Further comments on the subject of professional designations

Comments from the online poll on HR designations

These are just some of the comments from the online survey on HR designations. To see all the questions and responses, click here.

Further comments from respondents on the subject of professional designations:

Is there a website/location to learn more about the Canadian designation: CHRP

I think it would be great if there was some co-ordination between these designations.

I think that CEBS, and the specialized designations provide specific knowledge that can be brought back and used.

It is vital that HR professionals have a designation to ensure their basic level of competencies. To be able to deliver, HR practitioners need to be knowledgeable about the industry they work in, HR best practices and how these can create competitive advantages for their organization based on strategic needs and personal credibility. Professional designations build the springboard for credibility.

I think obtaining a CHRP designation is a quite expensive process. In a way, it's a rip-off. You need to put in almost 1,000 to it. I already have a master degree in HR and over 10 years working experience in HR. Don't see any valid point for me to get this designation.

The designation would mean more to me if more people understood what it takes to get it and it held more weight in the business community.

The requirement for a professional designation depends on the level of the position.

I like the HRPAO I just wish you would put more emphasis on what smaller companies need or don't need. For instance in smaller companies HR takes care of payroll and is usually the unofficial office manager too.

Practical field experience is far more important than certificates or degrees.

My job is actually Compensation Manager. I am currently not a generalist, Manager of HR, and more than a "specialist".

Please help make this whole process of obtaining the CHRP easy to understand. I have an HR Coordinator who has looked into the CHRP, and I don't think either of us fully understand what she is supposed to do to get it. Particularly about the exam part??? Needs to be explained in a straightforward manner.

I work in a education support organization, and am a believer in education and ongoing training. I just feel that currently the structure of the CHRP and the HRPAO is too focused on membership dues and not on increasing the competencies of HR professionals.

All professional designations are, for sure, assets. But it's what you do with that asset that counts. That's why I'm not in favour of organizations that "pay for knowledge", e.g., teachers that get additional pay because they attain a Masters degree even though they don't change classrooms or teaching styles.

Labour Relations Analyst

CHRP designation is mandatory to be recognized as a serious and qualified strategist and keeper of a company's most important asset: people.

The majority of HR practitioners are hands-on working people. We hire and fire, engage in labour relations, support employees and broker disputes between staff and management. It is important that the CHRP does not become a designation whose focus is mostly on senior management and the board room. The focus should be on those who "do". If the HRPAO wants to move HR "to the next level"...then perhaps they should consider collaborating with other university programs for example MBA with an HR focus.

The changes in the certification process are abrupt and complex. It would be helpful to have more information available on certification.

There is still work to be done on the promotion of the CHRP. I would like to see a candidate having a minimum number of years of experience before they complete the exams as "book" looking does not replace actual life experience.

I don't really agree with any of the statements in #5. I think the CHRP is just away to get money.

On a personal level, I have thought about obtaining the CHRP designation but the process is too cumbersome and, being a manager, I have little time to pursue the next steps to achieve this designation. I believe the process should be made easier for experienced HR professionals. Experience should be taken into consideration. Provincial exams cover the same areas as my post-graduate certificate in HR Management. Why rewrite them? Who has time?

HR Experience and continuing education is, at a minimum, as important as the designation. A university educated individual with a designation, but little HR experience may be job ready for entry-level positions; but it is not until experience is attained that the designation appropriately complements the individual's qualifications.

My answer to question 6 could vary depending on the HR position (Admin, Coordinator, Specialists, Mgr, Director etc..)

The professional association is expensive for an annual membership, compared to the benefits it provides. I join each year, and find the courses are expensive, and the conference is expensive, and the hire authority is useful, but i have yet to find a job on this board. I found my current job through head hunters, and my previous job through workopolis.

Too many people gain designations without real world experience. Designations should be earned through proven time in the field and gained experience rather than solely through examinations.

Found the PPE exam to be difficult if you had been in HR for a good amount of years whereas new grads did better mark wise because they could answer a question with only theory knowledge. I think that there should have been a different implementation of the designation. There are practitioners who have their CHRP prior to 2002 who didn't have to write the PPE and NKE to get their designation. They may not have achieved their CHRP had they had to write an exam and not just used HR work experience etc.. Can't really use the CHRP as an appropriate benchmark when people achieved it in different manners.

I know several people who recently wrote the CHRP exam. Even those with several years in the workforce found them challenging. Based on my own experience, I've observed that there will always be people who can study their way through any discipline. But in the final analysis, can they really apply what they learned and do the work well...give me a competency focus every time.

