Microfinance institutions (MFIs) operate in diverse institutional contexts and serve as the backbone for microenterprises typically excluded from traditional financial markets. At the same time, MFIs and the microenterprises they support solve tangible social problems, such as alleviating hunger, lifting people out of poverty and creating more sustainable communities. When appealing for resources, MFIs work with microenterprises to create rhetoric that communicates both the financial needs and the social good that supporting them can do. Building on previous research concerning the hybrid rhetoric of microenterprises and the literature rooted in organisational legitimacy, we take a multi-level approach and assess whether country stability and MFI financial performance influence the hybrid rhetoric of microenterprises.
AguinisHGottfredsonRKCulpepperSA (2013) Best-practice recommendations for estimating cross-level interaction effects using multilevel modeling. Journal of Management39: 1490–1528.
2.
AhlersGKCCummingDGüntherC, et al (2015) Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice39: 955–980.
3.
AldrichHEFiolCM (1994) Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. The Academy of Management Review19: 645.
4.
AllisonTHDavisBCShortJC, et al (2015) Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice39: 53–73.
5.
AllisonTHDavisBCWebbJW, et al (2017) Persuasion in crowdfunding: An elaboration likelihood model of crowdfunding performance. Journal of Business Venturing32: 707–725.
6.
AndersonBSWennbergKMcMullenJS (2019) Editorial: Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing34: 105928.
7.
AnglinAHMilanovHShortJC (2022) Religious expression and crowdfunded microfinance success: Insights from role congruity theory. Journal of Business Ethics185: 397–426.
8.
AnglinAHShortJCKetchenDJ, et al (2020) Third-party signals in crowdfunded microfinance: The role of microfinance institutions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice44: 623–644.
9.
AnglinAHWolfeMTShortJC, et al (2018) Narcissistic rhetoric and crowdfunding performance: A social role theory perspective. Journal of Business Venturing33: 780–812.
10.
AshforthBEGibbsBW (1990) The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science1: 177–194.
11.
AshforthBEReingenPH (2014) Functions of dysfunction: managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly59: 474–516.
12.
AultJK (2016) An institutional perspective on the social outcome of entrepreneurship: Commercial microfinance and inclusive markets. Journal of International Business Studies47: 951–967.
13.
AultJKSpicerA (2014) The institutional context of poverty: State fragility as a predictor of cross-national variation in commercial microfinance lending. Strategic Management Journal35: 1818–1838.
14.
BattilanaJBesharovMLMitzinneckB (2017) On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. In GreenwoodROliverCLawrenceTBMeyerRE (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE.
15.
BattilanaJDoradoS (2010) Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal53: 1419–1440.
16.
BattilanaJLeeM (2014) Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals8: 397–441.
17.
BliesePDMaltarichMAHendricksJL (2018) Back to basics with mixed-effects models: Nine take-away points. Journal of Business and Psychology33: 1–23.
18.
CarlsenLBruggemannR (2017) Fragile state index: Trends and developments. A partial order data analysis. Social Indicators Research133: 1–14.
19.
ChoudhuryPAllenRTEndresMG (2021) Machine learning for pattern discovery in management research. Strategic Management Journal42: 30–57.
20.
CobbJAWryTZhaoEY (2016) Funding financial inclusion: Institutional logics and the contextual contingency of funding for microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal59: 2103–2131.
21.
CombsJG (2010) Big samples and small effects: Let’s not trade relevance and rigor for power. The Academy of Management Journal53: 9–13.
22.
DavisBCWarnickBJAnglinAH, et al (2021) Gender and counterstereotypical facial expressions of emotion in crowdfunded microlending. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice45: 1339–1365.
23.
De ClercqDVoronovM (2009) Toward a practice perspective of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurial legitimacy as habitus. International Small Business Journal27: 395–419.
24.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48: 147–160.
25.
DimitrovaATrikiD (2018) Does state fragility matter for foreign direct investment? Evidence from Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries. Management Decision56: 1787–1803.
26.
FisherG (2020) The complexities of new venture legitimacy. Organization Theory1: 2631787720913881.
27.
FisherGKuratkoDFBloodgoodJM, et al (2017) Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing32: 52–71.
28.
FuJS (2023) Social-market hybridity in social ventures: Scale development and validation. Business & Society63: 00076503231167569.
GalakJSmallDStephenAT (2011) Microfinance decision making: A field study of prosocial lending. Journal of Marketing Research48: S130–S137.
31.
GamaAPMCorreiaREAugustoM, et al (2023) Third-party signals in crowdfunded microfinance: Which microfinance institutions boost crowdfunding among refugee entrepreneurs?Small Business Economics61: 559–586.
32.
