0:00

Experimentation is how generation defining

0:03

companies win. You can increase

0:05

your experimentation velocity with EPPO,

0:07

a next gen A-B testing

0:09

platform for modern growth teams.

0:12

Learn more at getepo.com/idea

0:15

cast. That's

0:18

geteppo.com/idea cast.

0:23

When leadership advice feels like buzzwords and platitudes,

0:26

it's time to get real. HBR's

0:28

podcast, Coaching Real Leaders, brings you

0:30

behind closed doors as Muriel

0:33

Wilkins coaches anonymous leaders through raw,

0:35

honest career questions that we all

0:37

face. Listen and follow Coaching

0:39

Real Leaders for free wherever you get

0:41

your podcasts. Welcome

0:57

to the HBR idea cast from Harvard Business Review.

0:59

I'm Alison Beard. It's

1:09

been nearly 20 years since the researchers

1:11

Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam documented a

1:13

phenomenon they called the glass cliff. This

1:16

tendency for women CEOs and other

1:18

top leaders to only break through

1:20

the glass ceiling and get those

1:22

most senior roles when the organization is

1:25

underperforming or there's some other big

1:27

crisis to solve, which of

1:29

course makes it more difficult for them to

1:31

succeed. One would think that we

1:33

could have corrected for this problem over the past

1:35

two decades, but from the corporate

1:37

world to government to academia, it seems we

1:39

haven't. Consider Marissa Meyer

1:41

at Yahoo, Ellen Powett at Reddit,

1:44

Ross Brewer at Walgreens Boots, Theresa

1:46

May becoming UK prime minister right

1:48

after Brexit, the ousting of

1:50

Liz McGill at the University of Pennsylvania and

1:52

Claudine Gay at Harvard. To

1:54

be sure, there are female CEOs, politicians

1:57

and college presidents that haven't found themselves

1:59

on glass glyphs or

2:01

who figured out how to survive and

2:03

thrive on them. But the phenomenon is

2:05

weirdly persistent and it has

2:07

a broader impact on women's careers, business,

2:09

and society. Sophie Williams

2:11

has spent the past several years studying the

2:13

glass cliff, why it happens, and what

2:16

to do about it. Previously she

2:18

was an advertising COO and CFO

2:21

and a global leader at Netflix. Her

2:23

new book is The Glass Cliff by women

2:25

in power are undermined and how to fight

2:27

back. Sophie, welcome to the show.

2:30

Thank you so much for having me. So

2:41

let's start with the basics. How is

2:43

the glass cliff still playing out for

2:45

women today? It's something that we see

2:48

playing out time and time again in

2:50

lots of countries around the world. So

2:52

there's research from the University of Utah

2:54

looking at Fortune 500 companies. There's

2:57

research in the UK from University of

2:59

Exeter looking at the FTSE 100 here.

3:03

There's research about how it impacts

3:05

academia, how it impacts even coaches

3:08

of sports teams. And one

3:10

of the things that I really hoped for when I

3:12

was researching around the glass cliff was to

3:14

find evidence of it slowing down. Instead

3:16

it shows us that we're continuing to

3:19

set women up in these difficult to

3:21

win, difficult to be successful in opportunities.

3:23

If opportunities is what we can really

3:25

call them. I think an example that

3:28

we're likely to see playing out soon

3:30

is that X previously Twitter. If

3:32

you remember when Elon Musk was the CEO

3:35

there, he tweeted, I'm going to step down

3:37

from being the CEO of Twitter as soon

3:39

as I find someone who is stupid enough

3:41

to take on that role. A

3:44

couple of weeks later, Linda Yakarino is

3:46

appointed as the first female CEO of

3:49

the business. And so research or lived

3:51

experience, we still see the glass cliff

3:53

playing out to a shocking degree for

3:55

a phenomenon that was named and identified

3:58

20 years ago. at

4:00

this point. And we've referenced

4:02

this but is the glass cliff

4:04

a phenomenon that affects only women

4:06

or is it really any underrepresented

4:10

group? So the initial

4:12

research into the glass cliff did just

4:14

look at women but research

4:16

subsequently that has identified that it's actually

4:18

an experience that is shared, you know,

4:21

has the potential to be shared by

4:23

all women and all

4:25

racially marginalized men. So

4:28

that is to say anyone who doesn't

4:30

fit the white male image

4:32

of a leader that we've all become

4:34

so accustomed to. And does

4:36

this filter down into lower levels

4:38

of the organization, you know,

4:41

when women are being considered for business

4:44

unit head roles or other senior

4:46

management jobs in organizations

4:48

where that's not the norm? Yeah,

4:50

absolutely. So the initial research again,

4:53

that looked very much at board

4:55

level and CEO appointments, but

4:57

further research has shown that it's

4:59

actually applicable to any level of

5:02

leadership that you step into.

