Women in the workplace: between visible discrimination and structural inequality
If you only have one minute
Workplaces play a central role in our lives, yet discrimination and harassment remain widespread. In the UK, around 40% of women have experienced unwanted sexual behaviour at work, while the gender pay gap still stands at 12.8%. But inequality at work is not always explicit. Women and minority groups also face structural barriers, from the “glass ceiling” limiting career progression to the “glass cliff”, where they are more likely to be promoted into high-risk leadership positions during periods of crisis.
Creating safer and more inclusive workplaces therefore requires both immediate and long-term action. Organisations must strengthen anti-harassment policies, reporting mechanisms and workplace training, while also addressing deeper structural inequalities through transparent promotion criteria, equal access to leadership development, and better support systems for leaders in high-pressure roles. Without this, workplaces cannot become truly equitable spaces for everyone.
Research suggests that the average person spends around 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime, making it a central part of everyday life. Beyond being necessary for income, work also provides social connections that have been shown to improve wellbeing, boost productivity and reduce loneliness. In a context where around 33% of adults report feeling lonely, this makes it all the more important to build workplaces that are not just functional environments, but safe, inclusive and supportive spaces for everyone.
Yet in the UK, around 40% of women and 18% of men have experienced some form of unwanted sexual behaviour at work, ranging from unwelcome jokes to sexual assault. These experiences do not only occur in the physical workplace, but also in work-related contexts such as socialising with colleagues or clients. Despite this prevalence, reporting rates remain very low, with only around 15% of incidents being formally reported, suggesting the issue is far more widespread than figures capture. The consequences can be severe, affecting mental and physical health, leading to anxiety, sleep disruption, mistrust and fear, and often pushing victims to seek new employment.
Beyond these visible forms of inequality, workplaces are also shaped by more structural and less visible dynamics. For instance, the gender pay gap in the UK stands at 6.9% for full-time employees. Similarly, despite rising female representation on boards in recent years (43% in the UK), progress remains largely concentrated in non-executive roles, while senior executive positions remain overwhelmingly male. Indeed, only around 11% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and at the current pace, parity in C-suite leadership is not expected until 2073. As such, the glass-ceiling, the invisible barrier limiting the career progression of women and minority groups, remains a persistent reality.
But even when women do break through the glass ceiling, inequality does not disappear. Instead, it reappears in more insidious ways, shaping not only who gets promoted, but also when and under what conditions.
From the glass ceiling to the glass cliff
In 2005, researchers Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam analysed FTSE 100 companies and found that firms appointing women to leadership positions were often already performing poorly. They coined the term “glass cliff” to describe the tendency for women and minority groups to be promoted into leadership roles during periods of crisis or organisational decline, placing them in more precarious roles with a higher risk of failure. Importantly, this pattern extends beyond the corporate world. In UK politics, female and black or minority ethnic candidates have been more likely to contest harder-to-win seats across multiple elections.
There are several reasons why this happens, and the explanation is often multi-dimensional. First, there is the “think crisis - think female” idea, rooted in gender stereotypes that associate women with empathy, communication and a more nurturing leadership style. Second, some argue this reflects scapegoating, where women are placed in high-risk roles that organisations are more willing to sacrifice. Finally, such appointments can serve a public relations function, signalling change and diversity commitments even when internal support structures are lacking.
This has important negative consequences at both personal and systemic levels. On an individual level, it can undermine self-confidence, increase burnout, and lead to reputational damage, especially given the heightened scrutiny of these roles. Systematically, it can reduce diversity in leadership, as many women leave the corporate world following these experiences. It also reinforces stereotypes, as failure in these roles is often misinterpreted as proof that women are less suited to leadership. This is further reinforced by a “saviour effect”, where a woman is blamed for a failed turnaround and replaced by a man, creating a self-reinforcing cycle that reproduces the very inequality it claims to address.
Rethinking leadership and workplace inclusion
Ensuring workplaces are safe and inclusive for everyone relies on two complementary approaches. First, organisations must tackle direct action to tackle harassment and discrimination in the short term. This includes comprehensive anti-harassment policies with clear definitions, reporting mechanisms and consequences, alongside regular reviews to assess their effectiveness. Reporting systems should offer multiple channels and encourage employees to speak up safely. Training also plays a key role, from anti-harassment sessions and specialised training for managers to proactive bystander intervention programmes such as those offered by togetHER.
But as we have seen, workplace inequality does not stop at what is most visible. Long-term change also requires addressing the more structural dynamics that underpin exclusion and unequal career progression. Organisations should ensure that leaders appointed to high-pressure roles receive the resources and institutional support necessary to succeed. More broadly, hiring and promotion processes should rely on objective and transparent criteria, while mentorship and leadership development opportunities must be equally accessible at every stage of a career. Ultimately, building inclusive workplaces requires continuous investment, monitoring and cultural change, because without addressing both visible discrimination and structural inequalities, workplaces cannot become truly safe or equitable spaces for everyone.
