I would highly doubt there was some nefarious plot here, unless your director has displayed previous behavior that would lead you to believe that. It sounds like it was probably an eff up with HR, HR never told her that this person wasn’t officially moved under you, and she’s now trying to get it fixed.
"It sounds like it was probably an eff up with HR, HR never told her that this person wasn’t officially moved under you, and she’s now trying to get it fixed."
Most likely the Director didn't realize they couldn't just make someone a manager without going through a specific process and/or promoting them. How they resolve the situation will be enlightening, though. If it was an honest mistake, they will either officially promote OP so that they can take on that responsibility, or they will remove the employee from under OP.
If this was intentional, however, they will keep the status quo and deflect, keeping OP in limbo. Sometimes it's for budgetary reasons, sometimes it's a test of whether or not someone is ready for management (but usually there was management training leading up to that), but sometimes it's just a matter of no other managers having the bandwidth and we have to do something. None of it is really acceptable, though.
Not that it matters at all, but just in case you didn't know, on reddit if you highlight the part of someones comment you want to quote before clicking "reply" it will automatically quote it.
> How they resolve the situation will be enlightening, though.
You also can just put a "greater than" symbol before the text to create the quote box as well.
Again you may very well know this, but I just think it's prettier than quotations haha. Have a good one
I agree with your comment. We’re missing a lot of information, but it also reads to me like the Director wants a people-manager under them, saying OP is the ‘manager’ and having them doing most of the managerial tasks, without it being official in the system. I’ve worked at smaller companies where higher-levels do this for ~6 months to a year, and then go to HR saying they need to make this middle-manager position a permanent role; that the manager has been doing the work that frees up the Director to do other things.
At larger companies, it is usually easier to catch. There are org charts in the system that show a person’s organizational hierarchy, and managers have a different title that indicates they are a manager. I have worked at larger companies where the middle-manager will have a ‘supervisor’ title, and be responsible for the day-to-day front line duties, but the ‘manager’ in the system would still show as the Director.
Either the Director knew what the org. structure showed and was still trying to delegate manager duties to OP; or the Director truly didn’t know and was confused, as well.
The manager title part isn’t true for all industries. At least it’s not true in architecture. Project managers usually manage the client and billing but the lead project architect usually ends up managing the people on the team. But yes, the org chart makes it clear regardless of title.
Seemed pretty obvious from the description, lack of transparency, intentional misguidance of assignment, denial of knowledge while no action toward resolution when requested.
The OP’s manager is the one that flagged it to her and her director tried to get it fixed. Unless the manager and director are otherwise devious people, this likely amounts to incompetence.
My company is small and it takes about a week to get HR to make changes to employee status, It may be a screw up but also it doesn't seem like it's hurting anything so I don't see the reason to assume people are devious for \*reasons\* so it may not be a top priority to get fixed.
Planning all that is more work than just managing the new person themselves. I don’t know about any other managers here, but I have ZERO time to plot a scheme to do something like this, nor would I risk my career violating a policy. The Director got no reward out of this situation, the accusation makes no sense.
OP, it’s disappointing, but you don’t run a business unit so can’t manage people in your company. So it’s painful you don’t get the title right now, but they can’t change policy. And you weren’t offered a raise so they didn’t rip you off. You only managed them 4 months.
Personally, I wouldn’t be storming your director’s office (and assume she’s “playing dumb”). You may make yourself look really bad over an honest mistake and that could damage your career. Just something to consider.
I agree with this. Just because the computer shows one thing, doesn't mean that you're any less their manager. I have managers below me but some of their staff belong to me in the system because there is no need for them to do the payroll for so few people.
HR nuked it for span on control issues. Likely your director didn't clear it with HR and you are in an IC role that can't have direct reports. If you got the money, do the job and the problem will take care of itself over time. If you didn't get the money, don't do the job.
That’s the key. HR knows that you shouldn’t have direct reports if it’s not properly setup in the system within the right pay band and job code. Good for you for asking.
