The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Glass Cliffs at middle management An

experimental
levels: an experimental study study of Glass
Cliffs
Saadet Elif Esposito
Management, Manning School of Business, The University of Massachusetts Lowell,
Lowell, Massachusetts, USA
Received 31 January 2019
Abstract Revised 9 January 2020
Purpose – A new phenomenon called “Glass Cliff” has formed claiming that women at the higher echelons of 14 December 2020
organizations are being placed in higher risk positions when compared to men. The purpose of this research Accepted 19 December 2020
study is to examine whether this phenomenon occurs at the middle to upper middle management levels for
women. If so, it can possibly be one of the many underlying reasons that contribute to the grounds of why the
pipeline problem exists with female leadership at the top-level management positions.
Design/methodology/approach – The design considers competing hypotheses based on the emerging,
contradictory research on the Glass Cliff and the more established perspective of social norms and implicit
biases. The experimental study is conducted on 202 participants to examine the likelihood of occurrence of this
phenomenon at middle to upper middle management levels.
Findings – Counter to the tenets pertaining to the Glass Cliff phenomenon but consistent with the implicit
leadership theories, this research study revealed that when compared to the female candidate, the male
candidate was more likely to be assigned to the higher risk position.
Research limitations/implications – The subjective nature of the study can be the reason for variations of
each participant and their biases since it is a specific experiment dealing with perceptions, social norms and
prejudice.
Originality/value – This phenomenon is mostly studied at the executive level and can contribute to the
pipeline problem for women, hence this study provides insight and examines the phenomenon at the middle to
upper middle management levels to examine its likelihood.
Keywords Glass Cliffs, Female leaders, Experiment
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
US Bureau of Labor Statistics have reported that women make up almost half of the current
workforce population at 46.9% in 2018. A substantial portion of this, at 51.5%, comprises
women in management, professional and other related occupations (bls.gov). In addition to
their large presence in the US workforce, recently, women have made historic progress in the
United States by attaining very elite leadership positions traditionally held by men (Lyness
and Grotto, 2018). In 2016, Hillary Clinton has become the first female presidential candidate.
Kamala Harris, another influential woman in US politics from California, has become the vice
president elect in 2020, another first in the US history. Also, some of the largest US-based
multinational companies currently have female CEOs such as GM, Lockheed Martin, IBM
and many more of the S&P 500 companies (Catalyst, 2019). These are some of the examples
that justify these female leaders’ achievements as a significant progress.
Constituting approximately half of the working population (bls.gov), women attempt to
balance family and work roles daily. Childcare and other domestic nonwork obligations affect
working women more than working men (Schiebinger and Gilmartin, 2010). Hence,
organizations have implemented support systems (Cheung and Halpern, 2010) and adopted
various policies to eliminate sex discrimination (Ely et al., 2011). Organizational support
systems such as family friendly work place policies have facilitated female leader
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
The author would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback. I am also An International Journal
grateful to Beth K. Humberd, Elana Feldman, Kimberly K. Merriman, and M. Berk Talay for their © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7149
thoughtful comments on this article. DOI 10.1108/EDI-01-2019-0054
EDI empowerment in many organizations (Cheung and Halpern, 2010; Lyness and Grotto, 2018).
To encourage more diverse and inclusive workforce and to reduce the pipeline effects women
face, many organizations have implemented policies and processes (Ely et al., 2011; Ibarra
et al., 2013). However, women tend to fill in the lower and middle ranks while men enjoy the
top ranks both in public and private sectors in the US (Lyness and Grotto, 2018).
Recent research suggests that women perform similar or better than men as well as their
representation in senior leadership can be linked to organizational benefits (i.e. Dawson et al.,
2014, Lyness and Grotto, 2018; Terjesen et al., 2009). Having acquired the advantageous “best
for business” abilities for today’s ever-changing corporate world (Eagly, 2007; Eagly and
Carli, 2007; Glass and Cook, 2016), such as being influential motivators, capable problem
solvers and mentors (Eagly et al., 2003), few women have been able to slowly rise beyond that
invisible barrier at the top called “Glass Ceiling” (Dreher, 2003; Goodman et al. 2003; Stroh
et al. 2004; Adams et al. 2007). However, female leaders remain underrepresented in the upper
management holding merely 5.2% of CEO positions and 21.2% of the board seats at S&P 500
companies (Catalyst, 2019). Women comprise 23.43% of the US Congress (Ipu.org). Although
it is historic, women’s advancement can be perceived as a persistently stagnant progress
(Carter and Silva, 2010; Ely et al., 2011) riddled with nuanced setbacks arising from cultural
beliefs and workplace norms that innately favor men over women (Cal
a s and Smircich, 2009;
Ely et al., 2011; Ely and Meyerson, 2000; Kolb and McGinn, 2009; Sturm, 2001) supporting the
notion that leadership is a gendered construct (Lyness and Grotto, 2018; Ritter and Yoder,
2004; Yoder, 2001).
The female leaders that shattered the glass ceiling, encounter a different obstacle called
the “Glass Cliff” at the executive or board level (Ryan and Haslam 2007). Female leaders at the
higher echelons of organizations are being placed in higher risk positions when compared to
their male colleagues (Ryan and Haslam, 2005a, b, 2007, 2008). They are being offered top
leadership positions in corporations that have been performing poorly prior to their arrival
(Ryan and Haslam 2005a, b, 2007, 2008). These female executives are leading the corporations
in crisis mode and these precarious leadership positions are considered more prone to failure
(Ryan and Haslam 2005a, b, 2007, 2008).
Further archival investigation of this phenomenon conducted by other researchers
demonstrated contradicting results. Adams et al. (2007) have found no support of this claim
based on examinations of “objective” accountancy-based measures of organizational
performance claiming that women came to power in their respective organizations at times
of relatively good performance. However, Haslam and Ryan re-examined additional subjective
accountancy-based organizational performance measure using a forward looking “subjective”
stock-based measure determining the future position of the organization (Devers et al., 2007),
the outcome was different (Haslam et al., 2010). Other research conducted on Fortune 500 CEOs
demonstrated that female leaders were more likely to be promoted to riskier leadership
positions receiving less support with shorter tenures as CEOs than their male counterparts
(Cook and Glass, 2014; Glass and Cook, 2016). Several well-known Glass Cliff examples include
Mary Barra, Phebe Novakovic, Anne Mulcahy, Meg Whitman, Brenda Barnes, Denise
Morrison and Barbara Rentler (Glass and Cook, 2016).
The plausible explanations of this phenomenon can be tied to applicable theoretical
assumptions relating to subtle or implicit gender biases. It is likely that perceptions and
subjective factor may be affecting female leaders. Prior research has claimed that female
leaders are more scrutinized (Eagly et al., 1995) and are perceived as less effective leaders than
men (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Eagly et al., 1992; Heilman, 2001; Schein, 2001). Such hindrance
to the female leadership within organizations may force female leaders to take on less
desirable positions in their organizations. According to intergroup dynamics, female leaders
tend to be members of the outgroup in predominantly male organizations. Discrimination
against outgroup members (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and ingroup favoritism (Reskin, 2000;
Ridgeway, 1997) can be manifested as assigning fellow ingroup members into more desirable An
positions (Powell and Butterfield, 2002), leaving the less desirable positions for female experimental
leaders.
On the other hand, the Feminine Leadership Advantage associated with positive traits of
study of Glass
women in contemporary organizations (Eagly, 2007; Eagly and Carli, 2003; Eagly et al., 2003), Cliffs
strong interpersonal skills and collaborative leadership style of female leaders (Bruckmuller
and Branscombe, 2010; Ryan and Haslam, 2007) can also play a role placing them on Glass
Cliffs based on the assumption that female leaders may be more effective when compared to
their male counterparts during times of crisis (Glass and Cook, 2016). However, it is equally
important to note that female leaders may not be placed on Glass Cliffs as a result of the
decrease in the overtly sexist attitudes (Swim et al., 1995). According to Hebl et al. (2007),
women can also be subject to contrarily negative expressions of sexism in terms of
benevolence and hostility.
However, these recent studies have mostly investigated the Glass Cliff phenomenon at the
executive and/or board level by examining organizational performance measures such as
return on assets, return on equity and other stock-based measures. The “top level” approach
examining the organizational performance to determine if female leaders are placed on the
Glass Cliffs has overlooked the issues women face at the middle to upper intermediate
management positions. The intent of this study is to examine whether the Glass Cliff
phenomenon occurs at the middle to upper intermediate management positions in
organizations contributing to the pipeline effects that forthcoming female leaders encounter.
Female leaders at these positions are not likely to get evaluated based on organizational
performance measures such as return on assets, return on equity and Tobin’s Q. At the
middle to upper intermediate management levels, the supervisory evaluation of the female
leader’s job performance is vital for upward mobility (De Pater et al., 2009) and can be more
subjective since it may likely to be affected by the supervisor’s biases. Does the Glass Cliff
phenomenon occur at the middle to upper intermediate management positions in
organizations assigning female leaders in the higher risk positions? Does perceived
leadership effectiveness of the leader mediate this occurrence? This is an important issue to
be addressed as it may affect the overall female presence in leadership positions based on
perceptions of effectiveness.
Many organizations put much effort to embrace diversity and try to encourage upward
mobility of leaders with diverse backgrounds, providing a more robust pipeline for them to
advance (Ibarra et al., 2013). Yet, the female executives remain a rarity (Catalyst, 2019). Many
organizations try to figure out why the implemented pipeline models with initiatives for more
diverse leadership do not help to cultivate many female leaders as it should (Ibarra et al., 2013).
This new, subtle and unintentional form of gender discrimination called the Glass Cliff
phenomenon can be one of the underlying reasons for this barrier at the middle to upper
intermediate management positions. It may be that women are appointed to higher risk
positions more than men do at the lower levels to be able to advance their careers. Raising
awareness to the Glass Cliff phenomenon at the middle to upper intermediate management
positions is important to reduce pipeline effects for prospective female CEOs.
In this study, the Glass Cliff phenomenon was reviewed and examined to explore the
theoretical framework. Inferring from the extant literature, current study has followed and
built on Ryan and Haslam’s theorizing of this phenomenon. Then, empirical evidence was
presented from the experimental study using an online respondent pool to examine the
occurrence of this phenomenon at the middle to upper intermediate management positions.
Findings demonstrated that, contrary to the Glass Cliff phenomenon, the male candidate was
assigned to the higher risk position at a higher rate than the female candidate and gender was
statistically significant. The research contribution to the existing literature at the middle to
upper intermediate management positions was provided in the discussion section. Finally,
EDI implications for theory and suggestions for direction of future research were presented in the
conclusion section.

