In two scenario-based studies, we found that women and men evaluate glass-cliff positions (i.e., precarious leadership positions at organizations in crisis) differently depending on the social and financial resources available. Female and male participants evaluated a hypothetical leadership position in which they would have both social and financial resources, financial resources but no social resources, or social resources but no financial resources. Women evaluated the position without social resources most negatively, whereas men evaluated the position without financial resources most negatively. In Study 2, we found that women and men considered different issues when evaluating these leadership positions. Women’s evaluations and expected levels of influence as leaders depended on the degree to which they expected to be accepted by subordinates. In contrast, men’s evaluations and expected levels of acceptance by subordinates depended on the degree to which they expected to be influential in the position. Our findings have implications for the understanding of the glass-cliff phenomenon and gendered leadership stereotypes.
AdamsS. M.GuptaA.LeethJ. D. (2009). Are female executives over-represented in precarious leadership positions?British Journal of Management, 20, 1–12.
2.
AshbyJ.RyanM. K.HaslamS. A. (2007). Legal work and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferentially selected to lead problematic cases. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 13, 775–794.
3.
BassB.AvolioB.AtwaterL. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 5–34.
4.
BrownE. R.DiekmanA. B.SchneiderM. C. (2011). A change will do us good: Threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 930–941.
5.
BruckmüllerS.BranscombeN. R. (2010). The glass cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 433–451.
6.
CarliL. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.
DuehrE. E.BonoJ. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing?Personnel Psychology, 59, 815–846.
9.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
10.
EaglyA. H.JohnsonB. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
11.
EaglyA. H.MakhijaniM. G.KlonskyB. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22.
12.
EisenbackR.WatsonK.PillaiR. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 12, 80–88.
13.
GibsonD. E.LawrenceB. S. (2010). Women’s and men’s career referents: How gender composition and comparison level shape career expectations. Organization Science, 21, 1159–1175.
14.
HaslamS. A.RyanM. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 530–546.
15.
HaslamS. A.RyanM. K.KulichC.TrojanowskiG.AtkinsC. (2010). Investing with prejudice: The relationship between women’s presence on company boards and objective and subjective measures of company performance. British Journal of Management, 21, 484–497.
16.
HeilmanM. E.WallenA. S.FuchsD.TamkinsM. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.
17.
HuntJ. G.BoalK. B.DodgeG. E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination of two kinds of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 423–448.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H. (2005). Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52, 489–495.
21.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H.MitchellA. A.RistikariT. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–642.
22.
LammersJ.StokerJ. I.StapelD. A. (2009). Differentiating social and personal power: Opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies. Psychological Science, 20, 1543–1549.
23.
LynessK. S.ThompsonD. E. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 359–375.
24.
MajorB. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals and group membership. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 26, pp. 293–355). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
25.
Mano-NegrinR.SheafferZ. (2004). Are women “cooler” than men during crises? Exploring gender differences in perceiving organisational crisis preparedness proneness. Women in Management Review, 19, 109–122.
26.
OswaldD. L. (2008). Gender stereotypes and women’s reports of liking and ability in traditionally masculine and feminine occupations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 196–203.
27.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
28.
ReicherS. D.HaslamS. A.HopkinsN. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547–568.
29.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.
30.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.
31.
RyanM. K.HaslamS. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16, 81–90.
32.
RyanM. K.HaslamS. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding women’s appointment to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 549– 572.
33.
RyanM. K.HaslamS. A.HersbyM. D.BongiornoR. (2011). Think crisis–think female: Glass cliffs and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 470–484.
34.
RyanM. K.HaslamS. A.KulichC. (2010). Politics and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferentially selected to contest hard-to-win seats. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 56–64.
35.
RyanM. K.HaslamS. A.PostmesT. (2007). Reactions to the glass cliff: Gender differences in the explanations for the precariousness of women’s leadership positions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 182–197.
36.
SchaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356.
37.
ScheinV. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–105.
38.
Van VianenA. E. M.FischerA. H. (2002). Illuminating the glass ceiling: The role of organizational culture preferences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 315–337.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