5:04

That could be that first

5:06

level of people management, it

5:08

really just relies on you

5:10

not being the traditionally expected

5:12

leader at whatever level that

5:14

is at. And this

5:16

idea of sort of visibility and

5:18

novelty. So if you are stepping

5:20

into a role where you are

5:22

leading someone or leading something, you

5:25

are not the sort of demographic that

5:27

people expect to be there, then

5:29

we find the glass cliff playing out at all of

5:32

those different levels. So let's

5:34

tease out some of the

5:36

reasons why this still happens. Why

5:39

are women and

5:42

other underrepresented groups seen as

5:44

people who might be

5:46

able to step in when there's a crisis

5:49

and fix it? Well, I think it

5:51

has a couple of reasons really. So the research

5:53

looks a lot at soft skills,

5:55

and not necessarily women's possession of

5:57

soft skills, but more about people's

5:59

self-care. with expectations of the

6:01

possession of those soft skills. And

6:04

so when a business has gone through

6:06

a hard time, when they're in some

6:08

kind of moment of crisis, whether that's

6:10

reputational, whether that's financial, whether that's a

6:12

hit to stock price or performance, we

6:15

see businesses being more likely to turn

6:17

to women for leadership for the first

6:19

time. And that is likely

6:22

to be because there's a perception that

6:24

when a team has gone through a

6:26

hard time, what we're looking for suddenly

6:28

becomes someone to make us feel better.

6:30

Someone to play office mom, someone to

6:32

soothe those experiences and those team members

6:35

and not necessarily make transformational change, as

6:37

they say, but to just make people

6:39

feel better in that experience. But

6:42

because we're not bringing these women

6:44

in with expectation of transformational change-making,

6:46

even when they are capable of

6:48

it, it means that we

6:50

don't often give them either the tools

6:53

or the time that are necessary to

6:55

turn that perceived failure into a success

6:57

before they're exited. And so

6:59

we see female leaders being 24% more likely to

7:02

be fired than their male counterparts. And we

7:04

also see them having significantly shorter 10

7:06

years in role once they are there.

7:09

So that double-edged sword that you're describing, you're

7:12

being asked to step into a more

7:15

difficult situation and then also

7:18

given less time and support to manage it.

7:21

Why does that play out? In studies,

7:23

we saw that when businesses were presented

7:25

as being successful, 62% of people pick

7:27

a man to

7:30

become the new leader. However,

7:32

when a business is said to be

7:34

struggling, that number massively shrinks to only

7:36

31% picking a man. We've

7:40

all grown up with this early socialization of

7:43

associating men with both leadership

7:45

and power. And so when a business

7:47

is in a moment of crisis, what they're

7:49

doing in a lot of instances is just

7:51

signaling some kind of change to

7:54

investors, to employees, to

7:56

the world at large. We're doing something different.

7:58

We're taking a chance. and we're bringing

8:00

in someone who we haven't tried before. And

8:04

so they're able to get some kudos from this

8:06

novelty and from this open-mindedness that they're able to

8:08

show that they're demonstrating. But,

8:11

however, because we have for so

8:14

long associated leadership with male-ness, those

8:17

women are seen as less of a proven

8:19

entity. They have to do more

8:21

to get buy-in from that team. And

8:24

we see that people are less

8:26

likely to believe in their ability

8:28

for success from the

8:30

beginning, which means that what we

8:32

see actually is team members disinvesting

8:34

from what seems to them to be

8:36

a risky leader, which

8:39

means that women have a much harder time getting

8:41

that social capital that they

8:43

need in jobs in order to be

8:45

successful. And the other thing about

8:47

bringing women in when they're seen to be a novelty

8:50

is that we often see them being

8:52

used as either scapegoats or stopgaps.

