Latest / The Morning Edition / The ‘glass cliff’ and why the McKinsey saga shows it still exists

Transcript

The ‘glass cliff’ and why the McKinsey saga shows it still exists · The Morning Edition

0:06
S1: When news broke on Monday that a senior Australian partner
0:09
S1: at global consultancy firm McKinsey had been stripped of a
0:13
S1: key leadership position after deriding the so-called glass cliff for
0:17
S1: women at work, it made global headlines. Wasn't McKinsey the
0:22
S1: very same firm that has made a big show of
0:24
S1: examining and reporting on the challenges that women face in
0:28
S1: the workplace. Among them, yes, the glass cliff. When female
0:33
S1: leaders are more likely to be offered chief executive positions
0:36
S1: at companies that are struggling. I'm Samantha Cylindromorphus, and you're
0:41
S1: listening to The Morning Edition from The Age and the
0:44
S1: Sydney Morning Herald. Today, Professor Michelle Ryan, director of the
0:49
S1: Australian National University's Global Institute for Women's Leadership, on what's
0:54
S1: changed since she first coined the term glass cliff more
0:57
S1: than 20 years ago. and why empowering women through workplace
1:01
S1: initiatives isn't the answer to fixing workplace inequality. Michelle, welcome
1:08
S1: to the podcast.
1:10
S2: Thanks very much, Sam. It's great to be here.
1:13
S1: Okay. So, Michelle, I think some of our listeners may
1:15
S1: have seen the headlines on Monday when Chris Bradley, a
1:18
S1: senior partner at McKinsey's in Australia, lost a leadership position
1:22
S1: after he called the glass cliff, quote, a very convenient
1:26
S1: way to always be a victim in the rain. Now,
1:29
S1: this was in remarks he made on LinkedIn, to which
1:30
S1: he also added, we once had a problem of female
1:33
S1: advancement to CEO, but now we have a new problem
1:36
S1: that the jobs they get are too hard. Is this
1:38
S1: actually a thing? So tell us, Michelle, is the glass
1:41
S1: cliff a thing?
1:43
S2: I mean, it's definitely a thing. So the glass cliff
1:47
S2: is a is a metaphor that my colleague Alex Haslam
1:50
S2: and I came up with more than 20 years ago.
1:53
S2: So this is not a new flash in the pan
1:55
S2: kind of idea. It's not something that's just made up
1:59
S2: or untested. It's based on 20 years of research. So
2:02
S2: the idea of the glass cliff really is trying to
2:05
S2: capture the idea of the subtle forms of discrimination that
2:09
S2: women might face, even when they're breaking through the glass ceiling.
2:13
S2: So what I'm talking about here is that when women
2:15
S2: do break through the glass ceiling, our research shows that
2:18
S2: they do so under conditions that we call risky and
2:22
S2: precarious under terms of crisis. So this might be share
2:25
S2: price going down. It might be problems with stakeholders. It
2:30
S2: might be reputational damage. The idea then is that women
2:34
S2: coming to these positions are more likely than men to
2:37
S2: take on leadership roles in these times of crisis, and
2:40
S2: therefore their positions are risky and precarious. So the idea here, then,
2:45
S2: is that these women are up really high. They're in
2:48
S2: senior leadership positions. They might be CEOs or on boards
2:50
S2: of directors, but the precarity comes from the crisis. So
2:54
S2: the chance of sort of falling off that cliff is
2:58
S2: high as well. So hence the metaphor of the glass cliff.
3:02
S1: Okay. So like you said, it's an established phenomenon. And
3:05
S1: I know that our mastheads and in addition to others,
3:07
S1: of course, have covered numerous very high profile cases. Right.
3:10
S1: We had Vanessa Hudson coming in as Qantas, and she
3:14
S1: had to sort of re-establish the airline's reputation after it
3:17
S1: suffered horribly. Amanda Bardwell at Woolworths. Susan Lee with the
3:21
S1: Liberal Party. I mean, there there are examples abound. So
3:24
S1: I just I just wanted to ask you if you
3:26
S1: were surprised then by Chris Bradley's comments about this. And
3:30
S1: beyond that, I guess, is there something perhaps unnerving about
3:33
S1: the fact that Bradley is a leader at a company
3:36
S1: with McKinsey's that has long sought to advance the particular
3:39
S1: conversation about challenges that women do face in the workplace?
3:42
S1: So what say you, Michelle?