I would be curious to determine it the results to this survey vary by province. Ontario has a strong professional certification program.... but are their differences in the survey results even within Ontario

I believe that professional designations are an asset. However, it is more important that staff be able to communicate and effectively relate to HR personnel with positive results. Professional designations do not necessarily mean that that is a given.

More credit should be given for work experience. It should be easier to write exemption exams to demonstrate existing knowledge. Many HR professionals keep up-to-date on legislation informally, outside of the confines of a structured course, and such knowledge should be acknowledged.

Currently I am an executive assistant who would like to move into the HR realm. I believe that in order to do so I need to demonstrate to employers that I have a certain level of proficiency in Human Resource matters, for that reason I want to achieve a designation as an HR professional.

I think as a student learning to become an HR professional, there MUST be some sort of co-op or internship for students in order to get some real experience. I know that education is good, however, if we're not using all what we learned, 3-4 years down the road information can easily be lost if not used. If this proposal is not an option because many university students just want to learn and get out into the real world, then there has to be other options for students to learn hands on experience. A professional is one with concrete knowledge and experience, not just a paper saying your certified.

There should be a standard requirement across Canada that all individuals applying for their CHRP, must have at least 5 years in an HR decision making position.

Labour Relations

Regarding the CHRP designation. I am totally against the PPA exam which is the final step to grant you the CHRP designation. First you are tested on each subject when you take them at school. Then you are tested provincially on all required subjects. I am in agreement with this testing which requires a passing grade of 70%. To obtain the CHRP you then must pass a PPA exam which tests you on the best way to handle critical situations/incidents and recommends that you have 3 years working experience. Not everyone who works in HR has the opportunity to encounter all of these situations, as some people specialize in one field more than others, making it difficult to answer questions in all areas. Furthermore, it is not an exam that you can particularly study for. You also must attain a grade of 70%. I believe you have already proven your knowledge with the academic testing and the provincial testing. If the PPA exam MUST be used, then the passing grade should be lowered to 60% as opposed to 70% due to the fact that all HR practitioners, especially in smaller companies have the exposure to become familiar with critical incidents in all areas.

I think the association needs to advise the merits of the CHRP designation more. There are many CHRP's, yet I find the general public does not have much understanding of the value of the designation.

Unfortunately, the title is not transferable from one province to the other the biggest differences are the laws but the day to day is very similar. I know I cover 4 provinces in Canada

Why no questions on the IPMA certifications? They are relevant in the public sector.

I think the re-certification requirements are fairly restrictive. One should be able to amass credits by attending training and conferences with other organizations, not just the HRPAO. (Other Organizations such as the IAPA and EMC.) I am also responsible for Health & Safety in our organization and that is the area where I am constantly upgrading my skills. Presently, I don't receive any credit for it.

I have answered Q6-9 with info from my previous job. Last year I went back to school to do Human Resources Management. I have recently graduated.

Would like to see some info regarding the difference in salary in CHRP's vs. non-CHRP's Any statistics Ive seen showed CHRP's earning between $10,000-15,000 MORE per year vs. non-CHRP. I believe this to be a result of gaining more progressive experience as opposed to becoming a CHRP.

The constantly-changing and highly unstable requirements for the CHRP have served to dramatically decrease the importance and/or relevance of the designation. Also, the fact that you can now practically buy your CHRP designation simply by attending a high-priced 4-week program lessens the credibility of the designation. The CHRP has become nothing more than a cash-grab for the provincial Human Resources Professional Associations.

Designations are not a panacea - they simply indicate a serious commitment, and a good basic knowledge of the range of HR practices and disciplines.

If you have your undergraduate degree in HR you should automatically be granted a CHRP. As long as you have your courses at 65% or higher. I feel CHRP is just a money making scheme at the point in time.

CHRP's like to compare themselves to the CGA profession, but it is a far cry from that. If we are to have a professional designation, we should try to achieve a designation that is business oriented, and allows us to be the same sort of asset that a CGA is to finance.

My opinion is somewhat jaded as I see the whole thing as an opportunity for the provincial associations to make a lot of money when they charge for the pre-testing sessions, the test and the on going yearly maintenance of the designation. I have been in the HR field, in one form or another, for most of my 40 year working career. Since 1976 I have been exclusively in HR and at a senior level in municipal government since 1982. There is no value to having a CHRP in the municipal organizations I am familiar with.

