Can the HR Function Handle a Name Change to "Talent Management"?
February 20, 2008
Seth Godin weighed in on HR early this week with this take: Why not change the name of the HR function and then try to be exceptional?
After all, at one point the term "personnel" got stale, and the move was made to migrate to "human
resources".
I love Seth's work. But a name change won't change the issues. The problem, in the past, was that personnel had a bad name, then the named changed. Unfortunately, a lot of "personnel" people didn't see the need to raise their games.
"Like it or not, in most organizations HR has grown up with a forms/clerical/factory focus. Which was fine, I guess, unless your goal was to do something amazing, something that had nothing to do with a factory, something that required amazing programmers, remarkable marketers or insanely talented strategy people.
So, here's my small suggestion, one that will make some uncomfortable.
Change the department name to Talent.
The reason this makes some people uncomfortable is that it seems like spin, like gratuitous double speak. And, if you don't change what you do, that would be true.
BUT...
What if you started acting like the VP of Talent? Understanding that talent is hard to find and not obvious to manage. The VP of Talent would have to reorganize the department and do things differently all day long (small example: talent shouldn't have to fill out reams of forms and argue with the insurance company... talent is too busy for that... talent has people to help with that.)"
Seth's books are exceptional, and they've taught me a lot about the concepts of marketing. Check out the recommended books on this blog and you'll see many of his works.
So I'm comfortable. I'd like to deal with the challenge he outlines.
The problem is that many in our profession are still personnel people, focused on transactions. The move to "Talent" as an identifier in our profession would mean that the bottom dwellers in our profession have caused us to abandon identities twice. The "Why I hate HR" would simply become "Why I hate Talent Management".
Maybe a better plan is to offer up some professional credentials that transcend the SPHR, and focus on recruiting, performance management, innovation, leadership development, etc. The high end skills that allow someone to call themselves "Talent".
Then those who have earned it can move to the cool designation. Those that don't can stay in HR... or maybe personnel....
Kris,
I don't see where Seth Godin has the credentials to make serious suggestions about HR, and it's characteristic that he would take a marketing approach to HR issues where a name change solves everything. Maybe he should consider changing the name marketing to selling to help get the point across to his folks that it's sales and revenues that drive business success, not marketing plans based on name changes.
We don't know if past name changes in HR
(actually, he missed one---some HR departments changed their name to People Management) have helped to improve the function. It's much better to focus on delivering quality services and ideas that support people and strategy. Name changes to reflect the latest buzz word tend to bring attention to HR insecurities and continue the perception of some critics that HR is an activity that lacks substance and is a slave to buzz words.
Frank
Posted by: Frank Giancola | February 20, 2008 at 08:01 AM
Like anything else, as new requirements emerge, new people/groups take on the challenges.
I see "HR" as a three legged stool:
1. Getting Folks
2. Keeping Folks
3. Tracking Folks
Each of these has a unique set of skills.
Getting Folks requires sales skills (or is it marketing skills?)
Keeping Folks requires a management skills (or is it relationship skills?)
Tracking Folks requires administrative skills (or is it technology skills?)
What's to say there aren't three groups/titles working together to drive company performance.
We've done it with Sales, Marketing, Production (come to think of it we're not bringing them back together...hmmm?)
The title is nothing more than a manifestation of the need at the time.
Today we need talent - that's the biggest issue facing companies - therefore, we focus on that. Retention is an issue as well so now we're seeing titles focused on that issue as well.
Yesterday we needed to administer and track employees. We had enough employees so getting them wasn't too hard. But the GOV has a bunch of rules we have to play by and we have to report on them. Therefore, it was a management issue - hence Human Resources.
Net-Net... the title reflects the need. In reality we need all the titles to have a well-rounded approach.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: Paul Hebert | February 20, 2008 at 08:16 AM
I have to tell you - everytime I see "talent" in HR - "Talent Scout" "Talent Acquistion" I think the next step is for us to have "Casting Director" which will lead to casting couch which will lead to a whole new era of sexual harassment training!
On the other hand, I don't think it's as lame as a posting I saw from a company in Canada seeking a "Manager of People Development".........
Posted by: Kelly | February 20, 2008 at 09:02 AM
Kris:
As usual right on the money. And darn you beat me to the topic. One of the problems I have with a name change is that it gives the profession a fractured identity. No other department changes its name based on "trendiness". This causes confusion for people in the jobs and for the "customers" of the department.
