But a belief that a government will be unresponsive to voice may be based on years of experience with political act- ivism as well as on an attempt to rationalise inactivity. Their model is unable to distinguish between the two, and hence unable to distinguish structural from behavioural causes.
In short, neglect may be a useful category in the individual calculus of personal relationships, but not in the calculus of polit- ical participation.
We can learn much from the Lyons et al. Despite the rhetoric couched in the exit-voice framework, there has not been any serious attempt to analyse the interrelationship between exit and voice. The analysis was on those whites who considered the performance of their local government problematic, and considered two types of voice.
There are two main problems with her study undermining her conclusion. First, her cross-tabulations do not control for length of stay in an address or in the community.
This is problematic because those who moved recently are both less likely to have expressed either on of the types of voice, and they are more likely to move on because of the large percentage of frequent movers among all movers.
Second is the problem of ex post analysis of participation behaviour. To examine the probabilities of having voiced, given intentions to move is something quite different from the problems of personal calculus of exit and voice. The main interest of this calculus is not what happens after voice has been exercised, but before. In other words, how the possibility of exit affects whether voice will be exercised or not. Progress in the analysis of exit and voice in the spatial dimension of public policy is most promising in two directions.
One is improved methodology. Given the high expense of the longitudinal approach, the next best approach is analysis of intended behaviours. Of course there is a critical gap between intentions and their realisation, but that can only be analysed when there is data on both the intention and the realisation, which brings us back to the lon- gitudinal survey.
Second, Sharp showed that there are significant differences between how past private and collective voice relate to intentions to exit.
It is likely to be misleading therefore to treat all these activities as one. Conclusions In the review of the empirical literature four categories of problems emerged. First, there is a problem with voice.
Many of the empirical studies found weaker re- lationships with voice than with exit. But in the main it emerges because voice may be used individually or collect- ively. Hirschman did not recognize this distinction and empirical research has suffered from not distinguishing individual and collective responses to quality decline. Nor has it examined carefully the different types of comparisons people may make when considering product quality. Thirdly, Hirschman himself, does not make clear that timing is also important.
People may exit and voice simultaneously, but they may also choose to voice, and then if they are still not satisfied with the organizational response, they may then choose to exit at a later date. It is also possible, as Kato suggests, for people to choose to exit and then voice from outside.
Finally, the category of loyalty has always proved problematic. We have suggested a way that loy- alty may be operationalized. Importantly we feel the object of loyalty needs to be distinguished from the object from which one directs voice or chooses to exit. We believe that future models of exit-voice decision-making should utilize the decision tree of Figure 2b, complicated by the fact that collective voice may be directed not at quality decline, but at trying to ensure that the product does not change its nature.
There is an important incentive to engage in political activity even when one is happy with the government, to try to ensure the other side does not get in. The EVLN model has an important influence in many areas of application. Whilst important advances have been made with this model, we have argued it has suffered from several of the categorical mistakes we have identified and it is time to move beyond it.
A more rigorous methodology is required to test the precise relationships between exit and voice particularly through longitudinal studies and experimental studies. We may also make a distinction between individual and collective exit. Whilst such collective exit will obviously affect the costs and benefits of exiting from the larger group in- clusive of migrants and non-migrants , it also affects the effect of loyalty. One may be identifying with the group that migrates as much or more than the group which stays behind.
We may be interested in the consequences of exit or voice for the people involved. Giving people a voice raises their self-esteem and their identific- ation with the group. This suggests that loyalty may be promoted by ensuring voice opportunities are in place.
Notes 1. First Hirschman does not claim what Kato ascribes to him, and secondly her results do not generally demonstrate the claim she ascribes to Hirschman. References Allen, S. Trade unions, absenteeism, and exit-voice, Industrial and Labour Rela- tions Review — Barry, B. Bendor, K. Job satisfaction, trade unions and exit-voice revisited, Industrial and Labour Relations Review — Birch, A. Black, D. The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blanz, M. Responding to negative social identity: A taxonomy of identity management strategies, European Journal of Social Psychology — Bremmer, I. Cannings, K. An exit-voice model of managerial attachment, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation — Dowding, K.
Exiting behavior under Tiebout conditions: Towards a predictive model, Public Choice — Tiebout: A survey of the empirical literature, Urban Studies — Downs, A. An economic theory of democracy, New York: Harper and Row.
Drigota, S. On the peculiarities of loyalty: A diary study of responses to dissatisfaction in everyday life, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin — Ellemers, N. The influence of socio-structual variables on identity management strategies.
In: W. Hewstone eds , European review of social psychology. Chichester: John Wiley. Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective identity enhancement strategies, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Eubank, W.
