Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
Politics and the Glass Cliff:
Evidence that Women are Preferentially Selected to Contest Hard-to-Win Seats
Michelle K. Ryan, S. Alexander Haslam, & Clara Kulich
University of Exeter
Author Note
Michelle K. Ryan, School of Psychology, University of Exeter; S. Alexander Haslam, School of
Psychology, University of Exeter; Clara Kulich, School of Business, University of Exeter.
This research reported in this paper was funded by a grant from the Economic and Social
Research Council (RES-062-23-0135) and an RCUK Academic Fellowship awarded to the first
author. We are grateful to Andrew Hindmoor and Cate Atkins for their help with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michelle Ryan, School of
Psychology, The University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK. E-mail: M.Ryan@exeter.ac.uk
1
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
2
Abstract
Recent archival and experimental research by Ryan and Haslam (2005, 2007; Haslam & Ryan,
2008) has revealed that women are more likely than men to be appointed to leadership positions
when an organization is in crisis. As a result, women often confront a “glass cliff” in which their
position as leader is precarious. Our first archival study examined the 2005 UK General Election
and found that, in the Conservative Party, women contested harder-to-win seats than did men. Our
second study experimentally investigated the selection of a candidate by 80 undergraduates in a
British political science class to contest a by-election in a seat that was either safe (held by own
party with a large margin) or risky (held by an opposition party with a large margin). Results
indicated that a male candidate was more likely than a woman to be selected to contest a safe seat,
but there was a strong preference for a female rather than a male appointment when the seat was
described as hard to win. Implications for women’s participation in politics are discussed.
Keywords: political processes, sex discrimination, glass cliff, sex role attitudes, social
identity, leadership
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
3
Politics and the Glass Cliff:
Evidence that Women Are Preferentially Selected to Contest Hard-to-Win Seats
Despite evidence that women are beginning to break through the “glass ceiling” that has
hindered their full participation in economic and political life, they have yet to achieve true gender
equality. Women continue to be under-represented in the most powerful positions of society. This
observation is particularly true in the corporate world, where women are clearly a minority among
those in power. For example, within the European Union, women make up, on average, just over
10% of the top executives in the top 50 publicly quoted companies (European Commission, 2005).
Similarly, in the United States, women compose less than 16% of corporate officers and fewer than
15% of members of boards of directors within Fortune 500 companies (Catalyst, 2009).
In the political sphere the picture is quite similar, with women making up only 19% of UK
Members of Parliament (UK Parliament, 2009), 17% of the U.S. Congress (Center for American
Women and Politics, 2009), 21% of the European parliament, 18% of politicians in Asia, and only
10% of politicians in the Arab States (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2009). Furthermore, research
suggests that the candidate selection process favors male candidates over female candidates (EOC,
2002), and that voters generally have a preference for male candidates (e.g., Falk & Kenski, 2006;
Fox & Smith, 1998; cf. Norris & Lovenduski, 1995).
Many investigations into the gender imbalance in politics focus on the traits and abilities of
male and female politicians. Some commentaries explore the differences between men and women
as an argument against excluding women from politics, arguing for the distinctive contribution that
women can (and do) make in the political sphere (Sawer, 2000). The notion that women bring
something different to the political table is echoed by women politicians themselves. Britain’s first
(and only) female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, suggested that male and female politicians do
indeed behave differently: “In politics, if you want something said, ask a man; if you want
something done, ask a woman” (BBC News, 2002). Also pointing to the potential for women to
make a positive impact in the political arena, British Labour Member for Parliament (MP) and
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
4
former cabinet minister, Clare Short, has claimed that: “As more women come into the Commons,
the culture will change, the agenda of politics will broaden, and the institution itself will be
transformed” (quoted in McDougal, 1998, p. 137).
Examining differences between men and women can help us explain women’s underrepresentation and provide arguments for equality. However, such a strategy runs the risk of being
appropriated as an argument for exactly the opposite case — the exclusion of women from political
life. Indeed, Fukuyama (1998) considered gender disparities that are said to be rooted in genetic and
evolutionary differences and argued that, due to “essential” differences between men and women,
the face of politics would change for the worse as a result of women’s increased political
participation.
An alternative to a group difference approach would involve examination of the context
surrounding women’s political participation. One way in which this approach can be achieved is by
examining the types of political opportunities women are offered, the positions they achieve when
they take on political roles, and the barriers they face both in attaining and in filling those roles. Our
paper will examine these issues from the perspective of research which suggests that women are
more likely than men to occupy leadership positions that have an increased risk of failure (Ryan &
Haslam, 2005, 2007). Extending the metaphor of the glass ceiling, this phenomenon is labeled the
“glass cliff” to evoke the precariousness of such positions due to the dangers of falling from the
heights of leadership.
