As much as I agree with Duncan Brown’s main points regarding business impact being a top priority for human resources (‘Demonstrating business impact should be top priority for HR’, Personnel Today, 20 November), I wondered whether he is referring to the HR ‘function’ or the HR ‘profession’?
If he is referring to the function, then this statement is built on the premise that all HR functions see their remit as being about business impact – which may not currently be true for a sizeable number.
In terms of the HR profession, this question has come up repeatedly. But how many in the profession would agree with business impact being a top priority?
I myself would like it to be, but I think we have some way to go collectively. Defining both HR function and individual value propositions are key to this question, along with the ‘execution’, as Brown rightly asserts.
I find his comments regarding the CIPD and a dearth of quality specialist HR programmes a little ironic, given his former tenure there.
I am also disappointed once again that the International School of Human Capital Management is ignored when mentioning leading providers. Just for the record, on 16 January 2008, a new HR qualification commences – the HCMI. It’s real, it’s here, and it’s high quality.
Do we have a systemic case of denial?
Nicholas J Higgins
Dean,
International School of Human Capital Management
Comments are closed.