Twenty years of glass cliff research: what the evidence says, and where it disagrees
A plain-language tour of the key studies, the null findings, and what a careful reader should conclude.
In short
- Early UK studies found that companies appointing women to boards had often been performing poorly beforehand.
- Experiments repeatedly show people favour women and minority candidates for organisations in crisis.
- Real-world evidence is mixed: some US studies find no effect, while a 2020 meta-analysis finds a small effect that depends on sector.
- Newer research focuses on what happens after appointment: tenure, dismissal risk and the 'saviour effect'.
Why the evidence is worth reading carefully
The glass cliff is often reported as a simple fact. It is more interesting than that. Some of the strongest findings come from controlled experiments, while studies of real companies disagree with each other depending on the country, the sector, the time period and how "crisis" is measured. If you are using the idea to make a decision, about a job or about an appointment, it helps to know which claims are solid and which are still argued over. For a shorter overview, start with What is the glass cliff?
Studies of real appointments
The original UK findings
Ryan and Haslam's 2005 study of FTSE 100 companies found that firms appointing women to their boards were more likely to have had consistently poor share-price performance in the months before. Later work by Haslam, Ryan and colleagues refined how performance was measured and showed the picture depends on whether you look at share prices or accounting measures.
Studies that found no effect
Adams, Gupta and Leeth (2009) examined US companies and did not find that women CEOs were appointed to firms in worse condition. A 2019 analysis of German and UK firms by Bechtoldt and colleagues also failed to find the original pattern, and a 2025 study by Xiaoxiao Li and colleagues, using several measures of financial distress for US firms, found no clear evidence of a glass cliff in CEO selection.
New UK evidence on chairs
In 2025, Rita Goyal of Coventry University published a British Academy and Leverhulme-funded study of FTSE 350 chair appointments. It reported a higher likelihood of appointing a female chair in companies experiencing sustained financial decline, particularly during the COVID-19 period.
Beyond business
- Politics. Ryan, Haslam and Clara Kulich (2010) found that in the 2005 UK general election, women standing for the Conservative Party were more likely to be selected for seats that were harder to win.
- Law. A study by Julie Ashby, Ryan and Haslam found law students were more likely to assign a high-risk case to a female lead counsel.
- Sport. Cook and Glass (2013) found minority coaches in US college basketball were more likely to be hired by struggling teams.
- Public sector. Meghna Sabharwal (2015) found women in the US Senior Executive Service reported less organisational support and agency than men.
Experiments
Experiments are where the glass cliff is most consistent. Participants are given equally qualified candidates and a description of an organisation that is either thriving or struggling. When the organisation is struggling, women are chosen more often. Bruckmüller and Branscombe (2010) showed this was especially true when the company had a history of male leadership, suggesting a woman was chosen as a signal of change. Ryan, Haslam, Hersby and Bongiorno (2011) found the traits stereotypically linked to women matched what participants wanted in a leader of a failing company, a pattern they summarised as "think crisis, think female".
The 2020 meta-analysis
Morgenroth, Kirby, Ryan and Sudkämper ran three linked meta-analyses in Psychological Bulletin:
| Question | Finding |
|---|---|
| Are under-represented groups more often appointed in crisis? (archival) | A small effect for women that depended on the organisational domain. |
| Are they rated as more suitable for crisis roles? (experiments) | A small effect in between-participants designs, not in within-participants designs. |
| Are they more likely to be selected? (experiments) | Yes. Women were more likely to be selected over men in times of crisis, and more so in countries with higher gender inequality. |
| Does it extend beyond gender? | Yes, to members of under-represented racial and ethnic groups. |
The authors describe the effect as real but context-dependent. In management specifically, the real-world evidence is weakest; other domains show clearer patterns.
What happens after appointment
A growing body of work asks a different question: once in the role, do under-represented leaders get the same chance? Cook and Glass (2014) studied Fortune 500 companies and found women and minority leaders were more likely than white men to be promoted to CEO of weakly performing firms, and that when performance declined during their tenure they were more likely to be replaced by white men, the "saviour effect". A 2025 study in Social Science Quarterly found women CEOs had shorter tenures and higher dismissal risk, with the gap widening when they had been appointed during weak performance.
What a careful reader should conclude
- People do, in controlled conditions, reach for atypical leaders when an organisation is in trouble.
- Whether that shows up in real appointment data depends on context. Do not assume every appointment of a woman or minority leader is a glass cliff.
- The best-supported practical risk is not the appointment itself but what follows: less support, less time and harsher judgement.
- That risk can be measured and negotiated. Our Risk Scanner and Board Appointment Check are built on exactly these findings.
The full list of studies, with links, is in our Research Library.
Weighing a role like this?
Get an experienced second opinion on the offer, the risks and what to negotiate.
Get a confidential review- Confidential
- Vetted advisers
- Free to request
Questions
What is the strongest evidence for the glass cliff?
Experimental studies, in which people choose between equally qualified candidates, show the clearest and most consistent effects. The 2020 meta-analysis also found a small effect in real-world appointment data that depended on sector.
Have any studies found no glass cliff?
Yes. Adams, Gupta and Leeth (2009) and a 2025 study by Li and colleagues found no clear effect in US company data, and a 2019 analysis of German and UK firms did not replicate the original pattern.
What is the saviour effect?
A pattern described by Cook and Glass in which under-represented leaders of struggling organisations are disproportionately replaced by white men when performance does not recover.
Sources and further reading
- Morgenroth, T., et al. (2020). Psychological Bulletin, 146(9), 797–829. Link
- Adams, S. M., Gupta, A., & Leeth, J. D. (2009). Are female executives over-represented in precarious leadership positions? British Journal of Management, 20(1), 1–12. Find the paper
- Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Kulich, C. (2010). Politics and the glass cliff. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(1), 56–64. Find the paper
- Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1080–1089. Find the paper
- Goyal, R. (2025). Exploring the glass cliff phenomenon in the appointments of female chairpersons. Coventry University. Link
- Summary of Li et al. (2025), Female CEO selection: Does the glass cliff exist? Link
- Abstract: women CEOs, tenure and dismissal risk (Social Science Quarterly, 2025), via NYU IFP. 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.
- The glass cliff in politics and the public sectorHard-to-win seats, leadership after defeat and the pressures on public servants.