Admit it. Your employee handbook hasn’t been updated in years, has it?
There’s no need to feel embarrassed — many, many companies are in the same position. But it’s a subject that does need to be discussed… and an issue that must be addressed… sooner rather than later.
Employee handbooks may not be Amazon bestsellers, but they do serve a purpose. More than anything else, they give all your employees guides and rules to follow. Thus, if an employee is not acting according to the corporate culture regs as determined in your employee handbook, his or her manager is apt to have a much better sense of how to rectify the situation.
Of course, writing an employee handbook is hardly the stuff of novelists. It takes a keen eye and sharp insights into the world of HR and the corporate world to construct employee handbooks that are worth their weight. That’s why it’s best to work with a company like VerifyProtect to help you through the journey.
Even if you already have an in-house human resources department with personnel, it’s never a bad idea to get a “second opinion”. The worst thing that can happen is that you end up with a terrific, air-tight product!
Granted — there is no way to make any workplace 100% safe; however, by implementing criminal background checks on all potential new hires, companies can hedge their bets in a very valuable way.
Having someone with a criminal record on staff can be quite hazardous to your organization’s reputation in a number of ways:
1. The person may have criminal tendencies that he/she could pursue under your employ.
2. If word gets around the office that you hired someone with a criminal past, you could lose the corporate culture you’ve striven to build. You could even lose solid employees who are concerned about their new co-worker.
3. If word gets out to your clients or vendors, you might find yourself in a bad place. People just naturally hesitate to deal with those who have spent time in prison or been in trouble with the law.
Certainly, some states — notably Illinois and Massachusetts — are now trying to make it illegal for private and public businesses to conduct criminal background checks on applicants. In our estimation, while that may seem “fair” to the employee, it isn’t in the best interest of the employer. After all, that employer should be able to make decisions based on all the facts.
If you’ve been wondering exactly why all your interviewees seem to come back with terrible background screening reports, you may want to look internally rather than externally for answers.
At many companies, the real focus shouldn’t be that applicants are awful; in fact, it’s really just a symptom of a larger problem. It could be that the company is attracting the wrong types of people for their position openings… and they’re probably not doing it deliberately.
Every organization has a reputation and if you find yourself only receiving applications from candidates whose backgrounds wind up to be worrisome (at best), it’s time to do some evaluation of your company’s core strengths and corporate culture.
From there, you’ll have a much better idea as to whether you need to make changes in the way you treat your people (and, by proxy, the way they treat your customers.) It could just make all the difference when it comes to attracting candidates that are golden… not tarnished.
For many employers, the background screening of a new hire is essential. While that’s to be applauded, it’s important not to overlook the value of interviews in tandem with background checks.
As an example, take Manager “X”. He looks over Applicant “Y”‘s resume and decides Applicant “Y” is perfect for the job. So Manager “X” brings Applicant “Y” into the office for a very cursory interview — more of a “meet and greet”, really. After all, Manager “X” just figures that the background check on Applicant “Y” will be the deciding factor on whether Applicant “Y” is offered the job. Eventually, Applicant “Y”, after passing the background check, joins the organization but never really fits into the culture thanks to Manager “X”‘s misplaced attitude regarding the importance of interviews.
Do some supervisors actually adopt this kind of lackadaisical attitude when it comes to hiring? The short answer is “yes”. It’s a case of relying too heavily on background screening results and not heavily enough on HR responsibilities.
Ideally, background screening should be an integral part of any hiring process… but it shouldn’t cast the deciding vote. Even if a background check comes back clean as a whistle, managers still must evaluate other aspects of the candidate’s personality and skill set before making a job offer.
The moral of the story? It’s wisest to use background checks as one tool at your disposal to find the best individuals to join your company’s team.
You know the toxic employee. He or she can bring down a room’s jovial atmosphere in 0.78 seconds flat. And when the toxicity spreads, productivity grinds to a fraction of its potential. It’s enough to make any employer want to scream.
Wouldn’t it be great to pre-screen for this type of employee? On one level, you can, and that’s with pre-employment screening.
Pre-employment screening can take a variety of shapes and forms, but above and beyond anything else, it helps you weed out applicants whose personalities are simply not going to fit into your ideal corporate culture. Ironically, not only is this good for you as the employer, but it’s also good for them; after all, some toxic employees can actually be less difficult if they’re working in the right environment for them.