High-performance Workforce

Kim Lerner recently published an entry about legal considerations when conducting background checks. The article about negligent hiring started me thinking about the apparent widespread use of such lawsuit prevention screens when employers routinely neglect to use screens to maximize individual and organizational performance.

Preventing workplace violence and other terrible events are important, but it should be kept in mind that they are outlier events. Humans often over-estimate the likelihood of crime based on over-exposure in the media, believing that they are much more likely to be a victim than is reasonable. Additionally, the average award estimates for negligent hiring do not seem well documented and neither do the percentage of lawsuits lost. I have no doubt that they are fairly high, but I would prefer to see documentation of the cost and loss estimates from researchers rather than employment screening vendors.

These negligent hires do occur. Academics have largely ignored this problem because the rarity of workplace violence makes the such studies difficult. Often, academics (such as Harris & Keller (2005)) more or less advocate hiring of ex-felons in order to reduce recidivism. In their article “Ex-offenders need not apply”, Harris and Keller found that:
(a) several risk factors must be present in order to be predictive – so one factor, such as a previous conviction, was not predictive of future behavior;
(b) criminals do not “specialize” in one criminal act and are not likely to be repeat the same crime;
(c) ex-criminals are more likely to have cognitive, personality, and social deficits that make them questionable performers;
(d) criminal background checks are haphazard due to a patchwork of state laws;
(e) research does not support the notion that ex-criminals perpetrate workplace crimes more often than “normal” employees; and
(f) placement of multiple ex-criminals together was more likely to induce criminal behavior.

Organizations have clearly come to the conclusion that mitigating risk by implementing background checks is often necessary, much like drug tests. However, instead of merely testing employees for drugs and searching their background for criminality, HR departments should make the case that the prevention of lawsuits and accidents are not any more important that screening to maximize individual performance. Legal departments have a responsibility to reduce risk, and HR departments do as well – but HR departments also have a responsibility to maximize the effectiveness of the workforce.

If your company is considering implementing such background checks, make sure to argue that it is not only important to screen out the duds, but to select for your next superstar. Your company’s future may depend on it.