Back again… However, it is interesting that I have probably had more people start to follow my blog in my absence that I think I had sign up while I was actively posting. Or, maybe I’ve just been watching it more. In any case, now that I have started at my new company and am “back in the game” again, I am hoping to get back on top of current issues and keep the posts coming.

Top of mind for me right now is the flip flop that that HRPA is doing regarding practical qualifications for the CHRP designation. It is top of mind for me because I just wrote the May 2009 NPPA then read shortly after that the HRPA, after two more NPPA sittings, will be reverting back to the experience related practical requirement. While I understand that as a provincial professional body the HRPA went to the NPPA for national standardization, I would assume over the short time that the examination was in place, that a lot of controversy was raised regarding the validity of the designation based entirely on written examinations.

While in theory, the NPPA exam is based on practical experience, it is possible to write and pass that component having only studied and never held a position in a human resources function. So, let the debate begin… I’ve been in some recent forums dedicating bandwidth to both sides of this topic and there are two leading conversations happening – first, the experienced professionals agreeing with the move back to a practical assessment of professional experience; and, second, generally more junior individuals now clamouring to write one of the next two NPPA sittings to get the certification before an experiential requirement comes back into effect.

From a designation perspective, and providing a professional standard that employers and non-HR professionals can have confidence in, I think I lean more towards an assessed experiential requirement versus the written NPPA exam. While I understand the desire for individuals entering the HR professional to get a designation behind his/her name, I don’t think that in the long run the profession is gaining any ground by so easily granting designations without experience. Would you want a surgeon that has only studied textbooks and has not done internships and residencies? Would you want an engineer to design our skyscrapers when he/she does not have practical experience? What about chartered accountants having experience, your real estate lawyer having written prior contracts or the person who wired your house having gone through an apprenticeship program? I believe that the reputation of certified HR professionals have a standard to live up to and an obligation to employers to have a certain experience base that comes along with the designation. That is not to say that HR professionals without a designation are not valuable, but rather that a minimum of required professional experience be shown to ensure certified professionals bring the level of confidence that one would have of a doctor, a CA or a lawyer.

So… As the HRPA reintroduces the practical requirement to the CHRP, and I spew my comments and opinions above, let’s start the discussion on practical versus written.