top of page
Search

A Seat at the Table, A Foot off the Ledge

  • Hawa Yussuf
  • Aug 11
  • 5 min read

For decades, women’s exclusion from positions of power and leadership has been described through metaphors of barriers and thresholds. From the ‘glass ceiling’ to the ‘glass cliff’, the increasing visibility of women is often seen as evidence of the progress being made towards gender equality within the workforce, but this could not be further from the truth. The glass ceiling is essentially an invisible barrier that prevents women from stepping into senior roles. The concept, having gained significant traction in the 1980s, has since been explored extensively with numerous studies identifying “organisational practices and interpersonal biases” (Women in Research, 2025) as inhibitors of women’s advancement into and within positions of leadership. However, what happens when a woman pushes through the ceiling and finds herself standing at the very edge of a cliff with nearly no support at all? The concept of the glass cliff highlights this, describing the tendency for women to assume positions of leadership in times of organisational crisis or for them to be given the “opportunity” to enter roles that are often associated with an “increased risk of negative consequences” (Women in Research, 2025). While the glass cliff theory exposes the inequalities inherent within the workforce, it can also reduce women’s leadership to stories of vulnerability and potential failure. Thus, this piece aims to explore the glass cliff theory through the lens of the question: women may be given a seat at the table, but are they also provided with the authority, respect, and resources that are necessary for them to succeed once they take that seat?



Part I: Who Really Gets to Rise? 

The barriers faced by women become even more apparent when contrasted with the experiences of men in female-dominated workplaces. While women in male-dominated fields often encounter both the ‘glass ceiling’ and the ‘glass cliff’, men are not subject to the same constraints when working in professions traditionally associated with women (Williams, 2013). Furthermore, gender norms seem to work in men’s favour, with characteristics that are conventionally associated with masculinity being aligned with perceptions of leadership potential. As such, research suggests that rather than being faced with a ‘glass ceiling’ or ‘glass cliff’, men ride the ‘glass escalator’, advancing through organisational ranks into positions of leadership (Williams, 1992). This contrast is significant, highlighting that while women often have to overcome gendered assumptions and biases to gain access to positions of power and authority, men may benefit from those same assumptions. The ‘glass escalator’ thus demonstrates that hierarchies within the workforce are not just simple structures, but are instead shaped by deeply embedded biases and expectations about who is perceived as a “natural leader”. 


Part II: A Closer Look 

The glass cliff, a term coined by researchers Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam (Ryan & Haslam, 2007), shifts the attention from women’s exclusion from leadership to the circumstances under which they are often welcomed into it. Their research challenges the assumption that increasing women’s representation in leadership actually signals progress. Instead, their research shows that women are more likely to be appointed to a position of leadership when an organisation is facing instability, reputational damage, or declining performance. 


“What we find is that in all of these studies, over and over and over again, a female candidate is much more likely to be chosen when things are going badly,” 

- Michelle Ryan 


An example of this is that while share prices typically increased following new leadership appointments regardless of gender, women were disproportionately appointed after significant declines in share prices as opposed to their male counterparts (Partis, 2025).


“If you take on leadership positions in crisis, when things are going badly, share prices plummeting, you can imagine that that’s a much harder job and the chance of failure is much higher than if you take on a leadership position when everything is going well.”

- Michelle Ryan 


Experimental studies conducted by Ryan and Haslam found that participants were equally likely to select both qualified men and women in stable circumstances, but were more likely to choose a qualified woman during times of crisis (Partis, 2025). This finding suggests that women may be perceived as suitable leaders when organisations require change. From these findings, it is important for us to note that the glass cliff phenomenon may not necessarily only be a deliberate attempt to place women in perilous positions. Women may also pursue these positions because they offer otherwise inaccessible opportunities for them to advance in their career, as demonstrated by Theresa May’s decision to assume the role of PM following Brexit (Partis, 2025). In the article cited above, Ryan argues that meaningful gender equality requires more than just increasing the number of women in leadership. It requires providing women with the resources and support necessary for them to get through the ups and the downs they may encounter in their position of leadership. 


A political cartoon by Nicola Jennings on Theresa May's glass ceiling (Jennings, 2018)
A political cartoon by Nicola Jennings on Theresa May's glass ceiling (Jennings, 2018)

So let’s look back at the question posed earlier: are women provided with the authority, respect, and resources necessary to succeed once they take their seat at the table? The answer is not really. The glass cliff theory demonstrates that the increased representation of women in leadership does not mean equal opportunities for them to succeed when compared to their male counterparts. Women may be offered positions of leadership during periods of crisis, but these opportunities come with both risks and scrutiny from the public and within the workplace. A true seat at the table requires more than just the seat itself. It requires authority, respect, adequate resources, and support from their peers. Until these issues are tackled, more seats on the table mean nothing except for increased visibility and does not show the want for equality or genuine change.


References:

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page