The Glass Cliff & the Burden of ‘Fixing’ Broken Institutions

A woman standing on the edge of a fragile cliff.

When Marissa Mayer stepped into the CEO role at Yahoo in 2012, she inherited a struggling company that had cycled through four CEOs in five years. When Mary Barra took the helm at General Motors in 2014, she immediately faced a massive vehicle recall and congressional hearings. When Jill Soltau became CEO of JCPenney in 2018, she was tasked with rescuing a retailer already on life support.

These high-profile appointments share a revealing pattern: women leaders disproportionately receive opportunities during times of organizational crisis. This phenomenon, known as the “glass cliff,” represents a subtle but powerful form of gender bias with significant consequences for both individual leaders and organizational outcomes.

Beyond the Glass Ceiling: Understanding the Glass Cliff

While the glass ceiling refers to invisible barriers preventing women from reaching top positions, the glass cliff describes what happens when they finally break through – only to find themselves perched precariously over organizational failure.

First identified by researchers Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam in 2005, the glass cliff emerged from their analysis of FTSE 100 companies. Their research revealed a disturbing trend: companies were more likely to appoint women to leadership positions following periods of poor performance. Subsequent studies across industries and countries have consistently confirmed this pattern.

The statistics tell a compelling story. A 2018 analysis of CEO transitions found that women were 27% more likely than men to be appointed to leadership roles during periods of organizational decline. Another study of S&P 500 companies revealed that organizations with higher-than-average risk were twice as likely to appoint women CEOs compared to stable counterparts.

Why Organizations Push Women Toward the Edge

Several factors contribute to the glass cliff phenomenon:

Implicit Crisis Leadership Bias 

Research suggests people associate stereotypically feminine attributes like intuition, communication, and emotional intelligence with effective crisis management. This creates a “think crisis-think female” association when organizations face turbulence.

The “Nothing to Lose” Calculation 

When organizations are already struggling, appointing a woman represents lower perceived risk. If she fails, the failure confirms existing biases; if she succeeds, it’s an unexpected win. This cynical calculus makes diversity “safer” during a crisis than stability.

Signaling Organizational Change 

Appointing a woman leader during a crisis sends a visual signal of transformation. It’s a visible way for boards to demonstrate they’re making significant changes without fundamentally addressing underlying issues.

The Savior Effect 

There’s a persistent narrative of women as organizational “saviors” who will nurture troubled companies back to health. This gendered expectation places an unfair burden on women leaders to perform emotional labor while executing difficult turnarounds.

The Setup for Failure

Glass cliff appointments aren’t merely symbolic – they create tangible disadvantages that undermine women’s leadership success:

Resource Constraints 

Crisis situations typically involve reduced budgets, declining market position, and depleted talent pools. Women leaders inherit these constraints while simultaneously facing heightened scrutiny.

Unrealistic Expectations 

Organizations often expect transformative results without allowing sufficient time or providing adequate support. The savior narrative creates expectations that would be unattainable for any leader.

Limited Authority 

Despite their titles, women in glass cliff positions frequently lack the full authority needed to implement necessary changes. They face resistance from entrenched interests while being expected to drive transformation.

The Scrutiny Premium 

Women leaders already face heightened scrutiny; this intensifies during crises. Their decisions, appearance, communication style, and results all receive disproportionate analysis compared to male counterparts.

The Career Consequences

For individual women, the glass cliff creates a career hazard with lasting implications:

  • Failed turnarounds become attributed to gender rather than circumstance
  • Crisis-centered experience narrows future opportunities
  • Burnout rates are substantially higher in these roles
  • Career trajectories show diminished progression after glass cliff appointments

Research from the Harvard Business Review found that women who take glass cliff positions are subsequently considered for fewer leadership roles compared to both men in similar situations and women in more stable appointments.

Breaking the Pattern: Organizational Solutions

Forward-thinking organizations can disrupt the glass cliff pattern through intentional intervention:

Transparent Appointment Processes 

Establish clear, consistent criteria for leadership appointments that apply during both stability and crisis. This transparency reduces the influence of implicit biases that lead to glass cliff appointments.

Equal Opportunity During Stability 

Create pathways for women to access leadership roles during periods of organizational strength and stability. This provides the opportunity to lead with adequate resources and reasonable expectations.

Realistic Success Metrics 

Develop contextually appropriate performance metrics that acknowledge the starting conditions. This prevents holding crisis-appointed leaders to standards that don’t reflect their inherited challenges.

Support Infrastructure 

Provide comprehensive support through executive coaching, adequate resources, and operational authority. This support should be proportionate to the challenges being addressed.

Succession Planning 

Implement robust succession planning that develops diverse leadership talent continuously, not just during crises. This creates a pipeline of qualified candidates for all leadership transitions.

Executive Leadership Responsibility

As an executive leader, addressing the glass cliff requires both awareness and action:

Examine Your Organization’s Pattern 

Audit your leadership appointments over time. When were women appointed to leadership roles? What were the organizational circumstances? Looking for patterns can reveal unconscious biases.