Designations send a strong signal that the person is interested in personal development and is willing to spend considerable time/effort to get there.

Further to comment 1. Formal HR education via completion of a recognized HR program, or a number of specific HR courses completed in an degree program should be required to qualify to obtain a CHRP. However, a degree (any degree) alone should not be a necessary requirement for a CHRP. More important is the HR knowledge and experienced skills the HR practitioner must have. In this talent tight economy you risk shutting out a significant number of experienced and educated HR people who are not able to obtain a degree at this point or may not really require one to in their current or future positions. Degrees can be obtained later for higher level positions.

For Question 6, I assumed an HR Administrator as that is what I am looking towards at this time.

I think that the current move to require university degrees is elitist. It is up to the organization hiring the person to determine if a university degree is required to do the job.

I look forward to gaining my CHRP

My title is HR Advisor, which I did not see listed above.

Our society is moving toward certification and therefore designations are very helpful within the networks of business communities.

Re: current title internally - Human Resources Consultant - however the consider me management.

For 9 - Training Manager

I disagree strongly, with the re-certification requirement.

The recertification process needs to be aligned with reality.

Yes, the new method to obtain your CHRP, does not reflect what would, in my mind, qualify as a experienced professional. Recent grads out of school with no 'on the job' experience can obtain their CHRP upon successful completion of the exams. Academically, this is satisfactory but there is no link to professional experience and/or proven dedication to the HR field.

Professional designations are important and provide a baseline of knowledge. Company can then focus on relevant experience and organizational fit when hiring HR professionals. I certainly would not hire an accountant without a designation, so why would I hire an HR professional without one if I had a choice.

As a former Chairman of the CPA and as Chair of the recently completed Certification Task force, I am really surprised no mention of the CPM or CPP payroll certifications were mentioned even though one of the job titles listed was Payroll Manager/Specialist.

Sometimes HR professionals with hands on experience are better qualified than those with a designation.

I have been in HR for 23 years and am both a fan and a critic of my own profession. The CHRP is not a vehicle to the C-suite, nor is it assurance that the person is any good at practicing HR. I believe that in some ways the CHRP "ghettoizes" HR even more and acts to further stigmatize the profession. Who would you rather promote into an area beyond HR - the CHRP or the person with the degree? To me it's an easy question to answer. the CHRP is confined to HR while the transferability of the degree carries much greater weight and influence. I would rather hire a B.Comm with an HR concentration, or a person with a Masters degree, than hire a CHRP because the value of the CHRP is no where near that of the previously mentioned degrees. University degrees are a better predictor of success (to me) than that of the CHRP. Yes, I understand that there are tests to take with the CHRP, but it is a far cry from the rigor required for the degrees. Ultimately, it comes down to the person. No degree or certification is an absolute guarantee that someone "has the right stuff", but the CHRP has been sold as that panacea.

It is now very costly to write the exam every three years to renew certification >$500, plus pay an annual membership. I would rather pay a slightly higher annual membership and rewrite every 3 years without the additional >$500 cost.


I think it's all relative to the position. More people are interested in the degree, but once they implement the mandatory degree requirement to acquire your designation, it will elevate the status of it.

The CHRP exam questions I have seen do not seem to be tied to core HR competencies. Take a look at CMA and CGA programs as a guideline for improving CHRP. Be careful about the need for a university degree in order to obtain a CHRP designation. This will discourage alot of good people from seeking the designation.

I think that having a designation shows a commitment to professional development and continuous learning that is essential however I still believe that one's experience working in the field is the greater asset.

I missed the grandfather into the CHRP but have relevant experience in numerous areas of specific practice. The cost of certification along with other professional development requirements make the CHRP an expensive "nice to have". If there was someone to recognize and credit both experience and knowledge without having the additional expense of taking courses, paying for additional resource materials, and exam fees I might consider looking at CHRP. The unfortunate reality is that the exam questions pertain to the 'paid' program materials and as such, you need to buy the 'full meal deal'. Currently this is beyond my budget.

It is very expensive for many people to invest in getting the CHRP (and continuously recertifying), especially those who are just starting a career, unless a company is willing to pay for it.

Having the CHRP designation for most people I've dealt with, I question whether its worth my time to complete the required course and write the provincial exam. In my past experience esp women, by having the CHRP does not allow them to act as though they are better then others.

The course outlines I have read seem vague to me and I may not need some of these courses but do not really know until I am in the class and getting first hand experience in the areas of training.


