Who decides? An HR decision-rights matrix for hotel groups

A general manager approves a recruitment offer, group HR questions the grade, and the owner asks why the budget has changed. Everyone has a legitimate interest, but nobody is sure whose approval is decisive. The candidate waits while the hotel repeats the discussion.

A hotel HR decision rights matrix should prevent that ambiguity. It defines authority for recurring people decisions across a hotel group, including the limits of local discretion. This is a governance tool for planned decisions, not a replacement for emergency procedures or a duty manager’s real-time operating authority.

Map the actual organisation before assigning authority

For each property, establish the employing entity, owner, operator and any relevant management or franchise arrangements. Review existing delegation documents, budgets, contracts and local requirements with the appropriate advisers. A central HR team may advise several hotels without holding the same authority over each.

Distinguish employment authority from brand standards and financial approval. An owner may have a reserved budget decision without being the person authorised to make an employment offer. A regional HR director may set a process without being the decision-maker in every employee case.

Document those differences in property-specific schedules. A group-wide template is useful, but it must not pretend that one chart reallocates legal responsibilities. WINC Wire’s guide to building an HR department provides broader operating-model context.

Use four roles with precise meanings

A compact matrix needs clearer labels than “involved” or “responsible”. Use these four:

• Recommends: prepares the proposal, evidence, options and implications.
• Decides: holds the documented authority to approve or reject this decision within stated limits.
• Consulted: provides required input before the decision, without automatically becoming another approver.
• Implements: communicates or carries out the authorised decision and confirms completion.

Name one accountable decision-maker for a defined decision wherever the governance permits it. If a separate budget approval or owner consent is required, show it as an explicit prerequisite or separate decision. Do not hide joint approval behind several names in one box.

Use job roles in the permanent matrix and maintain a separate current contact list. Identify approved deputies and what they may decide during absence. Silence, a copied email or attendance at a meeting should not count as approval.

Start with a small set of recurring decisions

Illustrative template: the following allocation assumes the operator has the necessary authority. It is a starting point for local approval, not a statement of how every hotel group must operate.

For every row, append the scope, evidence required, financial or policy limits, normal response time and escalation route. These fields often resolve more confusion than the role labels themselves.

Make limits operationally usable

“Within budget” needs a definition. Does it mean annual salary only, or total employment cost including allowances, employer costs and temporary overlap? Does an approved vacancy remain approved after the department structure changes?

Specify which changes invalidate the standard route. Examples include a new position, a different grade, a contractual change, an unapproved allowance or a commitment extending beyond the budget period. State where the exception goes and what evidence accompanies it.

Do not create a fast route that bypasses consultation or employee agreement where required. Acas guidance on contract changes emphasises agreement between employer and worker. A management approval is an internal step, not a substitute for the applicable employment process.

A hypothetical pay exception

A hotel wants to appoint a head chef above its approved pay range. The general manager prepares the role requirements, recruitment evidence, full cost and implications for comparable roles. Group reward checks the proposal against the pay structure; finance confirms whether the funding approval exists.

The designated executive then decides within their delegated authority, or refers the financial commitment to the required owner approval route. Only after the necessary decisions are recorded does the authorised signatory issue the offer. The recruitment team cannot treat an encouraging conversation as permission to promise the salary.

Keep employee-case safeguards separate

Do not compress discipline, grievances, dismissal or sensitive employee issues into a generic “HR approves” box. These require their own procedures, competent handling, confidentiality and appropriate separation of roles.

For Great Britain, the Acas Code says that, where practicable, different people should investigate and conduct a disciplinary hearing in misconduct cases. Build the relevant procedural safeguards into the case-specific route rather than allowing a simple management hierarchy to override them.

Keep the governance matrix widely accessible, but restrict case details. The ICO’s employment-records guidance explains that managers should access the information they need for their obligations. Being consulted on a budget does not create a need to receive unrelated personnel information.

Design escalation without creating another committee

Give the decision owner a practical response target and a deputy. If the target is missed, the proposer should know who can unblock the matter. Escalate the unresolved decision, evidence and consequence of delay, rather than forwarding an entire email chain without a question.

Distinguish three problems: missing information, disagreement over the proposal, and disagreement over authority. The first goes back to the proposer; the second belongs to the decision-maker; the third goes to the governance owner for clarification.

WINC Wire’s article on systems thinking in HR is useful when a local approval affects several hotels. The matrix should expose those dependencies without making every routine decision a group meeting.

Test, publish and maintain the matrix

Before launch, replay several recent decisions through the proposed rules. Check whether managers agree on the approver, whether implementation has a clear owner and whether any required consent disappears between steps.

Publish the approved version with an owner, effective date and review date. Update it when contracts, structures or delegations change. Review repeated exceptions and overdue decisions, then simplify the rows causing confusion. Pair the matrix with the actual workflow, drawing on clear standard operating procedures, so managers can both identify the decision-maker and complete the next step.

Sources

• Acas: Changes to employment contracts
• Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures
• ICO: Collecting and keeping employment records

AI-generated editorial illustration.