The Glass Cliff
In order to understand women’s under-representation as political leaders, we can look to
research into gender equality in organizational leadership. Previous research in the organizational
realm suggests that women leaders may occupy positions that are very different from those of their
male counterparts (Ryan and Haslam, 2005, 2007). For example, in an examination of the top 100
companies on the London Stock Exchange (the FTSE 100), Ryan and Haslam (2005) analyzed
patterns of share price performance before and after the appointment of a male or female board
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
5
member. This archival research revealed that, in a time of financial downturn in the stock market,
companies that appointed a woman to their board had experienced consistently poorer performance
in the five months preceding the appointment than a matched sample of companies that had
appointed men to their boards. We argued that these women confronted a “glass cliff” because they
were more likely than men to be appointed to leadership positions in problematic organizational
circumstances. In these cases, women came to occupy leadership roles that had an increased risk of
failure and could thus be seen as more precarious than those of their male counterparts. Moreover,
these positions are likely to attract more attention than those of men, to expose women to greater
stress than men (Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, Kulich, & Atkins, 2007), and to make women vulnerable
to higher risk of blame for negative outcomes for which they are not responsible (Ryan & Haslam,
2007; but cf. Kulich, Ryan, & Haslam, 2007 where women leaders were held less responsible for
organizational outcomes than were men).
Support for the notion of glass cliffs come from quantitative research that suggests that
women’s leadership opportunities are very different from those of men. In particular, studies in
which organizational performance is experimentally manipulated demonstrate the preferential
selection of women for leadership positions in times of crisis. A consistent finding in this research
is that women are selected for leadership positions ahead of equally qualified men when (and only
when) there is a high risk of organizational (and leader) failure (Ashby, Ryan, & Haslam, 2007;
Bruckmüller & Branscombe, in press; Haslam & Ryan, 2008).
Within the political realm there is already some evidence that women are selected to run for
seats that have different characteristics than those for which their male counterparts are candidates.
In the United States, former Democratic National Committee Chair, John Bailey, once stated that
“the only time to run a women is when things look so bad that your only chance is to do something
dramatic” (quoted in Burrell, 1993, p.123). Indeed, historical research suggests that, in the United
States between 1916 and 1978, women were more likely than men to run for Congress in
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
6
“hopeless” districts, that is, districts where their party had received less than 40% of the vote in the
previous election (Gertzog & Simard, 1981).
In the United Kingdom, political commentary has acknowledged that whereas male
candidates and Members of Parliament (MPs) are disproportionately represented in “safe” (i.e., easy
to win) seats, women are more likely to be concentrated in marginal seats (Lovenduski, 2005;
Short, 1996). Indeed, in recognition of the fact that men and women may not be competing on level
playing fields, the UK Labour Party introduced the affirmative action strategies of “twinning,”
where constituencies with the same likelihood of being won by a political party are paired and then
a male candidate is placed in one constituency and a female candidate in the other (Stokes, 2005).
Anecdotally, one also can interpret the careers of a number of high-profile female politicians
in terms of glass cliffs. In the UK, Baroness Margaret Thatcher twice ran as a Conservative
candidate for a strong, safe Labour seat, losing at both attempts, before winning and going on to
serve as prime minister. Kim Campbell, the first female Canadian prime minister, took over the
leadership position of the Conservative Party in troubled times, then duly lost the next election only
months later. In Australian politics, it is notable that there have only ever been three female State
Premiers – Joan Kirner in Victoria, Carmen Lawrence in Western Australia, and Anna Bligh in
Queensland. All three were appointed mid-term (replacing male counterparts); Kirner and
Lawrence after their party had been exposed to humiliating scandals. As a result, both Kirner and
Lawrence faced the prospect of unwinnable elections, which they duly went on to lose, while only
Bligh went on to win the position in her own right.
The Present Research
Given existing gender inequities in the political sphere and preliminary evidence for a
political glass cliff, the present research sought to establish empirically whether women are
differentially selected to contest seats that are difficult to win. Study 1 documents the phenomenon
by way of archival research into the 2005 UK General Election. Yet, although this study may
provide evidence of the existence of a glass cliff in the political arena, it still raises questions about
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
7
whether the phenomenon is due to women’s political (in)abilities, such as being less experienced or
less qualified, or whether it is more directly due to gender per se. These questions are addressed in
experimental research, which allows these (and other) variables to be controlled. More specifically,
Study 2 uses experimental methods to examine relative preference for male and female candidates
in the selection phase of a fictitious by-election where the winnability of the seat is manipulated.
Study 1
Within the UK, women are clearly under-represented in the political sphere. Women make
up 21% of the current Labour cabinet (Labour Party, 2008), 19% of the lower house (UK
Parliament, 2009), 20% of the upper house (Centre for Advancement of Women in Politics (2008),
35% of the Scottish parliament (Scottish Parliament, 2009), and 17% of the Northern Ireland
Assembly (Northern Ireland Assembly, 2009), with equality being achieved only in the National
Assembly for Wales (where the Labour Party used affirmative action measures) (Equality and
Human Rights Commission, 2008).
