A Fancy Job Title

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am both amused and bemused to read about this guy named Lennie Hughes, whose official job title is ‘Head of Hype and Culture’ at Truant, a London, UK-based creative advertising agency. 

 

Actually, this was not the original title for which the company was recruiting – the position was officially advertised as a more traditional ‘Head of Marketing and New Business’. 

 

But, says Hughes (right), as he interviewed, what shone through was his strong people skills and natural culture fit – rather than traditional marketing experience. And so, the guy worked with Truant to craft a new title for the role he’d lead, centered more on blending traditional external branding and communications with a fresh take on internal workplace culture. His daily tasks include curating live events and producing podcasts, alongside typical public relations duties like managing social media accounts and press releases.

 

While marketing and new business are still in Hughes’s remit, he says the new title suits him better – he feels it’s “innovative”. He also acknowledges it’s not without strategic benefit. “If my job is all about getting attention, then the title should do that, too”. 

 

Granted, there can be an upside to flashy, even somewhat arbitrary job titles. 

 

In one sense, explains Pawel Adrjan, director of EMEA economic research at the hiring platform Indeed, based in London, altered job titles can help make an employee feel more valued at a company. He cites Indeed data, seen by BBC Worklife, showing “people” is outstripping the traditional title of “human resources”; similarly, the standard title of “talent acquisition” is up 75%, while “recruitment” is down 19% since 2019. Similarly, language like “client success” and “customer success” in job titles is replacing “sales”. 

 

“‘Human resources’ can sound bureaucratic”, says Adrjan. “By instead using ‘people’ in the title, employers can say they invest in people. Through this language, companies are trying to show they value individuals as customers and partners, rather than resources to exploit”. 

 

They can also be exciting for employees, who feel empowered by bespoke, newly minted titles. “It massively boosts your confidence”, asserts Hughes. “They’re putting faith in your skillset, saying they’ll do everything in their power to create an environment in which you can thrive and develop”. He adds that because many job paths are no longer linear, traditional titles “can feel restrictive”. 

 

From the recruiter’s standpoint, they can help lure workers by signalling a progressive, even fun culture. These vague-but-flashy titles can also help companies tap a broad candidate pool. This may be especially useful in a tight job market, says Adrjan. “When hiring is so competitive, employers have to do more to stand out from the crowd: from offering pay, benefits or even job titles”. It is, as Hughes points out, “a PR move”. 

 

However, the downsides of new monikers can be significant, too. 

 

First, they can sometimes be fluffy and meaningless, leaving workers with a grandiose title – but little guidance as to what their job actually entails. “As opposed to ‘barista’ or ‘HGV driver’, ‘team member’ has become popular as a branding exercise,” says Adrjan. “It suggests the candidate will be a valued member of the business, but it conveys no information as to the occupation”. 

 

And ultimately, when a non-descriptive, inflated job title is used as a costless recruiting tactic to boost worker ego, this ambiguity can lead to a mismatch in expectations between employer and employee. At the extreme end, this could lead to jobs being oversold, placing workers in a tough position where they end up in a role that doesn’t match what they thought was promised. 

 

Unfamiliar titles may also hinder workers when they eventually look for new jobs. Adrjan points out that accurate, descriptive titles with simple and specific language help jobseekers find vacancies that are actually right for them. Rebranding jobs can “go too far”, he says: if the titles become “too generic and vague”, jobseekers may have a difficult time trying to match their employment experience to available roles. 

 

Recruiters, too, may not be able to identify the right candidates for new roles, with job titles that are, in effect, meaningless outside an organisation. It can also put candidates on the back foot if hiring managers do reach them. “Having an extremely uncommon word in a title may mean a worker finds it hard to explain their job to recruiters”, explains Adrjan. 

 

In a broader sense, both workers and organisations could suffer. Consistent titles help diversity and equity, providing clear career ladders, pathways and salaries that help diversity and equity. 

 

As the nature of work changes, both in terms of how organisations function and the kinds of roles they create in response, it’s likely we’ll keep seeing new, unconventional titles emerge. 

 

But beware: Hughes even admits he’s still defining his new role. “We’re still feeling out what ‘hype and culture’ means on a daily basis”, he acknowledges. “It has a broad definition, it makes the possibilities limitless”. 

 

And therein, lies the potential to baffle and confuse the rest of us.