CIPD qualifications: Essential for getting ahead in HR in 2012?

• HR Careers 2011/2012 XpertHR Benchmarking subscribers can access the complete results data from this survey.

• Benchmarking HR careers in 2011/2012 Read more about the key findings from this survey.
• HR careers survey 2011: Qualifications versus business experience Read XpertHR's detailed analysis of the survey findings.
• Five ways to find the benchmarking data you need How to find exactly the data you need from XpertHR Benchmarking.
  

Comments
Here we reproduce the comments on this post submitted by readers of XpertHR Employment Intelligence:

I'm in agreement with Sinead and is the core of my reluctance to formally join the CIPD. As an organisation they seem to be doing a good many thing, but as with Person 1, I have mixed feelings about their relevance. Doug Shaw has noted on a post of his about getting involved and helping to make the change happen, and this is a valid point. And Rob Jones recently wrote a post about getting the stripes to be able to brag about. But I am stuck with knowing that there are a good many other organisations I can better affiliate myself with who do provide the relevance to my needs and will help me progress in L&D as I need.
Posted by Sukhvinder Pabial | January 16, 2012 11:02 AM

Thank you very much indeed for taking the time to comment here, Sukh. Your input into this debate is very much appreciated.
I'm interested in the point you make about having "mixed feelings" as regards the relevance of the CIPD. Do you perceive this lack of relevance as having to do with your specific needs as a Learning and Development specialist, or is it for some other reason?
And have you come up against situations in which not having CIPD qualifications has had an impact on your ability to progress in your career?
Thank you also for your references to recent blog posts from Doug Shaw and Rob Jones.
I would very much like to share links to these two posts with XpertHR's readers. From a bit of searching of their blogs, I think these are probably the posts you mean (but please do let me know if they are not the correct posts):

• Rob Jones: The one with the stripes 
  

• Doug Shaw: Changes

Posted by Michael Carty Author Profile Page | January 16, 2012 11:22 AM
I go back to the basic point that I wouldn't recruit an accountant who didn't hold one of the recognised accountancy qualifications, so equally I wouldn't want an HR person who was not CIPD qualified.
I do appreciate that there has been an issue in the past with Learning and Development professionals, but actually think this has been partially rectified with the new Level 5/7 diplomas where - apart from the core modules - candidates can study exclusively L&D elements and still get the qualification.
Posted by Simon Jones | January 16, 2012 3:14 PM

@ Simon Jones, hello, if this is the case, then either I have not been made aware of it from the CIPD or I have not sought it out clearly enough myself. Both of these are in fact true, yet I am also inclined to comment that when I have attended the HRD exhibition the last two years, nothing has been promoted that this is something the CIPD has to offer L&D professionals.

@ Michael Carty, I've not personally faced challenges with qualifications as the roles I've applied for have not required it, but I am aware it can be a barrier for experienced professionals where I do not think it holds relevance to the abilities, skills or competence of the individual.
Posted by Sukh Pabial | January 16, 2012 5:20 PM

Simon is limiting his opportunities unnecessarily. I know some great HR people who are qualified, and some great ones who are not. Equally I've observed some crap HR people who are qualified and some crap ones who are not.

Qualifications have their place, hell even I've got some (not specifically HR focussed mind). And they are of little value without practice and purpose.

So I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my employers and clients who have trusted me to manage a large TUPE transfer, set job and performance standards, write incentive plans, design staff surveys (well we all make some mistakes!), recruit staff, discipline staff, and a whole bunch of other engagement and communication stuff too. Trusted me, my experience and my enthusiasm, not my lack of HR qualifications.
Posted by Doug Shaw | January 17, 2012 8:23 AM

I don't disagree at all with Doug's first paragraph - there are some good people who are not CIPD qualified and some not very good ones who are. My point is that having the CIPD - when I know nothing else about an individual - indicates to me that there is a level of understanding about the profession which may or may not be there with an unqualified candidate. It's (or it should be) a minimum quality standard.

