Are you a member of a representative body, and if so what benefits does it bring to you and your peers? Continuing the debate on professionalism started in Training - Profession or Occupation? Godfrey Parkin turns his attention to representative bodies and their impact on training.
The recent discussion about professionalism in training has been interesting. I expected strongly held polarised views, but there actually seems to be a muddled sort of consensus that training is not a profession, nor does it really need to be, but it might benefit from having a body behind it with enough teeth to raise its profile and credibility.
Perhaps the semi-consensus is because those commenting, online and off, tend to be established veterans with battle-tested competence in the field. When you know that you are good at what you do, and have been doing it long enough to know you are not deluding yourself, you tend to look askance at outside bureaucracies that profess to be able to pass judgment on your worth. But you also tend to feel an undercurrent of frustration that many in your field, and most of those outside of it, have no idea what value you contribute and have no basis for making that evaluation. Enter certification.
The problem with certificates is that they are invariably pitched at the baseline, and seek to verify that their holder has an adequate grasp of essential fundamentals, at whatever level. For example, why would I put an inordinate amount of time any money into getting an NVQ4 when, at the end of the day, all I have is a piece of paper that verifies that I have done, to a certain standard, some of the things that any experienced trainer should be able to do? Certification says nothing about quality or richness of experience and does not measure or reflect all the fuzzy hard-to-quantify characteristics that distinguish a ‘seasoned professional’ from a rank beginner. It’s a great ‘elevator’ for those relatively new to the field, of course. And while neither experience nor certification are guarantees of quality, certification is seen by the risk-averse to be less open to interpretation.
Increasingly, employers and clients use certification as an expedient filter or differentiator in their selection process. Those recruiting trainers without having themselves much ability to tell Chateau Margaux from Beaujolais Nouveau find a certificate indispensable. There’s an irony in this, which is echoed in other fields: once certification becomes a requirement, employers can deny themselves access to best-of-breed performers whose time constraints (or egos) have prevented them from leaping through the requisite credentialing hoops. The more widespread and credible a particular certification becomes, the more pressure there is on trainers to acquire the relevant pieces of paper. The only route open to holdouts like myself is to “get with the program” and trust that the cluster of credentials that one opts for will have lasting value.
Which is where the other side of professionalism becomes so important. If you have to become certified, would it not be a good idea to have a certification process that results in something of inherent value, rather than a token piece of paper that is useful only as a checkmark in a recruiting box? Though I have looked, I have yet to find such a programme. The reason appears to be that there is no body of training professionals – none – that has the advancement of the profession at heart. Even if such an objective appears somewhere in their charter, it is not manifested in their behaviour. It may be too much to hope for that any professional body could be anything more than a committee-hampered bureaucracy destined to put all of its efforts into resisting change and preserving the status quo. Dynamism and forward thinking are not characteristics that one associates with such organisations.
Yet here we are, at what I believe is a crossroads for the corporate training ‘profession’, facing diminishing relevance and possible extinction within a decade, without any organised way forward. What are entities such as ITOL, BLA or ASTD doing to help guide companies toward more effective learning strategies? More importantly, what are they doing to help trainers adapt for the chaotic future in which we have to thrive? Certifying that members know how to dress appropriately, design courses, and make presentations is hardly adequate (OK, I know that’s a gross over-simplification). A professional body should be taking a much more strategic view of the learning outputs sought by companies and the changing cultures and climates in which trainers operate. I don’t see that reflected in member education priorities, certification requirements, marketing activities for the profession, or topics under discussion at their various conferences. It pains me that we who are so committed to needs analyses, objective setting, process design, and continuous improvement accept such lacklustre myopic thinking from those who claim to represent us.
I know of many who have abandoned the “training” label altogether because they feel constrained by the limited perceptions others have of trainers. I tend to describe my own role in terms much more specific to any project for the same reasons: performance improvement facilitator, for example, or organisational developer (without the capitals), or learning strategist. But these labels are themselves a little grotesque – I would far rather call myself a “trainer”, and would if the term connoted more than the narrow and old-fashioned concept that the profession has become trapped in.
It will take an in-touch, dynamic, and courageous professional body to change both the perception and the reality of what training is, and can be. Do we put 40,000 volts through one of the existing bodies and transform it into something useful, do we create yet another new body, or is it a case of everyone for themselves, certificates in hand?
David Montgomery , 25 May 2006 @ 11:57 AM Qualifications - I'll show you mine if you show me yours
I found Godfrey's post typically pithy and thought provoking.
For me the key message was "neither experience nor certification are guarantees of quality, certification is seen by the risk-averse to be less open to interpretation."
I think it is fair to say the waters have been muddied as illustrated by the frequent advertisements requesting "CIPD qualifications" yet how anyone involved in learning and development could accept that a qualification alone is indicative of performance remains a mystery to me. Qualifications demonstrate that someone has achieved a required standard but in the absence of ongoing practice, training and development not to mention structured reflection there will inevitably be a degree of so-called learning decay.
