour-stephanie-linnartz.html
  38. https://hbr.org/2011/01/how-women-end-up-on-the-glass-cliff
  39. https://qz.com/730790/the-glass-cliff-theresa-may-is-the-latest-woman-leader-appointed-in-a-crisis-and-set-up-for-failure
  40. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-brexit-became-a-glass-cliff-for-theresa-may
  41. https://globalnews.ca/news/4754906/theresa-may-glass-cliff-crisis-leadership/
  42. https://www.ie.edu/insights/articles/risky-female-leadership-business/
  43. https://online.usc.edu/news/what-is-the-glass-cliff-and-how-can-we-avoid-it/
  44. https://www.etd.ceu.edu/2018/bornat_marleen.pdf
  45. https://huntsman.usu.edu/news/articles/2019/the-glass-cliff-puts-women-in-power-during-crisis-often-without-support
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11586809/
  47. https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1167&context=eeb
  48. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1217651.pdf
  49. https://changinghighered.com/the-glass-cliff-in-higher-education-challenges-faced-by-women-university-presidents/
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369465555_GLASS_CEILING_EFFECT_AMONG_WOMEN_IN_LEADERSHIP_POSITION_IN_HOSPITALS
  51. https://www.tero.com/articles/the-glass-cliff-for-women.php
  52. https://stevetobak.com/2019/06/06/shattering-the-glass-cliff-myth/
  53. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12557
  54. https://hbr.org/2020/12/research-women-are-better-leaders-during-a-crisis
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.