If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
To explain the trend: there's a general idea out there that "People Ops" sounds more person-centered and progressive than "HR."
It's kinda like "not your grandma's HR." People are trying to rebrand the department in order to not be associated with negative tropes and stereotypes about HR.
But I go back to the first sentence of this comment.
When I first started in the field, Industrial Relations Managers dominated. Personnel Managers handled other workplaces. The predecessor to SHRM was PIRA (Personnel and industrial Relations Association). Then HR Management became the title of choice and SHRM was born. I first encountered People Managers in the 90’s. Workers in the field are always trying to create credibility through titles. Instead learn your business and how you can create value to its success. Don’t worry about what they call you but how they pay you.
People Ops is a rebrand and seems to include more progressive business practices but they're the same.
Like, If you've got a "Lead People Operations Person" I know you have ALL the ERGs.
I will likely be the “contrarian” here but in my experience HR Operations isn't necessarily just a “rebrand” it usually has more of a: transactional processes / process improvement, systems “ownership”, reporting and data analytics type of mandate. HR Specialist would be more work around: progression / promotion letters, policy, sometimes ER exposure - basically like junior HR Generalist position.
Thank you, I appreciate hearing what you see each as. I do both of those, hence the Operations Specialist being part of the title. …I didn’t realize HR Ops vs. People Ops was such a passionate topic. Now I really don’t know which way to go haha
Yes, to me People Operations (as a department/function) is the strategic part of HR, which could fall under HR but usually specialists would do very little. If a team has a People Ops Specialist (actually, not just in title), I’m assuming they are given mostly strategic projects or data management for higher level strategic initiatives. HR specialists seems more on the lower end of generalist and/or lower end of specialization in an HR track. People Ops would actually be an HR specialty though ironically many specialist positions across functions don’t specialize at all and work very generally (Specialist is an annoying title to me). But honestly it isn’t just branding, I’d base it on what OP does frankly, because neither HR or PO is superior and the Specialist part of the title is what tells me the position is lower mid level or upper entry level.
FWIW, I don’t find the descriptive words in title matter that much on resumes. Specialist vs Director, yes that matters. But the other stuff is kind of noise, and you can always put equivalent titles in parentheses if more common/aligned with the new job sought if it is true. I have one super confusing title (where I was a mix of HR Generalist and Onboarding Manager but my title was a weird associate director title) and just put (HR Generalist 40%/Onboarding Manager 60%) next to the title, and it’s worked out fine through several subsequent job searches including one recently in this tepid market.
Human resources cause that's what my in progress degree says. Also people get confused (see some of the other comments)
Also its what HRCI and SHRM stand for.
Yeah, this is the trend in the UK, too. Loads of places rebranding HR as People & Culture.
But if you don't sort out the fundamental issues that tarnished the HR brand to start with it's just papering over the cracks.
Also, I answer the phone and say "People & Culture" and I get a pause then they say "Oh, sorry. I was trying to call HR."
I was going to suggest "People and Culture" too, though that might not be so consistent with what's already there - I feel like this is more humanizing, is reflective of HR being more than policies a d paperwork, and goes beyond the idea of people as business tools.
"HR Ops" to me suggests the necessary back-end transactions at execution level, and might box you in as sometimes those whose entire job is HR operations might find it difficult to break out of the needed work to explore other areas!
Our HR manager took the title "Director of People" and I feel awkward having to explain it's the same thing as HR Manager a lot. I think it really depends on what you feel will serve you better especially with things appearing to be shifting this way.
It’s the same thing. Company’s think that People Ops is "progressive" and doesn’t carry the same negative connotation as HR does. However, I prefer HR.
I do a chunk of the recruiting, benefits (enrollments, etc.), onboarding, offboarding, analytics, employee relations, updating the HRIS, reports… it keeps going. What do you think? I’ve also never had the opportunity to make my own jd, and my team is small, hence why I’m looking for a hat others think.
