My friend, there is no difference between HR Executive and Executive HR. It depends on the company how they assign the designation. However, you will not find a designation called HR General Manager; it should be GM-HR. In top management, designations are standardized.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the big and old organizations, an employee is doing his job and with his experience, he achieves a certain status in the organization. The concept of specialization is very recent. Employees who join the organization remain in the organization for years and then start with job rotation or if the organization finds an employee capable of handling one function and needs him in another function to improve it. A designation is generally a combination of both a grade level and the function or the department.
So today if one employee is handling Administration and his grade is manager, his grade is not going to change but his department/function is. So he can be termed as Manager - Administration or Manager - HR. "HR manager" sounds as if we are using shortcuts. So "Manager - HR" is a more professional way of using it.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
So today if one employee is handling Administration and his grade is manager, his grade is not going to change but his department/function is. So he can be termed as Manager - Administration or Manager - HR. "HR manager" sounds as if we are using shortcuts. So "Manager - HR" is a more professional way of using it.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I dont think there is significant difference between these two. If such distinction exists it should be reflected in the Job description. Regards, Shijit.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
125From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The difference between both would be there in the profile and in terms of grade of the individual rest i see no difference. Regards,
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello All,
I think only Anjali came closest to the truth. If you look at just the dictionary meaning, all are right - there's no difference between each of the two sets. But look at it from another perspective... who is deciding these? The management...right? So, in a way, it is a clear giveaway of the mental outlook of the ones at the top, reflecting their way of thinking and/or their focus towards life in general.
When it is "HR Manager," the focus is more on the function from the mental outlook of the management, meaning more function-oriented/business-like in the way they see the organization. When it is "Manager-HR," the focus is more on the designation, meaning more oriented towards the high-flying designations (an import from the USA, where designations like President, Vice-President, etc., are in vogue). I remember a joke regarding hiring some senior profiles (now don't think they don't give such things a lot of weightage - they do much more than lower staff) - give the guy the designation of a VP but with the job content of a senior exec... there are guys who don't mind.
Not sure how many agree with me... 🤷🏻‍♂️
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think only Anjali came closest to the truth. If you look at just the dictionary meaning, all are right - there's no difference between each of the two sets. But look at it from another perspective... who is deciding these? The management...right? So, in a way, it is a clear giveaway of the mental outlook of the ones at the top, reflecting their way of thinking and/or their focus towards life in general.
When it is "HR Manager," the focus is more on the function from the mental outlook of the management, meaning more function-oriented/business-like in the way they see the organization. When it is "Manager-HR," the focus is more on the designation, meaning more oriented towards the high-flying designations (an import from the USA, where designations like President, Vice-President, etc., are in vogue). I remember a joke regarding hiring some senior profiles (now don't think they don't give such things a lot of weightage - they do much more than lower staff) - give the guy the designation of a VP but with the job content of a senior exec... there are guys who don't mind.
Not sure how many agree with me... 🤷🏻‍♂️
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello All,
I think only Anjali came closest to the truth.
If you look at just the dictionary meaning, all are right - there's NO difference between each of the two sets. But look at it from another perspective....who is deciding these? The management...right? So, in a way, it is a CLEAR GIVEAWAY of the mental outlook of the ones at the top...reflects their way of thinking and/or their focus towards life in general.
When it is "HR Manager", the focus is MORE on the function from the mental outlook of the management......meaning more function-oriented/business-like in the way they see and run the organization. So, in a way, if you work for such a company, you can be sure that as long as you do your job well, minor fooling-around may be tolerated :p.
When it is "Manager-HR", the focus is more on the designation........meaning more oriented towards the high-flying designations (an import from the USA, where designations like President, Vice-President, etc. are the norm). I remember a joke regarding hiring some senior profiles (now don't think they don't give such things a lot of weightage - they do MUCH MORE than lower staff) - give the guy the designation of a VP but with the job content of a senior exec...there are guys who don't mind.
