ABOUT:
CREDENTIAL CHECK CORPORATION®
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
TOLL-FREE:
(888) 689-2000
TOLL-FREE FAX:
(877) 689-1500
WEB:
www.credentialcheck.com
E-MAIL:
info@credentialcheck.com
Contact Us
|
| Welcome | Welcome to the May 2007 edition of the Credential Check Examiner! This month we look at spring cleaning for organizations, how to perform a "stress test" on interview candidates, and a possible treatment for PTSD.
As always, please feel free to reply with your comments and suggestions!
|
| |
| It’s Spring Cleaning Time!
|  Spring cleaning is a seasonal desire to freshen up our surroundings after a long winter, put away the old, and bring out the new. This desire should extend to our business operations as well, to review and reconsider policies and procedures which may have “grown a few cobwebs” over the years. Particularly in light of the ever-increasing threats to public and personal safety and security, a good review of policies may be in order. Just having a written policy does not necessarily mean you are ready to handle challenges brought about by serious threats. Your policies are a vital tool in your management toolbox to provide guidance and support compliance efforts, as well as create frame of reference when addressing serious infractions or workplace misconduct.
Here are a few guidelines to consider:
- Consider any legal or regulatory boundaries for the subject of your policy. Include references within the policy to provide the proper framework (i.e. OSHA, ADA, HIPAA, etc.)
- State your expectations clearly. Write your policy in “plain English” to ensure full understanding. This is not the place to be vague or confusing.
- Publish your policy and make it easily accessible by all the affected parties (employees, customers, vendors, etc.).
- Review your policy routinely. Regulatory or operational changes may have rendered your policy ineffective or insufficient if you don’t keep it current.
- Define the consequences for lack of adherence to the policy. Tell your audience why the policy is important and what happens if it is not followed.
top
|
| How They React Under Stress
| How often have you hired someone and six months later found that your new hire reacts poorly in critical situations making them less effective than you need them to be? This common situation is typically uncovered when a stressful situation occurs and the new hire reacts poorly. Determining how a candidate is going to react under potentially stressful situations is one of the most difficult to uncover in the typical interview process. Although you can consider the interview itself to be somewhat stressful, it does not reveal how a new hire is going to react on the job.
The solution for this common problem is to integrate a “stress test” into the interview and observe the candidates reaction under an intentionally created simulation. To do this we need to first develop a strong level or rapport. The process begins with a “history review.” Ask the candidate to put modesty away and brag a little about what they have done in their lives. Ask them to take you back to college or high school and tell you about themselves in great detail. Tell them to take 30 to 45 minutes so that there is sufficient ground to cover and then just listen. By doing so, you establish a significant level of rapport. No one has listened to a candidate in as great of detail as you are during this process and therefore you are establishing a corresponding high level of trust as well which will be critical later on in the process. Make sure you are evaluating what the candidate is telling you and comparing this against the “ideal” you have established for the position. Look for a potential “red flag” that you need to explore in greater detail.
Once this portion is completed you can ask more specific questions to gain a greater insight again looking for potential flaws that may make the candidate a poor “fit” to the position, company or manager. You should then allow the candidate to ask any questions they have and assess their goals, frustrations and ambitions. This information is then used to describe to the candidate why the position or company would be a great choice for them. This creates a sense of confidence in the candidate that they are going to be made an offer.
The “stress test” is then administered by taking one of the “red flags” and using it to create an artificially stressful situation. This is accomplished by stating to the candidate that “I have one serious concern that I would like to cover with you now, is that ok?” “You stated in the interview that (state concern)," and then just listen. The concern must be legitimate and job related. Some typical situations are how many jobs a candidate has had in a short period of time and their potential to leave once critical training is accomplished or they described an “ideal job or manager” that is different than the one you are offering. As long as it is a real concern, the objective will be met. The candidate is typically feeling that they were on the verge of receiving an offer when you brought this up and this creates a stressful situation that will reveal how they are going to react on the job when real stress occurs.
Thank them for addressing the concern but show no judgment with their response. This has revealed how the candidate is going to react under stress on the job. Gauge their performance and use that to make the ultimate decision on whether to extend the candidate an offer. You will find this to be a great aid in making sure you see the same person on the job as in the interview and make few hiring errors.
