Guest Article by Kevin W. Grossman

Okay, it’s not dead yet, but I want it to die.

I understand that there’s still a huge part of the career management industry keeping it alive, making it better and making it work for you, the job seeker. To all my friends in this industry, please forgive me, as I also understand it’s probably not going anywhere for years to come.

But I still want the painfully ubiquitous resume to die a horrible death.

Why? Because it’s a self-serving piece of inconsistently formatted and fudged professional drivel that really doesn’t help me hire true quality of fit. Just ask any background screening firm that does employment and education verifications. For example, EmployeeScreenIQ’s research yields a 52% discrepancy rate between what an applicant claims about their education and work experience and what they find when they verify such information.

Fifty-two percent. Sure, the resume helps me sift and sort to the short list, but a short list that’s almost half fabrication on the average. And if you as the job seeker take that risk and blatantly lie or embellish on your resume, and my background screening firm uncovers it, you are out of luck at a time of high unemployment where you really need a little luck.

Yes, embellishing the truth is fabrication. It doesn’t make it any better than an outright lie, especially if you’re telling me you’ve been programming native iPhone apps for the past six months and you really only took an online course six months ago and made one farting app, one that isn’t very good anyway because it sounds like a Yorkshire Terrier barking.

So what then do we put instead of this black magic resume full of lies and deceit?

Your professional online profile, of course. Like the one you better have completely up to date on LinkedIn, where thousands of recruiting professionals are scouring and sourcing every day. (And I’m not even talking about the majority of recruiting pros who search for online information about you across the internet and other social networks.) And by the way, much of the same advice you may get about building your resume applies to the online profile as well.

However, I get the fact that anybody can fudge an online profile just as well as they can a resume. But, there’s a peer pressure element of keeping one another honest in an online community where your professional history is available to everyone you’re connected with, many of whom you‘ve worked with or for at one time, if not currently, as well as the portion that’s available for public consumption if you so choose.

And there’s another critical element that can give you more credibility than the standard 3-5 references you offer “on request” for your resume. Those are the LinkedIn recommendations you ask your current and previous employers, colleagues, collaborators, clients, customers, mentors, teachers and/or friends to give you, which you in turn should always reciprocate.

Repeat – get as many recommendations as you can and reciprocate.

Remember, your professional connections you “know” could also be the back doors into the employers you’re interested in, as well as getting introduced to those folks you don’t know.

Repeat – get as many recommendations as you can and reciprocate.

There are also other similar professional networks on Facebook like BranchOut and BeKnown, which allow you to give and receive “endorsements” like the LinkedIn recommendations. Do the same thing here and be consistent across all the professional networks you belong to where you have profiles.

Granted, talent acquisition technologies including applicant tracking systems (ATS) have been slow to adapt to the online profile – there’s still the “click here” to upload your resume. That’s changing for the better as the candidate experience improves allowing for easy integration of the online profile to the employer of choice, not to mention the benefits of a search optimized professional profile, which is a blog post for another time.

So let’s review:

• Build those online profiles consistently across your professional networks of choice (LinkedIn for sure).
• Keep your profiles honest and real and up to date, whether you’re looking for a job or not.
• Get those recommendations and endorsements and reciprocate.

There’s a lot more to cover here than I could get to, so look for more soon. Good luck!

About the Author:

Kevin W. Grossman is the Chief Marketplace Evangelist at Fisher Vista, LLC and HRmarketer.com where he leads the strategic HR B2B marketing and business development initiatives. Kevin is also founder of Marcom HRsay, an HR B2B blog for the real world focusing on what helps the people thrive and businesses grow. Kevin has more than two decades of business experience including more than 10 years of HR marketplace experience. Kevin is a Top 25 Online Influencer in Human Resources according to HR Examiner as well as a prolific “HR business” blogger since 2004 primarily on Marketing to HR and Marcom HRsay. He has authored multiple articles on HR, leadership, HR technology, talent acquisition, talent management, workplace culture and much more. He’s also a partner and collaborator of the TalentCulture community with as well as a co-founder of the online Twitter chat #TChat and #TChat Radio.

By Molly DiBianca, Labor and Employment Attorney at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP

The popularity of social-networking sites, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, has exploded in the last several years. Facebook boasts more than 600 million users. Facebook has become a treasure trove of information for anyone looking to discover the “truth” about an individual’s private life. Divorce attorneys report that Facebook is the single best online source for information to be used in divorce or custody proceeding. Law –enforcement agencies across the country turn to Facebook to locate suspects and gather evidence. And insurance investigator have put their telephoto lenses away—today they can find out all about a beneficiary’s activities from anywhere with an Internet connection.

So it only makes sense that employers, too, would want to put Facebook to work. More and more employers report that they’ve eliminated a candidate from consideration after viewing something negative in the candidate’s Facebook profile. But this practice does have legal risks. The good news, though, is that those risks can be avoided by following the steps discussed below.

What Not to Do

As an initial matter, employers should be aware of what they should not do when surfing the Web. First, do not ask anyone—including current employees and job applicants—for his Facebook password or other log-in credentials. The town of Bozeman, Montana instituted a policy that required applicants to turn over their passwords. Bloggers, tweeters, and Facebookers across the globe united in online protests and Bozeman quickly cancelled its policy. In February 2011, the Maryland Department of Corrections suspended a similar policy when the ACLU campaigned against it on its blog and on YouTube.

Second, do not try to gain access to a candidate’s profile indirectly. For example, don’t ask another employee, who is Facebook friends with the candidate, to show you the candidate’s profile. Last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict against an employer for similar conduct, finding that such tactics constituted a breach of the employee’s privacy.

Third, do not send a Facebook friend request to the candidate without disclosing the real reason for the request. Similarly, do not instruct or permit anyone else to do the same on your behalf. If a candidate’s privacy settings prevent you from accessing his profile, the better idea is to tell the candidate in advance that you want him to accept your friend request but only for 24 or 48 hours. And be clear about what it is that you’ll be looking for once access is granted, as discussed in the following sections.

Start Talking

Before you start surfing the Web, first gather the key decision makers to discuss whether the organization should adopt this practice at all. Exchange ideas about the potential benefits and concerns associated with searching for information on Facebook or Google. Consider including as many stakeholders as practicable, including members of senior management, Human Resources personnel, and hiring managers.

Some organizations feel that a Facebook search does not comport with their culture or core values and, as a result, have decided not to use such searches as part of the hiring process. This question does not have a “right” answer but should be given significant consideration before implementing an official policy or practice.

Assuming the discussion results in the decision to incorporate Internet searches into the background-check process, you should next discuss, in detail, exactly what it is that you’ll be looking for in your search. Aim to identify up to 10 specific things that would give you cause for alarm if seen on a candidate’s online profile.

Common red flags for many employers include the candidate’s use of or promotion of the use of illegal drugs, any type of language or imagery that promotes hate, threats of physical violence or other hostile or aggressive comments. There may also be legitimate concerns about a candidate who posts negative comments about his former employer or co-workers or who discloses inappropriate information belonging to a former employer or customers.

You also can identify some positive online activities, as well, such as if the candidate maintains a blog, which is well written or, even better, related to his professional interests. Once you’ve finalized your checklist, put it in writing. Create a form that lists the various items (good and bad) that you’ll be looking for. Leave a space for the name of the company representative who will be performing the search, the date the search was conducted, and the name of the candidate.

Start Searching

Once your list is created, the rest is easy—but equally important. Designate an individual  who will perform the actual search (i.e., the “Searcher”). Here is the key: the Searcher must not be involved in the hiring decision. Human Resources can perform the search, for example. In smaller organizations without a dedicated HR staff, the manager of one department may be the Searcher when a different department is hiring, and vice versa.

Once the appropriate person is designated, the search may begin. If any of the items on the list are found, the Searcher documents them on the form and, preferably, prints or makes a copy (i.e., with the print screen feature) of the offending material. That information and only that information may then be turned over to the hiring manager for consideration.

The reason this step is so critical is that it effectively prevents the hiring manager from learning information that cannot be used in the hiring process—such as religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristic. This separation of knowledge can be a key component to defending against a failure-to-hire lawsuit.

