Balancing Organizational and Employee Needs and Interests

28
Sep 2023
CPHR Alberta
43
A group of business people are sitting at a table looking at a piece of paper.

Author : Jodie Jeworski 

As per the CPHR Code of Ethics, Balancing Interests is the duty of HR Practitioners to balance organizational and employee needs and interests within the practice of human resources.  Let’s explore a situation where the HR Business Partner (Jesse) has been asked to be a mediator between a manager (Sandy) and their employee (Taylor).  Sandy and Taylor are experiencing significant interpersonal conflict, and as a result, an investigation was launched with Taylor as the Complainant and Sandy as the Respondent.  While the outcome of the investigation found the allegations of bullying and harassment to have been unfounded, the conflict has not been resolved.  Sandy’s leader, Alex (the owner and CEO), wants a plan for resolution and workplace restoration.

Jesse held initial meetings with Sandy, Taylor, and Alex.  During these discussions, it was discovered that Alex and Taylor are family members; Alex gave Taylor the job.  Although distant, they are cousins and spend quite a bit of time together outside of the workplace.  Alex stated they want to ensure Taylor does not receive any discipline.  Further, Alex would like Sandy reprimanded and suspended without pay for one week.  Alex reminds Jesse that they report to Alex and have an obligation to see a successful outcome for Taylor.

With a clear power differential, Jesse is conflicted.  On the one hand, Jesse knows they have an obligation to be unbiased, act in good faith, respect the legal rights of all individuals, and uphold the CPHR Code of Ethics.  On the other hand, Jesse risks a career-limiting move and potential retaliation (up to and including termination) if the outcome is anything different than Alex stated.  Jesse is new to Calgary, has no friends or family here, and really needs this job.

If Jesse sides with Alex:

  • Bias is clearly demonstrated
  • Not acting in good faith
  • Contravention of the HR Code of Ethics
  • Workplace restoration will be nearly impossible to achieve
  • This could make the strained relationship between Sandy and Taylor worse
  • Either Sandy or Taylor may choose to leave the company

If Jesse follows due process:

  • Unbiased approach
  • Sandy and Taylor are both heard
  • Opportunity to explore options to remove the conflict and restore their professional relationship (which may take significant time and effort by all parties)
  • Upholding the CPHR Code of Ethics

Jesse opts for the second approach: due process.  Jesse hosts second meetings with Sandy and Taylor to determine what they would need and what they see to be helpful in conflict resolution and workforce restoration.  Based on the information gathered, this relationship is salvageable.  A third meeting is held where Jesse is the mediator between Sandy and Taylor.  They each share their thoughts and commit to working on their individual biases, as well as together to enhance their working relationship.  An action plan is established, and everyone has agreed to continue to meet regularly over the next three months.

Following the outcome of the third meeting, Jesse meets with Alex and shares the commitment and established action plan.  Jesse also explains that while there was no discipline for Taylor, there was also no discipline for Sandy.  Jesse explains there were no findings to suggest discipline for either individual.  Jesse also explains the CPHR Code of Ethics and the standards in which Jesse must abide by in order to be an HR Practitioner.  Although this was not a specific ‘win’ for Alex, Alex thanks Jesse for their hard work and promises to keep their relationship (and preferential treatment) outside of the workplace.

The CPHR Alberta Code of Ethics exists to guide HR Professionals in situations just like these every day.


The views and opinions expressed in this blog post belong solely to the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of CPHR Alberta.


The views and opinions expressed in this blog post belong solely to the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of CPHR Alberta.