Again my comparison with accountants stands - if you had a choice between individual A who held a recognised accountancy qualification and individual B who didn't, which would you choose to be your Finance Director?
Posted by Simon Jones | January 17, 2012 10:16 AM

It strikes me that the XpertHR survey question posed is not about the learning that the CIPDs' Qualifications provide per se...
The responses reflect what UK HR professionals see as being vital for advancement in the HR profession. If 4/5ths of respondents are CIPD members then it's perhaps unsurprising that 70% agree that CIPD qualifications are vital.
What is inscrutable from the response is whether it's a "badge" that is required or whether the learning gained studying from CIPD qualifications provides real value.
The likelihood is that neither fully assures competence in role but perhaps that's a completely different question!
Posted by David Goddin | January 17, 2012 10:52 AM

Thanks one and all for the latest batch of comments! Quite a debate brewing here!

@Simon Thank you for the comments, and for pointing Sukh in the direction of CIPD qualifications that you feel might be of interest to him.

@Doug: "Qualifications have their place [but] they are of little value without practice and purpose." Hear hear!

@David. That is a great question you pose: Is having an HR qualification (for example from the CIPD in the UK or from SHRM in the US) just a "badge" that is required, or does the learning provide real value? I'd love to get the opinions of XpertHR readers on this question...
Posted by Michael Carty Author Profile Page | January 17, 2012 2:39 PM

To Simon's second contribution, I'm unconvinced of the value of such a qualification as a minimum standard, given we both agree that sadly, there are some poor practitioners out there who are qualified.

And to take the point about accountants, when I read through all the terms in the relationship between me and my accountant it boils down to trust. There are more get outs in the Ts and Cs than I can shake a stick at.

I sense a circular argument coming on :)
Posted by Doug Shaw | January 17, 2012 3:22 PM

Thought I would expand on my comments made earlier in the week. Commenting today is particularly pertinent as I completed my final CIPD exam this morning and with just my dissertation to complete by summer I have nearly earned my stripes!

As mentioned before, I embarked upon my qualification because at the time every employer I engaged with put emphasis upon it. As an L&D professional the qualification at the time did not align with much of the activities I was involved with. Living in Northern Ireland I was limited to suppliers. For example, MOL offer choice within electives so potentially you could choose L&D focused modules. Unfortunately, MOL did not have enough interest in NI so I took the university route by completed a masters in HRM.

Surprisingly I found a new passion for other areas of HR like employee engagement and performance management (my new obsession!). This coupled with an evolution within my organisation led to me moving into my now role as HR Manager. Without doubt the qualification has helped me, but it was the knowledge gained through my studies as well as the opportunities I was afforded to utilise this knowledge within the business environment that has really driven my learning. Real life practice with real people!

Qualifications are not for everyone and more recognition needs to be given to those within the profession that have earned their stripes through meaningful work and experience. I also believe that CIPD needs to provide better routes for those within the profession to gain accreditation in a way that is valid to their specialism.

Would also wholeheartedly agree with the post Michael references above by Doug Shaw.

Over the last year I have gotten involved in branch events and I feel the quality of these events has improved greatly (and the ticket price!). I pay a fee every year for my CIPD membership so I am going to make sure that this offers me value for money, and this means getting involved. I am even considering offering my time to the local branch to fill the void left by study!

Hope this has expanded upon some of the points I made earlier to Michael.

S
Posted by Sinead Carville | January 17, 2012 9:36 PM

From my perspective, there is a difference between and accountant and an HR person. The Accounting qualification is an example of what i call "qualify to practice". The CIPD is different in that it is a "qualify to shine". So Simon is wrong to compare them directly.
The HR profession undoubtedly sees value in having a formal set of qualifications, especially for those starting out in their career and i dont think there is anything wrong with that. But the HR profession is increasingly made up from others who are going straight into specialist roles from Uni, something that didn't happen in the good old generalist days!
The challenge (and the opportunity!) for the CIPD is to remain relevant to the individual and the profession, as these people progress throughout their career. Speaking personally, as my HR career progressed, the CIPD became less relevant because my needs were more business driven, not purely HR or policy driven. So for example, i looked to organisations like Demos, Trendwatching, The Future Laboratory, Corporate Leadership Council etc etc for my insight, not the CIPD.
Looking ahead, I know that the CIPD is changing and aims to address the issues raised by out anonymous friend. To him I would simply say the same things i said in my blog here:
http://garethjones.me/2011/11/28/hr-your-community-needs-you/.
I would also recommend he reads dougs post, as referred to by Sukh above. you can read that here:
http://stopdoingdumbthingstocustomers.com/hr/changes/.
Posted by Gareth Jones | January 17, 2012 11:07 PM

