Called In When It’s Broken

Diversity that appears only when the house is on fire is not leadership progress. It is reputational risk management.

The pattern is well documented and researchers call it the glass cliff: women and ethnic minority leaders are more likely to be appointed when organisations are already under strain. Performance is sliding, culture is fractured and the board wants visible change. Suddenly, difference feels bold.

But if women are considered capable of steering through volatility, why are they not proportionately entrusted with scale, expansion and long-term value creation?

The UK can point to progress. Women hold just over 40% of FTSE 350 board seats and most FTSE 100 companies now have at least one ethnic minority director, yet fewer than one in ten FTSE 350 CEOs are women. Executive director roles with profit and loss accountability remain overwhelmingly male and the closer you get to revenue ownership and succession to CEO, the thinner diversity becomes.

I remember a board conversation several years ago: results had missed market expectations twice and investor pressure was mounting. One director leaned back and said, almost casually, “Perhaps it’s time to try something different...” (I so wanted to say - 'You think?!'). Within weeks, a highly capable female executive was appointed into the most exposed operational role in the business. She inherited structural issues years in the making, a sceptical senior team, and a twelve-month clock. Her competence was never in doubt, but the conditions were.

This is the tension at the heart of the glass cliff. When diverse leaders are trusted only in crisis, they are handed the hardest mandates with the least runway. If they succeed, the organisation stabilises. If they do not, the narrative quietly shifts from structural failure to personal limitation.

Data supports what many of us see anecdotally: women are significantly less likely to hold core P&L roles, still the primary feeder to CEO. Ethnic minority leaders report lower levels of sponsorship and access to informal networks that influence succession decisions. Yet when turnaround situations arise, boards demonstrate sudden openness to difference.

True leadership confidence is shown in stable times, not just in moments of repair.

As International Women’s Day 2026 approaches, there will be no shortage of panels, pledges and polished statistics, but I think what it is really striking is that women are often deemed credible in moments of uncertainty. When organisations face turbulence, cultural repair or reputational risk, boards frequently turn to female leaders, recognising strengths in resilience, collaboration and steady judgement.

#IWD2026 should move the conversation beyond celebration. It should challenge boards to examine where confidence truly sits. Are women trusted because the situation is fragile, or because their leadership is valued in its own right?

Until women are as routinely appointed in times of strength as they are in times of strain, progress remains conditional - and conditional trust is not equality.

Are you developing diverse leaders in times of strength, or only appointing them when there is something to rescue?