Just to add, Barrister's Clerk is a new career pathway for many with the BVC.

I sincerely hope not. Chartered and Fellow grades are designed to certifty that by the application of a high level of knowledge the person has demonstrated through their operational experience those comptencies that are associated with the membership grade. I emphasize certification of applied knowledge through pertinent and increasing experience.

The fact that 47 years ago I qualified as a lifeguard (to be able to get a summer job in a swimming pool) shouldn't automatically qualify me to become a Fellow of the Royal Lifesaving Society - particularly since I haven't applied that knowledge in the last 40 years.....

Hi Andre

You have made a number of assertions in your opening paragraph of things “we all know” but if you reread the responses to the many other threads in which you have made these assertions, you will find a number of people disagreeing with you with some force and conviction. It is patently untrue that HR is closed to virtually all but those with the highest qualifications. As I recall, you have been adding to your own qualifications but become frustrated because you are not getting job offers.

You then mention some people who are able to get a foothold in HR “by hook or by crook” as if they are engaging in some kind of manoeuvring to wheedle or trick their way into work but many people get their first job in HR without qualifications - there has been at least one thread on here on the subject of how people got into HR.

It strikes me that in spite of the strength, number and consistency of the arguments made against your assertions in the many threads you have started, you have rejected all other perspectives and clung to your own beliefs, as witness your opening comments in this thread. Could this provide us with a clue as to why you are finding it so hard to progress? Is it because you are demonstrating through the recruitment process that your mind is closed to any ideas apart from your own?

Member CIPD and Fellow CIPD are not long service awards like a gold watch or a letter from the Chairman. But are recognition of professional status and the level of your contribution.

If we ever move to awarding them based on longevity the CIPD will be finished as a professional organisation.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

I recognise that it can work for and does happen for other people, but as I am more of a special type of person with an element of 'neurodiversity' added into the mix, it does not work for and / or happen to me or in my case. That has been clearly proven overtime with large volumes of applications and interviews. I belong to a different group of people in society that differ slightly from the mainstream norm who do not have neurodiversity in that respect. Therefore, I have come to accept it overtime, but essentially wish to know that with the cards that I do have dealt with here and to deal with, how far can I make it work or stretch it to work in my specific case?

People have advised to come to terms with certain circumstances which I have, but what I essentially wish to know and have answered is this:

The current pattern and evidence to date clearly indicates as a given that I am not going to go or be able to go any further or deeper into this profession from the perspective of job role level. Therefore, what can you do over an extended period of time with advanced level qualifications coupled with working as an HR Administrator? Can one compensate for or bring the other one up in terms that ability has clearly been demonstrated in getting the education even if I could not get the jobs?

This scenario is just not unique to HR but in other professions and fields over the past as well. I can get the education but cannot get the jobs and after having taken professional advice on the matter, neurodiversity has both emerged and been attributed as a clear indicator and common denominator here in terms of consistent reason(s) of why always others but never myself.

'They are people who are more normal in that respect, or less unique than I am.'

Essentially, I don't pick up automatically on the subtleties of social interaction, social communication, social cues and the more unwritten social norms and rules of society, which can be more problematic in any employment based situation or working in more advanced level roles. Certain thing don't come or flow entirely naturally to me and I can't readily do people skills in that respect, which can also be an issue or a red flag in a people management oriented profession.

In short, I don't automatically get or understand the rules governing human interaction in society, which can easily place question marks and sow doubts in the minds of interviewers if other candidates can or can do more easily.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

Here is the scenario which as suggested by professionals can have an effect either on employment or first being selected for employment in the first place, and which I have:

Difficulties with Social Communication

 Difficulty imagining what others may be thinking or feeling

 Difficulty adapting a communication style to take into account who you are talking to and the social expectations of the situation

 Difficulty ‘reading’ other people and working out their motivations and intentions

 Difficulty of understanding humour and sarcasm

 Difficulty using language to talk about feelings

 Taking things literally

 Tendency to dominate the conversation with personal interests

 Logical and truthful to an extent that may inadvertently be hurtful/irritating to others

Difficulties with Social Interaction

 Managing social boundaries e.g. identifying ‘safe’ topics of conversation for differing levels of friendship

 Acutely aware of ‘difference’ from others and a feeling of ‘being on the periphery’

 Difficulty developing relationships from acquaintance to friend and speaking to strangers

 A logical and unemotional approach to social interaction and social relationships

In reply to Andre:

Andre

Not a direct answer to your question but the CIPD does recognise one other route to professional status. Via Academic members, fellows etc.

