Why Are Nail Salon Workers Required to Get Certifications When Procurement Professionals Aren’t?

In a recent post over on Procurement Leaders blog, my colleague Paul Teague referenced and quoted an observant (and witty) question from Charles Dominick on the subject of whether those practiced in the art of pedicures, manicures, etc. are "more professional" than those in procurement. The answer might surprise an outsider, but it doesn't surprise us, given our long-time analysis of the procurement function -- and the general lack of regulatory oversight we've observed for sourcing and supply chain roles in the private sector (and in many cases, in the public sector as well). Of course the question of whether oversight and training is required by the local, state or Federal authorities is another question entirely -- we're not in favor of it -- but the point Charles makes is a good one.

In his analysis, Charles suggests that "every state in the United States requires 'nail technicians' to acquire a certain number of hours of training before they are licensed and thus allowed to work in a fingernail-painting job. Alaska requires a mere 120 hours of training. My home state of Pennsylvania requires a below-average 200 hours of training. And the pack is led by Alabama and Arkansas, which both require 750 hours of training. To paint fingernails.[emphasis added]". The next question that Charles asks is whether it is the right thing that "the government has left the purchasing profession in the hands of practitioners and employers" and whether "both have almost abused that freedom by not getting training or requiring certification of purchasing job candidates" compared with nail technicians. His own answer to this, of course, is self-serving given his firm represents one of the fastest growing certification authorities, at least as for-profit organizations in the field go (if not overall).

But if you were to ask ISM, CIPS or just about any other certifying authority, they would likely say the same thing. Here at Spend Matters, we take the view that for most companies in the Fortune 500 today -- or Global 2000 equivalent -- the general skills expectation for procurement is based on a set of underlying capabilities, and in many cases, especially for non-executive positions, certifications as well. It's our perspective that mandating certification in the private sector would serve no one, rather than special interests. The market can (and should) police itself.

The government sector is another question. For one, if CIPS and the UK provide any lessons for the US, it's clear that essentially requiring certifications for public sector employees in procurement does not necessarily up-skill the function as much as bringing in top notch talent. Rather, it creates a culture with a base level of skills. Probably not a bad thing. But without question, it would be best to have multiple certifying authorities compete to offer differentiated and specialized certifications rather than putting stock in a single authority. At least in our view!

As much as we would like to continue this analysis, it's time for our man-scaping appointment next store...

- Jason Busch

Share on Procurious

Voices (6)

  1. Sigel:

    Alaska doesn’t require 120 hours they require 12 hours of sanitation training only.

  2. Peter Smith:

    One issue is that you can – I assume – define the "body of knowledge" that a nail technician is required to have to do a decent job. It is much harder to idenitfy the "body of knowldge" that procurement people need, and I suspect it varies so much by organisation / role / geography that maybe it’s impossible. The other issue is the importance of inter-personal skills in procurement that are difficult to teach, examine or certify.

  3. David:

    There is some quote that I won’t get right but its something like "It’s always some one else job that you think is easy". Google "nail salon staph infection" and see if you believe the need for training for anyone touching another human being is something to dismiss.

  4. Thomas:

    @ supplychaingrad – I think Jason wanted to point out the natural synergy between procurement professionals and cosmetologists – buyers pull out supplier’s nails and beauty technicians can paint them 🙂

    Seriously though, as much as training is highly recommended – in most fields – for gov’t to require some kind of license to be in procurement is overreaching. Just as it is to require a license to paint nails.

    A more elegant way to solve this is to require business liability insurance – and if insurance companies find that cosmetology grads have a better performance track record, the problem will take care of itself in the insurance pricing model.

    BTW, numerous colleges and universities offer this in the form of "cosmetology" degrees…

  5. 360training.com:

    Well, I think because professional are already licensed for a long term period of time that is why they do not need anymore certification as they already as well have their own diplomas while those who got certified maybe those who are not yet professional but are qualified to to the tasks on procurement on nail salons.

  6. Supply Chain Grad:

    This is a bit of a silly comparison. The are a large number of well respected undergrad & graduate degree programs in Supply Chain Management.

    I don’t think there are many universities offering degrees in nail painting.

Discuss this:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.