Job requisition approval workflow: steps, roles and a practical template

What does job requisition approval decide?

Job requisition approval is the internal decision to advertise a defined role under agreed conditions. It establishes the need the organisation wants to meet, the proposed cost envelope and who will own recruitment. It is separate from the later decision to select a particular applicant.

A practical workflow has five steps: describe the need, complete the request, check the role and budget, record the decision, then hand over the approved version for publication. The template below is an operating suggestion. Adapt it to your decision-making authority and any required consultation; it is not a universally prescribed legal approval process.

1. Describe the need before writing an advert

Start with the work that needs doing. Is this a replacement, additional capacity or a changed role? Explain what will remain undone without the appointment and which alternative you have considered. A replacement also needs a fresh look at responsibilities and hours: the previous job description may no longer describe today's need.

NCVO's Designing the role guidance identifies the work, required knowledge, duration, pay and available budget as foundations for role planning. The workflow below adds our own template for ownership and decisions to that planning. It does not transfer UK legal rules to other jurisdictions.

2. A template for a request that can be assessed

Keep the request in a shared working document with a unique reference and version number. A short, complete template is more useful than a long explanation with an unclear budget. Confidential financial details belong in an appropriately restricted internal record, not accidentally in the public job advert.

1. Request: reference [ ], version [ ], date [ ], requester [ ], department [ ], accountable manager [ ].
2. Need: job title [ ], replacement or additional capacity [ ], work to be covered [ ], consequences of not hiring [ ], alternative considered [ ].
3. Role parameters: weekly hours [ ], location and working model [ ], proposed contract type [ ], desired start [ ], main responsibilities and essential knowledge [ ].
4. Cost review: proposed pay range [ ], confirmed total employer cost envelope [ ], budget period [ ], cost centre [ ], budget owner [ ]. Clearly identify assumptions and amounts still awaiting confirmation.
5. Delivery: owners for the advert [ ], application handling [ ], interviews [ ] and absence cover [ ]; time available for selection [ ].
6. Decision: approved, clarification required, deferred or declined [ ]; approved version [ ], conditions [ ], decision-maker [ ], date [ ], next review date [ ].

3. Agree decision roles and the order of work

The requester supplies the business need and proposed role. The hiring manager checks duties, scope and requirements. The budget owner confirms the cost envelope. A named person with the necessary authority gives final approval. The recruiting coordinator then checks that the outcome can become a usable advert and a selection process the team has capacity to run.

In a small business, one person may hold several of these responsibilities. Still record which responsibility they are exercising. Role and budget reviews can run in parallel once the request is complete; publication waits for the required decisions. Name an absence backup and an escalation contact so that leave does not turn into assumed consent.

4. Worked example: approving a customer service role

Fictional request CS-04, version 1: a customer service vacancy is to be filled for 32 hours per week. The team leader identifies written customer enquiries and coordination with order processing as the main duties. The office coordinator will handle applications, and the team has reserved two interview slots each week. The finance lead is asked to confirm the cost envelope.

The request initially does not say whether the internal budget figure covers total employer costs or gross salary alone. Its status is therefore “clarification required”, with a specific action assigned to the budget owner. After clarification, that person confirms the envelope in version 2. The authorised manager approves that version. Only then does the publisher receive the final advert and a reference to the recorded decision.

This is the purpose of approval: resolve an uncertainty before recruitment starts. “Agreed in principle” would be too vague as an instruction to publish. The decision should let the team identify the applicable version and any condition that remains outstanding.

5. Handle questions and later changes explicitly

Give each clarification an owner and an agreed reply date. “Deferred” needs a trigger for reconsideration, such as the next budget review. A declined request should explain the issue with the need or proposed parameters. None of these states authorises publication. Set your own internal target times; a general guide cannot prescribe an appropriate turnaround for every organisation.

Agree which changes require a new decision. In the example, moving from 32 to 40 hours, increasing the cost ceiling or changing the main responsibilities would need review. Your policy might allow a spelling correction without another budget round. Record the change and current version. If the job is already advertised, also consider what applicants need to be told about revised conditions.

6. Turn the approval into an advert and a workable process

Before publishing, compare the title, duties, hours and working model with the approved version. Also check the application route, who will answer questions and which interview times are actually available. The job advert guide helps with the public wording; the structured hiring process takes over once approval is complete.

In Reclyra, you can work on a job as a draft, record requirements and publish it after your internal decision. Keep the budget decision and requisition approval in your designated approval process. Reclyra does not provide a multistage job requisition approval engine. A job status of “draft” or “published” therefore does not replace your approval record.

7. Review waiting time after the first few requests

After a few cycles, compare request receipt, completion of required information, clarifications and the decision. Separate time spent waiting for missing information from time a complete request spends awaiting a decision. This reveals an unclear template, missing absence cover or too many sequential reviewers.

Also compare an approved request with its published advert. Do the conditions still match? Were later changes decided and recorded? Improve the most common cause of questions first. The aim is a dependable handover from an evidenced staffing need to recruitment the team can carry out, rather than the greatest possible number of approval steps.