The Unintentional Glass Cliff Theory
Re-evaluating the glass cliff theory and 107 days
Although former Vice President Kamala Harris has rebuked the idea of the glass cliff, there is an undeniable trend affecting women—especially women of color—who are promoted into leadership roles during times of crisis. This phenomenon, known as the glass cliff, occurs when women are elevated to positions of power precisely when organizations or administrations are already in distress. Having only 107 days to launch and develop a successful presidential campaign certainly qualifies as such a scenario.
The glass cliff theory describes the pattern in which women are more likely to be appointed to leadership roles during periods of instability or high risk, when the likelihood of failure is already elevated. Coined by researchers in the early 2000s, the theory suggests that these circumstances often set women up for greater scrutiny and a higher chance of failure, frequently due to insufficient support or deeply challenging environments. When failure occurs, women are often blamed, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and negatively impacting future opportunities for women in leadership.
Context of Promotion
Glass cliff promotions typically occur during crises—such as organizational decline, scandal, or periods of extreme uncertainty. This contrasts sharply with stable periods, when leadership positions are more often filled by men.
High-Risk Environment
These leadership roles are inherently precarious. Individuals placed on the glass cliff often inherit failing organizations, high-pressure projects, or teams resistant to change or to their leadership. In the context of the 2024 presidential campaign, Kamala Harris assumed leadership amid President Biden’s declining health. While she was widely viewed as a strong and capable candidate, she also inherited one of the most difficult political landscapes in modern history.
Several risk factors illustrate the glass cliff dynamic:
Likelihood of Failure
The probability of failure is significantly higher due to limited time, entrenched challenges, and the nature of the crisis itself. When failure occurs, it is often used to justify gender-based stereotypes and can hinder advancement for other women. Throughout Harris’s campaign, both her gender and racial identity were repeatedly emphasized as counter-narratives to her qualifications.
Time Constraints
With only 107 days, there was insufficient time to build and communicate a comprehensive vision for a future administration. As a result, she was forced to rely heavily on her role and contributions within the existing administration rather than fully articulating her own agenda.
Scapegoating
Individuals placed on the glass cliff can become scapegoats for broader systemic failures. If they fail, organizations may claim they “gave a woman a chance” and use the outcome as justification. If they succeed, credit is often attributed to the institution rather than to the individual’s leadership, despite the extraordinary risk involved.
Although the glass cliff theory is sometimes dismissed or viewed as controversial, it exposes deeply rooted cultural and social dynamics that frequently go unexamined. In Kamala Harris’s case, she is far from alone. Women are often called upon to lead during moments of upheaval and instability—asked to stabilize, repair, or rescue systems already on the brink.
While there are certainly examples that challenge this narrative, the 2024 presidential election stands as a particularly visible illustration. Harris’s campaign was historic, but it was also framed—implicitly and explicitly—as a test not only of her leadership, but of women’s readiness for the highest levels of authority. These are the unintentional consequences women face when stepping into positions of power: heightened risk, intensified scrutiny, and unequal judgment in moments when success is least attainable.
