The problem with Talent Acquisition
HR is about people. And don’t you wish you could rename your department or your title to something that gave proper credit to the importance of those people, rather than referring to them as resources? Google did; they call themselves People Operations. But, they often include the a subtitle of (known elsewhere as HR). And that’s the rub… everyone knows and understands what HR means as a department or within a title. It is just too embedded in our business today so even if we want to change it, we’d always have to add “you know, HR” when explaining it to others.
Business today recognizes HR is so much more than just employee records and benefits and compliance. There is more specialization going on, such as in hiring. There is souring, recruiting, onboarding, employer branding, EVP, and on and on. This is what I do; and, the name I see used to describe it most often is “Talent Acquisition.” I’m uncomfortable with that term; I think we should change it now, while we can.
Clearly companies want talented people in their companies. When hiring someone, a business has some needs that they need the new employee to be able to fill relatively quickly. That is what separates school from work. We get paid for work and we need to add some value fairly quickly. After a period of time – 6 months, a year, maybe more – the possibilities expand. The person may have discovered talents that they didn’t realize they had; or, the company finds out they have talents that can be used elsewhere. They are discovering talent… it is a process, not an event, and shouldn’t be described as such.
Nor do I think the term is particularly empowering for candidates. Companies start by stating their people are their greatest asset, and things degrade from there. I understand the sentiment, but I think business can do better at describing the value people have when they are an employee of their company. By definition, assets can be people or objects. By definition, acquisition means an object bought or obtained. We’ve started by putting people on the same level as inanimate objects. Now, we’re talking about people like we can purchase them and use them as our needs dictate. People are obviously so much more – they have passions and desires; they can change and grow; they can push themselves and be inspired to do great things. We need to find terms that respect and revere the differences between people and objects.
If you’re in the business of people, think carefully about the names you use to describe things. If you’re in talent acquisition now, can you call yourself something different? Talent scout? Recruiter? Team builder? People finder? Matchmaker? When people ask what you do, you might have a short tag line that you use, such as: “I connect talented people to fulfilling careers” or “I help people find great careers.” But, that should complement your title, not explain it.
HR has evolved way beyond an administrative function; we have the honor of helping people make major life transitions to new jobs, new companies, and new careers. We have the honor of helping them excel and become better people. The person on the journey is so much more important than any of the points along the way, and we must respect that. The labels we use should reflect that, too. As we create specialized roles and refine and define our processes, we cannot forget this is about people. It is about relationships, not transactions.
