In my experience working internally with a large corporation, I found that it helped to be “strategic” with the people who are included on the SM team. It definitely helps to include specific people from the more conservative functional areas such as legal or finance who you know are progressive and interested in trying new things. They will help position new initiatives within their functional areas so anyone who is more resistant to change can have a trusted voice telling them it’s OK.

Further, if anyone asks about what those crazy folks in Social Media are doing, you can say with confidence that you’ve got the backing of legal/regulatory/finance….all the functional areas that are traditionally charged with risk mitigation for the organization. And they’ll help identify possible risk areas so you don’t hang yourself out to dry with new initiatives.

I appreciate this post and 2nd it. Plus I have done some spare time business models and org structures that support…..

So thank you Kate

There are ways to keep everyone involved, participating, and aligned in the right direction. For instance, you could create work groups, composed of relative specialties, that pertain to specific organizational tasks- e.g. servicing, listening, collaboration.

In my opinion, the role of this committee isn’t always gaining consensus. The individuals that comprise it should act as evangelists within their business units, in addition to completing the duties they’ve been tasked with.

I understand what you’re trying to convey, but is it perhaps a tad idealistic? Maybe it just requires some clarity around what size organizations are able to operate this way. Larger, enterprise class companies have the resources. Smaller to medium sized firms, on the other hand, will struggle.

The larger the team becomes the slower and less effective it will become as “death by committee” takes hold. Additionally, every executive and the business unit(s) they’re responsible for will be driven by different priorities at different times, resulting in resource allocations that aren’t aligned very well and bog things down even more. They all have different agendas at different times. Some own a P&L, some don’t. Some have enough bodies, some don’t. Some have a clue, some don’t.

In my view it’s far more important that there are simple, well defined business processes followed by a small, nimble team with clear executive ownership. The goal of enabling attainable and measurable results for the business is what matters most so adjustments in strategy, tactics, and overall approach can be made to suit changing conditions.

Put more simply – you’ll struggle getting them all in a meeting room at the same time, let alone get anything accomplished. Keep it small. Keep it focused. Keep it agile.

In fact, I wrote an eerily similar piece earlier this year. http://www.danpontefract.com/?p=343

cheers
dp