The Glass Cliff in Nonprofits: Why Women Are Chosen to Fix Broken Systems
In the nonprofit sector, women and gender-diverse leaders have long been celebrated as the backbone of social impact work. They lead grassroots movements, build community infrastructures, anchor trauma-informed programs, and hold organizations together when public systems fail. Yet despite their undeniable presence and contribution, the pathways to leadership remain fraught with inequity, burnout, and invisible expectations. One phenomenon that encapsulates this reality is the “glass cliff,” a term used to describe the pattern where women are elevated into leadership during times of crisis, instability, or organizational decline, only to face heightened scrutiny, inadequate support, and increased risk of failure.
Although the glass cliff has been documented across corporate, academic, and political environments, the nonprofit sector offers a distinct context where it is not only common but structurally reinforced. The nonprofit landscape is consistently under-resourced, powered by care work, shaped by philanthropy, and expected to compensate for state failures, all conditions that create crisis environments as the norm rather than the exception. This dynamic, combined with deeply gendered expectations about emotional labour, collaboration, and service, creates fertile ground for women and gender-diverse people to be appointed to “fix” broken systems they did not create. Understanding the glass cliff in nonprofit spaces is not only a matter of representation but one of occupational justice, mental health, and systemic equity.
Nonprofits as Perpetual Crisis Environments
Crisis management is built into the operating logic of most nonprofit organizations. They respond to homelessness, gender-based violence, food insecurity, climate disasters, inequitable schooling, community trauma, and health system gaps. Funding is often unstable, project-based, and short-term, creating ongoing precarity. Reporting structures can be burdensome and extractive, particularly for Black-led and community-based organizations. Staff are routinely asked to “do more with less,” and leadership often wears multiple hats that would be separate jobs in the private sector.
Within this ecosystem, leadership transitions rarely occur at moments of stability. Instead, they occur after a failed strategic plan, a major funding loss, a board conflict, a public scandal, community backlash, staff turnover, or worsening client outcomes. Against this backdrop, boards and funders often search for leaders who are perceived as collaborative, empathetic, mission-driven, or willing to sacrifice personal needs for the organization. These traits, socially coded as feminine, are not accidental expectations but deeply rooted in gendered labour histories.
It is no surprise that in moments of crisis, women and gender-diverse leaders are seen as the “safer” or more “appropriate” choice. They are expected to heal internal tensions, re-establish community trust, secure emergency funding, and rebuild morale, all while under heightened surveillance and with limited control over root causes. When they succeed, the institution is stabilized; when they fail, the blame often falls on their competence rather than the impossible conditions they inherited.
The Myth of the Natural Caregiver
The glass cliff in nonprofits is reinforced by a persistent myth: that women are naturally better at care, collaboration, and community listening. These narratives may sound positive, but they mask a troubling pattern that women and gender-diverse leaders are appointed to clean up messes precisely because they are assumed to tolerate emotional labour without reward.
Consider how job postings for nonprofit leadership are often framed. Requirements may include:
“strong interpersonal skills”
“ability to navigate conflict”
“deep commitment to the mission”
“comfort working in high-pressure environments”
“flexible with limited resources”
“excellent relationship building”
“trauma-informed leadership”
While these skills are valuable, they are also disproportionately expected of women, people of colour, and LGBTQ+ leaders. Meanwhile, financial stability, governance clarity, succession planning, and systems infrastructure areas, where boards and funders hold more power, are rarely scrutinized with the same intensity. The result is that women and gender-diverse leaders are over-indexed for emotional competence but under-supported with structural resources.
The caring leader archetype also obscures the harm that comes with it. Caregiving in leadership is work, not personality. It involves conflict mediation, staff wellness, community safety, trauma exposure, and boundary setting. When this labour is treated as innate or effortless, it becomes unpaid, unrecognized, and unresourced. In a sector already dominated by women (nearly 80% of nonprofit staff), this dynamic contributes to chronic burnout, wage suppression, stalled pipelines to executive roles, and retention issues.
Intersectionality Matters: Who Gets Placed on the Cliff
The glass cliff is not experienced equally. Research and lived experience show that:
Black women
Indigenous women
Racialized women
Trans and non-binary leaders
Immigrant and refugee women
are disproportionately appointed during moments of heightened institutional crisis, especially where there are concerns about community trust, race relations, or “diversity optics.” In these cases, boards sometimes mistake representation for structural change, appointing leaders who symbolize transformation without providing the conditions for them to succeed.
Black women in particular are appointed to resolve crises involving racism or community harm, while simultaneously navigating anti-Blackness within boards, funders, and staff cultures. Indigenous women face the impossible task of leading reconciliation-oriented initiatives inside systems built on colonial foundations. Trans and non-binary leaders often carry the burden of educating their organizations about gender inclusion while managing hostility or erasure. Immigrant women may confront linguistic barriers, cultural misunderstandings, or xenophobic assumptions about their capabilities.
