Pre-Employment Screening for FTSE 100 CompanyBack
We were contacted by a top FTSE 100 company to conduct pre-employment screening on three candidates who had all been shortlisted for top directorial positions.
We were given each candidate's CV, together wth dates of birth.
When we carry out pre-employment screening, we use a variety of resources.
One of the first things we do, is to corroborate the statements on a candidate's CV.
We do this by looking for independent references to confirm a person's work history, and we also try to verify their alleged education history.
We look at sites such as LinkedIn and other professional networking sites, as well as trade publications, local and national/international press reports, and we also contact previous companies and talk to colleagues there to confirm a candidate's tenure.
In this case, we were able to broadly corroborate two of the three candidates statements on their CVs, but not the third.
We then look at their business track record, which often involves us trawling through Companies House reports and filing histories, looking at a candidate's directorships and shareholdings, as well as giving us an overview on the overall financial health of any company and a candidate's business acumen.
For this particular pre-employment screeing, several red flags appeared after our business search for one of the candidates – but not the same candidate whose CV we were unable to corroborate.
We then carry out OSINT searches, looking at references which will help us gain information on a candidate's reputation. This also includes us looking through legal reports, social media, and financial reports. In addition, we look at birth and marriage records to establish a family background, and we look at assets for each candidate to give an illustration of lifestyle. We also look at their social and personal lives, including hobbies and interests, membership of organisations, and political leanings.
For our FTSE 100 company candidates, this part of our search raised some further red flags. By carrying out an intensive search into local press and law reports, we uncovered the fact that one of the candidates had been tried for fraud some six years previously. Although he admitted guilt, he had not received a custodial sentence.
Another of the candidates had two internet dating profiles under a different name, despite his social media professing him to be a happily married family man.
And the third candidate had posted several contentious comments on a far-right anti-immigration Blog.
We presented all our findings to our client, the result of which saw none of the three shortlisted candidates progressing any further in this particular role.