Most definitions of the “glass ceiling†say that it refers to an unacknowledged discriminatory barrier that prevents women and minorities from rising to positions of power or responsibility, such as within a corporation. Surely by now however, it is an “acknowledged barrierâ€. Indeed the glass ceiling is shifting and is manifesting in a new phenomena known as the “glass cliff†and now a new study has come up with an answer as to why this is happening.
The glass ceiling might be dissolving, but it is a slow process. According to the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors survey, among the top 100 Australian companies women held 129 board seats in 2012 which is 17.7 per cent of all board seats available, and this was up from 13.5 per cent in 2012. Yet while the dissolution of the glass ceiling is gradual a distinct trend is emerging that is seeing women elevated to positions of power in corporation in crisis and thus have a greater chance if failure. This phenomenon has been dubbed the “glass cliff†and usually occurs when previously male led companies hit tough times and need to turn around.
The glass cliff was evident in the global financial crisis. Erin Callan was was handed the CFO job at the firm Lehman Brothers just three months before Bear Stearns went down in flames, leaving her to mostly firefight for her whole term. She quit in June of 2008. Living examples of glass cliff situations are the female CEOs of Hewlett Packard (Meg Whitman), WHSMITH (Kate Swann), and Yahoo (Marissa Mayer), all elected during tough times in previously male-led companies. It also happens in political life as in the 2005 British election where data shows that selectors in safe seats mostly put forward men, whereas in constituencies where there wasn\’t much chance of a win they generally chose women. Hence, the women were faced with a “glass cliff†of an all but impossible election campaign.
Now researchers believe they might know why the glass cliff is occurring.
Prior to their studies the researchers conducting the new work speculated that women would not be more attracted to a precarious position, but they would be more sensitive to certain aspects of the position. They thought that women would be more sensitive to communal aspects of precarious leadership roles while men would interested in authority and financial resources.
To test this they asked university business students to imagine working for a large company in financial crisis. They were offered a top leadership position at the hypothetical company, where they would be in charge of resolving the crisis. All of the students read a passage containing information about the social and financial resources that came with the position. One group read that they had employee support (social resources) and financial investment from management (financial resources). A second group read that they had financial investment but no employee support, and a third group read that they had employee support but no financial investment.
Overall women were less enthusiastic about any of the roles than were men. However, women were less likely to accept the position that lacked social resources, while men were less inclined to accept the position that lacked financial resources.
A second study found that women viewed employee acceptance as a factor that would lead to influence, while men viewed influence as an attribute that would lead to employee acceptance.
It adds up to the fact that women are no less sensitiveness to the precarious nature of a position with a business in crisis but their focus is more on social issues than monetary ones and this makes them more likely to accept those cliff’s edge positions.
This kind of work provides insight to why the glass cliff effect is in play and this is essential knowledge. If women continue to rise through the ranks only to be thrown into power when the going gets tough, and failure is a high possibility, then equal opportunity in the workplace may be further off than we imagine.