Start Talking (Again)

In the event that a hiring manager is inclined not to hire a candidate as a result of what turned up during the online search, there are a few additional steps that should be taken. First, the hiring manager should present the candidate with the information. Identify the basis for concern and provide the candidate with a meaningful opportunity to explain. There is, after all, more than one John Smith registered with Facebook . And, since the Searcher has no interaction with the candidate, mistaken identity is not out of the realm of possibility.

Finally, make sure that everyone in the organization with any connection to the hiring process is aware of and understands the new practice. Make it clear to supervisors that they are not to search the Internet for information about a candidate prior to the decision to hire. Have supervisors acknowledge the policy in writing and review it periodically to ensure compliance.

Our U.K. strategic partner, Verifile Ltd. has published their 2011 report on diploma and accreditation mill activity and reveals an astounding 48% increase worldwide in the number of known diploma and accreditation mills in the past year alone. As the Internet is the primary home for these bogus education and accreditation providers, little action is taken to stop them from helping unscrupulous candidates deceive unsuspecting employers. This year’s Accredibase™ report examines the current status of the diploma mill situation and considers what can be done to protect the public and businesses.

Listed below is the introduction and first chapter of the 32 page report.  The full report can be downloaded at
http://www.accredibase.com/index.php?section=871&page=4493

A doctor is someone to be trusted, a person who has studied for years to earn his title, has gone through rigorous testing and peer review, and is an expert in his field, right? Wrong. The title can be bought online from a diploma mill for a few hundred pounds or dollars – your pet rabbit can get those prestigious letters before its name. Wikipedia even publishes a list of animals with fraudulent diplomas1. Despite the light-hearted nature of these stories about pets with degrees, they demonstrate a serious point. Some unscrupulous operators will award a diploma or degree in exchange for money without carrying out any checks on the applicant, and without requiring any actual study – and people are really using these fake degrees to gain employment, trust and prestige.

Accredibase™, Verifile Limited’s database of diploma and accreditation mills, keeps track of the credential fraud industry that exploits the anonymity and ever-widening reach of the Internet to sell its wares. After a
busy year of research, Accredibase™ reveals a huge increase in the number of known diploma and accreditation mills. The database now includes 2,615 known bogus education and accreditation providers – an increase of 48% in just one year. In addition to the huge number of confirmed mills known to Accredibase™, new suspect institutions are discovered on a daily basis – more than 2,000 are under investigation by Accredibase™ for inclusion in the database. There can be no doubt that bogus degrees are a real and worrying problem in today’s society, given the number of sellers in the market. As Stephen Fry said on a recent edition of the BBC’s QI, “pseudo-credentialing is a big issue.”

In this report, we examine the current status of the diploma mill problem, revealing the global diploma mill hotspots. We investigate the new generation of bogus universities, taking a closer look at University Degree
Program and Belford University networks, the involvement of bogus colleges in immigration scams and the phenomenon of online high school diploma mills. We also look back at the year’s developments in terms of
legislation to combat bogus education providers and discuss what can be done to protect employers, educators and the general public from bogus degrees.

So What Are Diploma and Accreditation Mills?

Diploma mills are mostly online entities that offer substandard or bogus degrees in exchange for payment and not much else. Often these entities will grant a “degree” based on the submission of a résumé detailing life experience, and will even let the applicant choose his own subject and year of graduation. Others might require the student to do some work, but because of the lack of recognised accreditation or authorisation to grant degrees, the certificates are worthless.

Systems of higher education recognition and accreditation vary greatly across the globe, making it easier for diploma mills to confuse and deceive.

In the United States, authorisation to operate and grant degrees is usually issued by the state; however, accreditation is granted by private accreditation agencies. Accreditation agencies are considered “recognized” if they have recognition from either the U.S. Department of Education or the Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Some states will only license institutions with recognised accreditation; others allow unaccredited universities and colleges to operate. The United Kingdom does not operate the same system of accreditation by private organisations. In order to grant UK-recognised degrees, UK universities must be given degree-awarding power by a Royal Charter or Art of Parliament. This does not apply to foreign universities operating in the UK; they can offer their own awards in the country as long as they do not claim to be a UK institution. Diploma mills should not be confused with companies producing fake certificates in the names of genuine, respected institutions. Forgeries have become so sophisticated that it can often be impossible to tell a fake certificate from a real one. Counterfeit documents are a huge issue for
prospective employers and educators, but fake certificates can soon be spotted by checking directly with the university or college in question, who will be able to confirm whether or not the individual is on the graduation roll. Bogus universities, on the other hand, will readily verify their customer’s credentials, so an extra level of diligence is required to weed out these degrees.

Telltale signs of a diploma mill include poorly made Web sites, offering a degree at a very low cost and in a very short space of time, and the opportunity to choose your own graduation date. Some diploma mill operators go to extraordinary, and sometimes bizarre, lengths to attempt to give their “universities” credibility. Hillmax University is one such example. Hillmax appears to be a clone of the notorious Rochville University. It is not, unsurprisingly, authorised to offer or advertise degree programs in Ontario, Canada, where it claims to be located. We noticed that the university was using an image of Brian May, guitarist for the rock group Queen, upon receipt of his doctoral degree from the recognised UK University Liverpool John Moores!

Diploma mills often surround themselves with other dubious organisations in an attempt to gain credibility. These include accreditation mills and even micronations acting as “recognition mills”. An accreditation mill is a bogus accrediting agency that is not recognised by the authority responsible for governing education provision in its country of operation. They offer accreditation for a fee and will carry out little or no investigation into the quality of education provided by the institutions they claim to accredit. They often choose names similar to recognised accrediting agencies, and will even falsely add recognised schools to their lists of accredited members.

Accreditation mills are often fabricated by the owners of diploma mills who are trying to deceive people into thinking their schools are legitimately accredited. Accreditation mills have been found to operate from the same address, and even have their Web site hosted at the same IP as schools they claim to accredit. We use the term “recognition mill” to refer to an entity such as a micronation, or individuals purporting to represent a micronation, that grants meaningless recognition to diploma and accreditation mills. Examples include Hutt River Province in Australia, and the Prinicpality of Seborga in Italy. Several diploma mills claim to be approved by Hutt River Province, a self-styled state in Western Australia, which is not recognised in any way by the Australian Government.

The Prinicipality of Seborga is a micronation located in northwest Italy, which covers an area of 15 km2 with a population of less than 400. A group of diploma mills including Pebble Hills University claimed to be located in Seborga and to be recognised by the Principality’s Department of Education. In fact, Seborga is administered by the Italian government and the “Principality” only has symbolic value. After a police investigation, the address used by Pebble Hills and 10 other institutions was found to be a room used as a cellar.

We use the term “recognition mill” to refer to an entity such as a micronation, or individuals purporting to represent a micronation, that grants meaningless recognition to  diploma and accreditation mills.

We use the term “recognition mill” to refer to an entity such as a micronation, or individuals purporting to represent a micronation, that grants meaningless recognition to  diploma and accreditation mills. Examples include Hutt River Province  in Australia, and the Prinicpality of Seborga in Italy. Several diploma mills claim to be approved by Hutt River Province, a self-styled state in Western Australia, which is not recognised in in any way by the Australian Government5.  The Prinicipality of Seborga is a micronation located in northwest Italy, which covers an area of 15 km2 with a population of less than 400. A group of diploma mills including Pebble Hills University claimed to be located in Seborga and to be recognised by  the Principality’s Department of Education. In fact, Seborga is administered by the Italian government and the “Principality” only has symbolic value. After a police investigation, the address used by Pebble Hills and 10 other institutions was found to be a room used as a cellar.

Download full report

Guest Article by Robert Jones, Operations Director at Socrates Ltd.

Brazil has one of the world’s fastest growing and dynamic countries.  The country will host the 2014 Soccer World Cup and in 2016 the Summer Olympics will be held in Rio de Janeiro. By 2016 Brazil is projected to have overtaken France to become the fifth largest economy in the world (Source Brazilian National Bank for Economic Development (BNDES)).  The country was largely unaffected by the recent global financial crisis and continues to increase its influence on the world stage.

It is therefore understandable that in recent years there has been a significant increase in requests for background checks with a Brazilian component and the good news is that it is usually possible to perform screening inquiries with reasonable efficiency and efficacy.

