Powerchex made another appearance in the FT's Judgement Call Column. For the full article, go to: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/622e675c-8c3f-11de-b14f-00144feabdc0.html
THE CV SCREENER
Alexandra Kelly
We were recently asked to screen a job applicant on behalf of one of our clients. He was interviewing for a senior position in a big City institution working with large amounts of capital and sensitive information. He was highly experienced and sailed through the interviews and was subsequently offered the job, at which point his file ended up with my team.
At first glance, his CV and background seemed fine – absolutely nothing there that would cause for suspicion from even an experienced recruitment professional. However, it emerged that this supposedly “ideal candidate”, was in fact an international fraudster convicted of embezzlement in a number of US states.
Needless to say, most embellishments by applicants are not quite so extreme, and more often concern the job applicant who conceals that they were fired from their previous role, or who lies about their job responsibilities or the number of people they managed. However, all these scenarios serve to demonstrate that you can never, ever truly know whether an applicant really is exactly who they say they are. Unless, of course, you check.
The writer is managing director of Powerchex, a pre-employment screening company
Wednesday 19 August 2009
Tuesday 18 August 2009
HR, Facebook and Screening
This is an ongoing debate between HR departments, recruiters and screening firms. Should we check facebook profiles? Our standard response to all our clients is that we will check business profiles such as zoom and linkedin, but we will not check social networking profiles. Paul Reeves, who is a partner at the law firm of Stephenson Harwood wrote a very interesting posting in Managing people, Technology on Tue, 18/08/2009 - 13:38.
The article first appeared in HR Zone at: : http://www.hrzone.co.uk/topic/hr-snooping-facing-facebook
What do you think?
_______________________________________________________
In a recent and high profile example of some of the issues associated with social networking sites, the wife of the recently appointed chief of MI6, Sir John Sawers, disclosed details of their personal life and address on her Facebook page, compromising their personal and, potentially, national safety.
There have also been recent examples of footballers and cricketers using Twitter to air their views about their employers. The blurring of the lines between private and public space, which is part of the social networking phenomenon, is key to the problem. These very public spaces have the capacity to threaten existing jobs, future careers, personal safety and corporate reputations as well as providing opportunities to contravene copyright and other laws. Organisations and individuals all have a role to play in managing the impact of social networking.
Reputational damage
An innocent exchange of wall postings on Facebook could lead to an employee breaching their contractual obligations by, for example, disclosing confidential information about a company's business or its clients. This could clearly have an adverse effect so an employer should investigate any allegations of this nature with a view to taking disciplinary action.
An employee who makes derogatory comments about their work, or their colleagues, on their profile could face disciplinary action as well as possible defamation or libel actions, not to mention the potential damage to the company's public image. Employers should consider carefully the type of conduct that warrants disciplinary action and make this clear to employees.
The way an employee behaves in their personal life may not be how their employer would like them to behave but, provided it does not impact their work or the company's reputation, then any disciplinary action would be inappropriate and any dismissal as a result could lead to a claim for unfair dismissal. So not everything an employee posts on their social networking site should have an impact on their employment.
Bullying and harassment
The ability to join work groups on networking sites creates the opportunity for 'banter' between colleagues. In extreme cases, this could lead to a complaint of bullying or harassment for which an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, so complaints must be treated seriously and dealt with promptly. Employers need to be alert to these issues and the potential risks they pose.
Managing employer access when recruiting
Some employers have viewed the rise in the use of social networking sites as an opportunity to vet job applicants for their suitability. This can be a risky tactic as it exposes employers to potential discrimination claims. If an applicant who has not been offered a job discovers that their profile has been accessed as part of the recruitment process they could allege that information about their age, race, sex or religion displayed on their profile played a part in the decision to reject them.
While the company may have rejected them for a completely unrelated and fair reason, the existence of this information, which would be discloseable in litigation, will provide an additional hurdle to overcome in defending any claim. If employers do use this as a recruitment tool, then it is advisable to have a paper-trail setting out why a candidate was unsuccessful.
Managing employee access
In light of the issues posed by social networking sites, many employers have considered preventing access to such sites or monitoring employees' use. Each of these options presents its own issues and, despite the potential risks, these sites can be useful for building business networks - LinkedIn and Plaxo are designed for professional business relationships. Restricted use could, therefore, be preferable to a total ban.
In addition, employees could see a total ban as an overreaction by employers to what is an increasingly common form of communication. Banning staff from using the sites could lower morale, especially in industries where long hours are common and access for reasonable periods is used as a break from work.
To manage this issue, employers should consider monitoring employee's use to ensure it is being used appropriately. Recently, an employee who was claiming to be sick updated his Facebook page with the fact that he was absent due to a hangover. The employer used this as evidence against him in a disciplinary process.
Employers should have an internet usage policy in place to monitor employees in order to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Public bodies must also factor in the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular article 8: the right to respect for private and family life.
