Hello Team SuSo.
I rejected an interview with a user who has the role of Headquarters.
The rejected interview shows in the state column the state Rejected by the supervisor, but the rejection was made with a HQ user, so the state should be rejected by Headquarters.
The status not only documents what has happened, but also determines what can happen next.
The interview is placed into the ‘rejectedbysupervisor’ status to permit the interviewer to pick up the rejected interview.
In the normal workflow the completed interview is supposed to be reviewed by the supervisor. By reviewing and rejecting a completed interview, the HQ performs in fact the action that is normally the supervisor’s action, kind of impersonating the supervisor which he can do because he is a superior user in the hierarchy.
If after the rejection by the HQ the interview was placed into the ‘rejectedbyheadquarters’ status, then the next action would have been by the supervisor, to reject back to the interviewer, and in effect the HQ would have no power to overrule the supervisor.
Hence the behavior you observe.
Hope this helps. Regards, Sergiy
I understand very well what is happening in the case of rejection and that this happens because the hierarchy demands it, should the same thing happen with approvals?
Well, I just approved with an HQ user an interview with the status “Completed” and instead of having a status “Approved by supervisor” has a status “Approved by HQ”.
Which is confusing, because if the hierarchy is respected for rejections then the same should happen for approvals.
Suppose John is the HQ. Is there a situation where John would approve an interview impersonating a supervisor, but then reject as an HQ? If he is happy with it, he approves it all the way. If not, rejects to the interviewer.
That was just what I imagined. I just wanted to confirm it.
Thanks for your help @sergiy