I thought I had seen all the arguments about which function, within an organization, should “own” social media. I’ve argued that PR or communications is the logical home, since PR/comms is the only function in the organization accountable for the company’s reputation and the only function practiced in building relationships with stakeholders.

Reading Chris Kieff’s post yesterday, though, had me rethinking my position. Kieff—a freelance marketer who rights the 1 Good Reason blog—argues that social media is most properly housed in the Human Resources department.

My first thought on reading the post (which Scott Monty pointed out to me) was that the “who should own social media” meme has jumped the shark. I mean, HR? Really? Or perhaps Kieff tossed out a wholly nonsensical argument as a means of generating link bait.

Since everyone in an organization needs to abide by policies governing their social media activities, Kieff asserts, and HR is the keeper of policies, HR should be responsible for social media implementation.

I know, I know. My head was throbbing, too. Companies have travel policies, too; does that mean HR should manage the travel function? There are expense reimbursement policies. Should HR manage the expense function? And, incidentally, what in the world does HR know about communication with external audiences?

Incidentally, I’m sympathetic to HR staff everywhere. They get knocked about as the epitome of bureaucracy, but I’ve worked in and with HR in many organizations and find the vast majority of HR people to be smart, hard-working souls who are committed to their mission of recruiting and retaining the best possible workforce for their employers.

But HR should not own social media. In fact, reading Kieff’s post and the dozens of comments it inspired—and recalling all of the many arguments over social media ownership—have led me to revise my earlier thinking. No single department should own social media.

I was on the road earlier this week working with a company on the evolution of their intranet. Ownership of the intranet at this organization—as it is in so many others—is split among many departments. IT is responsible for technical implementation, communications for content, HR for self-service, and so on. This model is a recipe for problems. In most companies, each department makes decisions about the intranet based on departmental goals and objectives. No single department is accountable for the intranet’s overall direction. The funds to manage and evolve the intranet are split into many different pots.

Back in 2001, Melcrum Communications surveyed more than 500 intranet managers from around the world and found that the most successful intranets—the ones that achieve company-wide goals and get the most funding—are governed cross-functionally. That is, a collaborative or steering committee, rather than any one department or collection of departments with divided responsibilities—produce the best results.

Since a cross-functional model produced the best intranets, it should be no surprise to learn that—back in 2001—67.5% of intranets were governed this way. These cross-functional teams had CEO-level sponsorship, official charters, and high-level membership with the authority to get things done. They were empowered to convene subcommittees with expertise in technical, editorial, and design matters. They tended to be fairly high-level in their focus, spending their time on matters including…

• intranet mandate and vision
• business objectives
• policies and standardization
• project prioritization
• trouble-shooting and conflict resolution

Membership in this teams generally consisted of IT, internal communications, external communications, HR, and marketing. When the members of the team got together, they checked their departmental goals at the door and worked together for the common good of the company.

One other benefit of the cross-functional model: When the group made a decision, it was easier to get the organization to fall in line becayse the decision was made based on input from every group with a dog in the hunt, as opposed to an edict from a single department.

Every element of intranet governance applies to social media. The best way to stop arguing about who owns it is to make sure no single department dictates policy to the rest of the company and that all departments with a stake in the game can collaborate to come to the best decisions for the entire organization. Look at the list of issues intranet steering committees address—mandate/vision, business objectives, policies, prioritization, etc.—and you’ll see precisely what needs to be addressed for companies to employ social media intelligently and strategically.

It’s time for the power plays to come to an end and departments to work together for the good of the organization. Do you have a cross-function governance model for social media in your organization? How does it work?