Barely a day goes by without a corporate scandal breaking – more often than not caused by poor decision-making at a senior level. Despite the impact such an incident can have on brand reputation and share value, two-thirds (66 per cent) of businesses do not consistently check that new members of their C-Suite are exactly who they claim to be and have the required skills and experience.
HireRight’s recent report, The Untouchables: Protecting Your Organisation from Leadership Risk, goes on to reveal that a reputational scandal could be lurking in a third (33 per cent) of organisations because of inadequate screening processes.
It’s not just those at the top that pose a threat: everyone from director-level to the shop floor is capable of misrepresentation to secure a role. Not hiring the right person can lead to a fall in productivity and profitability. In extreme cases, an individual could harm the company through fraud or theft. It’s worrying then that last year, over half (56 per cent) of job applications contained errors.
So how can business leaders ensure their organisation is managing this risk and carrying out the right level of due diligence on potential employees?
Establish if you have an auditable, transparent and measurable background screening process that can be applied on a global scale. If this does not exist, insist one is implemented. A thorough procedure will help you collect the information you need to check if an applicant is capable of fulfilling a role, while also lessening the risk that they will cause harm to the business.
Check everyone involved in recruitment and risk understands the agreed screening process so it remains consistent and is applied as appropriate at each level.
Ensure that candidates are communicated with clearly from the outset to keep them engaged and cooperative.
Continually reassess, ensuring your system remains up to date in light of changing international laws.
Hiring anyone at any level requires trust, but there are steps that can be taken which will help protect your business and ensure it continues to succeed.
For more information on using background checking to manage employee risk visit hireright.co.uk
Corporate globalisation often requires companies to send professionals abroad to man offshore operations, critical to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage in the international marketplace.
For Multinational companies effective management of expatriates on international assignments is critical – you would not put a key person into a new job or an important negotiation without the context, the ‘rules of the game’, or the necessary preparation, skills, and knowledge. It wouldn’t make business sense. It could be detrimental to both the organisation and the individual. Yet international organisations often do this with expatriates or those on overseas assignments.
Many MNC’s put people into a country they know nothing about, a culture that may have values very different from their own, with attitudes and etiquettes that elude them. Expats and their families may arrive ignorant of the local norms and ways of doing business, without knowledge of the language, or appreciation of the importance of relationships or hierarchies or whatever is central to that culture. And we are surprised that there are difficulties, or the work stalls, or that the assignment fails with deep personal trauma and at great cost to the organisation. So, when sending your staff overseas, you need to protect your investment if they are to have strategic impact.
Dr. Peter Curran, Lead Consultant with Farnham Castle Intercultural Training, has over twenty five years experience with organisations in Learning and Development, Human Resources and Project Manager roles.
In this article, Peter shares with readers his personal experiences of working on special projects overseas and gives some insight into how to avoid the cultural pitfalls that can and do lead to international assignment failures. Read More
Farnham Castle Intercultural Training help organisations gain global competitive advantage by using seminar training, executive coaching, consultation, and other practical business tools to provide international personnel with the knowledge to understand and interact with different cultures, delivering intercultural competencies integral to succeed in today’s globalised world.
For a free global workforce consultation please contact:
Rewind ten years and employee engagement (‘EE’) was just beginning to appear in the management lexicon. Now – it’s everywhere. But how far have organisations really come in terms of embedding EE within their operating cultures?
Well it depends on your point of view.
If you see that ‘employee engagement’ is now apparently synonymous with many approaches to people management, no matter how big or small, good, bad or indifferent, you would probably surmise that it has come a fair way.
If, on the other hand, you subscribe to the view (and evidence) that employee engagement is a concept that has a defined meaning with appropriate smart measurement and requires constant application to optimise or maintain productivity/performance in an organisational setting – then your answer would be ‘patchy’ at best – a curate’s egg, say.
VaLUENTiS’ third annual ‘Employee Engagement in Organisations’ report* provides insightful evidence as to the strides organisations still need to make if they are to become proficient in the field of employee engagement.
Here, I’ll summarise briefly:
○ Too many organisations still suffer from a lack of appropriate definition of employee engagement, with a knock-on effect in organisational understanding and measurement, and indeed expected impact from related initiatives undertaken.
○ Utilisation of the employee survey (data collation process) is still limited with very few combining regular pulse-style collations with annual census surveys to provide the groundwork.
○ Though overall use of analytics has seemingly increased, the question of ‘smart’ measurement remains relevant, with scorecard-type output still being the main though limited means to an end.
○ Use of an organisation’s related infrastructure – anything that can support the embedding of employee engagement is either incomplete or under-utilised with limited connection of the ‘EE’ dots.
○ Few organisations employ an ‘EE playbook’ suggesting that any espoused engagement strategy is not ‘earthed’ or reduces the probability of successful execution. You wouldn’t find a sports team without a ‘playbook’, for example.
○ The overall competency of people managers is still questionable with few organisations operating a ‘License-to-manage’ system or a similarly consistent focus. Line management is a key factor in employee engagement – how much is being left to chance?
When it comes to employee engagement, undertaking an ‘organisational reboot’ is a great opportunity for all organisations to revisit, retool, re-energise and re-set. Some unlearning may have to take place. Organisations don’t need be shy on this. Leverage is where it’s at.
And, one more thing – if your current conversations on employee engagement are mainly to do with social media, the survey process or technology – you need to change your ‘EE programme code’ default setting…