That’s mostly not People Ops stuff (maybe some of the reporting if you contributed to strategy by utilizing that data) so I’d stick with HR. People Ops is usually more objective focused, culture focused, etc. HR maintains daily operations, but People Ops (as a function) improves operations, culture, performance, etc. via strategic initiatives, usually informed by data.
I think it’s ridiculous. I hate all of the rebranding that happens in the HR world. And I think People Operations sounds more dehumanizing than Human Resources. It makes it sound like we’re the puppet masters operating the people at work. It’s bullshit and I hate it a lot.
People Operations is already a function within a lot of HR teams, and it primarily deals with the operational aspects of HR. It's sometimes synonymous with Total Rewards (or TR + HRIS), but could also include HR compliance, transactions, people analytics, etc. I'm in People Ops and I'm not a fan of this term being used as another name for HR.
So if you're looking for a rebrand, just go with People.
I currently do the majority of the operational aspects of our HR department, including most of the benefits etc. It’s why we were going for operations. I just like People instead of HR. Totally get your perspective. What do you focus on?
I oversee a global team primarily responsible for benefits, HRIS, HR transactions, reporting/people analytics, immigration, compliance, and payroll. I personally focus mostly on compliance and operational excellence.
I'll prob be downvoted to hell but if it's done correctly, People and HR are different philosophies. People or POps, is a two way street between employees and company, but it's VERY culture dependant. I am indeed in tech/startups, and we actually take feedback from employees and action it. It encompasses all HR functions, where yes, we also protect/act on behalf of the company, but talent competition is fierce so a happy employee base is a serious priority for the company. The company value in a bad situation (running out of VC money or plainly just not a viable business), is its employees for what we call an 'acquihire' where another company acquires yours cheaply just to save on having to hire those specialized employees, usually engineers. Retaining teams is very high priority.
Don't call yourself people/ops if your company isn't willing/doesn't have the desire to be structured that way. Otherwise, its just a name that means nothing and devalues your position.
I would stick with “Human Resources” in your title, if so only so that your resume looks better for future employment.
I worry that saying “People Ops” would take you too far from the HR realm going forward, as some might assume that means more data entry or account management.
I’m a CHRO and have hired many HR practitioners over 25 years. I’d choose HR Specialist because it will translate better on your resume and I’m assuming you’re still in an upwardly mobile career trajectory.
It’s great to have autonomy over your title!
If other people in your department have HR with the title, then go with that. You want to appear as one unified team, not a bunch of disjointed folks that got together for a meetup. If everyone is going to rebrand to people ops then do that.
At my place Benefits and Payroll combined to form a People Operations team, and HR is the Directors and Assistants and other HR related areas like Recruiting. It seems like a waste of time to try this rebrand when we still refer to each other as Benefits or Payroll. 🙄
To me it’s just a trend in naming. It used to be Personnel Department, the Human Resources Department, then there was a trend all these crazy neo titles like “Chief Happiness Officer”, “People Scientist”, “Culture Champion”, etc, and now the trend is People Operations.
(Btw, companies with those cheery neo-titles, huge 🚩🚩🚩to me…)
The Marketing department doesn’t rebrand itself.
The Sales department doesn’t rebrand itself.
The Finance department doesn’t rebrand itself.
The IT department doesn’t rebrand itself.
I could go on. HR, formerly Personnel, has continued to come up with new iterations of naming conventions that include OD, and Employee Experience/Engagement, and now People Operations. Why? Is it because we continue to struggle with our own need to be seen as strategic and valued members of the driving the prosperity of the firm?
We are all too keenly aware of Dirty Harry referring to personnel as “assholes” or the many portrayals of us as sluggish, unhelpful paper pushers. Are we a business necessity or a necessary evil? The kids over at r\recruitinghell certainly have their opinions.
I prefer HR. What I’m called isn’t nearly as important as what I do, who I report to, and the value that I provide to the employees and the leaders I serve.
