Alison Cook

The current study builds upon and extends research on the glass cliff by analyzing the antecedents and repercussions of CEO dismissal. Recent research on the relationship between performance, gender, and CEO dismissal has led to contrary conclusions. We build on this nascent work by examining whether negative firm performance places women CEOs of US firms at a greater risk of involuntary dismissal relative to men CEOs. We further explore whether gender moderates market response to the dismissal announcement and replacement. Our analysis relies on data of all CEOs from the United States’ Russell 3000 index, which represents a spectrum of small to large companies, who departed their organizations between 2016 and 2022. We also rely on a novel measure of CEO dismissal, the push-out score, which overcomes previous limitations related to the nature of CEO departures. We find that women are more vulnerable than men to involuntary dismissal during periods of performance decline and that investors reward firms that replace dismissed women CEOs with white men. Our findings have implications for gender equity in the C-Suite.

Objective: Women leaders continue to be in the minority as corporate CEOs. Despite efforts to highlight the benefits of leadership diversity, fewer than 10 percent of CEO positions within U.S. public corporations are held by women. This study draws on the theory of gendered organizations and token theory to explore challenges women CEOs face that may inhibit their leadership trajectories and contribute to the dearth of women CEOs. We build upon and extend recent research on the leadership trajectory of women CEOs post‐appointment.Methods: We test whether women CEOs have shorter tenures and heightened vulnerability to dismissal relative to men CEOs, and whether women's risk of dismissal is exacerbated by the glass cliff. Our data draw from a large sample of firms in the Russell 3000 index from 2016 to 2022.Results: We find that compared to men CEOs, women enjoy shorter tenures and face a higher likelihood of being dismissed involuntarily. This gender gap in dismissal risk is further exacerbated when women are appointed during times of weak organizational performance (i.e., the “glass cliff”).Conclusion: We discuss the implications of our findings for theory and practice on gender inequality in organizations and research on the glass cliff.

Background: CEOs increasingly take public stands on social and political issues tangential to their corporation.s core mission. Emergent research on this phenomenon has explored the prevalence, impacts and risks of increasing CEO activism for firms. However, very little research has explored the individual and institutional factors that motivate CEO activism. This project attempts to refocus this nascent field by exploring the gendered, racial, sexual and organizational factors that motivate leaders to speak out on issues ranging from DEI, gun control, climate change, Black Lives Matter and #MeToo.Method: To answer our research question ‐ who speaks? ‐ we examined CEOs, companies, and key social issues within the Proquest Newsstand Database. First, we conducted a large exploratory study of random men and women CEOs to determine if gender differences exist. Next, we examined all women CEOs in the Fortune 500 and S&P 500 between 2019–2021 to provide a more thorough and nuanced analysis.Results: We find that women CEOs are more likely to speak out compared to men CEOs. Further, we find that BIPOC and LGBTQ+ CEOs are more likely to engage in activism compared to other CEOs. We also find that the market value of the firm and the presence of women on the board of directors serve as significant predictors of CEO activism compared to other firms.Conclusion: We consider the implications of these findings for the appointment, tenure and visibility of historically underrepresented CEOs.

Gender and sexuality have been at the forefront of societal debate in recent years with various legal battles concerning LGBT rights and religious liberties taking center stage. Shifts in attitudes and gains in legal protections have served to entrench conservative religious beliefs and to perpetuate generational “bitter” knowledge. This study seeks to understand the types of beliefs brought into the classroom by students and to examine the role of religious socialization in shaping and maintaining problematic beliefs in the context of learning new discordant knowledge. The data demonstrate that students bring “bitter” or problematic knowledge into the classroom, which serves as an obstacle to engaging in critical inquiry. We explore how the educational technique of engaging in pedagogies of discomfort invites students to see things differently and to examine how the religious institution has shaped their beliefs and values. We conclude with the call for educators to create authenticity and safety through sharing in self-examination and presenting their own vulnerability within the course.

How do non‐traditional leaders negotiate their entrance and inclusion in elite leadership roles? This study explores the intentional strategies used by non‐traditional leaders to obtain and sustain elite leadership positions. While previous research has documented the barriers that limit the advancement of White women and people of colour, this study extends our understanding to the deliberate, intentional strategies outsiders use to negotiate their entrance to and inclusion in elite leadership roles. We use Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and Puwar’s bodies out of place perspective to analyse the ‘performative contortions’ of outsiders who occupy elite roles. Our analysis relies on 32 in‐depth interviews with White women and men and women of colour who occupy senior leadership positions in large organizations. Our findings uncover a range of embodied, cultural and interactional strategies outsiders employ to gain entrance to top positions and thus reveal the ways gender and race are embedded in the ‘hidden curriculum’ of elite organizations. The ongoing labour required of organizational outsiders to negotiate their own inclusion sheds light on the continuing failure of current efforts to achieve equity and inclusion among elite leadership ranks.

Will adding women to the board of directors reduce firm gender pay disparities? Our research suggests ‘no’ … and ‘yes.’ It is not a matter of simply adding more women to the board or integrating women into key board committees that moves the needle. If firms really want to stimulate change through board diversity, then they need to empower female directors and place them in key leadership roles. We find that women’s integration on the board of directors and on the compensation committee has no significant impact on lessening the compensation gap within the top executive team. However, when women influence compensation decisions through service as the chair of the compensation committee, the top executive compensation gap is diminished. Our analysis relies on a dataset built by the authors of all top management team executives and board members from the S&P 500 from 2009–2013. We test three mechanisms that may enable women to overcome limitations with respect to pay equity: (i) integration, (ii) direct decision making and (iii) influence. Our findings suggest that not all types of power are equal; the more direct influence women have over compensation decisions, the smaller the compensation gap.

Do women board directors change how companies do business? Firms face growing pressure to appoint more women to their boards of directors, yet little is known about the factors that enable female directors to impact their organizations. This study analyzes the representational thresholds that facilitate women’s leadership in the area of corporate social responsibility. We test the predictions of token theory and critical mass theory to evaluate the ability of women to impact firm outcomes based on their numerical representation on the board of directors. Our analysis focuses on board composition and organizational outcomes in the Fortune 500 from 2001 to 2010. Our findings challenge the theoretical assumptions that solo and token women are unable to exert significant influence over their organizations, and underscore the importance of board diversity for today’s firms.