Who Makes The Hiring Decision? Hiring manager or HR?
With a process like recruitment where multiple parties are involved, the old adage of “too many cooks spoil the soup” still holds true. While the hiring manager and recruiter (representing Human Resources, HR) review and interview job candidates together, who makes the hiring decision?
Generally, the hiring manager should be the one making the final decision on who should be hired. As the future manager of the job candidate and the subject matter expert in their area, they have a better idea of the demands of the role and the team they lead.
That said, there is always nuance and exceptions to the rule. Read on to learn more about when the rule of thumb might not apply.
During Recruitment, Who Has More Power, HR Or The Hiring Manager?
During the recruitment process, both the hiring manager and recruiter have to work together to achieve the outcome of hiring the right person for the job.
However, at times, there can be competing interests between the two.
On one hand, the hiring manager wants to hire the most skilled, but cheapest, talent as soon as possible. Basically, the hiring manager is hurting from a gap in their team, and sometimes the fastest way to plug the gap and stop the pain is the preferred option.
On the other hand, the recruiter wants to make sure due diligence is done, labor laws are adhered to, and the business won’t get into any present or future trouble with the new hire. Making sure the checks and balances are done takes time; time that the hiring manager may not have.
So, who has more power during recruitment? While the hiring manager should have the final say in who gets hired, the recruiter should be the one running and controlling the hiring process. Recruiters are the subject matter experts in the recruitment process after all, and know the steps and pitfalls of the process.
It’s not so much who has power over the other but which parts of the recruitment process each party has power over.
Can HR Override The Hiring Manager?
Yes, in certain circumstances, the recruiter can and should object to the hiring decisions of the hiring manager. The most common of these circumstances is if hiring a specific candidate will break the law or if it seems certain that the new hire will be trouble for the business in the future.
How can hiring someone break a law, you ask? An easy example would be if the hiring manager is about to hire a candidate who is neither a citizen of the country nor holds a work visa. A less clear-cut example would be if the hiring decision is or seems to be discrimination for or against one or more of the candidates, successful or unsuccessful.
In a rush to get the new hire through the door, some managers may try to overlook these facts or hope nobody notices. However, these are just cans of worms waiting to be opened at a future point in time. In order to prevent further harm to the business, a recruiter should veto these hiring decisions.
How can new hires be trouble for the business? An easy example is when hiring managers are so desperate for staff that they ignore the red flags when interviewing a candidate and insist on hiring a questionable job candidate.
Any recruiter worth their salt will have developed good intuition for identifying troublemaker hires or telling if the new hire is going to fit with the existing team. If these hires make it through the recruitment process, they will likely cause performance and disciplinary issues that HR and the hiring manager need to handle down the line. It is better for the recruiter to nip the problem in the bud.
That all said, whether or not the recruiter’s objects are heard will be based on how much power or sway HR has with upper management. Upper management will need to balance out the advice of the recruiter with the operations needs of the business.
Can a hiring manager override HR?
Yes, in certain circumstances, the needs of the business may override the needs of the recruiter and HR in general. The hiring manager’s team may be so short-staffed that the business’s life or death can depend on whether they can hire quickly enough.
No point in trying to follow the whole process and do all the due diligence if there is no company left standing to hire for at the end of the day.
Even when hiring potentially problematic employees, the hiring manager can sometimes successfully manage these employees or fire them before they cause major issues. In the USA, most employees can be fired without notice (with a few exceptions).
Ultimately, the recruiter and HR are there to help move the recruitment process along and to advise. The ultimate decision is for the hiring manager to make. The rewards or headaches resulting from the new hire are also for the hiring manager to inherit.
Does HR make the final hiring decision?
No matter the recruiter’s influence over the hiring process, the recruiter should not be making the hiring decisions on behalf of the hiring manager. While the recruiter can be great at analyzing candidates, it is unlikely the recruiter will know the full picture of the team’s or business’s needs.
The recruiter’s role is to know the full road recruitment roadmap, to guide the hiring manager along the right path, but never to force the decision. It is similar to the “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink” metaphor. It is the horse’s, or in this case, the hiring manager’s decision on whether to move ahead or not based on their knowledge and experience.
It is not the recruiter’s job to know the ins and outs of the business and its operational needs, which ultimately are what the new hire is there to solve. It’s the recruiter’s job to support the needs of the hiring manager and the needs of the business as best they can. Sometimes these needs are competing, and it is up to the recruiter to balance these needs as best they can.
Sources
- www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices
- www.thebalancemoney.com/can-a-company-fire-you-without-notice-2060731
