Managing Employees and their Expectations

Clearly, managing people is the most difficult aspect of project management, if not life in general. This article explains how to do it properly.

The importance of controlling expectations should not be underestimated by managers. In actuality, the reality of controlling expectations is based on three simple guidelines:

• Managers convey their expectations to their employees both verbally and nonverbally.
• People are aware of their manager’s expectations both consciously and unconsciously.
• People behave in ways that are in line with their boss’s expectations.

People exceed more often than not in reaction to their manager’s performance message. When a manager fails to communicate his or her expectations in a clear and unambiguous manner, it can jeopardize someone’s performance. Despite the fact that a manager’s expectations are often subtle, the manager’s team catches up on them both consciously and subconsciously. It could be as simple as a manager who fails to compliment one employee’s performance as frequently as he or she compliments the performance of another. It could also be a manager who talks less to a specific person or who does not share ideas or personal items with that person. Yes, people notice these minor details because they are evident to them.

Improve your relationships

Relationships are important to great leaders. They understand who people are, what matters to them, and what drives them. Knowing this can help you better understand their objectives and how you may help them achieve them. People will care about you and your objectives if you help them.

Employees’ self-esteem and performance will suffer as a result of inexperienced management.

That’s correct. When a manager is talented and has high expectations for an employee, the employee’s self-confidence rises, his or her talents develop more quickly, and the individual’s performance improves.

“People Are Not Resources” — The Great HRM Debate

By RMP Institute | [Date]

Meta Description: Is the term “human resources” dehumanizing? We explore both sides of the debate and ask: what should we really call HR?

—

Introduction: The Term That Started a Thousand Arguments

In 1992, Osterby and Coster wrote something that still makes HR professionals squirm:

“The term ‘human resources’ reduces people to the same category of value as materials, money and technology — all resources, and resources are only valuable to the extent they can be exploited or leveraged into economic value.”

Read that again. Exploited or leveraged into economic value.

Is that really how we see the people who build our organizations? The ones who innovate, collaborate, and carry the culture?

The term “human resources” has been with us since the 1980s, when HRM emerged as a philosophy of how people should be managed. But decades later, many still question whether the label does more harm than good.

At RMP Institute, we believe this debate matters. Language shapes behavior. The words we use to describe people at work influence how we treat them. So let’s explore both sides — honestly and thoroughly.

—

What Are “Human Resources” Anyway?

Before we debate the term, let’s define it.

Boxall (2007: 13) explained:

“Human resources include the knowledge, skills, networks and energies of people and, underpinning them, their physical and emotional health, intellectual capabilities, personalities and motivations.”

That’s a rich, human definition. It includes:

· Knowledge — what people know
· Skills — what people can do
· Networks — who people know
· Energies — what people bring physically and mentally
· Physical and emotional health — the foundation of performance
· Intellectual capabilities — the capacity to think and solve problems
· Personalities — the unique ways people show up
· Motivations — what drives people to act

When you read that list, “resources” doesn’t sound so cold. It sounds like the most complex, valuable asset any organization has.

But critics say that’s exactly the problem. When you call people “resources,” you open the door to treating them like things.

—

The Case Against “Human Resources”

Critics argue that calling people “resources” creates a dangerous mental shortcut. Resources are things to be:

· Optimized — squeezed for maximum output
· Replaced — when cheaper alternatives exist
· Depleted — without concern for long-term sustainability
· Measured — in purely financial terms

When we think of people as resources, we risk treating them like inventory. And when the economy tightens, resources get cut.

The language matters because it shapes decisions. If people are resources, then layoffs are just “right-sizing.” If people are resources, then burnout is just “capacity utilization.” If people are resources, then turnover is just “attrition.”

The words we use become the actions we take.

—

The Case For “Human Resources”

Defenders of the term argue that it’s not about dehumanizing people — it’s about recognizing that people are the most valuable resource an organization has.

Think about it: every organization has resources. Financial resources. Technological resources. Physical resources. Human resources.