3:45
S2: Yeah. So, I mean, I'm not sure it's really my
3:47
S2: place to comment on Chris Bradley, per se, but I'm
3:50
S2: very happy to sort of talk in more generalities And
3:53
S2: in terms of whether I'm surprised that people question the phenomenon. No, um,
3:58
S2: it's part of the phenomenon itself and it's also part
4:00
S2: of the research. So actually, when we first uncovered the
4:04
S2: phenomenon way back in, in sort of the, you know, 2003, 2004, 2005,
4:10
S2: when we were really starting to do this, we actually
4:13
S2: ran a study, which was to look at how people
4:15
S2: responded to it and, and, and how they interpreted the phenomenon.
4:20
S2: So we did a study on the BBC actually. So we,
4:24
S2: the BBC wanted to run an article about the glass cliff.
4:27
S2: It was the first sort of media article ever about
4:30
S2: the glass cliff. And one of the things we did
4:32
S2: was we added a little survey at the end of it.
4:35
S2: So when we looked at the responses to this survey,
4:38
S2: what was really interesting is that women, uh, for women,
4:41
S2: it really resonated with them. It either resonated with their
4:44
S2: own experiences or resonated with what they saw out in
4:48
S2: the real world and, and their interpretations of the phenomenon
4:52
S2: was very much in terms of how it was discriminatory.
4:55
S2: How it was problematic. So it might be, oh, it
4:58
S2: looks like women are being set up for failure or
5:00
S2: this is a real subtle form of discrimination. But what
5:04
S2: was really interesting was that when men interpreted the phenomenon,
5:08
S2: their response to it was very, very different. So men
5:10
S2: were much more likely to say, oh, no, no, it's
5:13
S2: a benign phenomenon. It's really just organizations doing their thing.
5:17
S2: They're just looking for the best person for the job.
5:20
S2: Or maybe they're just trying to signal change. It's not discrimination.
5:24
S2: But what was really interesting was 50% of the respondents,
5:27
S2: the male respondents actually said, I don't think it exists.
5:31
S2: Like I actually question the phenomenon itself. So, uh, so
5:36
S2: here we are, I guess 20 odd years later and
5:39
S2: we've still got people questioning the phenomenon. So am I surprised?
5:43
S2: Not at all. It absolutely fits with the research. And
5:46
S2: so do you think it's as prevalent though.
5:47
S1: I mean, I realize you say that that wasn't a
5:49
S1: representative sample. Right. So you didn't do a sampling of, of,
5:52
S1: of all the men in Britain or anything like that.
5:54
S1: But do you think that was suggestive or reflective of
5:57
S1: a larger, I guess, feeling amongst men, perhaps in Britain
6:00
S1: at the time that, you know, 50% might be like, no,
6:02
S1: I don't even think that's a thing. And the other 50%
6:05
S1: might think, okay, well, if it is a thing, then
6:07
S1: perhaps it's because of benign reasons. Do you think a
6:10
S1: that was reflective at the time, and do you think
6:12
S1: anything has changed now? Like what do you think the
6:14
S1: attitudes are particularly among men, I guess, about this phenomenon now?
6:18
S2: Yeah. I mean, I think we can even extrapolate from
6:21
S2: the phenomenon of the glass cliff to just gender discrimination
6:24
S2: more generally. And I think we do see very mixed
6:27
S2: responses to that from both men and women. But, you know,
6:30
S2: if we're talking about men's responses to it, you know,
6:33
S2: you have some men that are really strong allies that
6:36
S2: see the problem and want to do something about it.
6:38
S2: You have others that might say, oh, well, you know,
6:41
S2: it might be out there, but I don't really care
6:43
S2: about it. It's not something that that, that I'm worried about.
6:46
S2: And you do have a group. If you survey men,
6:50
S2: there's definitely a significant portion of men who don't think
6:54
S2: gender equality exists. Who who would question phenomenons like the
6:58
S2: glass cliff or the gender pay gap, or, you know,
7:01
S2: any other gender discrimination that we can see. And we
7:05
S2: can see this in individuals, but we can also see it,
7:08
S2: say in the US, for example, where you look at
7:11
S2: the current government and their responses to, say, diversity, equality
7:17
S2: and inclusion, Dei initiatives. And really the idea that it's
7:22
S2: not needed, that it's unfair that we shouldn't be there.
7:25
S2: So this is definitely not something that happened 20 years ago,
7:28
S2: and we're sort of well past it. It's an ongoing phenomenon.