Italian communism in crisis: A study in exit, voice and loyalty, Party Politics 2: 55— Evans, G. Ethnic schism and the consolidation of post-communist democracies, Communist and post-communist studies 57— Farrell, D. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensional scaling study, Academy of Managment Journal — Foreman-Peck, J. Exit, voice and loyalty as responses to decline: The Rover Company in the interwar years, Business History — Fornell, C.
Freeman, R. Individual mobility and union voice in the labor market, American Economic Review — The exit-voice tradeoff in the labor market: Unionism, job tenure, quits and separations, Quarterly Journal of Economics — What do unions do?. New York: Basic Books. Gaines, S. Impact of attachment style of reactions to accommodative dilemmas in close relationships, Personal Relationships 4.
Glennerster, H. Alternatives to fundholding, International Journal of Health Service 47— Hirschman, A. Exit and voice: An expanding sphere of influence. In: A. Hirsch- man ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Interview, in A. Swedberg ed. Exit, voice and the fate of the German Democratic Republic. Hirschman ed. Howard, C. Citizen participation in urban politics: Rise and routinization, in G. Peterson ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Kato, J. Laitin, D. Laver, M. Lee, W. Read my lips or watch my feet: The state and Chinese dissident intellectuals, Daedalus 35— Maute, M.
Forrester, Jr. The structure and determinants of consumer compliant intentions and behavior, Journal of Economic Psychology — Miller, P. Foxley, M. Olson, M. The logic of collective action: public good and the theory of groups. Orbell, J. A theory of neighbourhood problem solving: Political action vs. Ross, M. Political organization and political participation: Exit, voice and loyalty in preindustrial societies, Comparative Politics 73— Rusbult, C.
Determinants and consequences of exit, voice, loyalty and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements, Human Relations 45— When bureaucrats get the blues: Responses to dissatisfaction among federal employees, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 80— Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: A multidimensional scaling analysis, Journal of Experimental Psychology — A longtitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives and investments, Journal of Applied Psychology — Exit, voice, loyalty and neglect: respones to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — Scott, R.
Dismantling repressive systems: The abolition of slavery in Cuba as a case Study. Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press. Sharp, E. Exit, voice and loyalty in the context of local government problems, Western Political Quarterly 7: 67— Citizen demand-making in the urban context. Birmingham: University of Alabama Press. Tajfel, H. Social identity and intergroup behaviour, Social Science Information, 65— The exit of social mobility and the voice of social change, Social Science Information — Human groups and social categories.
Social psychology of intergroup relations, Annual Review of Psychology 1— An integrative theory of intergrup conflict. Worchel eds , The social psychology of intergroup relations. Teske, P. This failure to protect employee speech is damaging both to individual employees and the collective well-being of the company, which I will now review. There are clear harms to this kind of employee silencing in a health care world. Most basically, there is a straightforward risk to public and employee health.
However, in this discussion, I am more interested in iterating the kinds of workplace harms that seem inevitable with excessive and unjustified restrictions on employee speech, both in this crisis and for the long-term. If companies are disinclined to respond to ethical appeals, one would hope that at minimum, long-term economic self-interest might motivate them. I will show the long-term benefits of facilitating employee voice, but let me iterate at least three categories of harm here: to silenced employees individually, to employees collectively, and to the institutions reputationally.
I review these sequentially, because it seems to me that the individual harms lead to and reinforce the collective and mission-focused harms. Employees individually.
Forcing employees to choose between their continued employment and adherence to their professional, public-health code, is a stark choice, and it imposes costs on employees who choose to raise ethical concerns.
Health care workers who have blown the whistle on ethically problematic practices have faced professional reprisal and retaliation, which obviously has direct professional and material effects on their well-being [Ahern, , p. The starkness of this choice also has emotional effects; one study of nurses who were retaliated against after whistleblowing recounts a whole host of emotional effects including anxiety, distress, grief, and symptoms of PTSD [Ahern, , p.
These effects are not just character impacts but professional-identity impacts; they are damaged as competent workers. Gag orders signify that medical professionals are hired for their technical skills only, and that their value comes in their compliant delivery of technical services. The psychological costs of remaining silent in the face of injustice have been demonstrated elsewhere in the literature [Perlow and Williams, ; Cortina and Magley, ].
But I would posit that these harms have an ethical dimension alongside the psychological impacts. Workers who describe themselves as alienated from and resentful of their colleagues and supervisors of necessity see themselves as having less agency in their workplace.
Jean Harvey [ ] describes this as restricting employees from full functioning in a workplace [ , p. Soft-skills professions like health care, that rely so heavily on collaborative analysis, want to empower rather than restrict employee contribution. Some of the administrator behaviour documented in these articles goes beyond simply devaluing employees as technicians only, to a more active and insidious denigration of their analytic and perceptive competence: a kind of crisis-induced gaslighting.
