The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype.
Open accessAbstract
The "think manager-think male" (TMTM) association underlies many gender inequalities in the workplace. However, research into the "glass cliff" has demonstrated that the suitability of male and female managers varies as a function of company performance such that in times of poor performance people may "think female" (Ryan & Haslam, 2005, 2007). Three studies examined gender and managerial stereotypes in the context of companies that are doing well or doing badly. Study 1 reproduced TMTM associations for descriptions of managers of successful companies but demonstrated a reversal for managers of unsuccessful companies. Study 2 examined the prescriptive nature of these stereotypes. No TMTM relationship was found for ideal managers of successful companies, but ideal managers of unsuccessful companies were associated with the female stereotype. Study 3 suggested that women may be favored in times of poor performance, not because they are expected to improve the situation, but because they are seen to be good people managers and can take the blame for organizational failure. Together, the studies illustrate the importance of context as a moderator of the TMTM association. Practical and theoretical implications for gender discrimination in the workplace are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Heilman, M. E. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234 · Cited by 2,482
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.192960 · Cited by 1,534
The New Psychology of Leadership
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2010) · doi:10.4324/9780203833896 · Cited by 272
Self-citation
Cited by
Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0023557 · Cited by 1,748
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005 · Cited by 1,426
Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Morgenroth, T., Rink, F., Stoker, J., & Peters, K. (2016) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.008 · Cited by 439
Self-citationWomen and Top Leadership Positions: Towards an Institutional Analysis
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014) · Gender, Work & Organization · doi:10.1111/gwao.12018 · Cited by 400
Crisis leadership: A review and future research agenda
Wu, Y. L., Shao, B., Newman, A., & Schwarz, G. (2021) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101518 · Cited by 280
Metadata
- Authors
- Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 470-484
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2002867064
- Cited by
- 500
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 27.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0022133
- The paper
- Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D., & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022133
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.