Human Resources: A Term Past Its Prime

The term "human resources" has been used to describe the people who work for an organisation for decades. However, in recent years, there has been a growing movement to replace the term with more human-centric language. Proponents argue that the term is outdated and does not accurately reflect the value and importance of employees. This article explores the case for retiring the term "human resources" and what actions HR professionals can take to facilitate the change.

The Problem with "Human Resources"

The term "human resources" reduces people to mere commodities, and it reinforces the notion that employees are just another resource to be managed, rather than valued members of the organisation. It emphasizes the transactional nature of the employment relationship, where employees are seen as a means to an end rather than as individuals with unique skills, experiences, and aspirations.

Moreover, the term "human resources" has a history rooted in scientific management, a philosophy that emphasises efficiency and productivity over employee well-being. This approach was popular in the early 20th century and is often associated with the dehumanisation of work. While the approach has evolved over time, the legacy of this thinking still exists in many organisations and is why 20th century leadership practices continue well into this century.

The Need for Human-Centric Language

Replacing "human resources" with more human-centric language can help shift the focus from managing people as resources to empowering and supporting individuals. It can also help organisations create a more inclusive culture that values the diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives of its employees. By using language that acknowledges the human aspect of work, organisations can create a more positive work environment that prioritises employee well-being and engagement.

The Benefits of Human-Centric Language

Research supports the idea that human-centric language can lead to improved employee well-being and engagement. A study by the Corporate Executive Board found that organisations that use human-centric language have employees who are more engaged and motivated to contribute to the organisation's success. Similarly, research from the Center for Creative Leadership found that inclusive language that emphasises people's uniqueness can create a more positive work environment.

Changing the Language

Changing the language used within an organisation requires a concerted effort from HR professionals and organisational leaders. One way to begin the change is to solicit feedback from employees about the language used to describe them and their work. This can help identify areas where changes are needed and can provide insight into the kind of language that resonates with employees. HR professionals are employees, so this strategy applies to them If you are an HR professional, have you ever been asked what you would prefer to be called?

Some organisations have already moved away from the "human resources" label and adopted titles like "People and Culture," "Talent Management," or "Employee Experience." These titles emphasise the human aspect of the function and can help create a more positive perception of the department's role in the organisation.

The Link between Language and Mental Health

While there is limited research linking the use of the term "human resources" to employee suicide, poor management practices and workplace stress are known contributors to poor mental health outcomes. A survey by the American Psychological Association found that workplace stress is a major contributor to poor mental health and can lead to depression, anxiety, and even suicide. Additionally, a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found that poor management practices, including a lack of support and recognition for employees, were significantly associated with suicide among workers.

It is essential for organisations to prioritise the mental health and well-being of their employees, including creating a supportive and inclusive culture, providing resources for mental health support and education, and examining the language and practices used within the organisation.

No doubt, HR professionals “believe” they are making these issues a priority. Given there is a high risk the term “human resources” or its acronym “HR” lead to more transactional and less human-centric practices, why not mitigate that risk and change the name?

Final thoughts

The term "human resources" has become outdated, and it no longer reflects the values and priorities of modern organisations. Replacing it with more human-centric language can help shift the focus to supporting and empowering individuals, creating a more positive work. Furthermore, a study conducted by the Corporate Executive Board found that companies that had HR departments with human-centric approaches were 87% more likely to have high employee engagement and 50% less likely to have employees leave the company compared to those with more traditional HR approaches. Again, if companies believe in more human-centric approaches, then why not change the name of HR to something more reflective of this belief? Surely, the argument that the cost associated with the changing the name is too high is a poor excuse for not moving with the times.

In conclusion, it is clear that the term "human resources" is past its prime and should be replaced with more human-centric terms that reflect the value of employees and their contributions to organisations. While some may argue that the term is just words and does not matter, research shows that language plays a powerful role in shaping organisational culture and attitudes towards employees. HR professionals have the power to lead this change by advocating for the use of more human-centric language, adopting new job titles such as "Chief People Officer," and implementing policies and practices that prioritise employee well-being and development.

I have included a list of references for my argument in this article because this is an important topic that deserves rigour. The references may also help HR professionals take action to change the term "human resources":

Adler, S. (2019, April 29). The Case for Eliminating the Word ‘Manager’. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/04/the-case-for-eliminating-the-word-manager

American Psychological Association. (2018). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index

Bersin, J. (2020, January 8). Why the traditional HR organisational model is obsolete. Josh Bersin. Retrieved from https://joshbersin.com/2020/01/why-the-traditional-hr-organisational-model-is-obsolete/

Corporate Executive Board. (2015). The Future of HR. Retrieved from https://www.cebglobal.com/content/dam/cebglobal/us/EN/HR/HR-Function-Survey-2015.pdf

Deloitte. (2017). Rewriting the rules for the digital age. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nl/Documents/human-capital/hc-global-human-capital-trends-2017.pdf

Gallup. (2017). State of the American Workplace Report. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx

McKinsey & Company. (2017). Jobs lost, jobs gained: What the future of work will mean for jobs, skills, and wages. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages#

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Random House.

The Center for Creative Leadership. (2016). Trends in executive development 2016. Retrieved from https://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/trends-in-executive-development-2016.pdf

World Health Organization. (2014). Preventing suicide: A global imperative. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/mental_health/suicide-prevention/world_report_2014/en/