Why a McKinsey Partner Lost His Leadership Role

Chris Bradley, a senior partner at McKinsey & Company, was removed from his leadership role at the McKinsey Global Institute after an internal review of his LinkedIn comments about the “glass cliff.” The Institute is McKinsey’s business and economic research unit. A company spokesperson said Bradley’s public comments “fell well short of the standards we expect at our firm.” Bradley remains a senior partner in McKinsey’s Sydney office.

The glass cliff describes a pattern in which women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions during periods of organizational crisis. In a LinkedIn exchange, Bradley suggested the theory was a convenient way for women to portray themselves as “victims” and said he was not interested in researching it further. The discussion was later deleted; Julia Carreon, a participant, shared screenshots of it.

Questioning the research was not itself the issue: scientific findings should be open to scrutiny. Evidence for the glass cliff is mixed, and some studies have found little or no evidence of the phenomenon. The concern was how Bradley expressed his skepticism, particularly in a conversation about women’s experiences of discrimination. McKinsey said his comments fell short of the firm’s standards.

How Leaders Can Disagree Respectfully

Disagreement about gender discrimination can feel like a dismissal of women’s experiences. Leaders can keep the conversation productive by showing conversational receptiveness: thoughtfully engaging with opposing views, even when they remain unconvinced.

That means acknowledging the other person’s perspective, finding common ground and expressing uncertainty instead of speaking with absolute certainty. Phrases such as “I understand,” “I agree with” and “might” signal openness. Research found that people using more receptive language were viewed more favorably by those who disagreed with them, and were seen as more persuasive and desirable collaborators.

For example, a leader might say, “I understand why that would be concerning. I’m not sure the research supports that conclusion, but I’d be interested in seeing the evidence.” This recognizes the concern while inviting further discussion. It also distinguishes respectful skepticism from dismissiveness: research should be open to scrutiny, but skepticism is more constructive when paired with intellectual curiosity rather than arrogance.

Respectful skepticism does not require leaders to agree with every claim. It means asking questions, examining evidence and remaining open to the possibility that their assumptions could be wrong. By making room for uncertainty and continued discussion, leaders can challenge research without shutting down the people raising concerns.

Curiosity and Humility Build Psychological Safety

Curiosity can help create conditions in which employees feel able to raise concerns. Across four organizational samples, researchers found that employees who perceived their leaders as more curious reported greater psychological safety, which was associated with greater willingness to speak up. Curiosity appeared to matter even more for male leaders.

That does not mean leaders must accept every claim about discrimination. They can challenge research while asking questions, examining evidence and remaining open to discovering that their assumptions are wrong. This approach treats employees’ experiences seriously without putting research beyond scrutiny.

Humility also matters. Research suggests leaders who acknowledge what they do not know and stay open to others’ perspectives can foster an environment where employees feel safer speaking up. This is especially relevant when discussing discrimination: leaders may not have personally experienced the treatment being described. Recognizing that limit signals they may not fully understand the challenges women face—and are willing to consider evidence that challenges their assumptions.

When leaders combine curiosity with humility, disagreement can leave room for learning rather than closing down discussion. Employees may be more willing to speak when they see that their concerns will be considered, even if the leader remains skeptical.

Why Women May Hesitate to Speak Up

Carreon acknowledged that she might have handled parts of the LinkedIn exchange differently. In hindsight, she said, she could have done more than repeatedly suggest that Bradley look up the research. But she also questioned why the burden should have fallen on her.

“Women are exhausted,” Carreon said, describing the strain of having to establish their credibility over and over, explain well-documented discrimination to people in positions of authority, and remain patient and gracious while doing so. She said Bradley’s comments made her feel mocked, adding that he was “mocking the premise, and by extension, me.”

When women worry that concerns about discrimination will be dismissed or ridiculed, they may hesitate to raise them. Feeling mocked or belittled can discourage them from speaking up again. That can make thoughtful leadership especially important: disagreement about research need not become a dismissal of someone’s experience.

Leaders do not have to agree with every claim about discrimination. They should, however, consider the evidence and treat those who raise concerns with respect. Taking concerns seriously can help keep discussion open, even when people disagree about what the research shows.