 Hello and welcome to the Media Centre at the Australian National University. It is my great pleasure today to welcome Professor Michelle Ryan, who's Dean of Postgraduate Research at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. Welcome Michelle. Thank you. Thanks for having me. My pleasure. You're perhaps best known for your research into what's known as the glass cliff whereby women and other minority groups are more likely to be placed into leadership roles in, I guess, risky or precarious situations. Could you please tell us a little bit about this research? Yeah, I guess the research is really interested in what happens to women once they sort of break through the glass ceiling. So what happens to those few women that kind of make it to the top? And what we've done is now about ten years' worth of research to really look at the types of positions that they're in and most importantly the circumstances under which they're appointed. So we've done archival work, so looking at the FTSE 100. So that's the top 100 companies on the London Stock Exchange. And what we find is that, certainly in the study that we did, that while men tend to be appointed at all different times in a sort of company, sort of cycle or financial performance, women actually get appointed after this really sort of big dive in company performance. So when their share price has been falling and falling and then women get appointed to their boards of directors. So it's a really interesting sort of finding which we can then back up with experimental work as well. So we've shown with all sorts of different scenarios, all different notions of leadership, all different types of participants that if you describe a company that's in crisis or a situation that's difficult or a role that's kind of risky and precarious that they're much more likely to choose a female candidate over a male candidate even though they're exactly the same. So matched on all dimensions, equally qualified for the job. And so we call this the glass cliff. So the idea is that these women are very high up, that they're in these top leadership positions, but because of the crisis, because of the poor performance, there's this element of risk and the idea that perhaps they're teetering on the edge even though they're really up high. OK, and have you found that in your own life? That's an interesting question. I think, you know, I'm particularly interested in research that I can identify with, I guess. So I do work on work-life balance because I'm particularly interested in having a work-life balance. And I do work on gender and leadership because I take on leadership roles and being a woman as well. So I think it's interesting whether it really mirrors my own. I think I've certainly had some difficult leadership positions. In the UK we have a research excellence framework where we look at the performance of research across universities and that determines how we allocate our funding. And I was put in charge of the research excellence framework for five of our units of assessment, sort of five of our subjects that were the most disparate subjects you could find. It wasn't that they were performing poorly, but actually just getting your head around all five of them at one time for a job that was, you know, really high stakes was actually a pretty tough one. I can imagine. It's interesting that you've tried out the glasscliff theory in sort of experimental situations. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about that. Yeah, so we do it with experimental scenarios. So as I mentioned before about looking at the appointment and who you would choose. The other thing that we do is we use sort of social psychological experiments to understand the processes that might be underlying the appointment as well. So we know that it is something about the selection procedure, but then I guess the question you could say is, well, why? Why are they selecting them? And we've done some really interesting work that shows that our stereotypes about gender and our stereotypes about leadership play a really important role there. So way back in the 70s there was some real classic research that uncovered the think manager, think male association. So this is the idea that when we think of what it means to be a good leader, the sorts of traits that come up are the same traits that we use to describe men. So it might be things like being objective, being ambitious, being forceful, being objective, all of these sorts of traits that are stereotypically masculine. But what we find is when we say what sort of leader would you like in times of crisis? What sort of traits would be appropriate? What's really interesting is that we don't get this think manager, think male association. What we get is a think crisis, think female association. So when things are going badly, instead of wanting the forceful, ambitious leader, all of a sudden we want the understanding, kind, good communicator. And these are all traits that we stereotypically associate with women. To what extent do you think that's men stepping back from difficult situations? I think that's a really important point. So I guess if we just look at these stereotypes, it could be a really positive explanation for the glass cliff. So women are really good at crisis, so let's bring them in. But I think you're absolutely right. I think there's also an element of a glass cliff being a bad, risky position, and that men might say, actually, I don't want that. I'll wait for the next position to come along. But we know that women don't often get offered leadership positions. So perhaps if a risky and precarious position comes up, that they might feel obliged to take it or they might feel that it's their only opportunity. OK. What role do you think unconscious bias plays in all of this? Yeah, I think what's really interesting is all these stereotypes that I've been talking about are absolutely subtle and relatively unconscious. So if we ask people, why did you choose that person for this crisis position? Why did you choose her? They'll never say, oh, it's because she's a woman. They'll never, ever say that. They'll often point to something in her CV, in the mock-up, in the scenario that we've done, and say, oh, she'll be really good at that. But of course, because it's an experimental study, we counterbalance the CVs. They're exactly the same across the sort of studies. So there isn't actually anything individual there. And the other thing is if we make gender salient, so if we make it obvious that it's a study about gender, then the effect disappears as well. So it really is something that's unconscious. These are the stereotypes that we have in the back of our minds. And what's also really important to know is it's not just men that hold these stereotypes. Women hold them too. And when we ask women to do these studies, they do exactly the same thing as men do. So it's not horrible men putting women in these risky and precarious positions. It's our stereotypes that we have as a society about men, about women, about leaders that really underlies the phenomenon. Interesting. Well, that sort of leads me on to thinking