The P word

Readers of old may remember my moan about the E word (engagement). I have similar reservations about strategy and culture.  My gripes with all three are that

• they get thrown into conversation regularly whilst the person throwing them in there often doesn't know what they really mean in the first place
• they are suitably wishy-washy and broad to cause endless debates about 'what they really mean' when the time could be better spent actually doing something useful
• thanks to said wishy-washiness, crossed-wires and confusion can ensue if said debates do not take place to clarify people's different understanding of terminology
• heaps of communicators regularly have guilt trips because they feel, or are told, they should be getting 'more strategic', getting involved in 'culture change' or 'you know, really enGAGing people' ... but they don't actually understand what they should be doing differently, except that whatever it is, it's somehow on a higher level than what they're doing now. The person making the request often doesn't know either. See previous points.

I'm not talking about those words this time though. (That was just a reminder of my old gripe, because I'll take any opportunity to re-hash it when I've had to spend yet more time in the previous week debating and explaining both engagement and strategy.)

No. This time I'm talking about the P word. As in People. Nothing wishy washy about that, you might say, and quite right too.

My gripe with the P word is ... why do so many HR functions (who on the face of it are kind of supposed to deal with people) find themselves choking rather than using it? Why do we have to refer to people or employees as human resources?  The implication seems to be that 'we don't work with fluffy, 'soft' things like people. Oh no, what we do is use resources to get things done in the same way as our operational colleagues.  It's just like using materials or money. Except we're talking about human resources'.

It gets pretty hideous when the term makes it out into the open. I managed to tactfully persuade one organisation that it might not be such a good idea to refer in its all-staff employee opinion survey action update to the launch of 'a recognition scheme to recognise the valuable work done by our human resources'. I don't know about you, but I thought people might not feel too valued if they saw themselves being referred to in quite those terms.

Or even worse - my most hated term of the moment - human capital.  How would you like being referred to as human capital? I bet you're feeling more engaged just at the thought of it, aren't you? Thought so.

So why is it just the Virgins and the Innocent Drinks of the world that call their HR teams the 'People' function?  Could it be that someone, somewhere in the HR world decided one day that terms such as human resources and human capital would help the function shift its reputation from the murky old days when it was Personnel and transform it into something far more strategic ...?! 

So now, having lit blue touch paper, I shall stop and wait for the wrath of HR colleagues everywhere to descend. (I should say, by the way, that I'm not one of the many who seem to have problems working with HR teams. Some of my strongest relationships have been with HR teams. In fact the HR Director from my last in-house job is still one of my closest personal friends. They do great work. I'm just not a fan of their terminology!).

Comments

[Geoff Timblick]

I must admit, I have neglected this blog for a while - Sue, Liam and now Sally, I apologise. And when I do come back I see a topic after my own heart!

I have been on a personal campaign to rid all companies of the words 'employee' or (even worse) 'staff' or 'a human resource' or even 'FTE'!

Nothing more demoralising and un-engaging than being referred to as 'Dear Staff Member' - I'm a person, I have a life, but I'm committed to OUR company and OUR ideals - I'm not your staff member, I'm a person that is part of your team!

Glad to hear it's not just me Sue!

[Sue]

Hi Geoff

You're forgiven! Great to see you back. So how's the personal campaign going? Any success in your corner of the corporate world?

Maybe we should invite people to send in their most hated corporated terms for 'people'. FTE is one of mine too. Yes, I know it's a way of distinguishing that you're counting full time equivalent roles rather than 'heads' (another hated term!), but I have seen it creep into presentations many a time when managers are explaining how many jobs are going.

[Jeroen]

Yes, 'human resources' or FTE do sound really impersonal. Noone likes to be referred to as 'just a number'. But although I favour a more personal approach as much as anyone else, from a company's point of view, isn't the impersonal style more... honest, when it boils down to it? I mean, look at the current crisis. When companies have to lay off lots of employees, it's pretty tough to keep up the wishy washy people style. It may sound cynical, but I believe you could compare such situations with a surgeon who has to treat his patient as a medical subject rather than a person he's emotionally connected to, if he intends to cut off the right pieces.