What is the Glass Cliff?

Throughout the decades, women slowly started to climb the corporate ladder. For those who
were able to break through the Glass Ceiling, once they reach the top levels; they experienced
dissimilar leadership positions than their male counterparts (Ryan and Haslam, 2005a, b,
2007). These female leaders are being overrepresented in the precarious leadership positions
making it a different experience than their male counterparts that get to be in leadership
positions while companies are not in crisis mode (Ryan and Haslam, 2007). Women are
leading these corporations in crisis mode, experiencing bad performance already prior to the
appointment of the female executive or board member. The likelihood of failure during the
crisis mode management expose the female leaders to negative criticism as well as being
blamed for the negative outcomes that were taking course very well before their appointment
to the position (Ryan and Haslam, 2005a, b, 2007, 2008). The extant research on the Glass Cliff
phenomenon has primarily been conducted the highest levels of organizations, offering an
understanding how and why female leaders are more likely to be assigned to precarious
leadership positions. It is possible that female leaders are more likely to choose precarious
leadership positions based on their skill set and prior experience (Glass and Cook, 2016), or
simply because of intergroup dynamics (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Powell and Butterfield,
2002) in an effort to prove themselves in predominantly male organizations (Glass and Cook,
2016; Ryan and Haslam, 2007).

Second generation gender bias

One of the salient justifications of the phenomenon is that female leaders are assigned to
precarious leadership positions because hostile and benevolent sexism still exists (Ryan and
Haslam, 2007). However, such overt and hostile form of sexism to disadvantage women
purposefully has dwindled (Swim et al., 1995) throughout the years. The female leader being
assigned to the riskier position at the middle to upper intermediate management positions
can be the result of prejudice manifesting itself as a subtle gender bias, more specifically the
result of the manager’s perception of the female leader. This is another explanation as social
role theory and role congruity theory (RCT) suggest (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Eagly et al.,
2000). Hence, examining the female leader being assigned to the higher risk position is
imperative to view this phenomenon as a second-generation gender bias.
Second-generation gender biases are subtle and have a “something in the water” context
to them preventing the potential female leaders’ upward mobility within their male-
dominated organizations (Ibarra et al., 2013, p. 7). There is no intention to specifically exclude,
disadvantage or harm any individual directly (Ibarra et al., 2013) but these well disguised,
difficult to detect obstructions within work cultures, norms and practices present in many
organizations are likely to impede female leaders’ career advancement. The manifestation of
second-generation gender bias at the middle to upper intermediate management positions
within predominantly male organizations may come in forms of impediments such as having
few role models for women, lacking access to networks and sponsors, gendered career paths
and gendered work in addition to greater scrutiny associated with the heightened visibility as
the female leaders try to move up within their organizations (Ely et al., 2011).
Assigning the female leader at the middle to upper intermediate management positions to
the precarious leadership position can be viewed as an exclusive action rather subtle and
unintentional yet unknowingly discriminatory since the female leader is assigned to the
precarious position rather than a choice being presented to her and being accepted by her.
Taken as a second-generation gender bias, Glass Cliffs at the middle to upper intermediate An
management positions may be disrupting the female leaders’ ability to climb the corporate experimental
ladder, contributing to the pipeline problem for the female leaders.
study of Glass
Theoretical explanations of why the Glass Cliff occurs
Cliffs
While there is ample research demonstrating the existence of the Glass Cliff phenomenon at
the upper most leadership levels, it is not clear if/how the same dynamics may reveal
themselves at lower levels in organizations. The underlying assumption, based on the
existing literature, is that the theoretical explanations of the dynamics at the middle to upper
intermediate management positions are likely to be similar to those at the highest levels of
organizations. The two key theoretical perspectives are: (1) negative factors arising from
gender bias and discrimination and (2) positive associations of Female Leadership
Advantage.

