Job titles are often as much an exercise in marketing, than an accurate description of what a role involves.
But there is a fine line between creative branding and self-parody. Recently, Accenture sprinted past that line when the global consultancy announced it would no longer refer to its 779,000 employees as “consultants”, but instead as “reinventors”.
The change attracted ridicule as the public attempted to define a “reinventor”.
But beneath the humour lies a more serious issue. When employers ‘modernise’ job titles and workplace practices, they may be creating legal risks they have not properly considered.
Accenture is not an outlier. Across workplaces, increasingly flamboyant job titles are becoming the norm. Some modern job titles include “Performance Creative Alchemist” for an advertising agent and “Director of First Impressions” for a receptionist.
Extravagant titles are generally designed to make a role sound more innovative, more senior, or perhaps more future-proof in an age of automation and artificial intelligence.
However, from an employment law perspective, embellishing job titles could have potentially significant consequences.
Job titles can form part of an employee’s terms and conditions of employment. Where a job title is written into an employment agreement, position description, or has been relied upon in recruitment, it could be legally binding.
Employers cannot unilaterally vary terms of employment. If a job title is an agreed term, changing it without consultation and consent may amount to a breach of contract.
That remains true even if the employer considers the change superficial or necessary to align with other similar roles.
In industries where titles signal expertise, hierarchy and market value, such a change could professionally disadvantage that employee.
New Zealand courts have repeatedly recognised that job descriptions and titles can be an integral part of the employment relationship. Where a change undermines an employee’s status, responsibilities, or future career prospects, it may give rise to a personal grievance.
In more extreme cases, a poorly handled rebranding exercise could even support a claim of constructive dismissal, particularly if the employee feels forced to resign because their role has been materially undermined or they feel diminished.
The risk is compounded where employers assume that consultation is unnecessary because “everyone is being treated the same”, as in the case of Accenture.
Changing 779,000 titles without individual consent may be impressive from a project-management perspective, but it does not negate each employee’s contractual rights.
Dressing up roles with grandiose titles or imposing symbolic descriptions does not replace the need for clear communication and careful legal consideration.
There was a time when job titles were plain and descriptive. You could explain what you did without a glossary. While the modern economy is undoubtedly more complex, clarity still matters and simplicity is commendable.
Employees deserve to understand how they add value and where they fit within an organisation, so employers should be wary of using language to obscure rather than illuminate.
Accenture’s “reinventors” may survive as a corporate in-joke, but the lesson for New Zealand employers is a serious one. Words have weight. Titles have meaning.
Originally published in The Post