8:55

So what can happen is all of the blame for

8:57

all of the trouble that the business is in, even

9:00

things that happened before she arrived, can get

9:02

put onto her shoulders and

9:05

she can become the figurehead of failure. And

9:07

that saves the business and to the shareholders

9:09

and to everyone again. We had this problem,

9:11

we found out what it was, and we've

9:13

got rid of that. And

9:15

what we see is more often than

9:18

not, these women, when they're seen to

9:20

fail, are replaced by white men. And

9:22

that's a move that's known as the saviour effect.

9:24

And that signals to everyone again that

9:27

we're back to business as usual.

9:29

We're back in a safe pair

9:31

of hands. And so these opportunities

9:33

for women are really often invisible

9:35

poison chalices because we don't tell

9:37

the story of this was a

9:39

glass cliff appointment because

9:42

we instead view it in

9:44

individualistic terms. Instead, we say this

9:46

woman wasn't good enough individually, rather

9:48

than saying we need to look at the opportunities

9:51

that we're giving to different people and how

9:53

we do or don't set those up for

9:55

success. You talk in

9:57

the book about this hyper visibility when

9:59

you're... the one example.

10:02

And then also just this extra scrutiny,

10:05

this idea that, you know, you

10:07

need to do it faster, you need to do

10:09

it better. Why is that

10:11

phenomenon happening in this extra scrutiny? When

10:14

we have two unusual things that happen at

10:16

the same time, say for example, this high

10:19

profile business is failing, and this

10:21

high profile business is run by a

10:23

woman, we often as

10:25

people don't view those as

10:27

two separate unusual acts. Instead,

10:30

what we tend to do as people

10:32

is to conflate those into one inextricably

10:34

linked phenomenon. And I think anyone

10:36

who's been in a minoritised position

10:38

knows this feeling of walking into

10:40

a room and being expected to represent

10:43

not just themselves, but all people

10:45

like themselves. So I'm a black woman,

10:47

and I'm very used to in the world

10:49

of advertising that I used to be in,

10:51

in my more junior roles,

10:54

when there would be a product or

10:56

a show or whatever it was that

10:58

we knew would skew towards a black

11:00

audience or a black buyer ship, eyes

11:02

would turn to me, and people would

11:04

expect me to be able to be

11:06

the voice and the face and the

11:08

opinion of all black consumers. And

11:10

I think we all know that we all know what it's

11:12

like to be the only woman in the room, the only

11:14

black person in the room, the only queer person in the

11:16

room, the only trans person in the room, sort of

11:19

whatever that is, it's also a

11:21

huge amount of pressure to put on somebody. Because

11:23

when you know that you are being

11:26

looked at as the voice or the

11:28

face of all of females potential leadership,

11:30

for example, then the pressure to

11:32

succeed becomes so much bigger than

11:35

you, right? It's not really about

11:37

you or how you feel, but

11:39

just about how you interpret

11:41

and internalise other people's perceptions

11:44

of you of being more

11:46

than just yourself. We

11:48

don't do that to groups who are in the

11:50

majority. I've never been in a room in

11:53

a pitch meeting in a discussion where

11:55

eyes have turned to a single white

11:57

man and they've said, well, what's

11:59

the matter? white male perspective because that

12:01

is understood to be varied, right?

12:04

That's understood to be nuanced and

12:06

personal. But when you are in

12:08

a marginalized group, you

12:10

lose that individuality. And

12:13

it might seem totally obvious, but why

12:15

does this matter for business and

12:17

society? The first reason

12:19

it matters is just the truth.

12:22

When we have these stories of

12:24

women coming into these really hard

12:27

to win positions, what happens when

12:29

they leave, when they get fired, when

12:31

they step out of those roles is

12:33

it becomes framed as this story of

12:36

women not being good enough, women

12:38

individually just not having the

12:40

skills or the tools

12:43

or the capabilities needed to be

12:45

successful in leadership. And

12:47

that not only affects that woman as

12:49

an individual, that then goes on to

12:51

impact who we think of when we

12:53

think of leaders and who we

12:56

open up opportunities to. The stories

12:58

that we tell about who is capable

13:01

to do this work are really impacted

13:03

by what we believe are the case

13:05

studies that we see of who is successful.