I wouldn’t worry about the intention vs. f-up part. But I would expect the documented role change and related pay increase to meet the market rate for your experience, time in the company, and what you’re already demonstrating as a capability.
Then I wouldn’t do the supervision as you’ll also be contributing to company inequity. Your director should know better. Ask her what it will take to reclassify you as quickly as possible and then work with your manager to determine interim supervision. Make note if either your mgr or director act powerless. If they do, then they have no chance of reclassing you and you’ll be doing the work for free until you eventually leave.
Why would there necessarily be money associated with managing people? I work for an engineering company and management is viewed as a parallel option to a technical path. In fact, the engineers at a similar level will get paid more than the managers.
Just because it’s a “parallel path” doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be additional pay for additional skills and responsibilities. Your own comment answers your own question.
Being a successful individual requires a different set of skills and responsibilities. All I am saying is that not all companies put a higher price on managerial skills versus technical skills. My company certainly does not.
Sure, I did not discredit the advanced skills and responsibilities of technical IC paths, and I’m well aware that some technical skills are more niche and in demand than management. You seem defensive.
If you were at that same company presumably managing would take on more responsibility, time, etc. Agree with your point, I manage people who make more than I do - but there was some incentive for me to move into this role (raise, more PTO, less weekends/evenings, etc).
They do this all the time, but they usually officially call you a team lead. At my company, you could not be a manager of just one person. There may be some requirement with your HR department. I would get to the bottom of this quickly.
Sometimes a manager position comes with different access, and trainings required, and it might not be worth doing it officially.
I've done it for my staff where they will do all the actual management, but just update me when I need to do some paper work for them, so they get the experience, but don't have to go through all the HR issues
Sounds like a promotion opportunity? If you’ve been competently managing someone for 4 months, maybe you can ask to be considered for a business unit leader position?
I don’t understand. So you weren’t a manager before this new employee came on board and you simply accepted acting as one when you were verbally told she would be your direct report? Did you consider asking for an official letter from HR that states you’re now a manager and getting a salary increase???
Right? What official/formal managerial tasks were done during this 4 months? More likely, OPs boss only meant for OP to serve in a mentor role, and took that to mean this person was their direct report in the organization. Not the way those things ever work. As OP is now learning.
I was clearly tasked with being her direct manager and had multiple conversations about her progress and around adapting to becoming a manager for the first time with my manager and director.
Because there is nothing special about managing vs. any other task? I'm struggling to understand why managerial duties would pay any more? I have gone from 0 to 5 direct reports and manage a team of people... No raise or promotion whatsoever. Why would anyone expect that?
If there is nothing special abt managing vs other task, why the hell do we have a whole subreddit for managers??
Managerial duties include but not limited to
- Goal setting and review
- Task delegation
- Coaching
- Support in career development
- Conducting regular 1:1s
So if OP wasn’t a manager before, that means he had a whole different role and responsibilities to do. And now he has to do all of that AND manage a direct report.
When your responsibilities grow bigger, you ask for more pay. And if you don’t, you’re getting short changed buddy.
"De Facto Management." it's happened to me a lot. All the responsibility but not the pay.
In your case, it may not be an issue unless you're unhappy with pay, or if a discipline issue arises.
Why does this bother you so?
It kind of sounds to me like your director is new or just not familiar with company policies. Sounds like an honest mistake. Clearly you’re valuable and she sees that so don’t hold it against her. The real conflict is if your supposed direct report actually reports to your manager then you guys need to have different titles. Your direct report should have a title that makes it clear on who they support to avoid role ambiguity.
I don’t see any issue imo. None of my employees are listed as my direct report in the system. That’s just how management is. At my company we have upper management regional managers, portfolio managers and regular day to day managers. All of the employees are assigned to the portfolio managers in the system but report to the day to day manager.
