SHRM UPDATE

SHRM saga update: it took a full two months for me to talk with Martin again.

In August, Martin said that it would take some time to evaluate my comments as SHRM had taken time to make the decision to offer services and they would need time to review my objections and their objectives. I said that was fine as I would be away for all of September, but thought I would have an answer at the beginning of October.

I emailed Martin October 5, copying Bob Carr and Sue Meisinger. There was no response and I emailed him again October 15. Martin then responded:

“Thanks for your outreach … and for the outreach of your colleagues. I have received and saved all of the correspondences.

Bob and I have been working on a response and I will get something out to you by the end of next week, as I have a busy travel schedule this week. I appreciate your patience.”

I wrote to Martin on October 5: “I sympathize with your travel schedule, however we spoke and I emailed you August 22, almost two months ago, and my colleagues and I are awaiting your response.”

I wrote October 22:
“It is two months since we first spoke and I emailed you. I have not heard a decision from SHRM and am very disappointed by this lack of responsiveness. I am one of your long-term members and a big promoter of SHRM. What additional information do you need? How much time will it take before we have a decision? You have members and prospective members waiting to hear from you.”

Martin wrote October 22:
“As I had stated below (please see highlighted sentence), I am crafting a response which you will receive by the end of this week, as I had promised. Thank you again for your correspondence. If you will remember when we spoke, I had stated that it would take a couple of months before I could address your concerns. I am keeping to the agreed upon timetable.

We value all of our members, and we make sure that we address concerns and perspectives in a timely and informative manner. I appreciate your feedback and continued, long term support of SHRM.”

Bob Carr wrote on October 22:
“I am writing in response to your email and apologize that we have not gotten back to you sooner. With notable exception, the harassment prevention program that we offer to our members has been very well received. We regret it if our decision to provide a valuable service to our members may have impacted your business – that clearly was not our intent.

In keeping with our mission, this service offering was designed to help HR professionals meet a specific set of legal requirements in a low–cost, efficient and effective manner. We have offered e-learning programs for many years and this offering was designed to complement our other offerings. Many of our existing information products – toolkits, white papers, forms and templates – are designed to do the same thing as the harassment prevention: help HR professionals meet an ever-growing set of information and compliance needs. Our goal with this offering is, as always, to provide the most essential and relevant tools available to HR professionals. Given the ubiquitous nature of certain kinds of information, it not unlikely that same information could have also have been obtained from a consultant. However, that circumstance alone should not preclude us from serving our membership as we determine best.”

Bob provided me with his phone number and called. He does not agree with my point of view and even alluded in conversation – and I do not think he intended ill however this recipient took it badly – but he said that perhaps SHRM could help me find some additional area in which to work. Perhaps his intention was good but the impact was that I felt I was being told that they could give me career guidance and perhaps lead me to a different way of earning income.

I asked for a write-up of the result of our conversation but have not received one. Maybe they are sending it in the mail, but it seems I should have received something.

I was contacted by the administrative assistant to set up a time to speak with Bob and Martin, and we spoke October 29. They feel that their goal with the etraining product is to provide a “resource”. I still feel it is entering the service definition. They checked with their General Counsel on what a not-for-profit means as it pertains to this product and they are comfortable that they are within their boundaries and mission.

I asked what about the ethics of doing this. SHRM presents a code of ethics for HR practitioners:

“CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Core Principle
As HR professionals, we must maintain a high level of trust with our stakeholders. We must protect the interests of our stakeholders as well as our professional integrity and should not engage in activities that create actual, apparent, or potential conflicts of interest.
Intent
To avoid activities that are in conflict or may appear to be in conflict with any of the provisions of this Code of Ethical and Professional Standards in Human Resource Management or with one's responsibilities and duties as a member of the human resource profession and/or as an employee of any organization.
Guidelines
1. Adhere to and advocate the use of published policies on conflicts of interest within your organization.
2. Refrain from using your position for personal, material or financial gain or the appearance of such.
3. Refrain from giving or seeking preferential treatment in the human resources processes.
4. Prioritize your obligations to identify conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof; when conflicts arise, disclose them to relevant stakeholders.”
I also feel this decision goes against the SHRM mission statement: “Our mission is to serve the needs of HR professionals by providing the most current and comprehensive resources, and to advance the profession by promoting HR’s essential, strategic role.”

The SHRM bylaws state:
“Section 3: Purposes. The purposes of the Society shall be to promote the use of sound and ethical human resource management practices in the profession and: (a) to be a recognized world leader in human resource management; (b) to provide high-quality, dynamic and responsive programs and service to our customers with interests in human resource management; (c) to be the voice of the profession on human resource management issues; (d) to facilitate the development and guide the direction of the human resource profession; and (e) to establish, monitor and update standards for the profession.”

Bob said that SHRM does provide job leads and that might conflict with members who are in agencies. I don’t see the correlation as every professional organization I know offers job leads and it would be expected that SHRM would do this, too.

Martin had said that he found his name in my blog and felt I had misrepresented what he said/felt. I don’t believe I did – he really did not seem to understand why this would be a bad idea. And Martin or Bob, if you’re reading here, I invite you to respond on the blog so interested readers can know your thoughts.

SHRM does not seem to feel it is a conflict of interest to change from supporting HR professionals and providing up-to-date information to a model of actually competing with their membership and offering services that consultants would typically provide.

SHRM does not see any ethical violations and does not seem to feel it is important to promptly respond to member complaints or questions. A few people from my professional group had written to Martin and he had not responded at all.

I asked that SHRM respond not only to me but to each person who did write. I hope you hear from them.

As for me, I’ve been a SHRM member for over a decade and I have referred to them on many occasions, telling people to join, too. I had renewed my membership in August and have almost a year to reflect on this situation and determine if I want to support a professional organization that has become a competitor in this arena.