13:08

So if we're setting women up in

13:10

situations where it's so much harder for

13:12

them to have an opportunity to be

13:14

successful, then we just keep telling the

13:17

same untrue story about women's abilities

13:19

for leadership. And we know that

13:21

the more diversity that we have of

13:23

people who are able to speak up

13:25

and make decisions, we know that better

13:27

decisions on average get made. And there

13:29

is also research showing that when

13:32

female CEOs aren't falling

13:34

off or pushed off a glass cliff,

13:37

those companies actually are at the phone,

13:39

right? Absolutely. So

13:41

in preparation for International Women's Day

13:44

last year, Personal Finance Club looked

13:46

at the S&P 500

13:48

and how those businesses that were headed

13:51

by women had performed. And

13:53

of those 500 businesses that make up

13:55

the index, only 32 of those

13:57

had female CEOs. But if we

13:59

looked at that those female led companies

14:01

during that 10 year period up to 2023, we

14:04

see that despite being

14:07

a tiny minority, they had

14:09

in fact outperformed the male led

14:11

businesses in that index. And

14:14

the researchers on that were very

14:16

careful to say and to point

14:18

out that not all of those businesses

14:20

had had female CEOs for the entirety

14:23

of that 10 year period. But if

14:25

we isolate just the times within

14:27

that 10 years, when they did have

14:29

female CEOs, they still outperformed both the

14:32

male led businesses in the index and

14:34

the overall market. GEP,

14:40

AI powered digital transformation. GEP

14:42

is the global leader in

14:44

AI powered procurement and supply

14:46

chain transformation, helping companies

14:49

achieve impressive new levels

14:51

of resilience, sustainability and

14:53

competitiveness with strategy managed

14:55

services and AI powered

14:57

low code software platform,

14:59

GEP quantum. Hundreds

15:01

of market leading companies worldwide count

15:03

on GEP to transform their procurement

15:06

and supply chain operations and achieve

15:08

amazing results. gep.com.

15:16

I want to turn to solutions and

15:18

I like the fact that you are

15:20

focusing not on necessarily

15:23

this high level view of how

15:25

business as a whole or society as

15:27

a whole can get rid of the glass glass,

15:30

though we should, but what women leaders should do

15:32

knowing that it's still there as a risk as

15:35

a female leader. How do you recognize

15:37

that you're being offered a glass cliff

15:39

opportunity? GEP. So I think

15:41

the idea of recognizing it is

15:43

a really important starting point because

15:45

for so long we viewed these

15:48

successes or failures of women as

15:50

individual successes or failures, especially in

15:52

individualistic societies like the US or

15:54

the UK. We haven't zoomed out

15:56

to see this, not as a

15:58

story of personal failures. but

16:00

as a shared story of structural inequity

16:03

that impacts women and racially marginalised

16:05

men. We haven't given people the

16:07

opportunity to assess leadership

16:09

roles that come to them and make a choice.

16:12

And that choice is really important because

16:14

it could be that you recognise that

16:16

you're likely to fall foul of the

16:18

glass cliff, but also feel that you're

16:20

not likely to be given a similar

16:22

opportunity in a business that's thriving, and

16:25

so you decide to go for it. So

16:27

it's really important that we don't say the glass

16:29

cliff means that women should never look at

16:31

taking on even risky senior leadership

16:34

roles. But instead what I

16:36

want to do is give them the tools

16:38

needed to identify them. So the

16:40

first thing that you should look for as you're

16:42

considering a role like this is a moment of crisis.

16:45

You should look for reputational scandals that are

16:47

likely to be passed over to a new

16:49

leader, and you should also

16:51

look at the last six to

16:53

12 months of profitability in shared performance,

16:56

because if either of those is seriously on the

16:58

rocks, then you could be facing a glass

17:00

cliff kind of scenario. The

17:03

next thing that makes the glass cliff much

17:05

more likely to play out is the availability

17:07

of internal support, because I

17:09

think we need to remember when we

17:11

talk about leaders, even the greatest leader

17:13

isn't turning things around single-handedly, right? She

17:16

needs her team, and she particularly

17:18

needs her senior team. And so if

17:20

we can be mindful about what

17:22

that senior team looks like, what their

17:24

make-up is, and how likely we are

17:26

to be able to rely on them

17:29

for support once we're in role, that's

17:31

another really good indicator. And the last

17:33

thing is just the history of leadership.

