SHRM Requirements

There are times when it's necessary to complete a proposal either for work or to be a presenter. In the talent management industry, there is an organization called Society for Human Resources Management, affectionately spoken of by its acronym, SHRM, and pronounced as "Sherm" (like the human companion for Mr. Peabody; but I digress).

SHRM sets standards for maintaining their certification of knowledge and expertise. Likewise, they set forth activities that show focused effort in developing meaningful, insightful content delivered by presenters. It's worthwhile to be acquainted with those standards. It helps in developing an accurate picture of the competency that can be presented. It's extremely useful in determining whether a presenter is qualified. This is in addition to their body of work either in writing or history of presenting and speaking.

Certification examiners and education providers can be found in many places. Not all are SHRM associations. In fact, there are some companies that are in the business of providing that education. They're global.

Recertification is focused on three categories of maintaining professional excellence:

• Advance Your Education
  
• Advance Your Organization
  
• Advance Your Profession
  

These areas are discussed in the SHRM BoCK (Body of Competency and Knowledge).

There are different types of presentations. For example, the most strenuous is the keynote. That's a solo performance. The speaker is expected to leave the audience inspired and motivated. There are other solo performances such as workshops and seminars. Those are focused on educating the audience. Some are also done by a panel or shared presentation. When it's a shared situation, even more skill is required because there needs to be coordination among the panelists. Strategically speaking, that can be very advantageous. It can also test one's EQ levels and abilities to negotiate. Focus on the outcome is the measure of excellence.

The point is these standards are useful both from the perspective of someone seeking a speaker or a trainer as well as for the one who is submitting a proposal and wants their content to qualify for SHRM credits (whether for certification, continuing education, or for recertification). They're also a useful reference point when interviewing and hiring.

What about knowledge and experience gained from being deep in the trenches and emerging with successful outcomes? What about sharing that knowledge and the strategies that gave rise to them? At the moment, I can't find that information. Needless to say, some awareness comes not from reading the book or sitting in the class but from actual execution and creativity with regard to developing solutions that fit the situation. Perhaps it also depends on how deep and wide the "trail of blood" is in getting there. I'll leave those answers to some of the ones who know more about applying credits from work (and not workplace) experience.

Meanwhile, it's wise to know what the standards are. It's prudent to make the effort to reach and even surpass those standards, no matter which industry is the focus. There's always a standard for excellence.

Resources:

• SHRM Body of Competency and Knowledge
  
• SHRM Certification: Qualifying Credit Activities
  
• Recertification Process Infographic
  
• SHRM Approved Recertification Providers
  

Sponsored Links:

• Talent Genius HR.com recertification classes
  
• PHR/SPHR Recertification
  

Reviving Ethics in Recruiting

In 2004, I developed a discussion group called Ethics in Recruiting. The goal was to have a place where those in the recruiting industry could discuss best practices, consider the ethics involved in those practices, and develop a consensus about ethical practices that could be used on a global basis. That last prong would also require learning about cultural practices from various countries in order to gain an appreciation of whether or not a global standard is even possible.

Nevertheless, it was a venue where those in the industry could talk about practices and look for guidance - or just vent. There were members who came from other industries. Their presence provided us with various barometers and bases for consideration of rules.

It was a lively and popular group that drew a lot of attention. It was a bold move. By 2006, it became a recruiting conference session on its own merit. It was in essence the topic du jour and there was fierce competition for ownership of the group. It was obvious the group needed to move to its own home; the move didn't happen in time. By 2008, the original venue dropped the group.

The idea and need still lives. To satisfy the desire for that type of group, Ethics in Recruiting discussions is being revived as a subgroup of Entrances, the 360 networking group on LinkedIn. It will be available for members by July 1, 2014. Join us.

Look for the LinkedIn logo

Ethics in Recruiting

Glorious Exits

Tim Russert died this past Friday. In spite of his hard work and the fact that he'd just commenced his 58th year of life, he looked pretty good. His death did not have the impact on me that some other journalists' had. But his tributes and memorials collect the same stories as his predecessors about being in the trenches, collecting the story that could not have been were it not for his/her conviction, the gripping interviews, attention to high journalistic standards, and so on.

I admired Tim Russert's skills as a journalist, TV moderator, speaker, and all the other attributes that went with his talents. But for the breadth of experience and talents, for the constant push toward a higher standard and the setting of new goals, for his desire to expand and increase the desire to know on the part of the information-consuming public, I still admire people such as Peter Jennings, and the legions of other journalist legends such as Walter Cronkite, Frank Reynolds, Charlayne Hunter-Gault, to name a few.

Knowing his ailment as intimately as I do, it is quite easy to identify with the footage his brain recorded in those last minutes, the thoughts and concerns about what he was doing and how to keep the flow of the work product moving to fruition. I know these things because Russert and I had the same standards. No matter what else, the product needs to be delivered. No matter what's happening, the public deserves to be as informed and educated as possible so that they are not making blind decisions.

Russert was also a journalist who stood his ground when he felt he was right about a particular slant. How well I remember the email that was sent to both his station (KNBC) as well as one of his competitors (KABC) that threatened to no longer watch his show if he continued to plunge viewers into yet another hour of Clinton horror reportage rather than cover the multifoliate issues impacting the U.S. domestic and foreign policy, and more. Russert chose to continue the Clinton coverage while his competitors re-integrated the political news of many perspectives back into their Sunday programming. It was his right to make the decision and it showed that he was a journalist who did not bend to pressure for the sake of pressure.

But the thing that most makes me want to stand and salute this excellent journalist is the one that many will take for granted. He died in one of the most glorious ways possible. He died while fully engaged in his greatest passion -- doing his work. How many of us will be able to say we died with a smile on our face because we were doing what we enjoyed most -- our work? That is definitely a glorious exit.