I never thought much about certifying as an HR pro. I get it. You want to be shown as a knowledgeable professional and get some letters after your name. That’s great. It was never a big deal to me, though. For some though, it was a big deal and I can respect that.
Now, it looks like the clarity of what those letters mean is in serious jeopardy. SHRM is creating their own certification and doing nearly everything in their power to disassociate themselves with HRCI — including uninviting them from the annual conference. Ouch.
The delineation between HRCI and SHRM was something that was unclear to me until a few years ago and it probably was to many HR pros until just recently. I have received no less than a half dozen emails from SHRM and HRCI regarding this and it is perfectly clear now that these organizations aren’t in stride and haven’t been for awhile.
I’ve seen HR pros outraged or shocked by the move all over these great internets. I’ve seen some support it. No matter which side you take, the groundwork for this move has been laid for years and was roundly ignored by nearly everyone.
Starting in 2010, there was a group of people called SHRM Members for Transparency that had concerns they made public after a long period of behind the scenes work. My colleague John Hollon covered this group extensively. This was much to the collective disdain of SHRM itself and the yawns of members. SMFT’s concerns included:
- Board compensation increases
- Board compensation unchecked by independent committee
- Unrestricted first class travel for board members
- Only 38 percent of board members having at least a PHR certification
- Only 60 percent of board members are HR pros
- SHRM CEO is a finance pro, not an HR pro
- SHRM board uses a search firm to find board members, including those uncertified and not members of SHRM
- SHRM board retains nearly all power, with extremely limited member recourse
There’s a whole section — now outdated — focused on the board’s lack of connection to HRCI certification. That’s a tad bit of foreshadowing for you.
When these stories were gaining steam, I remember asking some of the HR pros in my area about it. Most of them didn’t know and didn’t care when I explained it. Those who has heard about it felt like it was overblown, took SHRM’s assurances as good, and went on with their life. While clearly there were some things that weren’t quite right at SHRM, it didn’t impact them. SHRM wanted to take some money from their massive reserves to pay a little extra to board members? Meh. Once SHRM decided to keep dues the same, any potential widespread discontent was quickly snuffed.
Now, nearly four years later, these same folks suddenly care about it because their credential is at risk?
Sorry PHRs, SPHRs, and GPHRs. I don’t see this one getting walked back very easily. You may get easily credentialed with SHRM or you may choose to stick with HRCI but those letters are going to become a lot more confusing for the people who care about having knowledgeable and competent HR people running their shops.
There are some people I do feel sorry for — like educators who’ve spent years working with SHRM and HRCI on training, or those stuck in limbo of gaining certification in the interim. For those who have been associated with both SHRM and HRCI for decades, and who couldn’t be concerned with a few non-certified board members or a couple grand in compensation a few years ago? You’re a smart, strategic HR pro. You can anticipate changes before they happen. What did you expect and how are you surprised?