During a recent appearance, noted author and thought leader Malcolm Gladwell commented that “the disease of the novice is incompetence” and “the disease of the expert is overconfidence.” He went on to express his view that the disease of the expert is of greater concern, explaining that typically, we don’t care much when novices make mistakes, because they’re not responsible for anything important. By contrast, if an expert makes a mistake, there can be significant consequences. Hmm.
If experts tend to be overconfident, how likely is it that, left to their own devices, they will be able to identify, and will choose to participate in, precisely the training and learning experiences needed to maintain their competence (no matter how well intentioned they may be)? Perhaps the completion of a self-assessment tool should be the first step in the recertification process. Maybe this would serve as a “wake-up call” to certificants, motivating them to become more engaged in their ongoing occupational/professional development.
Mr. Gladwell also expressed the wish that there were an infrastructure in place which required experts to periodically evaluate their competence, to see if they do indeed measure up to their own high perceptions of themselves. “That’s what recertification does,” you may say. Not quite. Industry data suggest that a substantial proportion of certifiers have no mechanism within their recertification process to evaluate certificants’ knowledge and skills. Oops!
And here’s one last quote from Mr. Gladwell: “Being an expert is a gift you have to earn every day.” Do our recertification processes truly ensure that our certificants continue to earn the right every day to call themselves “certified”?
Re-Thinking, Re-Imagining, and Re-Defining the Business of Certification
Re-Thinking Certifiers' Role in Education/Training
Although certifier involvement in the provision of education/training is no longer categorically forbidden by industry standards, there remains a commonly held myth that it is indeed prohibited, and within the certification community there lingers a taboo about certifiers providing education/training and examination preparation. Unfortunately, this situation has resulted in many certifiers passing up (or failing to see) opportunities which could benefit both their organization and their stakeholders.
Certifiers possess unique expertise which could be used to develop programs, products, and services that could make a substantial contribution to the occupational/professional development of their participants. Specifically, certifiers have an in-depth understanding of the core competencies required for effective performance. In addition, their expertise in assessment techniques could be used for purposes other than certification. For instance, certifiers could develop formative assessments to aid individuals in evaluating their knowledge/skills on the path to developing occupational/professional competency. Imagine if certifiers’ traditional areas of expertise were combined with education and training expertise (whether acquired independently by the certifier or obtained through partnerships with other organizations). This could pave the way for new business opportunities for certifiers and for a variety of beneficial programs, products, and services for stakeholders. These opportunities could include programs/products/services that assist individuals in achieving competence (pre-certification offerings) and maintaining competence (post-certification offerings). (Of course, the certifier would not make the purchase of these offerings a requirement for certification or recertification.)
What if we reconceptualized the role of the certifier as that of an occupational/professional development partner, rather than simply a credential provider? What would you do differently? What new products could be developed if you more fully leveraged your organization’s expertise and branched out (or expanded further) into the area of occupational/professional development and education/training?
Certifiers possess unique expertise which could be used to develop programs, products, and services that could make a substantial contribution to the occupational/professional development of their participants. Specifically, certifiers have an in-depth understanding of the core competencies required for effective performance. In addition, their expertise in assessment techniques could be used for purposes other than certification. For instance, certifiers could develop formative assessments to aid individuals in evaluating their knowledge/skills on the path to developing occupational/professional competency. Imagine if certifiers’ traditional areas of expertise were combined with education and training expertise (whether acquired independently by the certifier or obtained through partnerships with other organizations). This could pave the way for new business opportunities for certifiers and for a variety of beneficial programs, products, and services for stakeholders. These opportunities could include programs/products/services that assist individuals in achieving competence (pre-certification offerings) and maintaining competence (post-certification offerings). (Of course, the certifier would not make the purchase of these offerings a requirement for certification or recertification.)
What if we reconceptualized the role of the certifier as that of an occupational/professional development partner, rather than simply a credential provider? What would you do differently? What new products could be developed if you more fully leveraged your organization’s expertise and branched out (or expanded further) into the area of occupational/professional development and education/training?
The REAL Purpose of Certification
In the early days of professional/personnel certification, the credentialing process served a quasi-licensure function with the stated goal being protection of the public (although some have argued that the real goal was protection of professional turf). Today there are a variety of other reasons why organizations choose to sponsor certification programs. Professional associations may seek to elevate the profession, trade associations try to ensure a qualified workforce for the industry, manufacturers use certification to help enhance sales of their products, and employers develop internal certifications to ensure employees are knowledgeable about company products, services, and processes. It is evident that protection of the public is not always the primary goal, and in some instances, is not a goal of certification at all. Indeed, data from industry scans has consistently suggested that the majority of certification programs in operation today were NOT created primarily to protect the public.
Perhaps the certification industry should instead by guided by the assumption that the purpose of certification is to serve the credentialing needs of those groups which the certifier has identified as stakeholders of the certification program. A corollary to this assumption is that certifiers publicly disclose which stakeholders their program is designed to serve and how it does so. Furthermore, the content of the program should be aligned with its stated goals. If we accept this new assumption, we should take into consideration the goals of the certification program and the specific stakeholders it serves when interpreting how to apply industry standards. Likewise, for the identification of best practices. What is best practice for a certification designed to enhance product sales may differ from best practice for a certification designed by a trade association to ensure a qualified workforce for its members.
Are our current standards, which are based on the assumption that the primary goal of certification is protection of the public, unnecessarily restrictive? How might industry standards and best practices change (or not) if we no longer presume protection of the public to be the primary goal of certification?
Perhaps the certification industry should instead by guided by the assumption that the purpose of certification is to serve the credentialing needs of those groups which the certifier has identified as stakeholders of the certification program. A corollary to this assumption is that certifiers publicly disclose which stakeholders their program is designed to serve and how it does so. Furthermore, the content of the program should be aligned with its stated goals. If we accept this new assumption, we should take into consideration the goals of the certification program and the specific stakeholders it serves when interpreting how to apply industry standards. Likewise, for the identification of best practices. What is best practice for a certification designed to enhance product sales may differ from best practice for a certification designed by a trade association to ensure a qualified workforce for its members.
Are our current standards, which are based on the assumption that the primary goal of certification is protection of the public, unnecessarily restrictive? How might industry standards and best practices change (or not) if we no longer presume protection of the public to be the primary goal of certification?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)