17:36

If the history of leadership within that business has

17:38

been all male until this opportunity

17:40

comes your way, then the chances of

17:42

the glass cliffs again are heightened, because

17:45

we have this idea of novelty,

17:47

and we have this idea of someone

17:49

potentially coming in, not as

17:51

a respected and protected leader who is

17:54

likely to get all of the tools

17:56

and time that we need, but as

17:58

someone who's like... to be, seem

18:01

to be a disposable,

18:03

expendable stopgap while we continue

18:06

our search for the right man for the

18:08

role. How do you

18:10

evaluate whether the risks

18:12

are worth the potential rewards?

18:15

I think that is incredibly personal

18:17

for each individual. So it

18:21

could be that you know that

18:23

you are in an industry where

18:25

you have got this great reputation

18:27

and that opportunities come your way

18:29

often. In that set of

18:31

circumstances, a glass cliff opportunity might

18:33

look really different if you're a

18:35

woman in a more male dominated

18:37

industry where you've seen the opportunities

18:39

for leadership are much harder to

18:41

come by. And we see that

18:43

women as they said are 14%

18:46

less likely to be promoted year one year,

18:48

even when they score highly for

18:51

both performance and potential. And

18:53

so it could be that you feel that your

18:55

opportunities for leadership, your opportunities for

18:58

progression are limited. And so you

19:00

understand the risks of the glass cliff,

19:02

but decide to go for it anyway.

19:04

I think it's incredibly personal about what

19:07

stage of your career you're at, what opportunities

19:09

you feel like you're likely to be given

19:11

going forwards or not. But I think

19:13

once we know that the risk exists, and

19:16

we know how to spot it, then we can

19:18

use that to all make our own decisions about

19:20

what next steps are right for us. You

19:22

know, women are not a monolith. I

19:25

think something that might not be attractive

19:27

to me might be incredibly attractive to

19:29

you or to a different person. I

19:32

just advocate for people understanding the

19:34

scenario, understanding the situation and going

19:36

in with their eyes open. And

19:39

hopefully they can make it a success.

19:41

And when you see the danger signs,

19:44

when you've evaluated the risks,

19:47

but decided to do it anyway,

19:50

what can you do to de-risk,

19:52

you know, to make sure

19:54

that you are given

19:56

the space and time to solve the crisis that's

19:58

being thrown at you? It

20:01

can vary from appointment to appointment.

20:04

So one of the things that we can see that can really

20:06

reduce the risk is if you're promoted into

20:08

a role rather than being parachuted

20:10

in as an outsider because you

20:12

already have those internal support systems,

20:15

hopefully, that you can rely on. But

20:18

when you're external, when you're coming

20:20

in externally, it can be really

20:23

hard to assess whether those support systems are

20:25

likely to be there or not. So

20:27

one thing that we can see that makes a

20:29

significant difference for female and

20:31

black and global majority men

20:34

is the external support system that they

20:36

can bring in. So

20:38

if I have a job or I have an

20:40

offer that I have and I just

20:43

say to my community, to my external

20:46

support system, okay, I'm going to

20:48

give this a go, but there's a really high

20:50

chance of failure here. If that

20:52

happens, I need your support to

20:55

strategize, to make success, or

20:58

if we choose to step off

21:01

the glass cliff, if we choose to

21:03

exit, then they can help you manage

21:05

that step down. They can help you

21:08

soften your landing. And

21:10

you also advise people

21:12

negotiating some ground rules in terms

21:15

of the support that they'll

21:17

receive from the board, from

21:19

their leadership team, the money

21:21

they'll get, the time they'll

21:23

have. I really went

21:25

into writing this book thinking that that is

21:28

what I was going to recommend. And

21:30

I start each chapter with a case

21:32

study of a woman who, in my

21:34

opinion, has faced the glass cliff. And

21:37

we see that a lot of them actually

21:39

were really canny. They were really smart and

21:41

they did have those initial negotiations.

