Who has checked an applicants qualifications?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michelle Howat on May 19, 2008 at 12:12

I have only been asked once about verifying qualifications, just recently actually which I think is coincidental rather than a result of the Immigration situation. In that instance the organisation was happy to undertake this themselves - just wanted to make sure it didn't slip through the cracks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Jacobs on May 26, 2008 at 13:12

Good question Keith. Some organisations like the Ministry of Health conduct qualification checks.

What I would like to know is whether a recruitment agency was involved in Mary Anne Thompson's recruitment to the Immigration Service? I can remember DoL going out to tender for the Deputy Secretary roles and a recruitment agency doing a big spread in the newspaper. Poor wee Millennium People, who were publicly outed by our nation's highest powers in their role with John Davey's recruitment. What's the difference in this latest case?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Mockett on May 26, 2008 at 14:29

Hi Paul,
I knew (slightly) the Millennium People people. I thought they were harshly done by at the time, but there are not doubt a few who think otherwise. Ruined their business anyway.

The difference here is that I think Mary Anne Thompson got there as part of a progression thru the public service, as she was originally hired in the public sector back in the 1990s. Which raises another question, if she misrepresented the PhD but had proven herself suitable for the job thru her previous work then it would not be necessary to check the qualification would it? And it's not as if the qualification was a technical one directly related to the role, unlike say a surgeon. BTW: I have an Economics degree (not a PhD from LSE though) so we won't say anything about the suitability of the qualification for the job!

However, misrepresenting the qualification is dishonest and would be a breach of trust..therefore...out she goes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin Crysell on October 1, 2008 at 14:24

In my experience organisations only ask for qualification or other checks when the position requires it, for example a CA qaulification for a CFO, or a criminal check for a person handling money, or civil engineering qual for bridge builder, etc. In my experience, when role is recruited on a contingent basis that client is responsible for checking and the terms and conditions reflect this. Alternatively retained search work may have this included as part of the service offering.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Debbie Booth on October 1, 2008 at 19:39

In my recruitment management roles for large organisations I have always advocated for thorough screening, including quals checks. It is interesting how many people provide dishonest information on their CV's. Even if the qual is not technically required for the role, it does bring the candidates honesty and integrity into question if they have lied. There is a company called Staffchecks who did some research on this and the stats re numbers of candidates who misrepresent their quals was alarming.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Warren Young on October 1, 2008 at 20:03

The disciplinary action was for the breach of the Sate Sector Code of Conduct, not the absence of claimed qualification. Whether you can perform the role has nothing to do with the decision materiality, namely lack of integrity and inethical behaviour.

Keith Mockett said:

Hi Paul,
I knew (slightly) the Millennium People people. I thought they were harshly done by at the time, but there are not doubt a few who think otherwise. Ruined their business anyway.

The difference here is that I think Mary Anne Thompson got there as part of a progression thru the public service, as she was originally hired in the public sector back in the 1990s. Which raises another question, if she misrepresented the PhD but had proven herself suitable for the job thru her previous work then it would not be necessary to check the qualification would it? And it's not as if the qualification was a technical one directly related to the role, unlike say a surgeon. BTW: I have an Economics degree (not a PhD from LSE though) so we won't say anything about the suitability of the qualification for the job!

However, misrepresenting the qualification is dishonest and would be a breach of trust..therefore...out she goes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Jacobs on October 2, 2008 at 9:15

Hi Martin - you make an interesting point regarding retained search versus contingent and the responsibility for checking quals. Why should the service offering and quality of that service (depth of checking etc) be less for contingent, especially when the client is paying a higher fee for a contingent arrangement? I believe that some onus needs to be placed on the recruiter, as there should be adequate pre-screening as part of any service (regardless of whether it is highly competitive recruitment or not).

I would like to know what other recruiters do in this regard and whether this should sit with the employer or not.

