2011 Best International Paper Award

The list of 2011 OMT Award Winners has finally been revealed! Congratulations to all the winners for their excellent contributions to the OMT Division. We were particularly pleased to hear that the 2011 Best International Paper Award was awarded to two of our colleagues at the University of Alberta – Eric Yanfei Zhao and Tyler Wry. When you have two winners working in the cubicles next to yours, it would be a shame not to take the opportunity to interview them! Here is what Eric and Tyler had to say about their paper ‘Societal patriarchal logics and the emergence of microfinance organizations’.

Who is the target audience for this article?

Eric and Tyler:  We see a number of audiences for our paper. Primarily, though, we think (and hope!) that the paper will appeal to OMT members and scholars with an interest in macro organizational processes, more generally.  Our key theoretical contribution is the concept of ‘cross-sector logic’.  We draw on Thornton and Ocasio’s argument that institutional logics mirror those associated with the primary sectors of society, but show that some logics – such as patriarchy – can manifest across sectors, making them complementary and reinforcing. This shifts attention away from the idea that sectoral logics exist in conflict and contestation and foregrounds a more nuanced and relational approach.  It also gets back to Friedland and Alford’s (1991) original – but largely neglected – focus on the influence of logics at the societal level and shows the utility of their ideas for understanding patterns of organizing in both Western and non-Western nations.

Beyond this, though, our empirical context and findings should be of interest to scholars and policy-makers that look at issues of global poverty and the potentially ameliorating effects of microfinance.  In particular, we help to resolve the mixed findings that have characterized past analyses of microfinance efficacy. After controlling for economic variables, we find that cross-sectoral patriarchy may not only block the creation of microfinance organizations ex ante, but create barriers to its continued growth.  As a result, countries with similar material environments exhibit different levels of microfinance development because of their heterogeneous institutional contexts.

Finally, policy makers may also find our study insightful.  Our results illustrate a paradox in addressing gender inequity: countries with the highest patriarchy in family, profession, state and religion sectors also face the highest barriers to microfinance creation.  Patriarchal logics in multiple institutional sectors may perpetuate poverty among women through their joint impact on the creation of organizations that promise to empower them.  It suggests that fighting poverty and gender inequity is a complex endeavor exacerbated by significant and intertwined sets of forces spanning multiple sites of social relations.

What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

Eric:  Coming from a less privileged family background, I have always been concerned about problems faced by the “bottom of the pyramid” such as poverty and inequity.  I remember I was really excited when I first heard about microfinance and was impressed by its innovative approach in addressing those perennial social problems.  But what puzzled me was the considerable variation in the founding of microfinance organizations across the world.  In particular, countries with ostensibly similar material environments had variable founding rates.  This motivated me to study this context more in depth.

I then started reading extensively on what have been written on microfinance.  The more I read, the more incomplete I found the extant explanations (mostly by economists) of the variation are.  Economists tend to attribute the variation in foundings to the different levels of demand and supply of microfinance in the national market.  I considered this at best a partial explanation and started to think about what other factors may explain the variation.  Being trained in a strong institutional school, I naturally turned to institutional theory and thought about the role that patriarchy might play.  Then during a brief coffee, I communicated the idea with my buddy Tyler.

Tyler:  I was immediately intrigued with what Eric presented to me.  I have a long interest in social responsibility and social entrepreneurship, so this was a natural fit.  Moreover, as we started to identify data sources and variables related to patriarchy, it struck me that although patriarchy fit the definition of an institutional logic, it could not be easily reconciled against conceptualizations of society as an inter-institutional system comprised of six sectors. Looking at the literature, it was equally clear that other shared cognitive frameworks such as environmental sustainability, social welfare, progressivism, and others could not be neatly aligned with any one societal sector.  This got me excited about the opportunity to write a paper that said something theoretically interesting while engaging an important empirical question.

Were there findings that were surprising to you?

Eric and Tyler:  The big surprise for us was the variation we observed in the manifestations of patriarchy across different nations.  This was a welcome surprise because it spurred us go really deep into our data, but it also opened up a number of questions. Now we’re trying to unpack the generative dynamics of institutional configurations.   Good times!

How does this study fit into your body of work/line of research?

Eric:  This paper is the first step of a larger research project where I examine the extent to which cross-sector logics that operate across a nation’s inter-institutional system conditions the emergence and growth of the microfinance market.   It is a reflection of my general research interest which lies at the intersection of institutional theory, entrepreneurship and sustainability.  My second main project, where I investigate the emergence of the nanotoxicology research field with my advisor Michael Lounsbury, also lies within this general research area.

Tyler:  I’m intrigued by issues of institutional complexity, plurality, and the ways in which actors find their way through heterogeneous cultural environments.  Put simply, I’m interested in what people understand as fitting together, when, and with what consequences.  In this context, thinking about cross-sector logics and the role of institutional heterogeneity in microfinance is a natural fit for me.  Eric and I are working on a broader program of research related in the area and I’m excited to see where it goes!  The ideas that we’re developing also fit well with my other projects on the interstitial emergence of nanotechnology entrepreneurship and the influence of a multi-faceted ‘entrepreneurial self’ in shaping organizational foundings.

What does winning the prestigious OMT Best International Paper Award mean to you?

Eric and Tyler:  It was indeed a wonderful surprise.  When we got our draft together, we thought that it was a strong candidate for the proceedings but we didn’t expect to win such a prestigious award.  It’s an excellent gift for Tyler as he starts his job at Wharton and for Eric as a further motivation to do good work!

Also, we would be remiss if we didn’t thank our advisor, Michael Lounsbury.  Mike has been unwavering in his intellectual (and financial!) support – giving us, in turn, the leeway to develop ideas that we feel passionate about and the guidance to bring them to fruition.  The challenging but supportive environment fostered by Royston Greenwood in the SMORG department at the University of Alberta has also been invaluable in honing our theoretical skills and analytic abilities.  We feel very grateful. Finally, we want to thank the Center for Research in Organization and Management (CROMA) of Bocconi University for the generous sponsor of our award!