Gender bias and discrimination toward female leaders

Taking a critical view and questioning the intentionality of the organization is necessary
since the organization may view the female leader as a means to an end, expecting her to
endure the crisis regardless of the outcome and assigning the blame to her throughout the
process (scapegoatism – Ryan and Haslam, 2007). However, this may be one of the more
malign approaches. Lesser negative approaches can be manifested as being seen unfit and as
less effective as a leader when compared to men in accordance with RCT (Eagly et al., 1992;
Eagly et al., 2000; Eagly and Karau, 2002) and Think Male – Think Manager Association
(Heilman, 2001; Schein, 1973, 1975, 2001). According to studies by Schein 1973 and 1975, both
male (1973) and female (1975) managers expressed that men were more possessive of features
of successful managers. Similarly, supported by the implicit leadership theories (ILTs)
(Heilman, 2001; Ayman and Korabik, 2010) and the RCT (Eagly and Karau, 2002), this
perception of the male manager being more successful than that of the female manager has
been long-lasting (Eagly 2005; Schein 2001) as well as well understood and established
(Heilman, 2001; Rudman and Glick, 2001) affecting the way individuals act and expect others
to act accordingly.
A male leader is perceived to be more qualified than a female leader for an inherently
masculine managerial position (Schein 2001). The lack of congruence between being a
successful leader and being a woman has impacted female leaders’ careers in an undesirable
way. Such that, the Glass Cliff phenomenon can be viewed as an extension of the Glass Ceiling
phenomenon (Ryan and Haslam, 2007). Female leaders may be assigned to the less desirable
precarious leadership positions more when compared to men because they lack the
congruence between being a successful leader and being a woman. This lack of congruence
between being a leader (her leader role) and being a woman (her gender role) forces the female
leader to try to overcome the prejudice as a result (Eagly and Karau, 2002).
RCT of prejudice toward female leaders suggests that “perceived incongruity between the
female gender role and leadership roles leads to 2 forms of prejudice: (1) perceiving women
less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roles; and (2) evaluating
behavior that fulfills the prescriptions of a leader role less favorably when it is enacted by a
woman” (Eagly and Karau, 2002, p. 573). Women are perceived as being more communal,
facilitative and friendly by nature to accommodate their domestic roles and are not perceived
as fit and effective leaders (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Eagly et al., 2000).
If failure of the female leader can be an inevitable occurrence since the precarious position
is associated with higher risk as suggested by Ryan and Haslam (2005a, b, 2007), then she is
perceived to do worse than a male leader. RCT proposes that female leaders are favored less
than men and evaluated to do worse than men especially when they fail (Eagly and Karau,
2002). According to the Glass Cliff phenomenon as Ryan and Haslam states, the devaluation
EDI of company stock and company perception of poor performance can be associated with
having the female board member or the female executive in the organization. This negative
association with the failure can be examined as the result of the prejudice toward the female
leader in the society as suggested by Eagly and Karau (2002).
Overall, the attitudes are less positive toward female leaders making it difficult for them
to become leaders (Eagly and Karau, 2002), so female leaders accept the less desirable
positions when they are assigned to these precarious leadership positions to advance in
organizations.

Perceptions of female leadership advantage

Examining the Glass Cliff phenomenon under a positive lens as an alternative view, one
should also realize that this phenomenon may be existent because of the perception of female
leaders’ being more communal, supportive and considerate (Ridgeway, 1997; Eagly and
Karau, 2002). Women seem to have higher influence (Ridgeway, 1997) when they portray
these feminine traits. Thus, female leaders may be assigned to these precarious leadership
positions because they are considered better at managing change and seen more fit to handle
times of crisis (Ryan et al., 2007).
As the workplace and culture have been changing over decades, women started to spend
more time at work, adopting the personal characteristics required to succeed in newly
acquired roles (Eagly et al., 2000). Thus, the traditional top down hierarchical organizations
realized the importance of supportive relations and collaborations across many levels, and
favored the skills and abilities incorporated with the transformational leadership style (Bass
and Avolio, 1994). These feminine traits associated with transformational leadership style are
being noted as great for business compared to masculine traits (Eagly et al., 2003).
Consequently, the transformational leadership style is advantageous for it is mostly
congruent with the female gender role’s demand for being supportive and considerate (Eagly
et al., 2003). In addition, the gradual change in leadership roles is slightly more consistent with
the female gender role than the traditional characterizations of the leadership, providing
environments welcoming women’s managerial competence (Eagly and Carli, 2003). Female
leaders have become the symbols of new types of leadership connoting greater effectiveness
and synergy than leadership of the past (Adler, 1999). Therefore, assuming that women are
communal, supportive and considerate, assigning a female leader can possibly be viewed as
more feasible and beneficial during times of crisis. Hence, this phenomenon may be borne out
of Female Leadership Advantage.
Consistent with such advantage (Eagly and Carli, 2003; Eagly et al., 2003), Think Female –
Think Crisis Association (Ryan et al., 2011) has shown researchers that women in general are
better equipped with crisis management skills more when compared to men, making the
female leaders more desirable in times of crisis (Ryan et al., 2007). Therefore, it is very likely
that the female leader at middle to upper intermediate management positions is assigned to
the higher risk position simply because she may be perceived to be better equipped with the
job requirements.
Considering both the negative and the positive theoretical explanations, I
hypothesize that;
H1a. Female leaders are more likely to be assigned to higher risk positions compared to
their male counterparts at the middle to upper intermediate management positions.

Why are women less likely to be assigned to Glass Cliffs?

Alternatively, the female leaders are less likely to be assigned to these precarious leadership
positions. Based on prior literature, the contrary results emerge in the field, making it a likely
scenario that men are more likely to be assigned to the higher risk positions.
Challenging developmental work experiences An
Examining the Glass Cliff phenomenon through the female leader’s point of view may have a experimental
different consequence. The female leader may perceive the high-risk position as a challenging
Developmental Work Experience (DWE), while others may perceive it as the Glass Cliff
study of Glass
phenomenon. Therefore, the point of the perceiver can be viewed as one of the main Cliffs
differences between the concept of challenging developmental work experiences and the
Glass Cliff phenomenon. Some female leaders can learn and adapt from the experience they
gain the first time they encounter the Glass Cliff phenomenon and use this valuable
experience as the learning tool they may need for future encounters. Ryan and Haslam (2007)
also stated that some women specially seek out these precarious leadership positions viewing
them as an opportunity to excel.
Challenging developmental work experiences are usually “demanding, stimulating, new,
and calls on their ability and determination” (De Pater et al., 2009, p. 5) while the Glass Cliff
phenomenon lacks the element of “new” as per Ryan and Haslam (2007) state. The challenging
developmental work experiences are considered experiences of the individual from challenging
tasks (King et al., 2012). In the Glass Cliff phenomenon, the corporations have been performing
poorly prior to the arrival of the female leader (Ryan and Haslam, 2005a, b, 2007). The poor
performance prior to the female leader’s arrival is vital emphasizing the core aspect in the Glass
Cliff phenomenon. Indication of likeliness of failure from previous attempts such as the poor
company performance has detrimental significance. Challenging developmental work
experiences are not directly related to failure from previous attempts. To clarify this
distinction between the Glass Cliff phenomenon and challenging developmental work
experiences and to position this study in the Glass Cliff phenomenon literature, the two
important boundary conditions are: (1) the newness – lack of previous failed attempts and (2)
the point of the perceiver (female leader versus others). Also, a higher risk position is related to
Glass Cliff literature rather than challenging developmental work experiences since it is a
position and not an experience.
Such distinction between the Glass Cliff phenomenon and the challenging developmental
work experiences may not be clearly applicable since these phenomena can be similar in the
real-world scenarios, making it difficult to rule out the rationale to have the male leader being
assigned to the higher risk position. Therefore, the female leader may be less likely to be
assigned to the higher risk positions.

