In society, the silent majority defines common sense, but the vocal minority grabs the headlines. In workplaces, companies often act on the compelling feedback of a few, leaving the insights of the many untapped, unrecognized, and excluded from meaningful change. In this article, I highlight common feedback pitfalls, and propose two inclusive strategies to empower companies to tap the silent majority’s insights for systemic change. I explore how the 80/20 principle shapes politics and organizations, where 20% of voices dominate while 80% stay silent. True inclusion means listening to the silent majority before their dissatisfaction drives them away.
The 80 and the 20
Most people don’t make a fuss. They don’t post their outrage on social media, and they don’t march to proclaim what they think. Most consumers accept snags and annoyances, make do, and don’t complain. Most workers just work, keeping their heads down and doing their hours. They go along with the way things are done and don’t rock the boat when policies are put in place that inconvenience or constrain them. They are the silent majority that speaks the fabled common sense—by definition, the viewpoints shared by the largest proportion of society.
But they aren’t the ones doing the talking or making the choices. That’s the vocal minority, tweaking and changing things like children playing in front of distracted parents who don’t care if the kids make a mess as long as they don’t have to get involved.
So, the only view that gets aired is the uncommon sense, the thoughts and feelings of the few, while the many keep their peace. The rights of the few become larger than the rights of the silent. The sounds of dissatisfaction from the few grow louder than the murmurs of appreciation from the silent. The need to accommodate the few becomes a higher priority than the need to keep what’s working for the silent.
This dynamic is described by the 80/20 principle, popularized by Richard Koch (2022), which suggests that 20% of effort leads to 80% of results. Here, it’s not a literal split but a shorthand: a small group—say 20%—gets the lion’s share of attention, while the larger group—say 80%—stays quiet. These numbers aren’t precise – the point is the pattern: a vocal few drive change, while the majority’s needs often go unheard.
Why do the majority stay silent?
In the UK, we might say it’s about “keeping calm and carrying on”, a famous phrase used during World War 2 to keep the citizens of Britain united and constructive. It’s a habit to default to quiet living and minding your business with gratitude that things could be worse.
In psychology, we might point to social conformity or in-group loyalty. It could be pragmatism, a lack of self-confidence, a feeling of learned helplessness, or hopelessness. Or it might be detachment, numbness, or apathy.
Will they speak if it gets too bad?
Maybe, maybe not. If the majority is woken up when things reach a tipping point of outrage or exasperation, and mechanisms exist to hear them, then they might. In the US, the silent-no-more majority came out to vote in the 2024 election. Now, the brute strength of the plurality is being brought to bear on “common sense” decisions the contrarian minority oppose, such as deporting illegal immigrants.
When things get too much for employees in a company, walking away and finding another job is a reasonable alternative to speaking up. If they can’t leave right away — or feel trapped — they may simply opt out, one task at a time. The psychological contract between employer and employee, formed when a job offer is made, requires effort from both sides. When the employer falls short, the silent majority might not push back or feed back, especially if the issue is something small or intangible, like different perk practices across departments. Disengagement by stealth leaves the company in the dark.
This is “quiet quitting,” a term popularised a few years ago, but really just a new name for the quiet withdrawal of “good will” — the extra effort, judgement, and initiative that goes beyond the bare minimum. (J. Richard Johnson (2023) offers a nifty review.) In fact, in an unhappy office, the stationery cupboard can be the first clue. Research by Jain and Sharma (2023) found that when employees perceive a breach of trust, they may begin to justify minor deviance — like helping themselves to office supplies — as a way of redressing the balance.
How do companies get clued in?
Good companies use feedback mechanisms to catch emerging issues, but these mechanisms often fall short. The silent majority don’t fill out surveys, they don’t push to speak in focus groups, and they don’t bother to raise concerns with their managers or report to HR. The company may not break that silence until the exit interview, and even then, why bother rocking the boat as you go out the door?
In general, response rates for in-house satisfaction or wellness surveys are poor; a 2023 University of Warwick study estimates only about 30% of staff will participate. Even then, responses may downplay concerns or skip them entirely. Employees might assume their issues are trivial or unique, not realizing others feel the same. When a political party rises to win an election, participants can bask in the solidarity, but in an organization, employees have no idea that tens or even hundreds of staff may feel the same way.
You know who IS filling out surveys, especially the long open-text questions, using the entire word count to describe their opinions and observations in detail? The 20%.