7:32
S2: But do you.
7:32
S1: Think that Trumpian narrative, which is very much of course,
7:35
S1: anti DEI and, you know, we don't need to address
7:38
S1: gender inequality in the workplace. That's not really a thing. Uh,
7:41
S1: do you think that's impacting men's views here in Australia?
7:44
S1: And if so, by how much? You know, like, is
7:47
S1: this sort of comment that we're seeing from Chris Bradley.
7:49
S1: I realize you don't want to comment on him personally, but,
7:51
S1: you know, is there any connection, I guess, between this
7:54
S1: really widespread narrative and even pushback against women's rights in
7:58
S1: America to what we're seeing here in terms of men's, uh,
8:01
S1: perspective on women in particularly in the workplace?
8:04
S2: Yeah, we definitely know that American politics and American rhetoric
8:08
S2: plays itself out worldwide. You know, that that these things
8:12
S2: gain momentum and they appear elsewhere. I mean, I don't
8:16
S2: think that we're in the same exact same position here
8:19
S2: in Australia. I think we do have, say, for example,
8:22
S2: a lot of government support for gender equality. We've got
8:24
S2: the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, we've got clear legislation in
8:28
S2: this space. But I do think seeing this sort of
8:31
S2: stuff come from Trump or seeing this sort of stuff
8:34
S2: replicated on social media does, I guess, promote that sort
8:38
S2: of idea. And it does also give license for people
8:42
S2: to express these ideas so we never know what's what
8:45
S2: people are thinking versus what they're saying. You know, it
8:47
S2: could be that a lot of people are thinking some things,
8:50
S2: but until you get the permission to say it, and
8:53
S2: if you've got an American president saying these sorts of things,
8:55
S2: then maybe it feels like you've got permission to say
8:58
S2: those things out loud or on the internet.
9:01
S1: Okay, so what's the real world harm, though, for women
9:03
S1: in particular on the ground in Australia? You know, this
9:06
S1: is it just that they're being scapegoated. They're being blamed
9:09
S1: for poor performances at companies that were faltering before they
9:12
S1: even got there, because I noted that back in the
9:14
S1: 2007 paper you wrote on this, you noted that there
9:17
S1: were media accusations at the time that women board members
9:20
S1: were wreaking havoc on the share prices of the top
9:23
S1: 100 companies in Britain. Right. So they were being blamed
9:25
S1: for poor performance when actually what you had found is
9:28
S1: they'd been parachuted in once these companies were struggling. So
9:32
S1: is that the problem they're being scapegoated or is it
9:35
S1: is there more damage that happens when women encounter this
9:38
S1: glass cliff? And then beyond that, when men such as
9:40
S1: Chris Bradley or whoever denied that it even exists.
9:44
S2: Yeah, I mean, I think there's a number of issues
9:46
S2: to do with the glass cliff. So, I mean, the
9:48
S2: idea is that women are disproportionately represented in risky and
9:52
S2: precarious leadership positions. So they're much more likely to be
9:56
S2: in those sorts of roles. Now we know that that
9:59
S2: can be a form of scapegoating. So if we're putting
10:02
S2: women into these positions, that could be setting them up
10:05
S2: for failure. Uh, we know that it's more difficult to
10:08
S2: lead in times of crisis than when all's going well. So,
10:11
S2: so the chances of failure, they're not inevitable. So failure
10:15
S2: is not inevitable, but the chances are higher. It's more difficult.
10:18
S2: We know that there's higher turnover. So the average CEO
10:22
S2: um there's a lot of different figures. But in one study,
10:25
S2: the average CEO in the US average male CEO had
10:29
S2: a tenure of about seven years. The average female CEO
10:33
S2: had a tenure of two and a half years. So
10:35
S2: just this turnover as well. So, um, you know, if
10:39
S2: things are difficult. Um, the chance of not staying in
10:42
S2: that role very long is, is, is high as well.
10:45
S2: And then even if you've turned things around, but once
10:49
S2: you've left, you're then potentially associated with crisis as well.
10:53
S2: So we've also done other work that's really this is
10:56
S2: in train at the moment. We don't have our final
10:59
S2: results yet, but we know that when men leave high
11:03
S2: profile leadership positions, they either go sort of sideways or up. So,
11:07
S2: you know, along with their career trajectory, women are more
11:10
S2: likely to go sideways or down. So it has a
11:14
S2: long term effect on their careers. And then finally, I
11:16
S2: know I've said a lot of things already, but then
11:18
S2: the final thing is also a sort of vicarious effect.
