IN 1970, economist Albert O Hirschman, a luminary in the study of organisational behaviour, wrote a short classic monograph, Exit, Voice and Loyalty that holds some relevant messages for not only modern marketers but also the present political situation in our country. He said: when customers become dissatisfied with a product, they really have two choices, they can Exit – begin to buy from a competitor; or they can exercise their Voice – keep buying but complain. Where there is a good competing product, most customers simply exit, because it is much easier.

Voice is more complicated. Few are willing to go through all of that bother of writing letters or making telephone calls if they can simply walk across the street and begin buying from another supplier. The ideal marketing situation is one in which customers are so loyal to the brand or the organisation, that they will not exit, even when the competitor is offering lower prices.

Likewise in a country, when the people are dissatisfied with the government or leadership , they can either exit – vote for the Opposition, if they feel that the Opposition is good enough; or they can voice – keep voting for the government but speak up on the shortcomings.

I would like to relate this to the voice option former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been exercising, until he resigned on May 19. Even at the risk of “losing his legacy”, out of his loyalty to the country, Mahathir had chosen to speak up against what he sees as a decline in the country’s administration and leadership. We should not be in a state of denial as to disagree because most of what the former prime minister has been complaining about has also been the talk of the people at grassroots level.

According to Hirschman, voice is actually an alternative to exit. The best companies find a way to reduce exit by giving customers a way to exercise their voice. The process is called building loyalty. Management experts point out that you get the best out of people if you are willing to listen to their voice and complaints, act on their suggestions and let them know that you are paying attention. If you foster a feeling of loyalty, you will be substituting voice for exit.

Contrary to what some people may think, by speaking up on what many people would like to tell the government and leadership, Mahathir is actually doing the government a favour. He may be giving the people the reason to keep staying loyal and not resorting to exit (which may be in the form of not voting for the government in elections) by substituting it with voice. If customers or the people are sufficiently convinced that voice will be effective, they may well postpone exit. At least this is as far as the Hirschman theory is concerned.

The government and the top leadership need to listen to what the people (not just Mahathir) are dissatisfied about and act on them. Again the government should not be in a state of denial to think that most people in the country are still happy with the status quo. Failure to see this may render the people with no choice but to exercise their last resort of exit which many have already resorted to in the last general election.

However, Hirschman also pointed out in his book that voice can also be overdone; the discontented people can become so harassing that their protests would at some point actually hinder rather than help whatever efforts at recovery are undertaken. So, to the beloved Mahathir, I would like to dedicate this poem written by Barbara Garson in New York in 1966:

In speaking out one loses influence,

The chance for change by pleas and prayer is gone,

The chance to modify the devil’s deeds,

As critic from within is still my hope,

To quit the club! Be outside looking in!

This outsideness, this unfamiliar land,

From which few travellers ever get back in …

I fear to break; I’ll work within for change.

Ahmad Ali
Penang

Source: The Sun – May 30, 2008