University of Manchester graduate student Marco Koster took a stab at differentiation in his 2002 thesis, aptly titled Human Resource Management versus Personnel Management. Says Marco:

“The view that there are more similarities than differences between personnel and HR management is shared by a number of authors. Legge, for instance, is tempted to say that there are not a lot (1989: 27) [of] differences between the two approaches, but nevertheless manages to detect some diverging aspects. These however cannot be qualified as substantial differences, but are rather a matter of emphasis and meaning (Legge 1995: 74). Torrington regards personnel management as a continuing process of evolution and growth, in which more and more fields of expertise are acquired and assimilated. Within this evolutionary process HRM is only adding a further dimension to a multi-faceted role (1989: 66), and is not at all a revolutionary concept. However, the effect of HRM should not be underestimated. Armstrong (1987: 34) maintains that although the procedures and techniques strongly resemble those of personnel management, the strategic and philosophical context of HRM makes them appear more purposeful, relevant, and consequently, more effective.

On the other side, authors like Storey regard HRM as a radically different philosophy and approach to the management of people at work (1989: 4). In this view, HRM provides a completely new form of managing personnel and can therefore be regarded as a departure from [the] orthodoxy (Storey 1989: of traditional personnel management.” (pg. 3)

The pundits at WiseGeek take a slightly different approach, whereby personnel management may be subsumed by the broader and more strategic focus of HR:

“When a difference between personnel management and human resources is recognized, human resources is described as much broader in scope than personnel management. Human resources is said to incorporate and develop personnel management tasks, while seeking to create and develop teams of workers for the benefit of the organization. A primary goal of human resources is to enable employees to work to a maximum level of efficiency.”

Confused yet? Many state governments have managed to adopt a coexistence strategy, with the “State Personnel Director” running the Department of Human Resources Management. The real question may be, does it really matter what we call the function? The good folks at PersonnelToday.com tackled this dilemma in their May 2007 issue:

“By all accounts, in many circles the term ‘human resources’ is no longer in mode. When we published our union research earlier this year (Personnel Today, 30 January) – where unions bemoaned the demise of the personnel function, and complained that the term ‘human resources’ was too impersonal, implying that people were just a resource to be exploited – we were deluged with responses from readers in passionate defence of the term ‘personnel’.

But why this obsession with titles in HR? Other departments such as finance and operations don’t waste their time wringing their hands and wondering what title will get them more credibility in the business. At the end of the day, does it really matter what outfit the HR profession is dressed in?”

So what do you think – Is Personnel making a comeback? Should everyone move to Human Resources? Does it even matter? Stir the pot if you so choose or we’ll simply put the issue on the back burner.

Let’s keep the conversation going.