This is the phenomenon of the glass cliff – the idea that once women break through the glass ceiling, they often face leadership roles that are risky or precarious. The reasons behind the phenomenon are nuanced and complex. We think that the glass cliff is multiply determined – that is, there are many processes that contribute. One is the stereotype that women are useful in times of crises – that they may have the traits and abilities that work well in times of crisis – such as being good communicators or being kind and nurturing. But research shows that women may be being chosen to be set up to fail and take the blame for the crisis, or at the very least to signal that change is happening, rather than from a sense that women will fix the crisis.

There is a large body of literature that suggests that our stereotypes of men and our stereotypes of successful leaders are very similar. This is called the "think manager, think male" association (demonstrated by Virginia Schein in the 1970s). In glass cliff contexts there is some evidence that this shifts to a "think crisis, think female" association, such that stereotypically feminine traits (like being a good communicator or being kind) are seen as more useful in times of crisis. It may also be the case that when things are difficult, we move away from traditional stereotypes of leadership and try something new – like hiring a woman.  Finally, if someone has to take the fall and be blamed for failure, then those in the old boys club may be protected (protecting the careers of ingroup members and traditional breadwinners), leaving women to be blamed for failure.

There is a lot of evidence that gender quotas are one of the most effective ways to increase the number of women in areas in which they are under-represented such as leadership roles or in sectors such as science, policing and surgery. There is some resistance to this on the grounds that quotas are not meritocratic, but my response to this is that the current systems we have now are not meritocratic and proactive intervention is needed to ensure fairer and more equitable workplaces.

There isn’t a lot of evidence that women actively seek out glass cliff positions. One study we conducted actually showed that women are more aware of the risks and less keen to take on such roles than their male counterparts. But it may be that women have fewer opportunities for leadership and therefore feel they need to put themselves forwards. It may also be that men avoid such positions, making them more accessible to women.

While we have done research on both the glass cliff, and on flexible work initiatives, we haven’t conducted research that actively links the two. However, the fact that women are much more likely to take up flexible work initiatives does seem to reinforce other people’s stereotypes that they are not committed, not ambitious, and therefore not traditional "leadership material."

The "glass" aspect of the glass cliff metaphor points to the fact that it is not overt or easy to see, but rather is a subtle phenomenon. One way to help make the glass cliff less pernicious is to point out the precarity of such positions so that women can be fairly evaluated in the role, and not blamed for negative circumstances that were put in train before they took on the role. Women are often not in the same networks as their male colleagues and therefore may not receive the same sort of insider information.

I think one of the reasons it is so difficult to achieve gender equality in organisations is because our society gives off the illusion that the workplace is meritocratic – if you work hard, you will get ahead. But of course, this advice works much better for some people than for others. We need to acknowledge that leadership, pay, status, and respect are all affected by our stereotypes and norms, all of which are highly gendered. Setting these gendered notions aside would help make workplaces much fairer and more equitable.

If women were to refuse all glass cliff positions, they may not have the opportunity to take on leadership roles (think UK Prime Minister Theresa May and Brexit). So rather than avoid all crisis positions, it is probably better advice to go into such positions well-informed, well-resourced and ensuring that others are aware of the precarity of the position so that one can be evaluated fairly.

Rather than decline, it is probably wise to ensure that the position is well-funded, well-resourced and well-supported by senior management. If the dangers are recognised, then the glass cliff might be less precarious.