Skip to content now.

Why Are You in Human Resources?

Feb 19, 2010 / Human Resources / Trackback

I looked up the definition of Human Resources today and I got soup to nuts and didn’t run into the same one twice. So, using my own brain after reading the various definitions I encountered, I filtered out the fluff and cobbled together my own definition:

The strategic and coherent approach towards management of an organization’s human capital

Short, sweet, open to a world of interpretation. Whether you like my definition or another one you subscribe to, social services and mental health professions are different BLS Standard Occupational Classifications (SOC). HR professions are SOC 13-1070 under the parent SOC group 13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations.

Do you see where we work? Business and Financial Operations Occupations.

If I would have chosen to work in human resources because I wanted to help people my priorities would have been mixed up and I would have made a poor choice. Perhaps you think that sounds cold hearted. But what should the focus be for a human resources practitioner? It seems clear to me that it is to ensure the profitability of the company through the management of its human capital.

Why do some of us get wrapped up in employees’ problems, think we are their parent, think we have to “take care” of them, think we have a responsibility to help them live their lives and even solve their personal problems?

Do some of us pursue a career in human resources for the wrong reasons?

Do a quick self assessment to check- you know, kind of like taking your temperature with a thermometer, to contemplate if you contribute to or enable the unhealthiness of a sick work environment or even help create one with a lopsided view or bad definition of your role in human resources.

If you find you have a fever, head on over to Free management Library’s The Free Micro-eMBA(SM) for treatment.


Image: Confusion by Adi Ron (2005) licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license


Tags: , , , ,



Responses

Tammy Colson
Feb 19, 2010 at 7:36 PM

I call it “crossing over to the dark side” or “remembering who signs your paycheck” – HINT: its not the employees.


shennee
Feb 19, 2010 at 7:45 PM

Karla-
Another Great Thought provoking post! You really get us all to THINK!
You bring up the point of how we can all become too enabling and more like a social worker.
I think we can get a little too involved in the “human” aspect and not enough in the Resources part of the job..
Thanks for continuing to inspire us!
Shennee


normgavlick
Feb 19, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Great Points Karla. Human Resources, or Personnel as in the “old days” is not social work. For those in HR and/or considering an HR career your primary objective is the bottom line profitability of your employer. Like it or not that is the reality. If you accept that premise and make every decision based on that premise you should be able to retain your sanity. Notwithstanding all of the other “stuff” HR people have to deal with. All HR offices should have a sign on the door that says, “Social Services Office- down the hall to the left”. By the way,,,,,, why and how did we get to, “human capital management”? What was wrong with Personnel Manager?


Karla Porter
Feb 19, 2010 at 10:05 PM

@Tammy – You got it Toyota… it's to who butters your bread fur sure.
@Shennee – If all I accomplish in my life is to ask questions that make people think I will have much satisfaction =)
@Norm – If you print those signs I will help you sell them for a small commission. I'll work on “volume sales”. The fancy term comes from economic theory which recognizes four main types of capital – physical, natural, human, and cultural. It's just as practical to call what we manage the workforce”.


Brianpjensen
Mar 15, 2010 at 2:24 AM

I have strong opinions on the matter expressed on several posts regarding Employees and Business Value, Employees are Wonderful and The anti-people department. My simple version of HR's role is: To build the company's talent base to increase the value of the firm.
I am not keen on expressions like “Human Capital” or calling people “assets.” Attempts to describe the cash liquid value of people are demeaning, not flattering. Moreover, it is incorrect on the financial statement to call people assets or capital when payroll is clearly an expense. I value your feedback.
http://www.switchhr.com/2010/03/14/the-anti-peo…
http://www.switchhr.com/2010/03/03/employees-ar…

I also think your site is great!


Penny for your thoughts







ADVERTISEMENT