Introduction: Glass cliff evidence shows that women and ethnic, racial, and immigration (ERI) groups are more likely to face precarious leadership positions than majority groups. In politics, this is illustrated by minority candidates running for harder-to-win seats than majority candidates. Objective: The present research extends these correlational findings on ERI populations to an experimental setting and investigates the underlying reasons. Method: Two scenario-based experimental studies were conducted with voting populations in France and Switzerland, who took the role of party decision-maker. In Study 1 (N = 64), we manipulated candidate origin and measured the choice of political ward (hard vs. easy-to-win), while in Study 2 (N = 151), we manipulated ward winnability and measured candidate choice (ERI minority vs. majority). Results: Overall, findings suggest that ERI minority (compared to majority) political candidates were more likely to be matched with hard-to-win than easy-to-win political wards. Of interest, this finding only occurred for participants with a political left-wing orientation. Moreover, both studies investigated the reasons underlying such tendency and, in particular, focused on participants' motivation to implement change. Conclusion: The discussion confronts hostile and benign motives for glass cliff decisions and highlights the potentially distinct consequences for minority candidates.