What Is Glass Cliff?
The glass cliff is a phenomenon in organizational behavior where women and other marginalized groups are more likely to be appointed to leadership roles during periods of crisis or poor organizational performance, when the risk of failure is highest. This precarious position sets leaders up for potential setbacks, as they inherit challenging circumstances that may be difficult to reverse. The term implies that while these individuals may break through traditional barriers to senior positions, they are simultaneously placed in a situation where the metaphorical ground beneath them is unstable and prone to collapse, leading to a high reputation risk.
History and Origin
The term "glass cliff" was coined by British professors Michelle K. Ryan and Alexander Haslam of the University of Exeter in 2005. Their research stemmed from observations about the performance of FTSE 100 companies and the appointment of new board of directors members. They found that companies appointing women to their boards were more likely to have experienced consistently poor performance in the preceding months. This work led to the identification of the glass cliff, extending the concept of the glass ceiling by suggesting that once women attain leadership, they may be placed in more precarious roles. This initial research highlighted how women were over-represented in high-profile yet risky or precarious positions16.
Key Takeaways
- The glass cliff describes the tendency to appoint women and other underrepresented groups to leadership positions during times of crisis.
- These roles often come with a higher risk of failure due to the inherited challenging circumstances.
- The phenomenon can affect women's career prospects and reinforce negative stereotypes if they are perceived to fail.
- It highlights issues beyond simply breaking barriers to entry, focusing on the conditions of leadership.
Interpreting the Glass Cliff
Understanding the glass cliff involves recognizing that the appointment of diverse leaders during times of distress may not always be a true indicator of progressive diversity and inclusion efforts. Instead, it can sometimes signify a tendency to assign challenging, high-stakes assignments to those perceived as more expendable or as a means of optics without genuine systemic change. When a company is in a market downturn or facing significant operational challenges, the appointment of a leader onto a glass cliff position suggests that the organization might be seeking a visible change agent who can absorb blame if the situation does not improve, rather than providing the necessary resources for genuine turnaround. This dynamic impacts not only the individual leader's career trajectory but also influences the broader corporate culture.
Hypothetical Example
Consider "TechInnovate," a fictional technology firm that has experienced three consecutive quarters of declining revenue and struggles with a tarnished public image due to a recent data breach. The long-standing male CEO, known for his strategic planning but also for a rigid management style, resigns. The company's shareholder value has plummeted. The board decides to appoint Sarah Chen, a highly capable but externally hired executive, as the new CEO.
Sarah is lauded in the press as the first female CEO of TechInnovate. However, she inherits a company with deeply entrenched problems, a demotivated workforce, and dwindling capital reserves. She faces immense pressure to perform an immediate turnaround, but without sufficient time or resources for crisis management or significant operational restructuring. If TechInnovate continues to struggle under her tenure, despite the pre-existing conditions, her appointment could be seen as a classic example of the glass cliff, setting her up for a difficult, potentially career-damaging outcome.
Practical Applications
The glass cliff phenomenon appears in various sectors, from corporate boardrooms to political leadership. For instance, women are sometimes appointed to lead companies that are already undergoing severe financial distress, such as those nearing bankruptcy or facing major public relations crises15. Examples include the appointment of Carly Fiorina as CEO of Hewlett-Packard during a challenging period for the company, or Carol Bartz at Yahoo, both of whom faced significant headwinds and ultimately departed their roles14.
In the public sector, the phenomenon has been observed when women are chosen to run for political seats that are considered "hard to win"13. This pattern highlights that while visible diversity in executive compensation roles may increase, the underlying circumstances of those appointments often present disproportionately high challenges. Such appointments can offer a public-facing image of progressiveness, but they can also put the individual in a position where success is inherently difficult. According to a McKinsey report, while women's representation in senior roles has increased, their advancement to the highest executive levels still sees a drop, and they often encounter heightened scrutiny and a lack of structural support compared to male counterparts12.
Limitations and Criticisms
While the concept of the glass cliff resonates with many, its prevalence and the underlying motivations are subject to ongoing debate and research. Some studies suggest that while women may indeed be appointed during times of organizational distress, there isn't always conclusive empirical evidence to prove that they are more likely than men to be appointed to such roles, or that these appointments inherently lead to failure11,10. A 2025 study analyzing CEO appointments in publicly held U.S. companies from 1998 to 2022 found that women were no more likely than men to be appointed CEOs at struggling companies. In fact, it suggested that as a company's financial stability improves, the likelihood of a woman being appointed CEO increases9.
Critics also point out that media narratives might overemphasize instances where women fail in crisis roles, while similar situations involving men might go unnoticed or be attributed to external factors rather than leadership capabilities8,7. Furthermore, some argue that accepting a challenging position, even one on a "glass cliff," can be a strategic move for a leader to demonstrate resilience and exceptional risk management skills. The focus should arguably shift from simply identifying the glass cliff to ensuring that all leaders, regardless of identity, receive the necessary support and resources for succession planning and effective leadership in any environment6.
Glass Cliff vs. Glass Ceiling
The glass cliff and the glass ceiling are related but distinct concepts in the discourse surrounding workplace inequality. The glass ceiling refers to an invisible barrier that prevents women and other underrepresented groups from advancing to senior leadership positions, regardless of their qualifications or achievements5. It represents a systemic obstacle that limits career progression before reaching the top.
In contrast, the glass cliff occurs after an individual has broken through the glass ceiling and attained a senior leadership role. It describes the phenomenon where these individuals are appointed to positions that are inherently precarious, often during periods of crisis or instability within an organization4. The key difference is that the glass ceiling prevents access to the top, while the glass cliff highlights the risky conditions often encountered once the top is reached3. An individual can break through the glass ceiling only to find themselves on the edge of a glass cliff, facing heightened scrutiny and a greater likelihood of failure due to the challenging circumstances they inherit2.
FAQs
What does "glass cliff" mean in simple terms?
The "glass cliff" describes when a woman or a person from a minority group is given a high-profile, challenging leadership job, typically when the organization is already in trouble. It's like being given a seemingly great opportunity, but it comes with a high chance of failure because of the difficult situation inherited.
Is the glass cliff a proven phenomenon?
The existence of the glass cliff is supported by various studies, particularly in the context of women being appointed to leadership roles in struggling organizations. However, recent research provides mixed evidence, with some studies suggesting women are not disproportionately appointed to CEO roles in times of crisis compared to men1.
Why are women often appointed to glass cliff positions?
Several factors may contribute, including the perception that women are better suited to handle crisis management due to perceived "nurturing" or "collaborative" traits, or that their appointment provides a symbolic image of change and diversity and inclusion during difficult times. Some theories suggest it can also be a way for current leadership to protect established male leaders from potential failure by placing others in risky roles.
Does the glass cliff only apply to women?
While the term "glass cliff" was initially coined based on research involving women, its application has expanded to include other marginalized groups, such as racial and ethnic minorities, who may also be appointed to precarious leadership positions during times of crisis.
How can organizations avoid the glass cliff?
Organizations can mitigate the glass cliff by genuinely committing to [human capital] (https://diversification.com/term/human-capital) development and corporate governance that supports all leaders equitably. This includes providing adequate resources, mentorship, and a realistic assessment of the challenges faced by any new leader, regardless of their background, rather than simply using diverse appointments for optics.