Who Makes the Job Offer?

Our company is growing rapidly. In the past few years we have gone from 450 employees to 610. It has always been our policy that the hiring manager would make the job offer to the applicant. This was done for two reasons 1. to start building a bond between employee and manager and 2. negotiating salaries is done at the manager level, and not through HR.

Now the managers want HR to do the negotiating?

How do other companies make a job offer?


Comments

  • 13 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Our managers make the job offer after recieving approval from the executive director.

    HR is involved as a sounding board or for advice. But I agree with what you have posted. The hiring manager should be seen by the new employee as the person who has "hired" them.

    As HR Manager, I hire employees as well but they are typically those that do not report to a specific department.
  • I know I recently read an article stating that, for various reasons, it is best if your hiring manager and firing manager are the same person. I have looked EVERYWHERE and I can't find the article, but as soon as I do, I'll post.

  • If you or anyone out there knows of this article, it would be extremely helpful.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-12-07 AT 02:51PM (CST)[/font][br][br][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-12-07 AT 02:51 PM (CST)[/font]

    I read that article recently, too, maybe a month or so ago. I just went through all my e-newsletters from the past three months and couldn't find it. I'll let you know if I come across it.

    I don't do any hiring, but I do approve all terminations.

    We have 30 employment sites and it's just not reasonable for me to be involved in all hires. I do train all supervisors at least annually on hiring practices during which we also review/revamp the interview forms as a team. I also do annual training on discrimination, disciplinary practices, etc. and they do a pretty good job of calling me when in doubt about a hiring or other employment decision.

    The person who hires is always the person who "fires," the only exception being when the hiring manager is no longer in that position.


  • I don't know of the article, but I can tell you a good reason why the hirer and firer should be the same person - it makes it easier to defend against claims of discrimination if the hirer and the firer are the same person. If an employee is claiming he or she has been discriminated against, it's going to be that much tougher to prove the firer discriminated against the employee when the firer is the very same person who hired the employee - the feeling being that the firer probably isn't biased against the employee's protected class if the firer hired the person in spite of membership in the protected class.
  • missk's post was the essence of the article...I wish I could find that thing!!!!
  • Our hiring managers make the offer after having received authorization and salary guidelines from their division head or HR, depending on the situation. They seem to like it that way, too.

    HR serves as a resource if they want help with strategy or are faced with an unfamiliar question during the negotiation process.
  • I make the hiring offer and also do the firing. If there are any legal problems, I am the one who must deal with the DOL, so I control the process at both ends. If you give the hiring control to the dept heads, it is too easy for them to make a decision bypassing you completely.
  • We're the same as Ray stated. It also keeps the process consistent and within legal boundaries. I also have responsibility for wage and hour issues as well as salary ranges. Farming out the offers would cause some heartburn for me.

  • Several months ago I left an employer which had this arrangement:

    HR Mgr does initial interview
    Location GM does second interview, makes offer

    HR Mgr tracks performance reviews, but does not give any, sit in on any, or write any. HR Mgr does inform employee as to amount of increase.

    HR Mgr reviews/approves/tracks performance management (write-ups, etc) but does not deliver or observe delivery.

    HR Mgr reviews/approves terminations, but does not deliver or observe delivery.

    So... to recap... HR Mgr may be involved in preparation of documentation, but has little or no involvement the actual delivery.

    BUT... HR Mgr is responsible for EACH and EVERY step in any post-termination actions, whether it involves District/Regional/National oversight, the EEOC, or whomever, and is expected to do so with little or no involvement of the rest of the management team (to "preserve confidentiality").

    Great system, huh?
  • Yep Frank, you aptly illustrate why in my organization HR takes the lead in steps. right now our AAP is being audited by the DOL, including salary structure and application. I put together a salary chart in response to the DOL's requiest and it looks quite good. We should have no problems. If salary was at the whim of each dept manager, I'm sure that chart would have shown a mess.
  • We have approx 700 employees - have had as many as 1200.

    Hiring manager makes verbal offer so any negotiations are taken care of - salary, date of hire, even job title. They have guidelines on what they can negotiate and what they can't (like they can't negotiate that the company will waive the waiting period for 401(k) or something similar).

    Then the hiring manager submits an offer letter request form to HR. We make the formal offer in writing and send to the employee along with all the new hire and benefit paperwork. This way, we're in the loop, but not the "first" person to talk with the employee.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-20-07 AT 07:30AM (CST)[/font][br][br]YAY!!!! I found the article!!!! It was in the Texas HR Hero Employment Law Letter from January 2007. If you're a subscriber you can access it. The title is "Supreme Court to look at cat's paw doctrine." The court case is EEOC vs BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company.

    It involves the cat's paw doctrine, and I'm really interested to see the outcome of this. Just recently, the Supreme Court dismissed the company's appeal and the case will go back
    to the district court for trial.

    Sorry it took so long!
Sign In or Register to comment.