Feature

Background checks: the benefit of doubt

Sudipta Dev on what organisations should do to clarify the touchy points in background screening reports.

Background screening of employees is considered mandatory by many organisations today, on account of heightened security of sensitive data, IPR factors and misuse of information. The issue is however not as simple as it seems, fudging of CVs is a well known fact in today’s corporated world. The point is—the extent to which the truth has been tampered with or facts not completely revealed. And what does an organisation do when it finds a few discrepancies in the CV of a person it is very keen to hire? Should an individual be given the benefit of doubt? Back-ground screening of candidates is just the beginning to many such complicated questions that arise following the submission of the report by the investigating agency.

Hiring of reliable people is a necessity for corporates than a matter of mere formality. While most verifications are limited to educational qualifications and work experience, for key management positions it is more comprehensive. “These checks should be part of a corporate risk management and business continuity strategy, which in turn should determine the level and scope of background checks,” states Pravin Tatavarti, Managing Director, Allegis India staffing solutions company.

It is imperative for organisations to ensure that individuals who are working on such critical information are authenticated and certified to do so. “Reference and background checks, proof of no criminal track records are just some of the many ways organisations adopt to minimise incidents like data theft and fraud,” says Shantanu Banerjee, Director (HR), Xansa, India. He believes that background or reference checks should be made complusory for all positions—primarily because of the huge exposure to critical data at all the job levels and positions.

Level of discrepancy

While many organisations make background screening mandatory for all employees, there are some who limit it to key positions and senior employees who will be exposed to sensitive data. Most companies however agree that a candidate should be rejected straight away if any major information is falsified, but for any small gaps, the rule should be—“innocent until proven guilty”.

Banerjee agrees that the rejection of a candidate based on the background checks depends upon the extent of discrepancies. “In cases where candidates have provided fake educational information or employment records, they are immediately removed from the system,” he states, pointing out that there is a definite need to define and differentiate between critical/fatal discrepancy vis-a-vis low priority/minor discrepancy. “Any kind of contradiction in an employee’s background check should be monitored. In case of minor contradictions, employees should be asked to clarify the situation. If the matter is very trivial, then on basis of the explanation provided, the organisation may chose to retain the employee,” adds Banerjee.

Fujitsu Consulting India has a comprehensive hiring system with well proven processes. “If discrepancies in the person’s records do not affect the job he is hired for, we avoid the ‘brush approach’. However, hiring a person with a criminal record is ruled out, notwithstanding his or her suitability for the position,” states Rajeev Gupta, Vice-president, Fujitsu Consulting India.

Ask for clarifications

It is necessary for organisations to ask for clarifications, however small it might be, and give the candidate a chance to justify himself. “It should be mandatory for an organisation to inform the employees on the contradictions, so that they do not repeat the same in the future,” states Banerjee.

Gupta feels that situations like these can be taken care of as long as there is clarity of objective and firmness of handing sensitive issues without yielding to business pressures. “But our experience has shown that the person in question either goes on the defensive or refuses to join when we raise doubts about his credibility,” he adds.

Proof of guilt

The contradictions should be placed before the candidate without jumping to any conclusion about them being guilty. Any small information, whether big or small, should not be overlooked. Exaggeration or “stretching of the truth” is however different from blatant false information. Chetan Shah, Managing Director, Synygy India asserts, “There is no one-size-fits-all approach. It depends on the magnitude of false information, its relevance to the job being performed, and the intent. You have to go in with the assumption that ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Many HR departments do not realise this viewpoint and actually make a decision of guilt that hurts their objectivity when discussing the same with the concerned employee.”

Banerjee lists two instances of negligible contradictions which should not have any impact on the candidature:

• A minor difference in the tenure in previous organisations: If the difference is a couple of days, then on the basis of a clarification, this can be accepted.
• Marital status: There may be change in the marital status of the candidate since he had originally applied.

Gupta reveals that his organisation would probably overlook domestic records against a person pertaining to divorce proceedings. “This however, does not mean that a person indicted of domestic violence will be considered for hiring,” he adds.

The values of the company and its beliefs became the drivers in such situations. “The company should take a very strong position and should make the decisions from a long-term perspective,” says Tatavarti. The best strategy to handle such touchy situations is to openly communicate with the employee and explain to him the process and source of the information. “If the contradiction is due to clerical mistakes, then it can be ignored, but if it reflects the value system of a potential employee, then it cannot be overlooked,” adds Tatavarti.

The industry welcomes Nasscom’s move of launching a National Skills Registry for IT professionals. “This will be a veritable source of information for companies like ours and will help cut down on time required to do this activity internally,” states Gupta. He is hopeful that the government will takes up measures to benefit the IT industry by facilitating a method to trace information about a person’s record through an identification number or code. This will give a more serious dimension to the process of background check.