Consider the heated texts and messages health care workers reported about the wearing of PPE in public halls, or discussing PPE shortages. These are all versions of credibility-diminishment, telling medical professionals that their immediate, ground-level perceptions of a health care situation are not to be trusted. Gaslighting, a kind of epistemic injustice that involves telling agents they are epistemically unreliable, has indirect harms, particularly in the workplace — it reduces creativity and engagement [Abramson, ; Adkins, ].
Employees collectively. Liberal commentators on speech and censorship have pointed out the indirect harms to all speakers on soft or firm restrictions on speech. David Yamada [ ] describes some of the economic and policy pressures that can act as informal chills on employee speech; even theoretical commitments to employee freedom of speech can ring hollow when worker protections are few, or when industries are in economic turmoil.
Rob Macklin and Earl Spurgin provide empirical data in support of this analysis [ ]. Their qualitative analysis of employees in Australian workplaces find that even with ostensive support for employee speech, many employees perceive a gap between their right to speak up at work, particularly in dissent, and their actual capacity to do so.
Employees often perceived punishment for colleagues who raise contrary views and describe silencing their inner dissents out of fear of reprisal. When employees recognize that dissent is explicitly or implicitly discouraged, they would be more likely, it seems, to second-guess their ideas and contributions in a workplace. Making employee options fewer and starker makes it more likely to have crisis-point interventions and eruptions, as opposed to a more continuous feedback loop from informed and experienced stakeholder employees.
While non-disparagement clauses may seem prudent for efficiency-minded managers of all sorts of industries and there is some indication that they are being more widely implemented throughout employment, and not merely at severance , they impose a structural restraint on all employees, and emphasize rather than reduce the gulf between labour and management.
One of the limitations with even a well-constructed whistleblower system is that it is overly focused on compliance and retroactivity. By contrast, a more consistent workplace culture that encourages and facilitates employee feedback, even if critical, would be more stable for ensuring productivity and morale.
Not only is this model insufficient for public communication, it minimizes accountability for the organisation itself. Fletcher et al. I would extend this analysis towards those in health care management and supervision; there is too little accountability for those groups.
This raises the moral stakes for employees who witness problematic safety practices in an environment that discourages disclosure. Front-line health care workers are thus left carrying all the ethical burdens of the practices, taking the risks, and bearing the costs, to the exclusion of management.
Reputation of health care institutions. While it is certainly reasonable for companies in general to be concerned about bad publicity, overly stacking policy in favor of corporate communication and against ground-up communication has indirect effects, particularly in public-service professions like health care.
It suggests that the default expectation is for companies to stay silent about failures. The irony of a hospital system that does not aggressively move to reverse practices known to imperil community and employee health is not slight, and indicates the importance of enhancing and safeguarding employee voice rather than minimising it, for the good of the institution. Institutions that lose any sense of collective trust and goodwill, whether from patients, employees, or the public at large, will themselves struggle.
Because, as I have contended, health care workers feel mixed loyalties — to their professional duties as much as if not more than to their place of employment — silencing employees would provoke more public damages. One of the unanticipated blowbacks to gag orders is that, in this sort of time-sensitive situation, employees will increasingly pursue riskier and even more damaging ways of speaking up, like anonymous whistleblowing to the press or social media posts.
We see clear evidence of this with the case of Ming Lin. More extreme and public revelations of risky policy can lower the long-term reliability and reputation of companies or industries. These are the major harms that gag orders can have on employees. But I want now to shift the argument by briefly making the case for the benefits of fuller employee voice. Gag orders implicitly frame employee voice as presumptively and exclusively negative. By contrast, it is worth contemplating employee voice as a substantive good of an organisation — a sign of health.
Speaking up, whether formally or informally, should be valuable to companies because it permits more insight and input into decisions and practices. Roberson notes that effective stakeholder communication, when well-structured, can promote long-term benefits of equity [ ].
On an even more pragmatic level, it seems clear that there are consistent benefits to empowering employee feedback in the functionality of a workplace. This seems particularly true when there is not just a divide but a gulf between the work management does and that of its ground-level workers. This ethical harms of this inefficiency would be only exacerbated in a public-goods field like health care.
Waddington concludes her study by recommending that managers actively seek out and attend to employee gossip, as it helpfully signifies areas of weakness and low morale in the workplace.
Protecting and promoting employee voice, while bringing with it the likelihood of short-term dissent, is actually a surer path towards longer-term company and employee health and well-being.
I want to pause to consider objections to this view, of which there seem to be at least two. First is the idea that whistleblowing is not as straightforwardly positive as my argument renders it. While most of the literature on whistleblowing presents is as morally justified, some scholars have raised qualms about its use and overuse. Sissela Bok [ ] reminds us that whistleblowing is often seen as a breach of loyalty [ , p.