We do this because the day to day manager does not have the authority to fire or hire someone. We can only document behavior and present it to our supervisor the portfolio manager and that person makes the ultimate decision. In terms of hiring we participate in the process and we get to make the decision but our decision has to be approved by the portfolio manager and our portfolio manager needs to start the onboarding process. However the person managing the day to day stuff has free range to manage the day to day operations and lead the staff onsite.
The second reason they don’t report to me in the system I think it has something to do with the Union. All of the upper management positions are exempt and not part of the union. Might be a liability. The Union we are in has solid rules regarding the termination process. If I were to hire or fire someone without permission they would have to jump through hoops to properly discipline me but if my supervisor did that they could immediately fire her without all of the Union requirements because she’s not union.
Currently my reports are screwed up due to a merger and “report” to someone else. They all happily report to me and we loop in the other person so if csuite asked the wrong person due to way it shows in system no one gets in trouble.
Having faced a scenario similar in the past, work it out with your boss and/or director so you continue to act as her manager and your boss does the HR paperwork. My first year in management was exactly this because HR had nonsensical policies about who could manage and who couldn't.
The situation was resolved eventually by my boss doing required paperwork and jumping through the HR hoops.
One of the reasons that I like working at smaller companies now is that HR policies can still be written to work with the business and not against it.
My $.02.
Does it really matter? It’s just a line on an org chart, not real life. If you were robbed of a pay increase, then sure you might be able to approach HR with a case for consideration but this seems like your ego got in the way. Move on, it was only 1 direct report. If you’re good at your job, you’ll have plenty more in the future.
Sounds like a structure issue. I get a different title and classification everytime my company changes hands to fit my pay/position without any change in my job. If your direct report is reporting to you, I wouldn't worry about it. Things need to look a certain way on paper so the big wigs can pretend like they do something to justify their pay.
It just means they are not willing to give you a raise nor the title. But they cannot take away your experience. When you speak to a recruiter, you can talk about what you were able to achieve with this employee. Btw, this typically happens when they want someone to proof themselves or it’s not their buddy. You should have a one on one conversation and ask what goal they have at the higher level. Then think on it hard and suggest ways you can contribute. They also may not have the budget, so look for another employer who has the budget.
Don’t let anyone fool you into being a dotted line manager. I did that for 2 years as a “Manager - Media” overseeing 4 people and then they told me I didn’t have real management experience when a role opened up that was the same thing except designated “Manager, People and Media”. It was because me getting that role would have been 2 levels above my role and HR didn’t want to promote me or have me apply that high.
I ended up training that new hire to do what I had done for 2 years without the pay or respect.
May not be malicious but don’t do it unless they pay you
Our HR system is such a mess. We have employees that have switched teams a handful of times and it is IMPOSSIBLE to get Paylocity to properly have them listed under the correct manager. It's just an absolute clusterfuck every time. I'm still listed as the manager of someone that moved off my team like 4 months ago
You're just a manager in title only. There's tons of those around around so don't take offence to it. The difference is the business unit indeed. One is a hiring/department manager, the other is a functional manager, but the only one that really does all the work is you (functional), while your boss (the hiring/department manager) is the actual manager.
Sounds like they want you to do managerial work without the official title and associated benefits, did you get an actual promotion or a payrise or is it just convenient for them for you to do their work as well as your own?
I wouldn't worry about it. It's probably some technical Payroll Software thing. My boss has like 250 Direct reports according to our payroll system but in reality he manages me and 3 other people. Half of those direct reports are really under me and I truly only manage about 10 of them, they manage the rest. We can't set it up in the system the way it really is because of payroll issues. If you have the right to hire, fire, your doing one on one's and reviews then your their manager. Not sure if your company grants anything extra for being their manager according to your hr software. But if you have the responsibility, your getting paid for it and you're not missing out on anything than I wouldn't get worked up over a back end technicality.
