Every industry evolves with time and technology, yet the evolution within the Human Resources (HR) field is particularly intriguing.
Charles Darwin, HRCI, SPHR, SHRM–SCP, APTD, CPLP
Without even hiring the father of evolution, organizations have seen great change in the role of HR professionals. As bright-eyed and bushy-tailed HR students learn, our beloved field began as “Personnel Management” after WWI in the 1920s, where the focus of professionals was to hire hands, check boxes, keep records and distribute pay. Some researchers date the HR industry back to Taylor’s famous Scientific Management and the Industrial Revolution. Both origin points were spurred by an increase in the number of workers and the need to manage the workforce.
The 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of HR Management (HRM). As globalization rose and organizations recognized the competitive edge their internal talent created for them in the marketplace, circa 1980s, the era of Strategic HR Management began. Roughly around this time, HR certifications (the alphabet soup next to Darwin’s name) were created and grew in popularity. More and more have been added over the years. During this time, HR professionals were also focused on increasing Organizational Effectiveness (OE), decreasing the perception that HR was simply a "cost center" and actively gaining a seat at the proverbial table.
An increase in technology led to what some call e-HRM. Looking to the years ahead, some even predict that 60-70% of the HR field will become automated with artificial intelligence, despite the growing number of colleges offering undergraduate and graduate courses of study in this field.
What is in a Name?
Oh, and I forgot just one phase of the evolution. Easy to forget, because we are living it! Many HR teams have recently rebranded themselves. These branding exercises are not “flavor of the month” initiatives, yet are much less aligned across the industry than previous evolutions. We know who we are, what we do and how we strategically support companies; however, we do not know what to call ourselves. A coming of age “identity crisis,” perhaps?
HR departments have begun calling themselves People, People Operations, People Solutions, People & Culture, Talent, Talent Development, etc. Each of these has its well-intentions as well as shortcomings. Not changing the HR department’s name risks a potential decline in the organization’s public perception. Holding onto an “old school” name may imply that an organization lacks agility and is slow to modernize. However, each of the above names seems just a bit off or out of place. For instance:
People: Everyone can imagine what the statement, “I work in Finance” entails. When I hear, “I work in People,” I think of a surgeon wrist deep saving a life. As an HR professional, I do some pretty neat, some days life changing work, but I do not save lives like an MD.
People Operations: Many functions within a company include the word “operations.” This downplays the special quality and unrepeatable advantage of human individuals. Technology, processes and products can be copied, bought or mimicked, but human talent cannot. (Yes, talent can be poached or acquired, but replicating the exact team dynamics and skill sets is challenging. Achieving the same ends through talent takes considerably longer than adopting a new technology.) Are people the same as machines, processes or a new software? Why do we consider them an “operation” like a cold piece of metal or lines of code? Let’s not downplay how special talent is!
People Solutions: Does this imply there are people problems in need of solving (e.g. broken annual review process, weak talent acquisition)? Are people “the problem”? Certainly, this is cynical, but the earworm sticks. More optimistically, are people the solution to the problem the company seeks to solve for its customers?
People & Culture: In my view, this is one of the most favorable of the renaming options. Organizational effectiveness and talent retention are driven by culture. Culture is the heartbeat of everything the “People” team does and informs each of its talent support processes. However, this name could be misleading through the perception that culture is singularly owned by HR professionals. Culture is owned by each and every person in the organization.
Talent: A worthwhile renaming! This acknowledges the special qualities that employees bring to an organization. This name can take employees by surprise though because of the connotations this word holds outside of work. Am I talented enough?
Talent Development: This name aligns with the new psychological contract between employers and employees, which states that instead of promising lifelong employment and a pension, organizations now offer employees increased development opportunities so that when they depart the organization, they will leave stronger and more skilled than when they joined. A limitation to this name is that many HR departments have a sub-team named Talent Development, focusing on performance management, learning and development, coaching and diversity and inclusion. (The latter is also undergoing a name evolution, weaving in the words “equity” and/or “belonging.”)
I am intrigued and curious where all of these new names will land, how they will impact the HR field and what the new “common” name will become. Certainly, I am partial to the term Human Resources, because it beautifully, succinctly and adequately spotlights one’s humanity and positions individuals as highly valuable resources for organizations. (Also, this is the name on both of my degrees. I would hate for them to become immediately outdated.)
Welcome to the Time Warp
HR professionals and academics can trace the evolution of the field and debate where it should proceed next, yet…. none of this truly matters if employees do not see and feel the impact. We can be in the midst of a semantics-driven identity crisis, but are employees benefiting?
I found it highly surprising, a bit ironic and quite sad that many employees continue to view HR as the “cops.” When HR professionals are only visible for discipline, layoffs or terminations, this perception of HR is warranted. I have seen employees clam up or put on a show when HR professionals are near. We are employees, too, and simply want genuine human interaction. It has been said that for each wonderful thing HR professionals get to do (e.g. hire, promote and motivate someone), there is an equal and opposite duty (e.g. fire, demote and discipline someone). Each profession is valuable and comes with its challenges; HR is the same. We are not the “bad guys.”
Over the years, however, the limitations of personnel management and the resulting ill-will has lingered. Trust, in some instances, has been broken. HR professionals would prefer to be talent advocates. Changing this perception will take time, and each organization will travel on the journey at its own pace. As HR professionals seek to be modern, high tech and strategic – everything our industry tells us we should be – some of us live in a time warp with our sheriff deputy badges like scarlet letters on our chests. (Ok, stepping off my soapbox now.)
A similar time warp phenomenon arises when company leaders maintain HR job descriptions which put receptionist duties and replacing printer ink cartridges alongside I-9 and E-Verify tasks. HR is more than recruitment, payroll and legal mitigation. An executive assistant is not equivalent to an HR professional, who specializes in multiple talent-specific processes and often holds multiple degrees, certifications or some combination of both. Small organizations (e.g. under 25 employees) may reasonably combine assistant, receptionist and HR duties. I have also witnessed a split HR and Finance or Legal job title. These combinations are realistic in this setting because the one or two company leaders often take on the “HR duties” of coaching and developing talent. All other organizations deserve not to turn a blind eye to the value a true and focused HR professional can bring to their team. When the market juxtaposes “replace printer ink and maintain hard copy employee files” with advancing a strategic seat at the table, no wonder the HR field is complex and challenging.
To the Point
Nuances and variations are needed in the practice of HR to serve talent and best suit business needs, but a stream can only flow one way. My oar is wet and ready for the future grand rapids of HR. Is yours?
Interested in Learning More?
Pope, L. (2019). 12 types of HR certifications (+Requirements and costs). Learning Hub.
Aghina, W., Ahlback, K., De Smet, A., Lackey, G., Lurie, M., Murarka, M. & Handscomb, C. The
five trademarks of agile organizations. McKinsey & Company.
Special thanks to Prof. Carlton D. Becker of DeSales University.
Comments