Thank you for this latest crop of comments in what is shaping up to be a fascinating (and increasingly international) debate!
@Sinead Congratulations on completing your final CIPD exam yesterday, and my fingers are crossed that you do extremely well! I particularly like the point you make about the importance of "real life practice with real life people." It's also great to hear that you are enjoying and apparently benefiting greatly from your increased involvement with CIPD activities.
@Doug "It all boils down to trust." Equally applicable to HR as to accountants? ; )
@Gareth From your comment, it almost sounds like CIPD qualifications are both "qualify to practice" and "qualify to shine," although the balance between these two factors would seem to be shifting, with the first of these two factors arguably becoming much less relevant in some cases. Thank you for posting a link to your recent post about community...great minds are clearly thinking alike here, as the excellent Charlie Judy (@HRFishbowl) gave a similar response regarding the vital importance of community to the related discussion I've set up over on Focus.com. Charlie's response is quoted in Update 8 to the original post, above.
Posted by Michael Carty Author Profile Page | January 18, 2012 6:42 AM

I think education is not a means to the qualification end but an end in itself.
So when I recruit graduates into my firm, I'm interested in people who have had the gumption to go to university and get a decent degree because that tells me things about them, not because I think a knowledge of Medieval History (or whatever) will make them great at the roles that we have for them. On the same basis, when I recently recruited HR folks in the UK I was interested in the C&B candidate's legal degree and MSc in International Business. I was interested in the HRM candidate's MA in Business and Finance. In both cases, the qualifications told me that they were curious people who were keen to invest in learning and that makes them a good fit for me and for the roles that I had for them. In both cases, a CIPD qualification would have delivered the same value in assessing their potential fit but in neither case would that have been more important to me than their functional experience and cultural fit with the team I was building. In earlier roles when I've recruited into more junior HR positions, I've been more interested in experience of the workplace and of supervising others than I have in anything the CIPD could give them.
For myself, I studied loads of things before I collected a CIPD qualification. Why? Because I was more curious about other things and felt that there was more for me to learn in other areas. Eventually, I felt that I'd better find out if a CIPD qualification had anything different to offer. In retropsect, it didn't but at least I tried.
So to directly answer the question -'Is a CIPD qualification vital for advancement in the HR profession' - no, clearly not. Business Schools prefer MBA candidates to have business experience before enrolling and I understand the College of Law now encourages potential lawyers to study something other than law as undergraduates and convert later. I'd say the same to anyone considering a CIPD qualification as a first step in the profession: do something else first. Get some experience first. Learning is important but there's more than one way to get it.
Posted by Kevin Ball | January 18, 2012 1:59 PM

Interesting discussion. For a little international flavour-the CHRP in Canada is something I held for many years and dropped in 2010 (my recert year) because the quality of credits required for recertification were not indicative of an improved skill level in many circumstances. And the assignment of points for various education options did not make sense. In addition while there is a central body of requirements across the country each Province has a separate HRA and they do not have a consistent practice. There is a significant segment of experienced HR pros here that see the current state as a revenue drive for the HRAs as retaining certification requires that in addition to meeting the education component you must also pay annual membership fees to the HRA-whether you see value in that or not.
The 'get involved to make change happen' is a good idea but I was involved for 17 years and participated with a ton of volunteer hours over that time frame-unfortunately the sluggish response from the HRA means that change of any kind takes a shocking amount of time-very tiny little changes take years to happen. I have talked to many other HR pros that relate the same experience. So now we are talking about simply starting our own and some realy great forward thinking ideas are being discussed.
The issue for new and emerging practitioners is that they need something to boost their chances of being hired and letters after ones name is often an easy sell to a recruiter-less than a second to scan the application and go yes there is that set of letters with the assumption tht the letters mean what the HRAs selling proposition says it means.
The previously mentioned comparison between Accountant and HR certification doesn't really work as the recertification for the Accountatns (at least in Canada) is more rigorous and therefore relevant than it is for the CHRP. in order to make it a fair comparison the HRAs will have to increase the quality of their recertification programs. The initial certifiatiin for new entries is standardized and does cover the core knowledge in an academic sense but it does not infer ability to apply the academics in action. This is a problem that could be solved by requiring some form of apprenticeship for a period of time -so one could have a 'learners certification' for a period of time before being awarded the CHRP.
Posted by Karin | January 18, 2012 2:05 PM