Gender bias and discrimination toward female leaders revisited

Drawing from the ambivalent sexism theory, the recent research has found that women can
face expressions of sexism mirroring beliefs that they should be sheltered and valued (i.e.
benevolence) and are inferior (i.e. hostility) when compared to men (Hebl et al., 2007). These
kinds of beliefs may limit the female leader’s exposure to the challenging opportunities
altering her repertoire of work assignments in a less challenging way impacting their career
advancement unconstructively (King et al., 2012).
To be able to examine precarious leadership positions as a result the Glass Cliff
phenomenon is dependent on the context of the leadership position in terms of the higher risk
leadership position’s likelihood of failure combined with the organization’s perception of the
leader. If the female leader is perceived to be less effective than her male counterpart, the male
leader is likely to be assigned to the higher risk position. One may argue that female leaders at
middle to upper intermediate management positions are not given these challenging
opportunities to prove their leadership effectiveness (De Pater et al., 2009), supporting the
claim that the female leader is less likely to be assigned to these higher risk positions. This
argument is dependent upon the assumption that congruence of leadership roles with leaders’
gender enhances effectiveness demonstrating that men are more effective than women in
more masculine terms (Eagly et al., 1995). Not being perceived as effective leaders at the
EDI middle to upper intermediate management positions, thus female leaders are not given these
challenging opportunities, may contribute to the pipeline problem once again.
According to RCT (Eagly and Karau, 2002), men are more agentic, independent and
assertive by nature to accommodate their employment roles in the society (Eagly et al., 2000)
thus viewed as more effective leaders. In addition to RCT (Eagly and Karau, 2002), the Think
Manager – Think Male Association (Schein 1973, 1975, 2001; Schein et al., 1996) coupled with
the ILTs can take effect. As a probable manifestation of these perceptions, since men are
perceived more effective and successful, it is very likely that female leaders are not placed in
these higher risk leadership positions.
Hence, I hypothesize that;
H1b. Female leaders are less likely to be assigned to higher risk positions compared to
their male counterparts at the middle to upper intermediate management positions.
The impact of leadership effectiveness
To provide insight into why both the male and the female candidates are equally likely to be
assigned to the precarious leadership position, leadership effectiveness is examined as a
plausible causal link. It is reasonable to assume that when there is an opportunity available
for the leaders, the organization is very likely to match the candidate that is perceived to be
more fit and more effective as a leader. The proposed relationships between gender,
leadership effectiveness and the assignment of the higher risk position are reviewed in this
section, presenting a preliminary and noncomprehensive aspect of this study.
Gender and leadership effectiveness
Leadership effectiveness has been established as an important feature especially when
considering the review of the different theories and various concepts in previous sections.
According to RCT (Eagly and Karau, 2002) and Think Manager – Think Male Association
(Schein 1973, 1975, 2001), the male candidate is preferred since he is perceived more fit and
more effective as a leader. In addition, the Female Leadership Advantage (Eagly and Carli,
2003) and Think Female – Think Crisis Association (Ryan and Haslam, 2007; Ryan et al.,
2007) suggest that the female candidate is preferred, since she is perceived to be a better fit
during times of crisis. The variations in the perceived leadership effectiveness for both
genders may contribute to the outcome, resulting in likelihood of both genders being assigned
to the higher risk position. Thus, the perception of the leaders’ effectiveness can be a vital
aspect affecting how both the male and the female leaders are equally likely to be assigned to
the higher risk position.

Leadership effectiveness and job assignment

ILTs as well as the Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness provide the basis for the
link between leadership effectiveness and being assigned to the higher risk position.
It is beneficial to recognize that people make assumptions, have perceptions and prior
expectations; forming cognitive models of the leadership process (Foti and Lord, 1987;
Kenney et al., 1996; Lord et al., 1984; Lord and Maher, 1993). As a possible result of
socialization, employees assume and expect certain traits, behaviors and abilities of the ideal
leader leading to cognitive representations (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004). These cognitive
representations of the ideal leader, referred as ILTs, are stored in memory and activated
through interaction with the person in the leadership position (Kenny et al., 1996).
Consequently, these ILTs are expected to reflect the employees’ cognitive schemas of the ideal
leader (Foti and Lord, 1987; Kenney et al., 1996; Lord et al., 1984; Lord and Maher, 1993),
affecting the way male and female leaders are treated in the workplace (Ryan and Haslam,
2007). In addition to being perceived more effective as a leader when compared to the female
candidate as per RCT (Eagly and Karau, 2002), the male candidate is also more likely to match
those ILTs formed cognitively as a likely result of the Think Manager – Think Male An
Association (Schein, 1973, 1975, 2001). In line with this approach, I predict that the male experimental
candidate is more likely to be assigned to the higher risk position.
Also, leadership effectiveness is also dependent on how well leader’s personality, abilities,
study of Glass
attributes and behaviors match the situation in which the leader operates (Fiedler, 1996). The Cliffs
Contingency Theory of Leadership Effectiveness suggests that leadership effectiveness is
based on two key aspects: leader’s attributes and his or her situational control (Ayman et al.,
1995). The leader’s attributes can be defined as leadership style, such as the leader can be
relationship (transformational) or task (transactional) oriented (Ayman et al., 1995).
Situational control is the ability to influence and gain control (Ayman et al., 1995). The fit
between the job and the leader is vital for organizations (Fiedler, 1996). Based on both of these
factors (leadership style and situational control), the female leader is more likely to be
perceived as a better fit, being more effective leader during times of crisis (Ryan and Haslam,
2007). Hence, according to this approach, the female leader is more likely to get assigned to the
higher risk position.
If, in fact there is a relationship between the gender of the applicant and the assignment of
the task, the existing literature suggests that one of the possible factors can be the result of
perceived leadership effectiveness of the leader since it is likely to affect the end result, which
is being placed in a higher risk position.
Therefore, I hypothesize that;
H2. The perceived leadership effectiveness mediates the relationship between leader’s
gender and the job placement of the leader.

Methodology
The main objective of this experimental design study is to examine whether the participants
assign female candidate to higher risk leadership position and male candidate to lower risk
leadership position. If this is observed, then perceived leadership effectiveness will be
assessed to inspect whether it mediates this occurrence.
Procedure
Initially, a pilot study was conducted with 245 respondents from the behavioral lab of a
business school in a Northeastern university located in the United States. A call for
participation was emailed to 500 undergraduate students giving them the option for a half
course credit. The results of the pilot study demonstrated that manipulation checks
throughout the instrument needed to be reinforced. Once the necessary changes were made, a
new set of participants were randomly chosen from a public participation pool named
Mechanical Turk by Amazon to take the survey to collect data inexpensively and speedily
(Goodman et al., 2013). Not only the data collection is inexpensive and fast (Goodman et al.,
2013) but also it is shown to be as at least reliable as the data obtained by traditional methods
(Buhrmester et al., 2011).
In order for MTurk respondents to qualify to participate in this study, the three criteria
applied were: (1) Respondents needed to be located in the US; (2) They needed to have 95%
approval rate by other requesters and at least have 500 or more HITs (Human Intelligence
Tasks) and (3) They needed to participate in this study no more than once. Having 95%
approval rate by other requesters and at least 500 HITs are the default cutoff (Goodman et al.,
2013) for MTurk. The final sample was composed of 202 participants. Only 2% had no work
experience (four respondents). The rest of the final sample is divided into two subgroups of
employed respondents with managerial and nonmanagerial work experience. There were 115
males, 86 females and one individual identified as “other” gender. Sample contained 162
White, 20 Asian, 13 Black, 4 Native American and 1 Pacific Islander respondents. Only two
respondents identified their race as “other.”
EDI Half of the respondents were given the female candidate and the other half had the male
candidate. Both groups were also provided with two job positions, one of which is a higher
risk leadership position. Each group had to pick a position to assign their given candidate.
The survey switched the gender of the candidate every time a respondent participated,
guaranteeing random assignation into the groups as well as the equal number of respondents
for the different gendered candidate groups. Because of this switching mechanism, the
participants were randomly assigned into two separate groups implementing a between
group design. To examine the implications for the gender of the leader, both groups viewed
identical information and questions with the only difference as the assigned candidate’s
gender. Respondents reviewed equally qualified identical candidates for the high and low risk
positions. Risk was implemented in terms of cost (budget constraint) and schedule (time
constraint). A 5-point Likert scale is used for the items of the survey except for three questions
asking the participants to assign the candidate to a position, pick the gender of the applicant
and the position the respondent perceives riskier.
Descriptive statistics of the final sample have demonstrated that a total of 38% of
respondents have assigned the higher risk position. Female respondents make up
approximately 12% of this while male respondents make up a quarter of the sample, so
the female respondents pick their own gendered candidate Mary for the lower risk position
more frequently. Also, the female respondents have assigned the lower risk job to their own
category of gender at higher rates. However male respondents have assigned the male
candidate Robert to the higher risk position more often than the female candidate Mary (see
Tables 1).