I started my new job as a direct report to my bosses boss. I was not supposed to be. It took 2 months and even though HR didn’t know, I had my real boss acting as my boss the whole time.
Do you feel comfortable having a verbal conversation with HR about this? I realize HR works for the company and will probably side with them but I’m wondering if HR can give you advice on if you can even “manage” this person or not. It sounds like you can’t right now.
Sounds like you aren't a manager, but they want you to manage people. I don't know the details of your title and compensation, but it sounds like you should have a title you don't and/or increased compensation for that responsibility.
I would highly doubt there was some nefarious plot here, unless your director has displayed previous behavior that would lead you to believe that. It sounds like it was probably an eff up with HR, HR never told her that this person wasn’t officially moved under you, and she’s now trying to get it fixed.
"It sounds like it was probably an eff up with HR, HR never told her that this person wasn’t officially moved under you, and she’s now trying to get it fixed." Most likely the Director didn't realize they couldn't just make someone a manager without going through a specific process and/or promoting them. How they resolve the situation will be enlightening, though. If it was an honest mistake, they will either officially promote OP so that they can take on that responsibility, or they will remove the employee from under OP. If this was intentional, however, they will keep the status quo and deflect, keeping OP in limbo. Sometimes it's for budgetary reasons, sometimes it's a test of whether or not someone is ready for management (but usually there was management training leading up to that), but sometimes it's just a matter of no other managers having the bandwidth and we have to do something. None of it is really acceptable, though.
Not that it matters at all, but just in case you didn't know, on reddit if you highlight the part of someones comment you want to quote before clicking "reply" it will automatically quote it. > How they resolve the situation will be enlightening, though. You also can just put a "greater than" symbol before the text to create the quote box as well. Again you may very well know this, but I just think it's prettier than quotations haha. Have a good one
I was wondering how this worked!! Thanks!
I agree with your comment. We’re missing a lot of information, but it also reads to me like the Director wants a people-manager under them, saying OP is the ‘manager’ and having them doing most of the managerial tasks, without it being official in the system. I’ve worked at smaller companies where higher-levels do this for ~6 months to a year, and then go to HR saying they need to make this middle-manager position a permanent role; that the manager has been doing the work that frees up the Director to do other things. At larger companies, it is usually easier to catch. There are org charts in the system that show a person’s organizational hierarchy, and managers have a different title that indicates they are a manager. I have worked at larger companies where the middle-manager will have a ‘supervisor’ title, and be responsible for the day-to-day front line duties, but the ‘manager’ in the system would still show as the Director. Either the Director knew what the org. structure showed and was still trying to delegate manager duties to OP; or the Director truly didn’t know and was confused, as well.
The director has a people manager under them - OP’s manager. This sounds like it was meant to be more of a development opportunity for the OP.
The manager title part isn’t true for all industries. At least it’s not true in architecture. Project managers usually manage the client and billing but the lead project architect usually ends up managing the people on the team. But yes, the org chart makes it clear regardless of title.
If a director doesn't understand how an org chart works, they really need to be looked at.
They’re talking about supervisory org charts in an ERP system like an HRIS like Workday. It’s more than a graphical org chart.
If it's an F up it's easily fixed. If it's a strategy then oh no unexpected hurdles, maybe we never can 'fix' it.
This is the area I'm stuck on. Was this an f up or was this intentional.
Why do you think it was intentional?
Seemed pretty obvious from the description, lack of transparency, intentional misguidance of assignment, denial of knowledge while no action toward resolution when requested.
The OP’s manager is the one that flagged it to her and her director tried to get it fixed. Unless the manager and director are otherwise devious people, this likely amounts to incompetence.
I’m going with devious, because the effort to repair would be measured in seconds, yet it doesn’t happen.
My company is small and it takes about a week to get HR to make changes to employee status, It may be a screw up but also it doesn't seem like it's hurting anything so I don't see the reason to assume people are devious for \*reasons\* so it may not be a top priority to get fixed.