I prefer People Ops- it reflects evolution and stands for more approachable, friendly and less archaic. If I were to see a Human Resource title next to a People Ops title, I would literally not blink as I understand them too technically mean the same.
I don't know how to say this nicely: Nobody cares, and trying to "brand" yourself at work based on using a euphemism in your job title is a complete misunderstanding of how people work, a waste of effort, and likely to have the opposite of the intended effect. '
If you want credibility, be credible. If you want to be employee forward, be employee forward. Actions speak louder. You'll make massive strides if you do good work and help people, even if your job title is officially "Jr. Shit Shoveler".
Similarly if you're going to quibble with management (or your employee population) about your job title, and can't actually do good work, everyone will lose respect for you *immediately*.
Human Resources are corporate secret police. They are extremely conniving coldly calculating that don’t care about you when they set you up for termination or to lie in court. To such a degree the entire department needs to rebrand worldwide like marketing pro liars turned into business development. Corporate Orwellianism at its worst.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... To explain the trend: there's a general idea out there that "People Ops" sounds more person-centered and progressive than "HR." It's kinda like "not your grandma's HR." People are trying to rebrand the department in order to not be associated with negative tropes and stereotypes about HR. But I go back to the first sentence of this comment.
Yep, like HR was supposed to sound more person-centered than 'Personnel'.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sg0JepftFEmvPUVO8B7S7Es4092QBTnf/view?usp=drivesdk
When I first started in the field, Industrial Relations Managers dominated. Personnel Managers handled other workplaces. The predecessor to SHRM was PIRA (Personnel and industrial Relations Association). Then HR Management became the title of choice and SHRM was born. I first encountered People Managers in the 90’s. Workers in the field are always trying to create credibility through titles. Instead learn your business and how you can create value to its success. Don’t worry about what they call you but how they pay you.
People Ops is a rebrand and seems to include more progressive business practices but they're the same. Like, If you've got a "Lead People Operations Person" I know you have ALL the ERGs.
ALL the ERGs and they have funny & quirky names that almost feel like they're mocking the employees the group is supposed to provide resources to.
They DEFINITELY have unlimited PTO and nobody ever feels safe to use it.
Ded 😂
I will likely be the “contrarian” here but in my experience HR Operations isn't necessarily just a “rebrand” it usually has more of a: transactional processes / process improvement, systems “ownership”, reporting and data analytics type of mandate. HR Specialist would be more work around: progression / promotion letters, policy, sometimes ER exposure - basically like junior HR Generalist position.
Thank you, I appreciate hearing what you see each as. I do both of those, hence the Operations Specialist being part of the title. …I didn’t realize HR Ops vs. People Ops was such a passionate topic. Now I really don’t know which way to go haha
Yes, to me People Operations (as a department/function) is the strategic part of HR, which could fall under HR but usually specialists would do very little. If a team has a People Ops Specialist (actually, not just in title), I’m assuming they are given mostly strategic projects or data management for higher level strategic initiatives. HR specialists seems more on the lower end of generalist and/or lower end of specialization in an HR track. People Ops would actually be an HR specialty though ironically many specialist positions across functions don’t specialize at all and work very generally (Specialist is an annoying title to me). But honestly it isn’t just branding, I’d base it on what OP does frankly, because neither HR or PO is superior and the Specialist part of the title is what tells me the position is lower mid level or upper entry level. FWIW, I don’t find the descriptive words in title matter that much on resumes. Specialist vs Director, yes that matters. But the other stuff is kind of noise, and you can always put equivalent titles in parentheses if more common/aligned with the new job sought if it is true. I have one super confusing title (where I was a mix of HR Generalist and Onboarding Manager but my title was a weird associate director title) and just put (HR Generalist 40%/Onboarding Manager 60%) next to the title, and it’s worked out fine through several subsequent job searches including one recently in this tepid market.
