PROFESSIONALISM IN HRM

If the term is used loosely, HR specialists are ‘professional’ because they display expertise in doing their work. A professional occupation such as medicine or law could, however, be defined as one that gives members of its association exclusive rights to practise their profession. A profession is not so much an occupation as a means of controlling an occupation. Human resource management is obviously not in this category.

The nature of professional work was best defined by the Hayes Committee (1972) as follows:

Work done by the professional is usually distinguished by its reference to a framework of fundamental concepts linked with experience rather than by impromptu reaction to events or the application of laid down procedures. Such a high level of distinctive competence reflects the skilful application of specialized education, training and experience. This should be accompanied by a sense of responsibility and an acceptance of recognized standards.

A‘profession’ may be identified on the basis of the following criteria:

● skills based on theoretical knowledge; 

● the provision of training and education; 

● a test of the competence of members administered by a professional body; 

● a formal professional organization that has the power to regulate entry to the profession; 

● a professional code of conduct.

By these standards an institution such as the CIPD carries out most of the functions of a professional body. 

Another approach to the definition of a profession is to emphasize the service ethic – the professional is there to serve others. This, however, leads to confusion when applied to HR specialists. Whom do they serve? The organization and its values, or the people in the organization and their needs? (Organizational values and personal needs do not necessarily coincide.) As Tyson and Fell (1986) have commented:

In recent years the personnel manager seems to be encouraged to make the line manager his (sic) client, while trying simultaneously to represent wider social standards, and to possess a sense of service to employees. This results in confusion and difficulty for the personnel executive.

In the face of this difficulty, the question has to be asked, why bother? The answer was suggested by Watson (1977), who asserted that the adoption of a professional image by personnel managers is a strategic response to their felt lack of authority. They are in an ambiguous situation and sometimes feel they need all the help they can get to clarify and, indeed, strengthen their authority and influence. 

If a profession is defined rigidly as a body of people who possess a particular area of competence, who control entry so that only members of the association can practise in that area, who unequivocally adopt the ‘service ethic’ and who are recognized by themselves and others as belonging to a profession, then HR practitioners are not strictly working in a profession. This is the case even when a professional institution like the CIPD exists with the objective of acting as a professional body in the full sense of the word, an aim that it does its best to fulfil. 

However, a broader definition of professionalism as the practice of specific skills based upon a defined body of knowledge in accordance with recognized standards of behaviour would entitle the practice of HRM to be regarded as a profession. 

The debate continues, but it is an academic one. What matters is that HR ‘professionals’ need expertise and have to use it responsibly. In other words, they should act professionally but do not have to be members of a professional association to do so. Such associations, however, have an important part to play in setting and improving professional standards. 

If this definition is accepted, then those who do practise specific HRM skills based upon a defined body of knowledge in accordance with recognized standards of behaviour can be regarded as members of a profession.