What does it mean when a potential boss ‘does a background check’ on you, and what’s the risk when due diligence is botched? Sam Brooks talks to a professional investigator to get the lowdown.
Background checks are having something of a moment right now, thanks to two scandals that can be blamed in part on a lack of proper checks. The broadcaster Kamahl Santamaria was hired to replace John Campbell on Breakfast, then quickly removed in the wake of misconduct allegations at his previous workplace, Al-Jazeera. It was later revealed that TVNZ had not done “due diligence” – aka proper background checks – when hiring him.
Later came the case of recently elected National MP Sam Uffindell, who was revealed to have been “asked to leave” his prestigious private boys after assaulting a fellow student. Uffindell had disclosed this to a National party committee before he was selected as the candidate in Tauranga, but leader Christopher Luxon wasn’t informed. More allegations blasted across the media in the days following, including incidents dating from Uffindell’s time as a student at Otago University. He was placed under suspension, and QC Maria Dew was brought in to investigate allegations made against him.
In both of these instances, a proper background check could have prevented a lot of drama and scandal. But what is a background check, and what information are you turning over? Turns out, it doesn’t involve guys in fedoras passing envelopes in shadowy carparks.
Actually, it’s not really about digging up your deepest, darkest secrets either. A background check mostly involves filling in forms and asking the right people the right question, says Glynn Rigby, who has worked as an investigator since 1997. “It’s a relatively straightforward, due diligence, investigative process,” says Rigby, whose company Zavest investigates everything from multi-million dollar corporate frauds and asset recoveries to thefts and missing persons.
The background check process should be the same whether the candidate for a role lives in the same city or on the other side of the world, says Rigby. “Even then, you still might not get the right answer, but it’s a long way further down that particular road than just doing nothing.”
When dealing with a New Zealand client, an investigator is given a privacy waiver to allow them to approach a candidate’s previous employers to ascertain suitability, tertiary institutions to verify qualifications and, depending on the role’s seniority, a check with the Ministry of Justice. Corporate clients might even ask for a credit check. “It’s not a process you would do for every candidate,” Rigby points out. “It’s only when perhaps you’ve narrowed down your last three to five candidates.”
It’s not an especially intrusive process either, he says, focusing primarily on confirming a candidate’s identity, qualifications, potential criminal history and experience as recorded in their CV. He also interviews referees and previous employers.
This is, crucially, a cooperative undertaking – employers aren’t digging for dirt without a prospective employee’s consent. The employee has to agree to every check, every form. Still, Rigby admits, “They really have no option. If they’re going to be uncooperative and not prepared to sign the appropriate authorities, then that would be a significant reflection on them.”
How often do people embellish information on their CVs? Rigby says it happens more often than you might think. He mentions a recent background check that involved a “raft” of former British police officers who were applying for a corporate role. “I would say that 50% of their CVs were misleading in terms of their experiences, what they’ve done, where they’ve done it and who they’ve done it with,” he says. Luckily, he says, “The world is relatively small now and those inquiries are not difficult to do.”
Asked whether incorrect information on a CV can sometimes be an honest mistake, Rigby is blunt. “I’ve never seen a case when it can’t be anything other than an intention to mislead the potential employer.”
When it comes to the organisations carrying out background checks, he says there’s a marked divide between corporate clients, whom Zavest mostly deals with, and government agencies. “Corporates are more likely to take due diligence seriously,” he says. “They’re prepared to spend that little bit extra to make sure they have the right candidates. It helps with retention, it reduces turnover, and obviously reduces their exposure to personal grievances. They seem more motivated generally to do it.”
So why aren’t government agencies taking the same care? The answers are pretty grim. “One reason is that there will be some additional costs associated with it, but that’s negligible in terms of employing the wrong person or someone who has misled them at the time of the application.”
He continues: “The other reason to not do it is if they don’t want to know.” But not wanting to know can have dire consequences down the road. Rigby mentions a case where the employer didn’t want to pursue a background investigation of a very senior hire. “After just three months, the employee got in the company car and hopped on a flight back to Ireland.”
Failing to check an international candidate can be a serious mistake, Rigby says, especially given that overseas misdeeds can end up blowing up in the media (see: Santamaria, Kamahl). “As long as you satisfy the privacy requirements of the home country of the applicant, or the resident company of them, there’s no reason why an employer can’t make the same inquiries – criminal history, previous employer, referees.”
The one thing that isn’t as pertinent here is an issue that has come up in the media over the past few weeks: character. That’s because, obviously, character is subjective. “That is where the interviewing of referees and former employers becomes relevant,” Rigby says. The key thing is to investigate the things that are totally objective: qualifications, periods of employment, experience.
When it comes to the incidents that Uffindell was allegedly involved with, Rigby says they’re not something a potential employer would generally uncover. “Though you would think that political parties might look at the integrity of their candidates in a bit more depth. But I suppose that comes back to the reliance on the integrity of the individual candidate.”
So, the threshold for due diligence in business or public service isn’t necessarily any lower or higher – it just depends on how much weight an employer will attribute to whatever information is revealed.
“Our view is that the checks are the same, whether it’s a corporate role or a government role. It’s about the integrity and honesty of the applicant, regardless of the role they are applying for.”