Job-hunting background investigation.

Our company is a sesame seed, so we give some experience in this field, hoping to help:

The theory of background investigation can be said at will, but there are more problems and difficulties in practice, especially in China's social and cultural background and workplace environment. The simplest, from what channel to find the interviewee? How to persuade respondents to accept the survey? What if he's vague about it? The most terrible thing is, what if he conspires with the investigated person to fabricate facts?

"Not bad" and "not bad", are these answers valuable? For China people, it is better to do more than one thing, so we should make the problem detailed and get to the bottom of it. If you ask a China person what he thinks of someone's work attitude and professionalism, he may just tell you vaguely. It's OK, er, not bad, not bad. This is a typical "golden mean" China people's way of speaking-they don't want to cause trouble, so it's better to do more than one thing, and they don't want to judge others. However, what is the significance of this evaluation for background investigators who want to know a person's past work experience and work quality? So, for China people, how should we do background checks?

Want to examine a person's work performance? Well, why don't you call him a superior, a peer or a subordinate? "Hello, how did XXX behave during his work in your company?" Or "What is a person's passion?" For such a general question without any direction, even the respondents who are willing to actively cooperate can only say "not bad, not bad". If people are asked to evaluate the respondents again, I am afraid they can only choose what they want to say. What is the value of such a background check?

Therefore, the design of survey questions is very important! Be sure to split up the problem, make it as detailed as possible, get to the bottom of it, and let the other party "have something to say." At the same time, try not to use open questions, but use closed questions. For example, to examine work enthusiasm, don't simply ask "how is someone's work enthusiasm?" You might as well break it down into several questions and ask them one by one-"Do candidates choose to work overtime when they are busy?" Is overtime caused by workload or efficiency of work ability? Or is he seeking personal development? In other words, try to objectify subjective information.

For another example, if you want to know whether a candidate's performance is good or not, don't ask him directly whether his performance is good or not, but ask, "What is the breakthrough compared with his predecessor, what is the leap in figures, which part he is responsible for in a project, and how many people are there in his team."

In this way, on the one hand, the ambiguity of reference can be avoided as much as possible; On the other hand, if references want to help candidates forge, then several references can't say exactly the same detailed questions! You can judge whether several answers are consistent! What if the witness colludes with the candidate under investigation to falsify? In our country, there is no legal provision to limit the authenticity of investigation testimony.

In fact, the premise of background investigation is that the candidates under investigation should provide basic information, clues and references. If you do a background check under the condition of collecting incomplete information about candidates, it is no different from a detective. So how do you jump out of the trap that candidates may set?

This situation is particularly prominent when investigating on-the-job personnel. For example, if Company A wants to recruit a candidate W who is still working in Company B, it can't do a background check on W of Company B in a big way, can it? Isn't that spreading the news of W's departure? However, just because W didn't leave his job, he can't be exempted from the investigation. Many enterprises have suffered a lot from this-many unscrupulous candidates always emphasize that their on-the-job status is inconvenient to inspect, just to prevent enterprises from checking his previous work experience.

Then do background checks while protecting the candidate's information! However, the problem comes again. In order to ensure that the information is not leaked to a certain extent, usually only the trustworthy reference materials provided by the candidates themselves are investigated in this case, but how to ensure the authenticity of the investigation information? It is possible that you walked into the trap set by the candidate the first time you dialed the phone.

"We have encountered this ridiculous situation. An applicant provided a landline number, saying it was the office phone number of his immediate boss and vice president of the company. In fact, this phone is the examinee's own home phone, and the' vice principal' who answers the phone is the examinee's boyfriend! Naturally, the "vice president" gave many praises. When we asked the vice president to provide other references, he said,' Call back in five minutes and I will ask another vice president of our company to cooperate with you'. Five minutes later, we called and found that the voice was a bit like it! Still the same person as before. "

Therefore, for the reference given by the applicant, the first step is to call the front desk of the other company and then transfer it to the human resources department to verify the identity of the applicant. On this basis, it is worth the next step. "At the very least, if the applicant is not from this company at all, then it is meaningless for me to ask him about his work ability and personality." After that, HR is used to verify the reference information given by the applicant to prevent the applicant from playing with his mind.

If there are multiple referees, be sure to ask at the same time! This is somewhat similar to the isolation inspection and interrogation of suspects in detective science. The purpose is that multiple witnesses will not exchange information and "fabricate facts" during the investigation interval.

Searching for references and investigating should be a cyclical process, and each reference is a new clue. Efforts should be made to obtain new references from each reference, so as to confirm each other step by step and outline the respondents from all aspects and 360 degrees.

This is called a 360-degree professional background check. Why is it called 360 degrees? It refers to all-round and three-dimensional background investigation. It can't be proved only by the references provided by the respondents. The credibility of these people is only 10%. For example, a sales director, when we investigate, the scope of the investigation will involve: "boss, subordinates, peers, customers, company bosses, human resources department" and several departments that have more contact with the sales director. This ensures the latitude of the sales director's investigation. If everyone's evaluation of them is consistent, then the problem is basically explained. In addition, some friends may ask that some companies of the respondents have closed down or merged. How to inspect depends on the importance of this work experience. If it was more than 10 years ago, personally, the value is not particularly great. There is no need to look through those old calendar books. If it is recent work experience, you can ask this person to provide as many references as possible. Find out all these references who left the company. This may just require more time and energy. You can also search for the former employees of this company on some big talent websites, such as human resources department and sales colleagues. See if you can find them and understand! Finally, if you can't find it, and it is more important, you can entrust a professional.