of one cardiologist over another. Here, the
public interest is in the safe and effective
delivery of professional services.
The second rationale for regulating
a profession is where the public is seen
as an interested third party. A classic example
here is public accounting. Public
accountants are regulated to protect the
public (shareholders and potential investors)
from a misrepresentation of financial
affairs. Here, the public interest is in the
accurate representation of a public company’s
Balthazard says the regulation of HR
professionals flows from the second rationale
– there is a public interest in the
impacts of the work of HR professionals
upon third parties:
“The basic idea is that the work of HR
professionals has an impact on employees
and society as a whole. Because of
these impacts, the practice of HR cannot
be considered as solely a matter between
HR professionals and their employers or
clients. The reason why HR professionals
are regulated is not to protect employers
from their HR professionals, but to protect
employees and the public from the
actions or decisions of HR professionals
as they provide professional services
to their employers and clients. In other
words, there is a public interest in having
HR professionals who are not solely
focused on serving the interests of their
employers and clients,” he writes.
Or to use the examples from the start
of this column, there is a public interest
in having HR professionals who have the
professional fortitude to stand up to their
employers and refuse to do things that
negatively impact staff.
And this, in essence, is the quid pro
quo of professionhood. The government
grants professional regulators like HRPA
the power to self-regulate their members
in exchange for assuring they will effectively
protect the public. And, in turn,
regulators grant professional licenses
and designations to members – bestowing
professional “status” – in exchange for
members’ commitment to practice their
profession with an eye to the greater good.
In other words, doing the right thing.
Brenda Clark, CHRE is chair of the
Human Resources Professionals Association
how to deal with
difficult people GROUP
DON’T bLAmE UNLEss yOU NEED TO
Determine whether your primary goal in exploring the past is to lay blame and
punishment or to develop understanding and improve the situation in the future.
If your goal is to develop understanding, it is important to try to put aside the need
to be “right”. Instead, focus your energies, and those of the other person, on
identifying all of the factors that contributed to the present situation.
DON’T CONFUsE jUDGmENTs FOr FEELINGs
We often think we are sharing our feelings when we are sharing judgments.
Saying to someone that they are selfish is not a feeling, it is a judgment. The
feeling is that you are being overlooked or under appreciated.
DEALING WITH DIFFICULT PEOPLE WOrksHOP
Toronto: October 26-28 or November 30 - December 2, 2016
Ottawa: February 14-16, 2017
CUsTOmIzED TrAINING ALsO AvAILAbLE
“The workshop addressed the exact issues I need help with. I love the role
plays. The instructors are very knowledgeable, listened extremely well, and
knew how to handle tough questions. They genuinely seem to care about our
learning. Great scenarios.
- Bruno Cervini, HR, Halton Regional Police, Oakville
“Lots of opportunities to test drive strategies. All of the instructors were great.
Real life examples were effective and funny.”
- Valerie DeSouza, HR, VDS Cosulting Services, Ajax
Contact us to speak to an instructor
1.800.318.9741 | adr.ca | firstname.lastname@example.org
10 ❚ SEPTEMBER 2016 ❚ HR PROFESSIONAL