Beware credential creep - skills, experience and performance are more important.

Credibility and professionalism are only represented by a designation. The respect the Human Resource Organizations seek has to be earned by members of the profession consistently over time functioning in a manner that earns respect.

I believe that a "senior" HR professional designation would make sense to accommodate senior professionals. It would establish that while the CHRP indicates that you have competencies in the field, the senior designation would indicate significant experience and/or advanced training/education.

Not necessary but an asset

Someone once told me they would not pursue CHRP because they felt it was merely a cash grab! That stayed with me for years. Now that I have achieved the designation, I will be observing the cost vs. benefits. I can say, it feels great to have it!

I am a retired senior executive of HR.

Evening classes (Continuing Education) for the CHRP Designation should be more accessable to rural areas. I would like to see classes available in Stratford Ontario.

I'm a consultant and find I am often involved in HR due to my certified coaching designation.

I have worked in HR for 18 years and have taken CHRP courses sporadically over this time period. Personally speaking, passing exams seems much more reliant on memorizing a lengthy list of rarely used definitions and models than whether the student truly understands valued HR principles and practices. I can count on two hands the number of definitions/models that have actually applied in the workplace even though I work in a large company with complex HR challenges and endless opportunities to provide the company with support.

Professional designations are definitely a good thing for HR. In my view, all of the designations provide quality programs to support HR in achieving business results and the choice is up to the individual. The re-certification process is also important because it ensures HR professionals remain current in the field and shift to a more strategic role.

I am also the General Manager of the company and have worked in HR or with HR professionals for 20 years

I am very disappointed with the examination process to obtain a CHRP designation. There needs to be an opportunity for an appeal or feedback once results are submitted. Your quality of exam needs desperate improvement if this is to be a national standard. Who are you accountable to??? Most importantly your members.

I believe that it would be very beneficial to increase access (distant learning) for both post secondary and the CHRP courses. More conferences and workshops that could lead towards certification would also be useful to serve as continuing professional development.

The true benefits of CHRP are access to training, networking, job postings, reference materials

I have twenty plus years experience in payroll but this is my first time dealing with union negotiations and grievances.

CHRP is falling into the trap common to other such designations of trying to defend territory based on a qualification - without much real attention to business directions.

The decision to pursue my designation, and the achievement of high scores in my courses, has brought about not only a promotion but the recognition of senior management. My opinion is actively sought on any number of issues with the acknowledgement that I have the education to back it up.

Designation should be awarded only after certain amount of years of experience in a senior position

As long as HRMA keeps current on the business HR needs and designs the standards needed to achieve the designation accordingly, CHRP can become branded like CGA is. Currently awareness is somewhat limited to the HR community, but its getting better.

HRPAO needs to put more effort when introducing CHRP designations to employers. While CHRP is granted to those who have passed the exam AND possess years of HR management experience, it is apparent that many employers assumed otherwise. It is common to find employers seeking candidates with CHRP to fill junior HR position. Until HRPAO clarifies it with employers, it does not do justice to CHRP holders.

CERTIFIED H&S PROFESSIONAL WSIB CLAINS ADMIN. Both immediately impact cost of doing business in Ontario.

The CCHRA must be commended for their efforts standardizing and nationalizing the CHRP designation between provincial governmental bodies.

I find HR to have a very large job description, when you take into account all that a HR person needs to know. Further more the continuous learning of all the related areas, makes it very difficult for an individual to stay abreast within a specific designation (Compensation) for instance. Compounded by the never ending need to keep abreast of changes in Health and Safety, Taxation, Human Rights legislations to mention a few. Now, realistically, I personally find this is going to be a huge challenge to keep abreast of all the changes, so one can keep their CHRP designation intact every three years. The challenge of being a HR specialist by conducting every day efforts is in its self a challenging job, never mind having to think of keeping ones designation intact.

I believe that the designations of CHRP & IPMA-CP should have a joint round table to discuss the common themes, competencies, testing components, etc. to determine common and overlapping issues.

The recertification needs to be made easier to get. Most professional don't have the time for recertification requirements such as publishing papers. Too busy with day to day real life issues that are not credited.

CHRP is a complete waste of time and penalizes highly experienced practitioners in their areas of expertise. It forces those people to learn and test to theory they will never need in their daily practice. I believe it is an ill thought out attempt to maintain control among a few generalist practitioners.

