The big buzz at the SHRM Annual Conference and Exposition revolved around SHRM’s announcement that it will start offering its own professional certifications. Why is it happening and what does it mean for HR pros?
 |
Speaking about the other entity, SHRM and HRCI both said to HR Daily Advisor, “Their interpretation of ‘partnership’ Is not the same as ours.”
SHRM found HRCI intransigent on the issue of adding competencies to the certification process. HRCI says that SHRM defines “partnership” as controlling and their position threatened HRCI’s independence, which they believe is necessary to maintain the integrity of the certification process.
HRCI-certified attendees, who can add the HRM certification at no cost, are wondering just how many initials they’ll want after their names. Those interested in becoming certified are wondering which way to go. Providers of test preparation products were taken by surprise.
HRCI has moved out of the SHRM building to temporary quarters.
The questions and issues and comments below were obtained at presentations by SHRM and HRCI and interviews with representatives of both organizations.
Was HRCI disinvited from the convention as they claim?
Not exactly, it appears. SHRM says they withdrew at their choice, but admits that the fact that SHRM, because of the severance of the affiliation agreement, was not going to provide HRCI with their usual level of assistance (free admittance for staff and presence for the association, for example) may have influenced the decision.
Doesn’t this weaken the prestige of certification?
HRCI-certified attendees are concerned that expanded access will weaken the importance and prestige attached to certification. SHRM responds that the test will not be easier.
Is it for the money?
Many attendees believe that the new credentials are just a means of creating dollars for SHRM. SHRM responds that the program will be operated on a cost basis and is not intended to generate a profit.
Why did you pick WalMart, not known for progressive HR policies and practices?
Attendees were concerned that WalMart was selected as one of eight firms SHRM used in creating its new certification. SHRM notes that WalMart is the largest employer in the United States and that means it’s an appropriate representative of a large swath of the national workforce.
What’s an example of a SHRM competencies question?
Situation: Two colleagues are in conflict. HR should intervene by:
A. Improving communication and working to ID the core conflict
B. Providing feedback and sending the two employees to separate corners.
C. Hoping things get better
D. Taking everyone for pizza
A is the best answer and would garner 2 points. B is a second best answer and would glean 1 point.
Is it true that HRCI has been a major supporter of the SHRM foundation?
SHRM responds that it has been the largest supporter, providing office space and other support, but it is true that HRCI has been a major supporter at about $1 million a year. SHRM hopes HRCI will continue to contribute, but won’t be surprised if they do not.
Is the new certification body, a division of SHRM, adequately “firewalled” from the organization?
Many have expressed concern that the new setup will not provide the requisite arm’s length relationship between test makers and test preparers. SHRM asserts that it is following all the rules of the two main bodies that certify certifying organizations. In addition, it has hired expert outside consultants to oversee the development to make sure the standards are maintained. Having a separate division will provide an adequate firewall, SHRM says.
But what about the fact that Alex Alonso, a SHRM executive, says he will be the “architect” of the new test?
SHRM says that Alonso has been involved in the development of the competency model. He will not be involved in the preparation of prep materials. His role is to make sure that the test mirrors the competencies.
Do competencies really need to be added to the certification?
SHRM clearly believes that they are not part of the current certifications. HRCI says, “SHRM talks as though the word competencies has never been used before. In fact, competencies are ‘baked into everything HR does just like they are baked into the HRCI exam.’”
Will HRCI use SHRM’s competency model?
In looking at competencies, HRCI will look into all models. SHRM’s model is OK, they admit, but HRCI will look at a wider variety of options.
Which certification will prevail?
SHRM says that it intends that its new certifications will be the new standard for HR certification. HRCI says that 140,000 certified professionals value their certifications and that “we are the gold standard and will be for a long time.”
Is there any possibility of reconciliation?
Both sides say, “Sure.”
Stay tuned.
That competency question is kind of ridiculous. Will two of the answer options always be so obviously incorrect? If so, it certainly undermines the value of the certification.
I agree with Barb. Furthermore, the HR profession has enough hurdles. SHRM is suppose to be a partner. A partner should be more dedicated to the profession. Additionally, if SHRM is so business minded, there were many business mistakes in this action plan.
If SHRM promotes a business partnership to get HR to the table in organizations, they certainly did not practice what they preach in doing this. If they did no one would have been surprised by the move. Every business person knows that in change management communication is a foundational pillar to success. SHRM clearly is indicating there are behind the scenes motives ar work. If you want the profession to continue to be successful, be forthcoming and honest with the membership. Too many unanswered questions if you ask me.
I totally agree with you Barb! This is the easiest HR question ever!
I agree with Barb – the example certainly does not give me great comfort in this change. More than anything, I am disappointed in the transparent “tit for tat” between the two companies. SHRM has handled this very poorly. But then, I have been questioning the direction of the organization for some time now.
Great summary, Stephen! I appreciate your even-handed approach based on direct conversations with the principals.
