Harvard Should Trust Claudine Gay’s Vision and Avoid Glass Cliff

On the heels of Black History and Women’s History months, I’m inspired by Claudine Gay, the next president of Harvard University.

As the first Black person and second woman to take on the top job at Harvard, and second Black woman to ever lead an Ivy League institution, her identity, education, and wealth of experience make her uniquely qualified.

And given the high-profile role at a leading academic institution, she’s not only making history—she’s poised to shape the future for countless students, at Harvard and beyond. She’s also been dealt a loaded hand.

Institutions of higher learning are struggling with questions about diversity, equity, and inclusion, while reckoning with a history of systemic oppression. Harvard is not exempt from this inquiry—it’s a microcosm of the national conversation. Whether that’s how it reconsiders how the school profits from slavery, reevaluates negative student experiences on campus, or most recently, in the high-profile case on affirmative action before the Supreme Court—what happens at Harvard has implications for the nation as a whole.

In this context, the decision to elevate a Black woman, a proud child of immigrants, and a leading researcher on the relationship between race, gender, inequality, and political participation gives some insight into where Harvard wants to land in the conversation. However, unless Gay’s glass-ceiling shattering appointment is followed by real, systemic change at the university, this highly symbolic moment risks remaining just that.

In 2004, British professors Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam coined the term “glass cliff.” After The Times newspaper in the UK suggested women on company boards were a “hinderance,” Ryan and Haslam analyzed the performance of 100 companies on the London Stock Exchange, paying special attention to what happened before and after men and women were appointed.

Their findings: women are brought on in moments of crisis—or on the edge of a collapse—and, recognizing that opportunities for career advancement are rare, accept especially high levels of risk. As a result, these leaders often experience high levels of burnout, or worse, failure. And when women who have been set up to fail eventually do, it is used as evidence they should have never been given the opportunity in the first place.

Since then, we’ve seen glass cliffs across multiple sectors—with history-making women set up for crisis management and potentially short futures. Jill Abramson, the first female executive editor of the New York Times, was fired after less than three years. Marissa Mayer resigned after five years of trying to save Yahoo’s rapidly falling stock.

And Mary Barra, the first woman to lead one of the big three US automakers, was appointed to revive General Motors after a bankruptcy, major recalls, and multiple public relations crises—and defied the odds with her tenure and success.

With the Supreme Court’s admissions verdict poised to be among the first things on Claudine Gay’s desk, some have already asked if she has been put out on a similar ledge.

It’s worth asking: is this an example of truly valuing the invaluable perspective of a Black woman at a time of crisis and, more broadly, the importance of diverse and inclusive leadership––or an example of simply valuing the perception of it?

If it’s the latter, data suggests it could backfire. According to a Pull Agency survey, 58% of consumers notice when a brand is only pretending to be aligned with social issues—and in higher education, there’s no brand quite like Harvard.

To ensure this is a truly transformative appointment, and not performative activism, the Harvard community must invest in Gay’s continued success. At MCCA, we believe transformation starts when we know, do, and lead better. In this case, there are two principles the Harvard community should keep in mind.

First is transparency, and Harvard has already done a good job on this front. By being transparent about the selection process, they’ve instilled more confidence in her leadership.

That’s why the next priority should be trust. Instead of expecting Gay to fit the mold of past presidents, who have traditionally been White men, the university must give her the freedom to bring her full self, including her academic area of expertise, to the role. No one knows better than Gay how race and gender can impact how people feel about their leaders.

If Harvard can support Claudine Gay as she leads, the results could be transformative—and not just in academia. In fact, research shows that when more women are given the opportunity to lead, the effects of the glass ceiling can disappear. That means, in addition to giving Black women much-needed representation in academia and inspiring the next generation of students, Harvard can send a far-reaching message to leaders and organizations everywhere, and be a shining example of how to set Black leaders and women leaders up for success.

In Gay’s own words, “There is an urgency for Harvard to be engaged with the world and to bring bold, brave, pioneering thinking to our greatest challenges.” Gay’s appointment is an important first step, and it gives me hope that we’re headed in the right direction.

Now, Harvard needs to be bold enough to be transparent, and brave enough to trust. Only then will we see pioneering, transformative leadership to address our greatest challenges head on.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Jean Lee is president and CEO of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines