If the etymology of the words Social Business are broken down and examined, there are some glaring redundancies. Leaning on Wikipedia (thanks Jimmy Wales) to support my assertions, the term social refers to the interaction of organisms with other organisms and their collective co-existence. The term business refers, fairly obviously, to the state of being busy. This busyness results in commercially viable and profitable work. So in broad brush strokes, business is essentially all activity conducted by a community of suppliers of goods and services.
If business requires community, and community is inherently social, why is the term social business growing like a weed in business lexicon? I’m itching to pull out my weed wacker and set things straight.
Consider every job placement. Every business transaction. Every partnership reached. Every merger and acquisition. Every team goal achieved. Each is contingent upon the formation of one or more relationships – which are inherently social. Given this rather obvious statement, how can business not be social?
Even when stripped of contracts or money, an agreement amongst two people can drive business. As the London Stock Exchange‘s motto goes, “dictum meum pacturn” – “my word is my bond.” The LSE took kindly to this motto beginning in 1801, where bargains were made without documents or written confirmations exchanged. The relationship – of a social nature – served as the fulcrum of business.
The Social Business movement has all the right intentions: creating equal distribution of voice across the enterprise, encouraging bottom up collaboration, listening to customers and flattening complex hierarchies. But unfortunately this movement is suffering a severe identity crisis. It’s one thing to come up with a whimsical name for a product, but Social Business is a painful misnomer that should be eradicated. The entire market suffers legitimacy issues when such a poor term is used to blanket describe the sharing and collaboration between internal employees and external partners.
Jacob Morgan posted a tidy summary of all the opinions raised on this subject after Enterprise 2.0 Santa Clara 2010 wrapped. The Enterprise 2.0 vs. Social Business debate was originally triggered by Andrew McAfee, who called BS on the “S word” back in December 2009. His definition of Enterprise 2.0, by his own admission, is “narrow, corporate, and managerial” and conjures up images of agile, efficient business, not beer pong in the break room. Social Business admittedly has a younger, fresher feel to it, but once you move beyond the fluffy connotation, the term is superfluous and downright irritating.
Social Business, yay!
Didn’t we learn at school not to use a word when stating that word’s definition? Apparently a few of us skipped school that day. Here is one exceedingly poor definition of a social business:
A social business is an organization designed consciously around sociality and social tools, as a response to a changed world and the emergence of the social web, including social media, social networks, and a long list of other advances.
I count 5 socials.
I’m all for a healthy debate, but let’s at least adhere to proper grammar.
