The "Glass Cliff" Phenomenon in 2024

While the “glass ceiling” describes the invisible barrier keeping women from top leadership roles, a more precarious trend has taken center stage in 2024. The “glass cliff” refers to the tendency of companies to appoint women to leadership positions during times of crisis or downturn, when the chance of failure is highest. This article examines why this happens, the specific executives facing this challenge right now, and what the data says about their chances of survival.

Understanding the Glass Cliff Concept

University of Exeter researchers Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam first coined the term in 2005. They analyzed FTSE 100 companies and discovered a pattern: companies that appointed men to their boards had experienced stable stock performance beforehand, while those appointing women had experienced months of poor performance and decline.

In 2024, this dynamic remains aggressive. When a company is in trouble, the board often looks for a visual and strategic departure from the past. If the previous leader was a white male (which is statistically probable), appointing a female CEO signals a sharp change in direction to shareholders and the public. However, this hands the new executive a “sinking ship” scenario where the margin for error is non-existent.

The Psychology Behind the Appointment

Why do boards lean toward women during disasters? Researchers suggest a few psychological drivers:

• The “Soft Skills” Assumption: Stereotypes suggest women are better at communication, empathy, and people management. Boards often believe these traits are necessary to manage a PR crisis or a disgruntled workforce.
• Scapegoating: If a female CEO fails to turn a collapsing company around, the board can claim they tried something radical and new. The failure is then often unfairly attributed to the leader’s gender rather than the structural problems she inherited.
• Opportunity Scarcity: Women hold roughly 10% of Fortune 500 CEO roles. Because top spots are so rare for women, they may be more willing to accept high-risk positions that male counterparts would reject in favor of safer opportunities.

High-Profile Case Studies in 2023 and 2024

The last eighteen months have provided stark examples of the glass cliff in action. Several prominent female leaders were handed the reins of struggling companies, only to face immense pressure or rapid ousting.

Under Armour and Stephanie Linnartz

One of the clearest recent examples involves Stephanie Linnartz at Under Armour. The sportswear giant hired Linnartz in February 2023. She came from Marriott International with a mandate to digitize the brand and fix its identity crisis. Under Armour was already struggling with declining stock prices and stiff competition from Nike and Lululemon before she arrived.

Linnartz launched a strategic overhaul called “Protect This House 3,” aimed at boosting brand heat and U.S. sales. However, the board did not give her time to see it through. In March 2024, just over a year into her tenure, she was ousted. The company replaced her with Kevin Plank, the company’s founder and the very man who led the company during its previous era. Linnartz was given a messy turnaround job and removed before her long-term strategies could yield results.

X (formerly Twitter) and Linda Yaccarino

When Elon Musk purchased Twitter, he slashed the workforce and made controversial changes that caused advertisers to flee in droves. In mid-2023, he appointed Linda Yaccarino, a heavyweight advertising executive from NBCUniversal, as CEO.

Yaccarino stepped onto a quintessential glass cliff. She was tasked with winning back advertisers who had left due to Musk’s behavior, yet she had no control over Musk’s product decisions or his personal social media posts. Throughout 2024, she has remained the public face of the company’s business struggles, bearing the brunt of criticism for a platform crisis she did not create.

Walgreens and Rosalind Brewer

Rosalind Brewer served as CEO of Walgreens Boots Alliance until September 2023. She took the role in 2021 when the pharmacy chain was already losing ground to competitors and struggling with a pivot toward primary care delivery. Despite her efforts to manage this massive strategic shift, the stock price fell nearly 50% during her tenure. When the quick fix didn’t materialize, she stepped down by mutual agreement, leaving the company still in turmoil.

The Tenure Gap

Data consistently shows that female CEOs have shorter tenures than men. According to data from Equilar, the median tenure for growing Russell 3000 companies is significantly lower for women. When women are appointed to crisis situations, they are often given a “shorter leash” than men.

A 2024 report on CEO turnover indicates that while women are reaching the C-suite at record rates, they are also leaving faster. The “savior complex” plays a role here. Boards expect immediate results from a new female leader. When deep institutional rot cannot be fixed in four quarterly earnings calls, the board often reverts to the “safe” option (usually a man) or brings back a former founder.

The Risk of the “Founder Boomerang”

The situation at Under Armour highlights a sub-trend: the “Founder Boomerang.” When a female CEO is brought in to professionalize or fix a founder-led company, the founder often remains on the board or in the background. If the changes feel too uncomfortable, the founder returns to “steady the ship,” effectively pushing the female executive off the cliff. This creates an impossible environment where the new CEO has responsibility without full authority.

Can the Glass Cliff Be Navigated?

Not every glass cliff situation ends in failure. Mary Barra took over General Motors in 2014 right before the massive ignition switch recall scandal exploded. It was a severe crisis involving fatalities and massive legal liability.

Barra navigated the crisis by being transparent, testifying before Congress, and overhauling the company’s safety culture. She survived the cliff and has since led GM into a profitable era focused on electric vehicles. Her success proves that the glass cliff is survivable, but it requires a specific set of conditions:

1. Board Support: The board must back the CEO publicly during the initial rough patch.
2. Realistic Timelines: Turnarounds take 3 to 5 years, not 12 months.
3. Full Autonomy: The CEO must have the power to make structural changes without interference from founders or predecessors.

Conclusion

In 2024, the glass cliff remains a statistically significant reality. As companies like X, Under Armour, and Walgreens demonstrate, women are still disproportionately selected to lead organizations during periods of extreme turbulence. While this offers high-profile opportunities, it comes with a heightened risk of failure and shorter tenure. Recognizing this phenomenon is the first step toward setting realistic expectations for leaders tasked with the hardest jobs in business.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between the glass ceiling and the glass cliff? The glass ceiling is a barrier that prevents women from reaching top leadership roles. The glass cliff occurs after they break through the ceiling, describing the phenomenon where they are appointed to leadership roles specifically during times of crisis when the risk of failure is highest.

Who coined the term “Glass Cliff”? The term was coined in 2005 by British professors Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam of the University of Exeter.

Does the glass cliff apply to minorities as well? Yes. Research indicates that racial and ethnic minorities are also disproportionately appointed to leadership roles in struggling companies compared to white men.

Why do boards hire women for failing companies? It is often a signal of change. Hiring a female CEO is a visible way for a board to tell shareholders that they are taking a new direction. Additionally, stereotypes about women being better at “cleaning up messes” or managing people often come into play during crises.