Dr. Otito Iwuchukwu
On Staying, Voicing Out, or Exiting: Exploring Options Through a Cultural Lens
No workplace or organization is neutral, simply because organizations are systems comprised of people (with needs, motivations, preferences, prejudices, and other such intrinsically human behaviors).
In that vein, what applies to one may not apply to all, and vice versa. This last statement is the biggest lesson I have had to learn, and I’m still learning, as I go about the world of work, as someone whose personal preference is for fairness and transparency.
Having started my career working in the field of employee relations, I have been enamored with what makes employees (the heartbeat of any organizational system) satisfied — not necessarily happy, as happiness is transient.
Rather, what is it that makes one stay or go in an organization when practices, policies and preferences create a storm of general employee dissatisfaction? I have always known anecdotally that some people up and leave when they deem their managers and the work environment intolerable. But what about those who stay? Because I think one of the reasons why “toxic” managers and work conditions persist is because of the generally accepted idea that there will always be new people walking through the door to meet the “lifers,” whose presence creates the illusion of stable working conditions — until the next period of churn.
Then I learned about the Exit, Voice and Loyalty model of organizational behavior, based on a book of the same name that was published over fifty years ago (a true case of the more things change, the more they stay the same). The model was later expanded to include a fourth factor, Neglect (or Tolerance), giving us its final form: EVLN.
This model, in its most basic form, theorizes that when conditions in any system (political, organizational, or other relational systems) are dissatisfactory, people or subjects in that system will do one of the following:
- Exit the system (leave the country, organization, job, or relationship) in search of one with better conditions.
- Voice out their dissatisfaction, in a bid to bring about change in the system.
- Be Loyal — staying and hoping the situation changes for good (passive).
- Neglect — stay, but actively disengage or engage in negative organizational citizenship behaviors.
In some instances, voice and exit are intricately linked. Those who exit may have the opportunity to use their voice in exit interviews. And on the other hand, those who voice out consistently and see no change are more than likely to exit. It makes sense, since no one wants to keep shouting into a void.
However, if you are following along, you may have realized by now that the so-called “quiet quitting” that was splashed across the pages of many news articles and magazines a few years back is the same as neglect — a place where many with voice, who may have decided not to exit for various reasons, might find themselves.
The multiple reasons why people resort to any one of these mechanisms is a little beyond the scope of this article, but I want to focus on personality and culture.
In terms of personality, people who are more assertive and outspoken may be more likely to use voice wherever they find themselves, compared to others — while conflict-avoidant people may be more likely to exit, or to stay as loyalists.
This then brings up the question of individual values, borne out of cultural ones (be they national or home cultures). Persons from cultures where the preference is for face-saving and making the best of a situation, and who are very familiar with the concept of hierarchical positionality — whether from prestige or paternity — I would not imagine readily using voice as a strategy. Even when things are off-kilter and they are aware of it, they may use justification and other tactics to quell the dissonance, and believe that they are better off staying, contributing, and trusting that things may get better over time.
Again, I am oversimplifying a much more complex and nuanced matter, but I believe recognizing the framework can help individuals in organizations and systems know where they stand, and what they can — or want to — do about it.
Now, the final caveat, in relation to my work on belonging: it will be obvious that if you are a person with a preference for voice, and you happen to find yourself in a group with people who prefer loyalty and exit, your sense of belonging is going to be grossly hampered. And vice versa. Thus, understanding this framework allows you to see, or intuit, that some things are not personal. The EVLN is political, in a sense, and it’s worth recognizing that not everyone will choose what we may consider to be the “right” way to respond. I do not believe any one way is the best and only way. After all, serial exits will tell you that they find the same behaviors and organizational politics repeated across various organizations. Simply because — people.
So, know thyself, recognize the structures at work, and then decide if you are going to stay and use your voice — and if so, do it in order to satisfy your own internal value system, while still contributing to the organization.
If you want to learn more about how to truly belong, no matter who you are (and what modes of resolution you prefer), you can find my book, The Belonging Paradox, here.
Rooting for your career success and acceleration.