21:44

So we see lots of women set out minimum terms

21:46

of how long they will need to be

21:49

able to make the transformational change that we

21:51

see them being successful in that role. But

21:54

what we see time and time again

21:56

in these stories is despite these agreements

21:58

and these contracts being in place. Women

22:00

are still let go before the

22:02

end of those terms. And so

22:05

I would say, yes, absolutely, always,

22:07

always bring these things to light. I

22:10

would absolutely say the sooner the better. If you

22:12

can bring these things to light during the interview

22:14

phase, then absolutely. And so I'd

22:16

always say get the protections that you can,

22:19

get them written down, make it so if

22:21

they do decide to exit you before the

22:23

agreed timeframe, they have to pay you, they

22:26

have to buy you out of that contract.

22:29

So talk about some of the women who

22:32

have navigated these challenges really well,

22:34

you know, maybe Jacinda Ardern of New

22:37

Zealand or Mary Barra

22:39

of General Motors. Yeah,

22:42

so Mary Barra of GM is an

22:44

example that I use in the book.

22:46

And I think she is similar

22:49

to Linda Yacarino in in several

22:51

ways. Because Linda Yacarino is

22:53

taken on this role with us

22:55

all knowing culturally that Twitter is

22:57

in trouble, right? We all know

23:00

that they've lost a lot of

23:02

fair ad revenue. We all know

23:04

that they've had a real reputational

23:06

hit since being taken over

23:08

by alumni. And when

23:10

Mary Barra went on to take

23:12

on the CEO role at GM,

23:15

a company that she'd been in

23:17

for most of her adult life,

23:19

they suddenly found themselves in a

23:21

moment of ultimate crisis. Their

23:24

cars had really significant safety

23:26

flaws, which killed people and

23:28

injured others. But because

23:30

Mary Barra was so new in that

23:32

role when that happened, she was able

23:34

to lead with a lot of empathy.

23:36

She was able to really bring those

23:38

soft skills that we see women being expected

23:40

to have to the fore. She

23:43

was able to take responsibility as

23:45

a business for these issues.

23:47

And she was able to very publicly

23:50

make changes, change staff,

23:52

and put in place public plans to

23:55

not allow disasters like this to happen

23:57

again. We've talked a lot about what

24:00

women themselves can do to recognize the

24:02

glass cliff, set them up

24:04

for a greater likelihood of success. What

24:07

would you like to see organizations start

24:09

to do? What I

24:11

really want to see businesses start to

24:14

do, or organizations, or governments, you know,

24:16

because we do see the glass cliff

24:18

playing out in all of these different

24:20

scenarios, we have

24:23

to diversify the business at all levels. Businesses

24:25

have often spent time in

24:27

bringing people who are underrepresented in

24:30

at these entry-level junior roles,

24:32

where they're not paid very well, they're not

24:35

invested in in the same way as the

24:37

rest of their team. And so we see

24:39

this, what Lean In Foundation calls the broken

24:41

rung. So that rung is using

24:43

the analogy of a career ladder, and

24:45

we climb these different rungs to get

24:47

higher and higher. And that

24:50

very fast rung, for every 100 men

24:53

who are promoted to that first

24:55

level of leadership, only 87 women

24:58

take that same step forward.

25:01

So that means when it comes to look

25:03

at the next level, when we hire for

25:05

the next level of leadership, men are still

25:07

disproportionately represented in that first layer of leadership,

25:10

and so we're more than likely to pick

25:12

one for that next layer, and again, and

25:14

again, and again. And that

25:16

leads to a situation that we're in

25:19

now, white men at the entry-level represent

25:21

about 30% of entry-level jobs. But

25:25

by the time we look to the C-suite,

25:27

that representation has ballooned up to somewhere

25:29

between 65 and 68% representation, according

25:33

to the Lean In Foundation and McKinsey. So

25:36

what that means is we could say

25:38

that white men are the only group

25:41

who don't experience the glass ceiling

25:43

in their careers. Because instead

25:45

of looking up at the start of their professional

25:48

lives and not seeing themselves represented

25:50

at those most senior levels, what

25:52

they often do is look

25:55

up and see on average

25:57

nothing but themselves represented. continue

26:00

to have this expectation, which

26:02

actually researchers call think manager,

26:04

think male, that means

26:06

we don't give other people there's

26:08

opportunities to progress in their careers and

26:11

to take on those most senior roles. And

26:13

as long as we do that, women will

26:15

continue to be seen as novelties. Men

26:17

who are black or global majority will

26:20

also be seen as novelties as risks

26:22

in these most senior roles. And so

26:24

what we need to focus on is

26:27

not just diversifying those most junior entry

26:29

level roles, but really diversifying every level

26:31

of business that people get an equal

26:34

opportunity. And we've got a workforce that

26:36

is much more of the meritocracy that

26:38

we're told that we're working within. So

26:41

I just really need businesses

26:43

to take investment, sponsorship and

26:45

development seriously at

26:47

every level for all of their staff.

