Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

Thesis Format

Monograph

Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Program

Business

Supervisor

Olivera, Fernando

Abstract

A hallmark of the modern era is the incredible pace at which technical and social progress gets made. Modern societies are organized to facilitate the work of making progress and institutions help ensure the work gets done. Sometimes, however, the progress we seek is destroyed, delayed or diminished. Politics are blamed when this happens. A close reading of the institutional literature betrays that supposition. Scholars have documented many cases and ways in which progress has been impeded by self-interested political action within organizational fields. But, even when the progress we seek is not fully implemented, some progress is usually getting made. This dissertation explores the dynamics of those politics of progress by asking the research question: What role do politics play in the progress that does get made?

To answer that question, I studied a regulatory rulemaking undertaken in the American telecommunications field using archival data and a research design inspired by the methods of theorizing with microhistory. Findings are presented in three chapters. First, a new institutional concept is developed: “Zones of Appropriateness”. I theorize that field actors hold a range of views about what conduct is deemed appropriate in an institutional context. That variance is an essential ingredient in negotiating how progress can get made. Second, I present novel political mechanisms that enable the carving of spaces out of institutional structures in which progress can be imagined and explored. Finally, I theorize mechanisms through which opponents and proponents of progress negotiate the structuring of those carved out spaces.

My dissertation contributes to the institutional power and politics and organizational fields literatures. First, I contribute theorizing about how actors use politics to explore the limitations of existing structure and the potential of progress. A relational view of power is essential to understanding those politics. Second, insights about the value of political resistance to progress are theorized. Finally, to the fields literature I contribute theorizing about how and why organizations take issues to the relational spaces of fields to seek guidance, pursue their interests, and work out the meaning of progress within their institutional contexts.

To answer that question, I studied a regulatory rulemaking undertaken in the American telecommunications field using archival data and a research design inspired by the methods of theorizing with microhistory. Findings are presented in three chapters. First, a new institutional concept is developed: “Zones of Appropriateness”. I theorize that field actors hold a range of views about what conduct is deemed appropriate in an institutional context. That variance is an essential ingredient in negotiating how progress can get made. Second, I present novel political mechanisms that enable the carving of spaces out of institutional structures in which progress can be imagined and explored. Finally, I theorize mechanisms through which opponents and proponents of progress negotiate the structuring of those carved out spaces.

My dissertation contributes to the institutional power and politics and organizational fields literatures. First, I contribute theorizing about how actors use politics to explore the limitations of existing structure and the potential of progress. A relational view of power is essential to understanding those politics. Second, insights about the value of political resistance to progress are theorized. Finally, to the fields literature I contribute theorizing about how and why organizations take issues to the relational spaces of fields to seek guidance, pursue their interests, and work out the meaning of progress within their institutional contexts.

Summary for Lay Audience

Modern societies are organized to help the work of progress get done. We see the benefits of this every single day. New ways of doing things and new technologies show up to help make life a little better. Sometimes, though, the progress we are hoping for does not materialize. This frustrates us. We ask what has gone wrong. Often, we come to believe that it is our politics that get in the way. No wonder. The political exchanges we see in the public square and on the news make us wonder how any progress gets made. If we look past the spectacle, though, we can see that some progress is getting made even when it seems like we can never agree on what or why. My dissertation focusses on the politics that help organizations – however haltingly – make progress.

My research examines how organizations in the American telecommunications sector work together – often amid conflict – to work out how to make that progress. Specifically, the organizations I studied worked out how to fund, build, and operate a new communications network for public safety agencies to use during emergencies. What fascinates me about this example is that a lot of generally accepted and taken for granted rules of doing things had to get set aside to carve out a space in which that progress could be considered. Throughout the story, organizations engaged in political negotiations to figure how to go about improving public safety communications. This is surprising for a couple of reasons. First, we tend to think about rules of interaction and appropriateness – what we sometimes call institutions – as being very strict and unbending. Second, we think of politics as a force working against progress. Yet my research shows that both of those ways of seeing the world may need to be updated. I will endeavour to explain why by telling you about the politics of progress.

Download

Share

COinS