Sterling’s survey among Dutch HR professionals shows that 63% of HR professionals perform a screening in the context of a full-time position. But when it comes to applying for a part-time positions, that percentage drops down to a mere 37%. That in itself is noteworthy, because whether the position is part-time or not that person has the same access to the systems and information as any of the full-time staff.
“Screening should be important whether an employee is working full-time or part-time.”
The lack of screening checks for part-time jobs puts companies at risk, warns Michel Franken, Regional Director at Sterling. “It is quite strange that companies make such a distinction between full-time and part-time colleagues. Because they often have access to the same things. The potential consequences of incorrect recruitment and screening are, therefore, just as damaging in both cases. Screening should be important whether an employee is working full-time or part-time.”
The majority of companies (60%) carry out the screenings of their new employees for a simple reason: they want to be in accordance with legislation and regulations. However, 77% cite the safety of colleagues and customers, making it an even more important factor. 51% cite the prevention of unnecessary recruitment costs for a bad hire. While 40% cite the possible damage to reputation caused by a bad hire.
“In addition to being able to trust a new colleague with sensitive data or a safe key, you also have to protect your current colleagues and customers”, Franken says. “By performing a standard screening, you as an HR department show that you do not only measure safety in euros. Our survey shows that this is also the most important reason.”
No time to save time
More than half of the HR professionals Sterling spoke to named a ‘lack of time’ as the reason why no background research is conducted. After all, in today’s tight job market, HR departments are spending every available minute on finding talent. That is why they regularly move ahead with an application processes sans screening. A supposed invasion of privacy on the candidate’s side is also part of the reasons given by HR professionals, even though organisations are often mandated to do so.
“A screening does not have to take months: some checks can be done within 24 hours.”
“The notion that a screening takes a lot of time is an error of judgment”, says Franken. “A screening does not have to take months. Some checks can be done within 24 hours. That process wil end up saving you time you otherwise would have spent on doing it yourself. In addition, compare it with the process of hiring, guiding and saying goodbye to an unchecked and unsuitable candidate; that will ultimately cost a lot more time and money.”
Want to keep reading?
Stay up-to-date with the latest developments in the field of total talent acquisition with the ToTalent newsletter. Every month you will receive the latest news from the profession in your mailbox. Click here to sign up.