Feedback Session 2 2 Effective use of ICT and Social Media in the Supply Chain workplace.

Jon Chambers

Drawing most attention from Jons presentation was the example of a supply chain strategy roll-out communication exercise whereby all senior managers were informed of a new strategic direction, which would implicate them all. Throughout the communication, all receiving managers were encouraged to voice their opinion, or seek clarification, through submitting Twitter comments to a common account. These tweets were shown live and answered either during the presentations or in emails afterwards..

Real-time Twitter feedback of a received communication is something experienced by many in the group. One distinct advantage seen was that the depersonalising of the feedback medium allowed even the less confident in a room to express their opinion. This prompted a wider discussion about the phenomenon, seen frequently in other social media platforms, where the personality expressed by an individual through their tweets, status updates, posts and re-posts can be very different from the publicly known (limited?) personality of that same individual expressed in a social gathering. In a workplace where Direct Leadership is required, such a web-leader would struggle to influence. As a consequence of the decreased barrier to contributions comes the risk of noisy self-serving comments, and the risk that the room in reading and reacting to comments, might be seen as being the final validator of comments (the more a comment is liked the more validity it has with inherent risks expressed in the previous discussion). For the effective use of social media as a consultative tool for a Leaders communication, there must clearly be rules to govern its use. In the case presented, the variables were effectively held constant by the choice of demographic (senior management) invited to participate with their comments. In another example discussed, a CEO had chosen to appeal directly to shop floor , clerical, administrative and junior employees rather than their boss layer. In a short discussion on feedback it was noted that social media is also subject to the editorial consequences of one employee filtering and regrouping feedback, and thereby deliberately, or otherwise, influencing or biasing the feedback. obtained.

A final short discussion centred around the tendency of Gen C to write first, think later. Contrary to the findings of Gen Y, where the Twitter message limitation is seen as a challenge, and makes the author think hard to convey everything they mean in one short message, Gen C tend to communicate with brevity, but do not test what they have written. That their tweet / status update might be re-tweeted / forwarded is often not considered, and that it might be open to misinterpretation by unintended recipient groups is rarely considered.
Although not yet a widespread practice, the increasing influence of a candidates webpersona on companies (less likely) or recruiting agencies (more likely) was clearly news to Gen C representatives. With this in mind, even their informal posts to facebook friends might be modified in future.

Whilst a good leader should be prepared to change his views based on feedback (assuming that the practice of seeking and giving feedback is culturally accepted / expected ) the question was raised as to whether such real-time feedback would lead to a shift in power in companies away from an Executive Board, and Management, to employees. This led to a short deviation into the more general topic of real time feedback and its use, and limitations, in the democratic process. Only interested people will feedback / contribute, but that is true of the current democratic process of one person one periodic, anonymous vote to elect a representative; the ease of access to vote might encourage greater participation. However, there is greater opportunity for uncontrolled media influencing of large popular movements, and for viral vote-rigging (UK readers will know the infamous Rick Astley incident). Finally, and of most concern, is for the silent majority being disenfranchised by a twitter-led mob, as seen in the Arab Spring uprising in Egypt (media reported huge numbers but this was really only a tiny, noisy, proportion of the electorate in two major cities. A different noisy minority overturned the resulting traditional democratic decision of the majority some months later). Bringing this discussion back to the industry workplace, it was clearly expressed that company strategy should not be a democratic process. Consultation (by the leader seeking opinion at all levels of a company) is greatly facilitated by Social Media, but it is still only the more interested who participate. The silent majority not sharing their opinions (on whether they will support, do nothing, or resist a change).

It was quickly noted by Gen C representatives that they felt a NEED to have a voice in their future employers decision-making process. When tested this appeared to be more a need to voice an opinion, rather than a need to be heard, there being no such strong need, or willingness, to take responsibility for making sure ones opinion is heard and acted upon. A Gen C comment, that they were in the marketplace, and that CEOs no longer were, caused an interesting discussion about leader CEOs versus manager CEOs (and that the best leaders were seen to be regularly in both todays markets, and in many other possible future markets). There was still general agreement that some communication channels into the Boardroom of real-time market experience gained / observed by employees (young and old) would be facilitated greatly in a future connected world, and that where this was common practice, the benefits to Gen C of being able to express their opinion would make such a workplace more attractive.

This led to a short review of the plenary discussion comment (made by a 50-something male academic) that the future is the younger generation, not us and that therefore companies should turn over strategic decisionmaking to their younger employees. The Gen C representatives were the first to express their opinion that this was nonsense. That their understanding of todays 20-something market, could give them no better insight of how that market will behave as 30- or 40-something year-olds, than could todays 40-somethings have predicted in their 20s how they would react to new, as yet un-invented products. Of course, to gain a better insight into the behaviours of todays 20-something market, and how company decisions might affect them, it might be useful to have a Gen C or two participating in company decision-making (as well as being wonderful experience for the Gen C), but whilst shadow boards have their place in many companies, these are additional means in a consultative process and not ends.