Identifying Particulars

Let’s first look at how to establish unique identifying particulars:

1. A date of birth is a key identifier in Brazil. Dates are expressed as day/month/year.

2. Brazil is at times a confusing bureaucracy. For example, each citizen is required to have a Registro Geral (general registry) number, known as a RG number. Although this number appears on an official Brazilian ID card, The RG number is issued at the state level and also by a number of other bodies (such as the armed forces). Therefore, it is not only possible, but also legal, for an individual to have multiple RG numbers. Legal residents of Brazil, who are not citizens, are issued with a Registro Nacional de Estrangeiros (national register of foreigners) number, known as a RNE number. Because the federal police manage this registry at the federal level it is an unique identifier. However, for screening purposes, like the RG, it does not have much value.

3. Anyone that wishes to open a Brazilian bank account, purchase property, buy or lease a car or a cell phone, work for a company or otherwise participate in the local economy must apply for and receive a Cadastro de Pessoa Física (Individual Taxpayer’s number), known as a CPF number. It is worth noting that there is no residency or citizenship requirement for the issuance of a CPF number. This number is, for practical purposes, the only unique government issued document that can be relied upon during the identification process.

4. Brazilians speak Portuguese and a significant percentage of the population is of Portuguese heritage. Women normally adopt part of their husband’s last name upon marriage and children usually take the last name of both father and mother. Thus the child of Maria Silva and José Santos could be Lucas Silva Santos.  However, the child of Lucas Silva Santos would most likely take the grandfather’s name (Santos) and drop the grandmother’s name (Silva). That said, there is not definitive formula, which makes it important to have the mother’s name as well as an individual’s full name as a step in the identification process.

Identity theft is not unheard of in Brazil, but with a full name, mother’s name, CPF and date of birth, identification can be considered definitive.

Types of Records

Let’s now look at how important records are kept in Brazil.

1. Criminal records: Criminal records are kept in separate registries by the federal authorities and by the state authorities. Most “ordinary” crimes are recorded in state registries and federal violations e.g. money laundering and terrorism, recorded in a federal database. It is possible for an individual to request from the federal police, either online or in person, a certificate (Certidão de Antecedentes Criminais) which will attest to the fact that the individual has no federal criminal record. A similar opportunity to request a clearance certificate exists at the state level and some states also offer this service online. It should not be assumed under any circumstances that a federal certificate indicates that an individual does not have a criminal record at the state level and vice versa. In addition a state certificate covers only the single state from which the certificate was obtained.

2. Credit checks: The Brazilian credit reference agency SERASA has been in operation since 1969. In 2007 it was sold to the international credit reference agency Experian. In practice, SERASA is the only reliable source of credit related information in Brazil. A significant percentage of the data in the system pertains to corporations and not consumers. However, it is possible to perform a consumer credit check using the system for anyone with a CPF number (see above). Brazil has experienced periods of hyper-inflation and until recently, it was difficult for many Brazilians to obtain consumer credit. In addition, the late payment of a cell phone bill or a missed car payment may result in all other credit accounts being frozen until the situation is remedied. Therefore, most Brazilians have unblemished credit records and negative findings are normally of significance.

3. Civil litigation searches: The Brazilian legal system derives from Portuguese civil law. It is possible to perform online searches of many court records. However, records should not be considered comprehensive and searches are usually only possible using the name of an individual or corporation. Therefore, a search on a common name such as José Silva would produce many hundreds of results, each of which must be examined separately to determine its potential relevance. In addition, the court system is complex. Each state is divided into judicial districts. Decisions made at the trial court in each state district may be reviewed by the Tribunal de Justiça (Court of Justice) at the state level. Decisions made at the state level may be reviewed and/or overturned by a Tribunal Regional Federal) regional federal court, of which there are five.  There are also two national superior courts the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) and the Supremo Tribunal Federal (Supreme Federal Court). If that isn’t complicated enough a separate court structure exists to adjudicate labor and family issues. It is practically impossible to state that an individual has no relevant civil litigation using normal search methods. However, where civil litigation involves financial matters, for example a dispute over a tax assessment, some information concerning this litigation may be available by performing a credit search (see above).

4. Professional Certification: It is normally possible to perform professional certification verification as long as the name, address and telephone number of the professional body is provided. Note though that many professions are organized at the state level and not at the federal level.

5. Education Verification: It is also normally possible to perform higher education verification as long as the name, address and telephone number of the university faculty is provided. State and federal universities do not normally have a searchable centralized registry of former students and such records are maintained only at the faculty level. Private universities are for the most part a little better organized, but it is worth noting that a small minority of private universities are little more than degree mills. It’s therefore also worth checking that the educational institution itself Is legitimate.

6. Employment Verification: With the name, address and phone number of a former employer, employment verification may be possible. In many cases, the records of former employees are not kept in a searchable form and also, because of Brazilian labor law, employees are almost never fired for cause. Therefore, not much inference should be assumed when it is not possible to confirm prior employment, nor should a “positive” reference be considered in the same way as a similar record might be in the US.

Other points to consider

Any and all records reviewed as part of a background search in Brazil will be in Portuguese. In addition, requests for employment, education or professional verification made in English either in writing or by telephone will likely be ignored or misunderstood. The interpretation of any results should be performed by a fluent Portuguese speaker familiar with the short-form and abbreviations used in the records obtained. At least for now, Google translator is of little assistance!

It’s also worth noting that turnaround times vary from season to season and from location to location. For example in the Brazilian summer (December-March) and most definitely before and during Carnival and the Christmas and New Year period, searches may take several additional weeks to complete. In addition, the north and west of the country normally moves at a slower pace than the south-east, so more time and patience should be allotted.

Final notes

Brazil is developing at great pace. It enjoyed the largest growth in Internet use of any country in the world from 2004-2009, a staggering 270%. The number of Internet users in the country tops 60 million and, 98% of businesses are online. (Source Brazilian Agency for Industrial Development (ABD)). Brazil has also woken up to the need to simplify and streamline the bureaucracy of business and is actively working to address this issue. It is expected that many of the data retrieval and analysis issues referenced above will change for the better in the near future. On the other side of the equation, Brazilian workers enjoy a much higher level of legal protection than their counterparts in the US. For example, the state oil company Petróbras is challenging in federal court, a lower court ruling that it cannot use the results of a criminal record check to determine whether a candidate may be hired. Also, legislators continue to ponder the merits of EU style personal data protection laws, which have already been adopted in a number of other Latin American countries.

Without doubt the challenges facing screening companies operating in Brazil are significant and dynamic. Nevertheless, with local knowledge and determination, those challenges can be overcome and the needs of employers both domestically and internationally can be met.

About the Author:

Robert Jones is Operations Director at Socrates Ltd. For ten years Robert worked for the British government, serving in both investigative and diplomatic roles. After leaving government service, Robert established a successful investigative practice for clients of a major accounting firm in Canada. He later worked as a security and investigative executive for a number of multi-nationals and has specific experience in both the chemical and consumer products sectors. Robert has managed numerous major corporate fraud cases in Latin America.

He has also developed and implemented risk assessment, due diligence and compliance programs for Fortune 100 corporations operating in the region. Robert is a member of the ASIS commission on guidelines and standards and has helped develop reference documents on a wide-range of security and investigative topics.

Rob graduated from University College, London, England with an Honours Degree in Science.

Guest Article by Courtney Shelton Hunt, PhD, PHR, Principal, Renaissance Strategic Solutions (RSS)

Social screening has become increasingly popular. Employers are “googling” job candidates and searching social networking sites as part of their pre-employment background checks, and both employers and external recruiters are ramping up their efforts to source candidates using social networks. The practices have become so widespread that both established and start-up technology companies are creating software and services to facilitate these processes.

Though I have no doubt that social screening will become integrated into the employment practices of most organizations, I think both individuals and organizations should proceed with caution as we figure out the best ways to access and use available data in practical, legally defensible – and ethical – ways.

In this post, I provide a brief overview of social screening processes and share my advice and recommendations for both individuals and organizations. Not everyone will agree with my conservative approach. I welcome other people’s insights, healthy debate, and questions. The more we talk about these issues, the faster we’ll figure out the best way to proceed. Since I am in the US and this post is written from the US perspective, I especially welcome input from folks in other countries.

How Social Screening Works

The basic approach to social background checks is to enter an individual’s name and certain other defining characteristics (e.g., city, current/former employers, schools attended) to narrow the search. These searches can be conducted through search engines like Google or Bing, or on specific platforms like LinkedIn. The results will include any and all information that is publicly available, even from sites that are generally considered private.

