Two little words
What's the story behind the phrase 'Human Resources'?This year is the 100th anniversary of the death of Frederick Taylor, pioneering inventor of scientific management, or Taylorism. We know you don’t care. But spare a thought for old Fred, anyway.
While he was mostly interested in things like the optimal weight for efficient shovelling ore (21½ lbs., if you want to know) it was his ground-breaking attempts to show that you could manipulate working environments to yield better results that is often credited as the kernel from which human resources grew. And at HRville we like to think it’s important to know your roots.
There are pretty comprehensive histories of the field to be found, even ones specifically for the UK, like this one over at the CIPD website.
However, something we were interested in was where the phrase ‘human resources’ comes from, other than being a Yank import. Why did it come to replace the older terminology? And is it now here to stay?
To know the future, they say you should first understand the past. So strap in for a history lesson.
‘Human’ history
The term ‘human resources’ is generally understood to have come to prominence during the 1970s, with Merriam-Webster pinning the origin of the phrase to 1961. However, given that a journal named Human Resources Management was established in 1961, that implies the term had some currency before that date.
And let’s not ignore Mrs Ellen Henrietta Swallow Richards (1842-1911). She was the first woman to ever attend MIT, where she earned a Bachelor in Science. Other than being a trailblazer for women’s education, she was a successful chemist with an especial interest in sanitation.
In the latter part of her life she became interested in the maximising of efficiency in the home and at work through hygiene. In 1910 she published “Euthenics, the science of controllable environment”. The aim of the book was to show how improved conditions could improve efficiency.
She gave a speech after the book was published on the subject, “The Conservation of Human Resources”, and that appears to be the first use of ‘human resources’ in the context we recognise. (It had, though, previously been used as a synonym for national manpower).
After that speech, references to “conserving human resources” crop up from time to time. In the 1930s, an academic group at Columbia University established a human resources field, which seems to have been short lived. Following that, in 1950, Dwight D. Eisenhower established the “Conservation of Human Resources project”, again at Columbia.
Initially concerned with the reasons behind so many people being declared unfit for service during WW2, it developed into something we could probably recognise as research into human resources today, such as investigating how to nurture skills and reduce turnover.
Bearded pioneers
The ideas behind the two strands of HR – human resource management and human resource development – have been around since at least the 19th century. Together they captured two of the key aspects of the Victorian innovations in business: increasing efficiency in the workplace and improving conditions for workers.
Quakers like George Cadbury, among others, generally also bearded, can claim much of the credit for introducing many reforms – mandatory breaks, limited working hours, education provision for workers, and a lot more besides.
However pioneers were, in general, isolated. For the first half of the 20th Century, unions, or works committees represented employees.
Only some companies employed dedicated staff to look after the welfare of their employees or attempted to measure performance scientifically. After WW2 things began to change, swelled up by the rising tide of welfare reforms that followed.
What’s on the cards?
‘Welfare officers’, ‘labour management, ‘employee management’, ‘personnel management’ — these are just a few of the names under which HR has appeared during the 20th century. Things haven’t changed much, as companies grope around blindly in a haze for increasingly bizarre and abstract monikers for HR staff.
People strategy? Talent alignment? Productivity enabler? Collaboration management? Apparently, HR is looking for a new identity that stresses its value within a business while also maintaining a soft and cuddly sound. So far, so ‘meh’.
The chain of events that led to the uptake of ‘human resources’ was a strange one, and perhaps not as considered as it could have been. It’s not a nice name, really. It even hides behind a sly little acronym in shame. It commoditises people in a way that can be spent, exchanged or wasted. Karl Marx would surely ruffle his moustache in displeasure.
A Wikipedia quote speaks for itself: “Some analysis suggests that human beings are not “commodities” or “resources”, but are creative and social beings in a productive enterprise.”
Given its changeable past, are rebranding shenanigans likely to remain on the cards in the future?
Some companies like John Lewis, notable for their good relationship with employees, have never moved away from ‘personnel’. Their Director of Personnel, Tracy Killen, said bluntly: “It accurately describes what we do.”
Other major players like McDonald’s, Virgin Media and HMRC now employ ‘Chief People Officers’. While there are quite a few examples of root and branch name changing, the trend seems more to be about diversifying roles within HR than a wholesale shift away from the words ‘human resources’.
Tim Sackett, blogger at Fistful of Talent and other sites, had this to say:
I believe in the future we’ll see HR transform into what I’ll call “People Operations”. This is a part of your organization that is responsible for increasing the talent in your organization, and figuring out how to use the resource of people best in your organization. That incorporates recruitment, learning and development, employee relations, etc. Just like our normal business operations, of whatever it is you do, People Operations will be the experts in the field of talent, specifically, your talent.
However, he’s sceptical of the chances that we’ll be seeing a move away from ‘human resources’ any time soon, instead seeing HR as a “stable” much like that of Marketing or Accounting — an umbrella term that contains substrata of different roles.
It seems like we ought to buckle up for another American import. ‘People Operations’ is the pioneering replacement for the HR department at Google (nicknamed POPS, eurgh), a company that acts as a bellwether in many ways. Other hip and happening companies like Uber have already followed suit. Time will tell whether it’s just a trendy flash in the pan.
We contacted Josh Bersin, the HR analyst who runs consultancy firm Bersin by Deloitte, for his thoughts. He too mentioned that ‘People Operations’ may well be where we’re headed, though he also thought that ‘Talent’ was gaining currency, so we may be facing a two horse race. Like Tim Sackett, he was cautious in forecasting the death of HR: “The phrase is dated and it’s starting to phase out… but it may take years for it to really go away.”
Whatever the case, we don’t like the prospect of any change because then we’d have to get a new name.
About the author
