Chief people officer or mislabelled HR director? Why the distinction matters in public services

Workforce pressures are intensifying, and leaders are expected to manage change and organisational resilience with greater precision. In our 2026 Leadership Insights report, which surveyed over 500 UK executives, chief people officer (CPO) was ranked as one of the top three most influential emerging C-suite roles. In public services, where workforce risk directly affects service delivery and public trust, the title carries particular weight. As a result, clarity about what a CPO title represents is essential – both for those doing the role and those hiring them.

What this article covers:

• The role of a chief people officer within public services
• How to distinguish a true CPO role
• When it’s simply a relabelled HR director
• A checklist to tell the difference between the responsibilities of a CPO and a HR director
• Why clarity matters for boards and senior HR leaders

Why public sector boards are turning to the CPO title

Boards continue to face sustained workforce shortages, rising employment costs, and complex transformation programmes. Many want a people leader who can influence organisation-wide decisions rather than only running HR operations. The CPO title is often chosen to reflect this ambition. It suggests a role that shapes company culture, anticipates risk, and supports long-term capability building. Yet the intent behind the title varies heavily between organisations. Understanding this nuance is the first step in assessing whether the job title truly matches the role, or if it’s simply a rebranded HR director.

How title usage is shifting

CPO adoption across public services remains selective rather than universal. While some major government departments now use the title, many public bodies continue to favour HR director or director of people. Director of people often acts as a deliberate middle ground, retaining familiarity while signalling a shift from transactional HR to a broader, more strategic remit. It can also reflect a conscious choice to demonstrate evolution in approach without overly inflating the role title, particularly in more structured or highly unionised environments, where the introduction of ‘chief’ titles can prompt greater scrutiny around seniority, pay alignment, and organisational hierarchy.

In parts of the sector, though, including arm’s‑length bodies, NHS Trusts, regulators, universities, and larger charities, there has been a noticeable shift towards CPO titles. These organisations often face more complex workforce challenges, from skills shortages to large‑scale transformation. In these contexts, the CPO title signals a more strategic, organisation‑wide remit and can help attract talent from a broader market.

External pressures shaping senior roles

The wider operating environment is shaping how organisations think about senior people leadership. Our leadership insights reveal the economic environment was identified as the leading external concern for executives (63%), closely followed by rising business costs (57%). These pressures influence how boards structure their senior teams and the level of strategic capability they expect from those in leadership roles.

Against this backdrop, chief people officer has fallen off LinkedIn’s list of the top 25 fastest growing jobs in the UK, suggesting the title has moved beyond its rapid expansion phase and into a period of normalisation. Rather than signalling reduced importance, this shift reflects the fact that the role is now established. With our own leadership insights showing that the CPO remains one of the most influential emerging C‑suite roles, it indicates that while growth may have slowed, strategic impact has not.

From rapid growth to selective adoption in public services

In public services, this selective adoption is even more pronounced, with organisations choosing the title when it genuinely reflects the scope and expectations of the role. The expectations placed on senior people leaders remain high, and boards continue to look for strong strategic capability even when hiring activity slows. This combination of economic pressure and a more deliberate approach to senior hiring, means boards need to be clear about what they’re offering. Candidates are selective, and public sector organisations can’t afford to have a misalignment between title and remit.

What distinguishes a true CPO from a HR director

The differences between the two roles lie in scope, authority, and strategic reach. A genuine CPO role reaches beyond functional leadership. It carries responsibility for culture, workforce strategy, and the people-related risks that shape organisational performance. The CPO is expected to partner closely with the CEO and influence strategic direction. Meanwhile, a HR director typically focuses on operational delivery and the running of core HR services. While both roles are important, they should not be classed as the same.

When the CPO title is a relabelled HR Director

In some organisations, the CPO title is introduced because it feels current but, in reality, the job functions as a HR director, even if the title suggests something broader. This is usually the case when the remit centres on HR operations, the reporting line is distant from the executive core, and influence over workforce strategy and people‑related risk is limited.

Global data highlights the potential consequences of instability in senior people roles: there was a 36% year‑on‑year increase in CHRO/CPO turnover in 2024, totalling a 15.5% turnover rate. While the data does not specify the reasons behind this trend, when expectations of strategic impact are not matched by the authority or remit of the role, this kind of misalignment can contribute to turnover and may cause organisations to lose momentum.

Quick checklist: is it really a CPO role?

Boards and professionals can use the below checklist to understand whether the title reflects genuine strategic intent or a rebadged HR director role. If most of these statements are true, the CPO title is justified. If not, then it’s unlikely to be.

• Executive-level influence: The role contributes meaningfully to organisational strategy, not just HR delivery.
• Ownership of culture and workforce risk: Accountability extends across the organisation, not only within the HR function.
• Leadership of transformation: The role leads major change programmes rather than supporting them from the sidelines.
• Organisation‑wide remit: Scope and authority match the expectations placed on the role.
• CEO partnership: The CEO views the CPO as a strategic adviser and relies on them accordingly.

Why it matters for boards and senior HR leaders

Employee expectations are shifting. Our 2026 Salary & Recruiting Trends guide shows that 44% of public services employees don’t believe their organisation’s employee value proposition (EVP) aligns with their actual experience. This gap places even greater emphasis on the need for senior people leaders who can shape culture, strengthen organisational credibility, and ensure that commitments made to staff are delivered.

When the title aligns with the mandate, organisations gain a leader capable of shaping long-term workforce strategy. When it does not, both sides risk frustration. It can stall transformation, blur accountability, and make it harder to attract senior talent. And for HR leaders, the distinction matters because it shapes their career decisions and expectations.

Key takeaways

Public services face significant workforce challenges, and boards need leaders with strategic reach. A well-defined CPO role can provide that, so the opportunity lies in being honest about what the organisation truly needs and designing the role accordingly. When the title matches the mandate, the impact is real. When it does not, the gap becomes visible quickly.

Looking for unrivalled market insights, expansive networks, and a consultative approach to support your next executive hire or career planning? Get in touch with Hays Executive.