Marcus Welby, MD had a diploma and a
license, both unprominently displayed somewhere in his office. He was
known by reputation in the community.
Although Welby was a fictional TV character, he portrayed the
community doctor.
The community
was close and people talked regularly – reputations were shared,
recommendations offered.
Today you still need a license and it
is popular, but usually not required, to have a certificate if
offering a service. This documents that you have the minimum
requirements and have passed a test – both originating from the
professional society, training organization, college, or university
providing the program. These organizations are strong proponents of
certification programs – which represents a 'product' in their
offerings. The certificate-holders may frame and display their
certificate, but will certainly add the designation behind their name
in professional documents to convey certificated status. This process
evolved as the communities disbursed and local conversations all but
disappeared.
Thirty years ago in the human resources
field, a certificate program was launched with time-in-role minimums
and qualifying tests – all provided by the HR professional society.
I carefully reviewed the value of these certificates and determined
that they offered no unique advantage to serving in the HR role, did
not mean anything to the employees served, and were not valued by the
employer. My performance (and reputation) was determined by results
achieved for both the 'customer' and 'boss'. Now 30 years later, with
many certificate-designated HR roles, performance and reputation
continue to be based on results, certificate or not.
As I see it – when the buyers are
segregated from the beneficiaries, certificate do matter
– to the buyer;
however, the beneficiaries continue to evaluate on results achieved.
Given the choice, would you
rather receive services from a certificated person or one with a
positive reputation among their peers? Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment