This post may contain affiliate links. Please read the disclosure statement for more info.

What do we do when we are confronted with things we disagree with? What is our response? We have different choices of how we respond in terms of our biological make-up, but when we take the time to think about our intelligent response, we can group those decisions into 3 categories. Voice, Exit, or Loyalty

I first learned about these groupings from listening to the Rich Roll Podcast with Malcolm Gladwell as the guest host. The whole episode is awesome and I highly recommend listening to all of it when you get a chance. If you don’t have the time to listen to the whole thing, here is a clip where they talk about this concept.

Setting the stage of the clip here, Rich Roll and Malcolm Gladwell are talking about how the United States was thinking about boycotting the 1936 and 1968 Summer Olympics but didn’t and when they did boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics.

For context, the 1936 Summer Olympics was in Berlin and Hitler wanted to use the games to show off his “superior race”, but Jesse Owens had other ideas. The 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City was during the heat of the civil rights movement and this picture captures the event in a nutshell. For the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, the United States decided to boycott to protest against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan.

With all of that background, the clip of Roll and Gladwell talking about these 3 types of intelligent responses should make more sense.

We can voice our thoughts and opinions, make ourselves vocal, and take a stand. We can exit the situation and boycott the critical moments in our lives. Or we can stay loyal and go along with everything not trying to rock the boat.

What made me think was when, at the 41:57 mark, Roll made an observation. He says:

When you canvas history, voice ends up being the most powerful over time. There’s … collateral damage in the short term, but ultimately with distance you see the impact of that [vocal action] resonate…

Risk vs Reward

Doing the hard thing comes with risk but the payout is usually much greater. Does that make it worth it? Like Roll says, in the short-term the stand you take, whether from a purposeful or vocal action or an intentional inaction, will probably cause damage. This can last minutes to days to years.

The gentlemen from the picture from 1968, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, were immediately kicked out of the Olympic Village and told to go home. They received death threats in Mexico City as well as in the United States. And for a very long time, this picture was not viewed in the same uplifting way as it is today.

Side Note: If you read the history.com article that I got this picture from, you’ll also see how it killed the career of the 3^rd man on the podium Australian runner Peter Norman. He didn’t raise his hand but supported Smith and Carlos with only a pin on his shirt and still had quite a bit of collateral damage to deal with.

What do we do when we have to stand up for ourselves and not let someone or something push us around? Do we voice our disagreements? Do you extract yourself from the situation? Or do we go with the flow?

Developing a Habit for the Situation

Taking a stand forces the conflict to be presented. This can be helpful to ensure that our self-worth is not being compromised. Be sure to not overuse this tactic as it can come off as argumentative or confrontational.

Exiting the situation removes yourself from visibility and/or responsibility. In my opinion, this is a form of action through inaction. If you are noticeably not present, then that in itself is making a statement. The statement may be, “I don’t want to be associated with this group because I disagree with its ideals.” Or it could be, “I can’t have another argument with my co-worker so I’m just avoiding them.” Both send messages we may or may not want to send depending on the situation.

Staying loyal and not rocking the boat creates strong trust between the individuals within the group. Be careful who we put our faith in and who we choose to be loyal to. Sustained loyalty to a person or boss can make a career blossom. Sustained loyalty to a company may not be 2-sided since its main goal is not to be loyal to its employees but to its owners, investors, and/or shareholders.

Each of these intelligent responses requires special thought when deciding how to act. I want to make sure I keep to my morals and values whenever I make a decision. Going back to my why and my motivation pushes me through the tough times and possible collateral damage.

Which response do you use more? Voice, Exit, or Loyalty? Do you have a preference?