26:49

I think we need to be aware

26:52

of these systemic biases

26:54

and how they impact people from the very

26:56

beginnings of their careers. Because obviously, if we're

26:58

not giving people the same start, they're not

27:00

going to get to the same places in

27:02

the end. And getting beyond

27:04

tokenism, you know, not saying, Oh, well, we

27:06

have one or two female board

27:09

members. We had one female CEO

27:11

in our history, you know, so

27:13

we don't really need to do it again, we can

27:15

go back to the sort of the white male leadership

27:18

model. My worry too is

27:20

just the vicious cycle, right? So when

27:23

female leaders do make it to these positions of

27:25

power, and then you see them treated

27:28

badly, unsupported, thrown

27:31

off the glass cliff in some cases, you

27:34

as an up and coming leader

27:36

think to yourself, I don't really

27:38

want that. You

27:40

know, I don't want my head to be

27:42

depicted as lettuce withering on

27:45

national television until I'm forced

27:47

out of the UK Prime Ministership. Yeah, I

27:49

mean, I don't want to be lettuce either.

27:51

So yeah, I completely agree with that perspective.

27:54

So it's important that we break this

27:56

phenomenon once and for all, if you

27:58

could leave our listeners with

28:00

one thing to think about or

28:03

one action to take in their work to

28:06

try to stop this pattern, what

28:08

would it be? So the

28:10

more and more I talk about this,

28:13

the more and more I think my

28:15

advice is understand the

28:17

importance of support. So if

28:19

we want to see more female

28:21

and black and global majority CEOs

28:24

not only being given opportunities but

28:26

being successful in those opportunities, if

28:29

we know that more often than not

28:31

they cannot rely on what should be

28:33

those primary support systems within their teams

28:35

or within their roles, then we can

28:37

try to be them. And when we

28:39

hear stories about you know this person

28:41

was a terrible leader, this person was

28:43

bad, we can just be aware of

28:45

the glass cliff and we can build

28:47

that into our dialogue and it sounds

28:49

such a pop-out right just to be

28:51

like oh just be aware of it.

28:54

But I think the fact that this

28:56

phenomenon has been named and identified as

28:58

existing for 20 years but most

29:00

people still don't know its name, I think

29:02

that really speaks to the importance of saying

29:05

are you aware of the wider person

29:07

here? Are you aware that this is a thing

29:09

that we do to underrepresented leaders?

29:11

Because when we can take away that

29:13

narrative of this or that person is

29:16

our only example of female leadership and

29:18

she was terrible at it, if

29:21

we can reframe and recontextualize that and

29:23

we can tell a better version of

29:25

the actual truth about what's happening there

29:27

as a shared experience, as a shared

29:30

cultural phenomenon rather than as an individual

29:32

failing of this or that woman or

29:35

by extrapolation of woman kind overall

29:37

then I think we can have

29:40

a good chance of breaking the

29:42

cycle. Well Sophie thanks so

29:44

much for speaking with me today. Thank you so much for

29:46

having me. That's

29:50

Sophie Williams, a former global leader at Netflix

29:53

and author of the book The Glass Cliff,

29:55

why women in power are undermined and how

29:57

to fight back. and

30:00

more podcasts to help you manage your team,

30:02

your organization, and your career. Find

30:04

them at hbr.org/podcasts or search

30:07

HBR in Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

30:09

or wherever you listen. Thanks

30:12

to our team, Senior Producer Mary Du,

30:14

Associate Producer Hannah Bates, Audio

30:16

Product Manager Ian Fox, and Senior

30:18

Production Specialist Rob Eckhart. And

30:20

thanks to you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast.

30:23

We'll be back with a new episode on

30:25

Tuesday. I'm Alison Beard.