It seems like a great deal of folder all goes into the provincial associations and all their internal politics and yet I think not enough effort goes into explaining/promoting the CHRP designation to EXTERNAL audiences. I'm a bit put off by HR people playing "I'm OK - You're OK" with other HR people and not telling our story to the rest of the world. Accountants don't do this and the average person thinks a CA designation is a big deal (which it is). We need to mature and learn how to market ourselves.

The minimum requirement for CHRP qualifying exams should be a postgraduate certificate or diploma from a Canadian or International institution with wide range of relevant subjects rather than a 9- subject restriction.

Former DG of Hr in the public service of Canada

I received my designation in 2004. This June I did not renew my HRPAO membership thus lost my right to use the designation. I feel, that in the current form the designation means absolutely nothing. I am disgusted that a student who has completed the courses can go straight to the exam and then receive the designation with out any practical hands on experience. Now, in the job market a prospective employer will not really see the difference between a CHRP fresh out of school and someone who has been in HR for 5 years or more. I don't think that if I had not had several years of HR experience behind me, I would have passed the exam. Sure, passing the courses and the exam is wonderful but there is something to be said for actual on hand experience. I am also wondering, since I am more into the Training side of HR, what value my CHRP would have? It is still HR related but what would an employer expect when they see you have a CHRP designation? I could go on forever, bottom line is I cancelled my membership because the whole CHRP designation is a farce. I was very proud when I received it, I felt it was a reward for my knowledge and hard work. Today I don't think it is worth the paper it is written on.

I can understand the importance of a designation but I believe for people in the field without the "CHRP" who entered after the grandfather clause ended, there is no real incentive or requirement to pursue CHRP designation. What will it get me....CHRP designation does not guarantee a job and I got one without it.

There is a great deal to know in HR regarding conflict resolution, team development, being a strategic partner with the organization, linking results to corp. objectives -- there are things to learn that can't be taught by the courses. Somehow documenting these and suggesting a graduate learn these skills would be ideal.

I teach two of the CHRP courses at a the post-graduate level program at a community college in Toronto. I am very concerned that the students do not receive real-world hands-on skills training such as consulting skills or project management...

CHRP is not a hiring requirement because you can assist the individual with going through the certification process once they are hired.

The CHRP should be affordable.

I truly hope that the CHRP is a minimum qualification for all individuals hired in the HR profession. I am tired of hearing about "Jane/John Doe" who used to be a receptionist at the gym getting hired to be an HR practitioner because of who he/she knows.

I believe that someone who has significant HR experience, does not need the CHRP designation to have a successful career. However, for someone like myself who just graduated and is beginning her career in HR, the CHRP designation gives me credibility. I am proud to have my CHRP designation but at 23 years old with 1 year experience in HR, it may be questionable to many, whether I truly am worthy of the title.

I believe that someone who has just graduated HR and has not been able to write the Tier 1 CHRP exam because of the expense and having to work for a living as it has been suggested to students to work a year before writing. And when I am able to afford and have the time to prepare for the exam i'll be too late because I do not have a degree and i am lead to believe in 2007 a degree will be required.... That is unfair to pressure people to have to write an exam some may not be able to prepare for.

Maybe in time it will be recognized in the same way as a CA, CMA, or Professional Engineer which will be great!

I have not seen a higher level of competencies in HR professionals with a designation. In fact, candidates with designations have been less open to entering an organization at a junior level because of expectations that their designations will move them to more senior roles immediately.

When I recruit for an HR professional, I would consider either an IPMA-CP or CHRP, as an asset. In general, the candidate's combination of education, training, experience would be considered.

I do think HR individuals need to take a closer look at the other designations offered to HR professionals instead of just automatically obtaining the CHRP. We also need to stand together to get the association to bring down the re-certification standards for CHRP - we maintain those standards in our professional careers, we shouldn't have to prove ourselves continually to keep a designation we worked extremely hard to obtain in the first place.

As important as the designation is I think that life/work experience is more important. It is the art of understanding people - a designation only proves you went to school - experience shows that you know how to handle things. Anyone can look information up for an answer - the key is - "do you know people?"

Canada now has two, equally professional certification bodies, and as such both should be promoted to meet the needs of all HR practitioners.

I believe that professional designations only benefit the person who has it. Also 150 multiple choice questions do not necessarily test a person's full knowledge of Human Resources nor is it an effective indication of an HR practitioner's competence.

The CHRP is very narrow in scope as it only considers the province of Ontario in course content. It needs to provide national content at least (e.g. how to establish a pay plan for Canadian employees belonging to the same company.) I speak from experience, having taught Salary Compensation at the college level.

