In most companies, said hiring manager would be the one pounding sand.
HR works for the company (aka the owners/senior execs), not a random line manager.
If they like what the line manager is doing, then that’s cool.
If they don’t, unless execs or ownership cares, they’ll happily set said line manager on fire for their amusement just as easily as a random employee.
And since line managers need HR’s co-operation to hire/fire in most places, they’ve got to manage that relationship very carefully or be really screwed.
Not sure why this is getting downvoted. Anecdotally this seems to be the case. In my personal experience, HR is only accountable to the executive level.
HR is an arm of corporate, yes. That being said, anytime personnel decisions come up, all I see is legal hedging that there have to be documented performance problems, policy violations, etc whatever. I think it is a significant stretch that HR is going to fire a previously acceptable manager because they advocated for an agreed upon hire.
Yup. Like cops, they can’t be everywhere or pay attention to everything, so if someone starts threatening their authority, an example needs to be made.
The more professional and actually strong/competent they are, the more measured and appropriate that example can be.
If they’re actually weak or incompetent, expect to be stabbed in the back instead of the front, and for it to be insane and disproportionate instead of rational and measured.
HR works for the company (aka the owners/senior execs), not a random line manager.
If they like what the line manager is doing, then that’s cool.
If they don’t, unless execs or ownership cares, they’ll happily set said line manager on fire for their amusement just as easily as a random employee.
And since line managers need HR’s co-operation to hire/fire in most places, they’ve got to manage that relationship very carefully or be really screwed.