11:22
S2: If we think about female leaders as role models for
11:26
S2: other women who are climbing the ladder, aspirational ideas of
11:30
S2: what women could be. If you see women in these stressful,
11:33
S2: high turnover positions with lots of criticism in the media,
11:37
S2: it might actually either one reinforce the idea that women
11:41
S2: just aren't good at leadership, and two, turn off other
11:44
S2: women from actually aspiring to those leadership positions as well.
11:50
S1: After the break.
11:52
S2: They're willing to choose women to sort of do some
11:55
S2: of the grubby work, but they don't necessarily have the
11:58
S2: idea that women will fix the whole problem.
12:07
S1: Okay, so what's actually driving this glass cliff phenomenon? Obviously,
12:10
S1: you've been looking into it for more than 20 years.
12:13
S1: Is it nefarious? Is it just like, well, this is
12:15
S1: a way that men can remain in power because if
12:17
S1: we scapegoat women, you know, like, and again, it can
12:20
S1: have this domino effect. So less women want these leadership positions.
12:23
S1: Or is it not nefarious? Is it something else entirely?
12:26
S2: Yeah. So so the short answer is there's no one
12:30
S2: short answer. So it isn't with all discrimination. It's usually
12:34
S2: a multifaceted thing. There's lots of sort of levers and
12:38
S2: underlying processes. I'm a psychologist, so I'm really interested in
12:41
S2: the psychology underlying all of this. So what our research
12:44
S2: has shown is that actually there's a whole lot of
12:47
S2: different predictors or mechanisms that might be going on here.
12:51
S2: So one of them definitely is the set women up
12:53
S2: for failure. So the idea that this is a suboptimal
12:56
S2: leadership position, someone's got to take it. You're not going
13:00
S2: to put your old boy, you know, from your old
13:03
S2: boys club into that role, because we know there's a
13:06
S2: high chance of turnover, a high chance of criticism. If
13:09
S2: we think of Susan Ley, for example. Um, she didn't
13:12
S2: last long in that role. I'm surprised she lasted as
13:15
S2: long as she did, not because of her leadership ability,
13:17
S2: but just because it was such a difficult position to
13:20
S2: be in. So sometimes we know that someone's got to
13:23
S2: take the fall or ride out a difficult position, and
13:28
S2: we put women in those positions. We also have research
13:32
S2: showing that there is a little bit of an idea
13:35
S2: that it can signal change. So if your organization is
13:39
S2: going through a difficult time, maybe in the media. So
13:42
S2: you mentioned Qantas earlier with Vanessa Hudson. So you want
13:47
S2: to demonstrate to to government, to stakeholders, to shareholders that
13:51
S2: you're doing something different, that you're changing things, that things
13:54
S2: are going to be different. A really easy way to
13:56
S2: signal change is to choose a leader who's completely different
13:59
S2: from the previous leader. Um, and, and I'm not going
14:03
S2: to say that all women are completely different from all men,
14:05
S2: but it certainly is a visible difference. It's something that
14:09
S2: you can say we're trying something different. And then there's
14:12
S2: a third kind of explanation. And a lot of people
14:15
S2: actually say, well, maybe this is what's going on. The
14:18
S2: idea that maybe women are just good at dealing with crisis.
14:21
S2: But what's really interesting is that you might say, well,
14:24
S2: then that's great, right? We think women are good at crisis,
14:27
S2: but we've also done research that shows that if you
14:30
S2: ask people Now you choose someone you know. What sort
14:34
S2: of traits would they have? If you really want them
14:36
S2: to turn things around to fix things? All of a sudden,
14:39
S2: they're not choosing women necessarily. So they're they're willing to
14:44
S2: choose women to sort of do some of the grubby work,
14:47
S2: but they don't necessarily have the idea that women will
14:50
S2: fix the whole problem. So all of that to say
14:53
S2: lots going on, lots of different predictors. And it means
14:56
S2: that fixing the glass cliff means that it's not just
14:59
S2: sort of fixing, putting a band aid on one thing.
15:02
S2: It's about actually dealing with stereotypes and with norms and
15:05
S2: with expectations about gender and leadership.