The CHRP recertification points system is simply intended to be an incestuous, cash cow for HRPAO, but masks itself as continuing education/professional development; for example, you get points for attending the Conf, volunteering for HRPAO events or exam proctoring, etc. I'm very disappointed that we even need the recertification process, and I know some colleague who are simply not participating and letting their CHRP lapse as a result. Can't be bothered with the recertification bureaucracy.

They are my pet peeve, especially the CHRP. If I, or my organization, pays the tuition to an accredited school, I pass the courses based on the requirements set out by the HRPAO, why then do I need to spend hundreds of $$ to write another exam to prove what I have just spent months proving? It is nothing but a money grab which in the end proves nothing when it comes to practical ability in the real world.

While the CHRP still stands as an excellent representation of ones commitment to the field, it does fall somewhat short in not being as specific as other designations might.

Individuals will need to confirm their expertise while on the job. A designation is just one method of verifying your knowledge and professional practice. On the job training is crucial to organizational success.

Throughout my courses at multiple schools I have found the level of education unequal school to school, even professor to professor. I find it difficult to ultimately gauge a qualified candidate due to the lack of consistency throughout the industry. Although all institutions do not have to have the same curriculum I do feel that stricter policies should be in place to ensure that all professors are full qualified and follow up on complaints by students on the lack of education they were provided from a specific course.

I honestly do not believe that a degree should be required to obtain the CHRP designation in Ontario in the future.

I feel that the CHRP is becoming too costly and I have heard colleagues refer to it as a "money-grab"

CCHRA should more closely with some of the other HR organizations: more collaboration and less competition

Many employers are misinformed and require CHRP designation for entry level positions. Some new graduates of programs are able to pass the KPA and the PPA and get their CHRP but they have no work experience and couldn't possibly succeed in the workplace. We set them and their employer up for failure. I think it should be mandatory to have a set number of years experience in HR management in order to get the designation.

I found it a bit insulting that our organization was not listed.

The CHRP designation as it stands today is a cash grab for provincial HR organisations and the CCHRA. It doesn't reflect or gauge one's HR experience or ability.

Benefits & HR Coordinator

I believe that HR does not truly view itself as a profession in the way that accountants, for example, do. For HR to be truly a profession there needs to be a mechanism of accountability. All formal criteria, whether through education or a certification such as CHRP, do provide any guarantees that an HR "professional" works according to any universal ethical standards.

Professional designations are useful to indicate a general level of competence and to create an awareness of the certain basic requirements expected of an HR practitioner in terms of a code of conduct.

I think the CHRP is a good educational base line, but there should be an experiential component to the designation process. Right now, people with no experience can study, write the exam and have the same considerations as those who have 10 years experience.

In answer to #9, Professor of Business, specializing in HR

When surveying certain areas, ensure adequate research has been done to ensure your survey reflects the market. It would appear to me that this survey is for raising awareness to CHRP without giving consideration to other professional associations and organizations that subscribe, support and read your publication.

There needs to be some equivalency drawn for master degrees that equate to the CHRP, that is it seems odd to have masters level degree and still not be considered to have the educational requirements for CHRP.

Appreciate the opportunity to offer feedback - if the desire is to have all HR Practitioners carry the CHRP, then I believe the CHRP designation ought to be granted to those HR Practitioners who hold a recognized post secondary diploma/degree and have worked in HR for a period of time. Presently, the process to obtain a CHRP designation is long, costly and, from my standpoint, a non value add as the absence of a CHRP does not open or close a door for a seasoned professional. It's my sense, that a junior practitioner or an individual without a related degree or diploma benefits most from the CHRP designation - acts as an equalizer.

I am a HR Manager/professional for more or less 10 years but not recognized by BC HRMA. Here in Canada, I am starting to work myself up.

Professional designations are nice to have especially for people whose previous formal training is not in the field. However, to assess a potential HR candidate, I will look at the person's overall qualifications and how they present themselves in the interview and how they answer the interview questions. I wouldn’t use CHRP as one of the major qualifications that I am seeking. It's nice to see someone who is taking the initiative to take the HR courses. But you really have to look at what else they have done. In the case of CHRP, I just feel that it's getting so much expensive to go through the whole process. I almost feel that it's like a money-driven business for HRPAO. It may be a good idea to look at other designations outside of HR, e.g. how they are designing their certification process. From what I know (very little), to obtain a PEng is not so much costly as CHRP. I have worked in a number of different organizations. I have found that my non-CHRP colleagues are more knowledgeable than the CHRP peers. I am happy you put out this survey. I very much look forward to the results on Sept. 11.