See

www.cipd.co.uk/.../academic

It might be an option for you to convert your passion for HR into an academic career rather than trying to deal with the challenges you clearly face in securing advancement as a practitioner?

Clearly you face a number of challenges with your neuro-diverse background. As a practitioner you know that all employers have to make reasonable adjustments - the question for you is in reality given some of the issues and advice you have highlighted do you think its actually possible for an employer to make REASONABLE adjustments to allow you to succeed as a practitioner in HR or are they of a level that actually the root of the problem is that the adjustments necessary go beyond the reasonable and into territory that employers can not go.

Meaning that if you want to continue to develop a HR career you need to either find a way for an employer to make these reasonable adjustments or to find another path. You have impressive academic qualifications - could you find a way to build on these as a researcher or something similar that allows your neuro-diverse characteristics to benefit you in some way rather than appearing to hold you back?

In reply to Keith:

Hi Keith,

My main weakness is people and soft skills. I can do it but it's more an uphill struggle and never really flows. What is your view on letting everyone know that in advance that is the case and asking for them to make exceptions for it during a meeting if I say something a bit different or out of context?

My overall style is more direct and to the point, telling people how it is. I have a good understanding here of my strengths and weaknesses, but it's more the small talk and office banter that I don't fit so easily to or are more an outsider to in that respect.

Andre.

In reply to Andre:

I think maybe that you are misunderstanding the feedback

The soft skills are essential to many / most practitioner HR jobs. Our role is to both build the architecture for the business to develop its people and also to offer insight and professional judgement to key people decisions. These rely on many things that you would class as "soft skills". Its judgement, understanding nuances, reading people etc all things you might well struggle with.

Yes by all means try and position your interventions by explaining your own style and impact and how this is affected by your neuro-diversity. But if you can not read an MD or a candidate, or understand the interactions being played out between a FD and an MD in a meeting then jobs (like a HRD where you need to do this each and every day) arent going to be an option for you no matter how much you explain.

To go back to my earlier answer - whilst explaining your neuro-diversity would indeed be a reasonable adjustment - would this actually solve the issues - I tend not to think so.

My guess from all your posts is that you struggle to understand far more than small talk or office banter. Sorry to be blunt - but you need to face up realistically to what interventions an employer could make on your behalf and if they will work

Andre

I'm afraid I have to add my voice to the criticism of your comments, especially with regard to the implication that HR is some sort of "closed shop" where only the right connections, a funny handshake, or at least fifty grey-hairs to the inch "buy" your way in.

Unlike law, medicine, accountancy or gas-fitting, we are not a profession requiring "registration" before practicing: Anyone can call themselves an "HR Professional", be they someone fresh out of University dripping with degrees and PGCs, or the lowest pay clerk in the pecking order who is told his/her role is now: "...sorting out the bl**dy workers and their moans and groans", and also including someone fed up with getting £75 a week who thinks they might apply for an HR role at the local sweat-shop, who want someone to "hire and fire". 

(...and all of whom might be similarly unready to practice HR professionally at any senior level)

So employers get the HR Practice they want to pay for or seek to manipulate; not that which we as a profession would like to offer them.

That said, the value of "real" HR Practice has gained in value and credibility over the 30 years or so I have been practicing it (in one form or another) thanks largely to the gaining of our Charter and the efforts of CIPD to make it, at the very least, a structured profession with clear and relevant levels of competence, culminating in Chartered Membership and Fellowship; which are neither time-based nor indeed academic-learning based, but can better be thought of as awarded when the mix of what we know and what we understand, both academically and about people (as people and not just as "employees") give us sufficient insight to earn those accolades.

That is not to say that there are no legitimate criticisms possible of how CIPD functions, or how it awards qualifications, or indeed why it has not pushed harder (if at all) to require registration (given the damage that incompetent or over-confident HR practice can do to both companies and people), but what is absolutely certain is that the apparent scarcity of higher-level HR jobs is not down to the operation of some clandestine "old boys'/girls' network", but the demand for competence by (responsible) employers of people (and HR professionals) in an increasingly hazardous and litigious employment and business environment.

Without that "current fluency" of practice built up in more junior or supported roles we are a potential menace!

To take my own case: After some years of (nominal) retirement, and in spite of keeping up to date with (most) leading progressions in HR (or trying to) I for one would not consider myself anywhere near competent to take on a leading HR role for a company at this time without "stepping down" and coming back up to speed first, in spite of my 14 years as a Chartered Fellow and 24 years membership of (C)IPD, with a whole lot of "HR by any other name" before that! (...and irrespective of the mentoring I still do privately, some of it at very senior level with people in very large businesses, and/or my various submissions and exchanges here in the Community.

