Research on female leadership has documented that female-led firms tend to engage in lower risk-taking activities than male-led firms and attributed it to females' higher propensity for risk aversion. Nevertheless, this claim and its associated findings have been increasingly challenged. In this article, we address the unclear pattern of females' risk preference in leadership by contextualizing the effect of chair gender on corporate acquisitions in the context of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China. Drawing on expectancy violation theory, we propose that female chairs are more inclined to take risks when they operate in contexts that encourage female agency. We further explore self-affirmation mechanisms through two moderators: gender stereotype threats and self-efficacy. An analysis of chairs of 1,265 publicly listed SOEs in China from 2008 to 2020 supports predictions that female chairs are more likely than male chairs to engage in firm acquisitions. The effects are amplified under low levels of female executive representation and high levels of political appointments held by female chairs. The study shows that context determines how extensively gender affects risk-taking. It offers new insights into when and why female leaders exhibit higher levels of risk-taking in Chinese SOEs.

Employer family policy tends to be conceived as employers’ response to economic pressures, with the relevance of normative factors given comparatively little weight. This study questions this status quo, examining the normative relevance of public childcare and female leadership to employer childcare. Logistic regression analyses are performed on data from the 2016 National Study of Employers (NSE), a representative study of private sector employers in the United States. The findings show that public childcare is relevant for those forms of employer childcare more plausibly explained as the result of employers’ normative as opposed to economic considerations. The findings further suggest that female leaders are highly relevant for employer childcare, but that this significance differs depending on whether the form of employer childcare is more likely of economic versus normative importance to employers. The study provides an empirical contribution in that it is the first to use representative data of the United States to examine the relevance of state-level public childcare and female leadership. Its theoretical contribution is to show that normative explanations for employer childcare provision are likely underestimated in U.S. employer family policy research.