Calling people “human resources” doesn’t diminish them. It elevates them. It says: people belong in the same strategic conversation as money, technology, and infrastructure.

The term also serves a practical purpose. It signals that people management is a strategic function, not just an administrative one. It gives HR a seat at the table where decisions are made.

Without the term “human resources,” would HR have the influence it has today? Maybe. Maybe not.

—

The Historical Context

HRM emerged in the 1980s as a philosophy of how people should be managed.

As Hendry and Pettigrew (1990: 20) observed:

“What HRM did at this point was to wrap around some of the observable changes, while providing a focus for challenging deficiencies — in attitudes, scope, coherence and direction — of existing personnel management.”

They also commented (ibid: 25) that HRM can be perceived as:

“A perspective on personnel management and not personnel management itself.”

In other words, HRM wasn’t just a new name for the same old thing. It was a new way of thinking.

The term “human resources” was part of that new thinking. It said: people are not just employees. They are assets. They are investments. They are sources of competitive advantage.

But every revolution has its critics. And the critics of “human resources” have a point.

—

What Would You Call It?

If we could rename HR, what would we call it? Here are some alternatives that have gained traction:

Alternative What It Emphasizes Best For
People & Culture Belonging, values, community Organizations that prioritize engagement
Human Potential Growth, development, possibility Organizations focused on learning
Talent & Wellbeing Performance and health together Organizations that see both as linked
People Operations Efficiency, systems, scalability Tech companies and startups
Human Capital Investment, ROI, value creation Finance-driven organizations
Employee Experience Journey, touchpoints, satisfaction Customer-service-oriented cultures
People & Performance Results and development Performance-driven organizations

Each name carries its own philosophy.

· “People & Culture” says we care about how it feels here.
· “Human Capital” says we care about what it returns.
· “Human Potential” says we care about what you can become.
· “People Operations” says we care about how it works.

None of these is perfect. Each has strengths and weaknesses.

The question isn’t which name is best. The question is: which name best reflects what you actually do?

—

The Real Question: Do Your Actions Match Your Words?

The debate about terminology matters because language shapes behavior. But the deeper question is this:

Do your actions match your words?

You can call your department “People & Culture” and still treat employees like disposable resources.

You can call it “Human Resources” and still create a workplace where people thrive.

The label matters less than the lived experience.

Here’s what we mean:

What You Say What You Do What People Experience
“People are our greatest asset” Layoffs every quarter Anxiety, distrust
“We invest in development” No training budget Stagnation, frustration
“We value work-life balance” Emails at midnight Burnout, resentment
“We believe in transparency” Secretive decision-making Confusion, disengagement
“We care about wellbeing” No mental health support Stress, turnover

The words on the website don’t matter if the experience tells a different story.

—

A Balanced Perspective

At RMP Institute, we take a balanced view.

We acknowledge:

· The term “human resources” has limitations
· Language shapes perception and behavior
· Many people find the term dehumanizing

We also recognize:

· The term has strategic value
· It’s widely understood and accepted
· Changing it doesn’t automatically change behavior

We believe:

· The label matters less than the practice
· Organizations should choose language that reflects their values
· The goal is not to rename HR but to rehumanize it

—

What the Research Says

Let’s look at what the research actually tells us.

Guest (1987: 505) commented that:

“Human resource management appears to lean heavily on theories of commitment and motivation and other ideas derived from the field of organizational behavior.”

This tells us that HRM is fundamentally about people — their motivations, their commitments, their behaviors.

Storey (2001: 7) defined the beliefs of HRM as including:

“The assumptions that it is the human resource which gives competitive edge, that the aim should be to enhance employee commitment, that HR decisions are of strategic importance and that therefore HR policies should be integrated into the business strategy.”

Notice: the goal is employee commitment, not resource utilization.

Boxall, Purcell, and Wright (2007: 1) wrote:

“Human resource management (HRM), the management of work and people towards desired ends, is a fundamental activity in any organization in which human beings are employed. It is not something whose existence needs to be radically justified: HRM is an inevitable consequence of starting and growing an organization.”

