This is my first foray into the mist of CIPD online discussions and I have to admit to being a bit disappointed with the quality of some discussion for debate.
Not to say that the items listed are not relevant but I think it would be better to have an 'advice section' for those individuals who have simple questions about practice to be answered?
Then the space for discussions can be recogised and valued more as one where real debate will occur.
Hi Amanda, please add my welcome to the others above.
As one of the "great diversifiers" (or should that be "wafflers") on these threads I think that it is important to recognise that for those of us who contribute regularly "Communities" is something more than an "advice line" provided to other members: It is a two-way street from which I (and I believe others) gain also.
In my case the benefits are (basically) three-fold. In no particular order: One is widening my own knowledge both from practitioners experienced in fields of HR or sectors I business I am unfamiliar with and from people new to the profession but bringing fresh ideas or the most recent academic thinking as their contribution to discussions. The second is the opportunity to debate, sometimes robustly, assumptions made both by myself and others about our practice, our profession and our professional organisation; hopefully contributing to the development and progress of all three in a "safe" forum where even the most controversial professional issues may be approached, challenged and confronted freely and outside the contexts of either our obligations to our respective employers (or clients) or public scrutiny of our debate (and sometimes dissent).
The third benefit is that "Communities", almost as defined by its name, adds more personal contact between members (of all levels) putting a human "face" on names which would otherwise be simple signatures on a document, letter or contribution to "People Management".
So I do not feel I am just here to answer questions (particularly those which, as Julia intimates, have been answered in detail twenty times before!). I certainly feel it to be both a professional obligation and a personal pleasure to assist other members in any way I can, but providing answers to problems on demand is what I get paid to do as a consultant, it is not what motivates me to open up my e-mail at 10.15 on a Sunday morning!
Sometimes questions asked have simple direct answers but open up much greater depths regarding practice, professionalism or our organisational (i.e. CIPD) structures (particularly professional support and membership issues) and, given these "openings" I for one feel we should explore them, for several reasons but not least because challenging the status-quo is the only way to understand and develop ideas and ideals.
Many of these debates might go beyond the understanding (or interest) of those who visit the site only for a "straightforward" answer, but I feel we need make make no apology for that: In what other forum can the opinions of practising members of all levels meet and challenge each other?
...And yes: Some of the threads disintegrate into discussions of past-positions, careers, hobbies, music etc. But are these things not what make us the people we are and thus flavour our professional responses to the many personal issues we have to resolve and evaluate within our practice?
Or are we to take the "mechanistic" approach to HR management as being a numbers game of employees as "worker units" rather than responding to them as people also?
Sometimes contributors are also approached "off site" to provide advice and I suspect that in some instances is it the knowledge that there is a "person" behind the written answers we provide that encourages these contacts. Given some of the issues that I have been asked to provide advice on in this way, my personal opinion is that, if so, that encouragement has provided an essential lifeline to a number of members in extremely difficult and distressing circumstances.
So I would not presume to define what "Communities" is, but while many of us have already voiced the opinion that some index of advice on specific subjects would be desirable (if not essential) ....although this might not (and in my opinion should not) exclude more developed and complex answers..., what I would suggest "Communities" is not, and must not become, is a one-stop-shop for those too lazy to do their own research (either for exams or in their practice), those looking for a free "off the shelf" answer to corporate issues they should be examining more closely for themselves, or those seeking a no-fee stationery office providing generic documents for situations where they should be providing bespoke letters or agreements (all of which, as Julia mentions, have been asked for, obviously if not always openly, in the past).
In my perception: As an encyclopedia of instant answers we are thus neither perfect nor are we trying to be so; but we are a far richer mix of people and opinions bounded only by a genuine interests in what we do; a wish to help others succeed in their practice and our profession, and providing a welcoming and (usually) tolerant and supportive forum for the expression of ideas, opinions and disquiet for any member, be they affiliate, student or "Chartered F".
Or, if you prefer: Welcome to the bear-pit! :-)
Peter
Hi Amanda, please add my welcome to the others above.
As one of the "great diversifiers" (or should that be "wafflers") on these threads I think that it is important to recognise that for those of us who contribute regularly "Communities" is something more than an "advice line" provided to other members: It is a two-way street from which I (and I believe others) gain also.
In my case the benefits are (basically) three-fold. In no particular order: One is widening my own knowledge both from practitioners experienced in fields of HR or sectors I business I am unfamiliar with and from people new to the profession but bringing fresh ideas or the most recent academic thinking as their contribution to discussions. The second is the opportunity to debate, sometimes robustly, assumptions made both by myself and others about our practice, our profession and our professional organisation; hopefully contributing to the development and progress of all three in a "safe" forum where even the most controversial professional issues may be approached, challenged and confronted freely and outside the contexts of either our obligations to our respective employers (or clients) or public scrutiny of our debate (and sometimes dissent).
The third benefit is that "Communities", almost as defined by its name, adds more personal contact between members (of all levels) putting a human "face" on names which would otherwise be simple signatures on a document, letter or contribution to "People Management".
So I do not feel I am just here to answer questions (particularly those which, as Julia intimates, have been answered in detail twenty times before!). I certainly feel it to be both a professional obligation and a personal pleasure to assist other members in any way I can, but providing answers to problems on demand is what I get paid to do as a consultant, it is not what motivates me to open up my e-mail at 10.15 on a Sunday morning!
Sometimes questions asked have simple direct answers but open up much greater depths regarding practice, professionalism or our organisational (i.e. CIPD) structures (particularly professional support and membership issues) and, given these "openings" I for one feel we should explore them, for several reasons but not least because challenging the status-quo is the only way to understand and develop ideas and ideals.
Many of these debates might go beyond the understanding (or interest) of those who visit the site only for a "straightforward" answer, but I feel we need make make no apology for that: In what other forum can the opinions of practising members of all levels meet and challenge each other?
...And yes: Some of the threads disintegrate into discussions of past-positions, careers, hobbies, music etc. But are these things not what make us the people we are and thus flavour our professional responses to the many personal issues we have to resolve and evaluate within our practice?
Or are we to take the "mechanistic" approach to HR management as being a numbers game of employees as "worker units" rather than responding to them as people also?
Sometimes contributors are also approached "off site" to provide advice and I suspect that in some instances is it the knowledge that there is a "person" behind the written answers we provide that encourages these contacts. Given some of the issues that I have been asked to provide advice on in this way, my personal opinion is that, if so, that encouragement has provided an essential lifeline to a number of members in extremely difficult and distressing circumstances.
So I would not presume to define what "Communities" is, but while many of us have already voiced the opinion that some index of advice on specific subjects would be desirable (if not essential) ....although this might not (and in my opinion should not) exclude more developed and complex answers..., what I would suggest "Communities" is not, and must not become, is a one-stop-shop for those too lazy to do their own research (either for exams or in their practice), those looking for a free "off the shelf" answer to corporate issues they should be examining more closely for themselves, or those seeking a no-fee stationery office providing generic documents for situations where they should be providing bespoke letters or agreements (all of which, as Julia mentions, have been asked for, obviously if not always openly, in the past).
In my perception: As an encyclopedia of instant answers we are thus neither perfect nor are we trying to be so; but we are a far richer mix of people and opinions bounded only by a genuine interests in what we do; a wish to help others succeed in their practice and our profession, and providing a welcoming and (usually) tolerant and supportive forum for the expression of ideas, opinions and disquiet for any member, be they affiliate, student or "Chartered F".
Or, if you prefer: Welcome to the bear-pit! :-)
Peter