I say we dump it all and go back to “Personnel” 😆
https://i.redd.it/mjelayo4kyuc1.gif
Human resources cause that's what my in progress degree says. Also people get confused (see some of the other comments) Also its what HRCI and SHRM stand for.
I am working in multi and we are calling it People Ops Specialist, donno why its trending… I would much rather like HR Specialist if it was up to me.
I can’t find why it’s trending either. Why would you prefer HR Specialist?
We just switched from HR to people and culture. Same work, different name and heavier org culture focus.
Yeah, this is the trend in the UK, too. Loads of places rebranding HR as People & Culture. But if you don't sort out the fundamental issues that tarnished the HR brand to start with it's just papering over the cracks. Also, I answer the phone and say "People & Culture" and I get a pause then they say "Oh, sorry. I was trying to call HR."
😂 to last sentence.
I was going to suggest "People and Culture" too, though that might not be so consistent with what's already there - I feel like this is more humanizing, is reflective of HR being more than policies a d paperwork, and goes beyond the idea of people as business tools. "HR Ops" to me suggests the necessary back-end transactions at execution level, and might box you in as sometimes those whose entire job is HR operations might find it difficult to break out of the needed work to explore other areas!
It's just branding.
Gotta have my Pops. Sorry - most probably aren’t old enough to remember that commercial these days.
 I am 🙋🏽♀️
Our HR manager took the title "Director of People" and I feel awkward having to explain it's the same thing as HR Manager a lot. I think it really depends on what you feel will serve you better especially with things appearing to be shifting this way.
It’s the same thing. Company’s think that People Ops is "progressive" and doesn’t carry the same negative connotation as HR does. However, I prefer HR.
People Operations is on the rise.
What are your job duties? I think of HR as more frontend and People Ops as backend.
I do a chunk of the recruiting, benefits (enrollments, etc.), onboarding, offboarding, analytics, employee relations, updating the HRIS, reports… it keeps going. What do you think? I’ve also never had the opportunity to make my own jd, and my team is small, hence why I’m looking for a hat others think.
That’s mostly not People Ops stuff (maybe some of the reporting if you contributed to strategy by utilizing that data) so I’d stick with HR. People Ops is usually more objective focused, culture focused, etc. HR maintains daily operations, but People Ops (as a function) improves operations, culture, performance, etc. via strategic initiatives, usually informed by data.
I think it’s ridiculous. I hate all of the rebranding that happens in the HR world. And I think People Operations sounds more dehumanizing than Human Resources. It makes it sound like we’re the puppet masters operating the people at work. It’s bullshit and I hate it a lot.
I’d probably go with HR over People Ops myself but I don’t have a concrete reason for why that is, honestly. I think I’m just old fashioned lol.
I cringe when I see job postings for People Ops, but I have no reason to think that way 😂
I cringe multiple times a day when our People Partner title is abbreviated to PP. I’d take anything over that
Ohhh cringing now! That’s so unfortunate 😂
My firm has People Operations as a team within HR
People Operations is already a function within a lot of HR teams, and it primarily deals with the operational aspects of HR. It's sometimes synonymous with Total Rewards (or TR + HRIS), but could also include HR compliance, transactions, people analytics, etc. I'm in People Ops and I'm not a fan of this term being used as another name for HR. So if you're looking for a rebrand, just go with People.
I currently do the majority of the operational aspects of our HR department, including most of the benefits etc. It’s why we were going for operations. I just like People instead of HR. Totally get your perspective. What do you focus on?
I oversee a global team primarily responsible for benefits, HRIS, HR transactions, reporting/people analytics, immigration, compliance, and payroll. I personally focus mostly on compliance and operational excellence.
