For boards: how to appoint a crisis leader without setting them up to fail
A governance guide for chairs, nomination committees, CHROs and search panels.
In short
- The glass cliff is a governance risk: a failed appointment costs money, time and reputation.
- Most of the risk comes from what boards do after the appointment: information, authority, resources, time and support.
- Record the baseline, write the mandate, fund the plan, name a sponsor and judge the trend.
- Run the 12-point Board Appointment Check before you make the offer.
Why this is a governance issue
When a board appoints a leader to fix a crisis, it is making one of the highest-stakes decisions it will ever take. If that leader is set up to fail, the organisation pays twice: once for the failed tenure and again for the next search. Research on the glass cliff suggests the risk is greater when the appointee is atypical for the role, because decision-makers may reach for them as a signal of change and then give them less time and support than they would give a conventional choice.
None of this requires bad intent. It happens through rushed processes, unspoken assumptions and support that is promised but never delivered. That makes it fixable.
Before the offer
Write down the baseline
Prepare an honest summary of the organisation's condition and share it with every shortlisted candidate under a confidentiality agreement. Candidates who see the real picture make better decisions, and the one you appoint cannot later be blamed for what was already there.
Check your reasons
Ask the committee directly: "Would we be offering this role on these terms to the candidate we would have chosen when things were going well?" If the answer is no, find out why.
Ask who said no
If previous candidates declined, understand their reasons. They are a free audit of your offer.
Terms that make success possible
- A mandate letter signed by the chair: scope, decision rights, success measures at 100 days, 12 months and 3 years.
- Resources in a board minute, not a conversation.
- Authority over the senior team, including budget for changes.
- A realistic review date, typically no earlier than 12 to 18 months for a genuine turnaround.
- Standard protections (severance, indemnity, D&O cover) equal to what you would offer any leader in a crisis.
After the appointment
Name a sponsor
One director with authority who meets the leader privately every two weeks for the first six months. Sponsorship is not mentoring; it is the board's commitment to keep the leader informed and defend the agreed plan.
Judge the trend, not the level
Measure progress against the baseline and the agreed milestones. A struggling organisation will still look like a struggling organisation at six months; what matters is the direction.
Watch your own reactions
Research on atypical leaders suggests they can be judged more harshly for the same results. Before acting on early disappointment, compare it with how the board has treated previous leaders in similar positions.
Plan succession fairly
If an appointment does end early, review why before choosing the replacement. Work by Cook and Glass describes a "saviour effect", where under-represented leaders are disproportionately replaced by white men. An honest review protects the next appointee too.
A 12-point checklist
Our Board Appointment Check turns this guide into twelve yes-or-no questions and shows which gaps to close before you make the offer. Boards that want an independent view can request a Board Appointment Review.
Appointing a leader in difficult conditions?
Get an independent review of the appointment, the package and the support around it.
Request a Board Appointment Review- Confidential
- Vetted advisers
- Free to request
Questions
Is appointing a woman or minority leader in a crisis a mistake?
No. The risk is not the appointment but the conditions around it. Give the leader the information, authority, resources, time and support you would give anyone in a crisis role.
How long should a board give a turnaround leader?
It depends on the problem, but a formal review earlier than 12 to 18 months rarely gives a fair picture of a genuine turnaround.
What does a board sponsor do?
Meets the leader privately and often, keeps them informed about board sentiment, and defends the agreed plan in the boardroom.
Sources and further reading
- Morgenroth, T., et al. (2020). Psychological Bulletin, 146(9), 797–829. Link
- Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling. Strategic Management Journal. Find the paper
- Spencer Stuart: board and CEO succession research. Link
- NACD: governance resources for directors. Link
Read next
- What is the glass cliff? The complete guideWhere the term came from, what the evidence shows, why it happens, and what leaders and boards can do about it.
- Race, ethnicity and the glass cliff: understanding the 'saviour effect'How the glass cliff extends beyond gender, and what happens when under-represented leaders are replaced.
- Twenty years of glass cliff research: what the evidence says, and where it disagreesA plain-language tour of the key studies, the null findings, and what a careful reader should conclude.