Rather than looking for information on specific individuals, social sourcing is designed to identify folks who match a certain set of predefined criteria (e.g., a certified actuary with at least ten years of work experience who has expertise in defined benefit retirement plans and has worked for one of the large consulting firms). These searches, which are generally intended to identify highly-qualified passive candidates (i.e., those not actively looking for a new job), can also be conducted through the major search engines, but they are more likely to be run on specific platforms like LinkedIn.

Because conducting social searches can be cumbersome and time-consuming – as well as risky – technology companies now offer software and services to facilitate the process, primarily through automation. The companies introducing these new tools promote their ability to expedite and streamline the process and provide more accurate and reliable information. With respect to social background checks, they also promote their ability to produce results that are legally compliant – for example, by redacting protected-status information such as age, race, and religion.

Advice for Individuals

Even if you are not actively on the job market, your digital identity and activity can still be found through social searches. Therefore, it’s in your best interests to establish a strong positive digital presence and monitor and manage it regularly. There are myriad ways in which you can promote your professional brand, but for the purposes of this post my advice is limited to how you can protect it.

There are dozens of social media platforms in cyberspace, but LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook are emerging as “the big three” social networking sites. Here are my specific recommendations for these three platforms from a social screening perspective, as well as some general advice:

LinkedIn: Make sure you have a robust profile that focuses on your professional activities, connections, and experience. You certainly want to present yourself in the best possible light, but you should not misrepresent your background, accomplishments, and/or skills. Even though LinkedIn provides the ability to include some limited personal information (e.g., marital status, date of birth), there’s no good professional reason to do so. In addition, you should think carefully about information you share regarding your hobbies, as well as the groups you join, the comments you make, and the items you share. If your network is public, make sure you’re thoughtful about the people you connect with. Always be cognizant of your professional identity and how it’s represented by your information and activities.

Twitter: If you’re going to have a public account (and most people do), make sure your Twitter handle (account name) is professional, your photo/image is appropriate, and your page is designed well. You shouldn’t feel compelled to tweet, but if you do remember that quality is more important than quantity. As with your LinkedIn activity, be aware of how your tweets reflect on your professional identity. Your followers and those you follow are a reflection of you as well. Make sure you’re comfortable with what your Twitter relationships may say about you. If you want to use Twitter for both personal and professional reasons, you may want to consider creating two Twitter accounts to separate and better manage your identities and activities.

Facebook: Although you can use Facebook as part of your career management efforts, most people use it primarily as a personal platform. And though some folks see no problem blending the personal and professional, I advise against it. Specifically, I recommend restricting your network to personal relationships rather than professional ones, and making sure you properly establish your privacy settings so that only certain information is publicly available.

Two things to keep in mind about tight privacy settings, one good and one not so good:

The good news: you can still use Facebook to learn about organizations and opportunities, promote yourself as a professional, and make connections. You don’t have to friend anyone to have a professional exchange with them on Facebook. And commenting on walls or having email exchanges won’t give others access to your profile information.

The not-so-good news: Always remember that even private digital information can become public. Act accordingly.

Additional recommendations:

• Review the photos in which you’ve been tagged, and check the profiles of the friends who’ve tagged you (you may need to have someone else do this). If their profiles are unprotected, you may want to untag yourself. You may even want to ask them to delete the picture(s).
• Review and pare down your list of friends. Unfriend folks you don’t really know, as well as folks you only have a professional relationship with (connect with them on LinkedIn instead).
• Double check the pages you’ve liked and the groups you’ve joined (or been added to). Delete yourself from any pages/groups that could poorly reflect on you as a professional.

Some people may advocate establishing two Facebook accounts, one for personal use and one for private use. Doing so is a violation of Facebook’s terms of use, however, so I advise against it. Instead, leverage a platform like LinkedIn for your professional identity.

Other Social Media Platforms

If you have accounts on other social media sites (e.g., YouTube, Flickr, SlideShare), and/or you have a blog, define where the public/private boundary should be drawn for each and make the necessary changes to your account profiles and/or content. Err on the side of conservatism – something that may seem harmless to you could easily be misinterpreted by someone in a way that’s harmful to your interests.

Google Alerts

Set up Google alerts on your name, similar to what a prospective employer might search on. Make sure you are satisfied – or can at least live with – the information contained in the resulting links. If you don’t like what you find, take whatever action you can to clean up your digital presence.

Think before You Speak

Just as in real life, you will be judged on a whole host of factors in cyberspace. And since digital activity lacks the context and nuance that in-person interactions provide, those judgments – rightfully or wrongly – can be harsher. You should assume that anything you share on a digital platform can become public and remember to:

• Present yourself and your ideas in a positive, civil manner
• Use good grammar and check for typos
• Abide by the explicit and implicit norms of a given platform/community
• Make sure your contributions and comments on public forums are substantive
• Don’t use foul language or make off-color comments (including jokes) that could be construed as offensive
• Know your current employer’s social media and related policies and be sure to abide by them

Advice for Organizations

Although social sourcing and social background checking can be very powerful hiring tools, they are far from being risk-free. In fact, the risks may be even greater because each digital search leaves a discoverable trail and creates new documentation and tracking responsibilities. And just because social screening is a new frontier, that doesn’t mean the old rules (e.g., anti-discrimination laws) don’t apply.

Employers should also be careful with respect to their stance regarding individuals’ responsibility to protect their private information. It’s absolutely true that people are responsible for protecting their own privacy; however, a lot of people haven’t realized that yet, or they haven’t figured out how to do it. They are also dependent on and vulnerable to the actions of others, so they don’t have perfect control. Regardless, employers must accept the fact that they assume responsibility for what they see once they access an individual’s social networking profiles and activities. That responsibility adds another important element of risk.

Of the two screening processes, social sourcing creates fewer risks than social background checks. Generally speaking, employers and recruiters need to establish sourcing search processes that are internally consistent and legally defensible (at federal, state, and local levels). The searches should be based on bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs) and job-specific education, skills and experiences, and should properly address risks such as adverse impact and adverse selection. The processes may also include steps to insure that legally-protected candidate information is not revealed to decision makers too early in the sourcing process.

The risks associated with conducting social background checks include cases of mistaken identity, fake or prank accounts and activity, and inaccurate information. There are also a host of compliance issues to be managed with respect to laws at the federal, state and local levels. These include the non-discrimination laws referenced above, as well as the Fair Credit Report Act (if a third-party is used to conduct the checks) and the Stored Communications Act. And beyond the legal issues are ethical and cultural considerations that organizations should not ignore or be too quick to dismiss.

Before HR professionals, hiring managers and recruiters engage in social background checking, they should ask themselves the following questions:

1. Do we have a legitimate business reason for conducting these searches? If so, what is it? What would we learn from a social background check that we wouldn’t learn from the applicant review and interview process?
2. Would we go to a candidate’s house and hang outside to check their comings and goings, as well as their friends, family & other visitors? Would we go through their garbage? Would we follow them to a cafe, restaurant or bar and listen in on their conversations? If not, why are we engaging in comparable activity in cyberspace?
3. Would we be comfortable with other people conducting similar searches on us, whether they be future employers or employees? Are our digital presences above reproach?
4. If we were judged by the same criteria we’re now considering using to judge others, would we be in our current positions? Would we even be employable?
5. What kind of message do we want to send to current and prospective employees with respect to our regard for their privacy and our perspective on trust?
6. Are we aware of the legal risks associated with social searches? Do we know what the boundaries are, by relevant state (and locality?), and do we have a system for staying within those lines? Are we prepared to address the potential negative consequences if someone concludes we’ve violated their rights in some way?

Concerns over negligent hiring and the desire to do appropriate due diligence before hiring someone are valid arguments for conducting social background checks, but employers shouldn’t let the relatively easy access to digital data lead them to act in ways that are not in their long-term best interests. Employers who are seriously concerned about their negligent hiring risks need to develop global, internally consistent, and legally defensible approaches to conducting background checks. Regardless of whether they choose to do them themselves manually or use software and/or services from a third party, employers should engage in the appropriate due diligence – including consulting internal or outside counsel – to ensure their processes are legally sound at federal, state and local levels.

