Why are women and individuals from ethnic, racial, or immigration (ERI) minority backgrounds often chosen for precarious leadership positions by decision-makers? Research indicates that when change is deemed necessary, frequently prompted by a crisis, atypical candidates are more likely to be appointed to leadership roles. This mechanism results in a recurring pattern where candidates from underrepresented groups are disproportionately appointed to roles associated with a higher risk of failure, a phenomenon known as the glass cliff.

In our empirical investigation, encompassing correlational and experimental studies in political and management domains, we delved into the mechanisms influencing decision-makers’ preference for women and ERI minority leaders in such precarious contexts. We posited that, depending on the specific circumstances of a crisis, the preference for a female or ERI minority leader over a male or ERI majority leader could be driven by:

1. A perceived alignment between the crisis tasks and positive or negative stereotypes about the candidates’ leadership styles.

2. The need to signal change to appease internal and external stakeholders.

3. An inclination to act in accordance with one’s prejudice and set up these candidates for failure.

Each part of our empirical investigation focuses on one of these hypothesized mechanisms. Our findings yielded mixed findings regarding the preference for women and ERI minority candidates in times of crisis, contributing to a refinement of the theoretical framework of the glass cliff phenomenon and the development of a theoretical model of decision-makers’ motives.