The article titled Why Foreign Certification for HR Professionals is Not Necessary presents a strong argument in favour of CHRP certification and highlights its relevance and recognition in Kenya. While it seeks to promote the local certification, it does so at the expense of dismissing the potential benefits of international certifications for HR professionals.
Indeed, the article has several limitations and presents a biased perspective, which hinders its credibility and persuasiveness. One of the major issues with the article is its narrow focus on the CHRP certification and its advantages, while completely disregarding the potential benefits of international certifications.
While the writer points out that the benefits cited in the my article are not exclusive to international certifications, they fail to acknowledge that international certifications may offer additional advantages not covered by CHRP. Each certification programme has its unique offerings, and it is essential to consider the broader spectrum of options available to HR professionals.
Another drawback of the article is its overly nationalistic tone. While it is commendable to support local certifications, it should not come at the expense of discrediting international certifications or overlooking the value they can bring. HR is a global profession, and international certifications can offer exposure to diverse practices, perspectives, and networks, which can be valuable in an increasingly interconnected world.
The article’s heavy reliance on legal provisions and Government recognition to validate the CHRP certification raises questions about its objectivity. While regulatory recognition is important, it should not be the sole basis for assessing the superiority of a certification programme. A more comprehensive evaluation should consider the content, curriculum, and reputation of the certification, both locally and internationally.
Furthermore, the article lacks empirical evidence or comparative analysis to substantiate its claims. It would have been more convincing if the writer had presented concrete data or case studies demonstrating the effectiveness and marketability of CHRP-certified professionals compared to those with international certifications. Without such evidence, the claims made in the article remain subjective and unsupported.
The writer’s position as the Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of HRMPEB, the organisation responsible for CHRP certification, creates a clear conflict of interest. This raises concerns about the objectivity and independence of the article, as it appears to serve as promotional material rather than an impartial analysis.
While the article highlights some merits of the CHRP certification, it falls short in providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment of the matter. Its disregard for the potential benefits of international certifications, lack of empirical evidence, and focus on promoting a specific certification programme makes it weak.
A more balanced and evidence-based argument would have made the article more compelling and informative for HR professionals seeking to make informed decisions about their career development.
The writer is HRD Consultant and Author of Transition into Retirement; [email protected]