Candidate’s Female respondent assigning high Male respondent assigning high

Table 1. gender risk risk Total
Descriptive statistics of
high risk position Female 11 (14%) 21 (27%) 32 (41%)
assigned by Male 14 (18%) 31 (40%) 45 (58%)
respondent’s gender Total 25 (32%) 52 (67%) 77 (100%)

Manipulation and engagement checks

Overall, there were two manipulation checks and one reinforcement check as well as a code
word provided to the respondents at the end of the survey to guarantee completion of the
experiment leading to credit for their time and effort. Any failure of these checks resulted in
the exclusion from the final sample.
Although it is very complicated, to be able to completely capture the nuances between the
Glass Cliff phenomenon and the challenging developmental work experiences and
successfully apply at the middle management level, there are two implementations in this
study to distinguish these two concepts methodologically. First, the respondents are asked to
envision themselves as the senior hiring manager in order to elucidate the difference in
various point of views. If the respondents were asked to envision themselves as the candidate
and choose job assignment, it is more likely that they may view the high risk position as a
challenging developmental work experience. However, they were given the role of a senior
hiring manager, which is the outsider’s point of view when assigning the candidate. Second, a
statement is utilized within the job description for the higher risk position noting that “similar
projects were declined previously due to high risk of failure”. This also demonstrates the lack
of newness. Although the respondent is unaware, these two implementations provide the first
methodological step for a distinction.
Riskiness of the positions is not included in the model, yet the element of risk is crucial in
this study since it is one of the manipulation checks. Thus, the assessment of risk for each
position was very rigorous. The items of the scale for perceived risk are adopted from An
Featherman and Pavlou’s (2003) paper and Martins et al.’s (2014) paper with a Cronbach’s α experimental
around 0.80. Introducing and simulating the risk factor as direct reports, time and budget in
the job descriptions are required in order to have the participants fully perceive and realize
study of Glass
the riskiness of the positions. The respondents were asked to pick the job they perceived as Cliffs
higher risk. The risk was manipulated in terms of three constraints; (1) team members
reporting directly to the candidate (junior versus senior), (2) deadline – duration for the
position (short versus long time) and (3) budget allowed for successful completion (larger
versus smaller amount).
The other manipulation check was the candidate’s gender, unable to scroll up or go back
the respondents were asked if they can recall the gender of the candidate they were exposed
within their group. The names of both candidates were specifically not gender neutral to fully
emphasize this manipulation check (Mary versus Robert). Nonetheless, the surveys were
prepared in such a way that the respondents could not go back and check the candidate’s
gender. Thus, adding this extra step as one more layer of rigor to the gender manipulation
check is vital for this study.
Also, there was an engagement check asking the respondents how they are feeling
combined with a statement to mark the requested answer. This was purely to check whether
the respondents were engaged in the surveys. This engagement check was implemented to
strengthen the rigor of the study.

Measures
Dependent variable – job offer
This variable is the high risk or low risk position assigned to the candidate by the respondent.
The respondents are asked to envision themselves to be the senior hiring managers in the
fictitious company and offer their candidate one of the two principal lead engineer positions
(variations based on budget, time and team member experience) provided in their vignette. As
per respondent’s choice, the binary variable can be assigned as position 1 (high risk position –
coded as 1) or position 2 (low risk position coded as 0).
Independent variable – candidate’s gender
Selecting the correct answer representing the candidate’s gender for the groups was one of
the manipulation checks. Candidate’s gender was coded as 1 if male, and 0 if female. Also,
throughout the survey, both candidates are referred as “the candidate,” but the name of each
candidate as well as the matching pronouns were utilized in the vignettes.

Mediating variable – perceived leadership effectiveness

To measure the perceived leadership effectiveness, the scale from the study by Rosette and
Tost (2010) was adopted. The items have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.72 and are measured on a 5-
point Likert-type scale. The participants responded to the statements such as “I would feel
comfortable if the candidate is my boss” and “The candidate is an exceptional leader.” The
scores ranged from 2.5 to 5 (M 5 4.2, SD 5 0.6) (see Tables 2).

Variable Mean Std. dev Min – Max

Offer 0.3811881 0.4868853 0,1

Leader Eff 4.205446 0.6056287 2.5–5
Gender C 0.4950495 0.5012177 0,1 Table 2.
Gender P 0.5841584 0.5234278 0,1 and 3 Descriptive statistics
Work 0.980198 0.1396654 0,1 for variables of interest
EDI Control variables
Respondents’ gender and work experience were controlled.

Analyses and results

After the preliminary ANOVA analysis was conducted to: (1) Compare the perceived
leadership effectiveness of the male and the female candidate and (2) Compare the perceived
leadership effectiveness and the job offer, to capture all the aspects of the data in depth,
regression analysis was utilized to test the hypotheses 1a and 1b and then applied a mediation
test using Sobel–Goodman method. Logistic regression was also employed with binary
mediation since the mediating variable (Leadership Effectiveness) is the only variable of
interest that is continuous. The responsive variable (Job Offer) as well as the explanatory
variables such as gender of the participant and the candidate are all binary variables.
Interestingly, all analyses have revealed similar results.
The comparison of the average perceived leadership effectiveness of the male and the
female candidate has revealed that the relationship between the candidate’s gender and the
perceived leadership effectiveness was marginally significant (p value of 0.06) at 5% level of
confidence. Additional covariates as well as a larger sample size may improve the
significance of this relationship at 5 % level. It is a possible scenario that the male candidate
may be perceived more effective as a leader after these improvements are applied. An
additional ANOVA analysis was conducted to examine the link between the high risk
position and the perceived leadership effectiveness. The p value was 0.05 at 5% level
indicating the positive significant relationship between the high risk position and the
perceived leadership effectiveness. The preliminary ANOVA analyses have demonstrated
that the candidate that is perceived to be more effective as a leader, is more likely to get
assigned to the higher risk position.
The results from the regression analysis with Sobel–Goodman mediation test (Figure 1)
have reported an R squared of 10 % demonstrating that the relationship between gender of
the candidate and the job assignment (c path) was marginally significant (p 5 0.084) with a
coefficient of 0.116. Having coded the male candidate as 1, this result shows that male
candidates are more likely to be assigned to higher risk position supporting H1b, hence not
supporting H1a. The relationship between the gender of the candidate and the leadership
effectiveness (a path) was also a marginally significant (p 5 0.08) with a negative coefficient
value of 0.146. When the DV (job assignment) is regressed on the perceived leadership
effectiveness (b path) and the candidate’s gender (c’ path), both of the p values were
statistically significant (b path 0.004 and c’ path 0.036) with coefficients of 0.16 and 0.14,
respectively. The proportion of total effect that is mediated was 20 % with a p value of 0.13
and the sign was negative which is rather important for it can be attributed to the sign ( ) of
the coefficient of the candidate’s gender. Thus, the mediation effect of leadership
effectiveness was statistically insignificant with approximately 20% of the total effect of
candidate’s gender on job assignment at 5% level.
Similarly, the results from the logistic regression analysis with binary mediation test
(Figure 2) have reported an R squared of 8% demonstrating that the relationship between
gender of the candidate and the job assignment (c path) was marginally significant with a
coefficient of 0.52 and a p value 0.083. Having coded the male candidate as 1, this result shows
just as the first analysis have shown, that male candidates are more likely to be assigned to
higher risk position supporting H1b hence not supporting H1a. The relationship between the
gender of the candidate and the leadership effectiveness (a path) was also a marginally
significant (p 5 0.081) with a negative coefficient of 0.146. When the DV (job assignment) is
regressed on the mediator (leadership effectiveness) representing b path and the IV
 An
experimental
Perceived
Leadership study of Glass
Effectiveness Cliffs
Mediator