And since they are a significant source of vulnerability, organizations must make sure that hiring managers are properly educated and trained about what they can and cannot do when sourcing, evaluating and deciding on candidates for specific jobs.

Conclusion

The fundamentals of candidate sourcing and background checking haven’t changed in the Digital Era, but the potential risks and rewards of social screening are game changers. Individuals who misrepresent their qualifications, say/do things that reflect poor judgment, and engage in dubious and illegal activity are much more likely to have their poor choices exposed when information about them is shared in cyberspace. Similarly, employers who have traditionally played fast and loose with the law when sourcing and screening candidates now have a greater chance of having their methods be revealed and challenged. Even employers who don’t intentionally thumb their noses at the law are vulnerable if they don’t develop defensible processes for leveraging the new technologies.

My best advice is to proceed with caution. As I indicated above, however, not everyone will agree with my conservative approach. I welcome other people’s insights, healthy debate, and questions. The more we talk about these issues, the faster we’ll figure out the best way to proceed.

Courtney Hunt, PhD is the principal of Renaissance Strategic Solutions (RSS), a consultancy that helps organizations increase their effectiveness through the design and implementation of innovative and leading-edge human capital and communication strategies and programs. RSS works with organizations of all sizes in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, in a wide range of industries. RSS is the founder and sponsor of the Social Media in Organizations (SMinOrgs) Community. Developing this community and meeting the needs of practitioners with respect to the strategic implications of social media is RSS’s primary focus. In addition to providing training on what social media is and how to use it, Courtney offers her expertise to clients interested in developing social media strategies and creating and implementing programs that leverage social media. She also helps organizations create and implement social media policies and provide training to ensure both managers and employees understand their rights and responsibilities. For more details on RSS and the SMinOrgs Community, go to http://renaissance-solutions.com and http://sminorgs.net.

Courtney has held several human resources and organizational development positions throughout her career, and has also worked in the communications, accounting and information technology fields. She has been a college professor for many years.

Recently there has been a flurry of articles and a lot of hullabaloo about the EEOC announcing it intends to produce guidelines that focus on ‘evidence based’ screening and hiring policies.

Recent EEOC hearings and the agency’s first lawsuit arising from screening practices have provided momentum to the federal government’s move to restrict background screening of applicants’ credit and criminal histories. Acting EEOC Chairman Stuart Ishimaru has been a vocal critic of employee background checks, calling for the agency to issue guidelines within the next 12 to 18 months on how to carry out background checks in a nondiscriminatory manner. Ishimaru says that “Employers can expect the new guidelines to require empirical evidence for the business necessity defense in discrimination cases that arise from screening and hiring practices.” Lots of people are saying the new guidelines are likely to upend hiring policies based on untested assumptions about criminality and workplace behaviors.

Without trying to be to casual about the issue I really see all the uproar as nothing more than the title of a great old jazz song ‘Much To Do About Nothing.’ Human Resource Managers that are providing leadership in their organizations have long known that ‘one size does not fit all’ in the hiring process and that the most effective hiring processes involve using an array of selection techniques.

Dr. Charles Handler states in his recent study, ‘Decision Making With the Hiring Process: Four Key Ingredients for Success,’ that the key factors in a good hiring decision include:

• Relevant predictors of performance
• High quality information
• Information management to support decision making

The relevant predictors of performance may include pre-employment testing (personality and/or skills), handwriting analysis, reference checking, behavioral & structural interviewing, job assessments, job sampling, background screening and probably many others. Like any other business process the best decisions are consistently made when managers have high quality information and the right information. The same principle holds true for making hiring decisions.

So the problem is not background screening as the soothsayers would have us believe, but more so how organizations are using background screening. Any firm that is using background screening as the primary information source to determine who to hire should have their entire Human Resource organization fired.

In the end, employers stand to benefit from the new guidelines, which will likely bring greater clarity to what is now a legal quagmire.1 In addition to the new guidelines, in September 2009 the EEOC filed a lawsuit (EEOC v. Freeman Cos., D. Md., No. 09-CV-02573) in the U.S. district court in Maryland against Freeman Companies, a Dallas-based corporate event-planning company. The EEOC claims that Freeman has used credit histories and criminal background checks to unlawfully “deprive a class of Black, Hispanic and male job applicants of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants because of their race, national origin and sex.” The agency is asking the court to prohibit Freeman from using credit histories and criminal background checks. It’s also requesting that the court order the company to hire applicants who were rejected on the basis of the reports and compensate them with back pay from the time they were rejected.

The EEOC’s position in Freeman is consistent with informal guidance the EEOC issued on Dec. 1, 2005. In this informal discussion letter, the EEOC said that an employer who uses a “blanket” policy of not hiring any applicant who has a history of arrest or convictions violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because such a policy “disproportionately excludes members of certain racial and ethnic groups, unless the employer can demonstrate a business need for use of this criteria.”2 The outcome of the case will provide increased clarity for employers on how to move forward with the use of credit checks and convictions records.

However, I am reminded of the great words of Ralph Waldo Emerson “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,” because effective Human Resource Managers are not using blanket credit checks and no hiring of previously incarcerated persons anyway.

Leslie E. Silverman, partner, Proskauer Rose LLP, in Washington, D.C., stated it very well “avoid blanket applications of credit checks for all positions.” She further stated that “It would be really risky for your company to use a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy,” Silverman said in a March 3, 2010, Society for Human Resource Management webcast. “A blanket application of credit checks [provides] your company with less of an ability to argue that it is job related,” she said. Silverman advised that HR: Be selective on which positions to subject to a credit check. Be able to articulate a rational reason on why a credit check is needed for predicting job performance and related to the business functions. Ensure that your managers use only the information relevant to the job in question that is needed to make an employment decision. Allow your candidates to explain the reasons for negative credit information. “This will place you in a better position to assert that the credit information really was job related and consistent with business necessity,” she said. Good Human Resource Managers already know this and are practicing what Silverman said.3

Best practice in this area is to use credit check in the hiring process for jobs that have been classified as ‘sensitive’ in a job description. Sensitive jobs are those that have been defined as creating high security risk for organizations, thus requiring a higher level of scrutiny of prospective hires to mitigate the risk. Even with the use of ‘sensitive’ jobs as a category employers still need to be careful and apply the job relevance test. For example, most would agree that using a credit check may be very relevant when hiring a Chief Financial Officer, whereas, it is unlikely that that anyone would agree that using this type of check for a garbage truck driver would be appropriate even though both might be defined as sensitive jobs.

Sensitive jobs need to be defined by each organization based on the nature of their industry and jobs, some typical jobs that would likely be defined as sensitive fit into the following categories:

• Jobs that have access to or directly deal with large amounts of funds, valuables or have signature approval for such items, e.g., C-Suite positions, senior financial positions, Purchasing Manager, tellers, cashiers, etc.
• Jobs that have wide access to company resources that if mismanaged could cause severe damage to the organization, e.g., Information Technology positions with wide access to the organizations information network, janitors that have master keys to company facilities, etc.
• Jobs that have significant access to personal identifiable information and/or impact on the well being of the organizations human resources, e.g., Security, HR, Safety/Occupational Health, Medical/Psychological professionals, etc.
• Jobs that involve the use of equipment or tools that if used in an appropriately manner could cause severe harm to employees, the organizations resources or the public, e.g., truck drivers, surgeons, airplane pilots, armed security professionals, etc.

In addition to identifying ‘sensitive jobs’ the Human Resources department should fully understand that the purpose of using credit checks is to identify ‘red flags,’ not to automatically exclude. Once a red flag is identified it is information that should be pursued with the applicant to determine the relevance of the information. For example, if someone has unpaid debt, is it because of a divorce, an uninsured illness, or perhaps an unlucky turn in the housing market? If there are ‘red flags’ the best practice is to give the candidate a chance to explain. There may be a good explanation or it is even possible that the information in the credit report may be wrong. This step is important to ensure compliance with the Fair Credit Report Act which requires that employers provide applicants with a copy of the credit report, a copy of their rights under the law before taking adverse action and the opportunity to explain or dispute negative information.4

As is true with many of the labor laws and particularly anti-discrimination requirements the laws that are passed are generally catching up to progressive human resource practices and forcing the organizations that are using outdated, out of step and improper practices to get on board with contemporary human resource ways of doing things. Thus, for progressive organizations all this talk about ‘evidence based’ hiring is as I stated earlier ‘Much To Do About Nothing,’ while for less progressive organizations it will mean many changes in their hiring practice and putting aside archaic ways of doing things. For them, let the chips fall where they may.

