Teetering on the Edge

Sitting in the audience last year as Michelle Bullock gave her last speech as Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, I wondered if she felt like she was teetering on the edge of a cliff. Only a few weeks later, Bullock replaced Philip Lowe as Governor of the RBA. She is the first woman to hold that role – and crash through the proverbial ‘class ceiling,’ – the invisible barrier that prevents women from progressing in an organisation.

...the glass cliff focused on the circumstances in which women were offered leadership positions, how long they stayed in those positions and who replaced them.

Bullock's ascension to leading the RBA underscores the increasing presence of Australian women in prominent business, government and other roles, marking progress towards gender equality. In recent years, notable appointments of women leaders include roles at Coles, Woolworths, Qantas, Virgin, PWC, the ABC and the RBA, among others. However, a closer look reveals a common trend: many of these companies were facing significant challenges at the time of the appointments. For instance, when Bullock assumed leadership of the Central Bank in September 2023, the institution was grappling with multiple crises, including persistent interest rate hikes, a mounting cost of living crisis, and heightened public scrutiny. Similarly, the former CEO of Optus, Kelly Bayer Rosmarin, also faced daunting challenges during her tenure. Bullock is still in the chair, but Rosmarin resigned in November after three-and-half-years in charge.

Those situations are reminiscent of the phenomenon known as the glass cliff. A social theory coined by Australian researcher and now-Director of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, Michelle Ryan. Ryan’s research into the glass cliff focused on the circumstances in which women were offered leadership positions, how long they stayed in those positions and who replaced them.

Ryan also uncovered some unsettling realities. In particular, women were more likely than men to be appointed to leadership positions when companies were in crisis. Empirical evidence showed that women were appointed to risky and precarious leadership positions more often than men. Unsurprisingly, the research has also found women’s tenures in leadership positions are shorter than their predecessors. Women also tend to be replaced by men who are portrayed as ‘saviours’.

There is no single reason why this phenomenon has developed. Ryan and other researchers suggest that women are often seen as more suited to lead in times of crisis. Why?  They are perceived as possessing traits suited to those circumstances, such as being cooperative and caring. What are some other reasons for appointing women in times of crises? Companies may want to signal change and shift away from previous leadership choices, appointing a leader who is different from previous leaders is seen as one way of achieving this. Perhaps most concerningly, women may be appointed to leadership positions because the positions are less desirable and seen as a poisoned chalice.

What can we do to stop this phenomenon?

There is clear evidence that women on boards and in leadership positions drive success of organisations. Investing in the success of women in leadership positions helps us all succeed. 

So perhaps the question to be asked on this International Women’s Day is – how do we invest to support the success of women in leadership positions? Surely we can do better.