15:08
S1: Okay. So what I've been hearing from you a lot
15:10
S1: in this conversation, tell me if I've got this right,
15:12
S1: is that women are perhaps being used as a fig
15:14
S1: leaf in all kinds of, uh, scenarios, right? To demonstrate
15:18
S1: that a company perhaps is struggling, one has a capacity
15:20
S1: for change, uh, in perhaps more nefarious situations to have
15:23
S1: a fall guy, as it were, for a company that's struggling. So,
15:26
S1: I mean, is your response to this after more than
15:28
S1: 20 years in his space. Like, did you read this
15:31
S1: latest story? And I'm not going to swear on air
15:33
S1: and just be like, WTF? Because we should note to
15:36
S1: the listeners, your boss, of course, is our former prime
15:38
S1: minister Julia Gillard. She's given what it has to have
15:41
S1: gone down in history as the most famous speech about
15:44
S1: misogyny in the history of the country. So are you
15:47
S1: just like, what the hell?
15:50
S2: I mean, I think it's you know, I guess if
15:54
S2: I'm if I'm going to be very charitable about this,
15:58
S2: about a narrative around this is that historically, women have
16:02
S2: made the argument that we need more women in leadership positions, right?
16:06
S2: So and then then we put women in leadership positions
16:10
S2: and then we say, oh, not those positions. Those positions
16:13
S2: are risky and precarious. And, um, so my, I guess my,
16:19
S2: my issue with the glass cliff isn't that these are
16:21
S2: difficult positions and women can't do difficult work. Of course,
16:24
S2: women can do difficult work, but I guess what we're
16:27
S2: trying to say is, sure, we'd like leadership positions, but
16:31
S2: we'd also like our leadership positions to be equally viable
16:35
S2: as men's positions. So the idea isn't, oh, that's too
16:39
S2: difficult for me. But just like give us the difficult
16:41
S2: positions and the relatively easier positions as well.
16:46
S1: Okay. Well, to that point, how do we actually get changed?
16:48
S1: I really want to ask you about this because we
16:51
S1: saw one of the responses to this latest incident was
16:53
S1: that Julia Carrion, a former Wall Street executive, she's the
16:56
S1: co-author of a book, Walking on Broken Glass Navigating the
17:00
S1: Aftermath of the Glass Ceiling. She said that she hopes
17:03
S1: this is a teaching moment for Chris Bradley himself and McKinsey.
17:06
S1: More broadly, she said, women are being told what happens
17:09
S1: to us at work isn't real. So is this actually
17:12
S1: going to be a teachable moment? What will actually move
17:15
S1: the needle? Michel.
17:16
S3: Yeah, I mean, I'm, I'm not someone that is really on.
17:20
S2: Board with the empowering women rhetoric. So I think this
17:24
S2: is very indicative of sort of the lean in phenomenon.
17:28
S2: Sheryl Sandberg sort of 2013 book. It's all about empowering
17:32
S2: women to be more ambitious, to put themselves forward, to
17:35
S2: be stronger, all of those sorts of things. Now, while
17:38
S2: that can be very inspiring, I don't think that's actually
17:41
S2: solving the problem, because the problem with gender equality and
17:44
S2: the problem with women's underrepresentation in leadership positions, or the
17:48
S2: fact that they're paid less, for example, is not that
17:51
S2: women are less ambitious or not that they don't negotiate
17:55
S2: well or they don't have good leadership skills. None of
17:58
S2: that is the problem. The problem is entrenched cultures within
18:01
S2: the workplace. So I'm much less interested in empowering women
18:05
S2: as I am empowering leaders within organizations to make changes
18:10
S2: to their workplaces that make them fairer, that make them equitable.
18:15
S2: And then you might say, well, what does that look like?
18:17
S2: I mean, I think a lot of that is I mean,
18:19
S2: it's not simple. If I if there was a simple
18:21
S2: switch to do to change culture, then we would have
18:24
S2: done it by now. But I think the thing is,
18:26
S2: is we have really entrenched ideas about what leadership looks like,
18:29
S2: what success looks like, what ambition looks like. And these
18:33
S2: are very masculine concepts. But the other way to do
18:36
S2: that is to say, actually, maybe we need to rethink
18:39
S2: what leadership looks like. Maybe empathy is a big part
18:42
S2: of leadership. Maybe FaceTime like, you know, presenteeism and long
18:47
S2: hours isn't actually the best way to run a company.
18:51
S2: Maybe ambition can be quieter, can be about bringing up
18:55
S2: people around you instead of sort of pushing forward as
18:59
S2: an individual.