What I still don’t understand, though, is why SHRM didn’t feel obligated to consult its membership about a move that affects us so personally. SHRM says that its new certifications will be technically superior to HRCI’s; but does a marginal technical improvement justify all the disruption and talking down our HRCI credentials? It strikes me as fixing something no one else thought was broken, with those of us in the profession carrying the risk of higher costs, lower employer acceptance and a less credible professional association.
A number of HR professionals are concerned about this divide, and some consider SHRM’s board as a major part of the problem. Of course, as in any conflict, there are different sides to consider.
Completing the survey at http://www.stopshrm.org will help determine the interest level of the membership, and whether or not further action should be taken.
Perhaps if all parties would review the “best answer” in the sample “SHRM competencies” question offered above, we would get much further in resolving this critical issue.
Barb is absolutely correct: This squabble resulting in two certifications for the same skill set, categorically undermines the efficacy of BOTH certifications. HR is supposed to resolve conflict, not create and wholeheartedly participate in it. It is challenging enough for HR professionals to be taken seriously by the critical disciplines of any organization. The SPHR certification has helped significantly for HR to be viewed as a profession. How seriously is that acronym going to be taken with “new” certifications that don’t even distinguish KSA’s as do the PHR, GPHR and CA/SPHR? Do you think for a moment that a “separate but equal” certification for the ABA or a CPA would be taken seriously? This power struggle is totally embarrassing to those of us (I suppose I can only speak for myself) who are (were) proud that our chosen field has made impressive inroads toward being viewed as legitimate.
Two professional HR organizations have a conflict. HR professionals should intervene by:
A) Discontinuing their memberships in both.
B) Building a new professional HR organization, focused solely on sharing best practices, not on selling certifications.
C) Making more of an effort to reach out to colleagues, perhaps through LinkedIn and other networks, and share knowledge and experiences.
D) All of the above.
Jean,
No one is a member of HRCI. We are HRCI certificants, not members. SHRM is a trade association, with membership and lobbying activities and the like. HRCI was formed to manage a certification process based on a Body of Knowledge. SHRM’s job is to share best practices. The crisis would disappear immediately if the SHRM Board were to return to its own competencies and stop promoting its own, branded products. If there were still concerns over how well HRCI is doing its job to identify the best HR practioners, then we can address those as members of the profession, whether we are members of a given trade association or not.
I am very disappointed in SHRM. This appears to be a typical play for power. If they weren’t happy with the “competencies” covered in HRCI’s exam, I am sure that there are meetings galore to discuss this. This is childish and silly for grownups – maybe we need to send them to a mediator and then to their separate corners??How would HR Professionals handle this in the workplace??
I fail to see how a test question, like the example given, with two ‘correct’ answers and two obviously incorrect answers can provide credibility to a certification. Perhaps the two parties should invite a certified HR person in to apply the correct example answers to the situation.
It appears as if the leadership of SHRM is lacking some key leadership and managerial competencies.
It looks like the certification process has now come full-circle. It started out as a SHRM (then ASPA)function and at times through the mid-80’s the SHRM board of directors played an active role in reviewing the examination and processes. HRCI was created by SHRM or through SHRM at least in part to provide some separation between the two. SHRM didn’t want to create or perpetuate any perception that it controlled the certification process. I guess that thinking is no longer valid, or never was.
HRCI and SHRM are acting like two parents in the middle of a divorce who are arguing over the children. As an HR professional I do not appreciate being treated like a trophy and being devalued overall in the process. HRCI clearly has had its issues. Their “gold standard” has turned into their gold cash cow as evidenced by the rising failure rates for folks taking their exams requiring a new exam and new set of fees. SHRM too has its issues, like surveying thousands of us as to what concerns we had about HRCI’s testing process and what we would like to see change, only to twist those honest responses to serve as SHRM’s justification for taking over lock, stock and barrel. Here’s a novel thought, how about both SHRM and HRCI work to communicate better with each other to identify the core issues in order to better serve the HR professionals that they both profess to value.
For all the time, sweat and money spent to prepare, take and pass HRCI PHR exam, I’m in no hurry to give SHRM more $.
I thought the competency question was entirely relevant; it just needs clarification and focus: Two colleagues (SHRM and HRCI) are in conflict. HR should intervene by:
1. Letting them each take their ball and go home.
2. Bang their heads together.
3. Make them shake hands and apologize.
4. Inform them that failing to work together on creating a common future that supports their mission and membership will divide the HR community without cause, damage their brands, and might cause additional splinter groups to form that will weaken the entire profession, and that instead they should negotiate a peace treaty and engage in a dialogue that improves outcomes for everyone.
Well Said
Pete,
Great question and answers. Sounds like SHRM/HRCI have already done #1-#2 but not necessarily in that order.
I am back to my original opinion that SHRM wants total control and is in it for the money especially by the way they have handled this poor announcement and execution thus far.