In the 2005 General Election, 720 women ran as candidates (20.3% of all candidates),
providing an opportunity to explore the electorates in which women were chosen to run as a
function of party and seat winnability. In this election, within the two main parties, 27% of the
Labour candidates were women, compared to 19% of Conservative candidates. Of the 646
constituencies, almost half of them (300) had all men as the three main challengers (Fawcett
Society, 2005). As noted above, of the two main parties, only the Labour Party took affirmative
action in relation to gender, using all-women shortlists to ensure that women were selected to
contest winnable seats.
Study 1 looked at this election more closely in order to examine the electoral success of
women and the nature of the seats they were selected to contest. Our study rests on observations by
Gertzog and Simard (1981) that women are more likely than men to run in unwinnable (or
hopeless) seats. Our research extends this work by looking at winnability as a continuous (rather
than discrete) variable and by examining the impact of seat winnability on votes received. In light
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
8
of Labour’s affirmative action policies, we expected that the normative practice of placing women
in precarious glass cliff positions would be disrupted and thus we did not expect to find gender
differences in electoral success or seat winnability for the Labour Party. However, in line with the
evidence of glass cliffs in other domains (Ryan & Haslam, 2005, 2007), we hypothesized that, in
the Conservative party, women would be selected to contest seats that were significantly less
winnable than those in which their male counterparts ran (Hypothesis 1). Moreover, we predicted
that such selection biases would have an impact on women’s electoral success, such that they would
receive a smaller percentage of the vote than men (Hypothesis 2).
Method
Design and procedure. Using data provided by the UK Electoral Commission (Electoral
Commission, 2006), a dataset was compiled which contained detailed information about the 2005
UK General Election. Only data pertaining to the two main parties (Labour, the governing party that
retained power after the election, and Conservative) were included in the analysis. In all, data from
1,258 candidates were analyzed, including 289 women and 969 men. The dataset contained the
following information: (a) constituency, (b) candidate name, (c) candidate gender, (d) party
affiliation, (e) percentage of votes won, (f) percentage of votes won by party in the previous
election (in 2001), and (g) the relative winnability of the seat for each candidate, calculated as the
percentage margin by which their party had won (or lost) the previous election.
Results
Winnability. In order to investigate the impact of candidate gender and political party on
seat winnability, a 2 (gender of candidate) x 2 (party: Conservative or Labour) between-groups
ANOVA was conducted. Unsurprisingly, the analyses revealed a significant main effect for party,
F(1, 1161) = 258.34, p < .001, 2 = .18, such that the Labour party (the governing party)
candidates ran for seats that were significantly more winnable than did the Conservative party. The
analyses also revealed a significant main effect for gender, F(1, 1161) = 10.67, p = .001, 2 = .009,
indicating that, overall, women ran for less winnable seats. On average, women contested seats that
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
9
were held by the opposition by a margin of 5.1% of the votes. In contrast, men contested seats that
were held by the opposition by 2.6% of the vote.
However these two main effects were qualified by a two-way interaction, F(1, 1161) =
20.46, p < .001, 2 = .017. In line with Hypothesis 1, tests of simple effects to decompose this
interaction revealed that gender differences in the winnability of seats occurred only for
Conservative party candidates. Here, women ran for seats that were significantly less winnable in
the sense that they were held by the opposition party by a much larger margin (M = 26.2%, SD =
21.9) than those contested by men (M = 12.4%, SD = 23.4), F(1, 1161) = 27.42, p < .001, 2 = .023.
Indeed, based on these figures, the seats in which Conservative women ran can be seen as extremely
safe Labour seats. No gender difference was apparent for the Labour party, F(1, 1161) = .88, p =
.35.
Electoral success. In order to investigate electoral success (measured as percentage of votes
won) as a function of candidates’ gender and political party, a 2 (gender of candidate) x 2 (party:
Conservative or Labour) between-groups ANOVA was conducted. As expected, given that Labour
won the election, the analyses revealed a significant main effect for party, F(1, 1254) = 68.93, p <
.001, 2 = .052, such that, on average, Labour candidates won a higher percentage of votes (M =
37.83, SD = 15.17) than did the Conservative candidates (M = 31.40, SD = 14.11). The analyses
also revealed a significant main effect for gender, F(1, 1254) = 12.34, p < .001, 2 = .010, such
that, on average, women won a smaller percentage of votes (M = 32.67, SD = 14.42) than did men
(M = 35.18, SD = 15.12). These main effects, however, were qualified by a significant two-way
interaction, F(1, 1254) = 7.97, p = .005, 2 = .006. In line with Hypothesis 2, simple effects
demonstrated that gender differences in electoral success occurred only for the Conservative party,
where female candidates achieved a significantly smaller proportion of the vote (M = 26.38, SD =
12.76) than did men (M = 32.61, SD = 14.17), F(1, 1254) = 18.17, p < .001, 2 = .014. A gender
difference was not apparent for the Labour party, F(1, 1254) = .27, p = .61.