Thank you for these latest comments!
@Kevin I wholeheartedly agree with you that education is "an end in itself," and that "learning is important but there's more than one way to get it." I think you may also be approaching a potential formula for effective hiring for professional roles in looking for "functional experience and cultural fit" as well as "curious people who were keen to invest in learning." Congratulations on being - I believe - the very first person to use the word "gumption" on this blog!
@Karin Thank you very much indeed for providing an international perspective. Both your response and a number of the answers to the related (and predominantly US-focused) discussion that is ongoing on Focus.com seem to suggest that there are a number of common aspects to HR professionals' experience of their national HR body, whichever one that may be. I suspect your references to suspicions of an ongoing "revenue drive" and to the glacial pace of change at HR bodies may well have resonance for many HR professionals around the globe.
I am sorry to hear that you no longer feel that CHRP membership suits you, but from what you say, no-one could accuse you of not having 'put in the hours' before making this decision.
Your idea of a "learners' certification" is an intriguing one. I would love to know what other XpertHR readers make of this suggestion...
Posted by Michael Carty Author Profile Page | January 19, 2012 9:13 AM

Interesting post and interesting debate.
I moved from being a Recruitment Consultant to being an in-house Resourcing Manager nearly four years ago, and one of the first things that my company did was to offer me the option of CIPD study. Always keen to develop and qualify further, I started studying three years ago through distance learning.
Studying this way via MOL rather than at a University has been a really mixed experience. The quality of tutor is highly varied and the emphasis is really on the individual to study. However, I found that the assignments were really useful in applying what I was learning to my place of work and even managed to implement some recommendations from my study.
So far, so good.
Then the CIPD changed the course structure. After a gap of several months, I was able to start studying again. And what I found was, with the elimination of exams and a new emphasis on coursework, the previous opportunity to focus assignments on work-based activity had gone, replaced instead with a series of case studies unrelated to work.
For me, personally, this has been incredibly de-motivating and I really don't feel now that my study has been of any benefit to my employers or my job role for some time. Despite the changes in the course structure, there is still huge overlap between the modules (learn two models and apply them to all modules essentially) - and I am unable to use the few new things I'm learning in the workplace. Moreover, as my motivation has gone, my level of studying has dropped hugely.
There was always going to be an element of struggle for me, being a resourcing specialist, and the CIPD being either generalist or L&D biased. However, the current content really is not enhancing my knowledge and has become a burden. I am mindful though that despite this, and even for specialist resourcing roles, the CIPD remains a 'brownie badge' - proof of some level of attainment - and therefore I feel that I must complete it.
I would be really interested to know just what level of real, active HR practitioners - as opposed to 'academics' and people who work at the CIPD - get to feedback and input into the course structure? Because based on my experiences - and again to reiterate, this may just be because of my chosen study route - the course content just does not reflect the current needs of the employer.
And that is hugely frustrating for someone who loves to learn, and to use what she learns to make things better in her place of work!!
Posted by Betty Blonde | January 19, 2012 5:35 PM

Some really interesting thoughts on here, before I add mine I need to provide a disclaimer - I work for a CIPD qualification provider, so need to declare this in case my view seems too biased.
I think it would be inappropriate to talk about my experience as a trainer/teacher on the course, but I am a quite recent student on a CIPD Post Grad Dip at Croydon College (shout out to any other 2010 Alumni on here!), and got some real benefits from it.
In the first instance I understand some of what people are saying about the value of education through experience vs. the academic setting. Real life experience gives you confidence and credibility within your organisation, which no qualificaiton - CIPD or otherwise - can match 100%.
In saying this, when I undertook my studies I was in a role where my employer did not want to give me opportunities to branch out as much as I would have liked - I was really stuck in a box of having to stick to my 'role' and not much outside of this. In fairness this was as much a reflection of the changes the organistion was having to go through (credit crunch anyone?) which needed to be handled by 'experienced' HR practitioners rather than its culture/mindset.
The qualification was a bit of a relief from this, as it meant that twice a week for three hours at a time I was going to learn information that my day to day role limited me from, and that I needed in order to progress and help inform what my future career choices would be.
It worked out in the end as I was able to show to future employers though I might not have the day to day experience, this was a genuine career choice which I was dedicated to following and looking for all avenues to explore how I could progress further in to it.
A balance between the two would be the ideal but is pretty hard to find and I would argue is more dependent on you having a very supportive line manager in most instances. I found it really useful and a means to getting some of the theoretical understanding, if not that 'live' exposure some of my peers on the course already had.
Hope that does not sound too one eyed given my role - if I was to have one suggestion for them to change the qualificaiton it would be to echo some of the comments and perhaps consider making one which is solely focused on L&D. But that might be a whole other debate/blog post...
Posted by Patrick | January 19, 2012 7:06 PM

