Responding to organizational decline from the inside

  1. Share
0 0

One issue that has remained constant over the years is that of dealing with organizational decline from the inside.

Growing frustration with the lack of accountability and poor performance by leaders has led to a significant loss of talent for organizations, often bringing into question the organization’s goals and method of achieving the desired results – not only by the consumers they are targeting, but the boards they are accountable to, and the staff who are concerned about their own job security and career path.

In Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Albert Hirschman argues that leaders tend to find out about the failures of their organizations in two ways—‘exit’ and ‘voice’—while arguing that loyalty is not always what it seems:[i]

  1. The ‘exit’ option occurs when customers stop buying the company’s products and services, donors stop giving money, or staff begin to leave the organization. At this point, how an organization responds and the time it takes to respond, is relative to a decline towards irrelevancy and lower market share.
  2. The ‘voice’ option occurs when customers, donors and staff express their dissatisfaction with management through general protest. Unfortunately for staff, when they voice their dissatisfaction in this way, ‘exit’ is sometimes the result.

Although Hirschman investigates the conditions under which the exit option prevails over the voice option, there are risks associated with both approaches and numerous variables that need to be taken into account.

One important thing to remember is that staff will rarely voice disappointments or concerns to their leaders unless they are secure in their role and have come to trust those relationships. Understandably, the need for job security often prevents them from sharing the problems they see candidly with leaders they don’t trust; in which case, the exit option often occurs.

One of LCP’s 5 Leadership Anchors™ —leveraging relational currency—focuses not only on the importance of organizations investing in its people, but appreciating the many other relationships that affect its operational capability and how it is perceived by its customers. For leaders, it is a timely reminder to be discerning and careful not to take loyalty for granted or assume that there are no problems when it is present.

What’s the bottom-line?

Consider the importance of developing a culture where staff and customers can voice ideas, concerns and challenges before they exit. Below are some questions to reflect on:

  • What practical steps can I take to develop a culture that empowers and invites staff to participate in the development and evaluation of the strategy, leading to greater loyalty and less exit by talented staff?
  • What is preventing me from listening to those around me?
  • What positive indicators in my business might be masking problems below the surface?
 

[i] Albert, O., Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States (Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press, 1970).

Community tags

This content has 0 tags that match your profile.

Comments

To leave a comment, login or sign up.

Related Content

0
What do leaders do when their values are in conflict with the organizations they lead?
While 95 percent of the eighty Board Chairs, CEOs, executives and senior leaders who responded to LCP's 2018 Global Leadership Survey agreed there is a link between character and performance, we asked them how they responded when there was a conflict between their own personal values and those of the organization? They are grouped into three dominant themes: 1. Resignation 27 percent resigned. They believed they were not able to influence a positive change in ethical behavior or could not do it because of how deeply entrenched some of the issues were. In nearly all cases, resignation only came after significant stress due to the efforts of those leaders who had sought to rectify things. What is alarming is, these were not middle managers. Most sit on executive teams or Boards. 2. ‘Difference’ or ‘violation’? Most considered it normal that in many organizations there would be a diversity of values held by those working in them. This would inevitably lead to disagreements on business practices and standards of behavior . It was also widely accepted that for those seeking leadership roles, choosing to work for a particular business can be due to a strong resonance with the core values of that business. The conflict occurs when it becomes clear there is a difference between the values the organisation says are important, and when in practical terms they are contradicted (internally or publicly). Even for those who resigned their leadership role believed that they could work in organizations where their values differed; not when there was a clear violation of their own deeply held values. 3. What made the difference to those who remained? While some leaders decided to leave the organization to explore opportunities more fully aligned with their values, there were those who stayed. They felt they could “work within the conflict”. Paramount to this decision was the belief that they could continue to respectfully model the values that were important to them while influencing a positive change in the culture. However, to succeed in this, it was important that they had a clear set of values considered to be non-negotiable. What's the bottom-line? Building a culture around a set of non-negotiable values is an integral part of aligning the brand internally and externally. It not only ensures greater success longer-term, but attracts and retains leaders of high integrity and competency organisations can’t afford to overlook.    Here at LCP Global we are passionate about putting character high on the agenda for businesses that want to achieve great results without having to compromise their integrity. Building Resilient Character is one of the 5 Leadership Anchors™. If you would like a copy of the full report once it is available, please email your details to [email protected].
0
How the dance of chaos and order can unleash new ideas
In Leadership & the New Science, Wheatley explores a perspective on leadership rarely heard. Pushing us beyond Sir Isaac Newton’s mechanistic theories of why things work the way they do, Wheatley forces us to think more about the relationship of how things work together in a symbiotic and complementary manner where relationships are rarely static. This challenges our preconceived notions and assumptions that organizational structures exist to create order by minimizing disorder and chaos. However, rather than view disorder and chaos as disruptive and unwanted, they can play a significant role in creating a new order when the old order is no longer sustainable. A new way of thinking is unleashed! Wheatley cites the work of Nobel Peace Prize winner in chemistry, Ilya Prigogine, where his Theory of Dissipative Structures advocates that disturbance plays a crucial role in helping to self-organise into a new order  (Wheatley, 2006, pp. 20) [i]. New conditions unsettle a system’s equilibrium and create opportunities to awaken creativity and new resolutions. We grow up believing that ‘chaos’ and ‘normal’ are two separate states, rather than performing a unique dance where “neither one is primary; but both are absolutely necessary.” Similarly, in the context of our desire for order in our organizations, we often find we focus on more rigid structures rather than fluid processes that inject creativity into the ebb and flow of chaos as it pushes up against a set order.   What’s the bottom-line? What is important is that we should not run from chaos or seek to overturn it, but appreciate and encourage constant interchanges between chaos and order to bring about new orders and fresh ideas. This doesn’t mean we have to seek chaos and disorder to unleash creativity. Instead, we should seek to embrace the conflict even if the temptation is to revert to risk-adverse decisions, or a management style, organizational structure, and set of processes that have served us well in the past. Wheatley is not suggesting that structure is unimportant. She does believe, however, that blind adherence to any one particular structure or way of doing things may in fact prevent growth, impede development and ultimately lead to the atrophy of a business. The old way of doing things is often time-limited. Is it time to embrace the dance of chaos and order to find new ideas that will launch your business into another stratosphere?   [i] Wheatley, Margaret. (2006). Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.