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
10
Regression analysis. The above analyses demonstrate that, within the UK Conservative
Party, women won a significantly smaller proportion of the vote than men. In order to examine
whether women’s lack of success could be explained by the winnability of the seats they contested,
a stepwise regression analysis was conducted. In a first step, regression demonstrated that, within
the Conservative party, there was a significant negative relationship between gender and electoral
success (β
-.22, p < .001) such that female candidates enjoyed significantly less success than
male candidates. However, when electoral success was simultaneously regressed on gender and seat
winnability, the previously significant relationship between candidate gender and electoral success
became non-significant (β
-.003, p = .87), while at the same time there was a significant
relationship between winnability and electoral success (β
p < .001). Taken together, these
results indicate that although Conservative women performed less well than their male counterparts,
receiving, on average, smaller percentages of the vote in their electorates, this lack of success
disappeared entirely when seat winnability was taken into account.
Discussion
The results from this study provide some archival support for the existence of the glass cliff
in the 2005 UK General Election. Consistent with our first hypothesis, within the Conservative
party, women were selected to contest seats that were significantly less winnable than those of their
male counterparts. Indeed, the seats in which Conservative women ran were clearly Labour
strongholds, needing, on average, an almost impossible swing of over 26% of the vote to win.
Moreover, supporting our second hypothesis, female candidates actually performed less well than
did male candidates, securing a significantly smaller proportion of the vote in their elections.
Conservative women’s lack of electoral success could potentially lead commentators to
conclude — as they have in the organizational domain (Judge, 2003) — that women under-perform
in the political arena and are poorly equipped for meeting the challenges of pursuing electoral
office. However, countering this argument, it is clear from the results of the regression analyses that
there were no gender differences in performance when seat winnability was taken into account.
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
11
Such a finding suggests that women’s lack of electoral success is not due to their inability to
convince the voters, but rather, consistent with the glass cliff, to the winnability of the seats in
which they ran.
Additionally, the results of Study 1 show that female Labour Party candidates did not face
the same glass cliff as did Conservative women. Labour women were placed in seats that were as
winnable as those of their male counterparts, and they enjoyed the same level of electoral success.
This finding points to the success of affirmative action programs in countering the particular
problems that glass cliffs pose for women who aspire to leadership positions. Moreover, the
findings suggest that having been given the opportunity to vote for female candidates in winnable
seats, the Labour voting public did not differentiate between male and female candidates. Such a
pattern of outcomes across parties argues that the pre-selection of political candidates plays some
role in ensuring equal gender representation in public life.
Study 2
Although the results of Study 1 provide some evidence of the glass cliff in a real political
context, archival research of this form has significant limitations. In particular, although the
external validity of the research is high, it does not help understand why women occupy less
winnable seats than men (Haslam & McGarty, 2003). For example, it could be argued that gender
differences in seat allocation are a reflection of multiple realities: that female candidates (a) are less
experienced or less qualified than their male counterparts (Palmer & Simon, 2006; Shvedova, 2005;
cf. EOC, 2002), (b) have different strengths or abilities from those of men (Childs, 2004), or (c)
themselves choose to contest seats that are less winnable. One way of addressing this issue is to
conduct experimental research that manipulates candidate gender while controlling for other
variables (such as experience or age) that may co-vary with gender in the world at large. In short,
this method allows us to ascertain whether women are selected to contest less winnable seats
precisely because they are women. Drawing on insights gained from Study 1, and congruent with
experimental research conducted in the organizational realm (Haslam & Ryan, 2008), Study 2
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
12
utilized a by-election (i.e., a special election) scenario in which political science students selected a
candidate to contest a hypothetical seat that was either “safe” (i.e., easily winnable) or “risky”’ (i.e.,
hard to win). Adapting the method devised by Haslam and Ryan (2008, Studies 1 and 2), two target
candidates were described — a male and a female candidate whose experience and qualifications
were matched on key dimensions. In line with previous demonstrations of the glass cliff, we
predicted that the female candidate would be more likely to be chosen to contest the risky seat than
the safe one. In contrast, we expected that the male candidate would be more likely to be chosen to
contest the safe seat rather than the risky one.
Method
Participants and design. Participants were 80 final year undergraduate political science
students from a British university who participated in the study during a class exercise. Ages ranged
from 18 to 37 years with median age of 19 years; 24 (30%) were women and 56 were men.
Participants received a description about a by-election with information about two un-named
political parties – “Party X” and “Party Y.” The information made clear that the contested seat was
either held, or not held, by Party X. Participants then evaluated three potential Party X candidates
(including the two focal candidates, a male and female candidate) to contest the seat in the byelection. The study thus had a 2 (winnability: high, low) x 2 (gender of candidate) x 2 (gender of
participant) design, with repeated measures on the second factor.
Materials and procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two versions of a
six-page questionnaire. The first page began with a newspaper article describing a fictitious byelection to replace a retiring Member of Parliament (MP, equivalent to a member of the U.S.
