ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015
The Evolution of Empathy and Women's Precarious Leadership Appointments.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conversational Agents for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Management: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Gender-specific interpersonal neural synchronization during same-gender closeness-building interactions among strangers: an fNIRS hyperscanning study.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Empathetic Leadership in Corporate Communication: Cultivating Positive Dynamics and Enhancing Employee Well-Being.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pandemic Leadership: Sex Differences and Their Evolutionary-Developmental Origins.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Review
- A Short Empathy Paradigm to Assess Empathic Deficits in Schizophrenia.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Leader emergence and affective empathy: A dynamic test of the dual-hormone hypothesis.PloS one · 2020Article
- The relationship between empathy and stress: a cross-sectional study among undergraduate medical students.Korean journal of medical education · 2019Article
- Self-compassion is associated with less stress and depression and greater attention and brain response to affective stimuli in women managers.BMC women's health · 2018Article
- Workplace Ostracism Seen through the Lens of Power.Frontiers in psychology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Glass cliffs describe situations in which women are promoted to executive roles in declining organizations. To explain them, some authors suggest that people tend to "think crisis-think female." However, the root cause of this association remains elusive. Using several subfields of evolutionary theory, we argue that biology and culture have shaped the perception of women as being more empathic than men and, consequently, as capable of quelling certain crises. Some crises are more intense than others and, whereas some brew within organizations, others originate from the external environment. We therefore propose that women will be selected to lead whenever a crisis is minimal to moderate and stems primarily from within the organization. Men, on the other hand, will be chosen as leaders whenever the crisis threatens the very existence of the firm and its source is an external threat. Leadership is a highly stressful experience, and even more so when leaders must scale glass cliffs. It is imperative that we understand what gives rise to them not only because they place women and potentially other minorities in positions where the likelihood of failure is high, but also because they help propagate stereotypes that undermine their true leadership ability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.