Many internet policies were drafted before social networking sites became popular and may need to be updated to make sure the now cover these sites and the potential issues they throw up. Any changes should be communicated to all employees as this will strengthen an employer's position in the event of any disciplinary action or the need to defend any subsequent claim.
Unauthorised downloads
Employees often use social networking sites to share photographs or videos, including possibly unauthorised data while at work. This could not only damage the company's IT system, but is likely to be breach copyright.
Ownership of information
Where employees use social networking sites for business networking purposes via the employer's IT system, employers may be able to claim ownership of their profiles so that they can retain any information relating to business contacts. This can be useful for employers but they must make their employees aware of this position by including it in any internet policy.
Protecting organisations and individuals
To protect themselves under the current legislation, companies should:
Set out the parameters of internet usage (including downloads)
The consequences for breach of any internet policy , including reference to other related policies e.g. equal opportunities, harassment and bullying
Inform employees about the level of monitoring and the policy itself, including any changes
Follow fair procedures in respect of any disciplinary action and apply the policy consistently
Not be afraid to use information from social networking sites to deal with any misconduct, provided this is done appropriately.
For employees, the onus is on them to understand the policy and to ensure that their own site pages do not breach their employer's policies. They should also bear in mind that their pages are visible to millions of people globally and the consequences this may have.
The article first appeared in HR Zone at: : http://www.hrzone.co.uk/topic/hr-snooping-facing-facebook
What do you think?
_______________________________________________________
In a recent and high profile example of some of the issues associated with social networking sites, the wife of the recently appointed chief of MI6, Sir John Sawers, disclosed details of their personal life and address on her Facebook page, compromising their personal and, potentially, national safety.
There have also been recent examples of footballers and cricketers using Twitter to air their views about their employers. The blurring of the lines between private and public space, which is part of the social networking phenomenon, is key to the problem. These very public spaces have the capacity to threaten existing jobs, future careers, personal safety and corporate reputations as well as providing opportunities to contravene copyright and other laws. Organisations and individuals all have a role to play in managing the impact of social networking.
Reputational damage
An innocent exchange of wall postings on Facebook could lead to an employee breaching their contractual obligations by, for example, disclosing confidential information about a company's business or its clients. This could clearly have an adverse effect so an employer should investigate any allegations of this nature with a view to taking disciplinary action.
An employee who makes derogatory comments about their work, or their colleagues, on their profile could face disciplinary action as well as possible defamation or libel actions, not to mention the potential damage to the company's public image. Employers should consider carefully the type of conduct that warrants disciplinary action and make this clear to employees.
The way an employee behaves in their personal life may not be how their employer would like them to behave but, provided it does not impact their work or the company's reputation, then any disciplinary action would be inappropriate and any dismissal as a result could lead to a claim for unfair dismissal. So not everything an employee posts on their social networking site should have an impact on their employment.
Bullying and harassment
The ability to join work groups on networking sites creates the opportunity for 'banter' between colleagues. In extreme cases, this could lead to a complaint of bullying or harassment for which an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, so complaints must be treated seriously and dealt with promptly. Employers need to be alert to these issues and the potential risks they pose.
Managing employer access when recruiting
Some employers have viewed the rise in the use of social networking sites as an opportunity to vet job applicants for their suitability. This can be a risky tactic as it exposes employers to potential discrimination claims. If an applicant who has not been offered a job discovers that their profile has been accessed as part of the recruitment process they could allege that information about their age, race, sex or religion displayed on their profile played a part in the decision to reject them.
While the company may have rejected them for a completely unrelated and fair reason, the existence of this information, which would be discloseable in litigation, will provide an additional hurdle to overcome in defending any claim. If employers do use this as a recruitment tool, then it is advisable to have a paper-trail setting out why a candidate was unsuccessful.
Managing employee access
In light of the issues posed by social networking sites, many employers have considered preventing access to such sites or monitoring employees' use. Each of these options presents its own issues and, despite the potential risks, these sites can be useful for building business networks - LinkedIn and Plaxo are designed for professional business relationships. Restricted use could, therefore, be preferable to a total ban.
In addition, employees could see a total ban as an overreaction by employers to what is an increasingly common form of communication. Banning staff from using the sites could lower morale, especially in industries where long hours are common and access for reasonable periods is used as a break from work.
To manage this issue, employers should consider monitoring employee's use to ensure it is being used appropriately. Recently, an employee who was claiming to be sick updated his Facebook page with the fact that he was absent due to a hangover. The employer used this as evidence against him in a disciplinary process.
Employers should have an internet usage policy in place to monitor employees in order to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Public bodies must also factor in the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular article 8: the right to respect for private and family life.
Many internet policies were drafted before social networking sites became popular and may need to be updated to make sure the now cover these sites and the potential issues they throw up. Any changes should be communicated to all employees as this will strengthen an employer's position in the event of any disciplinary action or the need to defend any subsequent claim.
Unauthorised downloads
Employees often use social networking sites to share photographs or videos, including possibly unauthorised data while at work. This could not only damage the company's IT system, but is likely to be breach copyright.