In response, the organization processes the feedback and casts a “you said, we did” net, applying 80% of their change resources to address the needs of 20% of their workforce. The silent majority continue working, and company-wide systemic issues are never realised or resolved. They fester.
Feedback systems often stumble over practical flaws. I could write an opus on this, but here are a few that come to mind:
- Domination by loud voices: Focus groups can be hijacked by the most opinionated or overbearing personalities who can bring established patterns of relating and group dynamics into the room. The boss is still the boss, and no one wants to disagree with them.
- Neglected idea boxes: Suggestion boxes often collect dust or yield unstructured, impractical ideas that go nowhere. Or colourful insults. Posted through the slot, I have also found sweets, expense receipts, foreign coins, and once a condom (unused and still in its wrapper, you will be relieved to hear).
- Ambiguous questions: Sometimes they ask two things, sometimes the wrong thing. Numerical scales are highly subjective and Likert response options are open to interpretation. For example, my favourite: “neither agree nor disagree”. Does this mean “I don’t know whether I agree or not” or “I’m ambivalent – I kind of agree and disagree at the same time” or “It depends” or maybe “This doesn’t apply to me” or “I just don’t care”?
- Big-box questions: Open-text questions with a big box invite the respondent to pour their heart out, revealing rich gold. They usually respond with two or three words (“It’s OK”, “Good”, or helpfully, “Nothing comes to mind”). You usually also get at least one rambling diatribe about a grievance so specific that it is of no use in identifying systemic potential for change.
How organizations can give everyone a voice
To break the silence, companies need creative, inclusive feedback systems. Here are two ideas:
Incentivize year-round participation:
- Create a private online portal where employees earn points for engaging in ongoing feedback—polls, quick questionnaires, or mini-referendums throughout the year.
- Points can be redeemed for perks like extended lunches or early finishes.
- This lowers the barrier to entry and encourages the silent majority to chime in without demanding big time commitments.
- It would also send a clear positive cultural message about open communication and valuing employee perspectives.
- It would also establish a conduit that can be pressed into service quickly in response to emerging issues or sudden events.
Enhance one-2-ones:
- Train managers to conduct meaningful one-2-one meetings which foster two-way feedback.
- Empower the employee to raise issues and concerns and express opinions about the company.
- Pre-meeting prompts, like a short question block or a planning exercise, would let employees reflect and prepare thoughts in advance, avoiding on-the-spot pressure.
These approaches meet employees where they are, making it easier for the silent majority to share without needing to shout.
Inclusive in practice
Recently, I was asked for advice on how a company could create a programme that would support managers in adjusting for the working styles of neurodivergent staff. The client wanted to identify these employees’ unique needs and build training around them.
I suggested they broaden the brief—not to ignore neurodiversity, but to understand the full range of working styles across the organization. This would uncover what the silent majority needed and unlock economies of scale from employing solutions which would benefit everyone. There would still be options which would specifically help neurodivergent staff, but flexibility could be improved for everyone, including the undiagnosed who might fall through the cracks of a more focused program. The approach would also destigmatize requests for adjustments by normalizing conversations about each employee’s unique strengths, fostering a company-wide tide of growth.
Conclusion
This isn’t about pushing down inclusion or abandoning those with protected characteristics who face discrimination and need specific accommodations. It’s about not conflating visibility with value. In politics, that means not mistaking public performance for public opinion. In business, it means balancing the noise and the silence.
The majority is often made up of the quiet, the consistent, the unseen. They don’t demand meetings or call for revolutions—but their common-sense perspectives keep systems thriving. If their voices go unheard, progress stalls. In politics and business, we must build systems that hear the many, not just the vocal few. True inclusion means valuing everyone.
References
- Jain, V., & Sharma, C. S. (2020). Workplace Deviant Behaviour in Response to Breach of Psychological Contract: The Mediation Effect of Moral Disengagement. Ramanujan International Journal of Business and Research, 5, 71-86.
- Johnson, J. R. (2023). What’s new about quiet quitting (and what’s not). The Transdisciplinary Journal of Management.
- Koch, R. (2022). The 80/20 Principle: The Secret of Achieving More with Less. Hachette UK.
Over the last 30 years, I’ve written and designed questionnaires to meet a huge range of objectives including:
- finding out teen preferences for a new park
- exploring public satisfaction with the police service
- evaluating the effectiveness of training and student satisfaction
- understanding the detailed financial implications of regulatory compliance
- pinpointing security-related behaviours at work
- taking respondents on a journey through common scenarios to find out their level of risk from fire in the home.
Infinite Raven 
Penny for ‘em