About the author:

W. Barry Nixon, SPHR is a recognized expert in background screening and manages the #1 online directory for finding a background screening firm, PreemploymentDirectory.com. He is also the author of the recent book ‘Background Screening and Investigations: Managing Hiring Risk from a HR and Security Perspective’ and the ‘Comprehensive Guide for Selecting a Background Screening Firm.’ His company also published The Employment Screening Journal.

Endnotes:

1. Fay Hansen, Special Report on Background Checking – Burden of Proof, Workforce Management, February 2010, p.27-33.

2. Roy Maurer, Federal Lawmakers, Enforcers Set Sights on Background Screening, Legal Issues, SHRM.

3. Fay Hansen, Special Report on Background Checking – Burden of Proof, Workforce Management, February 2010, p.27-33.

4. Credit reports and the hiring process: The value (and risk) to HR professionals, EmployeeScreenIQ, www.employeescreen.com.

By Eyal Ben Cohen, Managing Director, Verifile Limited

Editor’s Note: Eyal is an authority on all things related to global background screening with particular expertise on the subject of international diploma mills and fraudulent academic credentials.  His company, Verifile Limited is partnered with EmployeeScreenIQ to support our global screening initiatives.

International background screening is rising in prominence and is becoming ever more critical to businesses as borders open up and the battle to hire the best talent intensifies. This article provides an overview of international background screening and an insight into the importance of conducting thorough international employee checks correctly and legally.

So picture this scenario, Mark has been appointed to a new senior role and his employer wants to check his background. He has had an international education and career path which has enabled him to work abroad. He studied in Switzerland and Germany and enjoyed a successful career in Australia, Malaysia and the UK before moving to the US. This will not be a completely unusual scenario to many readers. But how can we effectively check Mark’s credentials to ensure he has been honest and truthful in his application for the role?

Evidently we are going to have to screen Mark in each of those countries mentioned, but how should we do this? Many screening companies are experts on the rules and regulations of their own countries, but many do not know to what extent regulations or background checks differ abroad. Before starting any checks we need to have a clear understanding of the local laws and cultures in each country. For example, in the US criminal records are obtained from county and Federal courts, but it is impractical to conduct a national check by going to every court in the US. But this does not mean that the rest of the world uses the same process. On the other hand in the UK, national checks are possible through official government bodies set up for this purpose, and indeed by law it is illegal to obtain criminal records in any other way, for example by trying to copy the US approach by going to a local court.

When faced with an international check, there are six key areas to consider:

Consent and Release of Information

This is not as straightforward as would seem at first sight. Consent forms need to have a dual purpose. They need to show how information will be treated and who will have access to it. For example it is illegal under European Data Protection laws to send personal information outside EU borders unless certain criteria have been met (e.g. if the recipient of the information is in the US, they would need to be Safe Harbor certified). Another situation could arise where consent is needed to allow third parties other than the company ordering the checks or the screening provider to review the results of a background check. For example, if an employment agency orders the checks but then wishes to share the results with the actual employers.

Criminal Records

Each country has its own system for collecting and releasing criminal records data. For many, carrying out a national search is perfectly feasible. However, it’s important to take local regulations into consideration. In Malaysia criminal data is only accessible for specific positions such as security. Yet in Australia and the UK, basic information can be released for any role, and for those working in specific positions such as the financial or health sectors, even more details can be accessed. In Germany though criminal records can only be released to the candidate, and third parties are not allowed to request the Certificate of Good Conduct on behalf of the candidate.

Credit Checks

Rules on the release of consumer credit information also differ from country to country. In the US, obtaining credit information through a credit bureau is normal, legal and widely understood (even some states like Oregon are now banning its use for employment screening). Yet in countries such as Italy or Malaysia, credit information is not available for pre-employment screening purposes even though credit bureaus do operate there. In the UK, South Africa and Australia, credit bureaus will only provide for pre-employment screening purposes basic information on court judgments and bankruptcies. Credit information is therefore restricted in those countries to lenders and similar organizations. In fact, guidelines published by the Information Commissioner in the UK prohibit companies that have access to consumer credit information due to their business from using it for recruitment purposes. In many other countries there are no credit bureaus at all to provide any type of financial information on consumers.

Employment Verification / Employment References

The US approach to employment verification is to carry out a verbally conducted check or to use online services (such as The Work Number) to obtain employment information. This is quite often very different to the rest of the world. In Europe, written requests for employment references are preferred. Many employers will actually refuse to discuss these matters over the phone and ask instead to receive a written response. In other European countries such as France and Germany employers provide confirmation letters to all leavers and therefore do not have to deal with requests for verifications or references.

Education

The National Clearing House provides the US with the ability to check the majority of academic degrees. A similar system is available in South Africa. By contrast in Australia institutions tend to include graduate information on their university websites. Elsewhere, for many universities, a written request is the most effective way to conduct a check and to source additional revenue too. In India and China, a copy of the degree certificate is essential to help confirm it is legitimate. In many African countries due to the lack of infrastructure, such as electricity and telecommunications, one has to visit the university in person in order to get confirmation of the degree.

There are thousands of diploma mills around the world that do not have the legal right to award academic degrees. Therefore it is important that the recognition status of the institution is also checked. A degree or diploma mill is an institution that offers substandard or fraudulent degrees in exchange for payment and very little else. Verifying that a candidate graduated from a diploma mill means as much as checking that the candidate paid for their certificate but are not necessary qualified as such.
Supporting the global workforce

As you can see, screening internationally has a number of challenges. Not only are there different procedures and policies in each country, there are language barriers too. It is easy to see how this can become a time intensive and lengthy process. But as we continue to develop as a global workplace, it is critical to understand cultures and laws in other countries so that we continue to be effective and earn respect for the comprehensive service we provide today’s organisations.

Eyal Ben Cohen is the Executive Director of Verifile Limited.  Verifile Limited is a leading provider of global CV verification and background screening services.

Editors Note: We like to celebrate innovation and thought leadership in the human resources world even if it doesn’t address background checks and employment screening. Robert Schepens, CEO of Champion Staffing recently wrote the book, “The Great Workplace 2.0” and we think you’ll enjoy this excerpt as well as the overall concept of tomorrow’s great workplace.

Excerpts from the Book: The Great Workplace 2.0™ by Robert Schepens

A Great Workplace functions at a higher level of purpose and productivity and is a more interesting place to work than other “normal” organizations. It attracts great talent and it attracts great results…for the customer. It extends its intelligent self-interests beyond the executive suite into the depths of its own employment, into the rich treasure troves of vendor knowledge, the community and to other “Participants”. It reaches out to the crowd within its community for solutions. It simply does not adhere to the old model of corporate hierarchy and held power. The Great Workplace of today invites being benchmarked, but is always one step beyond being so static that its definitions are fluid.

The Great Workplace 2.0 is in fact a fluid community. It interacts with its participants and creates communication avenues that foster the immediate interaction of questions, ideas, opinions and therefore solutions or opportunities. It has substantially removed the obstacles to Open Innovation and discouraged most linear or legacy ideals. It uses knowledge gained through more “open-invitation” processes and feeds upon the rich knowledge and input from all sources that touch the organization. It is both created on and by purpose and has the ability to change its tactical or strategic directions quickly. The corporate legacy model focused upon impressive-sounding “Mission Statements” and “shareholder return” (regardless of what that meant). In many circumstances, businesses were operated not because they really wanted to, but because they “should”. They sustained themselves because there were stock certificates to support.

That old model was built upon relative size and the ability to do things for ITSELF on a grand scale: benefits, bonuses, unions, giveaways, charitable donations, dividends and having employees see their company in print or in TV ads. If you work for Shell Oil or for General Motors you must work for a great company. We feted big companies as “great” workplaces because they flowed forth with great benefits, nominally gave away their services as charity and in general treated employees as cats in Pharaoh’s chambers. Just the mention of “I work for National City Bank” meant something impressive. It was akin to saying that you attended Notre Dame while the Fighting Irish were a national football powerhouse. The “aura” was the value. The old model created strong Tribes and the reputation of that Tribe became the recipient of all things corporate.

