What's in a name!

The term “Human Resources” has got to be a paradox of some sort!

Professionally, I have the unenviable privilege of being human but having the difficult task to manage a “creature” named “Human Resources” - How awesome can that be? I personally and on hind sight, believe that human beings absolutely should not be called a resource!

Historically, for organizations to gain competitive advantage in business, they make use of resources like capital, technology or even availability of raw material, amongst others. The ability of organizations to harness the talent within was also identified as a competitive advantage too. This resource was generally  (wrongly in my opinion) identified as the Human Resources (HR).

According to Wikipedia, in 1893, John R. Commons (the economist) first used the term “human resources” in his book, The Distribution of Wealth– a notion that employees are a kind of capital asset. This may have been the reason “Personnel Management” was a name HR bore for a period but seems to have moved on from that name.

I marvel at myself and other practitioners for that matter, who have not realized that being called Human Resources Managers may be part of the challenge therein: engenders employee resistance and maybe a root cause of the intrinsic mistrust employees inherently exhibit against “Human Resources practitioners” and experienced by all practitioners on the job - irrespective of the industry or country.

Other Resource Managers within the organization for example finance have a firm hold on managing their “resources” with proper records that are typically updated, proper accountability, long term strategies and stability, apart from the occasional market volatility. On the contrary, HR Managers always seem to be in a perpetual struggle to “manage” its resource.

The current multi-generational workforce, the changing requirements for employer/employee contracts and the changing work environment (“future of work”) portends a required shift in the philosophy of human resources management and possibly its name?

Humans as resources…so what if?

Various organizations, with the influence of the organizational philosophy and culture have in recent times begun to move away from the term “Human Resources” and rightly so. Some examples include:

·      Human Capital Management: Various organizations (Head: Human Capital Management)

·      People Operations: Especially popular among technology firms in the Silicon Valley e.g. Google, Uber (Chief People Officer or People Director)

·      People Department: Facebook (People Director)

·      Employee Success: Sales Force (Employee Success Director)

·      Partner Resources: Starbucks (Partner Director)

·      People Experience: Xero (People Experience Director)

·      Talent Department: Various (Chief Talent Officer)

The change in the name from HR to some of the highlighted names indicates that organizations are realizing the importance of the talent as a competitive advantage. And the importance of a well-developed and engaged workforce in achieving organizational objectives.

It is critical to note that majority of the progressive organizations have replaced the “Human Resources” department title with a more progressive title; which is indicative of their focus for their talent, and aligns with their culture. This is not a coincidence.

Human Resources

Focuses on compliance, reducing liability and employee costs

People/Talent 

Focuses on maximizing employee value & engagement, productivity, creating a high-performance work environment while delivering business objectives

Final Thoughts:

There possibly has been no point in the history of man, that it has been more obvious that people/talent management and engagement is a major driver for organizational success. Your people/talent will continually give your organization that competitive advantage. Adopting a progressive name my drive the focus of the team managing your talent.

There is power in the name. Most cultures are aligned with this assertion as indicated by a Latin maxim “...nomen est omen...” which means the name says it all (the name is a sign).  

Some cynics will assert that a name change alone cannot change who practitioners of HR are. I beg to differ for one reason alone; a name change may well indicate an urgently required philosophy change. A change in philosophy will lead to a change of who HR practitioners intrinsically are. 

What’s in a name? The simple answer is…everything!

@aikozzy