Why does a candidate’s experience with your background screening firm matter? The candidate’s info goes to the screening firm, you get your background check information, and that’s it. Right?
The background screening firm is a vendor, not part of your company. So what’s the issue?
An ambassador, not just a vendor
Look at it from the job candidate’s point of view. Being a job candidate can be a very sobering and anxiety-ridden experience. Every step of the process can bring highs and lows. You may find it difficult to empathize with a candidate because you have so much going on. However, from the job seeker’s point of view, one thing is clear.
Your background screening firm is an extension of your own company. Often, in the eyes of the candidate, the lines are so blurred that they think of the background screener as the employer. As a result, a negative experience with a background screening provider can reflect poorly on you.
Even if the candidate recognizes that the background screening firm is a separate entity, if the background screening firm is rude or unprofessional, how does that reflect on you and your company?
Not well.
Damage to your reputation. And potential liability
An unpleasant or unprofessional experience with a background screening firm can do more than make you look bad. It can expose your firm to significant legal liability. Consider the following examples.
A lost candidate
A candidate has a difficult time completing the online forms in an industry that has high turnover and fierce competition for good candidates.
- Scenario A. Candidate contacts the screening firm and reaches a call center that is outside the U.S. After navigating through an extensive phone tree and waiting on hold for five minutes, the candidate abandons the process and accepts a position at a different firm. The time, effort and cost of getting a candidate to this point has been lost.
- Scenario B. Candidate contacts the screening firm, one with an easy-to-reach U.S. call center. The candidate speaks with a supervisor, who quickly identifies the issue and helps resolve the problem. The candidate appreciates the personal attention and completes the process. In the end, the candidate accepts the position.
A legal liability
A candidate applying to a senior-level management role at a globally recognized firm is denied employment due to what appears to be an outstanding warrant in a state where he previously lived.
- Scenario A. Employer follows the pre-adverse action process. The candidate contacts the screening firm, explains that the issue was resolved and emails supporting paperwork as proof. The firm reviews the court index and presents the same information as the original report to the client. Ultimately, the candidate is denied the job and is left with a negative view of the client. Additionally, the candidate files a lawsuit against the screening firm and client. (Here is why.)
- Scenario B. The initial process is the same as Scenario A, with one exception: the background screening firm takes the process one step further and contacts the court, supplying the supporting paperwork provided by the candidate. The screening firm verifies that the candidate is correct and the issue was resolved; however, the updated information was not properly entered into the court index. The employer ends up hiring the candidate. The candidate is not only appreciative of the opportunity, but also grateful to learn about an error in the court system that would have continued to follow him.
These examples are just a few of the many possibilities that can occur. Don’t underestimate the potential impacts of both good and bad candidate experiences during the background screening process. Make sure that your partner treats your candidates with the same care that you would.
