Who gets to have a voice?

The patient voice. The employee voice. The student voice.

We hear these phrases so often that they can begin to sound like evidence of participation.

A hospital seeks the patient voice. An organisation launches an employee voice initiative. A university invites the student voice into its decision-making.

But what does having a voice actually mean?

Is it being asked for an opinion? Being listened to? Seeing something change as a result?

And who decides which questions are asked in the first place?

I’m interested in the point at which an invitation to contribute becomes an opportunity to shape the conversation itself.

Think of a meeting where everyone is invited to speak, but the agenda, the terms of the discussion and the possible outcomes have already been decided. People may be heard without having much influence over what happens next.

Then think of a conversation in which participants can question the premise, introduce an unexpected perspective or change the direction of the discussion.

Those are different experiences of having a voice.

It makes me wonder how often we design opportunities for participation while holding tightly to the power to define what participation looks like.

When we invite people to have a voice, are we also prepared to let them shape the conversation?