β = -0.146 β = 0.161
p = 0.08 p = 0.004

β = 0.140
c' path
p = 0.036

Leader’s Job
Gender Assignment
DV Figure 1.
IV Regression analysis
with Sobel–Goodman
mediation test

Perceived
Leadership
Effectiveness
Mediator

β = -0.146 β = 0.8
p = 0.081 p = 0.005

β = 0.673
c' path p =0.032

Leader’s Job
Gender Assignment
DV Figure 2.
IV Logistic regression
analysis with binary
mediation test

(candidate’s gender) representing c’ path, both of the p values were statistically significant
(b path 0.005 and c’ path 0.032). The proportion of total effect that is mediated was 21% with a
p value of 0.17. The sign of the indirect effect was negative which can be attributed to the
coefficient for the candidate’s gender (female – negative). However, the mediation effect of
EDI leadership effectiveness was statistically insignificant with approximately 21% of the total
effect of candidate’s gender on job assignment at 5% level.
To summarize, in the first model, the candidate’s gender was regressed on the job offer.
The results have demonstrated that this direct relationship between the candidate’s gender
and the job offer was marginally significant. In the second model, the candidate’s gender was
regressed on the perceived leadership effectiveness. This direct relationship was also
marginally significant. However, in the third model, the candidate’s gender and perceived
leadership effectiveness were regressed on the job offer. Although the total mediation effect
was around 20% in both analyses, the candidate’s gender was significant. However, the
perceived leadership effectiveness became very significant. As an interesting side note, when
the candidate’s gender and perceived leadership effectiveness are both included in the model,
their significance levels increase. This may be indicative of an unobserved confounding
factor, causing this effect when both candidate’s gender and perceived leadership
effectiveness are included in the final model.

Discussion
The combination of the results gathered from the various types of analyses and the statistics
shown above provide stimulating insight with a cautionary tale for the marginal significance
of the models. According to the collected and analyzed data, the male candidate was assigned
to the higher risk position at higher rates when compared to the female candidate. Also, the
results have demonstrated that the concepts of leadership effectiveness and fit are very
important factors when attempting to select the suitable leader for the position. Both the data
and the analyses have revealed that people are likely to assign the position to the candidate
that they perceive as a better fit and more effective. However, it is important to note that the
position utilized in the experiment was clearly represented as a leadership role which is likely
to be perceived as a masculine role by social norms accepted in many societies. Hence, it is not
contradicting the well-known theoretical realms of ILTs and other gender-related biases that
the participants assigned the male candidate to this position for they may have perceived as a
masculine role.
One of the key assumptions in this study was that the reasons contributing to the Glass
Cliff phenomenon at the highest levels would be similar to the reasons causing Glass Cliffs at
the middle to upper intermediate management positions. However, this may not be the case
and hierarchical level of the female leader in the organization may likely affect the occurrence
of the Glass Cliff phenomenon. The results of the current study have demonstrated some
empirical evidence that the Glass Cliff phenomenon may not be applicable to upper
intermediate management positions for female leaders. Hence, this research study has
unveiled a different outcome when compared to the mainstream findings of the Glass Cliff
occurrence demonstrating that this phenomenon is more likely to occur at the highest levels
of organizations based on prior literature (Glass and Cook, 2016; Ryan and Haslam, 2007).
There may be other underlying factors contributing the outcome of the study such as the
gendered perceptions and norms of leadership roles in the society.
The alternative theoretical explanations supporting the current study’s results can be
based on the views of ILTs (Foti and Lord, 1987; Kenney et al., 1996; Lord et al., 1984; Lord and
Maher, 1993) as well as RCT (Eagly and Karau, 2002) and Think Manager – Think Male
Association (Schein 1973, 1975, 2001), predicting the male candidate being assigned to the
higher risk position. Although contrary to the Glass Cliff phenomenon, these theoretical
views support the notion of the male leader being assigned into the higher risk position
since he is more likely to be perceived by respondents as more effective and successful
leader. Based on personal assumptions, expectations, perceptions and previous experiences,
individuals form cognitive models of the ideal leader with certain traits, behaviors and An
abilities (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004; Foti and Lord, 1987; Kenney et al., 1996; Lord et al., experimental
1984; Lord and Maher, 1993). Although the overt sexism has subsided over many decades
since women have entered the workforce (Swim et al., 1995), being perceived more effective as
study of Glass
a leader when compared to women as per RCT (Eagly and Karau, 2002), men are also more Cliffs
likely to match those ILTs formed cognitively as a likely result of the Think Manager – Think
Male Association (Schein, 1973, 1975, 2001).
Another plausible explanation is that the higher risk position provided to the respondents
may be perceived as challenging developmental work experience rather than a precarious
leadership position. Under this circumstance, the higher risk position may be viewed by
respondents as an opportunity. Hence, the female leader not being assigned into the higher
risk position demonstrates the presence of second-generation gender bias, providing the
opportunity to grow and advance to the male candidate instead of the female candidate.
Nonetheless, distinguishing these two concepts (challenging developmental work
experiences and glass cliffs) is a novel idea that requires more necessary theoretical and
methodological rigor than the “point of view” (female leader’s perception of the position
versus other individuals’ perception) aspect provided in this study. Examining the higher risk
position with these different lenses can show whether they help advance the female leader or
hinder her career advancement efforts. Based on these theoretical perspectives, assigning the
male candidate to the higher risk position was a foreseen possibility. The male leader was
getting appointed to a desirable position, which is likely to be perceived as a masculine role, in
a male-dominated organization and was also likely to be perceived more successful and more
fit for the position.
Therefore, the current study’s main contribution to the extant literature of gender bias
and discrimination toward female leaders is that the Think Manager – Think Male
Association (Eagly, 2005; Schein, 2001) and the ILTs (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004; Foti and
Lord, 1987; Kenney et al., 1996; Lord et al., 1984; Lord and Maher, 1993) remain rigidly in
effect at the middle to upper intermediate management positions for female leaders,
providing a plausible explanation to why they are still likely to encounter obstacles giving
way to the pipeline problem. The Think Manager – Think Male concept not only
descriptively influence but also prescriptively affects the way the male and the female
leaders are treated (Schein, 2001). Being perceived less effective as leaders (Eagly and
Karau, 2002) and not aligned with the Think Male – Think Manager concept (Schein 1973,
1975, 2001) associated with preconceived ILTs by the social norms (Ayman and Korabik,
2010), the female leaders at the middle to upper intermediate management positions still
face subtle gender-biased discrimination.
Another incremental contribution of this study to the theory and existing literature can
also be viewed as the initial step to differentiate the Glass Cliff phenomenon from the
challenging developmental work experiences. The point of the perceiver as well as the
concept of newness can be viewed as the starting point to provide distinction between these
similar concepts. A challenging developmental work experience is likely to be perceived by
the female leader as a new experience that is challenging, motivating and demands her skill
set as well as drive (De Pater et al., 2009). However, the Glass Cliff is associated with likely
failure and poor performance before the female leader’s arrival (Ryan and Haslam 2005a, b,
2007, 2008) eliminating the newness aspect and distinguishing itself as a more negative
concept. The female leader that is appointed or assigned to the Glass Cliff may likely to
become the scapegoat for the poor performance (Ryan and Haslam, 2007). On the other hand,
challenging developmental work experiences are associated with favorable evaluations and
promotability (De Pater et al., 2009). These various qualities associated with each of these two
concepts are some of the distinguishing factors between them theoretically.
EDI Limitations
The main methodological concerns for this study are aligned with instrumentation of the
experimental design. The foremost concern with any experiment conducted is the external
validity. It is a very specific experiment dealing with perceptions and prejudice, so the
subjective nature of the study, instead of other relational and organizational factors, can be
the reason for variations of each participant and their biases. Another limitation of this study
is the conflicting results with marginal significance of models should be viewed with caution
with regards to the relevance of gender. Although there were manipulation and engagement
checks employed, collecting data from an online participant pool is not the optimal scenario in
terms of rigor. Ideally, it would be beneficial to recruit employees, especially senior hiring
managers with decision-making authorities from various organizations to conduct the same
experimental study.
The theoretical focus of this research is on RCT (Eagly and Karau, 2002) and Female
Leadership Advantage (Eagly and Carli, 2003) concepts combined with ILTs (Foti and Lord,
1987; Kenney et al., 1996; Lord et al., 1984; Lord and Maher, 1993). However, there are other
concepts and theories that may be applicable to examine Glass Cliffs through a different lens
such as the Double Standard of Competence Theory (Foschi, 2000). The main assumption for
the current study is that theories applicable to Glass Cliff phenomenon at the upper echelons
of organizations are also appliable at the lower levels such as the middle and upper
intermediate management levels. This may not be the case and there may also be different or
additional theoretical explanations of the Glass Cliff phenomenon at the lower levels of
organizations.