David B Harrell
top
|
| | Identity Theft: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back |  On Monday, April 23, 2007, The President’s Task Force on Identity Theft announced a plan focused on combating identity theft at the federal level. The Task Force was created in May of 2006 and consists of members of 17 federal agencies and is co-chaired by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission. The strategic plan focuses on improving the effectiveness of identity theft prosecutions, strategies to enhance data protection and assistance for consumers and businesses. The plan has already been met with criticism that it will be an ineffective gesture that does not properly address the common misapplication of Social Security Numbers or the rampant problem of poor and inconsistent retail security across the country. This comes on the heels of a finding on a government web site that 38,700 recipients of grants from the Agriculture Department have had their Social Security Numbers posted online since 1996 before they were recently found and removed. In addition, testimony in Congress on April 19 berated the 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act after the State Department received a failing grade for cyber security. In June of 2006, the State Department’s information networks were breached with the assistance of an email attachment. The following October, hackers found their way into the Commerce Department’s systems. With these breaches taking place, information security issues go beyond identity theft problems and may become national security problems. Information security and identity theft continue to collect headlines, including the well-publicized discovery earlier this year involving TJX Co., Inc., parent of department stores TJ Maxx and Marshall’s, among others. Hackers were able to infiltrate TJX’s computer systems and steal over 45 million credit card numbers. This has been reported as the nation’s largest ever breach of personal data. With this, TJX went to the top of a growing list of companies who have had information stolen or compromised, including Choicepoint, Citigroup, DSW Shoes, and Boeing; and schools such as UCLA and the University of Texas. For more information on The President’s Task Force on Identity Theft, as well as for resources for identity theft issues, click here. top
|
| | MIT Fails to Properly Screen Dean of Admissions | Prospective college students everywhere know how hard it is to be admitted to MIT without having a stellar candidacy. Accordingly, one might assume that it is near impossible to become Dean of Admissions of MIT without having the requisite credentials. Furthermore, one might assume that MIT conducts background checks on employees as vigilantly as it does for incoming students. Well, MIT recently learned that its Dean of Admissions was dishonest about three degrees that she allegedly held. Although the Dean was a longtime employee (hired in 1979, when thorough background checks were not the standard), she was given various promotions to positions of significance, which should have been opportunities for MIT to reassess her credentials. Checking for academic records is a rather routine and uncomplicated practice, and can be done for a practical fee. “A simple step to take that will eliminate this type of situation is to routinely screen employees when receiving promotions. Too often employees start at an entry level position and progress through the company while receiving additional responsibilities and have only been screened for the criteria needed for their beginning entry level position,” states Timothy Whiting, Director of Corporate Services with Credential Check Corporation. Given recent estimates that between 5-10% of job seekers falsify academic credentials, the need for organizations to remain diligent is obvious. top
|
| Quote of the Month: "Praise, like gold and diamonds, owes its value only to its scarcity. "
-Samuel Johnson
|
| | Propranolol – A Possible Treatment for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder? |  Individuals who suffer from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) do so because of real or perceived painful or traumatic experiences that are retained in the form of memories. PTSD can be one of the more intrusive and disruptive disorders to affect one’s life. But what if there was a way to “forget” our experiences and alter our memories? Should those who suffer traumatic events have the opportunity to lessen the impact of their experience, ultimately reducing the invasive psychological symptoms which can accompany traumatic stress? Dr. Roger Pitman, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, “yes,” and he claims that knows how. Dr. Pitman’s answer to combating psychological trauma: the commonly prescribed drug propranolol.
Propranolol, a beta-blocker, is frequently used to help treat high blood pressure, and unofficially, to treat anxiety and stage fright. But what place does it have in the world of trauma? It helps to have a basic understanding of how traumatic memories are “created.” During a traumatic incident, such as a severe car crash, the emotional levels of those involved dramatically increase, triggering a release of stress hormones like adrenaline – this is the key. It is this surge of adrenaline, during and immediately following the incident, which researchers believe is the answer to why incidents of trauma are so strongly encoded into our brains and may then ultimately lead to the development of PTSD. It is the adrenaline component of this equation which has become the focus of Dr. Pitman and his research.
Propranolol acts by blocking the receptor sites for adrenaline, allowing the adrenaline to be present but preventing it from doing its job. Dr. Pitman’s thought is that if propranolol is given to victims of trauma, as soon as possible, the resulting surge of adrenaline would be prohibited from creating an excessively strong memory. Dr. James McGaugh, a leader in the neurobiology of learning and memory, states that, “the drug does not remove the memory – it just makes the memory more normal.”
The preliminary results of Dr. Pitman’s research appear to support his theory. Participants, all pulled from an emergency room following a traumatic incident, were either given propranolol or a placebo. Six months later, those given the propranolol exhibited significantly fewer PTSD symptoms than those given the placebo pill. Although this early data looks promising, it has sparked a heated debate between researchers and ethicists.
The President’s Council on Bioethics has condemned Dr. Pitman’s study, stating that our memories make us who we are and that “re-writing” memories pharmacologically…risks “undermining our true identity.” Dr. Jon Shaw, a PTSD expert, however, contends that propranolol simply “erases the acute emotionality of the situation so people can function.”
While the debate over propranolol’s use continues, the science community is moving forward. Researchers recognize that more work must be done before propranolol can be marketed as a tool in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder, though the opportunities for research continue to expand. Dr. Pitman recently received funding, for next summer, to begin utilizing propranolol in the treatment of American soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Source in part, MedicineNet.com and Cbsnews.com
top
|
| | Consideration of Legal Memos: McNulty v. Thompson |  In the era of compliance, the reality is that organizations must be aware of more than just profits and loss. Corporations can be responsible for the actions of their employees, and the way in which organizations must respond to prosecution is subject to change. Take the McNulty and Thompson Memos; while both are designed to help prosecutors decide whether to bring charges again a corporation or individuals within that organization, the memos can also affect an organization’s attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and employee rights.
