CIPD’s ‘Next Generation’ are stuck in the 19th Century

Share

If you should ever have cause to visit the CIPD’s office in Wimbledon don’t be fooled by the modern façade: inside is a perfect replica of how dismal life must have been in the first half of the 19th Century.  They may talk about their ‘Next Generation HR’ but their methods and level of professionalism are exactly where the medical profession was back in 1858: -

The ‘professionalization’ of medicine in the nineteenth century has long been a subject of interest for medical historians. They have shown how this period saw the creation of new institutions and formal mechanisms for regulating medical practice, and for distinguishing the ‘qualified’ practitioner from the ‘quack’.  In Britain, a key development was the Medical Act of 1858 which established the General Medical Council and the Medical Register, a public list of all recognised medical practitioners.” (University of Manchester, ‘Making of the Medical Profession’)

The lack of a General HR Council, one that would actually enable HR practitioners to stand as tall as the medical profession, has been my biggest bugbear since joining the world of HR in 1978.  So, when I was invited by Xpert HR to write a guest blog (February 2011) I chose to aim my ire at the CIPD’s dismal performance as the upholder of professional standards. Realising this might depress many readers I decided to sweeten the pill with liberal dollops of humour.  Unfortunately I overdid it as some of those commenting on the piece thought I was joking so, for the record, I wasn’t!

Fast forward a year and the CIPD still shows no sign of taking itself or its 19th Century members seriously. Its new petticoat, laughably referred to as a code of conduct, will not hide its shame or spare its blushes with no General HR Council in sight, no definition of what ‘professional’ means and no attempt to move the profession onto an evidence-base.

Meanwhile, proper questions about what it might mean to be a professional manager are being posed by the most prominent protagonist in the evidence-based management movement – Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer – who concludes in his HBR column (September 2011) entitled “Management a profession? Where’s the proof?”

“Before management can be considered a profession, its practitioners will have to see themselves as part of a larger purpose.  But it took more than higher aims to move medicine beyond quackery.  It took science and its application to practice. In a world afflicted by complex problems we should have more assurance that managers will also draw on knowledge greater than their own.”

When set against Pfeffer’s tough, evidence-based criteria, having the letters FCIPD after your name confers about as much professional credibility as the 19th Century doctor in the picture above.  In case you might be wondering what he is up to it comes with the helpful caption -

“Classic illustration of a woman’s medical exam by her doctor. Many 19th century medical textbooks used this illustration to show the proper manner to examine a female patient. The physician’s eyes are diverted so he will not violate the woman’s “modesty.”

Share

I’m a reflector, completer finisher, ENTJ, inspirer – what are you?

Share

What is it with psychologists that they want to pigeonhole everybody – all 6 billion of us? Here is just a very small sample of the sort of ‘bump feeling’ that I have personally been subjected to over the years: -

Peter Honey tries to tell me we have 4 ‘learning styles’ including the ‘reflector’  while

Belbin’s theory of Team Roles fails to convince me that there are only 9 roles including the ‘completer finisher’ and

Myers Briggs Type Inventory (depending on which day of the week it was) last told me that, of the 16 options available, I was an ENTJ

Now there is something called the Insights Discovery Full Circle Profile which has 8 segments, one of which is ‘inspirer’.

Obviously the question that we have to ask is where is the evidence that any of this stands up to scrutiny? But before we do that let us not under-estimate the validity of our own conclusions, drawn from our own experiences of actually meeting, relating to and working with our fellow human beings over many years.  In my own case (55 years and counting) I can honestly say that, in my entire life, I have never met two identical human beings (even ‘identical’ twins are not identical). Fortunately this personal view is now backed up by what we know about DNA.

Consequently I have my own hypothesis (the theory is as yet untested) that if we took all of the psychological tools, instruments, profiles and tests available on the entire global market, and analysed the make up of every single human being on the planet, we would come to the conclusion that the permutations of personality types available would precisely match the size of the world’s population (just the four mentioned above produce 4608 permutations).  We are all different; we don’t behave in a consistent way every day at work; we might not even follow our own preferences (because of the organisational pressures on us) and often we will not be allowed to bring our entire personality to bear anyway (are you allowed to be as creative as you would choose?).

Of course the authors of these products will have concocted their own theories and have testimonials from happy customers to support their methods but what they don’t seem to offer is any evidence.

Having taught and trained many, many people over the last 30 years myself, and as an evaluation specialist, I have never ever regarded happy or smile sheets (known as level 1 questionnaires in the trade) as evidence of anything.  Happiness is not evidence of learning and unhappiness is not evidence of failure (learning is often initially painful and starts with resistance). Even if I make participants take a test (level 2) and they can tell me what Belbin’s 9 team roles are does not mean they know what to do with them. Even a level 3 visit (to see if they are applying them in the workplace) might only reveal them putting labels on hapless managers and does not offer evidence that having a defined role, in a particular team dynamic, at a particular time and place, produces better team results.

There is not much point waiting for convincing evidence to be provided either.  Even if these tools appear to offer some benefits they could equally be doing some harm; confusing people and altering their behaviour artificially and to what end? The only end that matters is an improvement in the value the organisation can create. Without evidence that points in this direction all of these approaches have no more validity in an organisational setting than an astrologer telling you that your star sign is in Uranus.  Moreover, giving people too many labels can send them into a spiral of hyper self-consciousness which inevitably leads to them disappearing up their own black hole.  As one of Insights’ own customers from the Nationwide Bank demonstrates when he testifies: -

“I was amazed at the accuracy of the initial Insights Discovery Personal Profile. To now take the exercise a stage further by consulting with peers and customers is excellent in giving all-round unbiased feed-back.”

Share