Is "Human Resources" an out-of-date name?

Recently, I and other bloggers have questioned recently whether we should use the term "human capital," or whether it's a de-humanizing term. Today, Seth Godin talks about "Marketing HR" and makes a similar case for the term "Human Resources."

He links the name "Human Resources" back to the factory days when people were just another cog in the machines and, therefore, needed to managed as such. He proposes that HR departments should be called "Talent" departments instead, and notes that some companies are already making such moves. (And my personal favorite, departments of "People.")

I had never made such a connection to the term "Human Resources" before. Maybe it's because the term "resources" can also be about the things that are being made available to us employees, not just how to use what we have to offer. Maybe it's because it feels much more natural, like - well, "natural resources" - than "human capital."

But on the other hand, names have power, and I'm all for anything that shakes up our assumptions a bit and puts our focus squarely on how we're impacting (and hopefully improving) the people in our organizations. Even if you don't want to go through the redtape of a department name change, maybe just a campaign reminder that "HR (or training) is about talent" will serve a suitable pants-kicking to wake people up a bit.

What's your company's training or HR department done lately to remind them and everyone else that they're there for the people and the talent in their organization?

Comments

[Daan Assen]

Fully agree that the term 'resource' isn't exactly flattering for employees (follow my link for an in depth discussion). Talent on the other hand seems hyped and has the tendency to be linked to the top-talent and young potentials only. I doubt if this name is appealing to blue collar workers and older employees. Maybe we should go back to the Personnel Department of just have people management as a part of line management's job?

[Beth Griese]

"Personnel" is another good suggestion! I agree that we need to watch out for the hype-for-hype's-sake names, but when it comes to the impact on top talent and young (or any age) potentials, aren't those the most sought-after workers to impact?