You missed designations available in several specialty areas. CRSP, CED, PMP, plus no focus on MIR.

Some of the questions did not apply because I am a student, but no option was given so the question had to be answered as a professional.

The current CHRP certification process (testing) is beginning to weed out those persons not truly dedicated to the craft. The old method of certification (without initial testing) allowed too many through the door that made the job of bringing HR into the strategic side of business difficult.

Professional designation illustrate dedication to the profession and willingness to keep learning to be as professional as required.

They should me done more frequently not just 4 days in a year.

I think that it is important to have designations such as CHRP, however, I feel that it would better serve our industry if HR people could choose from a variety of specialized areas and then receive "Special Designation or Recognition" in these areas. That way, employers who are looking for an HR person but would like them to have special interest and training in that area in order to fit best with their company. There are far too many HR people, who call themselves HR people but really don't have the first clue as to what that exactly means. As an HR professional I feel as though I only have one option in order to be considered a competent HR person...at least on paper anyways...which is all that matters when you are applying for a position. and that is to get my CHRP designation. I feel that the College courses required in the CHRM courses today are more than adequate to be considered a professional and competent HR person.

For the people outside of USA it is not so easy to be certified by HRP. If you have any suggestion, please contact me.

Why does it have to be so expensive...?

It is been my experience that many times people have the necessary designations, but unfortunately, they do not have the proper skills for the job. It takes a lot more than designations to perform well on a job. Many companies put so much emphasis on the "certifications" that when the employees with the designations consistently underperforms on the job, the employer can't understand. Again, a designation does not make a person a better employee, some people have "it" and some do not.

I am a student, but the questionnaire would not allow me to leave blank, those questions where I was not qualified to answer.

Is there a non-profit and/or Aboriginal stream?

Certification is a good thing for those who have come up the ranks without formal education or have switch into HR from another career track. It's less usefull for those with Bachelor's and Master's degrees in HR.

I was disappointed to note that in your first and second questions, you did not mention the IPMA-Canada designation. The International Personnel Management Association - Canada (IPMA) is a national human resource management association whose mission is to promote excellence in the practice of human resource management. It was established in 1906 as a not-for-profit association of human resource practitioners in Canada. Today in Canada, we have eight chapters with members in all provinces. We are globally connected through our affiliation with other IPMA associations throughout the world. IPMA-Canada’s objectives and roles are: (1) to promote and enhance the human resource profession in Canada and globally; (2) to provide professional development and training for the human resource community; (3) to maintain a code of ethics and standards of practice; and (4) to recognize excellence in human resource practice through national and local award programs.

Standardization across Canada is important . Experience working in an HR capacity should be mandatory prior to the full designation being attainable otherwise the designation will be mockery.

Note that there is a grammar error in question #5. "It's means "it is" and is not the possessive pronoun. Good writing skills are nice in HR.

Not at this time.

In our recent job evaluation for management we added the CHRP and this added to the pricing of the job

I believe monthly association meetings are a good idea for sharing ideas and networking.

I am only familiar with CHRP designation. I am unsure of the value that this designation really offers. It appears to be more of a revenue generating opportunity for associations. I believe that any designation in HR is to be more value-added, there needs to be more work done to tie it into the education system. This will ensure that the "competencies" measured are ones that are truly being taught.

A business degree supplemented with HR courses and the CHRP designation makes the most sense to me as a practicing HR professional.

As a CHRP, I appreciate the designation. However, I also see it closing the door to those who do not choose academics as their path to a career in this field. This weakens the HR profession somewhat, in my opinion.

I have found it is difficult to get information on what is required to be CHRP certified.

Currently, the exams are not well written. In addition, you don't require significant experience in order to pass the PPE - I had less than the suggested 3+ years of experience and did well on it.

Professional designations have their place and their value in society. I believe that the HRPAO is placing too strong an emphasis on credentials in this instance. Many HR professionals don't have the designation and don't wish to take the courses or write the exam. They have more experience and ability than those who do have the designations. Why do we want to impose that on our membership. I prefer that it be optional. As an organization, my company looks at more than just education when hiring. Natural ability, behavioural attitude, and fit with the organization are more important than an individual's ability to memorize theories.

