Exit & Voice Ramblings
This certainly was a pithy read. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States by Albert O. Hirschman begins by stating that all organizations decline over time. Further, there are two methods of precipitating this decline: exit and voice. Exit is simply leaving or withdrawing from the relationship. For example, a customer leaves a firm and buys a substitute good, or a person leaves a political party, or a citizen emigrates to another country. Alternatively, voice attempts to repair or improve the relationship through communication of complaint, grievance, protest, or proposal for change. For example, workers or customers express concerns to management declining product quality, or members try to change the course of a political party. Hirschman argues that economists have traditionally focused on exit and not voice, while political scientists have traditionally focused on voice and not exit. The author here argues that the parties faced with such a challenge should focus on the interaction of both mechanisms.
To put this in simple terms, citizens of a country may respond to increasing political repression in two ways: emigrate or protest. Likewise, employees can choose to quit their unpleasant job, or express their concerns in an effort to improve the situation. Customers unsatisfied with service may ask for the manager or choose to shop elsewhere. By understanding the relationship between exit and voice, and the interplay that loyalty has with these choices, organizations can craft the means to address more effectively their members’ concerns and issues, and thereby effect improvement. Failure to understand these competing pressures can lead to organizational decline and possible failure.
Hirschman appears most enthusiastic when discussing the worst possible scenario of interaction between voice and exit:
The basic point is that competition may result merely in the mutual luring over of each others’ customers on the part of a group of competing firms [or political parties]; and that to this extent competition and product diversification especially when, in its absence, customers would either be able to bring more effective pressures upon management toward product improvement or would stop using up their energies in a futile search for the “ideal” product [or political party]. . . . Nevertheless the radical critique is correct in pointing out that competitive political systems have a considerable capacity to divert what might otherwise be a revolutionary ground swell into tame discontent with the governing party. Although this capacity may normally be an asset, one can surely conceive of circumstances under which it would turn into a liability.[1]
Having said this, what in the world can I, personally, possibly take away from this book?
Striking the right balance between exit and voice. Luring over each others’ customers. That sure sounds like it could be applicable to our church. We are located in the heart of downtown, in a middle-size, Bible-belt community. Drive one block, and you pass two churches of varying denominations. On my way to the church office, I pass no fewer than seven churches! There is major competition! As a church, we face the perpetual challenge of knowing how engaged members are, how likely we are to remain members, and when they might cease to be members. If we treat our church as a business, and we are attempting to gain members, or perhaps a better term would be disciples, how do we prevent exit? If I pare it down further, in a church of 4000 members and a staff of 40, we are constantly competing for participation. Children’s ministry needs Sunday school teachers, but the youth ministry has a ski trip and needs chaperones, and the finance committee has no chairperson! But who will keep the nursery? And, speaking of missions, who is going to join me in Haiti? It is hard to promote a trip for “partnership development.” Do I have to throw in a water system installation to get people interested?
After reading it, do you believe Hirschman really understands exactly what he has written with respect to our current religious climate? And then I think back to our cohort discussion last week, and in Stefania’s famous words: “People just need to be introduced to Jesus and that encounter is enough to change lives. Everything else is details.…People leave not because they don’t know Jesus, but because they get tired of the politics.”
Do we need the bells and whistles to promote loyalty and prevent exit or protest? Logic would indicate that the church must be cognizant of these dynamics, but understand and apply them in the context of God’s message rather than as they would be used in the secular, commercial world. In other words, in the commercial or political arena, the goal is one of numbers and sales. Success is measured by votes or dollar figures. But, attracting and keeping congregants in the religious world would seem best served by effectively communicating God’s message in a way that is both genuine and compelling. Simply drawing church members with bricks, mortar and showmanship will not create a lasting church or one that satisfies the needs of people searching for truth. If a church can find that elusive path of touching people in the community in a way that resonates and makes God’s Word relevant to those hearing it, then that church is effectively battling exit and paying attention to voice. And, after all, this is what we are charged by God to do.
*****
[1] Albert Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), 28.
About the Author
Ashley Goad
Ashley is the Global Missions Pastor at First United Methodist Church in Shreveport, Louisiana. She's a UNC fanatic, Haiti Enthusiast, Clean Water Activist, Solar Power Supporter... www.firstserves.org www.solarunderthesun.org www.livingwatersfortheworld.org9 responses to “Exit & Voice Ramblings”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There you go, counting churches again… Seriously. You need more to do. 😉
That said, nice summary of the book. It took me a bit to shift into the economics language. And sometimes he still spoke over my heard (all of his charts only confused me). I think Hirschman does a nice job describing the secular trends and basic human behaviors in organizations and consumerism. But he cannot account for the God variable. I think many of us would confess that many people go to church out of loyalty, obligation, or habit. Those are perhaps the ones most likely to exit when it gets rough, or use their voice if driven by loyalty. But we strive to build churches in which people grow in their relationship with God, and that is both something that we can and cannot control. We can influence their relationship with God – by being faithful and serving as we are called to do. But ultimately it is an act of God that deepens their relationship. So we cannot control it.