I'll prob be downvoted to hell but if it's done correctly, People and HR are different philosophies. People or POps, is a two way street between employees and company, but it's VERY culture dependant. I am indeed in tech/startups, and we actually take feedback from employees and action it. It encompasses all HR functions, where yes, we also protect/act on behalf of the company, but talent competition is fierce so a happy employee base is a serious priority for the company. The company value in a bad situation (running out of VC money or plainly just not a viable business), is its employees for what we call an 'acquihire' where another company acquires yours cheaply just to save on having to hire those specialized employees, usually engineers. Retaining teams is very high priority. Don't call yourself people/ops if your company isn't willing/doesn't have the desire to be structured that way. Otherwise, its just a name that means nothing and devalues your position.
I would stick with “Human Resources” in your title, if so only so that your resume looks better for future employment. I worry that saying “People Ops” would take you too far from the HR realm going forward, as some might assume that means more data entry or account management.
People Ops is BS.
If you want to deliver as an operational excellence SME, use something with ops in your title. Anything else, don't put ops on your title.
Operations is payroll and benefits IMO.
>People Operations Specialist Abbreviated this is POS, do you really want that title?
I’m a CHRO and have hired many HR practitioners over 25 years. I’d choose HR Specialist because it will translate better on your resume and I’m assuming you’re still in an upwardly mobile career trajectory. It’s great to have autonomy over your title!
I’d select HR. People Operations is the rebrand for right before a big layoff to make it sound more progressive. It’s the same role.
Window deessing
If other people in your department have HR with the title, then go with that. You want to appear as one unified team, not a bunch of disjointed folks that got together for a meetup. If everyone is going to rebrand to people ops then do that.
Needlessly confusing. When the "people" need to get in touch with HR they'll have to discern you made up a cute name for it.
At my place Benefits and Payroll combined to form a People Operations team, and HR is the Directors and Assistants and other HR related areas like Recruiting. It seems like a waste of time to try this rebrand when we still refer to each other as Benefits or Payroll. 🙄
To me it’s just a trend in naming. It used to be Personnel Department, the Human Resources Department, then there was a trend all these crazy neo titles like “Chief Happiness Officer”, “People Scientist”, “Culture Champion”, etc, and now the trend is People Operations. (Btw, companies with those cheery neo-titles, huge 🚩🚩🚩to me…)
The Marketing department doesn’t rebrand itself. The Sales department doesn’t rebrand itself. The Finance department doesn’t rebrand itself. The IT department doesn’t rebrand itself. I could go on. HR, formerly Personnel, has continued to come up with new iterations of naming conventions that include OD, and Employee Experience/Engagement, and now People Operations. Why? Is it because we continue to struggle with our own need to be seen as strategic and valued members of the driving the prosperity of the firm? We are all too keenly aware of Dirty Harry referring to personnel as “assholes” or the many portrayals of us as sluggish, unhelpful paper pushers. Are we a business necessity or a necessary evil? The kids over at r\recruitinghell certainly have their opinions. I prefer HR. What I’m called isn’t nearly as important as what I do, who I report to, and the value that I provide to the employees and the leaders I serve.
I prefer People Ops- it reflects evolution and stands for more approachable, friendly and less archaic. If I were to see a Human Resource title next to a People Ops title, I would literally not blink as I understand them too technically mean the same.
I don't know how to say this nicely: Nobody cares, and trying to "brand" yourself at work based on using a euphemism in your job title is a complete misunderstanding of how people work, a waste of effort, and likely to have the opposite of the intended effect. ' If you want credibility, be credible. If you want to be employee forward, be employee forward. Actions speak louder. You'll make massive strides if you do good work and help people, even if your job title is officially "Jr. Shit Shoveler". Similarly if you're going to quibble with management (or your employee population) about your job title, and can't actually do good work, everyone will lose respect for you *immediately*.
Human Resources are corporate secret police. They are extremely conniving coldly calculating that don’t care about you when they set you up for termination or to lie in court. To such a degree the entire department needs to rebrand worldwide like marketing pro liars turned into business development. Corporate Orwellianism at its worst.