Thank you for these latest comments, Betty and Patrick!
@Betty I'm sorry to hear that you've had such a mixed experience, and have found changes to the course structure so demotivating. Do you mind if I ask which particular course you were studying, please? And do you know what the CIPD's rationale was for altering the course structure? The question that you raise about the extent to which "real, active HR practitioners [...] get to feedback and input into the course structure" is an extremely interesting one. I sincerely hope your experience of studying with the CIPD improves over the remainder of your studies, as you are clearly committed to seeing it through!
@Patrick Thank you so much for this comment - it's great to get input from someone in your
position, with experience of CIPD courses from both the student and provider/trainer/teacher side. It's particularly interesting to hear that your CIPD course gave you the opportunity to "learn information that my day to day role limited me from", to build theoretical understanding, and helped inform decisions regarding career progression. I'd love to hear from any other XpertHR readers whose experience of taking CIPD studies chimes with Patrick's.
Posted by Michael Carty Author Profile Page | January 20, 2012 9:31 AM

I love that I have been allowed to join in the debate and my post has been used on here.
CIPD is something I want to do but can't at the moment afford to do.
I am serious about being in HR and have been working my way through all the departments to give myself a good grounding however I don't seem to be getting where I would like to be after 4 years without a CIPD that not any of the companies I work for do or help pay for.
Posted by Jules | January 20, 2012 11:14 AM

No problem, Jules - and thank you for your kind permission to add an extract from your blog post to the post above. I hope that you will be able to feel more like you are getting where you need to go in the very near future, and preferably with an employer who is willing to pay for you to undertake the CIPD courses that you wish to study. Very best wishes! Michael
Posted by Michael Carty Author Profile Page | January 20, 2012 11:35 AM

Just thought I should add my 2 penneth worth on this interesting debate from a non HR practitioner perspective. I worked in internal comms and am currently studying for an MBA and MSc in Human Resource Management. I decided to do the MSc out of interest after working closely with HR on an organisational restructure. After starting the course I discovered that as long as I did certain modules and ensured that my project matched the management report requirements I would be able to add membership of the CIPD to my stripes. Initially I thought this was a great thing - woohoo more stripes! However as time has gone on I have changed my mind and won't be applying for membership of the CIPD. The more I have learnt and through engaging with the connectinghr folks it is not about the desk learning but the practical in the role learning that makes someone a HR professional and I think that without the 'in the trenches' experience I would feel a fraud.
Posted by zoe | January 20, 2012 1:16 PM

There is a false dichotomy going on here in some respects, based on the assumption that the CIPD is purely an academic qualification and that real world experience of HR (or in more general terms business) is not/cannot be taken into account.
It is possible (and has been for at least 2 years) to get the CIPD qualification through what is known as the "mixed mode" method. This combines a requirement to pass the two "core" CIPD exams but allows for other modules to be demonstrated by an assessment method based on experience. It's aimed at exactly those who have got a good deal of practical experience who wish to get the CIPD qualification.
(I should declare an interest here as I work as an adviser on Liverpool Hope University's "mixed mode" programmes, but I do think there is a general lack of awareness that this route to CIPD qualification is available)
Posted by Simon Jones | January 20, 2012 1:55 PM

Thank you for these latest comments, Zoe and Simon.

@Zoe Thank you for sharing your experiences here, and your reasons for changing your mind about going for CIPD membership are very interesting indeed. I wonder how many other readers out there might have undergone a similar change of mind?

I like the point you make about "in the trenches" experience, too... It reminds me of the excellent "Trench HR" community over in the US, which boasts the excellent Charlie Judy

(@HRFishbowl) as one of its leading lights. Do check out the #trenchhr hashtag on Twitter if you want to see more of what this community is all about.