Conclusion
In the current literature, there exists a plethora of research studies exhibiting different
perspectives on the Glass Cliff phenomenon. Through the unique conceptual framework as
well as the research design, current study has attempted to examine this phenomenon
objectively at the middle to upper intermediate management positions. As the data collected
and analyzed in this research paper have revealed that male leaders are more likely to be
assigned to the higher risk positions at the middle to upper intermediate management
positions and this may still contribute to the pipeline problem that the female leaders face.
Often, the female leaders at middle to upper intermediate management positions are less
likely to emerge as leaders within their own organizations in order to win the internal CEO
tournament (Ibarra and Hansen, 2009). Thus, some of the female leaders may choose to move
on and look elsewhere for career advancement becoming CEOs and board members within
other organizations that are in crisis mode (Ryan and Haslam, 2007). Challenges encountered
in male dominated workplace lead female leaders to seek out higher risk positions (Glass and
Cook, 2016).
For future suggestions, to contribute to the extant theory and the current literature in
depth, the researchers should compare the Glass Cliff phenomenon and challenging
developmental work experiences. It is a plausible argument that the female leaders, not being
perceived as effective as male leaders in the middle to upper intermediate management
positions, are not provided these kinds of positions to gain valuable experience (De Pater et al.,
2009). Thus, conducting more rigorous studies to make a solid argument for distinction
between these two concepts to clarify the underlying dynamics will help contribute to the
theory.
Considering the large presence of women at approximately 47% of the working
population of the US workforce (bls.gov), women’s leadership is a vital topic that requires
attention. Though women have come a long way and made historic progress against the
odds, they have encountered numerous barriers that had many names such as a glass ceiling An
(Lyness and Thompson, 2000), a glass cliff (Ryan and Haslam, 2007), a labyrinth (Eagly and experimental
Carli, 2007), a bed of thorns (Vial et al., 2016) or becoming the impossible selves (Ibarra and
Petriglieri, 2016). These unintentionally institutionalized barriers not only demonstrate the
study of Glass
hardships women encounter as they attempt to attain leadership positions but also show the Cliffs
lack of support and uncongenial conditions they deal with in the workplace (Lyness and
Grotto, 2018). It may be beneficial to focus on reinforcement of implementing organizational
policies within institutions to create optimal work environment for the female leadership,
rather than to merely focus on the female leaders as individuals. Although organizations
attempt to provide a robust pipeline for women and minorities (Ibarra et al., 2013) to gradually
transform their traditionally White-male dominated leadership roles to become more
welcoming for women (Eagly and Carli, 2003) and for minorities in leadership roles over the
decades, the issues surrounding the leadership of women and minorities remain persistent
(Schein, 2007) proving that leadership is a gendered construct (Yoder, 2001).

