Language shapes leadership conversations almost imperceptibly. It affects what is discussed, prioritised, and ignored. Over time, it influences how people are treated. “Human Resources” is one of those phrases that seems benign but is not.
I have been in meetings where people were discussed almost entirely in financial shorthand. Headcount. Capacity. FTEs. These terms are not wrong. They are part of a language organisations use. The problem arises when they become the dominant or only way colleagues are spoken about. It seems easier to manage the spreadsheet than to remember that each number represents a person with judgement, commitments, and a life beyond work.
I pay attention when companies change how they frame the people function. When Hiab refers to “People and Culture” and explicitly links it to safety, quality and customer performance, this is not cosmetic. When Hempel positions People and Culture leadership at the executive level to support growth, it signals that this is no longer perceived as an admin back-office function. These are solid, industrial businesses. They change language because they see a connection between words, choices, and results.
The underlying issue is straightforward. People are not inputs in the way machines or capital are. You can allocate a budget and expect predictable behaviour. People interpret, question, connect ideas, and sometimes resist. They decide whether to offer judgement and discretionary effort, or simply comply. The way leaders talk about people influences that choice more than most performance frameworks ever will.
Language changes who is heard in the room. A function labelled Human Resources is easily seen as the place where policies, contracts and problems are managed. Label it People and Culture, and it becomes harder to exclude it from discussions about growth, restructuring, or investment. Different questions surface. What does this decision do to trust? How will it be interpreted by those who stay? What kind of organisation are we shaping over the next five years?
This is not an argument against difficult decisions. Businesses exist to create value, solve problems, and earn a return. Renaming a function does not change that reality. But it does influence how decisions are taken. A people and culture lens forces leaders to look beyond immediate cost and consider whether they are weakening the very conditions that enable the business to function: cooperation, credibility, and a sense of fairness.
This tension is visible every day. There is pressure to improve margins and satisfy investors, alongside a growing awareness that people are mobile, reputations are fragile, and culture cannot be rebuilt quickly once damaged. The conversations that matter most are often not about structures or incentives, but about something more basic: what kind of place are we asking people to commit their energy to?
I welcome the move away from the label Human Resources. It is not a cure, and it is not sufficient on its own. But it is a visible signal that leaders are questioning an outdated mindset that treats people as units to be optimised rather than adults with whom we work. When People and Culture is treated as a core business discipline, expectations change. Decisions are tested not only for efficiency but also for their human consequences.
