Is it time to be thinking more about the glass cushion, rather than the glass cliff? Alexander Haslam
As a woman in business, I’ve been part of many discussions about the barriers women (and minorities) face in trying to climb the corporate ladder. I’ve heard the odd anecdotes of a woman smashing through the ?glass ceiling?, but more often than not the leadership success stories I hear centre on a man benefiting from the ?glass escalator?. It is not to say we haven’t come along way, today women make-up almost 50% of Australia’s workforce and hold around 40% of all full-time jobs in Australia. The issue personal to me is that women still remain under-represented in positions of power and women in top-tier leadership positions are taking home smaller pay packets compared to their male counterparts. Why has the glass ceiling never resolved itself?
I went to a talk recently hosted by Alexander Haslam, a professor of psychology and ARC Australian Laureate Fellow in the School of Psychology at the University of Queensland. It was a thought-provoking discussion, around how women assume positions of leadership (a topic close to my heart as a businesswoman and entrepreneur). You might know Haslam, he and Michelle Ryan in 2005 unveiled a disturbing tendency for women to be appointed the leaders of failing ventures ? a term they coined, ‘the glass cliff.? The essence of that term is the idea that women are often used as the ?fall guy? for projects or companies that fail, after being appointed when they were already on the decline.
If we look back at high profile women that did obtain leadership roles, it’s easy to see the type of positions they are given. After more than a century of male leadership, car manufacturing giant General Motors became embroiled in a scandal as it emerged a design flaw was putting its customers at risk ? in the middle of the crisis Mary T Barra was promoted to clean up the mess. In the political setting, Theresa May became the UK’s first female prime minister in 26 years, only to be gifted with her predecessor’s European Union negotiation mess. I could go on naming female leaders who were pushed to the edge of a glass cliff. ultimately what is clear is the glass cliff is very much alive and thriving.
Interestingly the pandemic has brought this discussion back into the limelight. Recently a list was released naming the top 10 countries who have handled the pandemic well, and despite women accounting for less than 7 percent of the world’s leaders, they featured as leaders on that list. People have been quick to say, this is because female leaders have the traits needed in times of crisis. The Harvard Business School looked at the competencies considered important during a crisis; ability to ?inspire and motivate,? ?communicate powerfully,? ?collaboration/teamwork,? and ?relationship building,? ? competencies women generally rated higher on.
Yes, women do focus on leadership as a collective idea (a great leadership skill), whereas if you look at Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, they very much fixated on their own identity as leaders. However, this should not discredit the fact women also experience a generally more demanding path to leadership than that faced by men and thus are more equipped to handle a crisis. Women are more willingly exposed to the risk of failure, given more precarious leadership positions, experience a more hostile reception in leadership and are given fewer rewards and less job security. Whereas the path a man takes to a senior position in comparison is characterised by glass cushions rather then glass cliffs.
Maybe it’s time we have a discussion about the glass cushion.
As Haslam more deeply explored the glass cliff phenomenon, many have been struck by the persistent framing of it as ?a woman’s problem? because we feel the consequence of the phenomenon. Female leaders, on a daily basis, are faced with many challenges, no matter the industry, the leadership role, or the size of the business. The conversation centres on how women leaders can address those challenges head-on with action, how they can smash through the glass ceiling. However, Haslam got me thinking, the reality is men are given preferential access to less risky leadership positions (referred to in studies as ?hot jobs?), so is it a woman’s problem to overcome the inordinate number of barriers, or should the focus be on men’s inherently advantaged access to the glass cushion.
Haslam posed to the group the question, is it time to be thinking more about the glass cushion, rather than the glass cliff? What do you think?