Licence To HR

This article originally appeared on  

XpertHR: Employment Intelligence blog series: If I Could Change One Thing About HR  

Maya Angelou's said, "if you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude."

Words to live by for sure.  But they came to mind recently when I was asked "if there was one thing you could change about HR, what would it be?"

I know exactly what I would change if I could.  But I have serious doubts that it's feasible or if it would be widely accepted enough to actually occur.

HR is expected to assume temporary roles.

We have to be educated in medical matters so as to understand what constitutes a disability and what doesn't; what is a serious medical condition and have the whereto not to invade medical privacy.  We have to understand the legal obligations behind each one.  We have to have legal knowledge to prevent discrimination in employment decisions. We also need to understand how medical insurances are going to work. We need to understand the economies of benefits and of how compensation structures work. We also need to understand the dynamics of the human condition and be able to counsel employees and managers on how best to maneuver through each circumstance involving each type of personality.

If HR is assuming these temporary roles, what is HR?
Doctor/Nurse
Lawyer
Insurance Agent
Accountant
Psychologist

Thousands of people in HR are assuming all or some of these roles on a daily basis.  Some folks have a university degree.  Some have certification.  Some just fell into it and have remained in it.  Many of the people in each of these cases is performing HR at an exceptional level.  Many are not.  And the nots are the ones causing problems in the workplace and in our profession. 

Practice What We Preach

If you don't like legal issues, or understand medical jargon, or really have no interest in dealing with people in the workplace, you are in the wrong profession.  More so, you really should not be allowed to be in the profession.

The temporary roles we assume are within a quasi-nature.  HR obviously does not go into the depth that these professions require.  Yet we have to know enough about each and work with a combination of them.  My thought (and this is what I would change) is if these other professions require a license to practice than so should HR.

Do you want to deal with someone who is untrained or is just not interested when it comes to medical or legal issues?  No. This is why we seek licensed professionals. This is not to say that a license guarantees excellent workmanship.  But wouldn't industry in general, and the work population, be more assured that the person in that HR role has the certified skills and furthermore if they don't, they lose their license and can't continue to practice?

As HR, we have to deal with some very serious issues. These issues involve individual livelihoods and the survival of our lines of business. To continue having value in the workplace beyond just being the harbinger of employee files, we have to be assured that people in our profession deserve to be and can deal with these serious issues. 

I'm aware that this would be a radical departure from how the profession is standardized today. This is why I questioned the feasibility of it.  But if we want to make serious change in the HR industry and fix the problem of current HR being in positions of requiring knowledge, not having it and not wanting it, then we should consider making the conditions of employment more serious. 

It's like Maya said, you may not be able to change this, but you can change your attitude toward it.  If we want this change to occur, it needs to begin with our attitudes. So what do you think?

To see other authors in this series, such as Bill Boorman or TheHRD, click below: 

XpertHR: Employment Intelligence blog series: If I Could Change One Thing About HR