But while employers reveled in being big and powerful, the very nature of WORK, who does it, where, why and with whom has been changing dramatically and forever. The “Social Contract” with employers and workers has changed. The “workplace” is no longer just hired employees and employer. It is no longer a space confined to a legacy corporate structure. And that has dramatically changed the way people and executives look at Great Places To Work, and in turn Great Workplaces.

The focus, in a highly productive company, has shifted to PURPOSE: both from an individual point of view and a “corporate viewpoint”. Walls and structures are coming down or are being made visible. Old lines of communications (Such as “Command and Control”) have been jettisoned and the concept of “New Ideas” is no longer just defined as internal. “Teamwork” is now more important than ever, but only when it has “Collaboration” at its foundation. “Teamwork” can be interpreted as a group of similarly trained or deployed people working for a single mission (Basketball Players: A linear orientation). “Collaboration” is geared toward having disparate talents working for a single outcome, through different purposes (ex: the entire organization including the players: Non-linear input).

The core issue of this is that we are still celebrating and making plans around the old model of great workplaces while the revolution representing what makes a Great Workplace / Great Place to Work has been quietly stealing our best people, their minds and talents, and vendors, just like John Galt in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

The purpose of this treatise is simple: WHILE IT IS HAPPENING, show what core changes there are in Great Workplaces so that start-ups, small and mid-size companies can by example, grow in a healthy and sustainable fashion and return to our economy great dividends in revenue, value, innovations and sustainability. The big companies will get bailouts (ever hear of a $10 million ASV company getting a federal bailout in 2009?) and due to having created market niches for certain products (Jet Engines, Gasoline, Money/Branded Banks, Hospitals) will continue to survive. They will provide workplaces for people who want “big”, who want to work for “Mom”. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH A BIG Great Workplace. Our work will show what is happening in the companies that employ 95% of our workers and create new jobs and businesses that aren’t in the news or on TV: The Great Workplace 2.0.

This document is a fluid expose’ on the topic, as the concept of employment and what makes The Great Workplace has now taken on the characteristic of morphing at “The Speed Of Thought”.

The 9 Fundamental Attributes of The Great Workplace 2.0:

Before we dive into each attribute, it needs to be noted that to be a Great Workplace/ Place to Work, an organization does NOT have to have each characteristic at equal levels. Based upon the nature of the organization, the products or services it offers, and the reason for the organization’s existence, the levels of the 8 can be different from one to another. Each attribute has deep explanatory sections to it, to further emphasize the Why and How. In the end, it may seem that there are at least 50 components to The Great Workplace 2.0, but our focus will be on the few that make the majority of the difference.

We have looked at the fundamental components of The Great Workplace as “Acquirable and Repeatable”: Ones that can be built into a new company or that can be achieved by an existing company.

1. The organization has a meaningful “Corporate Statement Of Purpose” that is the foundation for corporate culture and therefore provides meaning to employment and work opportunities. This statement is driven by the affects the organization has on their customers and the role each “Participant” can play in that directive.

2. A Great Workplace is committed to fostering a collaborative, productive, engaging and rewarding culture that encompasses customers, prospective employees, employees, vendors, “Participants” (Stake/ Shareholders) and the community. The organization practices collaboration to the extent that “Internal and External” no longer have a distinction, and it recognizes that “Community” has no true boundaries.

3. The organization, through its culture and flexibility, provides for an intelligent work-life balance for all participants. This attribute can be defined individually and as a group but is the product of the organization’s purpose.

4. The organization provides for enterprise sustainability as part of their core culture and is committed to educating the employee body, vendors, participants, customers and the community about their practices. “Sustainability” is defined in flexible terms for Ecology, Environment, Volunteerism, and Civic Engagement/ Charitable Offerings with the Community, Reputation, and Internships from the Community and Product Impact to future generations.

5. The organization has a financial focus on being “Intelligently Profitable”. This qualitative focus is founded in sustainability, the Values within their purpose and a view of “Intelligent Self Interest” for the organization and all participants. “Intelligent Self Interest” is defined as Self Interest that stands the test of “how will my plan affect others?” It defines who the customer REALLY is.

6. The organization provides a sensible and tuned foundation of health and welfare benefits so that all employees can focus on their job purpose.

7. The Great Workplace has an operating plan to integrate Jobs, Careers, Participants and the Community in their (Organizational and Individual) pursuit of accomplishing their purpose. Intent or statements are not enough. This operating plan embraces the strategy and tactics of “Purposeful Convergence of Knowledge” where technology is employed, not for the sake of technology (which becomes a distraction) but for the customer, and where obstacles to the purpose can be eliminated or minimized.

8. Top Management shows and invokes visible, tangible leadership that directly supports the organization’s Statement of Purpose. This leadership preserves the integrity of the organization’s purpose, and is both duplicatable and repeatable…at any level.

9. The organization emphasizes buying locally and promotes our (its) region as a great place to live and work.

The ability of an organization to be “Great” should never rely solely upon being “Big” (Cashflow) or Rich. “Great” is a value, and VALUES can never be bought.

Jim Collins in “Built To Last” defines it this way: “It is dedicated to the idea that true greatness comes in direct proportion to the passionate pursuit of a purpose beyond money”.

The above definitions are only a part of an introduction to the entire research results for what makes The Great Workplace of today and tomorrow. The Great Workplace 2.0 is NOT static. It is updated and changed on a regular basis as we discover other fundamentals that are forming the benchmarks of success. We invite your comments and insights, directly to the author.

The Great Workplace 2.0 ™ is an ongoing research project sponsored by Champion Personnel System, Inc, A Job Near Home.com and Work Is Good, Inc. All content © 2009 A Job Near Home™, The Great Workplace™, Work Is Good™.

For more information: Robert Schepens; 216.823.5900. ras@ajobnearhome.com, ras@championjobs.com

By Caitrin O’Sullivan, iCIMS Public Relations Coordinator

While it may be a turbulent time, all is not for naught. There are many ways to not only weather this storm, but to actually leverage it to better prepare for the inevitable pick-up of the economy.

Drowning in a sea of resumes?

The number one complaint we’re hearing from hiring managers and recruiters is that they are being absolutely inundated with resumes, to the point that they simply cannot handle the overload.

A recent study showed that while the number of jobs posted online has increased greatly in the past ten years, the number of applicants online has also increased, but at a much faster and greater rate. Therefore, even before the recession, there were far more applicants than job postings, and that effect has become even more prominent since the downturn began.

A larger applicant pool may seem like a great thing at first. However, if you review a resume for an average of 45 seconds, and you receive 700 resumes for one posted position (which is not at all an uncommon number when unemployment is at a soaring rate) it would take one recruiter almost 9 solid hours to get through that stack. Additionally, more candidates does NOT equal more *qualified* candidates. The amount of true talent may stay the same, while the amount of noise and detractors grow.

One best practice that recruiters can follow is to utilize an Applicant Tracking System (ATS). While most medium to large organizations already have an ATS, or Talent Platform, in place, it is crucial in this economy that you actually leverage that technology and all that it has to offer. Not only does it make it easier to search and screen candidates, doing away with filing cabinets and email folders, but it also ensures that no top talent will get lost in the shuffle by having all of information centrally stored.

A particularly useful element of a Talent Platform is the Requisition Management tools included, which are crucial to help HR professionals weed through the influx of resumes. These easy-to-use tools enable users to create screening and “knock out” questions that trim down the unmanageable candidate pool considerably. This allows you to devote more of your time to looking at qualified candidates, as opposed to wasting resources wading through non-qualified candidates, all the while maintaining EEO and OFCCP compliance. This helps better allocate time and money, and also helps HR teams create and maintain more consistent hiring processes.

Automating and streamlining the applicant tracking process, including everything from resume collection to EEO reporting and more, undoubtedly saves overwhelmed recruiters’ time, but also makes the process more efficient and enables more accurate and detailed reporting to provide greater visibility into the organization’s bottom line.

You may think with decreased hiring, a Talent Platform would become obsolete. But any flexible Talent Platform can match your needs in lean times, while maintaining the ability to grow with your organization once hiring initiatives resume. Implementing and leveraging a flexible Talent Platform to help you meet long-term recruitment goals is a common best practice of top organizations.

Where is your top talent coming from and where are you wasting your money?