These are serious concerns. And while empirical evidence points to whistleblowers usually making multiple attempts at expressions of internal voice before going public [Miceli, Near and Dworkin, ], the fact remains that public whistleblowing makes situations more fraught, and can result in more chaotic, rather than less chaotic, results and communication.
But these objections bear less well on this particular situation. First, the increased urgency of public voice when the problem being raised is both time-sensitive and has broad public impact. Hierarchical chains of command, particularly if protracted, can be cumbersome in a crisis — it seems clear that public complaints in several of these instances were exactly what motivated concrete improvements in PPE provision. At least in this case, it appears that attempts to communicate internally were ignored.
This conveniently reframes the issue as an easy false dichotomy; if the only two choices are managing an international pandemic or staging a media campaign, and if they cannot be accomplished simultaneously, this is an easy choice. Whistleblowing is and should remain a last resort; in companies that practice and protect stakeholder models of communication, whistles should not need to be blown. It is one thing to empower employee voice and dissent in , but a very different and riskier proposition in In the age of social media, empowering employee voice can result not in a healthy diversity of discussion but in a cacophonous babble of competing voices and agendas, with little strategic direction.
The existing literature on social media and health care ethics mainly seems to focus on issues around individual patient privacy [see Brous and Olsen, ; Cain, , for representative examples], which does not bear on the brunt of the argument here. However, it is certainly the case that the temptation to raise a concern online, instantly and in a crisis situation like a pandemic, brings with it some real dangers less fact-checking, fewer internal checks, greater likelihood of confusion and credibility damages to both the whistleblower and the institution.
But again, this seems to me to be a roundabout argument for reinforcing and buttressing employee voice in the health-care workplace. The literature on health-care whistleblowers demonstrates the likelihood that they experience formal or informal retaliation [McDonald and Ahern, ], which suggests strong implicit reasons to avoid whistleblowing if at all available.
Given that employees who have organisational commitment and anticipate retaliation are more likely to whistleblow internally rather than externally [Chen and Lai, , p.
Dissent that is handled internally will not migrate to social media posts and rants. While it is clear that there are short-term benefits for hospitals and HCOs in keeping tight limits on employee speech, particularly during a crisis, my analysis suggests that there are a host of indirect harms and longer-term turbulence caused by this practice in addition to the manifest and straightforward threat to public health.
Restricting employee choices and diminishing employee voice in a morally unsatisfactory workplace strips employees of agency and autonomy in the workplace. Implementing a policy that makes a hardworking nurse, in the middle of a pandemic, question their choice of career and see their hospital as opposed to the practice of health care, is pernicious. Abramson, K. Philosophical Perspectives 28 1 , pp. Adelman, J. Public Books. Adkins, K. Social Philosophy Today 35, pp.
Ahern, K. Bernstein, L. On the other hand, if we take account that people looks to the future from the pessimist view that I think it is usually could not make successfully result because pessimistic thinking to create the negative view that it can be barrier for the improvement.
In additionally, the understanding of happiness or satisfaction from material benefits can make the different sense for different people and in different language. Perhaps, because of this collective wish to be happy, the word has regularly taken on a much weaker meaning than it has in other languages. This is illustrated in the story about two immigrants from Germany meeting for the first time after many years in New York. One asks the other: "Are you happy here? Similarly, loyalty to the organizations it can be professional or unprofessional, business oriented or community based is very vital issue in order to involve and to keep the members to the organizations.
What is more, employees especially more professional ones are always vital resource for the all organizations. Particularly when they represent a significant investment in terms of locating, recruiting, and training let alone salaries, healthcare plans, bonuses, etc. In this sense, there occur variations which are entry in another firm, re-entry in the firm to and etc. High price for exit A different kind of distortion of the model of loyalist behaviour occurs when an organization is able to exacta high price for exit.
Such a price can range from loss of life- long associations to loss of life, with such intermediate penalties as excommunication, deformation, and deprivation of livelihood. Since, the new members mean something new birth for family, nation or religious group. In this sense, we can give as an example such as religious communities, tribes, families and totalitarian parties which are the most traditional groups. They always tried to make defence against the losing the one member and sometimes if they have enough power they use some punishments in order to stoop withdraw of members.
Loyalty to one country to another Loyalty to one country to another is something we could do without, since countries can ordinarily be considered to be well-differentiated products.
Also, there are some countries that resemble each other a good deal because they share a common history, language, and culture. In point of facts, according to Realist school of international relations theories there is no any loyalty or trust in international politics which the material self-interest is always above in the every type of relation between states.
On the other hand, according to liberal school of international relations we can talk about some moral features or loyalty responsibilities between states in international politics. From this perspective, the common elements are very vital between counters such as a common history, language, and culture which I can give 8 Hirschman, Loyalty …p 96 9 Ibid.
0コメント