The more you are falling in love, the more nice words you use addressing your beloved one.

Speaking seriously, all terms like "resources", "capital", "assets" distort the attention from the key point -- you are managing not simply resources that can be extracted from the soil, not capital from which you expect a certain ROI depending on its risk, not tangible or intangible assets, visible in balance sheets, but HUMAN BEINGS with their temper, attitudes, aspirations, sentiments and, more importantly, the rights and obligations to feed themselves and their families.

Thank you, Sir, Igor Gurkov,

Perhaps this is the best answer I got since I was asking the same to many scholars.

But, can I address myself as "Human Capital"? If I do love to use capital.

Or, if I use people management, will it be okay?

Dear Saidur,

Nowadays "people management" or "personnel management" sounds very archaic, everyone uses "human capital", so to be in tune with the trend, just use it. However, be aware of several things

1) the human capital has a specific function of depreciation -- unlike other elements of capital, it becomes more valuable in the first 3-5-10-15 years (like porto or cognac), but through its active use (accumulation of experience) and through development (adding skills and knowledge that cannot be obtained just in routing actions)

2) the human capital can lose its value overnight by some actions of top management that demotivate people

There are many other properties of human capital that go beyond the commonly accepted neoclassical (marginal) economics. Karl Marx explained them in its "Das Kapital" talking about the "workforce" as a unique good that produces value higher that it costs.

For a more acceptable view I strongly recommend an old book by Warren Bennis "Managing People is like Herding Cats" (1997) - https://www.amazon.com/Managing-People-Like-Herding-Cats/dp/096349175X

All the bests!

Igor Gurkov

Thank you, sir, . UVMWC@ Igor Gurkov.

Regards,

Md.Saidur Rahaman

The names are the reflection of the historical development of the conceptual understanding and, emphasis of the profession. There are some clear differences between those terms. You can read about the different meanings of those terms in the literature for example in various books of Jac Fitz-enz. ( Example "The ROI of Human Capital".

Thank you llan Meshoulam, Sir.

“The current shift of terms and definitions between Human Capital Management (HCM) and Human Resource Management (HRM) according to (Mayo 2001), the difference between HCM and HRM is that the former treats people as assets while the latter treats them as costs. Further, Kearns (2005) believes that in HCM ‘people are value adders, not overheads’ while in HRM ‘people are treated as a significant cost and should be managed accordingly’. Kearns implies that, in HRM ‘the HR team is seen as a support service to the line’ – HR is based around the function and HR team performs ‘a distinct and separate role from other functions’. Conversely, HCM is clearly seen and respected as an equal business partner at senior levels’ and is ‘holistic, organization-wide and systematic –based’ as well as being strategic and concerned with adding value”.

Thank you, Irene Chimoga

Thank you llan Meshoulam ,Sir

Please see the following discussion

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_of_Human_Resources_Management_to_Human_Capital_Management

Best Regards Md. Saidur Rahaman