As no doubt a number of you spotted the clues behind Tuesday's blog to see it as a joke or spoof entry. I'm not into AF pranks or jolly japes but more into spinning a plausible alternative history (the most famous being Orson Welles' Invaders from Mars broadcast).
Reaction to these can provide you with great insight into the existing Zeitgeist.
Those of you may have spotted the title of the report being somewhat 'tongue-in-cheek' and also asked how I had got hold of such a report with such huge professional ramifications (and without any market-place input which this would have had). Similarities here with the classic 'urban myth' constructs.
Those very sharp-eyed would have spotted that 'Flair Loop' is an anagram of 'April Fool'. The bronze statue of Ulrich - well - truth or jest you may ask?
However, the real April Fool of this story had already happened............
I am referring of course to the defunct LSC (replaced by three new bodies -see recent article) who recently funded (squandered) £230,000 on research of a new Equality/Diversity body. Quite why a government quango should take upon itself this kind of development is rather breathtaking if well-meaning (and for more on inappropriate government funding see Monday's blog). I would have thought that CIPD executive would also have been quite exasperated. My blog entry on this whole issue also attracted comment.
Just imagine the professional outcry if this had been in accounting.............
Equality and Diversity technical knowledge is already covered under either (a) Law or (b) CIPD.
There is no problem with having a Special Practice Group (or Communities of Practice if you must) contained within either of these two existing bodies.
Taking the profession back decades
But following the logic of the new proposal and the specialist mooted thinking that's gone in within CIPD membership could lead to a scenario as described in Tuesday's story which would take the profession back decades.
And if you think that the profession continues to be absorbed with what to call itself I would urge you to (re)read CIPD's history. It's quite eye-opening. My blog was a tribute (albeit again firmly tongue-in-cheek) to the various names that CIPD has been formerly known (Only Prince has had more!). I wonder how many CIPD members actually know?
The message
So the message is that the profession needs to be on its guard. There is still an issue over the technical body of knowledge that the profession's qualification covers. Our own HCMI qualification is designed to provide a broad layer on top covering the knowledge expansion over the past decade. It is certainly not diluting it which is the way you go with splintering (the atomisation of HR as I term it).
The message for CIPD is also whether their branch network is really appropriate and whether acknowledgement of Special Practice Groups sitting under the corporate CIPD umbrella is a more directive approach to heading off any thoughts of future splintering?
Either way, despite the attraction of more bodies, we must protect against technical knowledge dilution as it serves no-one and lowers overall standards (now where I have heard that before?).
Yes - subject areas do change over time but that can be incorporated. Splitting into smaller factions is not the way to go - history teaches a lot on that one..........................