So, practically, you can make your choice of the company when you change your next job...depends on how YOU look at life and WHAT YOU WANT from the NEW job - and if the new company meets your perceptions.
Not sure how many agree with me...... 😐
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think only Anjali came closest to the truth.
If you look at just the dictionary meaning, all are right - there's NO difference between each of the two sets. But look at it from another perspective....who is deciding these? The management...right? So, in a way, it is a CLEAR GIVEAWAY of the mental outlook of the ones at the top...reflects their way of thinking and/or their focus towards life in general.
When it is "HR Manager", the focus is MORE on the function from the mental outlook of the management......meaning more function-oriented/business-like in the way they see and run the organization. So, in a way, if you work for such a company, you can be sure that as long as you do your job well, minor fooling-around may be tolerated :p.
When it is "Manager-HR", the focus is more on the designation........meaning more oriented towards the high-flying designations (an import from the USA, where designations like President, Vice-President, etc. are the norm). I remember a joke regarding hiring some senior profiles (now don't think they don't give such things a lot of weightage - they do MUCH MORE than lower staff) - give the guy the designation of a VP but with the job content of a senior exec...there are guys who don't mind.
So, practically, you can make your choice of the company when you change your next job...depends on how YOU look at life and WHAT YOU WANT from the NEW job - and if the new company meets your perceptions.
Not sure how many agree with me...... 😐
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No , Both the designations is same. You can write or spell it in any of the way but the meaning is same....
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Dilshad,
Not sure to what extent, but will try clarifying...
Executive HR is a term generally used to specify the varied functionalities of HRM and may or may not refer to an individual post/designation, whereas an HR Executive refers to an individual who has joined an organization and is at the base level of the HR Department.
Technically, there is not much of a difference between Manager HR and HR Manager, except that the former is used to address an individual with an emphasis on the designation he/she holds, while the latter is used with an emphasis on the department.
Executive Admin is someone who has joined the Admin department of an organization at the base level. HR Executive is someone who has joined the HR department of an organization at the base level.
HR-Admin might be someone who handles both HR and Admin at the base level either due to i) the nature of the organization or ii) the size of the organization.
Hope this satisfies the need for clarification. 😛
---
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Not sure to what extent, but will try clarifying...
Executive HR is a term generally used to specify the varied functionalities of HRM and may or may not refer to an individual post/designation, whereas an HR Executive refers to an individual who has joined an organization and is at the base level of the HR Department.
Technically, there is not much of a difference between Manager HR and HR Manager, except that the former is used to address an individual with an emphasis on the designation he/she holds, while the latter is used with an emphasis on the department.
Executive Admin is someone who has joined the Admin department of an organization at the base level. HR Executive is someone who has joined the HR department of an organization at the base level.
HR-Admin might be someone who handles both HR and Admin at the base level either due to i) the nature of the organization or ii) the size of the organization.
Hope this satisfies the need for clarification. 😛
---
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
ASHA and ABHI are perfect. There is no difference... But Asha Ji, I request you don't be harsh on anyone. We are all here for knowledge sharing. I respect your dedication and contribution to Cite-HR, but if a person does not know, we should help them out rather than using harsh words. Please do not take it otherwise.
From India, Indore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Indore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Akhilesh,
You need to understand that by doing so, you are not allowing the person to think. If tomorrow, he asks the same question to the management, he will only be considered "ignorant" (I used a better word here). It is sometimes okay to be harsh, provided the intention is not to insult. My message is "Think before you ask questions; never ask for the sake of asking."
If someone does not know, we have to help. But if someone does not even have a logical thinking process, we must teach them to do so.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You need to understand that by doing so, you are not allowing the person to think. If tomorrow, he asks the same question to the management, he will only be considered "ignorant" (I used a better word here). It is sometimes okay to be harsh, provided the intention is not to insult. My message is "Think before you ask questions; never ask for the sake of asking."
If someone does not know, we have to help. But if someone does not even have a logical thinking process, we must teach them to do so.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.