Standing at the Edge: What the Glass Cliff Evidence Really Says and How Boards Can Set Crisis Leaders Up to Succeed

Abstract: The glass cliff describes a pattern in which women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely than white men to be appointed to leadership roles when an organization is already in trouble. Two decades after the term was coined, the idea is widely cited and sometimes dismissed, and a 2026 controversy at a global consulting firm brought the debate back into public view. This article reviews what the research shows, including a 2020 meta-analysis that found small, context-dependent effects, recent large archival studies that point in opposite directions, and evidence that women and minority leaders tend to receive less leeway once appointed. It then examines documented appointments across automotive, banking, technology, media, sports, and legal settings, and sets out five evidence-based responses for boards: risk-transparent appointments, early and inclusive succession pipelines, resourced transitions, fair performance attribution, and evidence-first governance of contested debates. It closes with three pillars for building durable succession capability.