When these leaders step into organizations already in decline, they inherit liabilities they did not create: dysfunctional governance, underfunded programs, poor staff morale, outdated systems, or reputational damage. If they succeed, the organization moves forward without acknowledging the extra labour required; if they burn out or step down, they are framed as not being “ready,” “professional enough,” or “a good fit.”
Boards, Funders, and the Structural Dimension
To address the glass cliff, we must examine the ecosystem of decision-makers around nonprofit leadership transitions. Boards often operate with limited equity training, uneven community representation, and constrained time. Funders demand evidence of impact but rarely fund the infrastructure required to produce it. Government contracts shift reporting requirements without regard for staff capacity. Philanthropy shapes priorities but is not accountable for outcomes.
In this ecosystem, the leader becomes the face of the crisis while structural contributors remain invisible. Boards may select a woman or gender-diverse leader during a crisis because they believe that person can “unify the team” or “heal the culture.” Meanwhile, what is needed are:
financial investments
governance reforms
workload redistribution
trauma supports
data systems
strategic clarity
community consultation
realistic timelines
compensation adjustments
Without these supports, the leader becomes the scapegoat for structural failings. Boards and funders must understand that representation without resources is not empowerment it is exploitation.
The Mental Health Impacts of Glass Cliff Leadership
The glass cliff is not only a leadership issue; it is also a mental health and wellness issue. Leading through crisis exposes people to:
community trauma
staff distress
public scrutiny
ethical dilemmas
resource scarcity
racial and gender discrimination
vicarious trauma
Combined with the pressure to perform flawlessly because they were hired as the “fix” leaders face a heightened risk of:
burnout
anxiety
depression
compassion fatigue
imposter syndrome
isolation
suicidal ideation (in severe cases)
Yet mental health supports for nonprofit leaders are rare. Coaching and therapy are often not covered by organizational budgets. Boards may not have language for trauma-aware governance. Leaders may fear stigma if they disclose mental health needs. Women and gender-diverse leaders, especially racialized leaders, may internalize the pressure to “be strong,” fearing that vulnerability will be weaponized against them.
Towards Solutions: What Structural Change Requires
Ending the glass cliff requires shifting the spotlight away from individual leaders and onto the systems that shape their conditions.
Here are sector-level interventions that matter:
1. Trauma-Aware Governance
Boards should receive training on trauma, burnout, identity-based stress, and crisis leadership. Governance that understands trauma is governance that supports sustainability.
2. Succession Planning Before Crisis
Leadership transitions should be planned proactively, not reactively. Emergencies should not be the default context for leadership appointments.
3. Representation + Resources Package
Representation is not enough. Leaders need:
operational budgets
upgraded infrastructure
HR capacity
mental health supports
administrative staff
mentorship
governance clarity
4. Funders Must Fund Infrastructure
Funders must move beyond project-based grants and invest in:
leadership development
evaluation systems
staff wellness
anti-oppression training
succession planning
technology
wages
Without infrastructure funding, leaders are set up to fail.
5. Normalize Mental Health Support
Leadership roles should include:
clinical supervision
coaching or mentorship
access to therapy
paid mental health leave
Support is not a luxury; it is a condition for ethical labour.
6. Protect Intersectional Leaders
Policies must acknowledge that racialized, Indigenous, trans, and immigrant leaders face additional barriers. Support must be tailored, not generic.
Conclusion: Beyond Survival Toward Equity
The nonprofit sector cannot continue to rely on the emotional labour and endurance of women and gender-diverse leaders to outrun structural crises. The glass cliff reveals that representation without power, resources, and support is not progress; it is fragility disguised as equity.
Women and gender-diverse leaders deserve more than symbolic visibility. They deserve conditions that make sustainable leadership possible: organizations that are resourced, boards that are trauma-informed, funders that invest in infrastructure, and cultures that value wellbeing over martyrdom.
The future of nonprofit leadership cannot rest on the heroic survival of those who are most willing to sacrifice themselves. It must be built on systems that allow leaders, especially those most marginalized by gender, race, and class, not just to weather a crisis, but to thrive, innovate, and transform the communities they serve.
This is not simply about who leads, but about how we build a sector that does not perpetually require crisis leadership to begin with.
About the Author
Originally from Nigeria and raised in Toronto, Dr. Bolu Olaniru is a scholar, educator, and advocate whose work bridges research, social innovation, and global gender justice. She earned her Doctorate in Social Science from Royal Roads University, where her research focused on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in West Africa. Her academic and professional commitments center on women’s health, gender equality, children’s rights, and humanitarian advocacy.
Beyond publishing and presenting widely, she produced and directed the award-winning documentary Ise Abe (The Blade), which explores the lived experiences of FGM survivors. The film has screened internationally and contributes to global policy discussions on ending FGM.
In Canada, Dr. Bolu Olaniru teaches at Conestoga College and Stenberg College, focusing on interdisciplinary studies, philosophy, and women’s studies. She also serves as a Director at Women Focus Canada and is the Founder of Rooted in Care, a mental wellness initiative supporting caregivers of autistic individual through education and empowerment.