References
Adams, S.M., Gupta, A., Haughton, D.M. and Leeth, J.D. (2007), “Gender differences in CEO compensation:
evidence from the USA”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 208-224.
Adler, N.J. (1999), “Global leaders: women of influence”, in Powell, G.N. (Ed.), Handbook of Gender and
Work, pp. 239-261.
Ayman, R. and Korabik, K. (2010), “Leadership: why gender and culture matter”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 65 No. 3, p. 157.
Ayman, R., Chemers, M.M. and Fiedler, F. (1995), “The contingency model of leadership effectiveness:
its levels of analysis”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-167.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), “Shatter the glass ceiling: women may make better managers”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 549-560.
Bruckm€uller, S. and Branscombe, N.R. (2010), “The glass cliff: when and why women are selected as
leaders in crisis contexts”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 433-451.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. and Gosling, S.D. (2011), “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of
inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 3-5.
Carter, N.M. and Silva, C. (2010), Pipeline’s Broken Promise, Catalyst, New York, NY.
Catalyst (2019), Catalyst-Pyramid: Women in S&P 500 Companies, (accessed December 2019),
available at: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-sp-500-companies.
Cal
as, M.B. and Smircich, L. (2009), “Feminist perspectives on gender in organizational research: what
is and is yet to be”, in Buchanan, D.A. and Bryman, A. (Eds), The Sage Handbook Of
Organizational Research Methods, Sage, London, pp. 246-269.
Cheung, F.M. and Halpern, D.F. (2010), “Women at the top: powerful leaders define success as work
plus family in a culture of gender”, American Psychologist, Vol. 65, p. 182.
Cook, A. and Glass, C. (2014), “Above the glass ceiling: when are women and racial/ethnic minorities
promoted to CEO?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1080-1089.
Dawson, J., Kersley, R. and Natella, S. (2014), “The credit suisse gender 3000: women in senior
management index.cfm”, (RCE 1545924), available at: http://30percentclub.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/10/2014-09-23_Research_Institute_Women_in_Business.pdf.
De Pater, I.E., Van Vianen, A.E., Fischer, A.H. and Van Ginkel, W.P. (2009), “Challenging experiences:
gender differences in task choice”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 4-28.
Devers, C.E., Cannella, A.A. Jr, Reilly, G.P. and Yoder, M.E. (2007), “Executive compensation: a
multidisciplinary review of recent developments”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 1016-1072.
EDI Dreher, G.F. (2003), “Breaking the glass ceiling: the effects of sex ratios and work-life programs on
female leadership at the top”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 541-562.
Eagly, A.H. (2005), “Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: does gender matter?”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 459-474.
Eagly, A.H. (2007), “Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: resolving the contradictions”,
Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2003), “The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 807-834.
Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2007), Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become
Leaders, Harvard Business School Press, New York.
Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 573-598.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G. and Klonsky, B.G. (1992), “Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-
analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 111 No. 1, p. 3.
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J. and Makhijani, M.G. (1995), “Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: a meta-
analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117 No. 1, p. 125.
Eagly, A.H., Wood, W. and Diekman, A.B. (2000), “Social role theory of sex differences and
similarities: a current appraisal”, in Eckes, T. and Trautner, H.M. (Eds), The Developmental
Social Psychology of Gender, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 123-174.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and Van Engen, M.L. (2003), “Transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 569-591.
Ely, R.J. and Meyerson, D.E. (2000), “Theories of gender in organizations: a new approach to
organizational analysis and change”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 103-151.
Ely, R.J., Ibarra, H. and Kolb, D.M. (2011), “Taking gender into account: theory and design for women’s
leadership development programs”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 474-493.
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2004), “Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: factor structure,
generalizability, and stability over time”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, p. 293.
Featherman, M.S. and Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets
perspective”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 451-474.
Fiedler, F.E. (1996), “Research on leadership selection and training: one view of the future”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 241-250.
Foschi, M. (2000), “Double standards for competence: theory and research”, Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 21-42.
Foti, R.J. and Lord, R.G. (1987), “Prototypes and scripts: the effects of alternative methods of
processing information on rating accuracy”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 318-340.
Glass, C. and Cook, A. (2016), “Leading at the top: understanding women’s challenges above the glass
ceiling”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-63.
Goodman, J.S., Fields, D.L. and Blum, T.C. (2003), “Cracks in the glass ceiling: in what kinds of
organizations do women make it to the top?”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 475-501.
Goodman, J.K., Cryder, C.E. and Cheema, A. (2013), “Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and
weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 213-224.
Haslam, S.A. and Ryan, M.K. (2008), “The road to the glass cliff: differences in the perceived suitability An
of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 530-546. experimental
Haslam, S.A., Ryan, M.K., Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G. and Atkins, C. (2010), “Investing with
study of Glass
prejudice: the relationship between women’s presence on company boards and objective and Cliffs
subjective measures of company performance”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 484-497.
Hebl, M.R., King, E.B., Glick, P., Singletary, S.L. and Kazama, S. (2007), “Hostile and benevolent
reactions toward pregnant women: complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards
that maintain traditional roles”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, p. 1499.
Heilman, M.E. (2001), “Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent
up the organizational ladder”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 657-674.
Ibarra, H. and Hansen, M. (2009), “Women CEOs: why so few”, Harvard Business Review, available at:
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2009/12/women_ceo_why_so_few.html.
Ibarra, H. and Petriglieri, J. (2016), “Impossible selves: image strategies and identity processes in
women’s leadership development”, in Theorizing Women and Leadership: New Insights and
Contributions From Multiple Perspectives, (Part One: New Concepts and Theories), Information
Age, Charlotte, NC, pp. 19-36.
Ibarra, H., Ely, R. and Kolb, D. (2013), “Women rising: the unseen barriers”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 91 No. 9, pp. 60-66.
Kenney, R.A., Schwartz-Kenney, B.M. and Blascovich, J. (1996), “Implicit leadership theories: defining
leaders described as worthy of influence”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22
No. 11, pp. 1128-1143.
King, E.B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M.R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J.F. and Perkins, A. (2012), “Benevolent
sexism at work: gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental
experiences”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1835-1866.
Kolb, D. and McGinn, K. (2009), “Beyond gender and negotiation to gendered negotiations”,
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Lord, R.G. and Maher, K.J. (1993), Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and
Performance, Routledge, New York.
Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J. and De Vader, C.L. (1984), “A test of leadership categorization theory: internal
structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 343-378.
Lyness, K.S. and Grotto, A.R. (2018), “Women and leadership in the United States: are we closing the
gender gap?”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5,
pp. 227-265.
Lyness, K.S. and Thompson, D.E. (2000), “Climbing the corporate ladder: do female and male
executives follow the same route?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, p. 86.
Martins, C., Oliveira, T. and Popovic, A. (2014), “Understanding the Internet banking adoption: a
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Powell, G.N. and Butterfield, D.A. (2002), “Exploring the influence of decision makers’ race and gender
on actual promotions to top management”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 397-428.
Reskin, B.F. (2000), “Getting it right: sex and race inequality in work organizations”, Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 707-709.
Ridgeway, C.L. (1997), “Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: considering
employment”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 218-235.
EDI Ritter, B.A. and Yoder, J.D. (2004), “Gender differences in leader emergence persist even for dominant
women: an updated confirmation of role congruity theory”, Psychology of Women Quarterly,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 187-193.
Rosette, A.S. and Tost, L.P. (2010), “Agentic women and communal leadership: how role prescriptions
confer advantage to top women leaders”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 2, p. 221.
Rudman, L.A. and Glick, P. (2001), “Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic
women”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 743-762.
Ryan, M.K. and Haslam, S.A. (2005a), “The glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented in
precarious leadership positions”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Ryan, M. and Haslam, S. (2005b), “The glass cliff: theories that explain and sustain the precariousness
of women’s leadership positions”, in Schyns, B. and Meindl, J.R. (Eds), Implicit Leadership
Theories: Essays and Exploration, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
Ryan, M.K. and Haslam, S.A. (2007), “The glass cliff: exploring the dynamics surrounding the
appointment of women to precarious leadership positions”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 549-572.
Ryan, M.K., Alexander Haslam, S. and Postmes, T. (2007), “Reactions to the glass cliff: gender
differences in the explanations for the precariousness of women’s leadership positions”, Journal
of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 182-197.
Ryan, M.K., Haslam, S.A., Hersby, M.D. and Bongiorno, R. (2011), “Think crisis–think female: the glass
cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 3, p. 470.
Schein, V.E. (1973), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, p. 95.
Schein, V.E. (1975), “Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, p. 340.
Schein, V.E. (2001), “A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management”,
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 675-688.
Schein, V.E. (2007), “Women in management: reflections and projections”, Women in Management
Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 6-18.
Schein, V.E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T. and Liu, J. (1996), “Think manager—think male: a global
phenomenon?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 33-41.
Schiebinger, L. and Gilmartin, S.K. (2010), “Housework is an academic issue”, Academe, Vol. 96 No. 1,
pp. 39-44.
Stroh, L.K., Langlands, C.L. and Simpson, P.A. (2004), “Shattering the glass ceiling in the new
millennium”, in Stockdale, M.S. and Crosby, F.J. (Eds), The Psychology and Management of
Workplace Diversity, Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, pp. 147-167.
Sturm, S. (2001), “Second generation employment discrimination: a structural approach”, Columbia
Law Review, Vol. 101, p. 458.
Swim, J.K., Aikin, K.J., Hall, W.S. and Hunter, B.A. (1995), “Sexism and racism: old-fashioned and
modern prejudices”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 2, p. 199.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, The Social Psychology
of Intergroup Relations, Vol. 33 No. 47, p. 74.
Terjesen, S., Sealy, R. and Singh, V. (2009), “Women directors on corporate boards: a review and
research agenda”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 320-337.
Vial, A.C., Napier, J.L. and Brescoll, V.L. (2016), “A bed of thorns: female leaders and the self-
reinforcing cycle of illegitimacy”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 400-414.
Yoder, J.D. (2001), “Making leadership work more effectively for women”, Journal of Social Issues,
Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 815-828.
https://www.bls.gov/ An
https://www.ipu.org/ experimental
study of Glass
Further reading Cliffs
Adams, S.M., Gupta, A. and Leeth, J.D. (2009), “Are female executives over-represented in precarious
leadership positions?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Corresponding author
Saadet Elif Esposito can be contacted at: saadetelif_esposito@student.uml.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com