The glass cliff is a term that describes the phenomenon of women in leadership roles, such as executives in the corporate world and female political election candidates, being likelier than men to achieve leadership roles during periods of crisis or downturn, when the chance of failure is highest.
Contents
Origins
The term was coined in 2004 by British professors Michelle K. Ryan and Alexander Haslam of 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. This work eventually developed into the identification of a phenomenon known as the glass cliff. Since the term originated, its use has expanded beyond the corporate world to also encompass politics and other domains.
Overview
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.
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. CEO tenure is typically shorter at companies which are struggling, compared to those which are stable.
The glass cliff concept has also been used to describe employment discrimination experienced by leaders who are members of minorities or disabled.
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. 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.
Other research has failed to confirm the existence of glass cliff phenomenon. A 2007 study of corporate performance preceding CEO appointments showed that women executives are no more likely to be selected for precarious leadership positions than males.
Explanation
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.
Haslam and Ryan say their studies show that people believe women are better-suited to lead stressed, unhappy companies because they are felt to be more nurturing, creative, and intuitive. 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.
Haslam has said 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. Utah State University professors Ali Cook and Christy Glass say women and other minorities view risky job offers as the only chance they are likely to get.
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.
Implications for women executives
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. 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".
However, some researchers argue that companies in bad situations offer more opportunity for power and influence compared with companies that are stable.
Examples
News media have described the following as examples of the glass cliff.