A lot of work is now underway to recognise informal learning which, after all, represents more than 95% of all workplace learning. This work is under the auspices of the EU and should yield fruit by 2010 -- perhaps these issues should be more openly discussed by professional bodies such as ITOL which I believe (NB I am a member of ITOL) is making progress towards developing a respected professional body which both represents the interests and expresses the view/concerns of its members. However Rome was not built in a day but there needs to be a sense of urgency since there was no Internet when Caesar was the big cheese!
To ensure their dynamism and a more forwardthinking approach professional bodies must become the sum of their parts and not run by committees. However time is money so the discussion boards of many professional bodies typically have more viewers (sometimes disparagingly referred to as lurkers) than posters (many of which are requests for help rather than debate per se). So here's the dilemma: to remain in touch and dynamic professional bodies need their members (and potential members)to express their views and fuel the debates they believe are important. This gives clout to the professional bodies to lobby employers or employers organisations.
Yet this hot potato about standards and qualifications has attracted just over 10 comments on this board so how do we get more people involved?
Leslie Rae , 08 December 2005 @ 11:21 AM Professional certification
Decry CIPD but not ITOL - the only UK Institute that is designed and meant for trainers (or whatever you like to call them), ITOL sponsors professional courses from Certificate level up. What more do you need - courses designed by trainers for trainers, with a 'status' abd practical certificate at the end. Training in my opinion is a profession if it is approached in a professional way, but, for me anyway, it is a way of life. Leslie Rae
Richard Townsend , 07 December 2005 @ 13:55 PM MBA
Maybe the best "certificate" for trainers and HR people is the MBA. It would help both to speak the language of the "business", private or public, that you are in. Richard
David Pardey , 07 December 2005 @ 11:07 AM Training - generic or domain-specific
One of the problems for trainers is that they usually work in a specific occupational domain - a person is not a 'trainer' but a 'management trainer', possibly even a '(specialism) management trainer'. Consequently, we should ask whether being a 'qualified trainer' is meaningful as a generic qualification, when what we should be looking at are 'qualified (specialism)management trainers' etc. This would suggest that the logical way forward is for professional associations or institutes in each occupational area to offer training qualifications that are based on a generic standard, but occupationlly adapted, to suit their particular training model.
Technically, the training arena is the responsibility of 'our' Sector Skills Council Lifelong Learning UK - it would be nice to see some mention of Training on their website (but they do include Librarians!) David Pardey
Peter Mayes , 07 December 2005 @ 11:00 AM Education or qualification
Hi all.
When I was doing my degree (not training or HR related) I was chatting to fellow students about what we hoped to get out of our invested time (6 years part time for me). One of the bright sparks commented that most of the students were looking for a qualification, I was different, I was looking for an education. I was quite touched by that:)
Attending any learning and/or development activity has (at least) two distinct outputs; a piece of paper (if you pass) and an increase in knowledge and skills. I wanted both and feel the better for it.
My colleage took her CTP with Garry a few years ago; she got the piece of paper but a huge amount besides. Is it required in her work; not really other than she has a greater knowledge and understanding of training and development.
As some of you know, I run a business that isn't training but a service for trainers. We are running a conference in March and the themes suggested by the members relate to the profession of training; CPD, marketing, what's hot etc. One members interested in attending suggested that we organise a peer review and awarded a certificate for those that attained "the grade".
Is that "peer review" an element that could form part of the "professional" status (ignoring the complexity of how it would be done) and moves beyond or even bypasses the piece of paper and evaluates the knowledge, skill and attitude of the trainer?
On another point, a couple of years ago, it was suggested to me that TrainerBase should become what is being suggested; a professional body that only admitted the best (definition of best, was not entered into), and there are members who would still like it to be. It's not something I would would have the aptitude for, but would very much like to see it happen.
John Hughes , 05 December 2005 @ 16:49 PM Job or profession?
I recognise all the points made here in the context of my own profession, librarianship.
For "trainer" say "librarian" and get the same reactions!
My own professional body, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (yes it's a statement as well as a title!) has put much effort into attempting to change the image of "librarians" at all levels and WITHIN the profession has been largely successful.
What others think of us, though, depends on what we achieve for our users and how we make it known.
One of the successes has been the creation of a range of routes to different levels of skills development.
Now, there's a possibility: Skills Developer.
I'm a Chartered Library and Information Professional by the way! John Hughes
Nikki Brun , 05 December 2005 @ 13:24 PM I want to be certified!
