Or maybe it was merely part of a late-20th century trend that gave a fresh coat of paint to time-honored (or worn out) institutions of all stripes across the U.S. In schools, gym class became “Physical Education” and History devolved into “Social Studies.” Airline stewardesses were referred to as “flight attendants,” while secretaries became known as “administrative assistants.” Such job titles were also about social progress and the rise of feminism, but nomenclature attached to many things was changing before our eyes.
So it’s really no surprise that the trend has continued in the 21st century, though perhaps for different reasons. After all, so much of our lexicon relating to technology and other societal advancements didn’t even exist before the year 2000. So what to make of the term “Human Resources” itself now becoming a relic of the last century? Is it just another rebranding whose time has come, or is the HR function itself being reinvented?
HR is Dead; Long Live HR
When it comes to the HR business, the 21st century has seen countless articles and stories about the “death knell of HR;” the outsourcing of any and all HR functions by many companies; and the reputation earned by some HR departments across industries as a corporate bogeyman or necessary evil.
A blog post last year from HRE Daily touches on this touchy subject and is headlined, aptly enough, “HR’s Not Dead, It’s Just Changing Names.” The author cites the growing frequency of title changes at many companies--from chief human resources officer to the likes of chief people officer, chief talent officer or vice president of people operations (e.g., Laszlo Bock at Google). But the implication here is there may be something more than a rebranding going on–an evolution away from thinking of employees as “capital assets.”
In another piece published in Entrepreneur in 2014, the chief operating officer (note the traditional title) of a company called Nitro offers an explanation for its HR department’s change of nomenclature. That firm dispensed with its traditional HR function in favor of Employee Experience (EE), which the COO, Gina O’Reilly, describes as “a global function whose sole responsibility is to help make Nitro the best possible place to work.”
More to the point, she goes on to explain that if traditional HR was focused on protecting the company, EE is “first and foremost about protecting and supporting employees.” Stressing that the EE function exists to support Nitro’s employees and help them be happy and successful, O’Reilly argues this is a strategic way to grow the firm’s bottom line.
She describes Nitro’s division of EE responsibilities into three distinct components dedicated to employee wellbeing, called the three F’s: Fundamentals (must-haves), Fringe (important) and Fun (nice to have).
It’s the Employees’ Century, We Just Work In It
Still another take on the topic of rebranding offers more insight into this trend. In an article published last May in Forbes, author and futurist Jacob Morgan argues that it’s the very nature of the workplace that’s taken on a distinctly 21st-century (dare we say “Millennial”?) attitude.
He implies (without saying) that the change in HR nomenclature is a reflection of the change in emphasis on the employee experience because compensation is no longer the primary motivating factor for today’s employees. Rather, it’s job satisfaction and the overall quality of life at work that drives the rising workforce in 2016. Hence the evolution we’re seeing across corporate America from the “customer experience” to the “employee experience.”
As proof, Morgan cites the creation of a gestalt, or holistic, journey that prospective hires embark on when they first apply for a job, to their last day of work for a company–and everything that transpires in between those bookends. At T-Mobile, prospective hires can find out how long a given position has been open, and how many applicants the firm has received for it.
He also points out that the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) itself indicates that talent management is now job one for HR professionals. Why? Because, as Morgan sees it, the power in corporations has shifted from management to employees. That would explain the rise of concepts like empowerment, employee engagement and designing beautiful work spaces.
In an age where workers can pay the rent by renting out their living space on Airbnb or drive for Uber or Lyft on their own time and terms, the workplace has evolved from a place people have to work to a destination where they want to work and earn their livelihood.
So perhaps the trend away from the concept of “HR” toward that of “EE” can be seen as mirroring the passing of the torch from the Baby Boomers to the Millennials, by way of Generation X sandwiched in between. Granted, significant resources are devoted these days to corporate and product rebranding all around us. But the rebranding of the Human Resources function appears to be a reflection of a transition in the nature of the workforce. And yet, at the end of the day, no matter what it’s called – HR, EE, or a title to be named later – even if the function or job titles change, it’s not going away anytime soon.