Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
I received an interesting reader note talking about the name “human resources” and leadership.
HR has evolved over the years from personnel to human resources to people and culture. What’s in a name?
Is HR really responsible for culture? If not, then why have ‘culture’ in the title? Is the real function of HR about change, leadership, workforce planning, and employee relations? Should the title then be people and organizational development?
This is not about what we are called, it’s about what we do and will do in the future.
I see a huge role in organizing leadership development programs because there are leaders and those who lead. There are a lot of the former and very few of the latter!
In my extensive HR experience, it all starts with leadership.
I agree with the reader that there should be alignment between what the function is called and what it does. We sometimes see this same challenge in other job titles. For example, some military job titles don’t immediately provide a picture of what the job actually does.
It reminds me of a video in SHRM’s Talent Acquisition: Creating Your Organizational Strategy. Florent Groberg, retired U.S. Army Captain and Medal of Honor recipient, is having a discussion about one of the biggest challenges with hiring veterans – deciphering the military occupational specialty (MOS). Think about it as trying to learn a new language to understand an employee’s knowledge, skills, and experience. It’s tough!
But back to the name “human resources”. So, I agree that the department’s name should match what they do. A department name also needs to have familiarity, meaning people should probably have some history with the name. For example, we know what the accounting department does. The name has been around for quite some time.
The name human resources has also been around a while. It was first mentioned in Peter Drucker’s book “The Practice of Management” (1954). While there are people who feel that the human resources name is old and should be changed, I’m not sure that old should be the only factor when it comes to a name change.
For example, when organizations started renaming their “personnel” departments to human resources, I believe it was in part because the name was old. But it was also to signal a new set of expectations for HR departments. New name = new expectations.
So, if an organization is saying, “Hey – we’re going to rename HR to the people and culture department because we’re changing what we expect from the function.” Then maybe that’s okay. With the name change comes:
- Communicating to the new People & Culture department what the new performance expectations will be. That could include new responsibilities and metrics.
- Providing tools and training to individual employees so they can be successful in their new role.
- Communicating to the organization what the new People & Culture department will be responsible for. And if there are things that they will no longer be responsible for, indicating the new go-to department.
The question really becomes, why does an organization want to change the name of a department? Is it to align the work with the name? Or is it just to sound cool and hip? Honestly, if the company changes the name from HR to something else but doesn’t change any of their responsibilities, then won’t employees just say, “New name, same old HR.”
And that doesn’t benefit anyone.
The reader note ends with the answer to the name question – leadership. The organization’s leadership team should want employees to have job titles that align with the work. They should also want department names to align with the work. And it’s okay to change a job title or a department name as long as all the other changes are done as well.
Image captured by Sharlyn Lauby while exploring the streets of Las Vegas, NV
The post Is Human Resources the Right Name – Ask #hr bartender appeared first on hr bartender.