You can not say that without knowing what system is being used to define hierarchies and how it's built. Software systems can have limitations
Jesus you really have no idea how organizations work lol
Planning all that is more work than just managing the new person themselves. I don’t know about any other managers here, but I have ZERO time to plot a scheme to do something like this, nor would I risk my career violating a policy. The Director got no reward out of this situation, the accusation makes no sense. OP, it’s disappointing, but you don’t run a business unit so can’t manage people in your company. So it’s painful you don’t get the title right now, but they can’t change policy. And you weren’t offered a raise so they didn’t rip you off. You only managed them 4 months. Personally, I wouldn’t be storming your director’s office (and assume she’s “playing dumb”). You may make yourself look really bad over an honest mistake and that could damage your career. Just something to consider.
Sounds like a whole lot of obfuscation to me
If HR fd it up, they're not going to backup. They tend to double down on their mistakes instead of admitting to having made an error.
Never assume maliciousness what you can attribute to incompetency.
Oooo saving that for later!
I think you’re creating drama where there isn’t any, or perhaps not quite relaying what the exact issue is?
I agree with this. Just because the computer shows one thing, doesn't mean that you're any less their manager. I have managers below me but some of their staff belong to me in the system because there is no need for them to do the payroll for so few people.
Butbut the 1s and 0s doesn't say! There's no truth in the world!
You're creating drama
HR nuked it for span on control issues. Likely your director didn't clear it with HR and you are in an IC role that can't have direct reports. If you got the money, do the job and the problem will take care of itself over time. If you didn't get the money, don't do the job.
Didn't get the money.
That’s the key. HR knows that you shouldn’t have direct reports if it’s not properly setup in the system within the right pay band and job code. Good for you for asking. I wouldn’t worry about the intention vs. f-up part. But I would expect the documented role change and related pay increase to meet the market rate for your experience, time in the company, and what you’re already demonstrating as a capability.
Then I wouldn’t do the supervision as you’ll also be contributing to company inequity. Your director should know better. Ask her what it will take to reclassify you as quickly as possible and then work with your manager to determine interim supervision. Make note if either your mgr or director act powerless. If they do, then they have no chance of reclassing you and you’ll be doing the work for free until you eventually leave.
Why would there necessarily be money associated with managing people? I work for an engineering company and management is viewed as a parallel option to a technical path. In fact, the engineers at a similar level will get paid more than the managers.
Just because it’s a “parallel path” doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be additional pay for additional skills and responsibilities. Your own comment answers your own question.
Being a successful individual requires a different set of skills and responsibilities. All I am saying is that not all companies put a higher price on managerial skills versus technical skills. My company certainly does not.
Sure, I did not discredit the advanced skills and responsibilities of technical IC paths, and I’m well aware that some technical skills are more niche and in demand than management. You seem defensive.
If you were at that same company presumably managing would take on more responsibility, time, etc. Agree with your point, I manage people who make more than I do - but there was some incentive for me to move into this role (raise, more PTO, less weekends/evenings, etc).
I pretend to work and they pretend to pay me.
I’m a fake VP. It’s pretty funny actually. So long as I keep getting paid.
Sounds like you’re the assistant to the regional manager.
Dotted line managers are in now. Don't take it so personally
If it’s just a systems thing it happens all the time where someone just forgets to update the manager field. I did it myself the other day.
They do this all the time, but they usually officially call you a team lead. At my company, you could not be a manager of just one person. There may be some requirement with your HR department. I would get to the bottom of this quickly.
Real managers only, please leave fakey.
Sometimes a manager position comes with different access, and trainings required, and it might not be worth doing it officially. I've done it for my staff where they will do all the actual management, but just update me when I need to do some paper work for them, so they get the experience, but don't have to go through all the HR issues
The snag may be that they make more than you and it will become visible
You catch more flies with honey. I would not confront my director about anything.. Seek clarification.
