Remember when “Personnel” sounded like someone who actually knew your name? I do — I worked in the Tennessee Department of Personnel in the 1990s, back when the role still felt personal. When did employees stop being people and start becoming “resources” or worse, commodities? Are these departments still people-centric?
A century ago, the personnel department was largely focused on payroll and basic record-keeping. Over time, it grew to manage employee benefits, leave policies, and workplace relations as companies expanded and labor laws evolved. As the role of the department expanded, it took on training and other professional programs. Various sorts of assessments, and wellness initiatives also emerged.
These efforts were framed as investments in people, with the sensible goal of maximizing productivity. After all, when you hire people to do a job, you want them to operate at a high level of efficiency. But over time, that clear purpose was buried under a growing pile of “must-have” initiatives. It became a smorgasbord of three-letter projects such as DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), which often shifted the focus away from genuine performance and toward trend-driven mandates.
But many of these projects were not well received by employees due to their political and intrusive nature. This is the point at which the productivity of the people gave way to pleasing the masses on social media platforms. Instead of applying long-standing corporate core values, like “respect” and “accountability”, department heads drifted away from being people-centric and toward a one-size-fits-all approach.
An HR director, like an attorney, can be a great help, or a catastrophic hindrance. The real function of HR is simple: protect what is in the best interest of the organization. Yet both employees and management often believe HR is on their side until they learn, usually in a moment of conflict, where those loyalties truly lie: the company.
Today, the names have changed. “Personnel” became “Human Resources.” Then came “People Operations,” “Culture Team,” and “Talent Optimization.” But these are just rebranding, not reinventions. Much like how employees are now called “talent,” the language has evolved faster than the substance.
Recently, a video featuring two executives of Astronomer AI, Andy Byron, the company's CEO, and his head of HR, Kristin Cabot, went viral as it caught everyone’s attention. The internet snickered not just at the gossip, but also at Cabot's executive title: Chief People Officer. Though many had never heard of the term before, large companies have adopted the moniker. Microsoft, Procter & Gamble, Delta Airlines, and Walmart are among them.
Perhaps directors are finally waking up to the fact that titles alone don’t change culture — and that putting ‘people’ back in the job description should also mean putting people back at the center of decisions. Could it be that we're seeing a return to the old Department of Personnel? Given the weight of such Fortune 500 companies, it would appear that way. Perhaps companies are once again focusing on the human element, recognizing that people are more than just resources, or cogs in a machine.