Does the “Glass Cliff” Still Present Challenges in the Workplace?
The concept of the "glass cliff" adds a nuanced layer to the challenges women face in climbing the corporate ladder. This term describes a phenomenon where women are more likely to be placed in leadership roles during times of crisis or downturn, potentially setting them up for failure. During our monthly meeting, the TGG Team decided to discuss this concept and how it reveals deep-seated biases and assumptions about gender roles within leadership.
A recent study explored how gender perceptions influence leadership selection during organizational success versus crisis. In scenarios where companies were thriving under male leadership, students predominantly chose male candidates to continue the legacy. Conversely, when these companies faced hardships, the preference shifted towards female candidates, suggesting an underlying bias that associates women with crisis management capabilities rather than ongoing success.
management capabilities rather than ongoing success.
This pattern didn't hold in companies historically led by women; in these instances, the gender of the leadership candidate didn't significantly affect the choice, indicating a potential normalization of female leadership in those contexts. This discovery suggests that the glass cliff is conditional, influenced heavily by the existing gender norms within the organization.
Participants in the study also assessed hypothetical candidates based on attributes stereotypically assigned to each gender. In prosperous companies, attributes like decisiveness and strength—often stereotypically male—were favored. In contrast, during crises, traits such as empathy and teamwork, typically seen as feminine, were valued more. This dichotomy highlights a strategic, yet possibly subconscious, deployment of gender stereotypes in leadership roles depending on the company's condition.
Our discussion also touched on the broader implications of these findings. Some argued that the trend of appointing women only in times of crisis is not merely about leveraging their distinct skills but might also involve a less overt intention of setting them up as scapegoats should the recovery fail. This cynical view points to a deeper systemic issue where women are underutilized in times of stability and overburdened in times of trouble.
Moreover, the debate reflected frustration with the reactive nature of such appointments. If women's leadership qualities are so valued during crises, why are they not utilized to prevent these situations or enhance the company during stable periods? This points to a significant gap in how female leadership is valued and utilized.
The conversation also veered into how this dynamic affects the perception and treatment of women once they are in power. There is a concern that even if a woman successfully navigates a company through a crisis, her efforts may be minimized or dismissed as merely fulfilling her role, rather than acknowledged as exceptional leadership.
Finally, the discourse explored the broader implications for diversity in leadership beyond gender. The intersection of race and leadership was highlighted, noting that women of color face even more significant barriers and their successes might not be as celebrated or recognized due to systemic biases.
In conclusion, the glass cliff represents a critical area of gender dynamics in leadership that calls for a deeper understanding and structural change. It challenges us to reconsider not only how we select leaders but also how we support and recognize them, ensuring that all leaders, regardless of gender, are given equal opportunities to succeed in all scenarios, not just those set for failure.