I have seen this type of article over the last 10 years, and I am sure that many in the HR profession will feel a little queasy and then turn the electronic page.
The assertions in the article are, of course, accurate, although to be fair they can apply to many other professions.
I think that Jackie Orme is right to want to shake up the CIPD; this, after all, is supposed to be the representative body for the profession \(a body I quit a few years ago). As a Chartered Institute, I don't feel it is assiduous enough in throwing out unsuitable members nor is it rigorous enough in its standards.
The syllabus in its examinations just have to be improved; either because an unhealthy number of its graduates are just plain not good, or because the totality of its teaching just does not equip an practitioner with the recognised authority to hold a place at the Boardroom table.
Here's another thought: by far the largest number of really good practitioners I have encountered in nearly three decades actually started in another function or discipline, such as Finance or Retailing. Nowadays, many HR people have never worked in any other department; like MPs they lack "real world" experience and fail to get close to the business. Look at that HR woman on The Apprentice getting the figures wrong, and I can assure you it's no caricature.
It behoves Jackie Orme and the CIPD to drag the whole profession back to a place where it understands what it should be doing, is equipped to do it, and maybe then HR can consider itself \(and be respected enough) to automatically earn a seat at the big table.
