Friday water cooler: Does HR need to rebrand?

Considering a name change? If you’re not trying to rebrand as an artist (looking at you, Snoop…Lion?), chances are that you’re an HR pro.

Recent years have seen HR leaders increasingly changing their job titles, and with them the names of their teams. These name changes have been meant to signal a new era and set of priorities for HR. But does a name change really make a difference? Does calling a CHRO a “chief culture and diversity officer” make them more effective? What about calling an HR team a “people team”?

As long as they can take care of business, perhaps it doesn’t matter.

“CEOs have realized that this must be a strategic function, regardless of what you call it,” Steve Patscot, leader of Spencer Stuart’s North American HR practice, told HR Brew.

But it has been an interesting trend to watch and weigh in on, and those in and around the field have had no shortage of opinions on it.

All about the people. You’ve heard of an HRBP, but what about a PEBP? Cambium Learning’s Liza Taube told HR Brew via email that her company has been calling the HR function “people experience,” as reflected in her job title: senior people experience business partner.

“We also have a group within that called ‘people enablement,’” Taube wrote. “I think this much more accurately captures what we really do for the organizations we partner with to accomplish real business success.”

Tara Rose, people success partner at Interactions, an AI-driven virtual assistant provider, emailed to say her company is rebranding HR as “people success,” like in her own job title.

Some fun ideas. Those interested in getting a little creative have a lot of options to consider and no shortage of folks willing to offer advice.

“On the VC side, I’ve seen ‘human resources’ rebranded as ‘human capital,’” Warren Lebovics, co-founder and chief product officer at Pequity, wrote. “In newer companies, I see the CHRO title rebranded as ‘chief people officer.’ If it were up to me, I’d rebrand HR as ‘workforce’—where a CHRO or CPO would be referred to as a CWO.”

Jane Dinsmore, CHRO at the Merrimack Valley YMCA, offered three suggestions: “culture club, cultural inclusion, people partners.”

Diane Liska, director of human resources and talent management at Essential Utilities, told us “HR should be called ‘talent solutions,’” while Molly Roudabush, head of people and culture at Jeff Anderson & Associates, said “I’d probably call it ‘people operations.’”

Those who use “people operations” are in good company, and not just with Google. Here at Morning Brew, we call HR people operations, too.

Reality check. Kim Conklin, a former HR leader at GE, BP, and Colgate–Palmolive, echoed the sentiments shared by Dan Kaplan, senior client partner in Korn Ferry’s CHRO search practice, who said it’s probably best to keep calling it “HR.”

“Why do HR people think changing a title will suddenly give you ‘street cred’…do you really think employees, potential employees, investors, C-suite leaders, are convinced that the title will drive the change?” asked Conklin via email.

Just as no one cares what Snoop Dogg calls himself (we just wanna hear great music), Conklin pointed out that those outside HR probably care less about what it calls itself and more about what it does.

“Actions speak louder than slogans…If the CFO screws up and is fired, the company doesn’t change the CFO title. They simply hire a new CFO. It’s incredibly silly, if you ask me. Focus less on title and more on accountability of what an HR leader owns. It’s nothing new for many companies.”

Hey, you. Yes, YOU, there in the back. If you could rename HR, what would you call it?

Join the discussion here on HR Brew’s LinkedIn page, or reply to this email with your thoughts.—AK

Do you work in HR or have information about your HR department we should know? Email [email protected] or DM @AmanfromCT on Twitter. For completely confidential conversations, ask Aman for his number on Signal.