"I was wondering if you could advise me as to whether or not there has ever been any consideration placed on the mandatory requirement of the designation for all individuals functioning in the capacity of an HR generalist, HR Advisor etc, similar to nursing."

What you are referring to is called "restricted practice" or "licensure."  This is when, by statute, only individuals with certain credentials are allowed to do certain things.  The CHRP does not confer the exclusive right to practice in HR.  That is why the CHRP is called a voluntary designation.  The CHRP is a protected title however, which means that an individual cannot use the initials 'CHRP' or call themselves a ‘Certified Human Resources Professional’ without meeting the requirements for the designation.

Some see licensure as the next logical step for HR, some don't.  From a legislative point-of-view, the rationale for regulation or licensure is "protection of the public."  Legislators are loather to restrict competition unless a greater good is served. 

The word ‘regulated profession’ is also sometimes used.  There is no universally accepted definition of ‘regulated,’ however.  Indeed, HR has most or all of the characteristics of a ‘regulated profession.’  In Ontario, HRPAO acts like a regulatory body in many ways:

• It sets entry and training requirements
• It sets standards of practice
• It assess qualifications
• It registers qualified applicants
• It disciplines members

There are two things that are missing for HR to move toward licensure: (1) a clearer delineation of those areas of practice that HR would hold as exclusive; and (2) provincial legislation that would grant designation holders the exclusive right to practice.  There are many who believe that HR will get there someday, but not anytime in the near future.

The challenge of a voluntary designation is that it cannot be forced on people.  The objective with a voluntary designation is for the marketplace to place value the designation although it is not compelled (forced) to do so.  Voluntary designations are all about ‘brand value.’

First the difference between a diploma and a degree. To answer this question, let's start with the Ministry's own framework.

I've attached the Ontario Qualifications Framework.  It is a document from the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities of Ontario.

Consider Section B--Qualification Standards. This section defines six generic competencies that differ across the qualification levels. The six generic competencies are:

1. Depth and breadth of knowledge
2. Conceptual & methodological awareness/Research and scholarship
3. Communication skills
4. Application of knowledge
5. Professional capacity/Autonomy
6. Awareness of limits of knowledge

Now consider the differences between Column 8 'Advanced Diploma' and Column 10 'Baccalaureate/Bachelor's Degree.'

You will notice that, in terms of these six generic competencies, the description in the Baccalaureate/Bachelor's Degree column represents a bump up from the description in the Advanced Diploma column.

Although this framework had not been in existence at the time of the decision to introduce the degree requirement, the rationale has to do with the differences between these two levels of generic competency.  It also explains the apparent incongruity that 'a degree in interior decorating' is better than 'a diploma in HR.'  The rationale is that generic competencies are 'transportable' from one discipline to the next--that is why they are called 'generic.'  But that is also why HRPAO puts a lot of importance in its academic requirements.  The comparison is not between 'irrelevant bachelor's degree' and 'relevant diploma' because if all you have is 'an irrelevant bachelor's degree,' you are simply not leigible for the CHRP.

In the last few years, other professions have also introduced degree requirements -- nursing, not that long ago, and the Certified management accountants a few years before that.  What is interesting is that they both cite virtually the same reasons for introducing the degree requirement.  In both cases they refer to the increasing expectations and the increasingly complex environment in which these professions must operate.  To tie in that argument to the Ontario Qualifications Framework, what these professions are saying is: 'in the past, we could operate with the level of generic competencies as described in Column 8, but in the future, we will need a level of generic competencies more consistent with Column 10.'

I hope this was useful.  Let me know if you have other questions regarding the coming degree requirement for CHRPs.

We've refreshed the look and navigation for HRthoughtleader.com. We have added some new newsfeeds (make HRTL a daily read), and revamped our discussion tools and are adding advanced search capabilities. We will be adding functionality and content almost on a daily basis from now on and I'll let you know what we'd added as we go along.

But to we'd like to hear from you - our members and visitors - about what new services and content will make this portal as valuable as possible to you. With finite resources, we can't promise to act on every suggestion, but your input will help us select and prioritize future enhancements.

• What features do you find most useful in other HR-related websites?
• What new news and information resources would like to see us add?
• What would you like to see changed or improved?

We look forward to hearing from you.

