The checkpoint barrier

Despite a national shortage of middle-management skills, employers are running exhaustive pre-employment tests and checks on executive job candidates, say recruiters.

"The New Zealand employment market is heavily regulated, making employers [insist] consultants carry out screening processes. If an appointment does not work out it can be costly," says Larry Small, director for recruitment firm Executive Appointments.

According to a white paper from Drake Personnel, the process of dismissing and replacing an unsuitable executive costs between 30 and 150 per cent of their salary - so rehiring for a marketing position worth $80,000 costs between $24,000 and $120,000. Expenses include initial recruitment, induction and training; downtime, legal expenses, productivity hits and decreased morale if other team members become overloaded in the interim.

After that comes the cost of recruiting a new employee.

We spoke to 11 executive recruiters and discovered executive job candidates may be subjected to criminal, reference, credit and qualification background checks; psychometric profiling and behavioural assessments; medical and drug tests, and residency or work permit status checks (see the side panel).

Behavioural testing and psychometric profiling - increasingly seen as reliable indicators of how well a candidate will fit into a company's culture and team - are growing in popularity as recruiters bundle them into standard agency fees and services. Other trends are for more checks to be carried out on candidates applying for permanent positions than contract positions; and more comprehensive checks for executive candidates than for junior and "blue collar" employees.

But at what point do pre-employment tests and checks become intrusive for job candidates - and are multiple checks on the same individual really necessary?

Recruiters say as long as the job justifies it, several checks are needed because people regularly lie about their qualifications and references. Common examples include unqualified applicants who use experts to complete distance tests and then claim the results as their own; and CV fraud, like that committed by former Maori TV CEO John Davy in 2001.

Maurice O'Brien, a project manager for Drake Personnel, says Drake recently had its own "John Davy", a Canadian executive candidate with all the right qualifications and experience who got through initial checks before a chance phone call revealed he was a con artist.

"It was absolute luck we found out, and shows in-depth employee checks are important," says O'Brien.

Internationally, CV fraud is so common one human resource management society estimates more than half of all job applications contain false information. In the United States, the FBI says 500,000 people falsely claim to have a university degree, while in New Zealand O'Brien says Drake has at least five examples of falsified job applications - in one, two people colluded and named each other as a previous manager; in another, a person who claimed four languages had attended one French cooking class and knew a Japanese greeting.

O'Brien says some candidates use several names or change their names by deed poll, making credit checks complicated. "Organisations like Baycorp can return reports with four, five, six alternate names for one person."

Janet Manly, also a Drake project manager, says some candidates are adept at answering a psychometric or behavioural test in a way that ensures a rosy result.

"What happens is that after six to 12 months their natural behaviour surfaces and the employer realises there was [dishonesty]," says Manly.

She says anyone wanting to conduct background checks on a potential employee must first get written consent from the candidate. While getting permission to make a phone call to a CV-listed referee may seem ridiculous, it's worth the effort.

"When people know you're serious about checking, it does weed [the frauds] out," says Manly.

Mark Ryan, senior solicitor and employment team leader for Auckland law firm Haigh Lyon, says as long as employers don't use the information for any other purpose, it's fair to ask a candidate to waive their right to privacy for the purposes of getting a job.

However, the checks used in candidate screening must relate to the job being applied for. While a medical employer is justified in requesting a drug test, and a transport operator in requesting a police and driver's licence check, an employer who wants a medical check for a basic office role should be told that check is inappropriate and the information none of their business.

Honest candidates sometimes decide enough is enough, says O'Brien.

"Some people refuse to sign consent forms, not because they have anything to hide, but for privacy reasons. But they can still be employed - it only matters if it matters to the employer," he says.

Tips and advice

* Legal entitlement to work in New Zealand: Don't ask candidates their residency status, ask if they are legally entitled to work here and get their response in writing. Take a copy of all work permits and ensure you have expiry details

* Police/criminal checks: Through the Department for Courts with written consent from the individual. Results can take four to eight weeks.

* Reference checks: Get written permission to contact referees listed on CVs. Be wary of referees who say they have only mobile phone numbers. Ask for referees who can be contacted through a company's switchboard, or whose identity and occupation can be verified.

* Education checks: With written consent, you can obtain full details of a qualification from the tertiary institution. Organisations such as PriceWaterhouse Coopers can help to check overseas qualifications or contact international agencies with access to information from the particular countries.

* Credit checks: Debt collection and credit check organisations will divulge full credit backgrounds if you have consent. Because such checks reveal spending habits, they can be embarrassing for candidates and should be sought only for jobs that require responsibility for dealing with the administration or safeguarding of money.

* Medical checks: Arguably the most intrusive but they are justified for jobs that have access to drugs and medication and those that affect the safety of the public or children, such as school bus drivers, air traffic controllers and heavy machinery operators.

* Skill tests: Set reasonable mini-tasks based on the work the applicant would be doing. Checks and measures that mean something need to be applied around the skill test.

* Emotional intelligence: Considered highly indicative of employment success, but check source and validity. Ideally, use those approved by a psychologist who can be contacted.

* Behavioural tests/psychometric profiling: Candidates may be unhappy to have their personality tested. Describe how the test works, and share results immediately. Before submitting results to an employer, ask candidates whether they agree that the test is an accurate reflection of their behavioural profile and emotional abilities.

* All checks require the written consent of the person being checked.