@Simon Thank you for your further input to this debate, and also for explaining about the "mixed mode" method. Do you think there is a lack of awareness as regards this comparatively new method, and if so, why do you think this might be?
Posted by Michael Carty Author Profile Page | January 20, 2012 2:49 PM

I think there are three reasons why the mixed-mode method is not as well known
a) comparatively few organisations offer it (Liverpool Hope is one of the very few University providers)
b) because most people who have the CIPD studied it in the traditional academic way they assume that this is still the only way to achieve it
c) I don't think that the CIPD have done a great deal to promote this route either to their existing members (which then leads back to point b) or to the wider HR world.
Posted by Simon Jones | January 20, 2012 4:03 PM

Thank you for your thoughts on why the mixed-mode method appears not to be as well-known at present. Let's hope it becomes more widely offered and more widely known in the near future, as it seems that it could have quite a bit to offer HR professionals.
Posted by Michael Carty Author Profile Page | January 20, 2012 4:33 PM

Simon makes a good point about the 'mixed modes' method of qualifying. There are non-academic options available for recertification credits for the CHRP as well. Thisis a good option (although you can not use non-academic exclusively) for recertification credits in the three year cycle.
One caveat is that those options (at least in BC currently) are not all equal in quality. For example: you can claim credits for attending short seminars at a conference (no knowledge application required) -so if you attend the 2.5 day annual conference you can conceivably earn the same number of credits as is offered for completing a Masters degree (a 2 year process) and that lowers the credibility of credits claimed. The HRAs need to revamp these credit allowances before the certification will be considered in the manner portrayed.
Posted by Karin | January 20, 2012 4:58 PM

At the CIPD, we've been reading this thread with interest - it's a subject pretty close to our hearts! As you'd expect, we firmly believe CIPD qualifications to be a robust and relevant starting point and development opportunity in HR careers.
But as we're not a "licence to practice" profession, we're also aware that our qualification isn't compulsory. So, by definition, there will be some successful HR practitioners who've got where they are today without the qualification. We haven't given up on those people, though. Far from it, a lot of the substantial change we've made in the last four years has been geared towards making sure we have more to offer to experienced HR practitioners. To those who've been turned off by CIPD in the past, I really would urge you to take a look at how we've changed, and to take another look.
Our qualifications have always been seen as a great entry point to the profession. And the work we've done in recent years has made them even more robust and relevant than ever before. However, we've always made a distinction between getting the qualification, and adding to that the experience that demonstrates you're the "rounded article" before you can call yourself a Chartered Member (as the like of Ron Kubitz and Jennifer Payne rightly argue is important above). So to those who've drawn a stark distinction between what you learn in the classroom and what you learn through doing, I'd say that we've always recognised that you need both.
One of the biggest changes we've made in recent years, though, is to really beef up that focus - really raising the bar, and making even more clear that it is not just what you know, but what you do and how you do it (knowledge, activities and behaviours) that marks you out as a truly effective HR practitioner. We've captured all of that in the CIPD HR Profession Map. It underpins our new qualifications at foundation, intermediate and advanced levels. But it also raises the bar in terms of what else you need to be able to demonstrate, over and above what you can get through a qualification, to secure professional membership of the CIPD. It is also better geared towards recognising the different points at which people enter the profession, and the different specialisms within HR.
The Map also provided the solid foundations on which we've built our new routes to membership. And this is where I think we have most to offer to some of those who've contributed to this thread and haven't found us to their liking in the past. We've this year introduced Experience Assessment. As the name suggests, this allows us to engage with experienced practitioners, and assess their knowledge on the basis of what they've done - rather than requiring experience practitioners to go back to school and take our qualifications. We've had really good feedback on the new route.
So back to the main question - are our qualifications essential for getting ahead in HR in 2012? We think they're a pretty good start. But they're not enough on their own. You need experience, and the right behaviours. We can help there too. And if you've progressed in HR without our qualifications, we've still got a whole lot to offer. Take a look at the CIPD HR Profession Map, or CIPD Experience Assessment if you'd like to know more. Or drop us a line.
Robert Blevin
Head of External Affairs @CIPD
Posted by Robert Blevin | January 23, 2012 11:50 AM