This week in HR, I turn to screening candidates for hire. Screening for criminal background, drug use, credit health, motor vehicle driving record, sex offense, and social security number trace, not to mention reference checking and prior employment verification, can be costly for employers. A dragged-out hiring process can turn off good candidates. And it can be extremely tedious to manage the process. If you don’t understand the importance of screening employees, you might think it’s all a waste of time and money.
When I think about candidate vetting, I don’t see any road to hire that doesn’t include a clearly articulated condition of some or all screening options detailed above for employment. I have interviewed too many seemingly great candidates, who turned out to be liars and frauds, really. I have narrowly averted major mistakes just in the nick of time, thanks to background screening.
Screening Pros and Cons Cheat-Sheet
The upside |
The downside |
Something to think about |
Create a safer, happier workplace. Catching problem-people before they get embedded into organization. |
Some strong candidates may also have a criminal record, in which case, you’ll need to consistently apply your standard or open the organization to risk. |
Taking “Adverse Action” when criminality is discovered is very regulated and should be done deliberately, through approved process. |
Organizations with background screening programs attract higher quality workers. Candidates want to know they’ll work for professional organizations with procedures and standards that keep them safe. |
Background screening can take time. Candidates in this market are demanding quick turnaround and decision-making or they walk. |
Consider making conditional offers of employment, even allowing the candidate to start, but give yourself an “out” clause, in case you need to terminate thereafter. |
Reduce negligent hiring lawsuits. Knowing who you hire is not just helpful for gatekeeping, but it also holds up in court, should an employee go haywire and create a safety problem down the road. |
Risk always arises from inconsistent application of policy and process; you could find yourself in a disparate treatment scuffle as easily as a negligent hiring lawsuit if you fail to screen everyone equally. |
If an employee has a violent or erratic past and you don’t screen for it, you could be responsible for failing to do your due diligence when that employee behaves badly in the workplace. |
Maintain culture of integrity by verifying candidate claims and ensure the people you’re hiring are honestly representing their qualifications and experience. |
Subtle differences between candidate assertions, such as dates, grades, or accomplishments, may not be material nor intentional, but you should apply an integrity standard consistently. |
A strong policy that anticipates things like occasional discrepancies in resumes and actuality, so you can properly respond when nuanced situations arise. |
Naturally, we all believe we are deploying a keen sensibility about people; a common refrain from hiring managers is, “I’m a great judge of character.” In my time of high-volume recruiting of attorneys, I hired and interviewed over ten thousand professionals all over the world. At one lit support tech company, we had over twelve thousand applicant records in our US ATS alone, with another thousand in the UK alone, not to mention those in other EU countries and Australia. We would do group interviews in addition to a required 50 individual interviews every week for every recruiter. I found that performance, integrity, and competency didn’t always line up with my gut instinct, and my recruiters had similar assessments. The point is, properly vetting candidates for hire, is fundamental if protecting your business brand and your employees is a priority to you.
Not all roles will require such strident vetting, but you should be sure to have articulated clear criteria for why you need certain reports on candidates before deploying a screening program. In other words, you don’t need a credit report on a low-level dishwasher, who will never have access to your balance sheet and bank accounts. You might, however, want to know if they’ve been involved in an auto-theft ring. If you have child- customers, patients, or wards in your business model, you might consider sex offender registry searches for new hires. Not only is the safety of employees, customers, patients, the business, et al at stake, but your very business reputation could be at stake. What would you do if you relied on younger customers, and it became widely known that you had a child predator on your payroll?
Consider the impact of a missed detail on your customers, your business, your brand, and your employees. Consistently apply background screening programs, whether it’s customized per paygrade, position, across the board, etc. Consider the range of access that each role has before deciding whether you need to delve too deeply into your employees backgrounds—apply the who needs to know / what do we need to know (really need) rubric. Ensure you file the screening reports – anything related to FCRA in the employee’s medical files and always be sure that only the HR department is privy to screening reports. Discretion, discretion, discretion, consistency, consistency, and finally necessity. Finally, know the laws on banning the box and make sure you are in the proper sequence for when you should screen in the hiring process and what to do should you make an adverse decision about their hire.