17 January Management: The Central Social Function (...yardstick...)

[Paul Terlemezian]

What if the attempt to treat the training function as a business - that is expecting it to create profitable results is not the right thing to do?

 

What if we treated the training function like a non-profit organization or a charitable organization? This means that it would make its case for voluntary contributions and then tackle problems that we know cannot be solved but are still worthy of attention.

 

Would this work?

 

How is this different from what we are doing today in most organizations?

[Paul Terlemezian]

Nonprofit, charities and service organizations still need money in order to continue to do their work. I use Wikipedia routinely and have made a small voluntary contribution to it for several years.

Traditional business models expected a fee for service. Contemporary business models have creatively expanded the "power of free" via multi-sided segmentation of clients. Nonprofits have typically sought funds from one source and provided benefits to a completely separate entity.

Wikipedia - as a nonprofit - seeks funds from those that benefit - realizing that only a small fraction of those that benefit will actually respond. This is not really lack of gratitude - I think it reflects the "psychological contract" that Wikipedia extends - it promises free access to content. It is Ok for them to ask for money (quietly and non-aggressively) but they cannot "expect" money or even differentiate it's service to get money. LinkedIn differentiates its service - but it is a for profit. perhaps the LinkedIn approach is a better model for the "training function as a business" than the Wikipedia model. What model do you suggest for the training function?  Do you think the current business model for the training function is fine - as is?