By Jessica Jaithoo August 21, 2026
Each year on August 26th, Women’s Equality Day offers an opportunity to reflect on progress toward gender equity while recognizing the work that remains. While legislative milestones have helped create a more equitable foundation, the lived experiences of women in today’s workplaces tell a more nuanced story. To explore this further, we invited a group of women leaders to share their perspectives on equality in practice, the barriers that persist, and the actions needed to drive meaningful change. Their responses highlight both the progress made and the opportunities ahead. Contributors: Chelsea Harper, Director of Human Resources, Stoppler Hughes Christine Dagenais, Founder and CEO, Bright Wire Leadership Development Connie De Ciancio, Chief Commercial Officer, Strathcona Resources Michelle Dulmadge, Executive Vice President Human Resources, Surerus Murphy Rosy Makkar-Sethi, Portfolio Head of HR, Volaris Group Sabrina Brock, Vice President Human Resources, TriSummit Utilities Inc. To guide the discussion, we asked each contributor to reflect on three questions: What does women’s equality truly mean to you in today’s professional or leadership context, beyond formal policies or stated commitments? From your experience, what structural or cultural barrier continues to limit women’s advancement, and where do you see the greatest opportunity for progress? What is one action by leaders or organizations that can meaningfully advance women’s equality, and why does it matter now? Across responses, women’s equality was described not just as a policy outcome, but as a lived experience of fairness, recognition, and opportunity. As Chelsea shared: “It requires acknowledging that women have historically been conditioned differently in the workplace and society. The goal is to build workplaces where women are valued, compensated, and developed equitably enough that gender eventually becomes irrelevant to the conversation.” Connie emphasized fairness in assessment: “It is when people are genuinely assessed on their capability, judgment, performance, and leadership potential, not on assumptions or labels. It is not about lowering the bar or advancing someone because of gender; it is about making sure the best person has a fair opportunity to step forward and be recognized.” Sabrina reflected: “It is the experience of truly feeling valued for who you are as a professional and as a leader, where gender is not a topic of conversation. It also means being surrounded by more women in senior leadership roles due to equal access to stretch roles, equivalent tolerance for risk-taking, and performance judged by the same standards.” Despite progress for women in the workplace, certain barriers remain and are often invisible to those who have not experienced it. Chelsea reinforces the deeper context behind these challenges: “A true commitment to women’s equality requires acknowledging that history and understanding how deeply it still impacts confidence, negotiation, leadership presence, and career progression today.” Rosy names it directly: “A persistent barrier I continue to see is the reliance on subjective notions of leadership potential, often shaped by familiarity and unconscious bias. In my experience, this disproportionately impacts women, and even more so women of colour, whose strengths and leadership styles may not align with the traditional model. I have seen how this can limit access to opportunity despite clear capability and performance.” Subjectivity, when left unchecked, defaults to familiarity. Familiarity tends to favour the dominant group even when it is not intentional. This habit will continue to be consequential in the workplace. Sabrina offers a common example of how this bias shows up in practice: “If the behaviour is assertiveness, men may be seen as strong, confident, decisive leaders; however, when a woman behaves that way, they may be seen as aggressive, difficult, or abrasive.” The good news: Michelle calls for organizational accountability. “When equity is treated as a business discipline, not just a values statement, it becomes measurable and sustainable.” Christine adds the human dimension: “Real progress happens when women stop waiting for permission and start taking their seat at the table and when men in leadership actively sponsor and advocate for women, not simply as a diversity initiative, but because it strengthens teams and organizations.” Together, they point to the same truth: meaningful advancement requires both systemic intention and individual confidence. These examples are not seeking for exception, but consistency. Women want to be seen clearly, assessed fairly, and given the same opportunities to rise, or stumble, that their peers receive without having to ask. Building on this, one theme emerged clearly in how contributors see progress taking shape: the importance of sponsorship. Respondents highlighted the impact of leaders actively advocating for capable colleagues - particularly those who may not yet recognize their own potential or have had opportunities to demonstrate it. Rosy emphasizes the role of leadership influence, noting that “When leaders use their influence to advocate for women in succession discussions, critical assignments, and promotion decisions, opportunities for women increase significantly”. Similarly, Michelle reflects on the tangible impact of sponsorship in practice: “In my career, the moments that accelerated growth were when a leader put my name forward for something I had not yet been given the chance to prove at scale. Those decisions build confidence, capability, and visibility in ways that formal development programs cannot”. The urgency of this approach is reinforced by Connie, who notes, “This matters now because organizations need the strongest possible leaders, and they cannot afford to overlook capable people who may simply need a push to step up.” Christine expands on this broader organizational impact, stating “The leaders who understand this do not see equality as a favour or a quota. They recognize, as research continues to show, that advancing women’s equality is a strategic advantage. And importantly, they understand that creating greater equality is not a zero-sum game. When women rise, organizations, teams, and communities benefit alongside them.” Collectively, these perspectives highlight key actions: sponsorship, creating meaningful opportunities for growth, and encouraging individuals to recognize and step into their potential. Advancing women’s equality requires intention, advocacy, and action - turning insight into impact by championing talent and ensuring no potential goes overlooked.