Congress) in the electoral seat of Caldwell. In order to manipulate the winnability of the seat, the
article included seat information from the previous election. In the high-winnability condition
(“Caldwell By-Election: Party X Strong”), participants read that in the previous election Party X
“won the seat convincingly” and that “all recent polls point to the Party X trend continuing.” In
addition, a graph was included showing that Party X won the seat with a total vote of 55.01% in the
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
13
last election. In the low-winnability condition (“Caldwell By-Election: Party Y Strong”), different
participants saw parallel text and a chart that here favored Party Y. In both versions of the
questionnaire, the article stated that candidates would be announced shortly. As a manipulation
check, participants were asked to indicate who they thought would win the election on a 7-point
scale from 1 (Party X will win) through 4 (it will be even) to 7 (Party Y will win).
Participants then were informed that Party X was choosing a candidate to run in the
Caldwell by-election. They were given brief descriptions of three potential candidates, modeled on
the paradigm developed by Haslam and Ryan (2008). From the candidate descriptions, it was
readily apparent that two of the three candidates stood out as being extremely qualified for the
position: Candidate 1 (a male candidate) and Candidate 3 (a female candidate). Both candidates
were described as long-standing party members, living in the Caldwell district, currently holding
local council seats, and sitting on a number of high-profile committees. While the descriptions were
matched on these key dimensions, they varied slightly in their details (for example, the University
that the candidate attended and the Council that they represented), and so the descriptions were
counterbalanced across gender. A third (male) candidate (Candidate 2) was included to enhance
mundane realism and capture features of the typical candidate shortlists — in which women are a
numerical minority. However, this candidate was obviously much weaker than Candidates 1 and 3
because he had recently moved to the area and had only very limited political experience.
After reading about the candidates, participants were asked to evaluate each in turn by
indicating their level of agreement with a series of statements on 7-point scales from 1 (do not
agree at all) to 7 (agree completely). Three items were designed to measure perceptions of the
candidate’s suitability for the position (“The candidate’s past experience is relevant to the position,”
“The candidate would be suitable for the position,” and “The candidate will bring the right skills to
the job”; for the male candidate, =.81, and for the female candidate, =.87). Two items measured
the candidate’s leadership ability (“The candidate has clear leadership credentials” and “The
candidate has the skills and experience to lead other people”; for the male candidate, r = .59, p <
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
14
001, and for the female candidate, r =.69, p < 001). Each variable was computed by averaging over
its items.
Participants were then asked to rank the three candidates, from 1 to 3 (where 1 was the
preferred representative). Finally participants were asked to provide some basic demographic
information. After completing the questionnaire, they were debriefed in full.
Results
Manipulation checks. Analysis of the manipulation check item suggested that participants
clearly understood the manipulation. Participants believed that Party X was more likely to win the
election in the highly winnable condition (M = 2.77, SD = 1.22) than in the hard-to-win condition
(M = 5.26, SD = 1.52), t(71) = 7.70, p < .001.
Preliminary analyses of variance on both ranking and evaluation measures with all three
factors revealed, as expected, that Candidate 2 was indeed seen by participants as significantly less
suitable for the position. Accordingly, subsequent analyses focused solely on evaluations of
Candidates 1 and 3.
Winnability and ranking of candidates. In order to investigate the impact of seat
winnability and participant gender on the ranking of the focal candidates, a 2 (winnability: high,
low) x 2 (gender of candidate) x 2 (gender of participant) ANOVA was conducted with repeated
measures on the candidates’ gender. The results revealed no significant main effects (pwin = 84, pcgen
= .74, ppgen = .47), but they did identify the predicted two-way interaction between gender of the
evaluated candidate and the winnability of the seat as significant, F(1, 76) = 7.08, p= .009, 2 =
.085. Tests of simple effects to decompose this interaction revealed that in line with predictions, the
winnability of the seat had a significant impact on the ranking of the female candidate — she was
ranked higher when the seat was hard to win (M = 1.51, SD = .75) than when it was winnable (M =
1.92, SD = .62), F(1, 76) = 4.55, p = .04, 2 = .056. Furthermore, for the male candidate, the
winnability of the seat also had a significant impact on his rankings, such that he was ranked higher
when the seat was winnable (M = 1.41, SD = .64) than when it was hard to win (M = 1.83, SD =
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
15
.63), F(1, 76) = 6.46, p =.01, 2 = .078. There was no effect for participant gender, either on its own
or in interaction with the other variables (ppgen = .47, ppgen x cgen = .29, ppgen x cgen x win = .41).
In addition, a chi-square analysis was performed to examine the ranking of the focal
candidates as a function of seat winnability. Participants favored the candidates overall almost
equally, with 47.9% ranking the female candidate first and 52.1% of participants ranking the male
candidate first. However, again in line with predictions, chi-square analysis revealed that
winnability had a significant impact on the ranking of the candidates, 2(1) = 13.31, p < .001. As
can be seen in Table 1, when the seat was unwinnable, 68.4% of participants preferred the female
candidate to the male candidate, but when the seat was winnable, preference for the female
candidate dropped to 31.6%.
