OK, so you can tell I’m still grappling with this, but regardless of what ‘it’ is called we need an idea of what ‘it’ actually is, right?
Personally, here is the best description of social business that I’ve seen so far (my emphasis):
Social business isn’t a state, it’s an acknowledgement that culture and technology has changed, and that organizations can leverage these changes to solve the same business problems that they have always had and will always have.
It comes from a slide presentation authored by Jacob Morgan. Unlike other quotes in his slides, it’s unattributed so I assume it’s his own. The rest of the presentation isn’t too sloppy either:
The thing that still doesn’t sit quite right with me, though, is the apparent amalgamation of the internal and external aspects that these changes bring about, and that seems to be where ‘social business’ is increasingly positioning itself. Whilst I completely support that one impacts the other and often an external problem requires an internal solution, I don’t think that they always have to be part of the same equation. It seems more like land grab from social business consultants and consultancies attempting to expand their remits.