Companies have different HR needs. Smaller companies do not need an HR professional who has a CHRP designation. They want the job done in an efficient and effective manner. They want someone who can think strategically and see the big picture.

CHRP designation should be a requirement in a higher level HR professional role but really does not have merit at the administrative level. I believe that any HR related managerial role should have the designation as a requirement. I have not hired for this position as I am the one who holds this position.

I believe that the designation is a necessary component of making HR a credible and respected profession. When individuals have a CHRP designation, they are taught strategic planning and are able to contribute to the organization on a level that is appreciated and subsequently becomes a department that is indispensable to the organization.

I belong to the professional organization in the UK and went through a rigorous process to receive my CIPD designation there. I do not believe the current assessment process for the CHRP designation demonstrates a competent HR professional. I also do not believe my HRPAO/CHRP membership delivers value for money. However, I support the idea of a professional membership and hope that as the HRPAO/CHRP develops, it will provide better development opportunities for its members, greater access to HR information and become a recognized designation in the HR profession..

The CHRP is an important designation, however, not all HR practitioner positions require this level. The educational background is important, however behavioural attributes (competencies) are of utmost importance as well. Business savvy, customer service, computer skills, ability to work with ambiguity, are also importance b

An individual with minimal HR experience should be able to do a good job in a small organization (30-50 employees)

The CHRP designation at a national level is still in its infancy and has a way to go before becoming fully recognized a a 'must have'. In addition to educating the business community on its merits, the recertification process needs to continue to evolve, such that it acknowledges a greater balance between ongoing education and practical experience. As for the CCP, this designation is important in the context that the learning from the initial courses is crucial as an HR professional moves forward into progressively-responsible positions in his/her career.

I am considering a designation. There are more employers recognizing CHRP

The IPMA CP has much more focus on the re-certification aspect which gives me comfort that my employees need to commit to ongoing learning. It is also more rigorous.

This survey is very narrow based. It did not ask about professional designation as a whole, but only about one, which I know little about. PD is a great asset if it is viewed as creditable throughout the HR Community

Again I am dumbfounded that the only international HR designation has not been included.

IPMA is not mentioned as a certified program.

IPMA has an excellent certification program which I feel is more in tune with today's HR than the CHRP designation is. It requires a combination of training, education, and experience along with testing component. I feel by not having this included in your list it is not a full picture of designations available to the HR profession.

I can't believe a paper such as the HR Reporter refuses to acknowledge that there is an international designation available to HR professionals from an organization (IPMA-Canada) that has been around for 100 years. In fact, the IPMA-CP designation has been available across Canada before the CHRP was.

I would say, the director of CHRP should not only focus on North America, but also think about to push this "product" to the whole world. It's because HR is a hot topic in the global; esoecially in Asia. Thus, CHRP also could be an asset for applicants.

It would be a huge asset if there was a Senior HR professional designation - targeting senior people &/or with 20+ years business/HR experience.

The HRPAO should do more to consider what it really means to be a "professional" before running around and trying to make everyone have a designation, which does nothing more than prove a person took some courses; how about setting programs that teach people about how to act like a professional, or the importance of ethics? we hold a lot of influence in organizations (or at least those of us who know what we're doing...) so we need to make sure we "walk-the-walk" instead of just "talking-the-talk", and unfortunately, the people I've known and seen don't make me feel proud about the CHRP designation. As a 13 year HR veteran, I will probably not bother with it, as it seems to have no impact on my career growth.

I am a director of LR

I think that the recertification process for the CHRP designation is extremely flawed. The recertification "points" system is catered to those individuals in a teaching/social HR capacity. Individuals such as myself, who devote their lives to a strong labour relations industrial business are not afforded the opportunity to indulge in the extracurricular activities required to gain recertification points. When my designation expires in 2008, I anticipate being required to re-write the CHRP assessments and spend another $600 in testing fees in order to recertify, as I will not be able to gain enough certification "points" in my spare time. At this point, I am seriously assessing the value of recertifying.

Re #5 - The individual who qualified for the CHRP designation through the new program and had to pass the exams is generally a much more qualified CHRP than the CHRP that was "grandfathered" in under the old "you're in the club" method of qualification. Most of the "in the club" CHRPs would not pass either of the exams without considerable time spent preparing (in effect learning HR for the first time), even then I believe there is a significant amount who are administrators, coordinators, transaction processors who are not true HR practitioners but were given the CHRP due to their tenure. The less than qualified CHRPs do the designation and profession a disservice. KG

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!