Just trying to keep my mind sharp. 🙂
So confession… My stepdad was at my house this summer, and in his boredom, he picked up Hirschman’s book. I told him I expected a full summary, and now I am very thankful for him! I never even made it to the charts, as math continues to scare me…other than counting!
The God variable. THAT’S what was missing! When trying to make the connection between the economics in the book and the church in my present, there was one gap that I simply could not overcome. The God variable. God can do all things. He can draw in the hardest of hearts and the cynical souls. He can change people.
Well, you figured out more of this book than I did, Ashley. Thanks for the summary, I’ll keep it for the test. I do also appreciate your comments about churches and even about ministries within a church. The notion of competition is there whether we want to admit or not (I usually don’t). However, what if we stopped seeing other churches as competition and rather celebrated their value as Kingdom partners in our cities? What if shaped ministry based on vision and gifts rather than available bodies? and lastly, what if we focused more on the “going”/mission part of our churches rather than the “attraction” part of it?…sorry these are the questions that are challenging me/our context these days. Thanks for helping me think.
Deve, “figured out” may be a bit more more credit than I deserve. I just couldn’t figure out how to put Quakers or Haiti into this post! Your “what if” questions are valid, and I think you’re just the person to ask them. Perhaps they could make their way into a dissertation?? 🙂
Ashley,
I like your summary of this text. It took me a while to press into this book and find any relevance, but eventually I did. I have exercised both of Hirschman’s options in my life. “Exiting” can be tough, especially if one has invested a good part of himself or herself into an organization. There is always (or usually) sadness upon leaving; obviously, though, it depends on one’s circumstances. Using one’s “voice” is also tough, probably tougher than exiting quietly. To use one’s voice is risky, especially if the powers that be don’t care to listen. But perhaps the organization will benefit from fresh input and perspective. This is where healthy leadership comes in. Good leaders are constantly listening to those in the organization. Although it may not always be easy to hear, what is shared is often effective — if and only if — those who are leading are not defensive and are open to new perspectives. Is this possible? I think it is. Is this common? I don’t think so. Perhaps one of the reasons we are all in this program is to become those healthy leaders who are willing to listen. Imagine what the church and the world would look like if there were more of these kinds of healthy leaders. Yes, I tend to be pessimistic about leadership, but this kind of listening leader makes me optimistic. And perhaps if this were true, there would be fewer people choosing the “exit” strategy.
Bill, I find solace in the fact that most everyone had a tough journey through this book. You made very thoughtful points – exit and voice, in their own individual ways, are hard. It is hard and risky to stand up, yet leaving can put you through emotional turmoil. Breaking relationships, even in a tumultuous situation is hard.
Listening may indeed be a key to many of our problems. How often do we listen with the intent of inserting our own thoughts or solutions, rather than just listening to hear the other person and take away a true understanding? That could be the difference between unhealthy and healthy listening…and leadership.
Excellent post Ashley!
I especially like where you wrote, “Simply drawing church members with bricks, mortar and showmanship will not create a lasting church or one that satisfies the needs of people searching for truth.” Absolutely!
It’s so easy to get lost in the administration and needs of ministry. But what people want is for God to change and touch their lives, to give them hope, to heal their bodies, to pay their bills. Our experience of God has to be real.
I wonder, does your church have any response mechanisms to those who ‘exit’? It would be interesting to hear how your church deals with people who exit as it is such a large church. Thank you Ashley!
Ashley,
This is great.
Your reference back to Stefania’s note is vital. And the answer is…yes…kind of.
What does it mean to know Jesus? Well, that tends to involve people, and therein lies the conundrum (I mean opportunity! 🙂 ).
I do think though that consistently attempting to get back tot core orientations of Jesus’ focus on relationally can keep us toward healthy leaning into loyalty and facilitating voice.
For some reason, your reflection reminded me of the chapters in Hobbes’ Leviathan that deal with religion. I studied and wrote some reflections on these aspects in Hobbes in the past. What I find most diabolical about Hobbes is his use of religion by the state to support the functioning of the state. For Hobbes the church is to be used along Hirschman’s lines of a diffusive mechanism to protest, discontent, etc. So, how are we to make sure that our organizations are not silencing voice — causing the exits of which Stefania noted — but empowering it…finding ways to let people live into the love of Jesus while still maintaining the structures that hopefully will help facilitate and perpetuate that “living into?”
Ashley,
Thanks for your post…
You have taken the questions that Hirschman applies as an economist to why exit and voice can be “particularly noxious for any recovery” (45). In the end you note, “If a church can find that elusive path of touching people in the community in a way that resonates and makes God’s Word relevant to those hearing it, then that church is effectively battling exit and paying attention to voice.” I think you have reached the same observation (not necessarily conclusion) as Hirschman. It seems he is arguing that there is no absolute here … sometimes exit or the the treat of exit is the viable option and in other situations voice would be the more workable preference. What he seems to suggest is that there ought to a combination of exit and choice that combines for the better good. He adds the concept of loyalty that seems to be a paraphrase of your comment – “Loyalty holds exit at bay and activates voice” (78). Thanks for your applicable application of Harschman’s reading.