19:00
S1: And I mean, has anything changed since you wrote this
19:03
S1: study in 2007? And, you know, just shortly after you'd
19:06
S1: actually identified this glass cliff phenomenon, has anything changed or
19:09
S1: has anything changed?
19:10
S2: Yeah. I mean, 20 years sounds like a long time.
19:13
S2: But in the scheme of things, it 20 years isn't
19:16
S2: really that long. I think what's really interesting to me is, say,
19:20
S2: if we look over the last 50 to 100 years.
19:22
S2: We have made a lot of change, right? So from
19:24
S2: where we were 100 years ago, 50 years ago, it's
19:28
S2: an entirely different landscape. More women in the workplace, women
19:31
S2: being represented at the highest echelons of power in organizations,
19:36
S2: in politics, you know, women being able to work after
19:39
S2: they have children or after they're married. Lots of things
19:41
S2: have changed. Um, but actually, over the last 20 years,
19:45
S2: we've seen a fair bit of stagnation really. So and
19:49
S2: that's because often a lot of our legislative levers around
19:53
S2: sort of say sex discrimination acts and things like that,
19:57
S2: we pulled those levers back in the 70s or 80s or,
20:00
S2: you know, brought in legislation and things like that. And
20:03
S2: so we made lots of changes there. I think the
20:05
S2: change that we need to make now is things we
20:09
S2: can't always legislate for. Changing norms and stereotypes, changing our
20:14
S2: expectations about what women look like, what leadership looks like.
20:17
S2: You can't you can't write legislation for that. These are
20:20
S2: this is social change that needs to happen. And it's
20:22
S2: much slower. Um, and it's not. And change isn't always
20:26
S2: just steady onwards and upwards. As we've seen, we've talked
20:29
S2: about the US and about where women's rights are going backwards,
20:33
S2: whether those are reproductive rights or whether those are initiatives
20:37
S2: to help women in the workplace. Um, so these are
20:40
S2: things we can't legislate against. These are things that take
20:42
S2: time and are slow, but these are the things that
20:44
S2: we do need to change.
20:46
S1: And just to follow up, just one, one last question is,
20:49
S1: do women also, do you think really need that messaging
20:51
S1: with regards to, um, helping to facilitate or helping to
20:55
S1: shift the phenomenon of the glass cliff, which is to say,
20:57
S1: is it women as well that are putting other women
21:00
S1: on the glass cliff? Or is it primarily men doing
21:02
S1: this to women?
21:03
S2: Yeah. So when we look at the research more generally,
21:06
S2: I mean, in the real world, men often are in
21:09
S2: positions of power and appointment. They're more likely to be
21:12
S2: in those roles that are appointing women. But when we
21:14
S2: actually do experimental studies to try and understand what's going on,
21:17
S2: Both men and women are likely to put women in
21:20
S2: those positions. So it is often much if we're looking
21:24
S2: at things like stereotypes and things like that. These are
21:26
S2: shared stereotypes that we have. I mean, the other side
21:29
S2: of it that I often get asked is, should women
21:31
S2: take these positions then? Like if we know that these
21:34
S2: are risky, precarious glass cliff positions, should women just say
21:38
S2: no to them? And I think that's a difficult argument
21:41
S2: to make. So if women's opportunities are around where there
21:45
S2: are glass cliff positions, I think being aware of them
21:48
S2: is really important. Uh, knowing what, what resources that you
21:52
S2: need to flourish in that position, that might be about
21:55
S2: having senior management support, that might be having resources, that
21:58
S2: might be having the time to turn things around rather
22:01
S2: than being pushed out because you haven't done enough change.
22:04
S2: So I think the whole metaphor of the glass in
22:08
S2: the glass cliff and the glass ceiling is that it's subtle,
22:11
S2: that we can't see it. And for me, I think
22:14
S2: the most important thing is to take away that you
22:18
S2: know that subtlety and make it obvious. So talk about it,
22:22
S2: do research about it, you know, do podcasts about it
22:25
S2: so that there's an awareness of it as well.
22:29
S1: Well, thank you so much, Michel, for your time.
22:32
S2: Thank you Sam, it's been a pleasure.
22:48
S4: Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong. Our executive producer
22:52
S4: is Tammy Mills, and our podcasts are overseen by Lisa
22:55
S4: Muxworthy and Tom Mackendrick. If you like our show, follow
22:59
S4: The Morning Edition and leave a review for us on
23:01
S4: Apple or Spotify. Thanks for listening.