Exit, voice, loyalty to sport organization power

• Author: Frédéric Lassalle
• Published date: 01 September 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2366
• Date: 01 September 2020

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Exit, voice, loyalty to sport organization power

Frédéric Lassalle

Centre de Recherche en Gestion des

Organisations (EA 7317), Université de

Bourgogne, IAE Dijon, Dijon, France

Correspondence

Frédéric Lassalle, Centre de Recherche en

Gestion des Organisations (EA 7317),

Université de Bourgogne, IAE Dijon, Dijon,

France.

Email: frederic.lassalle@u-bourgogne.fr

Abstract

This research focuses on the relational dynamics between organizations. The goal is to

link Hirschman's (1970) model Exit, Voice,Loyalty (EVL), to Galbraith's (1983) power

model Personality, Property, and Organization (PPO). The study will show a preferential

link between one power of PPO model and a mode of conflict of the EVL model. The

existence of control over the dominant organization leads to a choice of a suitable

mode of conflict for a strategic change.

1|INTRODUCTION

Power is at the heart of the system of relations between organizations

regardless of the sector in which they operate (Turker, 2014). This

research is based on the proposals of Weber (1947) and its concept of

powers derived from three legitimations: the traditional, the charis-

matic, and the legal-rational ones. It tries to link a conflict model that

allows to question, or at least to influence the relational dynamics

between a dominant organization and one or more dominated organi-

zations. Hirschman's (1970) Exit, Voice, Loyalty (EVL) model con-

structed by Hess (1999) was chosen in opposition to Galbraith's

(1983) Personality, Property, and Organization (PPO) model and

Weber's (1947) proposals. The aim is to find conflict profiles

corresponding to power profiles and the operation of conflict tactics

put in place, which can strategically change the situation of organiza-

tions, dissatisfied with the relationship. This article asks the question

about the conflict profile to be setup for an organization facing a

power profile on whether the EVL model make it possible to confront

the PPO power.

The conflict of the theoretical frameworks of PPO and

EVL will be presented using the qualitative methodology by case

studies (Eisenhardt, 1989; Stewart-Withers, Sewabu, &

Richardson, 2017). Expert interviews based on the eight organiza-

tions studied and on three relational systems, internal data, and

data from the press constitute the basis of analysis. The results

will be presented and discussed. Responding to this research ques-

tion will allow organizations to pursue a conflict strategy for a

strategic change.

2|POWER AND CONFLICT

Power is a concept that is very present in the literature of manage-

ment sciences. This research is based on the proposals made by

Weber (1947) (Clegg, 1989; Kim, Pinkley, & Fragale, 2005). For

Dahl (1957), power is the exercise of domination by one organization

over another, enabling action not achieved without this influence. It is

held by one organization over another (Friedberg, 2009). The mecha-

nisms that explain this domination hve also been studied (Crozier &

Friedberg, 1977). The PPO model provides three power profiles: They

are based on three sources identified as traditional power, charismatic

power, and rational-legal power (Bedell, Hunter, Angie, & Vert, 2006).

Galbraith (1983) names the dimensions of power, including the

sources and the set of mechanisms, with the terms personality (based

on charismatic power), property (tradition), and organization (legal-

rational) (see also Lukes, 1986). The entire tool set is shown in

Table 1. Each of the sources of power is composed of three elements:

Personality includes the charism (Galbraith, 1983), audacity

(Young, 1991) and strength (Toffler, 1990). Property combines tradi-

tion (Baechler, 1978), wealth (Toffler, 1990), and intelligence

(Young, 1991). Organization relies on the law (Galbraith, 1983),

knowledge (Toffler, 1990), and structure (Young, 1991). The dimen-

sions of the model consist of a source, a form of application

(Galbraith, 1983), a mode of control (Mintzberg, 1983), and two

mechanisms of control (Joseph, Ocasio, & McDonnell, 2014;

Zhang, 2013).

Each of these dimensions, although having a preferential use, is

not exclusive in its choice (Lukes, 1986). The elements of the three

dimensions complement and reinforce each other, thus giving the

dominant organization a stronger power. This power enables the

organization either to increase its power to its advantage or to

JEL classification code: L14.

DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2366

Strategic Change. 2020;29:571–588. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jsc © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 571

diminish the power of the opponent (Masic, Dobrijevic, &

Stanisic, 2011). Organizations are, in the relationship, in a domi-

nant/dominated configuration, where the dominant organization

exercises its power (Beaver & Jennings, 1996; Hardy &

Maguire, 2016). The relationship is between two parties that are

not equal in terms of power. It is an asymmetric relationship

(Friedberg, 2009; Masic et al., 2011) with conflicts arising when the

relationship dissatisfies one of its actors (Hess, 1999;

Hirschman, 1970). It should make it possible to change the nature

of the relationship (Bejou, 2012).

The PPO model explains that controlling is required by the

dominant entity over the dominated entity to ensure the

proper execution of the relationship (Van Marrewijk, 2005).

Such a mechanism deprives the dominated actors of freedom

of action (Crozier & Friedberg, 1977). This freedom is detri-

mental to the relationship since it generates areas of uncer-

tainty that the dominant organization cannot tolerate. It is

with a strong will to control that the mechanisms of power will

be explained, but they will lead to the emergence of conflicts,

by a desire of freedom of the other entities (Courpasson &

Golsorkhi, 2011; Van Marrewijk, 2005). The conflict is

explained by a determination to change the nature of relational

play by shifting the stakes and areas of uncertainty in order to

take advantage of favorable circumstances (Crozier &

Friedberg, 1977). Conflict must be understood within the logic

of accepting more significant risks, and potentially high initial

losses, with the hope of a reversal of the relationship, or at

least of a real change. The conflict is related to the power

relationship because there can be no change in the conflict-

free relationship.

Since conflict is an important relational element, it has become nec-

essary to propose a model capable of analyzing the different types of

conflicting behavior that can complement the PPO model. For

Hess (1999), the EVL model is constructed in opposition to the PPO

model. It applies to the field of power relations. This conflict tool pro-

poses three tactics, which can be applied preferentially, and offers sev-

eral possibilities to organizations in the relational system (Davis-Blake,

Broschak, & George, 2003; Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous III, 1988).

•Exit: A stoppage of the relationship manifests the exit. The organi-

zation considers that its position in the relationship cannot evolve

favorably, or that the relationship has deteriorated (Dowding, John,

Mergoupis, & Van Vugt, 2000), and therefore decides to stop. This

stop can be very costly in terms of reduced income, psychological

stress, loss of skills if they are not transposable (Withey &

Cooper, 1989). The output is based on the estimated cost (also tak-

ing into account opportunity costs) and efficiency (Pfaff &

Kim, 2003; Weber, 2011). The exit is considered as a defect or

treachery and may prove to be inefficient and laborious

(Hirschman, 1970). The logic of output is not to leave the relation-

ship alone, but to establish an equivalence with what the dominant

organization proposed by becoming a competitor of it

(Bejou, 2012; Pfaff & Kim, 2003).

•Voice: Speaking is a way of expressing dissatisfaction or disappoint-

ment by addressing the organization. The range of possibilities in

the voice is huge, ranging from mere grumbling to violent recrimi-

nation (protests, strikes) (Pfaff & Kim, 2003). The idea that guides

the use of the voice is that the expression of dissatisfaction, more

or less violently, will be heard, interpreted, and lead to a strategic

change of the organization which will seek to remedy this

TABLE 1 Three power analysis tool

Profile element power profile Sources Forms Control modes Reactions to previous control Mechanisms reactions to postcontrol

Profil personality Personality Persuasion Powerful Fear Death

Charisma Popularity Strength Fear Death

Strength Negotiation Terror Exile

Audacy Indoctrination Slavery

Profile property Property Retribution Authority Assent Excommunication

Tradition

Wealth Hardward Prestige Enthusiasm Excommunication

Intelligence Moral Fanaticism Swarming

Conviction Execution

Shaping

Respect

Profile Organization Deterrence Directorate Consent Exclusion

Organization

Law Constraint Rationality Calculation Exclusion

Structure Directionality

Knowing Punishment

Source: Self-development.

572 LASSALLE