• Replies 26 replies
  • Subscribers 20 subscribers
  • Views 16464 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Opinion: CIPD Qualification is in massive need of modernisation

Charles

Hey all,

I am a level 7 CIPD student, with two units left before I complete my course in July. I am currently employed as a HR Director in a small business (65~ employees), prior to this I worked at very large companies as a "People Professional" in some form, albeit more of an Operations position than an HR position.

Throughout the past 2-3 years of part-time studying, I have had this growing stance on the entire qualification:

The CIPD qualification produces great HR essay writers, not great HR professionals.

Why is there absolutely zero practical work for any of the qualification? It would be so much more enriching and effective it included:

  • Roleplays for very challenging disciplinaries
  • Mini assignment to plan, manage and roleplay redundancies within an organistion end-to-end
  • Tests to create a new organisational chart for a mock company
  • Having to write mock letters responding to a tribunal claim process, to develop technical writing.
  • Create a new reward structure for a mock company
  • Develop and present a company first People Strategy/Plan

There's so much opportunity to real and practical development. Instead every unit feels the same:

  1. Be assigned unit
  2. Buy prescribed book(s)
  3. Read prescried book(s)
  4. Write a 4000 word essay

I met someone on my course who has received a merit for an essay on the topic of redundancy, but has never actual conducted a redundancy meeting of any kind in their career. This is a bit like me saying I can drive because I passed the theory test but failed the practical.

Does anyone else feel this way? Considering how much stuff I see from the CIPD promoting the use of new technology, staying modern and ahead of the curve etc. the actual qualification seems remarkably old school.

Parents
  • Maybe....but as an alternate view as there haven't been many

    It rather depends what you think professional qualifications are there for, in the same way it rather depends what you think degrees and the like are there for. My first degree is in Politics (and great fun it was ) a bit of philosophy, a bit of history, a bit of economics, some debating (well lots) etc etc. Not of course equipping me with the skills to become a Politician (heaven forbid) but giving me (I hope) research skills, a logical inquisitive mind, certain organisational abilities, reasoning, presentation skills etc etc. Some of which have been pretty useful I hope both to me and my many employers over the years.

    Its similar (for me) with the CIPD framework. They are not designed (I believe) to give you the precise set of practical skills necessary to perform "X" role for "Y" organisation. Partly because that would be impossible to achieve in the time available and partly because different organisations and different roles need different X's. But what they are designed to do is introduce you to the broad concepts and issues that HR people should be thinking about and that we so rarely do. So for example motivation theory / engagement theory . Human psychology. etc etc. It should (and I do accept its a long time since I was there) give us the framework to construct a varied HR career rather than a predetermined set of skills. Giving people this foundation or framework is more important arguably in the long term than understanding what Clause 12 of the Equality Act says

    Two other thoughts. One of course is that formal professional/academic qualifications are only one part of the triumvirate that we should be considering. The second part is the professional membership the person holds which isn't solely or entirely based on qualifications but on experience and demonstrating competence in increasingly senior HR roles (and I have seen far too many HR Bods equate an academic qualification with a professional membership level incorrectly) . The final part is experience and work placed knowledge, no academic or practical set of courses will ever replace that (and in an AI world actually this is probably more true than ever before).

    The other and final thought is that we as HR bods are entirely (and uniquely) masters of our own destiny. CIPD Qualifications and indeed CIPD Professional Memberships levels are only important if we as HR Directors and Managers think they are. We are recruiting to our own teams and if we continue to put worth behind them they will continue to be important. As an unregulated profession (in the sense you don't have to be CIPD to become a HR bod) no one is forcing us to hire people with these qualifications but for some reason we do....
Reply
  • Maybe....but as an alternate view as there haven't been many

    It rather depends what you think professional qualifications are there for, in the same way it rather depends what you think degrees and the like are there for. My first degree is in Politics (and great fun it was ) a bit of philosophy, a bit of history, a bit of economics, some debating (well lots) etc etc. Not of course equipping me with the skills to become a Politician (heaven forbid) but giving me (I hope) research skills, a logical inquisitive mind, certain organisational abilities, reasoning, presentation skills etc etc. Some of which have been pretty useful I hope both to me and my many employers over the years.

    Its similar (for me) with the CIPD framework. They are not designed (I believe) to give you the precise set of practical skills necessary to perform "X" role for "Y" organisation. Partly because that would be impossible to achieve in the time available and partly because different organisations and different roles need different X's. But what they are designed to do is introduce you to the broad concepts and issues that HR people should be thinking about and that we so rarely do. So for example motivation theory / engagement theory . Human psychology. etc etc. It should (and I do accept its a long time since I was there) give us the framework to construct a varied HR career rather than a predetermined set of skills. Giving people this foundation or framework is more important arguably in the long term than understanding what Clause 12 of the Equality Act says

    Two other thoughts. One of course is that formal professional/academic qualifications are only one part of the triumvirate that we should be considering. The second part is the professional membership the person holds which isn't solely or entirely based on qualifications but on experience and demonstrating competence in increasingly senior HR roles (and I have seen far too many HR Bods equate an academic qualification with a professional membership level incorrectly) . The final part is experience and work placed knowledge, no academic or practical set of courses will ever replace that (and in an AI world actually this is probably more true than ever before).

    The other and final thought is that we as HR bods are entirely (and uniquely) masters of our own destiny. CIPD Qualifications and indeed CIPD Professional Memberships levels are only important if we as HR Directors and Managers think they are. We are recruiting to our own teams and if we continue to put worth behind them they will continue to be important. As an unregulated profession (in the sense you don't have to be CIPD to become a HR bod) no one is forcing us to hire people with these qualifications but for some reason we do....
Children
  • in reply to Keith
    Keith, you have put into words far more eloquently than I did! Thanks! As one who came from a first degree in History, the skills I learnt then on assessing evidence and opinions and reaching balanced conclusions about what is "reasonable" to accept, has stood me in good stead alongside what I learned on the IPM course. And I do strongly believe there is a place for theory, new ideas and academic research as part of our qualifications and CPD. But many of us also agree that the "practitising" - putting into practice/gaining workplae experience are important. We see so many students concerned that they have Level 7 or even PhDs in HR but can't get a position as a practitioner without actual experience, and many conversations about whether someone should go for a lower grade role or study even more that we are maybe in danger of giving mixed messages, to relate to your final point. I'm not sure what the answer is but we are part of the problem/solution as employers wanting to emply accredited professionals with practical competence, who, if all they have done so far is study, will not be able to demonstrate their competence in practice. But then even before relevant degrees and professional qualifications, everyone had to start somewhere without experience.....