I have a masters’ degree in human resource management with an emphasis in organizational development. It doesn’t seem like I was attending my masters' classes that long ago, but apparently, having a degree in "HR" means I'm old school.
In the past couple years we’ve been hearing more and more about how the term “human resource” is being replaced and the concept is being tweaked.
A recent blog in Forbes (you can find it here) applauds the demise of the term, mentioning (as an example) that Cisco has changed one person’s title from Chief Human Resources Officer to Chief People Officer. The owner of Reputation.com blogged that they have a Chief People Officer, too (his post is here). Other companies are replacing the term in the same or similar ways. That’s nice.
There’s a danger here, though. When leading companies make changes like this, there seems to be a tendency for other companies to follow suit, without addressing real issues.
In other words, they do little more than put lipstick on a pig.
As the Forbes author rightly points out, the term “human resource” is old. It originated over 100 years ago, after employment issues evolved from serfs, slaves and indentured servants to Bob Cratchit, The Jungle and early 20th century labor organizations.
The term is associated with the concept of people as assets.
A number of research studies during the ensuing 100 years or so showed that, overwhelmingly, people work better when:
- they are properly matched to tasks that they enjoy and that provide fulfillment,
- they are treated well and with respect,
- they are challenged, motivated and inspired by management,
- they are provided opportunities to attain statuses and/or things of perceived value (e.g., promotions, awards, etc.) and, last but certainly not least,
- their needs are met.
So, will the new terminology reflect the important values and factors that result in the best, most productive and, not-so-coincidentally, happiest employees?
If doing away with the “human resource” term means that you’re getting rid of 1850’s-era southern plantation owners and Ebenezer Scrooges, then great. Toxic managers, like all toxic employees, need to be identified and excised – quickly. They are real liabilities.
Uh oh – if they are liabilities, does that mean that good people are assets after all?
Let’s make sure we keep both off the balance sheet. It would be tough to explain to an auditor.