Ownership of information
Where employees use social networking sites for business networking purposes via the employer's IT system, employers may be able to claim ownership of their profiles so that they can retain any information relating to business contacts. This can be useful for employers but they must make their employees aware of this position by including it in any internet policy.
Protecting organisations and individuals
To protect themselves under the current legislation, companies should:
Set out the parameters of internet usage (including downloads)
The consequences for breach of any internet policy , including reference to other related policies e.g. equal opportunities, harassment and bullying
Inform employees about the level of monitoring and the policy itself, including any changes
Follow fair procedures in respect of any disciplinary action and apply the policy consistently
Not be afraid to use information from social networking sites to deal with any misconduct, provided this is done appropriately.
For employees, the onus is on them to understand the policy and to ensure that their own site pages do not breach their employer's policies. They should also bear in mind that their pages are visible to millions of people globally and the consequences this may have.
Friday 7 August 2009
Graduates are stretching the truth to get work in uncertain economic times
Powerchex has released their annual survey into CV discrepancies. Here is how it was reported in the Guardian:
_______________________________________________________
Under-21s told 29% more lies on job applications this year than last
Jessica Shepherd
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 August 2009 15.47 BST
More under-21-year-olds in the UK are lying on their CVs this year compared with last, a poll has found.
Of 4,735 job applications from all age groups sent to finance firms between June last year and this May, 899contained false information.Powerchex, a company which screens CVs and application forms on behalf of finance companies, found that of the 307 belonging to under-21s, 18% contained lies, an increase of 29% from last year, when only 14% of forms contained false information.
Under-21s are now the most likely to lie on job forms, the company says. Their most common lie was to claim a 2:1 university degree when they had been awarded a 2:2.
Others exaggerated menial jobs to make themselves sound more important. Another common lie was to claim they had left a job because their contract had expired rather than because they had been made to leave.
This year's final-year university students face the highest levels of graduate unemployment in a generation.
Alexandra Kelly, managing director of Powerchex, said: "The pressure of the recession on job markets seems to have led more applicants to believe that they should lie or make embellished claims to get jobs."
_______________________________________________________
Under-21s told 29% more lies on job applications this year than last
Jessica Shepherd
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 August 2009 15.47 BST
More under-21-year-olds in the UK are lying on their CVs this year compared with last, a poll has found.
Of 4,735 job applications from all age groups sent to finance firms between June last year and this May, 899contained false information.Powerchex, a company which screens CVs and application forms on behalf of finance companies, found that of the 307 belonging to under-21s, 18% contained lies, an increase of 29% from last year, when only 14% of forms contained false information.
Under-21s are now the most likely to lie on job forms, the company says. Their most common lie was to claim a 2:1 university degree when they had been awarded a 2:2.
Others exaggerated menial jobs to make themselves sound more important. Another common lie was to claim they had left a job because their contract had expired rather than because they had been made to leave.
This year's final-year university students face the highest levels of graduate unemployment in a generation.
Alexandra Kelly, managing director of Powerchex, said: "The pressure of the recession on job markets seems to have led more applicants to believe that they should lie or make embellished claims to get jobs."
Saturday 1 August 2009
Research finds that Linkedin profiles are more accurate than CVs
Candidates are often more honest in their LinkedIn profiles than in the CVs they send employers. At least that’s what LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman said at the Social Recruiting Summit held recently at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, CA. I suppose that this makes quite a bit of sense, if you consider that a LinkedIn profile can been seen by thousands of people who know the applicant and can expose any lies or exaggerations.
HR and screening staff should always look at discrepancies between CVs and online claims, but in addition they should also look at discrepancies between an applicant's CV and what they state on their screening/application form. We have found cases where the screening form was accurate and truthful, but did not bare any semblance with the CV on the basis of which the applicant was interviewed and made an offer.
Does your company do criminal checks on new employees?
According to government figures released today, criminals on probation committed more than 1000 serious crimes over the last two years, including nearly one murder a week in England and Wales.
1,167 offences were committed while the offender was being supervised by the probation officer. The total included 94 murders, 105 rapes and 43 arson attacks. This year's Ministry of Justice figures showed a further 657 criminals on probation were found guilty of serious violent or sexual crimes. More than 400 other criminals are accused of committing serious further offences, but their cases have not yet come to trial. The details were revealed in the 2008 offender management caseload which reveals details about the scale of prison and probation workload.
At the same time in a separate study in the United States Carnegie Mellon University researchers have created a model for providing empirical evidence on when an ex-convict has been “clean” long enough to be considered “redeemed” for employment purposes. The new study, which appears in the current issue of Criminology, estimates that after five years of staying clean an individual with a criminal record is of no greater risk of committing another crime than other individuals of the same age. The research comes at a time when President Barack Obama’s crime agenda includes breaking down employment barriers for people who have a prior criminal record, but who have stayed clean since their earlier offense.
What this makes abundantly clear to HR directors is that they need to be aware if a potential employee has a criminal record prior to making a decision to employ. A criminal record should not necessarily prevent employment but being aware is being forearmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