Peter – well said!! This has created nothing but confusion and who will know what a SHRM-CP is anyway? We already have the competencies built in by HRCI. Everyone I speak with is very concerned.
I have held my PHR Certification for 22 years, and I am very disappointed to hear of the split between SHRM and HRCI. It was difficult 22 years ago to have the certification be recognized for it’s importance. It is very satisfying now that the certification holds the prestige that it was always meant to have. I never thought that I would see two professional organizations who have worked together for HR professionals around the world suddenly put our best interests aside for some kind of a dispute. Our careers should mean more to them than any conflict. Please do not forget the importance of being certified as a Human Resource Professional.
Is that a competency question!? Embarrassingly ridiculous! What SHRM is trying to do? Put the profession to shame? And by the way, competency questions have always been present in HRCI exams, and SHRM has been a main preparation material provider. It is a shame that the profession is being caught between two organizations’ differences. Irreconcilable at this point?
I am appalled at these two are having such a dispute. They should find common ground for the benefit of Advancing the Profession. Grow Up !
I have been SPHR certified for several years and when I received the news that I past the assessment was some of the greatest news ever. It is sad to witness two professional orginations behave in a manner that the solution could be exam question number 1. Such behavior by SHRM does not strengthen our profession. On yes, Wal Mart is the largest employer and you might add that they are the largest violator of many of the key HR issues.
The answer to the question “Is the new certification body, a division of SHRM, adequately “firewalled” from the organization?” is a farce.
The National Commission on Certifying Agencies, the entity that acredits HRCI’s certification program, requires that professional certification programs be managed by a “legally or administratively autonomous” entity. Legal autonomy is clearly preferrable to administrative autonomony. HRCI is and has been the HR profession’s legally autonomous credentially entity for decades. The SHRM Board, through its predecessors, was instrumental in creating HRCI for the very purpose of legal autonomy. That the current SHRM Board has disagreed with HRCI on an issue and responded by creating a new, reportedly administratively autonomous entity should be all the proof needed that the SHRM Board’s actions are not legitimate. I do not see how the NCCA can accept any assurance by the current SHRM Board that the SHRM Certifying Commission will be autonomous in any way. A registered trademark belonging to the SHRM Board is embedded in the name of the Commission and in the names of its products.
Hopefully the average HR professional is able to see this fact and will respond to the SHRM Board’s actions appropriately.
This is the reason I no longer keep my PHR. Corporate officers in companies do not feel SHRM certifications are worth the time and trouble and do not contribute to the bottom line.
I take it back–there is such a thing as a stupid (test) question. If that is the level of testing that will go on in SHRM’s test, then the value of their credential is minimal. In a past life, I was in an occupation that used a national test for licensure purposes. That credentialing organization was clearly separate from the professional organization just as SHRM and HRCI were separate but joined entities for good reasons. Testing is not supposed to admit nearly everyone to an occupation; it should screen out the unqualified and a pass rate of around 50% is not unreasonable. Too high a pass rate, and just about anyone can boast a credential I worked and studied long and hard to get.
If the Walmart question is representative of the overall exam, the certification will be useless. It’s only a matter of time before the SHRM name is diminished to little value as well. I have been proud to be part of SHRM, but this makes me rethink that. This is very disappointing, unprofessional, sad and a bit scary for the future of our profession. I think SHRM needs a new H/R Department!
Wasn’t HRCI originally a part of the SHRM organization and spun off for more independence and effectiveness?
I think SHRM offering a new certification in competition with HRCI is foolhardy. I don’t object to having additional certifications of specific competencies, but what is going to happen in 10 years when SHRM spins off the new certification program into its own organization?
HRCI has been a parasite for no apparent business sense…good ridance
I think for one, the head of the SHRM organization is a CPA and that should tell us something right there!
Ask SHRM and graduating seniors how the SHRM Assurance turned out for them… Never heard of it? Imagine that!
*SHRM Assurance of Learning Exam*
The two associations, SHRM and HCI should be under a higher regulatory body and perhaps governed by independent board members, to ensure that interests are for common good of the members and the profession,instead of self-serving motives.
I’ve read all the comments and disappointment and I may add I’m certainly disappointed on how this was handled. I expected more from SHRM. with that said, for those certified professionals, are you planning on giving up your current certification or are you adding another initial? I’m curious as to how this will turn out.
I’m puzzled as to how an individual that has not been in a professional HR role even though in an HR environment with limited exposure, no education no plan for future education is eligible to take the exam and based on competency will be able to pass the exam. It is possible?
So let’s rephrase the test question: “Two certifying institutions are in conflict, how should HR handle the situation?” SHRM is not applying their own competency in this situation, ( communication, conflict resolution and problem solving), so how can you expect the HR community to have faith or trust in what you are doing and why you are doing it? It is clearly creating a problem for the practitioners in the field of HR and will, regardless of how you try to spin it, dilute HR’s professionalism.