So, I happened on over the the HRPA site today to get my exam results. (Yay… I passed the NPPA and have my CHRP designation now) And, what did I see splashed right at the top of the main page?

“HRPA is pleased to announce the Senior Human Resources Professional (SHRP) designation–a new HR designation reserved for senior HR executives that have made significant impact on their organizations and the profession.”

Well, if you recall back in June, I had an entry about the recent changes to the CHRP designation process and some comments that followed. In one of my comment responses I spoke about the following:

“If you recall back in the day, I believe that the HRPAO officially used the CHRM and the CHRP to signify varying stages of completion on the certification process. Perhaps the solution would be to have more than one recognized level of certification where the CHRP is the top tier indicating proficiencies in knowledge AND experience, while there is one or two levels below (perhaps a CHRM) that might indicate technical competence, but without the experiential component.”

What a great idea. While I was a little off in the titling of each of the levels, the basic concpt is there. This, however, does not change the fact that the CHRP is going back to experiential and now there is the new gold seal approved SHRP for well season and experience true HR leaders.

Guess that begs the question then… Should there be 3 levels? CHRM for theoretical knowledge (test based and maybe without the BA requirement), CHRP for experienced mid-level HR practitioners (perhaps having the CHRM plus the re-introduced experiential process) and the SHRP for the well-respected elite of HR (which, I do think is a great way to recognize, reward and respect those who have worked hard to further themselves, their companies and the profession).

While represented by different granting bodies, I have mentioned before that the financial profession has CGA, CMA and CAs. (pretty much in that ranking from lowest to highest) Why not us?

Guess I’ll dust off that crystal ball again and see what the future holds? Or, maybe I should go out now into the world with my fancy new CHRP designation and become involved with the people who make the decisions. Do I get re-cert points for doing that?

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.