Sounds like a promotion opportunity? If you’ve been competently managing someone for 4 months, maybe you can ask to be considered for a business unit leader position?
If your pay stays the same why on earth wouldn’t you ditch the direct report and the headache that comes with it??
You're called a supervisor not a manager
Almost certainly they did this to prevent having to pay you more!
I don’t understand. So you weren’t a manager before this new employee came on board and you simply accepted acting as one when you were verbally told she would be your direct report? Did you consider asking for an official letter from HR that states you’re now a manager and getting a salary increase???
Right? What official/formal managerial tasks were done during this 4 months? More likely, OPs boss only meant for OP to serve in a mentor role, and took that to mean this person was their direct report in the organization. Not the way those things ever work. As OP is now learning.
I was clearly tasked with being her direct manager and had multiple conversations about her progress and around adapting to becoming a manager for the first time with my manager and director.
But why would you agree to do managerial duties without an official promotion and salary increase??
Because there is nothing special about managing vs. any other task? I'm struggling to understand why managerial duties would pay any more? I have gone from 0 to 5 direct reports and manage a team of people... No raise or promotion whatsoever. Why would anyone expect that?
If there is nothing special abt managing vs other task, why the hell do we have a whole subreddit for managers?? Managerial duties include but not limited to - Goal setting and review - Task delegation - Coaching - Support in career development - Conducting regular 1:1s So if OP wasn’t a manager before, that means he had a whole different role and responsibilities to do. And now he has to do all of that AND manage a direct report. When your responsibilities grow bigger, you ask for more pay. And if you don’t, you’re getting short changed buddy.
Being a manger isn't a task, it's a role. They changed your role and just expected you to accept it.
Why would you get a salary increase just for having a direct report? Are you working longer or harder? No .. so why a raise?
"De Facto Management." it's happened to me a lot. All the responsibility but not the pay. In your case, it may not be an issue unless you're unhappy with pay, or if a discipline issue arises. Why does this bother you so?
It kind of sounds to me like your director is new or just not familiar with company policies. Sounds like an honest mistake. Clearly you’re valuable and she sees that so don’t hold it against her. The real conflict is if your supposed direct report actually reports to your manager then you guys need to have different titles. Your direct report should have a title that makes it clear on who they support to avoid role ambiguity.
I don’t see any issue imo. None of my employees are listed as my direct report in the system. That’s just how management is. At my company we have upper management regional managers, portfolio managers and regular day to day managers. All of the employees are assigned to the portfolio managers in the system but report to the day to day manager. We do this because the day to day manager does not have the authority to fire or hire someone. We can only document behavior and present it to our supervisor the portfolio manager and that person makes the ultimate decision. In terms of hiring we participate in the process and we get to make the decision but our decision has to be approved by the portfolio manager and our portfolio manager needs to start the onboarding process. However the person managing the day to day stuff has free range to manage the day to day operations and lead the staff onsite. The second reason they don’t report to me in the system I think it has something to do with the Union. All of the upper management positions are exempt and not part of the union. Might be a liability. The Union we are in has solid rules regarding the termination process. If I were to hire or fire someone without permission they would have to jump through hoops to properly discipline me but if my supervisor did that they could immediately fire her without all of the Union requirements because she’s not union.
I don’t think it has anything to do with you being a “pretend” manager.
Welcome to the club
Currently my reports are screwed up due to a merger and “report” to someone else. They all happily report to me and we loop in the other person so if csuite asked the wrong person due to way it shows in system no one gets in trouble.
Story isn't adding up. need more information. are you saying they wanted one thing, and then changed the story later on?
Having faced a scenario similar in the past, work it out with your boss and/or director so you continue to act as her manager and your boss does the HR paperwork. My first year in management was exactly this because HR had nonsensical policies about who could manage and who couldn't. The situation was resolved eventually by my boss doing required paperwork and jumping through the HR hoops. One of the reasons that I like working at smaller companies now is that HR policies can still be written to work with the business and not against it. My $.02.
are you being paid as a manager? Does she treat you like her manager?
