People as Assets: Origins, Implications & Critiques

The Origin of the Term “Human Resources”

The phrase Human Resources gained popularity in the 1960s, during a time of industrial growth, corporate expansion, and increased focus on management science. Companies needed systems to manage growing numbers of employees — and the logic of treating people as resources offered clarity, structure, and measurable value.

This shift aligned with academic thought leaders like Peter Drucker, who emphasized the importance of people as key drivers of productivity. Business schools began teaching HR as a function parallel to Finance or Operations. The logic was: if capital and equipment were carefully managed, shouldn’t people be managed with equal discipline?

What began as a way to elevate the importance of people also laid the foundation for policies, software systems, and analytics models still in use today.

The Logic: Why Compare People to Capital or Technology?

It may sound cold, but the analogy made sense for decades. Like machines or software:

• People require upfront investment (recruiting, training)
• Their output can be tracked and optimized (performance)
• Their cost is budgeted and depreciated (salaries, overhead)

Framing people as assets enabled tools like:

• Workforce planning
• Compensation modeling
• Headcount forecasting
• ROI on training

The metaphor helped HR earn its place in business strategy — speaking the same language as finance and operations.

The Risk: When the Metaphor Breaks

The danger of calling people “resources” is that it makes them sound interchangeable — like paper, laptops, or electricity.

• It can lead to dehumanized thinking: people as units of input/output
• It encourages short-termism: cut headcount, boost margins
• It can erode trust, meaning, and loyalty in the workplace

Language matters. Terms like headcount, FTE, reduction in force, or workforce optimization shape how people are treated.

Engagement, creativity, and culture — the intangible assets — are hard to quantify, yet critical to success. The “resource” metaphor rarely captures them well.

Rethinking People in the Modern Workplace

HR has evolved. So must its metaphors.

Today’s best companies think in terms of:

• Employee Experience instead of “headcount management”
• Belonging and inclusion instead of “workforce diversity”
• Human-centered design instead of “policy enforcement”

New job titles reflect this shift: Chief People Officer, Head of Culture, People Partner. HR tech blends analytics with empathy — dashboards with pulse surveys, OKRs with coaching apps.

This doesn’t mean we should abandon measurement — but we must balance metrics with meaning.

Should We Stop Saying “Human Resources”?

Some say yes: the term is outdated and mechanical. Others argue it’s not the name but how it’s used that matters.

Alternatives include:

• People & Culture – emphasizes emotional and cultural dimensions
• Talent & Experience – focuses on growth and retention
• People Operations (PopOps) – a systems-thinking approach to people

The future of HR may not lie in a new name, but in a new mindset: seeing people not as fixed assets, but as dynamic contributors with unique value.

Conclusion: Respect the Roots, Challenge the Frame

The original metaphor of people as assets helped formalize the profession. It gave HR legitimacy in the boardroom.

But today’s workplace demands more. People aren’t machines. They grow, feel, question, change. They need purpose, trust, and room to thrive.

In the end, the best organizations treat people not as resources to manage, but as partners to empower.