I am a trainer, currently working on a masters degree in personnel & development which is certified by the CIPD. I don't want to work in any HR function than training, but felt obliged to be as qualified as I can be in order to maximise my career prospects. During my course (I am now in my 2nd year) I have learned a ridiculous amount about HR and proportionally little about training so far. Having said that it has certainly opened my eyes to HR as a whole and not been a total waste of time and money. Will it make me a better trainer? I believe so, but then I am reasonably new to the sector. What I do know is that training seems to be the first area to be cut out of budgets, and I love what I do too much to do anything else. If I have a piece of paper to wave at employers my chances are higher of staying in a job or getting a new one, presuming that I can as competently carry out my duties as my colleagues. I do also want to be as good a trainer as I can be. I can achieve this by ensuring I don't leave my professional development to languish and take advantage of the various single courses available. To paraphrase one of my tutors, how can I expect anyone else to take responsibility for their own learning if I don't take responsibility for mine? My course is on the pricy side, and I would never have undertaken it if I didn't think it would pay off professionally. Should you disagree with this point please don't tell me I've wasted my money - it is paid for and I could have bought a car instead. Nikki Brun
Mike Holmes , 05 December 2005 @ 12:58 PM Beyond certification
I agree whole heartedly with all of the aforementioned comments from the members, as the non clinical training manager in a large NHS Trust training is looked upon as a nicety to offer staff when windows of opportunity present themselves, but with no voice on the Board to flag up and voice issues of training & development and more importantly no ROI factors considered when devising strategies the result of addressing staff needs in order to keep ahead of strategic issues can be very difficult, what is needed I feel to add further weight to the training debate is as already mentioned a professional organisation that 'extols' the virtues of personal and organisational development in an organisation, is recognised and respected by Executive Directors and managers alike and has the needs of Trainers and learning foremost in its list of objectives, the CIPD is as already mentioned not interested in the wider issues affecting training in organisations, this large corporate membership is too involved in HR change Management and legislation to address such issues, and until this happens Training will always have the 'nice and fluffy' tag, thats seen as something to offer staff with no clear basis agreed amongst the key decision makers to develop these initiatives.
Garry Platt , 05 December 2005 @ 11:44 AM Beyond Certification or Belief?
Godfrey Parkin starts this piece of writing with the following comment: ‘I expected strongly held polarised views, but there actually seems to be a muddled sort of consensus that training is not a profession, nor does it really need to be, but it might benefit from having a body behind it with enough teeth to raise its profile and credibility.’
I have read and re read the replies to the original posting and cannot come to the same conclusion. This opening observation appears to me to be more a reflection of the author’s wishes than any ‘muddled’ consensus expressed here.
Mr Parkin makes the assertion that by using qualifications recruiters can be denying themselves access to the ‘best-of-breed’ performers. This seems a rather one sided analysis. I am quite certain there are many, many trainers without qualifications who do some of the best work; equally there will be those amongst the unqualified who also do the worst and the recruiters are equally denying themselves access to those individuals.
Mr Parkin also believes that the corporate training ‘profession’ faces possible extinction in the next 10 years. My own experience of the work of trainers within large corporate bodies particularly those who are either adequately qualified and/or appropriately experienced is that they are growing in strength and influence and certainly do not face extinction. Perhaps the sources of research to support this assertion can be cited?
Mr Parkin concludes with: ‘I would far rather call myself a “trainer”, and would if the term connoted more than the narrow and old-fashioned concept that the profession has become trapped in’. This does not reflect my experience of ‘trainers’ that I mostly encounter, they apply dynamic and effective strategies to address their external and internal clients needs and becoming a trainer in many organisations is seen as real achievement and is recognised as such.
I guess it’s not as black and white as it first seems?
Juliet LeFevre , 03 December 2005 @ 14:21 PM Courage...
I agree and support Nik on this one. CIPD has gained the initiative and employers have muddied the waters by implying that being a member of CIPD is the training certification in itself. We need something that refocuses employers on the certification and not the membership.
>>>there is no body of training professionals – none – that has the advancement of the profession at heart.>>>
You might find some in Europe particularly amongst the Finns. In Europe the range includes: *certification by associations of the quality of training programmes based on assessment, eg. HENRY, Finland *certification by associations of the quality of training services based on client assessments, for instance AEDIPE, Spain *certification of organisations on the basis of a social audit, eg. ANDCP, France *certification by a European institution providing professional recognition for individuals across Europe - EURESFORM
More detail including powerpoint download of Finnish certification can be found here http://www.etdf-fefd.org/html/index.html (- go to activities then certification)
Nik Kellingley , 02 December 2005 @ 14:54 PM Questions...
Which organisation could we get to achieve this transformation? The CIPD seems uninterested in the training profession full stop, seeing the training element as a bolt on to an HR function rather than a valid choice of profession in its own right.
And the others, which although they undoubtedly have their strengths and benefits are sadly not yet regarded by the majority of prospective employers as having value. Which can evidenced by the lack of demand in job adverts for these organisations and their associated certifications.
In order to "qualify" trainers, I feel the new body would need chartered status in order to gain recognition within the workplace - unfortunately the CIPD seem to have got there first.
And if the process held as much value as the one described in this article - how much would "certification" cost and would this be reflected in the rate that we as trainers charge (either in salary or fees)?
I like the sound of it - I just wonder if the effort required to get this off the ground would lead to a worthwhile "pay off". Nik Kellingley
Are you a member of a representative body, and if so what benefits does it bring to you and your peers? Continuing the debate on professionalism started in 
