Certifiable: Certification will try long-timers and leaders

When an organization starts talking about certification – earning a certification to carry out a role or a set of responsibilities – the people in it are owning up to two things:

1. This is an area with poorly defined standards (and someone should step in and define them)
2. We recognize that what have been doing up to now hasn’t been quite good enough (and someone needs to address that after all)

Both are good instincts.  The first is what any organization owes the people who make it up:  To be clear about the expectations of people doing the work.  The second reflects a desire to turn a critical eye to pretty-good work that is getting done, despite the obstacles, thanks to the loyal effort of dedicated people.  But overall, it’s clear that the overall record isn’t great and certainly isn’t consistent.  In many cases, that work is difficult, too.

But the discussion of certification leads to making many things clear that have been hidden.  Where I work, the path someone takes to get a solid answer to an exceptional situation depends on who that person knows, how they ask the question, and what they are trying to achieve.  It’s a reasonable path.  It may not be repeatable for others, though it can become The Right Way for the person who discovered it.

Certification charges a group to review standards and practices, which means that The Right Way may become a not-best practice.  At a minimum, years of experience are called into question.  Maybe what those folks have been doing is great.  If  the certification group is doing its work, it will question all the acquired practice that experience taught its best people, share the best ones, and correct the outdated or wrong.  And that’s going to feel like a whole new brand of betrayal, since the organization did an incomplete job preparing those in target roles to do better.  Steel yourself  for grief, which always starts with anger and denial.  Enlist leaders in reiterating that the examination is important, and that what appears to be wrong is not the fault of the people that certification focuses on.

It's not their fault. It's your responsibility.

The problem certification addresses is a problem leaders created

The target audience for certification is not at fault for the organization’s shortcomings to date.  They’ve been doing their best in the face of unclear objectives, diffuse accountabilities, incomplete oversight, variable application of policies and procedures, and other pains in the neck they’ll be glad to sound off about.  It’s not their fault that the organization can’t get consistent results on whatever measure that shows off those shortcomings. If you feel the twitching of defensiveness – “But they’re not doing everything they should do!  They should know this stuff!” – take a pill.

The fault lies with leaders and they need to say so.  Whatever “the organization” has not done is what leaders did not do.  When the organization asks someone to be certified, it expects them to make a personal commitment.  A substantial certification places responsibility for  development and achievement in candidates’ hands.  So a certification program must solve the problem leaders and the organization identified and provide what leaders haven’t offered yet: clear policy and practices, clear problem-resolution process, clear standards, support for learning and performance on the job, clear lines of accountability, and a clear sense of how leaders value certification.