Why does HR make the final decision in hiring someone?

You are not listening because you are posing the same questions over and over.

Please don't panic about this! It is common for HR to be involved in the process and this sometimes takes a little time, especially if its a large company. Often the recruitment process happens without HR being too involved, so once the department has let them know that they have found someone, they then need to cover their internal processes and sort out paperwork. Try not to over analyse the situation. I hope you hear back soon- please let us know when you get the news! Will keep my fingers crossed for you!

Are you serious?

They have been interviewing for a role that was never created or existed in the first place?

Speculative recruiting, plenty of places do it.

Yeah, they ended up giving me the job but its for 2 months, not 12!

They say its due to funding, but I am not sure why. Is it like a cover up

This sounds like a start up company, no way a corporate company treats someone in this during the recruitment process. Be careful, because to many jobs in a short space of time on a CV is bad, it shows that you can't hold a steady job. Leading many people to question in the future why should they invest time and money into someone that is unable to commit.

It is a large company (refuse to name).

But its not my fault that I can't be kept on this job permanently.

Do you think its like a probation period, like they want to hire short term and then if I'm good then keep me on for longer

I would definitely take a job for two months if the alternative was no job. Temp jobs can be extended but, even if it isn't, you will gain experience and will have stuff to talk about in future interviews.



Posted from TSR Mobile

In most organisations the HR department is absolutely useless because they do not carry any responsibility at all for the front line performance of the candidate. They spend all their time imposing controls/ processes / limits on the front line management who know what they are doing to big themselves up. Most secretarial grade women with a few evening classes can qualify as "HR" professionals, and thereafter can be grossly overpaid for doing very little. Incidentally the Armed Forces manage huge numbers with no HR departments at all.

No it's not a cover up! The company just isn't sure whether it needs the role, that's all, so it has the funding to try it out for a couple of months. If the business feels that the role is worth continuing with, then it may be able to get more money to fund the role for longer. But until the role has been tested for a while, the business won't know whether it wants the role longer term. None of the above has any relevance to you personally, it is pure business need, though if you make a success of the role the company might be more willing to look favourably on confirming the role in the future structure.

I wouldn't take the risk, if your just starting out. People like to make assumptions, like especially with grads (can't hack the pressure/unable to meet targets)..... If you don't pass probation it looks bad and there is no guarantees they would want you longer then 2months.

Yeah I'm still a student with a year of studies left.

Ideally I want to take a year and then return to uni.

This job was advertised for 12 months but due to funding issues they can only fund me for 2-3 months.

I really want a 12 month contract and don't mind taking a little pay cut.

What should I do?

As a student take it, your uni time accounts what your doing. Therefore no gaps in education and employment.

Yeah I can take a year out to work.

I wanted the full year but can only be given 2-3 months.

I think its like a trial period, but most people are telling me to take it anyway.

I want to take it, but I would rather take it knowing that it was for a full year