Without rancour: You repeatedly offer your opinions of why you seem to be unsuccessful in obtaining a role at a level you believe you deserve, and why this is due to the Profession: Its "failures" or "secret societies", or systems; seemingly without regard for the realities of the profession we practice, the years that we (all members) have struggled to establish its value and strategic relevance, and the fact that within today's business environment, and in such a complex professional field, "one size" of skill-set does not fit all. So all the academic learning in the world, alone, is not going to fit any HR practitioner for stepping straight into a multi-functional generalist HR role at senior level.

It is not the profession, or how it functions, or who crosses whose palm with silver, that prevents "simply anyone" from being appointed to senior roles; it is maturity (but not age); running toward the flame instead of away from it; providing workable answers and not just mechanistic systems of control, and remembering to use the words: "thank you" when extra effort is made on your (or the company's) behalf. Whether that be by a member of the Board, or the guy sweeping the car park. (...Or indeed the members trying to provide relevant answers "pro-bono" here). All those things  (and a whole lot more) make up the "fit" for senior roles and eventually Chartered Memberships and Fellowships.

...and personally, as probably one of the older contributors on these pages, I find any suggestion that my competence assessed award of Fellowship in 2004 might have been due to my age rather than the damned hard work I put in to turning my experience into my portfolio, frankly insulting.

....Which reminds me: H.U.B.S. has still got it! They asked to retain it as an example for others to emulate... Thank you for reminding me.....

P

In reply to Keith:

My mind interprets, analyses information and draws conclusions in another way to that of most other people. With unwritten social nuances, cues and rules, the problem is that I cannot read them as I cannot easily presume what a person may or may not be thinking as everyone reacts to or takes things in a different way. The other issue is that I am interested in HR but can't do human relations myself. These are largely things which you are either born with or not. I have tried taking classes in social thinking therapy which addresses social skills difficulties by developing understanding of other people's intentions, emotions, motivations and then responding accordingly to them, but its still an uphill struggle to articulate and express it naturally.

Put another way, I do not automatically take to people who I don't know like ducks to water, buy into group think but have more my own unique style, approach and personality. In short, I am more an outsider who hovers on the edges and prefers to do things individually then as part of a group.

I also struggle to notice subtle differences in speech, body language and behaviour and most other people are able to pick up automatically on.

The Equality Act 2010 however makes certain provision for this, so if someone like Boris Johnson who makes the occasional gaffe and is more of an unconventional maverick can possibly get a PM's role, could someone still get a Senior HRD's role even if they tend to trip up from time to time over human interaction and social relationships?

The main advantage here is that I have a very clear understanding of this deficiency. can explain / justify it very well and also apply the strategy of telling people that I did not pick up on or interpreted it in this other way as I have XYZ, yet the law says that provision must still be made for ABC.

It therefore comes down to a twin issue of functionally and capability.

In reply to Andre:

Andre

All I can really usefully say is to repeat my earlier comment. You are not listening to the feedback you are being given.

If you reread above and try and see it from a different angle it might help.

Good luck. I fear these constant debates aren’t actually helping you.

In reply to Andre:

I'm afraid that your asking the question as to whether the occasional "gaffe" or "tripping up" over human interaction is permissible, as it were as a precondition to your practice, seems to answer for itself whether you would be suitable for a Senior HRD role.

Would the holder of the key to our nuclear deterrent ask if an occasional "gaffe" in its use is permissible? Does Johnson, regardless of what one thinks of him, believe himself that leaving the EU without a "deal" (or at all) will be a disaster? Would he ask for "reasonable adjustments" to be made so that someone else could do the tricky stuff while he just did the admin', but still got paid the salary, had the car, lived in No10 with weekends a chequers.... etc.?

I suggest the answer to all would be "No".

Your actions as an HRD would have effects on people's lives. You fail to overturn a bad disciplinary decision on appeal and that's someone's mortgage unpaid; their kids birthday and Christmas wishes unfulfilled, possibly their relationships breaking down. You make a bad decision on how someone's grievance should be reflected by a change in policy and that could affect whether an ET1 lands on someone's desk claiming £x tens of thousands in discrimination at a later time, potentially destroying the business and all those (including ourselves) dependent on it. (It has happened). You approve a blanket ban on FW as it seems impractical in your "systematic" approach to HRM and that means a mother cannot keep working, or a father's wish to share his child's precious early years more fully will be lost.... forever.

