Interesting article and a good thought piece that should challenge us all. I read an article not so long ago that suggested that very “talented people” rarely went into HR at all but choose finance or operational type roles with creative people going broadly down the sales/marketing type routes leaving HR and some other areas with pretty much what was left. This was based on the career destination from top business schools both here and in the USA.

Another way of looking at it is how many HRDs go on to hold the top jobs in their organizations….wouldn’t you expect more if “people are our most valuable assets”? There are a few but not many examples of people making this step up.

Why is this? Possible as outlined above because we aren’t good enough to begin with and possibly because we don’t have a clear vision for what excellent people management can do for a business and then the drive and determination to make it happen. Too often we are sidetracked into the latest fad or consultant driven idea that has little or no relevance to our businesses or our people.

We have jumped from one fad to another and one job title to another over the years without a clear overwhelming business driven objective in sight. No wonder the business now wonders what value we add.

The question for me is not so much should HR have a seat on the board but does the board put people decisions at the centre of its decision making. If it does then it is likely to be a successful and profitable business. No business will survive in the long term without taking people issues seriously, particularly in the knowledge driven economy of the future.

Therefore there is a real opportunity for great people who can articulate the people vision for their business and turn this into real practical and business focused actions to lead their organisations and to create hugely challenging but rewarding places for people to work. Not all, many not many, people currently in HR roles will be able to take this leading role but for those who can the future is very exciting indeed

Mike

I agree in part with your views - spelling is not my strong point - and with modern technology (spell check etc) its becoming arguably less relevant.

However isn't the point more about the care and attention that people give to their CV's. I will often dash off an email (or a post like this) without paying huge attention to grammar and spelling. However if I am applying for a job I would expect to check and double check it.

If people can't be bothered to put in that effort, or show the care and attention needed on two sides of A4 then I think that may be a suitable reason to reject them. Afterall spell checking works both ways!

Keith

I would be extremly interested to understand where the statistic "80-90% of visits to Doctors are stress related" come from.

I think this is wildly exagerated at best. Not that I am frequent visitor to my GP's (except when taking the children) but on the evidence of my local waiting room it doesnt appear to be fill of stress related cases...colds, flu, post operation follow ups etc etc. but stress?

In addition "a quarter of sick days are related to stress...thats 8.5 days per employee". Surely this is a mistake....since when has the avearge sickness total for employees been 34 day per year!!!!

So where is the evidence for any of this(happy to eat humble pie if there is some) or is this more peddling of a particular line?

Keith

Surely this is not an either or question.

So the choice is not CIPD qualified OR experience but rather the need/desire to have both.

Part of this comes back to the issue of is HR a profession or not? Would you recruit an accountant who was not professionally qualified? I guess not but what you would look for is one who has the professional qualification and then a certain amount of experience.

I would agree that there are people out there who are CIPD qualified who I wouldn't touch with a barge pole - but thats the same in all areas. Also I disagree fundamentally with people getting CIPD qualified at University as part of their first degree before they have entered work - this is pretty useless to me.

But lets not get carried out - as a profession we need to set high entry standards and the CIPD route is definitely on the way to this. If anything we should make them tougher (sits back and waits for the disagreement)

Keith

Isnt there a hint of age discrimination in this answer?

I agree with the fit/unfit part but why link this to age?

We all have along way to go.

Keith

Thanks for an interesting article.

Would it be possible to get Don's views on how age discrimination legislation has worked in both theory and practice in NZ. I understand that it has been in place for a numbers of years now and would appreciate the professions view...

Keith