Safe in the knowledge

Organizations such as al Qaeda have stated that disruption is one of their main aims. But, while events such as the London bombings in July 2005 demonstrate that spirit and determination can be indomitable in the face of terror, it is undeniable that the disruption and financial impact they have is significant.

The very nature of terrorism is international, as seen by 9/11. Often the reasons for such acts of violence are laid at the door of globalization and the hatred it fuels. Whether this is really the case is hard to judge. Such are the shadowy margins in which these terrorists operate that little is known about them outside the intelligence services. Lack of evident motivation can make these acts of terror even harder for the victims’ families to cope with.

With background checking now more prevalent than ever in the US, it would seem an obvious progression to adopt the same policies wherever US-based corporations operate abroad. Preventing infiltration at point of entry into an organization, by the use of stringent checking, can protect staff and ex-pats working in the country and abroad, not to mention issues of confidential customer information, etc.

“Dishonesty in job applications is rife, and organizations that do not check thoroughly may be courting disaster,” writes Gareth Huw Davies reporting recently in the UK’s Sunday Times.

With an increase in dishonest job applicants, there is also the increasing danger that organizations are employing the wrong people, consequently putting themselves, other employees and their clients at risk. With this potentially hazardous internal threat, Steve Bailey, Chief Executive of BackgroundChecking.com, a leading proponent in the emerging sector of pre-employment screening, analyzes the danger in failing to check the background of applicants before employing them.

A recent survey commissioned by BackgroundChecking.com into 1200 organizations found that only two percent of employers command more than the most cursory checks before appointing new staff to positions of trust and responsibility. Although this disconcerting, and potentially costly, level of trust in applicants’ resumes relates more to private than public companies, about 10 percent of those surveyed were in the public sector. However, they showed similar shortcomings in their vetting practices.

With near-full employment in some areas, employers are desperate to get people on board and are therefore making concessions when it comes to quality. Too much responsibility is being left to hard-pressed staff in personnel and to interview panels that often include people who are relatively inexperienced.

According to another survey, oversight is not only confined to low-level staff. Of 10,000 people employed in financial services and information technology posts, one in four had lied or exaggerated when applying for a job. The most common deceptions were on the subjects of salary, educational qualifications and job responsibilities. It could be difficult for the average personnel department to spot a bogus CV; in fact nearly every organization that contributed to the survey has a horror story. Many inappropriate candidates rely on prospective employers not checking up on their resume, a sentiment that is becoming increasingly common.

A wrong appointment can cost an employer US$10,000-1,000,000, not only in the direct costs of repeating the process, but also through potential long-term damage to an organization and the fact they may fall foul of onerous employment legislation.

Europe is, in fact, at least three years behind the US in the use of third-party providers of background checking services. This is due to a combination of factors, including the prevalence of litigation within the US, freedom of information and the varied cultural, legal and statutory issues. Make no mistake though – the gap is narrowing at a furious rate as Europe goes into catch-up mode.

The growth of pre-employment screening is being driven, in part, by US companies with international business units. US firms are applying mounting pressure on their international operations to apply the same screening standards that are used domestically. Another issue is that Europe generally offers greater employment protection than the US, not something to be ignored when recruiting staff. Numerous cases exist of applicants using an address of convenience, pulling a scam on the company and then disappearing with the proceeds (an estimated 80 percent of fraud in organizations is carried out by their own staff).

Screening includes verifying that applicants’ school details and higher-education qualifications tally with their resume. By confirming dates of previous employment, reasons for leaving and the gaps between previous spells of employment, background checking providers can build up a picture of the applicant’s probity. Candidates are also checked for county court judgments, bankruptcy information and credit rating.

Furthermore, these background checks are recommended on people not only when they are being hired but also when they are promoted. People who have lived abroad may be worth a closer check. Screening companies find that such people are more likely to deliberately muddle their credit histories, in the belief that they will not be caught out.

Background checking has been successfully used by many clients on their application forms as well as in their advertising. It has proven to be a strong deterrent to inappropriate candidates and has typically resulted in a 15 percent reduction in the average number of applicants and a corresponding increase in the quality of applicants.

Is Big Brother watching you?
According to a 2005 survey by the American Management Association (AMA), many US firms are suspicious of employee behavior on the job and record and review employee communications and activities for the sake of security. 76 percent of businesses monitor employee web use while 55 percent keep and review e-mail messages. More than 51 percent of companies admit to participating in video surveillance for security purposes, and 31 percent monitor employees’ outgoing phone numbers. 53 percent of those surveyed use key cards for employee access control.

Of those companies that observe their employees’ behavior, 80 percent notify their staff of this. Of these conscientious employers, many have established policies in place for their monitoring activities – 81 percent for personal e-mail abuse, 42 percent for personal instant messenger use, 34 percent for operation of personal websites on company time, 23 percent for personal postings on corporate blogs, and 20 percent on operation of personal blogs on company time.

Top tips to avoid the office spy
According to CareerBuilder.com editor Kate Lorenz:
• Review the company handbook to know what is acceptable behavior regarding the technologies.
• Don't use company e-mail for private messages. Experts say if an e-mail system is owned by an employer, the company is allowed to review its contents.
• Keep passwords private and in a secure place.
• Stay off sensitive websites while at work.
• When stepping away from your desk, turn off your computer.
• Report to work on time: According to one office administration manager in Chicago, "If your company has a security key card system that you use to gain access to your building, management knows what time you came into the building and reported for work."