Professionalism

I enjoy education and professionalism. Balance tends to be an issue though as I will jump into a uni course and get lost in it. I went into a standard (in Australia) three year degree, which very quickly became a 4 year double-major and I topped that off with Honours. Then I didn't do anything for another 5 years. Then I went back and did a standard MBA and quickly upgraded to an MBA Honours. I find ideas, concepts and theories enthralling. But I'm always surprised at how others don't, actively avoiding both and still succeed. Then I join organisations and through my passion I end up the national president.

But – I have a very specific question: What is a professional?

A profession used to be defined as a job that required specific education, and accreditation and membership to a professional body. Therefore a stone mason could be considered a professional but a cowboy couldn't. I feel that our society has lost sight of the value of these requirements and happily put the title of "profession" on almost anything. There are some realms that professionalism holds strong, including legal and medical realms. Unfortunately Information Technology and Management are in the areas that have tended towards the opposite end of the spectrum.

Before I go any further and construct my arguments I should probably offer a disclaimer. In no way am I saying that people who are in professional positions without formal education don’t deserve to be in those positions, nor am I saying that they aren’t effective in those positions. In fact, I’m not discussing their efficacy at all. No – this is not a question of individuals and how they perform, but that of our society and the standards it sets. I’m wondering by what standards do we measure our professions. What are we going to decide on as a minimum standard?

Professional bodies normally require continuing education, such as reading a minimum number of periodicals or taking a specific amount of education. You wouldn't see a doctor who hadn't studied medicine, couldn't be accredited, wasn't accepted by their peers and didn't keep up to date. Similarly, you wouldn't get someone to build your house that was self-taught, didn't bother with joining any building bodies/associations. So why is it that it is okay in IT and management? Aren't they as important? I'm not talking about one or two people, I'm talking about what appears to be the majority of people in these industries.

I'm guessing that people who don't know about IT think "well, that person there is a wiz. Look as their fingers dance over the keyboard." An actual IT professional might see that the same person identified as a “wiz” and conclude that they simply don't have a clue. The problem is an information asymmetry – a manager/owner frequently doesn't understand IT and doesn't realise how much (or little) the person they are hiring knows, let alone what the person they are hiring "should" know. The fact of the matter is that the industry body (ACS in Australia) does "know" what is required, and specifies specific minimum education to "qualify" to work in an industry. They "certify" the education and work experience of individuals. They are also the professional body who will only accept as members people who meet their standard. But it appears to me that employers aren’t utilising this association in the majority of cases. Why?

Similarly with management, why is it okay to put someone into a position in which they have had no training what-so-ever? Management is difficult, and almost always there are unique management issues related to each management position. Management normally requires advanced levels of strategic thinking, technical knowledge as well as a breadth of business knowledge. Being a good leader of people is an essential part of the job too. I think most people would agree with this, and also agree that very few people would have all these skills innately. So why put someone into management without ensuring they have these skills and abilities first? Why leave them in that position without further education?

But everyone can think of exceptions, right? People who weren’t formally trained/educated but still perform very well. I’ve worked with some people who aren’t formally trained and they do just fine in IT and in Management. Is it because of these exceptions that it has become okay/normal to ignore any of the standards of professions?

I’ve limited this argument to the fields I am intimately familiar with, but there are many other areas. For instance, why is it okay for university lecturers to teach without any teaching qualification? The word “Doctor” means “Teacher”, but in truth most PhDs actually study research, not teaching. I believe that, no matter how naturally talented you are, before undertaking any significant action you should learn what works, what doesn't and what we know to this point in time. Otherwise the result is that everyone is left to repeat the same mistakes as everyone before them, while not gaining any wisdom from those before them.

I do practice what I preach. I'm a member of a number of organisations, including GMAA, ACS and AIM. I used to be a member of AHRI, but I felt that they were only focused on HR professionals, rather than the profession itself. That is, they weren't focused on the information that those in the profession should know, but rather they were focused on issues relating to HR professionals.

Of the organisations I am a member of, I'll give a quick run down on each.
GMAA – Graduate Management Association of Australia - www.gmaa.asn.au
This is the professional body for graduate mangers (i.e. MBA, DBA, Graduate Diploma, in Business Administration etc.) What I like about this organisation is a commitment to professionalism of both members, and the educational institutions. We rate the MBAs of Australia, and hold the business schools to a high standard.

I'm the National President and QLD President of this organisation.

ACS – Australian Computing Society- www.acs.org.au
This is the professional body for IT professionals. They have a very high standard for who "makes the grade" to be a member and who doesn't. You can guarantee that if someone isn't able to become a member, there is no way they should be called an IT professional.

Here is a piece I did a couple of years ago for them:

http://www.acs.org.au/ictcareers/index.cfm?action=show&conID=200708131018576859


AIM – Australian Institute of Management – www.aim.org.au
AIM is the cover-all organisation for the lower ranks of management (not their assertion, but mine). They run courses for people who are new to management or need a "top up" of skills. They are a great organisation in the resources and information they provide. They also provide a good summary current management and business issues.

Being a member of these organisations shows that not only do I meet their rigorous standard for acceptance as a peer, but it also shows a commitment to professionalism. I know that most organisations "just don't care" – but that's okay because I’m determined to be professional, in spite of no requirement to be one.

I’ve posed a lot of questions, ones that I don’t know the answer to and I am genuinely interested in the thoughts and opinions of people out there. What do you think? Is IT/Management something that you think you can pick up on the fly? I’ve studied both long and hard, and I’ve never met someone who is self taught who also has a complete grasp of the fundamentals. I have also met people who are formally educated who perform far below self-taught individuals (interestingly, these people were not in professional organisations).

What about other professions? Also - what about the future. What is the future of professional organisations?

Looking forward to hearing any comments.