[mindtricks]

When I was in business school for my MBA, the human component was absolutely covered, and I suspect that is the case with many of them. Part of the problem may be though that there are subjects (finance, operations), where I can see the concept of a human resource becomes a bit abstract in order to focus on other concepts. In this regard, schools can certainly do better to connect the people element across disciplines.

For those with a complete disdain for "business types", I'd encourage you to read Peter Drucker. Some of his opinions may feel a bit outdated, but he speaks quite a bit to the knowledge worker and their needs.

[GartzenDeHaes]

"Human component", "human resource", and "replaceable cogs in the machine" sound the same to me.

[SoftTalker]

George Carlin was on it 30 years ago. Read or watch his bit "Euphemisms"

[yunwal]

I’ve recently been hearing “human capital” thrown around by MBAs

[scruple]

I genuinely hate how MBA-speak has been adopted seemingly everywhere. I truly, truly hate it. I understand and appreciate that we need a concise set of terminology and jargon to have conversations about these things but these words seem specifically chosen to abstract away the human quality of the humans being discussed.

[yamtaddle]

Fake-smart business language is a plague. "Per" (worse: "as per"), "utilize" where "use" is more correct. All sorts of absurd euphemisms for "chat" or "meeting" or "talk". It's gross.

[giantrobot]

Well let's take this conversation offline and circle back on this topic.

[pjscott]

That one has an actual useful definition in economics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital

[krageon]

The term is dehumanising and has no place in adult conversations.

[alistairSH]

Sure, and it's use should remain academic. If a manager is using "human capital" as a replacement for their actual team, there's a problem.

[function_seven]

We've all been using the term "Human Resources" for what, like 20 years now? 30?

It's always rubbed me the wrong way. What was wrong with "Personnel"?

[yunwal]

Yeah, to be clear, I have no issue with it’s use in macro-Econ, my issue is a C-Suite calling their employees and their specialized knowledge human capital to their faces.

[fullshark]

The human component i.e. how to get the human to do what you want them to do? That doesn't seem at odds with OP's point and may even be supporting it.

[pdntspa]

It's quite possible that my school wasn't that great. I am glad to hear examples highlighting these issues, but I walked out with a class of over a thousand that year and I don't think any of those folks got the perspective you speak of, and I think it's reasonable to assume lots of other folks around the world aren't getting that perspective either.

[ryandrake]

It could very well depend on the school, but also the students who enroll. Where I went (top-10, but not top-3), there was nothing in the curriculum about contempt for employees, and I don't think any previously well adjusted student came out of the program with such contempt. We did have our share of "elite" trust fund snobs and Jack Welch cosplayers, but they brought that into the class from somewhere else, probably their previous jobs at investment banks and consultancies.

I think if you go to a MBA to add financial modeling to your toolbox, that's what you'll get out of it. If you go to get your paper stamped so you can move on to banking Associate, that's what you'll get out of it. If you go thinking you're learning how to become Gordon Gecko, well you might get something out of it. Most of my classmates were actually ex-engineers with 5-10 years experience looking to escape from their "senior software engineer" career plateau.