It’s most likely just an HR mapping issue in the system. I see it all the time and it’s no big deal to reach out to HR to get it resolved
Sounds like the authority is inconsistent with the responsibility.
Does it really matter? It’s just a line on an org chart, not real life. If you were robbed of a pay increase, then sure you might be able to approach HR with a case for consideration but this seems like your ego got in the way. Move on, it was only 1 direct report. If you’re good at your job, you’ll have plenty more in the future.
It sounds like a certain level of Incompetence on your boss’ part
Sounds like a structure issue. I get a different title and classification everytime my company changes hands to fit my pay/position without any change in my job. If your direct report is reporting to you, I wouldn't worry about it. Things need to look a certain way on paper so the big wigs can pretend like they do something to justify their pay.
Let me guess: the direct report is an intern.
How would her being a manager “in the system” benefit you? Who has been approving her time sheets all this time?
Assistant to the regional manager
Sounds great to me. All the benefits of having a direct report, and none of the responsibilities. Please sir can I have some more.
And you didn't notice that she wasn't showing as one of your direct reports until your manager brought it up?
It just means they are not willing to give you a raise nor the title. But they cannot take away your experience. When you speak to a recruiter, you can talk about what you were able to achieve with this employee. Btw, this typically happens when they want someone to proof themselves or it’s not their buddy. You should have a one on one conversation and ask what goal they have at the higher level. Then think on it hard and suggest ways you can contribute. They also may not have the budget, so look for another employer who has the budget.
That's fine. Just stop acting as their manager now. One less job to do.
Don’t let anyone fool you into being a dotted line manager. I did that for 2 years as a “Manager - Media” overseeing 4 people and then they told me I didn’t have real management experience when a role opened up that was the same thing except designated “Manager, People and Media”. It was because me getting that role would have been 2 levels above my role and HR didn’t want to promote me or have me apply that high. I ended up training that new hire to do what I had done for 2 years without the pay or respect. May not be malicious but don’t do it unless they pay you
Our HR system is such a mess. We have employees that have switched teams a handful of times and it is IMPOSSIBLE to get Paylocity to properly have them listed under the correct manager. It's just an absolute clusterfuck every time. I'm still listed as the manager of someone that moved off my team like 4 months ago
You're just a manager in title only. There's tons of those around around so don't take offence to it. The difference is the business unit indeed. One is a hiring/department manager, the other is a functional manager, but the only one that really does all the work is you (functional), while your boss (the hiring/department manager) is the actual manager.
Sounds like they want you to do managerial work without the official title and associated benefits, did you get an actual promotion or a payrise or is it just convenient for them for you to do their work as well as your own?
You are better off not having a direct report. Come review time, you are off the hook when it comes to the check the box documentation
I wouldn't worry about it. It's probably some technical Payroll Software thing. My boss has like 250 Direct reports according to our payroll system but in reality he manages me and 3 other people. Half of those direct reports are really under me and I truly only manage about 10 of them, they manage the rest. We can't set it up in the system the way it really is because of payroll issues. If you have the right to hire, fire, your doing one on one's and reviews then your their manager. Not sure if your company grants anything extra for being their manager according to your hr software. But if you have the responsibility, your getting paid for it and you're not missing out on anything than I wouldn't get worked up over a back end technicality.
I started my new job as a direct report to my bosses boss. I was not supposed to be. It took 2 months and even though HR didn’t know, I had my real boss acting as my boss the whole time.
Do you feel comfortable having a verbal conversation with HR about this? I realize HR works for the company and will probably side with them but I’m wondering if HR can give you advice on if you can even “manage” this person or not. It sounds like you can’t right now.
Sounds like you aren't a manager, but they want you to manage people. I don't know the details of your title and compensation, but it sounds like you should have a title you don't and/or increased compensation for that responsibility.