about what's known as the opt-out revolution, talking about women actually opting out of these kinds of leadership roles. Do you think that's a real thing? And do you think it's just another way of blaming women? Yeah, I think that's a really interesting question. So if you look at the sort of literature on gender equality, but also if you look at the public commentary, there's been this real shift. So I think for many, many years we were talking about the barriers that women faced. So it was the glass cliff, it was the maternal walls, the glass ceiling, all of these things. What are the barriers that are put in the way of women? And I think what's really interesting in the last 10 years or so, there's been a shift to the choices that women make. Now, on the one hand, I think this is great because suddenly we've got women as agentic objects that make decisions themselves, that they don't just have things that are done to them, barriers that are placed in front of them. But I guess what I worry about this shift is that it suddenly puts all the onus on women. So it's no longer about discrimination or the context or the organisational culture, it's just about women's choices. And The New York Times did a really interesting article that they called the Opt-Out Revolution, where they were talking about women choosing to leave before they made it to the top. Now, I absolutely believe that women do make these choices, but I think what's really important is that we don't have an either-or. It's either barriers or it's women's choices. I think the really important thing to note is that women make these choices in a context. And it's a context that includes barriers as well. So if women say, oh, actually I don't want that leadership position, it could very well be because they don't feel that they could make it or that the stereotypes tell them that they can't make it. So do you want to put up your hand and say, yeah, I want that thing I can't have? Or do you actually say, well, I choose not to have it? Just because it's a choice, though, doesn't mean it's an entirely free choice. It's constrained by context. Okay. So if you are in a leadership role in an organisation, what are the, you know, one or two things that you think it's most important to do or to put in place to promote gender equity in the workplace? Yeah, I think that's a really hard question in some ways, because if there were simple answers, I think we would have absolutely dealt with it by now. But I think a lot of it is about visibility. I think because a lot of these decisions, because of the bias is unconscious, I think anything that can bring it to the surface and make it, I guess, talked about make it more visible, I think is important. So I think it is important, not just for women to discuss it, but for men to discuss it as well. I think the UN has a brilliant initiative at the moment, which is really for she initiative, which is that it's not just about women trying to promote gender equality, but men as well. So I think bringing it to the fore and making it visible is important. I think for women, understanding the context in which they make their decisions is really important as well, because I think a lot of women themselves think that they're making very free choices about what they want to do. And I think understanding the constraints around that's really important. I think an example is looking at the context and looking at the long-term context as well. So a lot of the decisions that perhaps prevent women from reaching the top are often around maternity leave or when they come back from having children, of course, not that all women have children. And I think there's some really important decisions that are made then. And I think looking at the context in which those happen is really important. So a lot of women might say, well, I'll decide to stay at home because my salary won't cover the childcare. Now, I think that's a very valid economic decision in some ways, but I would raise a couple of questions around that. So one is why should your salary pay for the childcare? So surely at best it should pay for half of the childcare and your partner could pay for the other half. But the other one is looking at that very, that economic decision short-term. So we know that women's decisions to stay at home, although perfectly valid decisions and ones that we would support, but we know that that has an economic impact 20 years down the line. So just looking at the trade-off of childcare versus income over, say, a five-year period isn't really the pure decision we need to be looking at. We need to be also looking at women's careers in the future. So I guess that's just a couple of little concrete examples of how we make the decisions ourselves and how we might use the context to inform them. And I think the other thing that I would just say is that I think women's networks and mentoring and support networks work really well as well. I think women can often be quite isolated in the workplace, especially when they start to climb the ladder. And I think having networks where women can talk to each other, often perhaps across organisations or across different areas within an organisation, can be really helpful as well. OK, and perhaps just to finish off, I was wondering if you could tell us about the work that you're currently doing in this area? Yeah, I'm really interested in work-life balance at the moment. So that's partly because I have a seven-year-old child and I think work-life balance is always going to be attention there. I love my time at home and I love my time at work. And so there's always that struggle. And when I read the literature, what's really interesting is that struggle is often talked about and researched in terms of time. So how much time you spend at home versus how much time you spend at work. And I think that's absolutely important. And that's where a lot of our policies around work-life balance comes from, things around flexible working and work from home and job share. These are all about how we can balance time. I guess what I'm also interested in is how one might balance identity. So who I am at home versus who I am at work. Are those things compatible? Can I move between them easily? Or might they be in conflict? Or are they a little bit different? And I guess what I'm really interested in if we focus on the parent-hood aspect is being a mother and a leader. Are those things compatible with each other? What about being a father and being a leader? Is that easier to move between those two roles? And so I'm really interested in work-life balance. Much more in terms of balancing identity, balancing who you are instead of just balancing time. That's fascinating. Anyway, we will look forward to that. What timeframe is this research being? So we've done a bit of research on this so far. So we've got a lot of pilot data. We've given a number of presentations on that. I'm just working on a paper at the moment. So I guess watch this space over the next 12 months or so. OK. Thank you very much. And thank you for your generosity in answering our questions today. Thanks very much, Shirley. Thanks.