Chris Larsen
Director, Marketing and Membership

Claude Balthazard, Ph.D.
September 19, 2007

‘HR practitioners’ or ‘HR professionals’ exist at different levels.  At one end we have ‘people who can handle the basics of HR support’ at the other end you have ‘people who establish and implement HR strategies for large and complex organizations.’  Most have an intuitive grasp of the continuum.  An often used metaphor or image is that of the ladder with a number of rungs.  What creates challenges, of course, is the span of the continuum; that the competencies required at one end of the continuum are quite different in degree and kind from the competencies required at the other.  Although we are interested specifically in the field of HR, this kind of continuum or ladder exists in just about every field of endeavor.  Let’s explore some of these challenges created by the wide span of the HR practice continuum.

Indeed, the notion of levels of practice for HR practitioners appears in many places.  For example, the Canadian Human Resources Professionals Capability Profile (CCHRA, 1998) defined four levels of practice in Human Resources: Developing, Professional, Management, and Strategic. 

How one approaches the notion of the notion of continuum or ladder depends on one’s beliefs about career paths in HR.  Beliefs about career mobility and the factors that facilitate or impede career mobility in HR are of the essence here. ‘What does it take to make it to the top?’ is one question but there are other important questions such as ‘Can one make it to the top rung if one starts from one of the lower rungs, or does one need to start somewhere in the middle to make it to the top?’

Actually the word ‘can’ may not be the best way to look at thins in the sense that just about anything is possible.  Perhaps a better way to look at things is to think in terms of probabilities or likelihoods.  The question would then be ‘what is the likelihood of making it to the top is one starts from one of the lower rungs?’  The other interesting dimension here is that the future may be different from the past.  The idea here is that looking at career path of individuals that are currently at the top of the HR ladder may not provide reliable advice to those starting their career today.

Some believe that there is not a single ladder but different ladders or different tracks.  For instance, some would say that the senior HR practitioners of tomorrow will start mid-ladder.  This is not to say that some exceptional individuals will not start at the bottom rung to work their way to the top—it could happen, but it’s just not the way to bet.  The point here is that those who are going to be the senior HR practitioners of tomorrow that has a different starting point and a different trajectory.

The military are organized this way.  Today, if you start your military career as a non-commissioned member of the Forces, the probability of making it to the rank general is small—not impossible but small.  Indeed, some talented non-commissioned members will be identified and helped to make the jump to the officer ranks.  But these rare cases only serve to confirm that these are different tracks.  Most officers will join the Forces as officers.

The two track idea is a difficult one for some and would appear politically incorrect and elitist. 

But then again, just because something is politically incorrect doesn’t mean that it isn’t the way things are.  Consider, for example, that a recent survey conducted by the Graduate Management Admission Council found that 25 per cent of 1,029 companies worldwide plan to hire MBA graduates for HR positions in 2007.  I would venture a guess that these individuals are being hired into the ranks of middle management and that even greater things are expected of many of them over time.
 
Possibly most contentious would be where to draw the line between the two tracks.  The Forces are clear about their two tracks and the entry requirements of each.  In HR, the situation is nowhere as clear or defined.  We leave it up to individuals to figure it out.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) welcomes you to give your input on the update to its popular employment publication, Human Rights at Work.  Human Rights at Work is a comprehensive resource that applies the Commission’s interpretation of the Code and Commission policies to all parts of the employment relationship – from advertising, to hiring, discipline, retirement and termination. The 2nd edition of Human Rights at Work was published in 2004 and is now undergoing substantial revisions in order to reflect subsequent developments in human rights law and to make the book more useful to human resources practitioners. My name is Karen Evadne Macedo, Senior Policy Analyst at the Commission, and I am the author of the 3rd edition of Human Rights at Work and moderator of this blog.

We welcome your practical insights on how to improve the 2nd edition of Human Rights at Work, for example:

• Is the language easy to understand?
  • How can the resource be made more user-friendly?
• Are there any areas or concepts that should be covered or expanded on?
• Is enough detail provided for you to be able to rely on this resource rather than referring back to each of the Commission policies?
• Do you find the footnotes to be useful sources of further information or are they annoying distractions?
• Do you find the resource list helpful?
  • Are there any resources that you know of that should be added?
• What kinds of scenarios or issues have you encountered that should be addressed in the updated book? For example:
  • When is it appropriate to ask for an expert medical opinion or a second opinion?
  • When is it acceptable to terminate the employment of an employee who is consistently absent?
  • What is an employer expected to do when it finds evidence of discrimination or harassment?
  • If an employee claims systemic racial discrimination, what steps can be taken to identify it?

With your help and practical insights, the 3rd edition of Human Rights at Work will be an even more useful resource for human resources professionals and employers in the workplace.  Let’s start the discussion!