Hirschman on Voice and the Church Split
In 1970 I was 12 years old. That was the year when more than fifty percent of the members of our church decided to exit our church community. My family was not one of them. I remember the pain it caused in our church and our family. People who were friends for years no longer spoke to each other. Sadly, to this day the divide is still evident. Why did it happen? Why couldn’t anyone do anything about it? Interestingly enough, in that same year, Hirschman published his book using the term “exit” and “voice” to describe two competing approaches that people use to address an organizational decline. Thus introducing the world to organizational terms that were already familiar to the church.
In brief, “voice” is the effort to try to change the direction of an organization by staying and being a part of the needed change. On the other hand, an “exit” is enacted when there is no apparent or perceived option of change and no voice to speak to that change. “Loyalty” may be the one thing that keeps people from exiting. [1] Market theory stated that an “exit” of customers or an exit from an organization served as a self-correcting mechanism. As the argument goes, via a sizable exit the organization would be forced to readjust and consequently pull from the decline. As we know today, a mass exit seldom gives an organization enough time to organize, readjust and pull out of the downturn. [2]
My questions in the context of Hirschman is this: Aside from loyalty, in the case of helping to correct a declining church what is more valuable to the church community, “voice” or “exit?” I would argue that though there are times when an exit is unavoidable, “voice” is more valuable to the church community than “exit” for these reasons: the church is a community and therefore voice is essential; an exit seldom solves the problem; a voice speaks louder than an exit.
Looking at how some leaders approach a church decline, some take the advice of Collins and force problem individuals out of the organization. This is an exit of another kind. [3] I, however, lean toward Friedman’s paradigm, wherein a self-differentiated leader can think and act clearly, listening to and hearing the many voices, yet remain outside of the emotion of the decline enabling them to lead into a healthy change. [4] Hirschman’s thesis further refines Friedman as he argued that giving people a “voice” of dissatisfaction is better at halting a decline than an “exit.” Today there is the saying within non-profit organizations: it takes 100% of your resources to get a donor, but only 20% to keep them. There is more than a bit of hyperbole in the statement, and yet at its core, it represents Hirschman’s theory that the opportunity for “voice” can have a more positive impact—and using less resources—on a declining organization than the “exit” option.
And so let’s consider “voice” over “exit.” First, the church is a community and therefore voice is essential. A community without the voice of its people is no community at all. A community where it’s members either have no voice or the voices fall on deaf ears is the very atmosphere that makes an exit the only option. [5] During the church split many loyal people felt that they did not have a voice or that their voice fell on deaf ears. Consequently, they determined that their only option was to exit. A voice, in this case, might have relieved pressure, if not the eventual exit.
Second, an exit or split seldom solves a problem and in fact, can have a far-reaching negative impact on the church community and its people. Tolkien expresses it in this way, “Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.”[6] The exit solves the problem of getting away from the source of the pain, but the pain may not go away. The pain can easily follow a person into another faith community and even reproduce itself there in another form. Also, many who were a part of an exit never return to a church or faith community. With an exit, the problem is addressed but seldom solved.
Finally, a voice speaks louder than an exit. The preacher says that there is a time to speak and a time to be silent. [Eccleasties 3:7] This is an indication that voice has a place and I would suggest that it is best placed before the exit rather than after the exit. The voice-before-the-exit shows concern for the church, the voice-after-the-exit often has the hint of bitterness. Of those who left the church, I remember few who were able to voice positive things about the church, even though they experienced positive and life-changing events in the church. Also, even though the voices may be tense, the voice before the exit expresses a desire for the survival of the church. On the other hand, the voice- after-the-exit often expresses the wish of failure. Again I return to the memories of those difficult conversations with those who exited. They seldom had anything good to say about the church and on more than one occasion voiced a desire for the church to fail because the church couldn’t possibly survive without them. No matter what side a person is on, a declining church is always a painful and tear-filled experience. However, the voice, though often spoken through tears, has hope for the future.
We don’t often see practically and biblically how organizational or business theory informs the leading and strengthening the church. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty is an exception in that it can inform the church concerning its health, and in the event of a church decline, why people stay, why they leave and what can be done. In this way, in the case of a declining church, “voice” is better than “exit.”
1. Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Online ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970, 4, 76.
2. Ibid., 24.
3. James C. Collins, Good to Great and the Social Sectors: Why Business Thinking is Not the Answer: A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap—and Others Don’t. Kindle ed. Boulder, CO: J. Collins, 2011.
4. Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. Kindle ed. New York, NY: Seabury, 2007.
5. Hirschman, 35.
6. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings: 50th Anniversary, One Vol. Edition. Anniversary ed. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005.
About the Author
Jim Sabella
6 responses to “Hirschman on Voice and the Church Split”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Church splits can be so painful! Especially when your dad is the pastor, which is what it was in my case. It is so hard to see people leave a church, and I can still feel the ache of seeing those I love leave. And yet, departure is sometimes a necessary action, but I agree with you. If we can use voice before exiting a church, then that is ideal. What makes this more challenging is when certain voices are valued more than others, based on race, gender, age, or class. This makes using your voice to make change an impossibility if you fall in one of the less valued people groups. I believe this is why God talks out so strongly to this in James about not showing favoritism. It leads to a lot of heartache and division. To implement change with our voices in church, we must first value the voice of everyone. Jim, I appreciate how you show value to people and their voices. Great post.
Thanks Jen. We don’t often look at how the children of pastors are impacted by a split or take the time to help them to process the emotions that come with a slip and the anger and bitterness that is directed at their parents. Adults have a difficult enough time processing the emotions of a split. How then can we not expect children to “blame” God for things out of their control, in an institution filled with people who call themselves Christians–how is it that sweet water and bitter water can come from the same fountain? I admire you and the fact that as an adult you have chosen to serve God and dedicate your life to Him. You have a lot to bring to faith communities and the church at large.
“A community without the voice of its people is no community at all.” Yes Jim! There is no community without the people having a connection and common values. If voice isn’t valued it is destructive to the stability and health of the community. I do think that voice is the method of choice for a church community over exit. While exit does occur, I think we have to find a way to value the voice and help/model for others the best way to use our voices.
What a difference the leader makes. A self-differentiated, humble leader can listen to people and find out what the problems are.
We attended a church once where the pastor was ‘next to God’ and no one would challenge him.
Your wisdom is so helpful as we learn how to be better leaders, Jim. ‘Voice’ is the gentler way.
“in the case of helping to correct a declining church what is more valuable to the church community, “voice” or “exit?” I think the key to that statement is that it approaches from the perspective of the church, the community. Yes, in that case, voice would be more valuable… if listened to, as you say. From the perspective of the individual, however, s/he may have come to the point of being unhealthy in that organization, and exit is what is necessary for survival.
Jim
I agree with you point that the voice should take palce before the exit rather than fter. It is more effective when you are on the team and expressing the voice of reason. You may be viewed s one with always something to say. When you voice outside the team you are considered a troublemaker.
As a woman on a team of a male majority, my voice was always heard then filed. In one instance, I made a suggestion, and the lead moved on to the next person. After a few comments, a male manage stated what I said and it was met with great praise. hmm Well at least they change was made.