GeorgeGHaasMRPentlandA (2014) Big data and management. Academy of Management Journal57: 321–326.
33.
HarmonDJGreenSEGoodnightGT (2015) A model of rhetorical legitimation: The structure of communication and cognition underlying institutional maintenance and change. Academy of Management Review40: 76–95.
34.
HiattSRSineWD (2014) Clear and present danger: Planning and new venture survival amid political and civil violence. Strategic Management Journal35: 773–785.
35.
JancenelleVEJavalgiRG (2018) The effect of moral foundations in prosocial crowdfunding. International Small Business Journal36: 932–951.
36.
JohnsonMPSchalteggerS (2020) Entrepreneurship for sustainable development: A review and multilevel causal mechanism framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice44: 1141–1173.
37.
JonssonSGreveHRFujiwara-GreveT (2009) Undeserved loss: The spread of legitimacy loss to innocent organizations in response to reported corporate deviance. Administrative Science Quarterly54: 195–228.
38.
KentDDacinMT (2013) Bankers at the gate: Microfinance and the high cost of borrowed logics. Journal of Business Venturing28: 759–773.
39.
KhavulS (2010) Microfinance: Creating opportunities for the poor?Academy of Management Perspectives24: 58–72.
40.
KostovaTZaheerS (1999) Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review24: 64–81.
41.
LeeMAdbiASinghJ (2020) Categorical cognition and outcome efficiency in impact investing decisions. Strategic Management Journal41: 86–107.
42.
LiMYDongCCMakinoS (2022) Does a past category’s success influence existing entrepreneurial fundraising? A legitimacy spillover perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice47: 2263–2292.
43.
MairJMartíIVentrescaMJ (2012) Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal55: 819–850.
44.
McKennyAFAguinisHShortJC, et al (2018) What doesn’t get measured does exist: Improving the accuracy of computer-aided text analysis. Journal of Management44: 2909–2933.
45.
McSweeneyJJMcSweeneyKTWebbJW, et al (2022) The right touch of pitch assertiveness: Examining entrepreneurs’ gender and project category fit in crowdfunding. Journal of Business Venturing37: 106223.
46.
MossTWRenkoMBlockE, et al (2018) Funding the story of hybrid ventures: Crowdfunder lending preferences and linguistic hybridity. Journal of Business Venturing33: 643–659.
47.
PacheA-CSantosF (2010) When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. The Academy of Management Review35: 455–476.
48.
PacheA-CSantosF (2013) Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. The Academy of Management Journal56: 972–1001.
49.
PennebakerJBoothRFrancisM (2017) Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC (1.4.0) [Computer software]. Pennebaker Conglomerates.
50.
ShepherdDAWilliamsTAZhaoEY (2019) A framework for exploring the degree of hybridity in entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Perspectives33: 491–512.
51.
ShiWWajdaDAguileraRV (2022) Interorganizational spillover: A review and a proposal for future research. Journal of Management48: 185–210.
52.
SinghJDuttPAdbiA (2022) Microfinance and entrepreneurship at the base of the pyramid. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal16: 3–31.
53.
SmithWKBesharovML (2019) Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly64: 1–44.
54.
SoublièreJ-FGehmanJ (2020) The legitimacy threshold revisited: How prior successes and failures spill over to other endeavors on kickstarter. Academy of Management Journal63: 472–502.
55.
SteigenbergerNWilhelmH (2018) Extending signaling theory to rhetorical signals: Evidence from crowdfunding. Organization Science29: 529–546.
56.
SuchmanMC (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review20: 571–610.
57.
SuddabyRBitektineAHaackP (2016) Legitimacy. The Academy of Management Annals11: 451–478.
58.
SuddabyRGreenwoodR (2005) Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly50: 35–67.
59.
SunSLLiangH (2021) Globalization and affordability of microfinance. Journal of Business Venturing36: 106065.
60.
ThorntonPHOcasioWLounsburyM (2015) The institutional logics perspective. In ScottRAKosslynSM (eds) Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. WILEY, pp. 1–22.
61.
TraceyPDalpiazEPhillipsN (2018) Fish out of water: Translation, legitimation, and new venture creation. Academy of Management Journal61: 1627–1666.
62.
TraceyPPhillipsNJarvisO (2011) Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science22: 60–80.
63.
ZhaoEYWryT (2016) Not all inequality is equal: Deconstructing the societal logic of patriarchy to understand microfinance lending to women. Academy of Management Journal59: 1994–2020.
64.
ZilberTB (2002) Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. The Academy of Management Journal45: 234–254.
65.
ZimmermanMAZeitzGJ (2002) Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review27: 414–431.
66.
ZuckermanEW (1999) The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology104: 1398–1438.
