Women in Leadership and the Glass Cliff

 by Manon Francis

Ellen Pao
(image: Christopher Michel)

The glass cliff is a phenomenon whereby women who reach the upper ranks of power are put into precarious positions, so their chance of failure is increased, and they are essentially set up to fail. A relative of the glass ceiling metaphor- the invisible societal barrier that keeps women from achieving the highest positions in business, politics, and other organisations, the glass cliff is also detrimental to the professional experience of women across the globe. Women (and other minority groups) are more likely to be elevated to positions of power when challenges or crises occur, or are about to occur, as success is regarded as harder to navigate in these circumstances. When a woman fails (falls off the cliff), and because she is often the minority in these environments, the failure is seen as being representative of the female gender as a whole, causing damaging stereotypes to emerge, which can harm the opportunities of other women. In essence, this equates to if (male name) led a business which subsequently underperformed, the response would be ‘(male name) cannot lead a business’, whereas if (female name) led a business which subsequently underperformed, the response would be ‘women cannot lead businesses’, and this has accounted for the many hurdles women have to overcome to achieve their goals.

The term originates from Exeter University researchers Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam in 2005. In 2003, the Times had published an article stating how women have a negative impact on company performance. To investigate the logic behind this claim, they researched what happened before and after men and women were appointed to lead the FTSE 100 Companies on the London Stock Exchange. It was found that in periods of overall stock market decline, firms which bought women onto their boards were more likely to have experienced bad performance in the subsequent 5 months than men. This led them to conclude that women are more likely to occupy positions of leadership that are risky, for example when share prices drop, or the role includes reputational risk. Additionally, in 2013, Alison Cook and Christy Glass from Utah State University conducted a study using a dataset of all CEO transitions in Fortune 500 companies over a 15‐year period. They found that women, along with all people of colour, were more likely than white men to be promoted to CEO of a firm performing badly. The Harvard Business Review orchestrated a study that asked college students to identify, when the male CEO of a theoretical company retires, would it do better under a subsequent CEO who was male, or one who was female, depending on the performance of the company. It found that when the company was doing well and had been led by the male CEO, 62% said the male candidate would do better, however if the previously-male lead company was underperforming, 69% said a female would do better, further proving the theory that women are thought of by others as more suitable to lead through uncertain times.

Specific examples of the glass cliff in action are not difficult to pinpoint, as they are often made incredibly public and occur to already-public figures. The most well-known example is Theresa May. She was elected Prime Minister of the UK in 2016, in the wake of the tumultuous EU Referendum, the results of which did not reflect the majority of the government's stance on the issue. She was tasked with negotiating the UK’s exit from the European Union, and as nothing like this had ever occurred in UK history before, and with the polarised opinions over not just the decision itself, but also in what manner to leave, it is not difficult to see why the chance of failure was high, and why she failed. In 2013 the PwC report over 10 years stated that 38% of women were forced out of office, comparing to just 28% of men.

Other examples include Carol Bartz, who in 2009 became CEO of Yahoo, was pushed out in 2011 when it started to underperform. Jill Abramson, the first female executive editor of the New York Times, was fired in 2014. Ellen Pao was pushed out of Reddit and her failed attempt to sue Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins remains one of the most high profile gender discrimination cases the US has ever witnessed. She lost her case in 2015.

Why do women fall victim to the glass cliff? When firms start to underachieve, white men typically do not want to deal with the effort of trying to improve a failing firm or government, and as they have lots of other opportunities to lead a non-failing organisation, being associated with a failure or possible failure is too risky for them. To contrast, women feel this might be their only shot at ever leading and achieving their goals, and so are more likely to take on a job with a higher chance of failure, as it may be the only one they ever get in this position, as they have less opportunities available in the first place. The glass cliff would not exist were it not for the marginalisation of women in many industries and sectors, forcing them to take risks their male counterparts do not have to, as their opportunity for access to success elsewhere is limited. Many people see gender inequality as a thing of the past, but it is still very prevalent in the world today, and even impacts the way women take on various jobs. In May 2019, in the List of Fortune 500 Companies, there were only 33 female CEOs. There have been 55 Prime Ministers in UK history, and only 2 have been female- if this was reversed, this is the equivalent of having only female Prime Ministers bar 2 male ones until the year 2319. In US history, there has never been a female President. Of the FTSE 100 companies, there are 7 female CEOs, compared to 14 CEOs named David, 17 named John, and 19 with the title ‘Sir’. Only 24.3% of all national parliamentarians are women, as of February 2019, even though women make up approximately 50% of the global population. In February 2019 in 27 states, less than 10% of parliamentarians were female, and there are 3 with no women parliamentarians at all. In January 2019, 20.7% of UK government ministers were women.

To prevent the glass cliff phenomenon from occurring, the representation of women must increase. This, as well as being democratic, fair and non-discriminatory, also has a number of other benefits that are not always as transparent. First of all, women in politics are more likely to cross party lines to find common ground, and whilst this helps eliminate the hyper-partisanship of governments, it also allows legislation to be passed more efficiently- a study by Jonathan Marks and Steven Kekacs found that US female senators crossed party lines more frequently and passed more legislation than their male counterparts. In Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant women’s groups joined forces and established a powerful political party that made progress across religious divides during Northern Ireland peace efforts during the 1990s. Female lawmakers are more likely to support motions to improve education and health, and Parliaments with more female members are more likely to pass laws to advance gender equality, and to reduce and outlaw domestic violence, rape and sexual harassment- Russian female lawmakers crossed party lines to increase penalties for violence against women. A higher number of female legislators correlates to an increased investment in health and education- this is true for higher income countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In non-OECD India, women-led village councils are more likely to support investment in clean drinking water. When female parliamentary representation increases by 5%, a country is almost always 5 times less likely to respond to an international crisis with violence- the risk of civil war and state-perpetrated human rights abuses also decreases. However, female leadership does not always guarantee an increase in women’s representation, especially if they are the first woman in their position, as they may have to navigate male-dominated structures and so proceed with political caution rather than radical policy change. Women may also adopt the ‘if I can get here, so can you’ mentality, as shown by Margaret Thatcher, and not implement anything which would make it easier for other women achieving the same position as her, as they think that since they got there, there is no reason why other women shouldn’t too.

Overall, women’s representation, especially in sectors such as politics and business, is much better than it was. That being said, in previous centuries, it was illegal for women to be in politics or business, so the only way to go was up anyway. In any case, women’s representation hasn’t got any worse, but still isn’t anywhere near what it should be. The World Economic Forum predicted rather depressingly in 2018 that it would take an estimated 107 years for there to be as many female politicians as male, and an estimated 202 years to close the gender pay gap. Until this is rectified, phenomena such as the glass cliff will continue to be a normality, and half of the world's population will have inhibited opportunities for something as trivial as their gender.