Challenge Crisis-Driven Diversity 

When diversity suddenly becomes attractive during difficulty, question the motivation. True commitment to diversity remains consistent during both challenge and prosperity.

Support Leaders Facing Precarious Situations 

If you have leaders in potential glass cliff positions, ensure they have the authority, resources, and realistic timelines needed for success.

Create Psychologically Safe Environments 

Foster cultures where women can decline precarious opportunities without career penalties. The freedom to say “no” to set up situations is essential for authentic leadership development.

The Competitive Advantage of Getting This Right

Organizations that address the glass cliff phenomenon position themselves for significant advantage:

  • Access to a broader talent pool for leadership positions
  • Improved decision-making through genuine leadership diversity
  • Enhanced organizational resilience through consistent leadership development
  • Stronger reputation as an employer of choice for top talent

Moving Forward: From Cliff to Summit

The glass cliff represents one of the more subtle but pernicious forms of gender bias in organizational leadership. By recognizing this pattern and implementing intentional countermeasures, organizations can transform leadership opportunities for women from precarious positions to platforms for genuine success.

True progress means women leaders are appointed during times of organizational strength, provided with the resources and authority needed for success, and evaluated based on their actual performance rather than gender-based expectations.

The question for today’s executive leaders isn’t whether glass cliffs exist in your organization, but what you’re doing to eliminate them. Your answer will significantly shape both your leadership legacy and your organization’s future success.

If you need help to answer this question effectively and actionably for your organization, here are two things you can do today to get started. 

  1. Schedule a consultation with our team today.
  2. Check out our podcast, What’s the DEIL? on Apple or YouTube
  3. Follow Natalie Norfus on LinkedIn and Shanté Gordon on LinkedIn for more insights.

In many organizations, bias, favoritism, and discrimination are often addressed only after they become formal complaints, once someone files an HR report, contacts legal, or signals a red flag that leadership can no longer ignore. But by then, the damage has often already been done.

Disengagement. Attrition. A TikTok rant that goes viral.

These issues rarely arise in a vacuum. Instead, they’re the result of patterns—subtle, systemic inequities that manifest long before anyone says the word “investigation.”

So here’s the question forward-thinking employers should ask: Can you spot the pattern before it becomes a complaint?

This post explores how unchecked bias and favoritism show up in everyday team dynamics, why early detection matters, and how leaders can interrupt these behaviors before they escalate into reputational, legal, or cultural risks. It builds on the insights shared in Beyond the Complaint: A Culture-First Approach to Workplace Investigations and offers practical steps for moving from reactive investigation to proactive prevention.

The Quiet Cost of Invisible Patterns

Bias doesn’t always scream discrimination. More often, it whispers.

It’s the high-performing employee who keeps getting passed over for leadership projects.

The parent whose flexible work schedule becomes a silent strike against them during performance reviews.

The LGBTQ+ team member who’s consistently excluded from informal networking lunches.

Each moment, on its own, may seem explainable—or worse, insignificant. But together, they form a mosaic of exclusion. Over time, those affected stop speaking up. Or they leave. Or they post about it on social media.

And the organization is left wondering, Why didn’t we see this coming?

Download “Beyond the Complaint” and learn more about how to develop a culture-first approach to workplace investigations.

Bias vs. Favoritism vs. Discrimination: What’s the Difference?

Understanding the distinctions between these concepts is key to spotting them early:

Bias is often unconscious. It’s a cognitive shortcut that affects how we interpret behavior, assign competence, or evaluate performance. Everyone has biases—but unchecked, they shape inequitable outcomes.

Favoritism is about unequal treatment. It may not be tied to a protected class, but it still erodes morale and trust. Favoritism creates in-groups and out-groups, often based on personal relationships rather than performance.

Discrimination involves adverse action based on a legally protected characteristic (like race, gender, age, disability, or religion). It’s illegal—and often easier to prove when there’s a documented pattern.

The problem? All three of these can show up long before legal thresholds are crossed.

The Investigations That Never Got Filed

At The Norfus Firm, we’ve led internal investigations across countless industries and a recurring insight is this: Most of the issues that end up in formal investigations started months (or years) earlier, in small patterns that no one interrupted.

Here are just a few real-world examples:

  • A marketing team where white women consistently received feedback on “executive presence,” while their Black colleagues were told to work on “tone.”
  • An engineering department where all the stretch assignments and promotions went to team members who regularly attended after-hours social events—events that parents, caregivers, or introverts often skipped.
  • A company where LGBTQ+ staff were informally advised not to “be too political,” creating a culture of silence and suppression.

None of these examples began with a complaint. But in each case, they led to one.

Why Managers Are the First Line of Defense

Managers have the most day-to-day visibility into employee experience but without proper training, they can unknowingly reinforce harmful patterns. That’s why leadership development must go beyond skills and span into equity-based accountability.

