The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Women and Top Leadership Positions: Towards an Institutional Analysis
Abstract
Women remain under‐represented in top leadership positions in work organizations, a reality that reflects a variety of barriers that create a glass ceiling effect. However, some women do attain top leadership positions, leading scholars to probe under what conditions women are promoted despite seemingly intractable and well‐documented barriers. Previous scholarship tends to posit individual‐level explanations, suggesting either that women who attain top leadership positions are exceptional or that potential women leaders lack key qualities, such as assertiveness. Much less scholarship has explored institutional‐level mechanisms that may increase women's ascension to top positions. This analysis seeks to fill this gap by testing three institutional‐level theories that may shape women's access to and tenure in top positions: the glass cliff, decision‐maker diversity, and the saviour effect. To test these theories we rely on a dataset that includes all CEO transitions in Fortune 500 companies over a 20‐year period. Contrary to the predictions of the glass cliff, we find that diversity among decision makers — not firm performance — significantly increases women's likelihood of being promoted to top leadership positions. We also find, contrary to the predictions of the saviour effect, that diversity among decision makers increases women leaders' tenure as CEOs regardless of firm performance. By identifying contextual factors that increase women's mobility, the paper makes an important contribution to the processes that shape and reproduce gender inequality in work organizations.
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
The Social psychology of intergroup relations
Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,577
Psychology of intergroup relations
Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1986) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,626
HIERARCHIES, JOBS, BODIES: A Theory of Gendered Organizations
ACKER, J. (1990) · Gender & Society · doi:10.1177/089124390004002002 · Cited by 7,374
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
Men and Women of the Corporation
Devanna, M. A. (1978) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/002188637801400208 · Cited by 6,354
Stereotype Threat and Women's Math Performance
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373 · Cited by 3,435
Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations
Acker, J. (2006) · Gender & Society · doi:10.1177/0891243206289499 · Cited by 3,401
Dantzer, R. (1990) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(90)90065-v · Cited by 2,354
The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics.
Schein, V. E. (1973) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037128 · Cited by 1,758
The Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women are Over‐Represented in Precarious Leadership Positions
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x · Cited by 1,277
Cited by
The Organizational Reproduction of Inequality
Amis, J. M., Mair, J., & Munir, K. A. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2017.0033 · Cited by 490
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
Jeong, S.-H., & Harrison, D. A. (2017) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0716 · Cited by 429
Female directors and impression management in sustainability reporting
García-Sánchez, I.-M., Suárez-Fernández, O., & Martínez-Ferrero, J. (2019) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.10.007 · Cited by 257
A Multi-Level Process Model for Understanding Diversity Practice Effectiveness
Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M., & Paluch, R. M. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0044 · Cited by 233
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, A., & Glass, C.
- Venue
- Gender, Work & Organization
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-03-21
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 91-103
- ISSN
- 0968-6673 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0432
- OpenAlex
- W1812541930
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 31.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Women and Top Leadership Positions: Towards an Institutional Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/gwao.12018
- The paper
- Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Women and Top Leadership Positions: Towards an Institutional Analysis. Gender, Work & Organization. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12018
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.