Martin Crysell said:

In my experience organisations only ask for qualification or other checks when the position requires it, for example a CA qaulification for a CFO, or a criminal check for a person handling money, or civil engineering qual for bridge builder, etc. In my experience, when role is recruited on a contingent basis that client is responsible for checking and the terms and conditions reflect this. Alternatively retained search work may have this included as part of the service offering.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin Crysell on October 2, 2008 at 10:45

I don’t think anyone would argue that pre-screening is an important part of any recruitment process, however I think what were talking about here is validation. In the same way that you would validate competencies via reference checking and possibly psychometrics, you would in some instances validate the qualifications or background of the candidate, but not in every instance. The greater the potential for risk, the greater the emphasis on validation. For example, why would you bother checking someone acheived the old University Entrance when their experience supersedes it? In some instances you may check an international qualification and find it is true and accurate, only to find you have no basis for comparison anyway. My point is I dint think it is a simple case of saying a recruiter is responsible for checking every qualification or every other detail shown in a resume is accurate, because frankly, you cant. However, if you claimed to have checked a qualification but had not, then you deserve what you get.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon Telfer on October 2, 2008 at 13:54

I'm not sure anyone caught Sunday on TVNZ on Sunday night (funnily enough) http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/484445/2108810

Enterprise Recruitment were featured for having placed a Romanian doctor in NZ who had a chequered past including threatening his wife with a knife.

The MD for Enterprise Barry O'Brien wouldn't appear on camera and was filmed walking to his car in the carpark and refusing to answer questions.

They said in a statement that they'd conducted 7 or 8 reference/qualification checks on the individual.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carey Marsh on October 17, 2008 at 14:01

I have recently started with Enterprise, managing the Technical Division and following the item on Sunday I asked and was told what happened:

The Enterprise Medical team sourced the doctor,

They completed 7 reference checks on him with past employers, colleagues and medical authorities
His qualifications were verified as being real with the relevant Czechoslovakian authorities
He was submitted to the DHB for a junior role which was to be closely supervised.

The Hospital involved apparently also did their own reference checks as they are required to do.
The District Health Board also did their own set of reference checks as they are required to do.

For some unknown reason the Hospital then appointed him to a senior role which did not attract close supervision.

The Sunday programme spent a lot of time describing what appears to be an unsavoury record of behaviour in his past and connecting him to a murder in the region he lived in for which no one was ever accused.

They also spent a lot of time showing Barry O'Brien as he walked away - they did not show the part where he explained he was not allowed to comment as the issue was before the courts.

They did mention some of the above very briefly as the credits were rolling on the story - so it was unlikely many people noticed it vindicated Enterprise. The real story I think was why was the doctor placed in a senior role he was not submitted for.

Simon Telfer said:

I'm not sure anyone caught Sunday on TVNZ on Sunday night (funnily enough) http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/484445/2108810

Enterprise Recruitment were featured for having placed a Romanian doctor in NZ who had a chequered past including threatening his wife with a knife.

The MD for Enterprise Barry O'Brien wouldn't appear on camera and was filmed walking to his car in the carpark and refusing to answer questions.

They said in a statement that they'd conducted 7 or 8 reference/qualification checks on the individual.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Denise Hartley-Wilkins on December 20, 2008 at 12:23

There are two issues here; the core one of trust and integrity of the individual along with the more serious question of whether a crime has been committed. How the organisation responds is dependent upon a range of factors, including whether it is seen as a serious breach of organisational trust and values, expectations of external stakeholders, what the individual is employed to do, along with what the organisation does (what service they deliver). Where an individual has falsified a qualification to obtain a role technically they have committed a crime, that of obtaining financial advantage through deception. It may sound harsh but that is the reality. I speak from experience. Some years ago I worked for an organisation who had the dubious honour of unsuspectingly (naturally!) employing a serial fraudster. It was a care organisation working with extremely disabled people vulnerable to abuse; hence we had a high level of background checks. When the police came knocking on our door a review of the relevant files showed all the checks & balances had been covered, including checking of relevant professional registers (they were also duped!) and sighting of ‘original’ qualifications. They were extremely good forgeries. We reviewed our processes to include verification of qualifications with the awarding body/institution.

The Mary Anne Thompson issue was a timely reminder about professional verification, and importantly verification of internal candidates moving to more senior positions. In these cases, sensitive handling is critical in maintaining mutual trust, but it is a useful way of reminding affected staff of the professional obligation of the organisation.

Where a recruitment agency is used it is the reasonable expectation that they undertake all relevant checks into qualifications. Don’t assume this is done as a matter of process, ask. Over my professional career I have never once been asked for sight of my original qualifications. I’m guessing I’m not alone on this?

• ▶ Reply