Here’s how bias and favoritism typically manifest at the managerial level:

Unequal Access to Stretch Assignments

Managers often give high-visibility work to employees they “trust”—which can quickly become a proxy for sameness, comfort, or likability. This creates a self-fulfilling cycle: certain team members get opportunities, grow faster, and are seen as more valuable… while others stagnate, regardless of their potential.

Prevention Tip: Require managers to track who receives key projects. Quarterly reviews can surface patterns in opportunity distribution.

Subjective Performance Feedback

Bias thrives in ambiguity. Phrases like “not a culture fit,” “too aggressive,” or “lacks leadership presence” are subjective and often steeped in racial, gender, or age-related bias.

Prevention Tip: Standardize performance criteria and require concrete examples in feedback. Train managers on coded language and how to spot it in their evaluations.

Disproportionate Disciplinary Action

Employees from underrepresented backgrounds often face harsher discipline for similar behavior. This may be rooted in confirmation bias—interpreting actions as more problematic depending on who commits them.

Prevention Tip: Conduct a quarterly equity audit of disciplinary actions and performance improvement plans. Look for patterns across race, gender, and department.

What the Data Can Tell You (If You’re Looking)

Our culture-first investigation approach always includes a data-forward lens. Why? Because patterns tell the truth, even when people don’t feel safe enough to.

Here are the top data points we advise clients to regularly review:

  • Exit interview trends – Are certain demographics leaving at higher rates? What themes emerge?
  • Engagement surveys – Do perceptions of fairness, inclusion, or trust vary by identity group?
  • Promotion rates – Who’s moving up? Who isn’t? Why?
  • Performance ratings – Are they evenly distributed across demographics, or clustered?

Pro Tip: Don’t just look at averages. Disaggregate your data to uncover disparities.

How to Move from Investigation to Prevention

The most effective way to reduce complaints isn’t just about better investigations, it’s about reducing the conditions that create them in the first place. This requires leadership development, policy alignment, and cultural fluency.

Start with Manager Training

Train managers not just on what not to do, but on how to lead inclusively and recognize early signs of inequity. This includes:

  • Understanding how bias shows up in everyday decisions
  • Recognizing the impact of microaggressions
  • Creating psychological safety in team meetings
  • Disrupting favoritism and cliques

Create Accountability Loops

It’s not enough to train. There must be systems to enforce equitable behavior.

  • Include equity measures in manager KPIs
  • Implement 360-degree reviews with inclusion metrics
  • Track patterns in raises, recognition, and retention

Invest in Internal Audits and Culture Assessments

The Norfus Firm often supports organizations with internal culture diagnostics—uncovering risks before they become complaints. This work helps organizations build trust, improve retention, and develop ethical, values-aligned leaders.

When to Investigate, and When to Intervene

Let’s be clear: not every instance of bias or favoritism requires a formal investigation. But here’s when it does:

  • There are multiple similar complaints across departments
  • The concerns involve a senior leader or power imbalance
  • There’s evidence of retaliation or discrimination based on protected characteristics
  • There’s a breakdown of trust or fear of speaking up

In these cases, a trauma-informed, culturally aware investigation can protect your people and your brand. And when handled well, it’s not just about resolution, it’s about insight.

The Norfus Firm Approach: Culture-First, Legally Sound

At The Norfus Firm, we believe investigations are more than procedural necessities—they’re inflection points.

That’s why our model blends legal rigor and defensibility, culturally fluent analysis, trauma-informed interviews, and strategic follow-up and leadership coaching. We help our clients shift from reacting to complaints to preventing them—through smarter systems, more inclusive leadership, and actionable cultural insights.

Because the truth is: Bias, favoritism, and discrimination don’t always show up in complaints. But they always show up in your culture.

Download the Full Guide: “Beyond the Complaint”

If you’re ready to strengthen your internal investigation processes, empower your leaders, and build a healthier workplace culture, don’t wait for the next complaint. Download our guide: Beyond the Complaint: A Culture-First Approach to Workplace Investigations here

And if you’d like support conducting an investigation or building a preventative strategy, book a consultation with our team. Together, let’s move from silence to strategy and from risk to resilience. To do this:

  1. Schedule a consultation with our team today.
  2. Check out our podcast, What’s the DEIL? on Apple or YouTube
  3. Follow Natalie Norfus on LinkedIn and Shanté Gordon on LinkedIn for more insights.

Share this post on :

HOW WE HELP

Beyond the Report:
A Culture-First Approach to
Workplace Investigations

The Hidden DEI Gap: Leaders Who Don’t
Lead

A podcast that supports best practices in inclusive leadership

Helping you navigate workplace culture in a rapidly
evolving world.

Elevate Your People Strategy Today

Empower your organization with tailored HR and DEI solutions backed by 20 years of experience. Let’s build trusted spaces, strengthen accountability, and create meaningful, measurable progress—together.