• Replies 14 replies
  • Subscribers 12 subscribers
  • Views 17081 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Another term for 'HR'

Rebecca

Hi Community, 

I have been thinking lately on a new & updated term for 'HR'. I see a lot of companies are now referring HR as 'People & Culture'. Just seeing if anyone has any other ideas? I currently work part-time for a distribution company who are highly innovative and the term 'HR' just doesn't suit the business. I also need to take into consideration when I talk about the term people & culture, I always need to explain it is in fact HR, so people understand what the function is. Interested to hear your feedback!

Thanks 

Parents
  • the term 'HR' just doesn't suit the business


    but

    when I talk about the term people & culture, I always need to explain it is in fact HR


    Part of the problem, when people set about re-inventing this particular wheel, is that little consideration is given to how and why the term "Human Resources" came about. It has undeniably become associated with some of the worst aspects of modern employment: tedious mandatory training courses, po-faced sermonizing about equality and inclusion, slightly desperate attempts to engender a concept of "fun", ruthless dismissals and more.

    So when excitable leaders of "highly innovative" start-ups and similar see the term "HR" they come to the predictable conclusion that they have to do things differently and that the obvious place to start is to "not treat humans as resources".

    To which I like blow a big, fat raspberry.

    The whole reason why the old "Personnel" function evolved (via Industrial Relations) to Human Resources was precisely out of a compelling business need to understand how to treat humans as a resource distinct from all others. It is treating humans as a distinct, unique resource that operates differently and has different needs from other resources (like money, intellectual property, raw materials, parts, transport, warehousing, office space etc).

    If an innovative company wants to do human resources differently then the answer is not to re-brand, but to *embrace* that human resources isn't about treating humans as resources, but about treating their resources as humans.
Reply
  • the term 'HR' just doesn't suit the business


    but

    when I talk about the term people & culture, I always need to explain it is in fact HR


    Part of the problem, when people set about re-inventing this particular wheel, is that little consideration is given to how and why the term "Human Resources" came about. It has undeniably become associated with some of the worst aspects of modern employment: tedious mandatory training courses, po-faced sermonizing about equality and inclusion, slightly desperate attempts to engender a concept of "fun", ruthless dismissals and more.

    So when excitable leaders of "highly innovative" start-ups and similar see the term "HR" they come to the predictable conclusion that they have to do things differently and that the obvious place to start is to "not treat humans as resources".

    To which I like blow a big, fat raspberry.

    The whole reason why the old "Personnel" function evolved (via Industrial Relations) to Human Resources was precisely out of a compelling business need to understand how to treat humans as a resource distinct from all others. It is treating humans as a distinct, unique resource that operates differently and has different needs from other resources (like money, intellectual property, raw materials, parts, transport, warehousing, office space etc).

    If an innovative company wants to do human resources differently then the answer is not to re-brand, but to *embrace* that human resources isn't about treating humans as resources, but about treating their resources as humans.
Children
No Data