The Human Capital Myth: A Critique of Instrumental Human Resource Management and the Reconfiguration of the CHRO Role in Contemporary Organisations
Over recent decades, the notion of "human capital" has established itself as a central concept in the field of human resource management. It rests on the idea that the skills, knowledge and capabilities of individuals constitute a strategic resource capable of generating a durable competitive advantage. In this perspective, the function of Chief Human Resources Officer is invested with an essential mission: to attract, develop and mobilise this capital in order to optimise organisational performance.
Yet this conception, widely disseminated in managerial literature and organisational practice, rests on implicit postulates that merit interrogation. It tends, in particular, to reduce individuals to mobilisable resources and to assume a direct relationship between HR practices and organisational performance.
Contemporary research in organisational sociology, work psychology and critical theory demonstrates that this relationship is considerably more complex. This article proposes a deconstruction of the human capital myth, highlighting the limitations of instrumental HR approaches and exploring the conditions for a reconfiguration of the CHRO role.
I. The Human Capital Paradigm: An Instrumental Vision of the Individual
The notion of human capital is inscribed within an economic tradition that considers individuals as bearers of competencies and knowledge susceptible to valorisation in the production process. In this perspective, investment in training, competency development and talent management is conceived as a means of increasing productivity and performance.
This approach rests on an implicit analogy between individuals and other forms of capital — financial and physical. It assumes that competencies can be measured, developed and mobilised in a relatively predictable manner, and that the role of HR is to maximise the value of this capital through its optimal allocation and utilisation.
However, this vision exhibits important limitations. It tends to neglect the subjective and social dimension of work by reducing individuals to functional resources, and ignores the power dynamics, conflicts and tensions that traverse organisations.
II. Challenging the Relationship Between HR Practices and Performance
A widespread belief in HR management holds that improving HR practices — recruitment, training, evaluation, compensation — mechanically leads to improved organisational performance. This idea rests on a linear and causal conception of the relationship between HR actions and results.
Empirical research demonstrates, however, that this relationship is far from evident. The effects of HR practices on performance are often indirect, delayed and context-dependent. They can be influenced by organisational, cultural and environmental factors that largely escape HR professionals' control.
Moreover, certain practices can produce ambivalent effects. Performance evaluation systems can simultaneously stimulate engagement and generate stress or excessive competition. Compensation policies can encourage certain behaviours at the expense of others, without necessarily improving overall performance.
III. Deconstructing a Dominant Belief: 'Employees Are the Company's Most Valuable Asset'
The idea that employees constitute the company's most valuable asset is widely disseminated in managerial discourse, often presented as self-evident and used to justify the importance accorded to HR policies.
However, this affirmation merits qualification. It rests on a problematic analogy between individuals and economic assets. Unlike physical assets, individuals cannot be owned or controlled in absolute terms. They possess autonomy, intrinsic motivations and a capacity to resist organisational injunctions.
Furthermore, this idea can mask contradictions: organisations may affirm that employees are their primary asset while implementing practices that limit their autonomy or well-being. This dissonance between discourse and practice can affect organisational credibility and individual engagement.
IV. The Social and Political Dimensions of Work
Organisations are not solely technical or economic systems. They are also social spaces traversed by power relations, conflicts and negotiations. Individual behaviours cannot be understood independently of these dynamics.
Organisational sociology demonstrates that actors possess margins of manoeuvre and can develop strategies to defend their interests — circumventing certain rules, negotiating their workload or resisting particular decisions.
In this context, HR management cannot be reduced to a technical function. It implies an understanding of social dynamics and political stakes within the organisation. The CHRO must be capable of analysing these dynamics and managing the tensions that result from them.
V. Towards a Reconfiguration of the CHRO Role: From Management to Mediation
In the face of these transformations, the CHRO's role evolves profoundly. It can no longer be limited to implementing standardised HR policies but must adopt a more reflexive and strategic posture.
The CHRO becomes a mediator between different organisational logics — economic, social and individual — capable of reconciling sometimes contradictory objectives such as performance, employee well-being and organisational cohesion.
This function implies the ability to engage with various stakeholders, understand their expectations and propose adapted solutions — as well as the internal legitimacy founded on trust and genuine recognition of human complexity.
VI. The CHRO in the Face of Uncertainty and the Transformation of Work
The contemporary transformations of work — digitalisation, flexibilisation, the development of remote working — are profoundly modifying the relationships between individuals and organisations. They challenge traditional models of HR management.
The CHRO must be capable of accompanying these transformations, developing adapted practices and rethinking modes of work organisation, evaluation systems and training frameworks.
Furthermore, the growing uncertainty of organisational environments makes HR planning increasingly difficult. Competency needs are evolving rapidly and professional trajectories are becoming less linear. HR management must therefore integrate a dimension of adaptability and learning, allowing the organisation to adjust continuously to an evolving landscape.
The human capital paradigm, which has long structured HR thinking, appears insufficient to account for the complexity of contemporary organisations. Reducing individuals to mobilisable resources fails to capture the social, political and subjective dimensions of work.
The function of Chief Human Resources Officer must be reconceived — moving beyond resource management to integrate mediation, analysis and transformation. The CHRO becomes a key actor in organisational governance, tasked with reconciling multiple logics and fostering the organisation's adaptation.
The central question is no longer how to optimise "human capital" but how to build organisations capable of mobilising individuals in all their complexity.
Advance Your Executive Career
Explore our Oxford-based programmes