There is certainly a plethora of available applicants when many millions are unemployed, but again, this does not directly correlate with the quality of that talent. Best of breed HR professionals use a period of reduced hiring as an opportunity to learn more about where their most valuable talent is consistently coming from.

Do your best candidates come from job boards or a corporate career site? Do large boards like Monster and CareerBuilder yield the best results, or do niche boards perform better? Are you spending too much on third party vendors or are they consistently providing top talent? These are the kinds of vital questions that hiring managers and recruiters must understand, and now is the time to determine the answers to these questions in order to help drive business outcomes.

Without the ability to identify the most effective means of acquiring talent, recruiters shift their resources around each year with little sense of direction. A Talent Platform gives users access to best-in-breed source tracking and source effectiveness reporting tools, allowing users to identify ways to draw talent to their organization. These robust sourcing capabilities give recruiters the edge they need to bring in both active and passive candidates.

Many organizations rely on outside agencies to assist in the staffing and recruiting process. A Talent Platform provides a secure forum to manage the communications with those agencies, allowing you to control the openings and the agencies to deliver and track their best candidates. Automated Vendor Manager tools track the source of all candidates, allowing you to accurately report vendor performance and their individual effectiveness.

If you’re not taking advantage of a downturn to improve your sourcing and vendor management, you should be. Again, benefits include being able to:

• Run easy Source Effectiveness reports for key business metrics and to help create cost-effective recruitment advertising campaigns
• Gain visibility into your talent pool by viewing each candidate’s source
• Develop reliable strategies for finding the best candidates for your company
• Manage vendor discussions on interviews, qualifications & screenings
• Easily identify the best sources of candidates
• Streamline communication with numerous vendors

So make the most of your resources! Now is the time to assess which sources are supplying you with quality candidates so that you can allot your time and financial resources accordingly, putting you in an ideal position for hiring increases.

If you had to fill 50 jobs tomorrow, would you be ready?

Maybe you wouldn’t have to fill 50 and maybe the drastic uptick won’t be that drastic. Even so, as the economy picks up, no organization wants to be caught flat-footed, where jobs need to be filled quickly and efficiently, and they’re left suffering what is known as the scramble effect.

While the applicant pool is still large, it is important to capitalize on that and be constantly building your talent pipeline. Do you have many jobs open at the moment? Maybe not. But don’t let that deter you from accepting applications, bringing people in for interviews and constantly looking for talent to add to this pipeline.

Using powerful candidate relationship management (CRM) tools help organizations remain in constant communication with candidates, both passive and active, throughout the process.

Automated CRM allows users to develop relationships with contacts through branded HTML postcards and invitations with corporate logos, graphics, and more. Additionally, you can leverage the system to send out coupons and other incentives that keep candidates interested in your organization.

These activities help companies establish a pool of talent from which they can easily engage, track and search from anywhere in the world.

There are a number of additional benefits of using CRM tools, such as:

* Build lasting relationships with passive & active candidates by always remaining in contact

* Reduce turnover by hiring better qualified candidates the first time around

* Create unique groups of contacts for targeted CRM campaigns

All hiring managers and recruiters believe in building and maintaining a talent pipeline, but best of breed HR professionals recognize this time period as a prime opportunity to make the most of top talent out there.

So see the silver lining in the cloud! Even if unemployment is high and there is less recruiting to do, there is still an influx of candidates to manage, and if this is done effectively and efficiently, you will be well-prepared for an economic turnaround. Implement these three best practices and don’t just weather a downturn, but take advantage of it to advance your company’s bottom line.

Caitrin O’Sullivan (Caitrin.osullivan@icims.com) is the Public Relations Coordinator at iCIMS, the third-largest provider of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) talent acquisition solutions and an Inc. 500 honoree focused on solving corporate business issues through the implementation of easy-to-use web-based software solutions. iCIMS’ Talent Platform, the industry’s premier Talent Platform, enables organizations to manage their entire talent lifecycle from applicant tracking through onboarding and beyond through a single web-based application. With more than 750 clients worldwide, iCIMS is one of the largest and fastest-growing [talent management system](http://www.icims.com/content/solutions) providers in the space. To learn more about how iCIMS can help your organization, visit http://icims.com or view a free online demo of the iCIMS Talent Platform at http://www.icims.com/tour/1053/2450](http://www.icims.com/tour/1053/2450

. . . but it’s ok to flaunt just a little.

Editor’s Note: We are huge fans of Lisa Kaye and her company greenlightjobs. Not only is Lisa an entrepenuer and saavy business owner, she is a seasoned HR executive with experience leading some of the most recognized brands in the entertainment industry. We also think she’s a great writer. Enjoy! NF

There is so much competition in the market place at the moment, with many former senior level executives vying for jobs far beneath their skills and qualifications it’s become a virtual (no pun intended even though we are an online recruitment company), feeding frenzy!

So how do you warn senior level execs who are being out-placed and replaced on a daily basis of the potential hazards of the job market mine field currently inhabiting our world?

Well, the first thing you tell them is not to lie about their qualifications and skills or “dummy down” their resumes in hopes of getting a look-see from some eager and hopeful recruiter looking to make a placement. This market is tough, nothing new there. In fact, most job markets even when there are an abundance of jobs available, offer its own unique challenges from which we must navigate. When jobs are a plenty, the executive is courted like a debutante at a cotillion ball. Recruiters, employers, hiring managers alike pull out all the stops and throw in more perks to entice, seduce and eventually overcome their prey-The Candidate. When jobs are scare however, there is no room for pleasantries and it’s a game of survival of the fittest. The once coveted executive must now become savvy, slick and all so focused on how and when they will be enticed, seduced and ultimately overtaken by a job offer!

So what’s the best approach to take in re-entering the job market, vying for not so senior jobs, when your resume reads like a “Who’s Who” in Executive Leadership and you were once listed on the “Top 50 Most Influential People to Watch?”

Well, if you are lucky enough to take some time off and “float” a little, that’s great. But most people, particularly the highly successful and creative executives need and really want to get back into the job market as soon as their feet hits the pavement with severance agreement, non-compete and pink slip in hand (no one gives those out anymore by the way). The best approach for the senior exec is to tailor a “resume” that reads like a professional bio and focus on overall accomplishments and leadership skills that have made them a success to date.

An executive resume plain and simple can either scare the hell out of a recruiter or get dumped in a pile somewhere under a two-day old cup of coffee or in an online folder marked “Executive” on a recruiter’s desktop. Resumes are nice, and “the standard” but we are moving towards a new age of technology and communication that encourages self-promotion, loquaciousness and brand savvy. One-page bios highlighting individual and team accomplishments, an online ad, a video promotion, are some new ways one needs to think about how best to flaunt and stand out. Creating a blog site, tweeting, and other social media outlets offers an executive to “boast” who you and what they are in a bold new way.

Communication and recruitment advertising is not just for job posting boards or companies seeking to promote opportunities, but can, and I foresee will be used for individuals to promote and brand themselves as well. With virtual walls crumbling as they did in Berlin, we need to seek out the new and to change the way we look at self-promotion and abuse the web and all forms of media to advertise and to successfully promote.

So it’s not so much a lie but more like a “spin” on how senior execs can take advantage of what the college kids seem to have down, and sell yourself like you are your own business-oh and it’s always best not to wait until you need to a job to start the promotion but to get out there while you still have a job.

Lisa Kaye is the President & CEO of greenlightjobs, an exciting new business launched in September 2002. Kaye has attracted the attention of top entertainment companies to her increasing stable of current and prospective clients including, G4 MEDIA, MICROSOFT X BOX, DISNEY, ABC MEDIA GROUPS, SCRIPPS NETWORKS, FOCUS 360, DREAMWORKS and others.

Kaye gained her reputation as a seasoned executive specializing in Human Resources, formerly as Senior Vice President of Human Resources for E! Entertainment Networks, E! Online and the style network. Kaye is a “creative leader with strong organizational skills and strategic vision.” Known in the industry for having a “proven track record,” Kaye is a “team player” with a “fearless” approach to handling business issues within organizations. Prior to her position with E!, Kaye was the National Human Resources Director for Ticket- master, Inc. and has held human resource management positions at Lifetime Cable Television and ABC Television Networks in New York. Fun Fact: Lisa sang in the Children’s Chorus at the Metropolitan Opera and loves to write children’s stories.