So I am for sticking with this name and improving the quality of the people in the profession and improving the quality of the services delivered. That may be talent acquistion, it may be a beneftit transaction, it may be protecting the company from a poor manager or a "poison" employee. Each of those has its place, the key is doing them the best they can be done.
Tom Peter is a big fan of odd titles and I have enjoyed them as well (I once called myself the HR Wizard), so have a variety of titles if you want. Talent Acquition Manager versus Recruiting Manager, for example, but let's leave HR "stake in the ground" alone and improve quality instead.
Posted by: Michael Haberman, SPHR | February 20, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I actually find some merit to Seth's idea; there will continue to be a role for the "personnel" functions that HR performs, whether in-house or outsourced. There's also the more strategic role.
As Boudreau and Ramstad have articulated, sales grew into two functions: sales and marketing; likewise accounting grew into two functions: accounting and finance. In each case, the "new" branch was more strategically focused. I do not like their proposed title for the strategically focued branch out of HR: Talentship (both Boudreau and Ramstad have recognized that many people do not like this name), but I suspect this will be part of the evolution. As people and ideas become the core value of firms, a new function will evolve to deal with the issues. Whatever we call that new funtion, its emergence will give some HR people that "seat at the table" they so desparately crave.
Posted by: Chris | February 20, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Ah, the question of HR Bifurcation we do love it so...
While I'm very glad to see the discussion hit the mainstream, I personally fall closer in line with John Boudearu's (Beyond HR) thinking that just as there is a need for both Finance and Accounting there will be a need for both a traditional HR function and a Talent Management function to co-exist.
I agree it's bigger then just a branding problem but, to the extent that branding exercises introduce the need for self-reflection, evaluation and change, I agree it is a very important conversation to be having right now. So thanks to Seth and Kris for jump starting the dialogue.
Posted by: Meg Bear | February 20, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Wow!! The comments above contain some incredibly first rate thinking. All hit the jist of the issue --- head on.
I have been playing in the field for close to 30 years, with experiences ranging from the high tech havens of Seattle to a Fortune 100 firm situated at 351 Park Avenue, NYC. Title and organizational label changes are not unique to HR. In many instances, they are undertaken to more accurately reflect the mission of the department or company. In a few instances, the names are merely developed to create mystery or cachet, as implied by Seth.
Thankfully, we do not have to endure personnel, which was the moniker used by many HR departments when I broke into the game. It seemed OK at the time, but clearly over the passage of time seemed to verbally legitimize the misconception that HR was the dumping ground for folks who couldn't make it elsewhere, but who were adept pencil pushers or gushy amiables. The title personnel always conjures up for me the Dirty Harry scene in which Callahan (Eastwood) was told that he was being reassigned to Personnel, "effective Monday." He reply; "HR...HR is for a------s!
A name change in itself will not suffice in itself to change the general reputation of HR in corporate America, notwithstanding Seth's inaccuracy that HR is primarily about talent management. We all know that HR is about much more than talent management.
My experience has been that HR becomes credible when it's headed by a leader who is "solidly anchored," and has the confidence, competence, wit and intelligence that rivals peers in finance, legal, marketing, sales and operating business units. This HR head is an "equal." He or she has the grace, savvy and interpersonal hubris to develop solid relationships with peers. In short, he or she has the executive presence that brings respect to the function, but only if it's coupled with responsive, competent levels of strategic AND transactional HR services.
Robert Edward Cenek
Cenek Report
Posted by: robert edward cenek, RODP | February 21, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Great post, Kris. I'm not sure about the change to "Talent." It sounds a bit like when Stanford went to the Stanford "Cardinal." Only one?
Anyway, you're absolutely right about the fact that changing the sign on the door won't do any good unless what goes on behind the door changes, too. Alas, that's not all that has to change.
Senior corporate managers who hire HR people who walk, talk and quack like Personnel will have to change. Even more important, the senior managers who mouth those platitudes about "our people are our most important asset" and then treat people like interchangeable parts will have to change, too.
Posted by: Wally Bock | February 22, 2008 at 04:34 PM
My first real exposure to a quality HR department (before I got into the field) was at a company where they called it "People Development".
I thought then, and still do, that it says it all.
Posted by: steve | February 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM