Albert O. Hirschman in his book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, starts out by stating that all organizations “are subject to lapses from efficient, rational, law-abiding, virtuous, or otherwise functional behavior.”[1] The reason for the faltering can be anywhere from self-inflicted to all kinds of accidental reasons. Hirschman argues for the importance that a “society must be able to marshal from within itself forces which will make as many of the faltering actors as possible revert to the behavior required for its proper functioning.”[2] This sounds logical, but as Hirschman points out “economists have paid little attention to repairable lapses of economic actors.”[3] Hirschman provides two reasons for why economists have been neglectful in this regard. “First, in economics one assumes either fully and undeviatingly rational behavior or, at the very least, an unchanging level of rationality on the part of the economic actors.”[4]

According to Hirschman, “economists have typically assumed that a firm that falls behind (or gets ahead) does so “for a good reason”; the concept – central to this book – of a random and more or less easily “repairable lapse” has been alien to their reasoning.”[5] Secondly, from the economist’s point of view, the “recovery from any lapse is not really essential. As one firm loses out in the competitive struggle, its market share is taken up”[6]  by someone else.

Hirschman points out how the above mentioned perspective from the economist fails to take into account the intrinsic worth of those affected by the lapse and the consequences. He argues that, “mechanisms of recuperation would play a most useful role in avoiding social losses as well as human hardship.” [7]

Generally speaking people respond to an organizations lapse in performance in two ways. Hirschman names these two responses  “exit” and “voice”. The “exit” (economics) response simply includes leaving an organization – discontinuing a relationship. The “voice” (political) response implies staying and expressing displeasure – verbalizing frustration.

Both responses “exit” and “voice” to an organizations failure can help the organization improve. However, the more difficult and often neglected option is the “voice” response. The third concept that Hirschman introduces, “loyalty”, becomes important at this point.   Hirschman states that, “as a rule, then, loyalty holds exit at bay and activates voice.”[8]

In response to this reading, I could not help but to think of the church and church conflict. How often do we use the exit strategy when the going gets tough? What about choosing the more difficult route of “voice” of speaking the truth in love and “talking out” our problems? What about Christ’s loyalty to us and our loyalty to Him and to each other? It seems that restoration of a lapsed organization or a lapsed person should always be the goal (I have to think of Matthew 18). I also have to think of how Jesus is in the business of restoration and not giving up on people who have “lapsed.”