Hi Sarah... and welcome to the Community.

I think at CIPD we have a 'Director of People' but the function remains 'HR and people development', so I guess we still have HRBPs.

As Keith said here, colleagues still called him the 'HR Director' when his job title was People Director.

What have others done when the whole function changes its name?

We became People & Development as a function but our job titles remained as HR Advisors and HRBPs.

I'm of the view 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' but if you really need to change, what about People Services Partner/Consultant or something to do with People Management, Talent Management, or People Operations?

Hi Sarah,

I'm a HRBP but my title was HR Lead (we don't have conventional titles) but now it's been recently changed to 'People Operations Lead'. I'm not 100% sold if I'm honest; my organisation if rife with millennials who perhaps haven't experienced the negative stigma that comes with the name Human Resources. But we don't see our colleagues as 'humans' we see them as 'people' so I understand the rationale.

I'm actually interested in understanding the average salary for these kind of roles. I switched industries from hospitality to tech 6 months ago and not wholly understanding the industry I don't think I set my salary expectations high enough. It's a bit of a challenge with non conventional job titles to understand where you lie in the market. I'd welcome any info or advice you have around.

Many thanks
Holly

In reply to Holly Taylor:

Just an observation - "Lead" is quite a convention title in the health sector and parts of education.

As to benchmarking - tutor should play very little part in any benchmarking exercise but the role and responsibilities are key. There are various salary surveys available . But of course the trick is not benchmarking but demonstrating you are worth more.

In reply to Holly Taylor:

Holly
External benchmarking is useful if moving on is a real consideration. However, what will probably be more convincing when talking with your management team about your package is how yours stacks up with other jobs that are viewed as being of equivalent worth within the company. Try to get a feel for that...

I wonder if any of our veteran members could remember how long it took for "personnel" to give way to "human resources".

The motivation behind the shift away from "HR" (which seems to be gathering steam, as far as I can tell) seems to be a laudable desire at the highest levels to move away from seeing "humans" as "resources" but rather to see them as people or - in the other popular alternative - talent. The problem is that such changes can be seen (reasonably in many cases) as window dressing or, in the worst examples, re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

So what should come first: a change in practice and our relationship with the workforce (hindered by a negative perception associated with "HR") or a change in name (hindered by the impression of window dressing unsatisfactory practices)?

Professionally and ethically, we should always pursue practical change first. So by the time we do decide to stop being "HR" and become something else, people (including us) should be wondering why we bother.

Going back to the OP, then, there are plenty of options. "Business partnership" isn't exclusive to HR and you can have Business Partners in finance, marketing and logistics as easily as you can in HR, so a Business Partner (People) is perfectly reasonable. But if you want to see yourselves in a transition away from "HR" towards a more personalized approach, then why not retain the familiar HRBP title within the "People" team until, perhaps, the model reaches the point at which HRBPs are no longer the mot du jour in HR job titles. Then change.

I agree with Steve and Andrew's views.

What title would your customers refer to you by? There are many spurious titles to describe recruiting activities but ultimately my customers see me as a recruiter, plain and simple.

Hi Sarah

As a veteran member I spent 30 years where myself or my team were known as HR or Personnel. With my current team we are known as The People Team. Interestingly although I am the People Manager and my colleague is the Head of People, other colleagues in my team are HR Advisor, HR Support Manager HR Administrators, Recruitment, Payroll and Learning and Development managers. So our clients still connect our titles to our particular references in the HR function. Incidentally some of our managers till refer to us as HR even though we are The People Team. Do whatever suits you as a professional and whatever your client and line will be able to connect with. A lot of this is also culture driven. Ultimately, decide what you want to achieve as a team and the name will come naturally. HR Business Partner may still be applicable in a People Team.

In reply to Caroline Veronica De Silva:

I agree Caroline... it is culture driven. I've worked in situations where people have talked about the 'cold hands of HR and IT'... the depts that often say "no" or "can't" when they - we - should really be at the heart of driving things forward - enablers. Ironically, unpicking 'HR' and saying the words 'Human Resources' out loud does sound very 20th century. If anything, less human. I can appreciate that being the "People" team is the direction of travel... but like most things will take time to 'embed' itself.

Just my opinion, mind ;)

In reply to Steve Bridger:

The one thing I really struggle with (intellectually) is mixing in the same team the term HR and People - I just think "if" there is any point in rebranding the function then the philosophy behind the term HR and the developing philosophy behind rebranding it a People Team are very different. If you retain a mix of both then for me its little more than a cosmetic exercise (as for some people the early days of changing from Personnel to HR were - and still are!)

I am not sure (although someone will pop up and give an example) if you would ever have a Personnel Officer in a real HR Department (rather than one just rebranded) and I think if you are going to embrace the philosophy and approach of being a people department then do HR titles really fit?

But personally I am not convinced that the direction of travel is being the "People Department" I think its likely to remain niche and rarely go below the business card level

In reply to Keith:

I remain sceptical about the fundamental impact of "name games" in an organisation. Ultimately people in jobs are judged and regarded by what they do. A good "HR business partner" person will always earn more credibility than a weak "people partner". A rose by any other name...

As a parallel sanity check I ask myself what the reaction would be if we suggested to our Chief Financial Officers that they perhaps should be called "Chief Money Officers".

In reply to Ray:

Hi Ray

That is exactly what I was thinking. I will call my department the People Team the day that Finance becomes the Money Team. I seriously doubt anyone in Finance is spending time thinking about what they ought to be called, and I would speculate that comes from a fundamental confidence in their utility to the organisation. You don't get FD's writing pages about winning a seat at the top table because they are already there, so the lesson for us is to concentrate on doing such a cracking job that we are seen as an essential partner in running the business and that something ivital is lacking if we aren't in the conversation.

There is a trend for initials to replace full names and for the full names to be writen out of the picture. Who calls H&M Hennes & Mauritz nowadays? I noticed this a few years ago when I asked a black cab driver to drop me near British Home Stores and completely flummoxed him - it wasn't British Home Stores, it was BHS. Marks & Spencer has not got all the way to being purely M&S yet, but they are sliding towards it. Has any one of us referred to the Information Technology Department in the past 5 years? 10 years? I plan to stick with HR, but if I were going to change, I'd opt for Talent Management.

In reply to Elizabeth Divver:

:-)@Elizabeth

Other interesting monikers could be

• "Chief Storytelling Officer" for the Communications Director (or Chief B*S* Officer)
• "Chief Cartesian Arguments Officer" for General Counsel
• "Chief Corporate Governance Officer" for Company Secretary
• "Chief Technical Ideas Officer" for R&D Director
• "Accounts Receivable Manager" could be the "Rake-in-the-money" Manager

Keep 'em rolling!

In reply to Ray:

On a serious note Sarah is looking for our experiences and some companies have done okay with the term People. I have found that with the managers I support and coach being a People person has helped me more than being a HR Manager which sounds very officious. But equally being a HR Manager has been great. For the HR community it also depends on your journey in the profession - you may be promoted or land a new job as a HRBP or a People Director - in the end your title should denote your standing in the particular organisation you work in and if HRBP gets you the ear of the senior management team and a place on the table who cares what you are called. It`s easier if you work as a consultant and you are not constrained by titles, however if you work in an organisation you are not the only one who has an opinion on what the HR team should be called.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Steve, It does take time to embed the benefits of using People has helped us in rebrand our company and our HR function. Working with the term People in rebranding exercises ie new handbook, learning and development and engagement to name but a few has been really easy and is well received by our employees. Sarah if you need any advice please contact me.