Evaluation of candidates. In order to explore participants’ perceptions of the target
candidates, evaluations of their suitability for the position and their perceived leadership ability
were subjected to a 2 (winnability: low, high) x 2 (evaluated candidate: male, female) x 2
(participant gender: male, female) ANOVA with repeated measures on the second variable. The
results from each of these analyses revealed that none of the independent variables, either in
isolation or in conjunction with one another, had an impact on either evaluation of the target
candidates (ps ranged between .15 and .87).
Discussion
The results of Study 2 provide experimental evidence for the glass cliff phenomenon in the
political arena. In line with hypotheses and other findings in the organizational realm (Haslam &
Ryan, 2008), a female candidate was more likely to be chosen to run for a seat that was hard to win
than for one that was winnable, whereas a male candidate was more likely to be chosen to run for a
seat that was winnable than for one that more risky.
Importantly, this preference for the female candidate in difficult times cannot be said to be
due to her being seen as more or less qualified for the position. Reflecting the matched descriptions
of the male and female candidates, there were no gender differences in judgments of suitability or
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
16
leadership ability, either overall or as a function of winnability. It is also important to note that,
consistent with previous research (Haslam & Ryan, 2008; Ashby et al., 2007), participant gender
did not play a role in candidate rankings. Study 2 therefore builds on Study 1 by suggesting that the
political glass cliff is, at least to some extent, due to the candidate selection process. Women are
more likely to be selected for difficult to win seats, even when past experiences and qualifications
are controlled.
General Discussion and Conclusions
The two studies presented here provide evidence that glass cliff positions are not restricted
to organizational settings; rather, they also extend to the political arena. Study 1 demonstrates the
existence of a glass cliff within the Conservative party in the 2005 UK General Election, such that
Conservative women contested seats that were significantly less winnable than those in which
Conservative men ran. Such a trend is problematic because the over-representation of women in
difficult (if not impossible) to win seats potentially contributes to the notion that women are not
“cut out” for politics. However, it is important to note that when the gender disparity in seat
winnability was taken into account, there were no longer gender differences in voter support,
suggesting that female candidates have the capacity to perform just as well as their male
counterparts if given equal opportunities. This conclusion was echoed in the findings from the
Labour Party. Here, with affirmative action procedures in place to ensure women’s access to
winnable seats, female candidates performed no differently from men in this election.
The political glass cliff was also demonstrated under experimental conditions in Study 2.
Here, the relationship between seat winnability and gender was examined directly under conditions
where potential alternative explanations (such as gender differences in candidates’ biographical
details, their qualifications, and their past experience) were controlled for and party politics taken
out of the equation. Under these hypothetical conditions, a woman emerged as the preferred
candidate for a seat that was unwinnable, but when the seat was winnable, a male candidate was
preferred. This finding is important because it establishes a causal relationship between seat
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
17
unwinnability and the preferential selection of women. The results also question speculation that the
preponderance of women in unwinnable seats can be explained solely by the fact that women
themselves prefer, and actively choose, to run in seats that are less winnable – an explanation that
female leaders sometimes endorse in other organizational contexts (e.g., because “they relish the
challenge”; Ryan, Haslam, & Postmes, 2007). Moreover, because we controlled for candidate past
experience across gender, our results also suggest that the preference for women in unwinnable
seats is not due to objective gender differences in qualifications and experience. Interestingly, in
contrast to previous organizational research (Haslam & Ryan, 2008), our results also cannot be
attributed to perceived differences in leadership ability or suitability for the position. It may be that
other (gendered) abilities, such as charisma or communication might be seen as more important for
political candidates. Future research should explore this possibility. Finally, whereas the use of
political science students may not be an exact proxy for the real party politics involved in selecting
political candidates, the fact that the glass cliff was demonstrated using both archival and
experimental methodologies strengthens our confidence that the political glass cliff is a genuine
phenomenon that is due, at least in part, to the candidate selection procedure.
Although the two studies reported here provide evidence for the processes underlying
women’s lack of political success by demonstrating the existence of political glass cliffs, what is
less certain is what causes the glass cliffs themselves. Research in the organizational realm suggests
that, despite clear stereotypes equating leadership with men (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002), women
may be preferentially selected for precarious or risky positions because they are seen to “have what
it takes” (Ryan & Haslam, 2007; Ryan, Haslam, Hersby, & Bongiorno, 2009; Ryan, Haslam, &
Postmes, 2007). Here, traditionally feminine traits such as being intuitive, creative, or
understanding are regarded as useful in times of crisis. Extending this analysis into the political
realm, it may be the case that despite stereotypes associating politics with masculinity (e.g., Huddy
& Terkildsen, 1993a; Ross, 2002; Rosenwasser & Dean, 1989), women are seen as better political
representatives in times of crisis. Although we controlled for overt differences in abilities in Study
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
18
2, this is not to say that people do not expect women to lead in a different way. Indeed, research
suggests that voters expect women to be more able than men to manage “compassion” issues, such
as dealing with poverty and improving education and health (e.g., Leeper, 1991; see also Huddy &
Terkildsen, 1993b; Shapiro & Mahajan, 1986), and are more likely to vote for women when social
welfare is an important issue (McDermott, 1998). In this way, it may be expected gender
differences (stereotyping), rather than actual gender differences, which may play a role in the
appointment of women to glass cliff positions.
