“I’m doing a business studies course at the local university, where we have examined the role of the central bank in economic affairs. But I still don’t fully understand this role. Please explain to me briefly what the central bank does in the national economy.”
Let’s assume that you’ve received this question from a colleague and that, for whatever reason, you – as an HR professional – are the best placed person in your organisation to respond. How would you go about doing so? Would you dredge your mind for the information, or would you use the resources at your disposal to research your answer and provide an informed response?
Alternatively, let’s assume that you wonder whether someone else in your organisation, perhaps in your Finance department, may be better placed to respond.
Honestly, in real life, I could provide an answer to the question, particularly with access to some basic research tools such as Google. However, as someone who has little in the way of a financial background, I would tend to consider that a peer in my organisations finance department may be better placed to answer it. In fact, the way I look at it, my integrity obliges me to ensure that the question is answered by those that are best able to answer it (whether that’s me or someone else).
If my peers were to attempt to answer the question themselves, I may question the validity of this. If they were to attempt to answer the question without referring to relevant resources to inform their response, then quite frankly I may have to question their professionalism. Which, having spoken to colleagues past and present, is a view that they share.
Which leads me to the point of my post: why, to become “fully qualified” in the eyes of the CIPD, are we required to answer questions like this in a closed book exam? Surely there must be a better way to judge ones professional competence than by examining their ability to learn wide rafts of facts by rote.
