In the world of leadership, the metaphor of the “glass ceiling” is well known. It is an invisible barrier. This barrier prevents women and marginalized groups from ascending to top positions. But what happens when they finally break through? Enter the “glass cliff.” It is a lesser-known but equally insidious phenomenon. This phenomenon shows that the timing and context of leadership appointments can be just as discriminatory. These factors can be as problematic as the lack of access itself.
What is the Glass Cliff?
Coined in 2005 by psychologists Michelle K. Ryan and Alexander Haslam at the University of Exeter, the term “glass cliff” describes a troubling trend. Women and minority leaders are more likely to be promoted to senior roles during times of crisis. This occurs during downturns or periods of instability when the risk of failure is highest. These appointments may appear progressive on the surface. They often place leaders in precarious positions with limited support. There are unrealistic expectations and heightened scrutiny.
Imagine being handed the wheel of a sinking ship and being praised for finally making it to the captain’s seat. That’s the glass cliff.
Why Does It Happen?
Organizations may unconsciously—or strategically—choose women or minority leaders during turbulent times. This signals change and can restore public trust. However, it also serves as a way to create scapegoats if things go wrong. These appointments are often framed as bold moves, but they can mask deeper systemic issues:
– Symbolic diversity: Leadership changes may be used to project inclusivity without addressing structural inequities.
– Risk deflection: If failure occurs, blame can be shifted onto the new leader, reinforcing stereotypes about competence.
– Emotional labor: Women are often seen as better crisis managers. They are also viewed as more empathetic communicators. These traits make them appealing choices during turmoil.
Real-World Examples
The glass cliff isn’t just theoretical—it’s visible across sectors:
– Corporate: Research on FTSE 100 companies found a pattern. Women were more likely to be appointed to boards after poor performance. Women received board appointments following poor company performance. These appointments often happened after the companies had underperformed. This suggests they were brought in to “clean up” rather than lead long-term strategy.
– Politics: Female politicians often rise to leadership during party crises or electoral losses. Their tenure may be short-lived, and their legacy unfairly tied to the chaos they inherited.
– Media and Academia: Women of color, in particular, face glass cliff scenarios. They’re expected to fix broken systems. At the same time, they must navigate racial and gender bias.
The Emotional Toll
Being placed on a glass cliff can lead to burnout, reputational damage, and self-doubt. Leaders may internalize failure, unaware that they were set up to struggle from the start. The pressure to succeed “against the odds” can be isolating, especially when support systems are weak or hostile.
Breaking the Cycle
To dismantle the glass cliff, organizations must go beyond performative diversity. Here’s how:
– Audit appointment patterns: Are women and minorities consistently chosen during crises? If so, why?
– Build support structures: Ensure new leaders have access to mentorship, resources, and strategic autonomy.
– Challenge bias: Recognize how stereotypes influence leadership choices and outcomes.
– Redefine success: Value long-term impact over short-term optics. Don’t just appoint diverse leaders—empower them.
Conclusion
The glass cliff reveals a paradox: inclusion without stability is not true progress. As we celebrate breakthroughs in leadership, we must also examine the conditions under which they occur. Are we elevating voices to genuinely transform systems—or merely to absorb the fallout?
True equity means not just opening doors, but ensuring the floor beneath is solid. Let’s stop handing parachutes to leaders we’ve pushed off a cliff—and start building platforms that last.