Of course, an alternative explanation for the political glass cliff is that it is simply a form of
sexism – women are selected for difficult-to-win seats precisely because they are difficult to win.
Indeed, our finding that women’s selection for such seats was not accompanied by raters’ views that
these women were more suitable or were better leaders suggests that there is more to the political
glass cliff than women being seen to “have what it takes.” Although gender attitudes have been
shown to be unrelated to the tendency for individuals to prefer women for precarious positions
(Ashby et al., 2007), certainly women themselves believe that sexism and the desire to set women
up for failure plays a large role in glass cliff positions (Ryan et al., 2007).
Along these lines, research in the organizational arena (Ryan & Haslam, 2007; Ryan et al.,
2007) suggests that glass cliffs are likely to be multiply determined and that overt discrimination,
party strategy, lack of networks, and the limited options for women wanting to enter politics are all
likely to play a role. Thus, future research should investigate the roles that sexism and stereotyping
play in the political glass cliff, and the way in which these interact with other processes to
contribute to the selection of women for precarious political positions. Such research should also
examine whether other minority groups, which are also under-represented in the political arena (and
that may share stereotypes with women, Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), are similarly at risk of
being placed on glass cliffs. Indeed, archival research is already underway to examine the seats that
ethnic minorities are selected to contest in UK general elections (Kulich, Ryan, & Haslam, 2009).
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
19
Finally, it is important to note that even when women break through the political glass
ceiling, they may still confront glass cliffs. Indeed Palmer and Simon (2006) reported that in the
U.S. Congress, female incumbents enjoy significantly less electoral security than their male
counterparts. Here, women in relatively safe seats (having won more than 55% of the vote in the
previous election) were found to be significantly less likely to have their seat remain uncontested
(11.2% versus 18.8% for safe male incumbents) and more likely to face contested primaries within
their own party (33.1% versus 29.7% for men). Palmer and Simon also suggest that the picture for
women in marginal seats is even more precarious, with fierce opposition likely for their seats.
The existence of glass cliffs in the political arena has important implications for women
considering a career in politics. Merely selecting women to run as candidates does nothing to
improve the under-representation of women in politics if these positions are unwinnable. Indeed,
given the electoral failure that almost inevitably follows, casting women in the role of “sacrificial
lamb” may simply reinforce the notion that women are not suitable for political office, while at the
same time discouraging potential female candidates from entering the political arena. Taken
together, the results presented here suggest that simply opening the door for female candidates pays
mere lip-service to equality if women are not given reasonable opportunities to be elected and then
contribute to politics, government, and public decision-making. At the same time, on a more
optimistic note, our findings suggest that active affirmative action can pave the road to the
elimination of glass cliffs. Although these strategies have proved controversial, they thus present
something of a Gordian solution to what might otherwise appear to be an intractable problem.
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
20
References
Ashby, J., Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). Legal work and the glass cliff: Evidence that
women are preferentially selected to lead problematic cases, William and Mary Law Journal,
13, 775-793.
Davies, M. (2002, March 22). Thatcher’s famous speeches. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1888158.stm
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bruckmüller, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (in press). The Glass Cliff: When and why women are
selected as leader in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology.
Burrell, B. (1993). John Bailey’s legacy: Political parties and women candidacies for public office.
In L. Duke (Ed.), Women in politics: Have the outsiders become insiders? (pp. 123-134).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishers.
Catalyst. (2009). 2008 Catalyst census of women in Fortune 500 corporate officer and board
positions. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/publication/132/us-women-in-business
Center for American Women and Politics (2009) Women in Elective Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/elective.pdf
Centre for Advancement of Women in Politics (2008) Women members of the House of Lords.
Retrieved from http://www.qub.ac.uk/cawp/UKhtmls/lordsnew.htm, 2008
Childs, S. (2004). A feminised style of politics? Women MPs in the House of Commons.
British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 6, 3-19.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
Electoral Commission (2006). Election results. Retrieved from
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/election-data/.
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
21
Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) (2002). Women and men in Britain: Management.
Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2008) Sex and power 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/Documents/EHRC/SexandPower/Sex_and_Power_2008.
pdf
European Commission (2005). Social values, science and technology. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
Falk, E., & Kenski, K. (2006). Issue saliency and gender stereotypes: Support for women as
presidents in times of war and terrorism. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 1-18.
