Do I Walk, Talk or Stay?
When there is a decline of an organization, the participants or customers wrestle with how to respond: do they exit by walking away from the organization, talk by voicing their opposition and concerns to the leadership, or remain loyal to the organization in hopes of improvements? Although Hirschman gives a thorough, intellectual explanation of each response, he does not adequately address the emotional dangers or hardships of a response, which this blog will attempt to address.
An exit can be avoided if the voice is respected and change made. ” If customers are succinctly convinced that voice will be effective, then they may well postpone exit” (37). Here are some valuable points to consider when choosing to use your voice in raising objections. The voice:
- can eliminate an exit, thus allowing the individual to still remain with the organization
- requires influence and bargaining powers to be recognized
- develops and evolves in an organization to facilitate change
- empowers the individual when the voice provokes change
- can raise awareness of improper functioning, thus improving the organization’s function and benefiting the whole.
To use your voice to alert the organization of concerns can also be a powerful yet dangerous activity when there is much to lose. Years ago, I met a woman who believed she was being poisoned by the nuclear plant she was employed at. When she voiced her concerns, her life was threatened and she had to be protected under the Whistleblower act. She could have walked away but she also felt it was her duty to warn the public of the health hazards they could be experiencing. Her voice was powerful and needed protection, but provoked the necessary changes.
Walking away from a declining organization can have the following ramifications. It can:
- eliminate possible change as the presence and voice of the individual exits
- produce a powerful message of discontent and provoke change
- stimulate more competition to attract customers and keep them from leaving
- provide an escape from unpleasant circumstances
Exiting an organization or system can sometimes become your only choice if you value your health or life. Abusive systems make it hard to stimulate change by using your voice since your voice is not even valued, much less your feelings, and exiting becomes your only option to be heard. Exiting or separating from an abusive partner can produce effective change. When the woman uses her voice to confront the husband of emotional and verbal abuse, and separates, many times this can produce significant changes. However, there are some cases that the woman’s life is in danger if she were to voice opposition to her physically abusive husband or attempt leaving him. Secretly exiting the relationship becomes her only option if she wants to live. Similarly, refugees exit their countries when the abuse has become intolerable.
There are a few organizations that are immune to the pressures or influence of voicing concerns and leaving the organization, and have no regard for your customer loyalty. The Department of Licensing, otherwise known as the DOL, in Washington state is a great example. Whether renewing my driver’s license or renewing my professional license, they operate with exclusive power. I could protest waiting 2 hours in line to renew my driver’s license, then resort to a dramatic exit in protest, or mention how my friends and family are loyal customers to their department, but in the end, they do not care. They have total power and are unconcerned about delivering a relationship of reciprocity where we both experience a mutually enjoyable experience.
To be at the mercies of an organization where my voice, departure, or loyalties are insignificant is a dismissive, powerless experience. If experienced for long periods of time, it can create victim behavior in an individual and a sense of dependency on the organization as you feel a total loss of power and control. To have a healthy organization, we need to value the voice of the members, and seek to partner mutually together.
In one of the churches I attended, I found there to be limited emotional safety for people to voice opposition and achieve the desired changes. They were ostracized, dismissed, deceived, ignored, or marginalized when concerns were voiced that challenged the leadership. Confidentiality was non-existent, and the pastors operated with a substantial amount of power, as they made significant changes at the whims of leadership. On the outside, they appeared to be a welcoming, non-denominational church, but within the leadership, there was a system in place that benefited one primary voice, that of the lead pastor. There was also a covert system in place to admonish those who challenged the leadership in any way. Secrets, obligation, and shame, along with the message that the church was “special” and the only one of its kind, kept people from exiting. Although I quickly exited, many loyally stayed hoping for change. Hirschman describes this response: “Many of these loyalists will actively participate in action designed to change policies and practices but some may simply refuse to exit and suffer in silence, confident that things will soon get better” (38).
Unless your safety is in question, using your voice to express opposition is a great first option, especially if you have loyalty to the organization. If your voice is not heard, one is presented with the choice to help foster change by recruiting more voices or implementing change in other ways. Finally, there are some who are comfortable just remaining silently present, hoping for the best. Whether you choose to walk, talk, or stay, it remains a personal choice that depends much on: personality, energy level, health, and skill set. May God give each of us the wisdom in how to respond in a declining organization, church, or relationship, and may we support one another in love.
About the Author
Jennifer Dean-Hill
8 responses to “Do I Walk, Talk or Stay?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jen, thanks for highlighting the emotional vulnerability associated with the voice. There is often a fallacy in the organizational world that says, “you can come to me anytime!” The reality is, that will seldom happen, for the very reasons you stated. Of course, there are toxic people who have their own interests at heart. But also, leaders often don’t “really” mean it when they say it. When you open that door–which all good leaders must do–you have to be prepared for what is to come. Tension, pain and amazing spiritual and personal growth, that influences the whole organization. Only a very secure “Friedmanite” could pull it off. Appreciate your post Jen.
Very true Jim. Just because the door is opened for feedback doesn’t always mean it is welcomed or appreciated. This is where I always believe the action, not the words.
I love the illustration of the Department of Licensing. It illustrates one thing that I love about America.
When I was in college, I served as a summer missionary in the Philippines for two summers. At one point, I had my Nikon camera stolen. I went to the police station to get a police report (for insurance purposes). I was told that it could take months to get a police report. But if I paid a fee to expedite it, I could get it immediately.
On one mission trip to Mexico with a mission agency, our team leader (not from our church) had a budget for bribes. He had been bringing groups for decades and insisted that there was no way to get a group across the border into Mexico without a lot of bribery.
Many who live in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East will tell you that access to things like education, a decent job, or medical care is limited to those with the right contacts… or enough money to “pay to play.”
Those who live in restrictive countries (that often ironically call themselves socialist) face few options to voice or exit. As Hirschman pointed out, they may just exit emotionally.
The reality is that Americans become accustomed to customer-focused service at every level. For someone living in Southeast Asia, the concept of only having to wait three hours to get a drivers license would be a dream come true.
Wow Stu. Great reminder of the cultural differences. Think I could have gotten through the line faster if I bribed the DOL clerk? Is that what you’re suggesting? Hmm…Might be worth a shot.
Jen I appreciate your voice! This post was right on. I was thinking about the emotional response that exists when any of these decisions are made. Our voices are powerful. It is even more important to ensure that someone’s voice is heard, valued and empowered. I think about this within relationships. If loyalty is valued and important, voice must be the first option! Great analysis and connections to the reading.
Jen, your analysis was careful and true and I even think I will make a copy somehow and put in my notebook that I keep for making decisions.
“Whether you choose to walk, talk, or stay, it remains a personal choice that depends much on: personality, energy level, health, and skill set.” And, thankfully we can go to God for the wisdom to decide!
Jennifer, thanks for the post and the extended discourse about the question of ‘should I stay or should I go’.
I am a loyalist by nature, so my default position is to simply stay – even in difficult or deteriorating situations, but as I have grown (or at least aged) I have recognized that when I ‘stay’, particularly in a situation where my voice is not heard or valued, I shut down a bit and really perform a sort of ‘internal exit’ – I mentally check out, but remain physically present.
Conversely, in those same situations where my active involvement has been required – because of job responsibilities, etc. I have found that I am quick to pull the level and exit – if I can.
Your post and my reflection on it has me wondering about those that aren’t happy, but don’t use their voice, but don’t exit either…… What is their motivation?
How might we minister to people in those situations?
Jen,
I agree with you, wisdom is the best method. Speaking with wisdom is powerful and everlasting.