Shifting perspectives: How scrutiny shapes the relationship between CEO gender and acquisition activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research Summary Several upper echelons studies have found that firms led by female executives are less likely to engage in risky endeavors than those led by male top executives. We argue that conceptualizing female CEOs as universally conservative decision‐makers may paint too simplistic a picture and that the impact of CEO gender on strategic decision‐making may vary significantly depending on the given situation CEOs are experiencing. We integrate executive job demands and gender research to propose that scrutiny will exhibit differential effects on female and male CEOs' acquisition activity. We show that in high‐scrutiny contexts, the difference between male and female CEO acquisition activity disappears. In contrast, in low‐scrutiny contexts, the difference between male and female CEOs' acquisition activity is exaggerated. Managerial Summary Substantial research has shown that female executives acquire at a lower rate than male executives. We argue that viewing female CEOs as universally conservative decision‐makers may paint too simplistic a picture and that the impact of CEO gender on strategic decision‐making may vary significantly depending on the given situation CEOs are experiencing. In particular, we argue and find that in high‐scrutiny contexts, the difference between male and female CEO acquisition activity disappears. This research suggests that managers should consider the impact of environmental context—especially the role of scrutiny—when considering the risk propensity of female leaders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".