By Jessica Jaithoo August 19, 2026
Author: Kanwaljit Chaudhry We often begin developing leaders after we have given them something to lead. Someone is promoted into their first supervisory role. They join a leadership development program, receive coaching, attend workshops, or are paired with a mentor. All of these can be valuable. But by then, leadership development has already been happening. Long before the title arrives, people are learning how to exercise judgment, influence others, navigate disagreement, take responsibility and make decisions when the answer is not obvious. The question for HR is: Do we have to wait for the title to help those capabilities grow? Create opportunities, not just programs Some of the most valuable leadership development happens through work itself. A stretch assignment. Leading a small project. Presenting an idea to senior colleagues. Coordinating people who do not report to you. Navigating competing priorities. Being trusted to make a decision rather than simply carrying one out. None requires a management title. HR can help organizations look at development as not only as courses people attend, but as experiences people need. That may mean encouraging managers to distribute meaningful opportunities rather than repeatedly turning to the person who is already proven. It may mean designing project work so different employees have opportunities to lead. It may mean making mentoring, coaching or job-shadowing available before someone enters a formal leadership pipeline. The objective is not to make everyone a manager. It is to give more people opportunities to build capabilities that will serve them whether or not formal leadership is their eventual destination. Make room to learn from experience Experience alone does not necessarily create development. Two people can go through similar experiences and take very different things from them. What often makes the difference is the opportunity to reflect: What worked? What didn't? What did I notice about myself? What would I do differently next time? HR can help make those conversations part of development rather than leaving them to chance. A manager checking in after a difficult project can ask more than, “Did we deliver?” A mentor can help someone examine why a conversation went differently than expected. A performance discussion can explore not only what someone accomplished, but how they influenced others, exercised judgment or responded when things became uncertain. These are relatively small interventions. But they help turn experience into learning. Notice leadership before it becomes obvious There is another role for HR: helping organizations broaden what they notice. Potential does not always announce itself loudly. The person who volunteers to coordinate a complicated piece of work may be demonstrating leadership capacity. So might the employee who brings people together when a team is stuck, asks the question no one else is asking, helps a colleague succeed without needing credit, or remains thoughtful when everyone else is rushing toward an answer. If we look for leadership potential only among those who already resemble our current leaders, we may keep finding the same kinds of people.  Creating broader opportunities allows capability to become visible before we decide who has it. Pay attention to what the organization teaches Organizations are also developing future leaders when they are not deliberately trying to. Employees notice who gets promoted. They notice what behaviour gets rewarded, whose ideas receive attention and what happens when someone makes a mistake. They notice whether managers share information or protect it, whether difficult conversations are avoided or handled respectfully, and whether asking for help is treated as good judgment or weakness. These observations become lessons about what leadership looks like here. HR influences many of the systems through which those lessons are reinforced e.g., performance management, recognition, development, succession planning and promotion among them. That makes an important question worth asking: What are our people learning about leadership from the way our organization actually works? The answer may tell us as much about our leadership pipeline as any competency framework. Before the title Leadership development does not have to begin with a leadership program. It can begin when someone is trusted with something slightly beyond what they have done before and supported while they figure it out. It can happen when a manager shares the reasoning behind a difficult decision rather than only communicating the outcome. It can happen when someone gets to lead a project before they have people reporting to them. And it can happen when an employee has someone who helps them make sense of an experience rather than simply move on to the next task. HR cannot manufacture leaders. But HR can help create workplaces where people have opportunities to practise judgment, responsibility, influence and reflection long before a title makes those things part of their job description. Perhaps the question is not only “Who are our future leaders?” It is also: “What are we doing today that gives future leadership capacity a chance to emerge?”
By Marina Perkovic July 22, 2026
At the CPHR Alberta Conference, we asked HR leaders one question: What leadership capability matters most for the future of your organization? Leaders picked up a star and placed it beside their answer. By the end of the conference, HR leaders cast 131 votes across 16 capabilities. Three stood out, with two tied for first place. Here is what they told us. What the Data Showed The capabilities on the board came from Bright Wire's PLUS Leadership Framework, a proprietary model built to define what effective leadership looks like across every level of an organization and is organized across four dimensions: Courageous Coach-Like Disciplined for Results and Relational The results below reflect the capabilities HR professionals believe matter most. 
MORE NEWS