Fawcett Society (2005). Nearly half voters denied choice of voting for a women. Retrieved from
http://www.fawcett.wholething.co.uk/documents/Women_candidates_May05.doc
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
Fox, R. L., & Smith, E. R. A. N. (1998). The role of candidate sex in voter decision-making.
Political Psychology, 19, 405-414.
Fukuyama, F. (1998). Women and the evolution of world politics. Foreign Affairs, 77, 24–40.
Gertzog, I. N., & Simard, M. M. (1981). Women and "hopeless" congressional candidates:
Nomination frequency, 1916–1978. American Politics Quarterly, 9, 449–466.
Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (2003). Experimental design and causality in social psychological
research. In C. Sanson, C. C. Morf, & A. T. Panter (Eds.), Handbook of methods in social
psychology (pp. 235-264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. 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.
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
22
House of Commons Information Office. (2006). Women in the House of Commons (Factsheet M4,
FS No.M4 Ed 3.3). London. Retrieved from
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m04.pdf
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993a). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women
candidates at different levels of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 503-525.
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993b). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female
candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37,119-147.
Inter-Parliamentary Union (2009). Women in national parliaments. Retrieved from
http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm
Judge, E. (2003, November 11). Women on board: Help or hindrance? The Times, p. 21.
Kulich, C, Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2009). The political glass cliff: Ethnic minorities in less
winnable seats in the UK General Elections. Manuscript in preparation, School of Business,
University of Exeter.
Kulich, C., Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). Where is the romance for women leaders? The
effects of gender on leadership attributions and performance-based pay. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 56, 582-601.
Labour Party (2008). The cabinet. Retrieved from http://www.labour.org.uk/cabinet
Leeper, M. S. (1991). The impact of prejudice on female candidates: An experimental look at voter
inference. American Politics Quarterly, 19, 248-61.
Lovenduski, J. (2005). Feminizing politics. Cambridge: Polity.
McDermott, M. L. (1998). Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research
Quarterly, 51, 895-918.
McDougal, L. (1998). Westminster women. London: Vintage.
McHarg, A. (2006). Quotas for women! The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002.
Journal of Law and Society, 33, 141-159.
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
23
Norris, P., & Lovenduski, J. (1995). Political recruitment: Gender, race and class in the British
Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Northern Ireland Assembly (2009). Membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Retrieved from
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/members/membership07.htm
Palmer, B., & Simon, D. (2006). Breaking the political glass ceiling: Women and congressional
elections. New York: Routledge.
Rosenwasser, S. M., & Dean, N. G. (1989). Gender role and political office: Effects of perceived
masculinity/femininity of candidate and political office. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13,
77-85.
Ross, K. (2002). Women’s place in ‘male’ space: Gender and effect in parliamentary contexts.
Parliamentary Affairs, 55, 189-201
Russell, M., Mackay, F., & McAllister, L. (2002). Women's representation in the Scottish
parliament and National Assembly for Wales: Party dynamics for achieving critical mass.
Journal of Legislative Studies, 8, 49-76.
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding
women's appointment to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review,
32, 549-572.
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in
precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16, 81-90.
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2009). Think crisis–think female:
Glass cliffs and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., Kulich, C., & Atkins, C. (2007). Opting out or pushed
off the edge? The glass cliff and the precariousness of women’s leadership positions. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 266–279.
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
24
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (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.
Sawer, M. (2000). Parliamentary representation of women: From discourses of justice to strategies
of accountability. International Political Science Review, 21, 361-380.
Scottish Parliament (2009). List of current members. Retrieved from
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/apps2/MSP/MSPHome/
Shapiro, R. Y., & Mahajan, H. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: A summary of
trends from the 1960s and 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 42–61.
Short, C. (1996). Women and the Labour Party. In J. Lovenduski & P. Norris (Eds.), Women in
politics (pp. 19-27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shvedova, N. (2005). Obstacles to women's participation in parliament. In J. Ballington & A.
Karam (Eds.), Women in parliament: Beyond the numbers (pp. 33-50). Stockholm: IDEA
International.
Stokes, W. (2005). Women in contemporary politics. Cambridge: Polity.
UK Parliament (2009). Members of Parliament by gender: Numbers (Updated 6th January 2009).
Retrieved from http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/gender.cfm
Women & Equality Unit (2002). Women & Equality Unit gender briefing. Retrieved from
www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/gender_breifing/grb_nov_2002.doc.
Women & Equality Unit (2004). Women & Equality Unit gender briefing. Retrieved from
www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/gender_briefing_apr04.doc.
Running head: POLITICS AND THE GLASS CLIFF
25
Table 1.
Study 2: Percentage of Participants Who Ranked Candidate First as a Function of Candidate
Gender and Seat Winnability
Winnability
Gender of Candidate
High
Low
Overall
Male
74.3%
31.6%
52.1%
Female
25.7%
68.4%
47.9%