Every so often there’s a serious debate about calling HR something else. I used to think that would be OK and perhaps inevitable. We get tired of terms and the baggage they carry and want something with a new connotation. Hence, the hated, administrative-sounding “Personnel” was replaced by HR over many years and now is rarely heard or seen. However, it coincided with real change in expectations of the function. Now we aren’t changing expectations as much as bemoaning the fact they were rarely met.

There’s another route. Rehabilitation is possible. I don’t object to organizations that have started to use Chief People Officer or Human Capital department. I just think they missed the point… and an opportunity. I love William Lutz’ article Life under the Chief Doublespeak Officer. It can’t be just a cosmetic name change. “A rose by any other name….”

In fact the objective this time is to make HR live up to the initial expectations that it would operate at a higher level, be strategic and deliver real value. Some organizations have achieved that. If you want to signal that yours didn’t and now you’re fixing that by changing the name, just make sure you actually modernize what HR does to the latest knowledge about what works.

All the elements we want are available to us under the title HR. The fact they haven’t been allowed to develop properly isn’t entirely, or at least not always, HR’s fault. Some feel in changing the name, we should perhaps re-title every underlying element. In part we’re seeing that – Recruiting has morphed into Talent Acquisition. I see the point if the new term Talent Management. It covers the complete flow from “acquisition” through orientation, training, leadership development, succession planning and more. In fact, it can refer to the complete employee life cycle – including performance management (itself a far broader term than annual evaluation, for instance). Understanding that the processes should be linked under these broader headings actually contributes to advancing strategy. But Talent Acquisition for Recruiting… I’m not sure… except perhaps that it fits into the broader ideas. I can’t see anything new is added.

Anyway, at the gym I’m constantly reminded there are more meanings to the acronym “HR” – ones that might just help in revitalizing the tired old punching bag we love to criticize. There, when I’m pumping away on the treadmill or exercycle, “HR” stands for something different yet strangely relevant – Heart Rate. Wouldn’t it be great if HR in organizations included the meaning the we should pay attention to everyone heart rates. In two senses: first, we want people pumped up, excited, keen and fully “engaged” and energized – high heart rate, and second, we want people to manage their stress levels, not let their heart rates become unstable, uncontrollably rapid, because therein lies the end of the line for employees through burnout as the Japanese term “Karoshi” or death by overwork signifies at the extreme. One group on the positive side uses the term “Heart Math.” Perhaps if we start rehabilitating HR with some positive references, the name won’t seemHome... and Home Run if everyone plays so bad. I’m not being entirely facetious here.

Of course America’s grand old game has yet another meaning for the term HR, right? Also not a bad thing to associate with the purpose of the human resources function. After all aren’t we in the business of helping and coaching teams to create “Home Runs?” Again, laugh it off if you wish, but optics and PR being what they are, perhaps it’s time for those of us in HR to point out these serendipitous meanings of the acronym that others seem to overlook.

Bookmark and share this post
[Ask] [Bloglines] [BlogMarks] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [LinkedIn] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »