As part of my university course in Chemical Engineering I have recently been taking a series of “business skills” classes. In today’s class the first question that was asked (by a representitive of Kraft Foods) was “What is the difference between personnel and human resources?”
From the context the question was either referring to departmental names or managerial titles. We were given a few minutes to discuss this in groups and then the representative invited answers by asking what a personnel department is for and what a human resources department is for.
However, as far as I understand it, they are both names for the same thing. All answers given I would have included in the responsibilities of a department called “personnel” or one called “human resources”. I thought that “human resources” was a term coined a while back to replace “personnel” for fairly unconvincing reasons related to political correctness.
Is there a difference? What is the history of the terms?
As far as I know, they’re the same. The company I work for kept the “personnel” term for most of the '90s, a fact I was a little pround of. Then they knuckled under in the late 90s and changed to HR. The name itself makes it sound like the company views its employees as objects to be exploited. I’m sure the reason we eventually changed is to keep up with the naming conventions that the rest of the world was using at that time. But their function didn’t change when it became HR.
I think they are different names for exactly the same organization. Some things we just can’t keep the same name. We went from crippled to handicapped to disabled to differently abled.
I think the reason for the HR moniker was to emphasize that companies value their people (I am at odds with CurtC here, but more in a moment) and see them as an important resource to be developed.
However, I hate it when Dilbertesque managers use “resource” as a synonym for “person,” as in, “I need three more resources for this project.” Now that’s dehumanizing.
Personnel is (or maybe was) the term most commonly used in the UK, whilst Human Resources is the term most common in USA. I also despise the term Human Resources as it sounds like employees are a resource to be used up rather than a group of persons.
Have to agree with the anti-HR group here. Certainly to British ears it sounds like something to be exploited or used up as a “means of production”…
Manager; “You know I told you last week that our staff were our most important resource? Well it turns out I was wrong - apparently it’s money.” (question from the floor) "Well, where do staff come then?), (manager) “Er, eight, just below paperclips.”
In my old company HR were christened “Human Remains” as a reflection of their attitude, people skills, empathy etc.
I don’t quite agree with you… You’re quoting from a Dilbert cartoon, and I’m pretty sure that one’s on the wall outside one of the offices in our department. And I’m sure that staff were just below teabags