This is perhaps the most important point. HRM isn’t optional. If you employ people, you manage them. The only question is whether you do it well.

—

Practical Steps: How to Rehumanize HRM

If you want to move beyond the “human resources” debate and create a more human workplace, here are practical steps:

1. Audit Your Language

Look at your job descriptions, policies, and internal communications. Do they sound human? Or do they sound like a legal document?

Replace: “The human resource must comply with attendance protocols.”
With: “We trust you to manage your time and communicate when you need flexibility.”

2. Measure What Matters

If you measure only productivity and efficiency, you’ll get only productivity and efficiency. Start measuring trust, engagement, and wellbeing.

Questions to ask:

· Do employees feel valued?
· Do they trust their managers?
· Do they see a future here?

3. Invest in Relationships

Social exchange theory tells us that people reciprocate good treatment with loyalty and effort. Invest in the relationships that make work human.

Actions:

· Train managers to coach, not just supervise
· Create spaces for honest conversation
· Recognize people as individuals, not headcount

4. Give People Voice

People want to be heard, not just managed. Create channels for feedback, ideas, and concerns.

Actions:

· Regular town halls with Q&A
· Anonymous feedback mechanisms
· Employee resource groups

5. Lead by Example

Culture starts at the top. If leaders treat people as resources, everyone will. If leaders treat people as people, everything changes.

Actions:

· Leaders model vulnerability and empathy
· Leaders admit mistakes
· Leaders prioritize people over process

—

The RMP Institute Position

We believe in the power of language — but we believe in the power of practice even more.

Whether you call it HR, People Ops, or Human Potential, the goal is the same:

Create conditions where people can do their best work and live their best working lives.

That’s not about resources. That’s about respect.

We don’t think the term “human resources” is inherently bad. But we do think it’s incomplete. It describes what people are (resources) but not what they can be (partners, innovators, leaders, change-makers).

The best organizations don’t just manage human resources. They unleash human potential.

—

Conclusion: Beyond the Debate

The “people are not resources” debate isn’t really about terminology. It’s about philosophy.

Do you see people as costs or investments?
Do you see them as interchangeable or irreplaceable?
Do you see them as means to an end or ends in themselves?

The answers to those questions matter more than the name on the door.

At RMP Institute, we’re not here to tell you what to call your department. We’re here to help you create workplaces where people thrive.

Call it whatever you want. Just make it human.

—

Key Takeaways

· The term “human resources” has been debated since the 1980s
· Critics say it dehumanizes people by equating them with materials and money
· Defenders say it strategically elevates people to the same level as other key assets
· The real question isn’t what you call it — it’s how you treat people
· Alternatives include People & Culture, Human Potential, and People Operations
· The goal is not to rename HR but to rehumanize it

—

Discussion Questions

1. What term does your organization use for HR? Why?
2. Have you ever felt dehumanized by HR language or practices?
3. What’s one thing you could do to make your workplace more human?
4. If you could rename HR, what would you call it?
5. How do you balance strategic HRM with human-centered HRM?

—

Join the Conversation

What do you think? Is “human resources” still the right term?

· Comment below with your preferred alternative
· Share this post with someone who works in HR
· Subscribe to RMP Institute for more deep dives into the future of people management

—

Next Up

The Iceberg of HRM — What Lies Beneath the Surface

Discover why what you see of HRM is only 10% of the story — and why the invisible forces matter most.

—

About RMP Institute

RMP Institute is dedicated to advancing the practice of human resource management through research, education, and thought leadership. We believe that people are the heart of every organization — and that managing them well is both an art and a science.

Follow us:

· LinkedIn
· Twitter
· Facebook
· YouTube

Subscribe to our newsletter for weekly insights on HRM, leadership, and organizational development.

—

Tags: #HumanResources #HRM #PeopleAndCulture #HRDebate #RMPInstitute #FutureOfWork #EmployeeExperience

—

© RMP Institute. All rights reserved.