Those are the sort of errors we know any one of us might make (and almost certainly will), but we must never consider them as being acceptable: "Permissible", as "reasonable adjustments".

Simply because they are not "reasonable" errors to permit, though they might be forgivable (as a fact of HR practice in the circumstances of the case). We do not accept others suffering detriments for our predicted lack of competence or ability. No matter what its cause. It is a simple matter of good faith. We practice in good faith, or not at all.

P

In reply to Andre:

Hello again Andre

I suggest you Google some job descriptions for HRD roles and analyse them in the light of your fourth, fifth and sixth posts in this thread. HRD roles vary somewhat, so don’t just pick one; pick several. Try and form a realistic opinion on how many of the main tasks and responsibilities someone with the characteristics you list in that post could perform and the experience and skills the person would need.

I imagine that list in your fourth post is generic and applies typically, rather than being personalised to you, therefore there might be some parts of an HRD role that you could perform that someone else might have difficulty with. We can’t judge this but you can.

Once you have formed a view on which parts of the job you would need adjustments to carry out, then you can think about what adjustments would allow you to carry them out and whether an employer is likely to find them reasonable.

Do you have a mentor? Is there anyone you would trust sufficiently to discuss this exercise with?

In another post you quoted some advice you were given about playing to your strengths. I think that was wise advice. On the evidence of how you present yourself in these discussion threads, in an HRD role (or HRBP) you wouldn’t be playing to your strengths. You would not just make the odd social gaffe which people could understand once they knew that you have what you described as a deficiency, you would consistently misread situations and misunderstand what was said to you. You would misread the intentions of the people interacting with you. I think you’d be completely at sea. You have said that you “tell it how it is”. Actually, it seems to me that you tell it how you see it. The problem is that how you see it might be quite unlike how it is but no one can convince you otherwise, which might link back to a difficulty reading people and situations.

I can’t see a good outcome for you if you keep on trying for roles where you lack the soft skills on which success, or even a merely tolerable performance, depends. You must be very interested by HR to be so persistent; you clearly have an analytical mind and an aptitude for study so I’d advise you to give Keith’s suggestion of considering a career as an academic serious consideration.

I am being very blunt because I realise from the information you have provided that it is hard for you to pick up hints or polite circumlocutions and I need to flex my style in order to communicate effectively with you. I hope I haven’t misread you and caused you offence or hurt.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

Dear Elizabeth,

Many thanks for your reply and I act as a CIPD mentor myself, advising people on how to get back to work, as I have previous experience in that. I will however look into your suggestion of finding a Mentor to assist with this.

Academia suits me well, but the issue with my style is that it is more direct and to the point. People tend to know exactly where they stand with me, and with having neurodiversity, I tend to interpret things more literally and do not so easily laugh at the same jokes (I have my own sense of humour) or pick up on sarcasm or innuendo in the workplace so easily. I have a highly analytical and scientific mind and also fully understand what Keith said that there is a finite limit in terms of what reasonable adjustments an employer can make for that. Ultimately, you can either perform a role such as Chief Head of People to the necessary level and standard or not. But if you can't do the job, that is then a key legal ground under capability to dispense with someone's services.

I can do soft skills, but how they subtlety flow and come out is not so natural and I have to make more of an effort with them. What I have also tried to do is to try for HR roles in countries (where I can also speak the language) such as The Netherlands, Germany and also the USA where they tend to be more direct and to the point than the UK. The beating around the bush has never been my style, although I also recognise that it often comes down more to what people don't say than what they do say. I have also looked at self-employment as well.

Therefore, the issue is that I am in a people based profession but struggle with people skills myself and are also not interested in the IT side of HR. We all have our own respective personalities, strengths and cannot change who and what we are, but I personally view this more as a challenge and opportunity to perhaps prove that although I am weaker on the soft skills side, I can still bring it up to the necessary level and standard by successfully navigating the minefield of human relations. They are and can be difficult from time to time.

* After all, even people who don't have neurodiversity are still not 100% perfect and completely ept in social interaction and can still find these things difficult from time to time. I just tend to more them 'slightly more difficult than the average person,' such as also pitching my conversation at the right level, in the right context and the right things to say. *

If it however helps, some of the greatest brains in the world had this condition as well, such as Albert Einstein, so it can also provide a set of key strengths and skills that the average person without it does not have either.

Kind regards

Andre