Human Resources or HR is a term that has been almost universally used for the last three decades or more. The name depicts the function for managing employee affairs and came into vogue when it replaced the more generic "Personnel." Recently, however, the name has been challenged on the grounds that people are more than just "resources."
Thus, while still in a minority, a number of organisations have renamed the function "People" or "People Management." In many ways this is a progressive move and, arguably, more accurately depicts the nature of the function. Nevertheless, it still creates problems because it is:-
- Too generic and can be confusing;
- Not widely enough used.
It strikes me that a more appropriate name would be "Human Relations". This removes the grounds for criticism invoked by referring to people as resources while retaining the broader vision implicit in the term people.
It offers other advantages too:-
- It would mean retaining the HR abbreviation. This would make the change more widely acceptable and easier to introduce;
- It aligns better with the historic precedent set by Public Relations or PR.
In fact I don't think it would be going too far to suggest that the two functions actually belong together. What do you think? There are a number of good reasons for doing so.
- Both ultimately deal with people.
- Both are fundamentally about communication and both ultimately deal with perception. While the HR focus is internal and the PR focus is external the skills required are intrinsically the same. It would thus create greater efficiency and be more effective, ensuring that there is a consistent message at all times.
- It better accommodates stakeholder management. This will strengthen HR's strategic role to shape the corporate culture. It makes it easier to shift away from the more traditional bureaucratic role that continues to hold it back.
People are the glue that holds your organisation together. By re-branding HR as Human Relations you can build on this and create a solid foundation to shape behaviour. You can tie all the interactions in the organisation together, and engender greater organisational integrity with better talent management and improved employee engagement as a result.
Good thinking Bay.
The language we use influences the way we think and it is always useful to have a positive and inclusive stance.
It is also useful to have a handle on the informal language used in the workplace. I did a follow up on a low scoring employee engagement programme for a major client and one of the interesting observations was that HR was known in the company as “Human Remains”! An indicator of the scale of the task?
Alas Jim, you have identified the downside to my recommendation of sticking with the HR abbreviation. You talk about HR being known as “Human Remains” but there are several others, like “Human Relics”.
I once worked for a company where the HR Director was nicknamed “Cyclops” because his singular focus was sticking to the rules. He was totally incapable of original thought or doing anything new without a direct order from the CEO!
As you say, the scale of the task is enormous – but we have to make a start somewhere. As Einstein said, “In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.”