Even if the glass cliff does exist, the cancellation cliff is more dangerous
The fact that questioning the glass cliff concept created such a strong kneejerk reaction makes me wonder why challenging the notion should be a punishable crime.
I think most women can remember a moment when they rolled their eyes and invoked the glass cliff. When Kristina Keneally became the first female leader of the NSW Labor Party in time to take the corruption-riven, decrepit Labor government to an inevitable loss. Or when Sussan Ley became the first female leader of the Liberal Party after a demoralising federal election loss. Observers and colleagues agreed they were accepting a hospital pass. But they took the roles knowing exactly what they were stepping into.
While Keneally predictably lost the election, her performance was well regarded and she was chosen for a Senate vacancy. So was it really a glass cliff, or a golden opportunity? Later, the way was cleared for her to enter the lower house (though she lost that on her own merits to the firecracker independent Dai Le).
Energy Minister Chris Bowen has appointed Ley to a lucrative board post overseeing the ailing Snowy Hydro 2.0 project. It may be gilded, but stewarding that over budget fiasco could prove a steeper glass cliff than the Liberal leadership was.
Sure, women sometimes choose to compete for positions, or accept nomination for them, when they know that it’s not going to be a cakewalk. But is the glass cliff statistically a thing? I started to wonder, after all this kerfuffle. After all, there are surely more men called David or John than women who’ve taken the helm of organisations in strife, amirite?
