In 1979, our company set out to learn how to not only provide best possible background checks, but also to determine just where “factual employment screening” would fall in scheme of things. To understand why “screening” is where it is today, one needs a little history of subject.

In beginning, screening usually started with security department. These were typically highly qualified, deeply motivated, wholly energetic, recently retired law enforcement professionals who were completely inundated. After being given entire responsibility for safety and security of company, its executives and their families, they were given task of qualifying those who would pass through gates each day as employees. Since these individuals were for most part “old boys,” they sometimes used, in today’s politically correct terminology, “improper” methods of “checking out” applicants.

This responsibility typically stayed in security department until about late 1970s, when what are now called human resources departments saw need to get in loop for what was to become “employment screening.” Needless to say, those “improper” methods referred to have all but disappeared in smart companies. However, due to lack of knowledge of some human resource personnel when it comes to things like criminal records, credit reports, and driving histories, some have fallen prey to those who would sell them “employment screening” at touch of a button. As you will see later, this can pose a big problem.

Why do you need to know this simplified history? Simple – not all companies evolve equally, and in order to understand whether or not you are going to get your pilot program of employment screening to fly, you need to know where exposure for negligent hiring will rest in scheme of things. Talk about inner conflict – try to become thoroughly knowledgeable in either security or human resources area, let alone both! These are two disciplines, which may rarely see eye to eye on anything.

But you are going to have to know both equally well if you re charged with spearheading drive to get your company’s management to commit to a competent policy of factually screening employment candidates, regardless of your position. In this era of “political correctness” we are often reminded that, more often than not, something cannot be “right” or “wrong” because of judgmental connotations those words convey. Employment screening is not immune to this distinction, but as well all know, facts are facts, and vent best con artist can’t dispute them. This is why you must be thorough in conducting a background check.

This article will not address drug testing, psychological testing referencing, or verification work, as these areas do not yet have as many legal implications surrounding them, and most employers have their own methods which are about as unique as fingerprints. However, following recommendations are suggested for a comprehensive screening program.

Three “Must Knows”

You must know person’s true identity by obtaining positive candidate identification. Major recent studies have shown that as much as 20% to 30% of population maintains undisclosed aliases or AKAs. This is critical, since checking a wrong name for criminal convictions will yield a “no record” response almost every time. There are many ways that an identity can be verified and cross-checked without breaking law. These are usually proprietary to vendor, but can include social security number traces, driver’s license number checks, address-telephone verifications, and a myriad of other attainable bits of research.

Charles Petrie, from Stanford, released a short article entitled “The Problem of Coordination,” which highlights 4 categories in which businesses find it difficult to connect:

Interoperability

Agent Communication

Semantic Unification

Coordination

Though this article refers to a specific type of business, its principles are just as applicable to any business, especially when collaborating on a contract. Contract collaboration and management is difficult in any business, and negotiations can go on for weeks, months, or even years. In seeking to manage contract deliberations, organization of personnel, documents, and software can make or break a clean operation.

Using Petrie’s model, this article explores how right contract management software is solution to problem of coordination.

Interoperability

Interoperability is defined by Petrie in question “Can you read my data?” Search “contract management software” in Google, and in .44 seconds you will be introduced to millions of products indexed for your specific search-18,400,000 to be exact. The only problem is that they are not all compatible.

The most commonly used business software is MS office software, which coordinates email with other applications targeted toward common business needs: spreadsheets, word processing, presentations, etc. The problem cited by Petrie and applied to contract management is that businesses which work together need to have right contract management software, which will aid collaboration within these commonly used business applications. The solution is surprisingly simple.

Agent Communication

Again, some questions: “What is protocol? How will you find me?” In contract management, generally a draft is drawn after much negotiation and deliberation. The man or woman who is “lucky” enough to draft contract must draw from up to thousands of documents of drafts and notes. This draft will quickly multiply into an almost unmanageable number of drafts and documents.

The old way to handle this document influx was either to file them in a drawer, paperclip them together, or pile them on your desk. This is virtually impossible to handle because it takes up so much space and is so difficult to organize. What most people don’t understand is that if you are saving these drafts electronically, you still have same problems. It is almost impossible to manage all of drafts, and you may overload your desktop.