Are Shrilled Minority Voices Dwarfing the Silent Majority?

With digital enablement, everybody now has a voice- or do they actually? The broader perspective is particularly crucial in India, where a tech-savvy minority, the top 8-9% of the Indian workforce comprising of elite, corporate going population with significant social media visibility often dictates narratives on behalf of the larger audience- the entire workforce population- from unorganized sectors, gig workers, freelancers and more. This phenomenon results in agenda hijacking, where a small group acts as the voice of the majority, despite not truly representing them. Consequently, the genuine voices of the majority are dispersed and overpowered. This raises the question: Are they right in assuming this role? 

The Indian Elections of 2024: A Case Study 

The Indian Elections of 2024 highlighted this issue on a national scale. Before the 3rd of June, national news channels broadcasted predictions of a landslide victory for the NDA based on opinion and exit poll surveys. The masses, however, did not agree.  

This discrepancy was partly due to the incorrect sample size for exit polls, where only the loudly speaking voices were heard, overshadowing the voices showing silent voices. This scenario brings to light the issue of agenda hijacking, where the narrative controlled by a small, tech-savvy minority does not reflect the true sentiments of the larger population. 

The Corporate World: Keyboard Warriors 

A similar phenomenon can be observed in the corporate world, particularly on platforms like LinkedIn. LinkedIn, described by TechRepublic as the "de facto tool for professional networking," has evolved from a networking site to a platform for personal branding, shaping narratives, and driving real-world change. The loudest voices on this platform, or others, often tech-savvy and influential individuals, may not represent the majority's views or address the most balanced views and important issues.  

Consider the multiple agendas driven for the elite workforce community in India: moonlighting campaigns, permanent work-from-home (WFH), four-day work weeks, and debates on the 90-day notice period. These discussions often dominate LinkedIn, shaping opinions and policies that may not align with the needs and preferences of the broader workforce. This puts undue pressure on decision makers, which can be harmful- either way- both Employees and Employers.  

The Problematic Approaches  

Such narrative builders frequently address themes like corporate responsibility, ethical practices, and diversity and inclusion on LinkedIn. While these themes are essential, the approach can sometimes be problematic: 

• Sympathy-Seeking: Highlighting issues like workplace burnout without offering solutions. For example, a LinkedIn post detailing high stress and burnout rates among employees, with no mention of potential stress-reduction strategies. 

• Villainizing: Criticizing specific companies or practices without constructive feedback. For instance, tweets condemning a company's environmental practices without suggesting improvements. 

• Baiting: Using emotionally charged language or provocative statements to elicit strong reactions and engage a wider audience. For example, a LinkedIn post that portrays a company's layoffs as purely driven by greed, aiming to spark outrage rather than discussing potential economic reasons and solutions. 

• Self Interest Driven Agendas- Narrative building with a motivated agenda where a conflict of interest occurs, will generally hold no balance, and would tend to be protective of one’s own agenda.  

How to deal with such narratives? 

To foster real change, we need to transition from highlighting problems to proposing constructive solutions. Individuals: 

• Should not jump to conclusions 
• Should understand motives and fact check  
• Should conduct Wider consultation of narratives  
• Counter narratives needs to be built with positive agenda. 

This solution-driven approach adds credibility and fosters meaningful conversations. By proposing viable solutions and backing opinions with facts, social media discussions can lead to positive changes, especially in the corporate world. 

Conclusion: A Call for Genuine Representation and Constructive Dialogue 

For leaders and decision-makers, it is crucial not to be swayed solely by public agendas and narratives. Instead, they should validate responses from all sections of their workforce. Leaders must ask themselves: Should they focus only on the most vocal voices, or should they adopt a balanced approach that addresses broader concerns such as safety, security, and livelihood continuance? 

It's time for us to adopt a holistic perspective. We shouldn't rely solely on social media, employee feedback, or influencer opinions. Instead, we need to conduct fact checks and consider a more comprehensive approach that represents the larger interests of the workforce, including those who may be less vocal but equally deserving of attention.