Practical Scope of HR Background Checks: How Thorough Should They Be When Hiring?

To the Seniors & Friends, That same question came to mind recently. When we are giving quite an important task like running the nation to corrupt and incompetent people or giving a second chance to convicted criminals, then what exactly would be the objective of the background checking? I am really not trying to be philosophical. I just want to know:

Practical Scope of HR Background Checks

Practically, how far can any HR professional conducting a background check go? Which points should any HR cover in particular?

Please guide me.

Seeking attention.

Regards, Mahua Biswas

It is good that you clarified that you are not asking a philosophical question. At the same time, I appreciate the fact that you have considered giving a second chance to people who may have run afoul of the law but possibly have atoned and seek another opportunity to lead a new and more fulfilling life.

Purpose of Background Checks

A background check is primarily conducted to corroborate the information provided by the candidate in their resume. It checks for vital negative information that may have been deliberately omitted or possibly falsified. It also involves a third-party reference check regarding the candidate's credentials, including subjective elements like integrity and trustworthiness, which are essential for positions involving fiduciary responsibilities or extensive monetary transactions. The check may also ensure the candidate's right experience and good fit with the job profile envisaged.

Focus Areas for Candidates with a Conviction or Tainted Background

In the case of a candidate with a conviction or a tainted background, the background check would possibly focus on the following:

- The candidate's prima facie suitability for the job
- The record of their behavioral change and improvement that corroborates the possibility of a positive transformation
- Evidence suggesting that the candidate deserves a second chance and a fresh opportunity
- Collaborative proof that the person has a high probability of integrating well into society and becoming a productive and law-abiding citizen

I trust I have shared a few crucial points to help you believe that a background check for those with a past can provide adequate information to help rehabilitate and integrate them into our society despite the aberrations in their background.

Regards

Thank you for your reply. I have a friend who got divorced in 2010 and has been struggling to find a job since then. Her background is her main constraint. Initially, I did not, or rather I should say, I could not believe it. So, being slightly adventurous, I borrowed her profile and went for interviews at some organizations. I was petrified when I saw that, in the name of background checking, I was being asked all sorts of irrelevant questions.

The same question then came to my mind, and I thought this would be the best platform to seek answers.

Thank you.

Regards,
Mahua Biswas

Dear B. Jacob, I am using your full name because I don't know how I am supposed to address you (Sir/Madam). At first, your reply was the answer I was looking for. I gave the example of my friend because in the middle of last year when she was sharing her pain with us, I laughed at her and argued with her, saying, "Now even convicted criminals are getting a second chance, so don't fish for sympathy." She laughed at me and said, "Then you live my life." So, I did. I lived her life.

I learned that a break in the CV is hard to explain, probably because we have an abandoned workforce of 1.25 billion in India. Hence, we don't respect it.

Thanks again for your prompt reply. God bless you.

Regards, Mahua Biswas

Career Breaks and Background Verification

I know this might not sound nice, but is your friend informing the recruitment team about the turmoil she faced, which was the reason why she 'had' to take a break?

I have worked with blue-chip firms, and we employed people with a break in their career, as long as it was a genuine one.

I even worked with a BPO when the data scam took place. After the scam, we were naturally panic-stricken and hence refused to hire someone who couldn't explain the sabbatical. This was way back in 2004. I wouldn't believe HRs are still that scared.

Background verification includes a list of questions to be asked by the BV Firm. These questions are primarily asked to validate the educational and employment data provided by the candidate. A drug test and police verification are rare cases considered for talents being hired to work at the client site.

This might seem like a sweeping statement, but your friend needs to apply to firms with higher-level thinking. We are certain she will find such a job.

Wishing her all the best!

Regards

Background Checks: How Far Should HR Go?

To run a nation and to run a corporate or commercial organization are separate issues. We are witnessing the results of giving a second chance to criminal types of people to run the nation.

Regarding your query about how far any HR should go while checking the background of a candidate and what points it should cover, I am of the opinion that there cannot be a fixed formula for this. It would depend on the profile of the job concerned.

Suppose a candidate is being interviewed for a clerical-type job profile; the criteria for checking their background would be different than if it were for a senior post like a spokesperson of a corporate or a works manager, etc. The HR can go as far as the job profile warrants.

Regards

Hi, thanks for the reply. I asked that question based on a bitter experience. If you read all my replies on that post, you would understand the reason. When we say "AS FAR," the real question is how far.

Regards,
Mahua Biswas

I do appreciate and empathize with the situation you mentioned. However, it looks like there are THREE issues that seem to have been mixed up—quite understandable when it's YOU who faced the flak.

The Issues

The issues are: (1) Background Checks (2) Break in career—leading to all sorts of queries from HR in the interviews, and (3) how tough it is to get a job after a divorce.

Background Checks

Taking the first one—Background Checks—like (Cite Contribution) mentioned, they are 'primarily to validate the educational and employment data, as provided by the candidate.' As of today, any Employment BC in India does not include Criminal BC—which actually needs access to Police records [it's prevalent in other countries though].

Career Break

Next, the second one—Career Break. I suggest looking at this aspect from the HR's perspective [like you put yourself in your friend's shoes, for a moment, think you are HR]. How would you be sure that the career break is for logical and reasonably justifiable reasons unless you inquire pointedly—while watching the words being spoken along with the body language?

If you go through some of the threads in CiteHR, you would realize that there will be persons who resign for flimsy reasons and then, when he/she finds it tough to get another job, come out with all sorts of stories for the career gap. Hope you get the point.

Settling in Career After Divorce

Now coming to the third—actual—reason for you posting this thread—Settling again in career after a divorce [with the associated career gap, mental agony, and low psychological threshold]. This specific issue was discussed earlier in CiteHR [not sure when exactly, but it would be over a year back, I guess].

The key to handling such issues in interviews would be to PREEMPT the topic veering towards this issue at all. Since once this point comes on the table, there's no way one can avoid answering any/all queries with respect to the divorce—if the reply is avoided, it COULD be perceived as 'avoiding' rather than a 'hesitation to revisit a painful past.'

Frankly, I know this is tough to accept—but that's the world we live in. So better to preempt than to give scope for the situation and then go about resolving/handling it.

I recollect having suggested in the earlier thread that the best response for a career gap due to this specific reason could be: "My presence was absolutely needed at home due to personal/family reasons. With personal commitments, I didn't want to do a job half-heartedly—hence left the earlier job. Now that things have settled down on the personal front, I want to take up a job again."

Though the wording can change, the gist is this.

There are three angles one would be covering by such a stand: (1) NOT lying—since a divorce too is a strictly personal matter (2) Usually, no HR insists on discussing the issue further once the 'personal reason' stand is taken—preempting the topic to go in the direction you DON'T want to (3) Once things settle down [assuming the Offer is made] and depending on one's comfort level, the details can be revealed later to whoever can be trusted to understand the situation, without adverse/cynical comments—thereby avoiding any unwanted attention from 'male chauvinists' (like Jacob mentioned).

And, I think, I had also mentioned in the earlier thread that you would ALSO be SUBTLY conveying the commitment to anything you take up to do—you didn't continue with the earlier job just for the sake of salary, even though you could have done it. Hope you get what I mean.

Hope I have understood and covered what you actually wanted to convey.

All the Best.

Regards,
TS