The Thompson Memo, which preceded McNulty’s “revised” follow-up, was put together by Attorney General Larry Thompson in 2003 and was consistent with President Bush’s direction to the Department of Justice leadership to focus on corporate fraud prosecutions in the aftermath of Enron and related corporate failures. Among other factors it tends to focus on whether a company would agree to waive the attorney-client privilege in regard to conversations had by its employees (Wall Street Journal, Dec 2006). This memo has been found to be unconstitutional based on the idea that it compelled corporations trying to avoid prosecution to waive their attorney client privilege and withhold payment of their employees’ attorneys’ fees. In essence, a company who refused to waive their rights would be subject to an indictment and few companies were willing to risk putting themselves out of business by refusing.
In an attempt to revise the Thompson Memo, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty suggested that the wavier of attorney-client privilege should only be used in rare circumstances and the guidelines should adopt a “tiered approach” that could be checked and monitored at varying levels. The prosecutor must now obtain advanced written approval from the Deputy Attorney General in order to request a corporation to waive its attorney client privilege. The prosecutor must also “establish a legitimate need” by showing the likely prosecutorial benefit, as well as the absence of alternative means to obtain the information and the extent of voluntary disclosure already provided. Although McNulty set out to improve Thompson’s effort, it has already been accused of not going far enough to protect the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and employees’ rights.
Companies should be aware of the content in these memos for their own benefit as it is helpful to know what prosecutors would consider before taking legal action. However, those who feel strongly about the theories outlined should remain skeptical when the rights of individuals may be compromised for the advantage of the organization.
top
|
| | An Ounce of Prevention Equals Education | "Right now we're trying to understand why this happened, how this happened," Mike Coats, director of the Johnson Space Center, said in a news conference following the tragic April 20th shooting at NASA. Coats said that NASA had reviewed their procedures earlier that week in light of the Virginia Tech shootings. "But of course we never believed this could happen here to our family and our situation." Some might find these statements frustrating, because they reflect the type of rationalizations that are part of the problem with regard to workplace violence, such as:
- “It will never happen here”
- “Someone else already knows about it”
- “He won’t come after me”
- “It’s just a phase”
- “I don’t want to be a snitch”
Violence in the workplace is a serious safety and health issue. Its most extreme form, homicide, is the fourth-leading cause of fatal occupational injury in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), there were 551 workplace homicides in 2004 in the United States, out of a total of 5,703 fatal work injuries. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that:
- Violence is responsible for 12% of all workplace deaths
- Over 75% victims are men
- Guns involved in 75% of the homicides
NASA has not been the only victim of workplace or institutional shootings within the past few weeks, nor the only organization who claims that it reviewed its procedures in light of Virginia Tech. However it is no longer responsible to simply say that, in one’s organization, corporate security has been appropriately trained or that reviews of company policy and procedures occur on an on-going basis, therefore the organization is safe. Gunmen have proven capable of carrying out their intentions before security is able to effectively respond. There are common myths that, if assumed, prevent organizations from taking the appropriate actions towards prevention, pro-action, and controls:
- Violence in the workplace is increasing
- Prevention is expensive and time consuming
- Having good policies is enough
- People just “snap”
Employees, management, and executives have a duty to themselves and to their colleagues to know how to respond to certain situations and behaviors. Although there is no formula to predict violence, there are warning signs and factors that may put a person at risk for engaging in violence. So ask yourself, is your workplace safe and secure?
top
|
| | Todd's Tips: Credential Check Those You Like | It has been my experience that many business owners and hiring managers choose to hire people, often in key positions, based upon how they "feel" about them. That feeling is primarily derived from how likeable the interviewer finds the job candidate to be. It is a natural human reaction to want to hire people you have a positive feeling about, people you initially like. However, the likeability factor often plays an overwhelming influence on who gets hired and who doesn’t. In our minds we place these job candidates into ideal mental images, projecting them as successful employees, without any tangible evidence that they will be able to do the job. Unfortunately, the most likeable job candidate isn’t always the best person for the job. Just because we “feel” someone can do the job doesn’t mean than can do the job.
I often suggest that people hold off on presenting a job offer to these types of candidates until they receive some tangible evidence that someone is really as good as the interviewer thinks they are. Some examples of tangible evidence include credential checks that include education verification and previous work history verification as well as second interviews with questions designed to bring out specific, measurable answers like (in this case, in interviewing a Sales person candidate):
Q1- Tell me about a time when you handled a customer objection....(look for methodologies, negotiation skills, relevant experiences)
Q2- In your current sales position, where do you rank revenue wise compared to others within the organization? (follow up with a request for either sales reports or income verification)
Here’s hoping all of your hires are “A” players!
Todd Palmer
President, Diversified Industrial Staffing
top
|
| | Contact Information | If you are interested in obtaining additional information about these articles or the services offered by Credential Check Corporation, please contact one of the following individuals:
Thank you! We'll see you next month!
top
|
|
