Letters of the week

Trainers’ body is meeting a need

• I can understand why Jeffrey Brooks has set up an institute specially for
training (News, 29 February).

I have been training in the private sector for 10 years, and have nine
years’ experience in the armed forces. I left the forces in 1990 and started my
certificate in training and development in 1993. Once I had finished my
certificate I went on to the Diploma in Training Management.

Half way through the diploma – and as a member of the IPD – I realised I was
not getting any enjoyment or learning or development from it, so I did not
complete the course and cancelled my membership with the IPD.

Why? Since the amalgamation of the two professional bodies under one title –
the IPD – training has expanded and specialised to encompass more and more
areas of people and organisational development. Personnel has also evolved into
a more integrated role, covering training, development, change management,
knowledge management, culture management and vocational training to name a few.

Training and development has far outpaced the personnel role in helping the
company or organisation to identify and maximise its resources to gain maximum
payback for its investment. Training professionals need to have more sources of
inspiration and stimulation then personnel professionals, who are usually
procedure- or policy-oriented.

I am not saying that the personnel function does not perform a very
difficult role very well – indeed, many personnel professionals set the
benchmark for other professions to follow. But with two different professions
with vastly different needs it is almost impossible for one organisation to
meet the needs of both professions, without one or the other profession
suffering.

What the training industry needs is a training institute which covers all
areas of people development and organisation change, an institute where
training professionals in any field or subject can belong – an institute that
agrees standards, agrees the best way forward and does not accept second best.
Being perceived as the lesser of two professions weakens the professional
impact of training on national training initiatives.

John Pembridge-Hore

Learning and development manager

Infoteam Managed Services

Breakaway body: rebel or pioneer?

• That some IPD members feel they need another organisation to serve their
interests is enough in itself. No single institute can ever hope to meet the
needs of all its members, no matter how august its leadership may be.

I am concerned that these professionals are labelled rebels. Are they not in
fact pioneers?

Del Hunter

Director

SSR Group Services

Let’s hear it for administrators

• I read with interest Steve Addley’s personal profile (22 February) and
then stopped in my tracks. Does he really believe that the worst thing about HR
people are those personnel administrators who are happy to remain in their
role?

Come on Mr Addley, if you believe in the advice you offer about the whole
function adding business value and delivering, then shouldn’t you value and
respect the diverse needs of the team? Do administrators really have no role in
making a difference in your business at Trinity Mirror?

Ian Hicks

Development and training manager

Thomson Holiday

Supervisors are always needed

• The recent difficulties at Sellafield illustrate a principle that we have
long espoused and promulgated. This is that although the "supervisor"
may go in and out of fashion, the task of "supervision" remains
vital.

It is the prime function of management to supervise – or "oversee"
– the correct implementation of standard operating procedures in their
organisation.

UK industry has been flattened, downsized, delayered, outsourced and
empowered. But it still needs to be supervised.

George Edwards

Development director

Institute of Supervision and Management

Comments are closed.